---

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

              Friday, May 31, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 110

                            Headlines

1011 LUDLAM: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Commercial Property
23ANDME INC: Gill Suit Transferred to N.D. California
2U INC: Continues to Defend Favell I Class Suit in California
2U INC: Continues to Defend Favell II Class Suit in California
3M COMPANY: Adams Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams

3M COMPANY: Berkowitz Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Bishop Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Brown Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Bryant Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Bunkers Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals

3M COMPANY: Burchett Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Butler Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Hawk Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: McGee Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
A TO Z BEAUTY: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Jackson Alleges

A. F. RISAVY: Walsh Suit Transferred to S.D. Illinois
ABC CORP: Faces Garcia Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
ABLE FREIGHT: Magana Brings Claims for Labor Code Breaches
ADMI CORP: Hollaway Suit Removed to E.D. California
AGC CHEMICALS: San Andreas Sues Over Contaminated Water Supplies

AGILON HEALTH: IPRS Suit Transferred to W.D. Texas
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Trammel Sues Over Cereal Bars' False Ads
ALDEYRA THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Paice Class Suit
ALFA MUTUAL INSURANCE: Rancher Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
ALL WAYS CARING: Barrios Suit Removed to C.D. California

ALLEGIANT TRAVEL: Calzada Sues Over Alleged Use of Tracking Pixel
ALLIANCE MOBILE: Davis Sues Over Unlawful Report & Background Check
AMAZON.COM INC: Stephenson Suit Removed to N.D. California
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Bahamonde Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
AMERICA'S COLLECTIBLES: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind, Riley Says

AMERICAN EAGLE: Tarantino Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Texas
AMERISLEEP LLC: Faces Villaverde Suit Over Telephonic Sales Calls
ANYWHERE REAL ESTATE: Continues to Defend Batton Class Suit
ANYWHERE REAL ESTATE: NAR Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
AOG LLC: Seelye Wage & Hour Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania

APPLE INC: Balogh Sues Over Smartphone App Monopoly
APPLE INC: Mukherjee Sues Over Alleged Smartphone Market Monopoly
APPLOVIN CORP: Mitchell Sues Over Unauthorized Data Collection
ARDELYX INC: Filing of Bid to Toss Amended Complaint Due June 3
ARIS NYC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Riley Suit Says

ART OF PURE: Ramos Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
ASBURY AUTOMOTIVE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Acevedo Says
ASBURY AUTOMOTIVE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Aviles Alleges
ASCENDTEK LLC: Gott Sues Over WARN Act Violations
ASCENSION HEALTH: Faces Negron Suit Over Alleged Data Breach

ASCENSION HEALTH: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Negron Alleges
ASCENSION HEALTH: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, McClellan Says
ASCENSION HEALTH: Shuta Sues Over Data Security Failure
ASCENSION HEALTH: Turner Balks at Failure to Protect Personal Info
ASR GROUP: Jennivee's Sues Over Sugar Price-Fixing Conspiracy

AT&T INC: Brazinsky Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
AT&T INC: Burris Sues Over Data Security Failure
AT&T INC: Faces McGreevy Class Action Suit Over 2021 Data Breach
AT&T INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Head Suit Alleges
AT&T INC: Turner Sues Over Stolen Personal Information

ATA TOWING: Jones Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
ATLANTA WOMEN'S HEALTH: M.T. Sues Over Failure to Secure Data
AVEANNA HEALTHCARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Says
AVMAC LLC: Oliverio-Still Seeks Material Coordinators' Unpaid Wages
BANYAN TREATMENT: Faces Suit Over Unlawful Private Info Disclosure

BARTON T. LTD: Berkowitz Sues Over Unfair and Deceptive Charges
BATES COLLEGE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Ortiz Claims
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Mirena IUD Use Increases Risk of Breast Cancer
BEACH LAUNDRY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ahuatl Suit Alleges
BELLINO EQUITIES: Faces Payne Suit Over Architectural Barriers

BEYOND INC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Wahab Suit Says
BICENTENNIAL INC: Kemmerlin Sues Over Wage & Hour Law Violations
BIG LOTS: Bellomo Sues Over Mislabeled Sunscreen Products
BLUEGRASS HOSPITALITY: Dean Sues Over Unlawful Tip Credit Practices
BOSTON PROPER: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Riley Suit Says

BRIDGESTONE RETAIL: Birenbaum Sues Over Undisclosed Services
CAMPBELL SOUP: Serrano Sues Over False Advertising
CATO CORPORATION: Ramos Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
CECIL SPORT EQUIPMENT: Ramos Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
CERIDIAN HCM: Morris Suit Removed to C.D. California

CERIDIAN HCM: O'Donnell Suit Removed to C.D. California
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Faces Ferguson Data Breach Suit
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Faces Humphreys Class Suit Over Data Breach
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Shillito Sues Over Unprotected Private Info
CHICAGO MATTRESS: Scottsdale Insurance Suit Removed to N.D. Ill.

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: McMahon Appeals Summary Judgment to 3rd Cir.
CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Rodriguez Class Suit
CITIZENRY INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Hernandez Says
CITIZENS AND FARMERS: Archer Sues Over Unlawful Overdraft Fees
CLEVELAND, OH: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Pickett to 6th Cir.

CLOUD HEALTH SYSTEMS: Simmons Sues Over Unlawful Telemarketing Call
CLOUD PAPER: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Bullock Says
CMB EXPORT: Fang Suit Removed to C.D. California
COFFEE-SERV INC: Website Not Accessible to Blind, John Alleges
CONGRESS PROPERTIES: Feltzin Sues Over ADA Violation

CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Sued for Antitrust Violations
CVS PHARMACY: Davis Ice Cream Sues Over Breach of Contract
CVS PHARMACY: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 16
CYBERFOX.COM LLC: Shumway Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT
DANCE AMERICA: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

DANRICK COMMERCE: Jones Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
DELTA STAR: Wilson Must File Class Cert Bid by August 28
DIKAY LTD: Longhini Sues Over ADA Violation
DNVB INC: Riley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
DOLCE & GABBANA: Brown Sues Over Alleged NFT Scam

DOLLAR TREE: Lopez Sues Over Order Selectors' Unpaid Overtime
DONE GLOBAL: Faces Suit Over Disclosure of Private Communications
DOT: Shelton Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
DOUBLE K LIQUOR: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Palacio Claims
DREAMLAND BABY: Faces Monsch Suit Over Weighted Sleep Products

DRILL-QUIP INC: Faces Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Class Suit
DULUTH HOLDINGS: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
EAST SIDE HEALTH: M.C Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
EAST VILLAGE: Faces Hernandez Suit Over Alleged Discrimination
ELITE INSURANCE: Burdi Seeks Proper Wages for Sales Agents

EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend Palm Tran Class Suit
EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Barzi Suit Removed to C.D. California
EQUITY ONE: Feltzin Sues Over ADA Violation
ETAIROS HEALTH: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bueno Alleges
EUCLID CHEMICAL: Birdsell Sues Over Unlawful Fixing of Prices

EXCEL SPORTS: Hedges Files ADA Suit Over Website Inaccessibility
FACTS ON DEMAND: Moore Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Georgia
FIGS INC: Hussein Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Vorburger Says
FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Fails to Secure Consumers' Info, Vines Alleges

FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Frasier Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
FLORIDACENTRAL CREDIT: Cucuta Sues Over Alleged Data Breach
FONTEN PLAZA: Longhini Sues Over ADA Violation
FORD MOTOR: Dorfman Sues Over Unfair and Deceptive Practices
FRANCESCA'S HOLDINGS: Ramos Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website

FRANKLIN PARK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arenas Alleges
FROST BANK: Criswell Sues Over Unlawful Overdraft Fees
GARDA CL: Cravens Sues Over Failure to Protect Sensitive Data
GENERAL MOTORS: Green Sues Over Concealment of Defective Vehicles
GENUINE DATA: Amar Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA

GEOCKO INC: Reichert Sues Over WARN Act Violation
GILEAD SCIENCES: Fust Appeals Case Dismissal Order to 9th Cir.
GOLDEN POND: Rosete Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
GRASSHOPPER MANAGEMENT: Williams Sues Over Inaccessible Space
GREAT LAKES: Mills Sues Over Unlawful Collecting of Biometrics

GREEN TRIPS: Washington Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliation
GUCCI AMERICA: Sendis Suit Removed to C.D. California
GUNSTER YOAKLEY: Faces Whalen Suit Over Inadequate Data Security
HAMILTON-RYKER IT: Pickens Appeals Suit Dismissal to 6th Circuit
HEARST TELEVISION: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 6

HIGHMARK INC: Fails to Pay Insurance Commissions, Mollinea Claims
HOMEADVISOR INC: Hudson Sues Over Breaches of TCPA
HUCKBERRY INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind People, Riley Claims
HUDDLESON LINENS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Fernandez Alleges
IBM: Allman Suit Removed to D. Colorado

INCA BOOT: Riley Sues Over Noncompliance of Website's Accessibility
INNOV8TIVE NUTRITION: Fernandez Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Knight Appeals Dismissal Order to 2nd Cir.
INTERSTATE BROKERS: Sends Unsolicited Calls/Texts, Thrower Claims
J.M. SMUCKER: Ward Appeals Consumer Suit Dismissal to 6th Circuit

JAMES VELISSARIS: Must File Class Cert Response in Day by June 10
JESSIE LORD BAKERY: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Reiss Suit Removed to C.D. California
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Riccitelli Labor Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y.
JONES BROS JEWELERS: Ramos Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website

KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN: Submission of Reply Brief Extended to June 14
KEENAN & ASSOCIATES: Joffre Suit Removed to C.D. California
KELLER WILLIAMS: Caudill Sues Over Breach of Contract
KELLER WILLIAMS: Mendoza Sues Over Breach of Contract
KIMERA INTERNATIONAL: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Fernandez Says

KLM TRANS: Fails to Pay Drivers' Minimum Wage, Tereshkun Suit Says
KRAFT HEINZ: Brinker Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
KUMON NORTH AMERICA: Heiting Sues for Tracker Software Installation
L.C. RICHARDSON: Hicks Sues Over Restaurant's ADA Violations
LAND COAST: Minaya Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, PMWA

LANZATECH GLOBAL: Schara Suit Asserts Breach of Fiduciary Duty
LAZ PARKING: Harris Sues Over Breach of Contract for Illegal Fees
LEO V. GOVONI: Orris Sues Over Breach of Duties
LEWIS BROTHERS: Duffy Sues Over Unsecured Sensitive Private Info
LIFESTYLE INTEGRITY: Faces Hodge Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Pa.

LOUISIANA: Sued Over Deficiencies in Child Welfare System
LOVO INC: Faces Lehrman Suit Over Voice-Over Related Violations
LSG1 EL PARAISO: Brito Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Facilities
LSG1 EL PARAISO: Plaza Not Accessible to Mobility-Impaired Person
LYFT INC: Azizan Sues to Recover Lost Wages

M&D CAPITAL PREMIER: Lee Sues Over Failure to Secure Information
M&T BANK: Hart Seeks Injunctive Relief, Damages for RESPA Breaches
MANGANARO MIDATLANTIC: Fails to Pay Laborers' OT Wages Under FLSA
MARKET WAREHOUSE: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Karim Alleges
MARLOW INC: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Trippett Suit Says

MASIMO CORPORATION: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Himmelberger Says
MASTORA STONE: Mora Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
MCKIMMEY ELECTRIC: Santiago Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MEAD JOHNSON: Infant Formula Contains Toxic Chemicals, Hawes Says
MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Lopez Suit Removed to C.D. California

MEDSTAR HEALTH: Fails to Secure Clients' Personal Info, Rios Says
MERCURY MANAGEMENT: Caldwell Brings Claim for Unpaid Overtime Wages
MEYER CORP: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Jackson Suit Says
MICHAEL BURBIDGE: Gutierrez Sues Over Unpaid Wages
MICHIGAN BLUE: Payne Sues Over Architectural Barriers in Property

MICROVAST INC: Milan Sues Over Failure to Provide Notice
MIDLAND CREDIT: Martinez Sues Over Inflated Amount of Interest
MIDWEST GERIATRIC: Crawford Seeks Conditional Status of Collective
MIN NEW YORK: Faces Wahab Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
MINKIN ENTERPRISES: Longhini Sues Over ADA Violation

MOLO SOLUTIONS: Goldsmith Files Suit in N.Y. Super. Ct.
MOLSON COORS: Dixon and Mahan Sue Over Deceptive Product Labeling
MONTEFIORE HEALTH: Vazquez Suit Seeks Hospital Staff's Unpaid OT
MONTEFIORE MEDICAL: Boyette Appeals Denied Motion to Amend Suit
MONTGOMERY PUBLIC SCHOOLS: Class Cert Discovery Due Feb. 10, 2025

MOSAIC CO: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Cruz Class Suit
MUSTANG FUEL: Wake Energy Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
MYOSCI TECHNOLOGIES: Jones Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
NATIONS DIRECT: Brown Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
NATURE'S BAKERY: Levit Sues Over Deceptive Marketing of Fig Bars

NEIMAN MARCUS: Zelvin Sues Over Website Accessibility Noncompliance
NESTED BEAN: Saedi Sues Over Weighted Sleep Products' False Ads
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY: Faces Suit Over Breach of Civil Rights Act
NUSRET HOLDINGS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Anderson Says
OCTAPHARMA PLASMA: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Adams Alleges

OLD NATIONAL BANK: Lagunas Sues Over Unlawful Fees
ONCOLOGY INC: Vrana Suit Asserts Breach of Fiduciary Duty
ONE KINGS: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Riley Class Suit Says
OVERLAKE HOSPITAL: Court Dismisses Nienaber Suit
PALACE BK CLEANERS: Faces Ojeda Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.

PALM MARKETPLACE: Payne Suit Seeks Injunctive Relief Under ADA
PANDA RESTAURANT: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Sarfo Says
PARFUM FRANCIS: Tarr Sues Over Blind Users' Equal Access to Website
PATAGONIA INC: Knight Sues Over Use of Spy Trackers on Emails
PATTERSON WAREHOUSES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brimley Alleges

PAUL NAKASONE: Parties to Seek New Scheduling Order
PBF ENERGY: Continues to Defend Cruz Class Suit
PBF ENERGY: Continues to Defend Goldstein Class Suit in California
PBF ENERGY: Discovery Ongoing in Piscitelli Class Suit
PEPPERMILL INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Karim Alleges

PETER MANNING: Hernandez Sues Over Website's Inaccessibility
PHILADELPHIA, PA: $300 Fee Collection "Unlawful," Tri-State Says
PLYMOUTH TUBE: Weaver Sues Over Failure to Protect Sensitive Data
PORTLAND LEATHER: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Bunting Says
PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MD: Butler Appeals Suit Dismissal

QUAKER OATS: Hill Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
QVC INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lee Suit Alleges
RE/MAX HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Canadian Antitrust Class Suit
RED LOBSTER: Fails to Provide Mass Layoffs Notice, Lowe Alleges
RED ROBIN: Rummell EPOA Suit Removed to W.D. Washington

RELX GROUP: Wanna Appeals FCRA Suit Dismissal to 8th Circuit
REVAIRA LLC: Means and Radwanski Sue Over Breaches of FLSA
ROYAL APPLIANCE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Wahab Alleges
SAFE STREETS: Faces Salaiz Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
SAFEWAY INC: Garcia Sues Over False and Misleading Advertisement

SAN DIEGO, CA: McKinnie Civil Rights Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
SAVOYA LLC: Cuhadar et al. Sue Over Labor Law Breaches
SECOND STREET: Marello Sues Over Labor Law Violations
SHAR PRODUCTS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Liz Suit Alleges
SHENGYUN LLC: Sanchez Sues Over Cal. Labor Code Violations

SHOPPES IN THE GARDENS: Feltzin Sues Over ADA Violation
SKIMS BODY: Wiretaps Web Visitors' Communications, Porchia Says
SNS DINER: Nunez Sues Over California Labor Code Violations
SONOS INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Liz Suit Alleges
SPAY INC: Buffington Files Suit in S.D. New York

STATE FARM FIRE: Ward Files Suit in N.D. Mississippi
STATE FARM: Files 6th Circuit Appeal in Clippinger Suit
STIIIZY INC: Byron Sues Over False and Misleading Representations
STRATEGIC SECURITY: Garner Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
STRYKER CORPORATION: Graham Suit Removed to E.D. California

SUCCESS SYSTEMS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to August 20
SUPER CENTER: Fails to Provide Seating for Employees, Moyado Says
SYNEL AMERICAS: Johnson Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometrics
SYNERGY INSPECTIONS: Hodge Sues Over WARN Act Violation
TABLELIST INC: Steelman Hits Hidden Ticket Purchase Processing Fee

TAILORED SHARED: Tyler Sues Over Store Leads' Unpaid Wages
TANDEM DIABETES: Has 30 Days to File Bid to Dismiss Lowe Suit
TAPESTRY INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hernandez Claims
TECO ENERGY: Gets June 20 Extension to Oppose Roche Class Cert Bid
TESLA INC: Schwartz Sues Over False Advertising

TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Delays QVAR's Generic Entry, Value Drug Says
THE M JEWELERS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Tarr Says
THIS IS L INC: Seaman Seeks Damages for Alleged Consumer Fraud
THRYLOS 77: Rumaldo Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
TOP GUARD: Hedges Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store

TRIHEX ATHLETIC: Fails to Pay Overtime Premium, Hurt Suit Alleges
TRILOGY MEDWASTE: Brock Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
TROPICAL PRODUCE: Raymond Sues Over Worker Misclassification
TUCKERNUCK INC: Riley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
TUMI INC: Faces Hernandez Suit Over Blind's Equal Access to Website

TYSON FOODS: McBride Suit Seeks Production Supervisors' Unpaid OT
UNCLE JULIO'S: Keysor et al. Seek Unpaid Minimum Wages & OT Pay
UNDERDOG APPAREL: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Hedges Alleges
UNIQLO USA: Hernandez Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
UNITED PARCEL: Fails to Provide Safe Workplace, Barnett Alleges

UNITED SEATING: Smith Suit Removed to C.D. California
UNITED STATES: Doster Appeals Class Suit Dismissal to 6th Circuit
UNITED STATES: National Mining Appeals EPA's Final Rule
UNITED STATES: National Rural Appeals EPA's Final Rule
UNITED STATES: State of Ohio Appeals EPA's Final Rule

UNITED STATES: West Virginia Appeals EPA's Final Rule
UNITED SUGAR: Pattibakes LLC Sues Over Price-Fixing Conspiracy
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Drop in Share Price
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Liable to Halted Medical Services, Unity Claims
UP NYC: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Zelvin Class Suit Says

VALLEY OAKS HEALTH: Smith Files Suit in N.D. Indiana
VARO MONEY: Medlin Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach
VEGAMOUR INC: Fernandez Sues Over Access Barriers to Online Store
VESTIS CORP: Faces Plumbers Suit Over Stock Price Drop
VMD SYSTEMS: Rue & Boshnack Sue Over Untimely Payment of Wages

WARM THINGS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Fernandez Says
WEBTPA EMPLOYER: Faces Hawkins Class Suit Over Consumer Data Breach
WEBTPA EMPLOYER: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Wood Suit Alleges
WEBTPA EMPLOYER: France Sues Over Private Data Breach
WEBTPA EMPLOYER: Rivera Sues Over Inadequate Data Security

WELLS FARGO: Perez Sues Over Nonpayment of Overtime Wages
WILLIAM BURNS: Court Dismisses Brewer Class Action
YASAIYA SHABU-SHABU: Hernandez et al. Seek Proper OT Wages
ZEGHANI LLC: Website Denied Equal Access to Blind Users, Karim Says

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has 6,296 PI Claims Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Reports 398 PI Cases Pending as of March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Constellation Energy Has $131MM Est. Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fundamental Global Faces Product Liability Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Faces 503 PI Lawsuits as of March 31



                            *********

1011 LUDLAM: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Commercial Property
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated mobility-impaired individuals v. 1011 LUDLAM, LLC and
CHINGOLO LOGISTICS, LLC d/b/a RESTAURANTE EL ANDALUZ SABORES DE
ESPANA, Case No. 1:24-cv-21337-RAR  (S.D. Fla., April 10, 2024), is
brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation
expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA") as a result of the Defendants' commercial retail plaza
(hereinafter the "Commercial Property") being inaccessible to
people who are disabled.

Although over 30 years have passed since the effective date of
Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities
accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided
commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act.
The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant
lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since
1990, Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who
are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of
Defendants' property and the businesses.

The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property, and the business
located within the Commercial Property and Restaurant Property to
be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered
architectural barriers at the Commercial Property, Restaurant
Property, and businesses located within the Commercial Property and
wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises.

The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in
violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property, Restaurant
Property, and businesses located within the Commercial Property.
The barriers to access at the Commercial Property, Restaurant
Property, and businesses located within the Commercial Property
have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the
Commercial Property, Restaurant Property, and businesses located
within the Commercial Property, and have endangered his safety in
violation of the ADA.

The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff
by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or
accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located
therein, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae
down) and requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate.

1011 LUDLAM, LLC, owns, operates and/or oversees the Commercial
Property, its general parking lot, parking spots, and common areas
and path of travel specific to the businesses therein, located in
Miami, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
          ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
          7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104
          Miami, FL 33144
          Phone: (786) 361-9909
          Facsimile: (786) 687-0445
          Primary Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com
          Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com


23ANDME INC: Gill Suit Transferred to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Dhaman Gill, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. 23andMe, Inc., Monica Santana, Daniel
Pinho, 23ANDME Holding Co., Case No. 8:23-cv-02387-FWS-DFM was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California on May 20, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-03034-EMC to the
proceeding.

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

23andMe Holding Co. -- https://www.23andme.com/ -- is a publicly
trading personal genomics and biotechnology company based in South
San Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Robert Reese, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Phone: (212) 643-0500
          Email: mreese@reesellp.com

               - and -

          George Volney Granade, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          8484 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 515
          Los Angeles, CA 90211
          Phone: (310) 393-0070
          Fax: (212) 253-4272
          Email: ggranade@reesellp.com

               - and -

          Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
          LAUKAITIS LAW LLC
          954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205, No. 10518
          San Juan, PR 00907
          Phone: (215) 789-4462
          Email: klaukaitis@ecf.courtdrive.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Rebekah Strawn Guyon, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 586-7700
          Fax: (310) 586-7800
          Email: guyonr@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Ian C. Ballon, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          1900 University Avenue, 5th Floor
          East Palo Alto, CA 94303
          Phone: (650) 328-8500
          Email: ballon@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Kristin Louise O'Carroll, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          101 Second Street, Suite 2200
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: (415) 655-1257
          Email: ocarrollK@gtlaw.com


2U INC: Continues to Defend Favell I Class Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
2U 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 2, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the Favell I class suit in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Los Angeles.

On December 20, 2022, Plaintiffs Iola Favell, Sue Zarnowski, and
Mariah Cummings filed a putative class action in the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, against the
University of Southern California ("USC") and the Company on behalf
of "[a]ll students who were enrolled in an online graduate degree
program at USC Rossier, from April 1, 2009 through April 27,
2022."("Favell I").

Plaintiffs purported to allege violations of California's False
Advertising Law ("FAL"), Cal. Civ. Code § 17500, California's
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Civ. Code § 17200,
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Cal. Civ.
Code § 1770, as well as for unjust enrichment related to the use
of USC Rossier's rankings in certain marketing materials.

On February 3, 2023, the Company removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.

Then, on March 8, 2023, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit, arguing, among other things, that all of Plaintiffs'
allegations lacked merit and that certain claims for relief could
not be brought in federal court in light of other allegations
Plaintiffs had made.

On March 28, 2023, before the court could rule on that motion,
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint (the "First Amended
Complaint"), dropping the challenged claims for relief and instead
asserting only a single cause of action under the CLRA.

The First Amended Complaint is based on the same factual
allegations as the original complaint but seeks declaratory relief,
actual damages, incidental damages, consequential damages,
compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs in connection with their CLRA claim.

On April 17, 2023, the Company moved to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint in Favell I in its entirety, arguing that all of
Plaintiffs' claims lack merit.

On July 6, 2023, the Court held a hearing on the Company's motion
to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in Favell I and issued a
ruling granting the Company's motion to dismiss with leave to amend
and denying Plaintiffs' motion to remand.

On July 28, 2023, Plaintiffs filed amended complaints in Favell I,
adding an additional plaintiff and more detailed allegations but
otherwise reasserting the same claims in each case.

2U moved to dismiss the amended complaints on August 31, 2023, and
a hearing was held on November 16, 2023.

On January 23, 2024, the Court issued an order dismissing
Plaintiffs' amended complaints in Favell I, but granting Plaintiffs
leave to amend within twenty-one days of the order.

Plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint within twenty-one days
of the order.

Therefore, there are no active claims against 2U in the matter any
longer.

The Company has always maintained that both lawsuits’ claims
against 2U were meritless.

2U is an education technology company that works with universities
to provide online graduate programs and certificates for working
adults.[BN]


2U INC: Continues to Defend Favell II Class Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
2U 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 2, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the Favell II class suit in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Los Angeles.

On March 28, 2023, Plaintiffs Iola Favell, Sue Zarnowski, and
Mariah Cummings filed a class action lawsuit in the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, reasserting the
FAL, UCL, and CLRA claims they dropped from the federal lawsuit
("Favell II").

The state court lawsuit is based on the same factual allegations as
the federal lawsuit.

Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution, and
attorneys' fees and costs in connection with the claims in state
court.

On May 4, 2023, the Company removed the Favell II lawsuit from
state court to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, and Plaintiffs later filed a motion to
remand it back to state court.

On July 6, 2023, the Court held a hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion
to remand in Favell II, and issued a ruling granting the Company's
motion to dismiss with leave to amend and denying Plaintiffs'
motion to remand.

On July 28, 2023, Plaintiffs filed amended complaints in Favell II,
adding an additional plaintiff and more detailed allegations but
otherwise reasserting the same claims in each case.

2U moved to dismiss the amended complaints on August 31, 2023, and
a hearing was held on November 16, 2023.

On January 23, 2024, the Court issued an order dismissing
Plaintiffs' amended complaints in Favell II, but granting
Plaintiffs leave to amend within twenty-one days of the order.

Plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint within twenty-one days
of the order.

Therefore, there are no active claims against 2U in the matter any
longer.

2U is an education technology company that works with universities
to provide online graduate programs and certificates for working
adults.[BN]
The Company has always maintained that lawsuit’s claims against
2U were meritless.


2U is an education technology company that works with universities
to provide online graduate programs and certificates for working
adults.[BN]



3M COMPANY: Adams Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christina Adams, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota) Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE
PLUS INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY
PRODUCTS USA, INC.; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP,
INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO.,
INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE
PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.;
STEDFAST USA, INC.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest
to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix Inc.);
W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; Case No. 2:24-cv-01838-RMG (D.S.C.,
April 12, 2024), is brought for damages stemming from personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
("AFFF") and/or firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.

The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting, the military, and/or
training.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused
Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein.

Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory
relief arising from the same, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and/or TOG during his
military career and was diagnosed with Thyroid Disease and Thyroid
Cancer as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' products.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
          Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 25442
          Phone: 843-546-2408
          Facsimile: 843-546-9604
          Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
                 rlee@belllegalgroup.com
                 gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com


3M COMPANY: Berkowitz Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Berkowitz, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota) Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE
PLUS INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY
PRODUCTS USA, INC.; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP,
INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO.,
INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE
PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.;
STEDFAST USA, INC.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest
to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix Inc.);
W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; Case No. 2:24-cv-01845-RMG (D.S.C.,
April 12, 2024), is brought for damages stemming from personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
("AFFF") and/or firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.

The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting, the military, and/or
training.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused
Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein.

Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory
relief arising from the same, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and/or TOG during his
military career and was diagnosed with Kidney Cancer, Prostate
Cancer, and Colorectal Cancer as a direct result of exposure to
Defendants' products.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
          Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 25442
          Phone: 843-546-2408
          Facsimile: 843-546-9604
          Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
                 rlee@belllegalgroup.com
                 gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com


3M COMPANY: Bishop Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Curtis Bishop, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota) Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE
PLUS INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY
PRODUCTS USA, INC.; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP,
INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO.,
INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE
PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.;
STEDFAST USA, INC.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest
to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix Inc.);
W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; Case No. 2:24-cv-01840-RMG (D.S.C.,
April 12, 2024), is brought for damages stemming from personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
("AFFF") and/or firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.

The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting, the military, and/or
training.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused
Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein.

Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory
relief arising from the same, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and/or TOG during his
military career and was diagnosed with Ulcerative Colitis and
Prostate Cancer as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
products.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
          Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 25442
          Phone: 843-546-2408
          Facsimile: 843-546-9604
          Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
                 rlee@belllegalgroup.com
                 gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com


3M COMPANY: Brown Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Lee Brown, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; AMEREX CORPORATION;
ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION
(f/k/a UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC.); CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.;
CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT
CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS,
INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT, INC.); DYNAX
CORPORATION; EIDP, INC. (f/k/a E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY); FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC.; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.;
INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; LION GROUP,
INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MILLIKEN &
COMPANY; MSA SAFETY, INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE
PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO.,
INC.; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS,
INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO
THE ANSUL COMPANY; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION (n/k/a RTX
CORPORATION); VERIDIAN LIMITED; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.;
W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-01683-RMG (D.S.C.,
April 3, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish extremely
hot fires involving materials like alcohol, petroleum greases, and
other flammable or combustible liquids and gases ("Class B Fires").
AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian
firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to
Class B Fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for
heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in
hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal
liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers
contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional
PFAS.

The Defendants, individually and collectively, designed, marketed,
developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users on,
produced instructional materials for, promoted, sold, handled,
used, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or
TOG or underlying chemicals that were added to AFFF or TOG, with
knowledge that the AFFF or TOG or underlying chemicals contained
highly toxic and biopersistent PFAS, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products caused
Plaintiff significant and devastating injury.

Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory
relief arising from the same, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF and/or TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his
working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was
diagnosed with thyroid cancer as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promoters, and sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products or underlying PFAS-containing
chemicals used in the production of AFFF or TOG products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          August J. Matteis, Jr., Esq.
          WEISBROD MATTEIS & COPLEY PLLC
          3000 K Street, NW, Suite 275
          Washington, DC 20007
          Phone: (202) 499-7900
          Facsimile: (202) 478-1795

               - and -

          Jim Hood, Esq.
          1022 Highland Colony Parkway, Ste 203
          Ridgeland, MS 39157
          Phone: (601) 803-5001

               - and -

          Melissa R. Heidelberg, Esq.
          1022 Highland Colony Parkway, Suite 203
          Ridgeland, MS 39157
          Phone: (601) 803-4063


3M COMPANY: Bryant Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Bryant, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE,
LTD,; CORTEVA, INC.; DU PONTE DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT
INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DU NEMOUR AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No.
2:24-cv-01816-RMG (D.S.C., April 11, 2024), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.

Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff sustained injuries as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF containing PFAS.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Madison T. Donaldson
          Marc S. Whitehead
          MARC WHITEHEAD & ASSOCIATES, LLP
          403 Heights Boulevard
          Houston, TX 77007
          Phone: 713-228-8888
          Facsimile: 713-225-0940


3M COMPANY: Bunkers Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Bunkers, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota) Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE
PLUS INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY
PRODUCTS USA, INC.; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP,
INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO.,
INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE
PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.;
STEDFAST USA, INC.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest
to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix Inc.);
W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; Case No. 2:24-cv-01843-RMG (D.S.C.,
April 12, 2024), is brought for damages stemming from personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
("AFFF") and/or firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.

The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting, the military, and/or
training.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused
Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein.

Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory
relief arising from the same, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and/or TOG during his
military career and was diagnosed with Thyroid Disease as a direct
result of exposure to Defendants' products.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
          Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 25442
          Phone: 843-546-2408
          Facsimile: 843-546-9604
          Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
                 rlee@belllegalgroup.com
                 gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com


3M COMPANY: Burchett Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Floyd Burchett, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota) Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE
PLUS INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY
PRODUCTS USA, INC.; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP,
INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO.,
INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE
PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.;
STEDFAST USA, INC.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest
to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix Inc.);
W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; Case No. 2:24-cv-01851-RMG (D.S.C.,
April 12, 2024), is brought for damages stemming from personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
("AFFF") and/or firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.

The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting, the military, and/or
training.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused
Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein.

Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory
relief arising from the same, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and/or TOG during his
military career and was diagnosed with Kidney Cancer as a direct
result of exposure to Defendants' products.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
          Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 25442
          Phone: 843-546-2408
          Facsimile: 843-546-9604
          Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
                 rlee@belllegalgroup.com
                 gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com


3M COMPANY: Butler Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Butler, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota) Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE
PLUS INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY
PRODUCTS USA, INC.; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP,
INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO.,
INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE
PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.;
STEDFAST USA, INC.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest
to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix Inc.);
W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; Case No. 2:24-cv-01844-RMG (D.S.C.,
April 12, 2024), is brought for damages stemming from personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
("AFFF") and/or firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.

The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting, the military, and/or
training.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused
Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein.

Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory
relief arising from the same, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and/or TOG during his
military career and was diagnosed with Liver Cancer and Colon
Cancer as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' products.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
          Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 25442
          Phone: 843-546-2408
          Facsimile: 843-546-9604
          Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
                 rlee@belllegalgroup.com
                 gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com


3M COMPANY: Hawk Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Hawk, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co.; BASF CORPORATION,
individually and as successor in interest to Ciba Inc.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS INC.; CLARIANT
CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Sandoz
Chemical Corporation; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC,
L.L.C.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P.; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS
CORPORATION,INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-01654-RMG (D.S.C., April 2,
2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS") and/or their chemical precursors.

PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is
a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based
fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian
firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to
Class B fires.

The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF containing PFAS and/or their
chemical precursors, and/or designed, manufactured, marketed,
distributed, and/or sold the fluorosurfactants and/or
perfluorinated chemicals ("PFCs") contained in AFFF (collectively,
"AFFF/Component Products" or "fluorochemical products") with
knowledge that their products contained highly toxic and
biopersistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the products to
the risks associated with PFAS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood
of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over
long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are
highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should
have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting
significant health risks to humans.

The Defendants' AFFF/Component Products were used by the Plaintiff
Frank Hawk in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF/Component Products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF/Component Products caused
Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein.

Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF/Component Products at various locations during the course of
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF/Component Products in training exercises and in live fire
emergencies during his time working as a volunteer firefighter and
was diagnosed with kidney cancer in January 2023 as a result of
exposure to Defendants' AFFF/Component Products.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of
AFFF/Component Products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence R. Cohan, Esq.
          Joshua C. Cohan, Esq.
          SALTZ MONGELUZZI BENDESKY
          One Liberty Place
          1650 Market St, 52nd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 575-3887
          Fax: (215) 496-0999
          Email: lcohan@smbb.com
                 jcohan@smbb.com


3M COMPANY: McGee Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------
Richard McGee and Flatonia McGee, H/W, and others similarly
situated v. 3M COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Co.; BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to
Ciba Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS
INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION, individually and as successor in
interest to Sandoz Chemical Corporation; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; NATION FORD
CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, L.L.C.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P.; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-01655-RMG
(D.S.C., April 2, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS") and/or their chemical
precursors.

PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is
a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based
fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian
firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to
Class B fires.

The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF containing PFAS and/or their
chemical precursors, and/or designed, manufactured, marketed,
distributed, and/or sold the fluorosurfactants and/or
perfluorinated chemicals ("PFCs") contained in AFFF (collectively,
"AFFF/Component Products" or "fluorochemical products") with
knowledge that their products contained highly toxic and
biopersistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the products to
the risks associated with PFAS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood
of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over
long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are
highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should
have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting
significant health risks to humans.

The Defendants' AFFF/Component Products were used by the Plaintiff
Frank Hawk in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF/Component Products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF/Component Products caused
Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein.

Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF/Component Products at various locations during the course of
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF/Component Products in training exercises and in live fire
emergencies during his time working as a civilian firefighter and
was diagnosed with kidney cancer in May 2023 as a result of
exposure to Defendants' AFFF/Component Products.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of
AFFF/Component Products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence R. Cohan, Esq.
          Joshua C. Cohan, Esq.
          SALTZ MONGELUZZI BENDESKY
          One Liberty Place
          1650 Market St, 52nd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 575-3887
          Fax: (215) 496-0999
          Email: lcohan@smbb.com
                 jcohan@smbb.com


A TO Z BEAUTY: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Jackson Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
SYLINIA JACKSON, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated v. A TO Z BEAUTY, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-03748
(S.D.N.Y., May 16, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products
and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff’s
rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because the
Defendant's interactive website, https://www.cliganic.com,
including all portions thereof or accessed thereon, is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA, the Plaintiff adds.

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

This discrimination is particularly acute during the current
COVID-19 global pandemic. According to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, Americans with disabilities are at higher
risk for severe illness from COVID-19 and, therefore, are
recommended to shelter in place throughout the duration of the
pandemic. This underscores the importance of access to online
retailers, such as Defendant, for this especially vulnerable
population. The COVID-19 pandemic is particularly dangerous for
disabled individuals.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer. Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired"
to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal
definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with
correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who
meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision.

In a September 25, 2018 letter to U.S. House of Representative Ted
Budd, U.S. Department of Justice Assistant Attorney General Stephen
E. Boyd confirmed that public accommodations must make the websites
they own, operate, or control equally accessible to individuals
with disabilities.

Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually-impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually-impaired persons live in the State of New York.

The Defendant operates the Cliganic online interactive Website
across the United States. This online interactive Website
constitutes a place of public accommodation because it is a sales
establishment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: Dana@Gottlieb.legal
                  Michael@Gottlieb.legal
                  Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal

A. F. RISAVY: Walsh Suit Transferred to S.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Caitlin Walsh, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. A. F. RISAVY, INC., Case No.
3:24-cv-01059-RJD was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois on April 8, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01059-RJD to the
proceeding.

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

A. F. RISAVY, INC. doing business as Swing City Music --
https://swingcitymusic.mystagingwebsite.com/ -- is the premier
place to shop for DJ Gear, Pro-Audio, Guitars, Bass, Drums, Amps,
and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Krysta K. Gumbiner, Esq.
          Daniel L Moeller, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP - CHICAGO
          222 W. Adams Street, Suite 3400
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 372-6060
          Fax: (312) 372-6085
          Email: krysta.gumbiner@dinsmore.com
                 daniel.moeller@dinsmore.com

               - and -

          D. Keith Short, Esq.
          KEITH SHORT AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          325 Market Street
          Alton, IL 62002
          Phone: (618) 254-0055
          Fax: (618) 254-1272
          Email: keith@siltrial.com


ABC CORP: Faces Garcia Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------
Saul Garcia, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. ABC Corp. d/b/a Tasty's Diner, Nick Milatos, and
Electra Milatos, Case No. 1:24-cv-03566 (E.D.N.Y., May 16, 2024)
accuses the Defendants of multiple labor law violations.

The Plaintiff, a former employee of Defendants, brings this action
over Defendants' alleged violations of the New York Labor Law and
the Fair Labor Standards Act, including failure to pay wages at the
required New York City minimum wage rate, failure to pay overtime
premiums for hours worked more than 40 in a workweek, failure to
pay spread-of-hours premium, and failure to provide wage notices.

The Plaintiff claims that he is entitled to recover from Defendants
compensation for unpaid minimum wages, overtime, and
spread-of-hours pay, as well as damages for Defendants' alleged
violations.   

ABC Corp d/b/a Tasty's Diner operates an American restaurant
located in Astoria, Queens, NY. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Michael Samuel, Esq.
        THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM     
        1441 Broadway Suite 6085
        New York, NY
        Telephone: (212) 563-9884
        E-mail: michael@thesamuellawfirm.com

ABLE FREIGHT: Magana Brings Claims for Labor Code Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------
JUAN AREVALOS MAGANA v. ABLE FREIGHT SERVICES, LLC; ROBERT J.
ADAMS; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV12176 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 14, 2024) is a class action seeking
penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act, as well as
damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief for
Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the
California Business and Professions Code.

The Plaintiff began working for Defendants as a driver over 10
years ago and is currently working in the warehouse, classified as
an hourly, non-exempt employee. The Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants committed multiple Labor Code violations, including
failure to compensate hourly, non-exempt employees for all hours
worked, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime,
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to
pay wages owed every period, failure to provide rest and meal
breaks, and failure to reimburse business expenses.

Able Freight Services LLC is a logistics company located in Los
Angeles, CA. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Harout Messrelian, Esq.
        MESSRELIAN LAW INC.     
        500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
        Glendale, CA 91203
        Telephone: (818) 484-6531
        Facsimile: (818) 956-1983

ADMI CORP: Hollaway Suit Removed to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michelle Hollaway, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ADMI CORP. d/b/a TAG THE ASPEN
GROUP and ASPEN DENTAL MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. CV-24-001734 was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, for the
County of Stanislaus, to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California on May 17, 2024, and assigned Case
No. 2:24-cv-01415-DJC-CKD.

The Complaint alleges two causes of action for violations of: the
California Invasion of Privacy Act and the California Invasion of
Privacy Act.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ashley Shively, Esq.
          Zachary T. Watterson, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          560 Mission Street, Suite 1900
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415.743.6900
          Fax: 415.743.6951
          Email: ashley.shively@hklaw.com
                 zachary.watterson@hklaw.com


AGC CHEMICALS: San Andreas Sues Over Contaminated Water Supplies
----------------------------------------------------------------
San Andreas Mutual Water Company, and others similarly situated v.
AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.;
BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION (f/k/a UTC Fire & Security Americas
Corporation); CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CLARIANT
CORPORATION; DYNAX CORPORATION; KIDDE PLC, INC.; NATIONAL FOAM,
INC.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP (as successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company); and, JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-49, Case No. 2:24-cv-01691-RMG
(D.S.C., April 4, 2024), is brought seeking to recover the
substantial costs necessary to protect the public and restore its
water supplies, which are contaminated with the synthetic per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), including but not limited to
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA"), perfluorononanoic acid ("PFNA"),
perfluorobutane sulfonate ("PFBS"), Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA),
Perfluoropentanoic Acid (PFPeA), as well as all of their salts and
ionic states, the acid forms of the molecules and their chemical
precursors, and any other compounds the State regulates in the
future.

The Plaintiff brings this action to address widespread
contamination of groundwater that provides drinking water to
Plaintiff with PFAS, to recover costs associated with the
contamination of drinking water and groundwater with PFAS, and
further seek abatement of the ongoing nuisance these chemicals
constitute in the environment, and for such other action as is
necessary to ensure that the PFAS that contaminate the stormwater,
surface water and aquifers supplying drinking water for Plaintiff
do not present a risk to the public. PFAS are persistent, toxic,
and bioaccumulative compounds when released into the environment.
PFAS have impacted stormwater, surface water and groundwater, and
now contaminate the water supplies used by Plaintiff.

The Defendants are companies that designed, manufactured, marketed,
distributed, and/or sold PFAS, the chemical precursors of PFAS,
and/or products containing PFAS, and/or their chemical precursors.
Defendants made products with PFAS including but are not limited
to, Teflon, Scotchgard, waterproofing compounds, stain-proofing
compounds, waxes, paper and cloth coatings, aqueous film-forming
foam ("AFFF"), a firefighting agent used to control and extinguish
Class B fuel fires, and fluorosurfactants used in the manufacture
of AFFF as well as telomer building blocks used to make
fluorosurfactants that were then used to manufacture other
PFAS-containing products, including AFFF. Collectively, Defendants'
PFOA, PFOS, precursors, products containing PFAS, AFFF, and other
products and intermediates containing PFAS are referred to herein
as "Fluorochemical Products."

The Defendants designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed,
stored and/or sold Fluorochemical Products with the knowledge that
these toxic compounds would be released into the environment during
fire protection, fire training, and response activities, even when
used as directed and intended by defendants. The Defendants were
also aware that their Fluorochemical Products would be and have
been used, released, stored, and/or disposed of at, near, or within
the vicinity of Plaintiff's water supplies such that PFAS, and
their chemical precursors would enter the environment, migrate
through the soil, sediment, stormwater, surface water, and
groundwater, thereby contaminating the water that supplies
Plaintiff.

As a result of the use of Defendants' Fluorochemical Products for
their intended purpose, PFAS, and/or their chemical precursors have
been detected in Plaintiff's water supplies at levels approaching
the California Notification Level and the Federal Environmental
Protection Agency's ("EPA") proposed national drinking water
standard and exceeding the EPA's lifetime health advisory level for
PFOA. The Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that
their PFAS compounds would enter the environment, contaminate soil,
reach groundwater, pollute drinking water supplies, render drinking
water unusable and unsafe, and threaten public health and welfare,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff owns and operates a water system that provides
drinking water to residents and commercial customers in Santa Cruz
County, California.

AGC and/or its affiliates manufactured fluorochemicals used in
AFFF.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth A. Sansone, Esq.
          SL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW GROUP PC
          175 Chestnut Street
          San Francisco, CA 94133
          Phone: (603) 227-6298
          Facsimile: (415) 366-3047
          Email: ksansone@slenvironment.com

               - and -

          Robert A. Bilott, Esq.
          TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
          425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-3957
          Phone: (513) 381-2838
          Facsimile: (513) 381-0205
          Email: bilott@taftlaw.com

               - and -

          David J. Butler, Esq.
          TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
          65 East State Street, Suite 1000
          Columbus, Ohio 43215
          Phone: (614) 221-2838
          Facsimile: (614) 221-2007
          Email: dbutler@taftlaw.com

               - and -

          Kevin J. Madonna, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KEVIN MADONNA, PLLC
          48 Dewitt Mills Road Hurley, NY 12443
          Phone: (845) 481-2622
          Facsimile (845) 230-3111
          Email: kmadonna@kennedymadonna.com

               - and -

          Gary J. Douglas, Esq.
          Michael A. London, Esq.
          Rebecca G. Newman, Esq.
          Tate J. Kunkle, Esq.
          DOUGLAS & LONDON, P.C.
          59 Maiden Ln, 6th Fl,
          New York, NY 10038
          Phone: (212) 566-7500
          Email: gdouglas@douglasandlondon.com
                 mlondon@douglasandlondon.com
                 rnewman@douglasandlondon.com
                 tkunkle@douglasandlondon.com

               - and -

          Ned McWilliams, Esq.
          LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, RAFFERTY, PROCTOR, BUCHANAN, O'BRIEN &
MOUGEY, P.A.
          316 S. Baylen St.
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Phone: (850) 435-7138
          Email: nmcwilliams@levinlaw.com


AGILON HEALTH: IPRS Suit Transferred to W.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Indiana Public Retirement System, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. AGILON HEALTH, INC.,
STEVEN J. SELL, TIMOTHY S. BENSLEY, GLENN SOBOTKA, MICHELLE A.
GOURDINE, MICHAEL L. SMITH, RONALD A. WILLIAMS, SHARAD MANSUKANI,
CLAY RICHARDS, RAVI SACHDEV, RICHARD J. SCHNALL, DEREK L. STRUM,
WILLIAM WULF, CLAYTON, DUBILIER & RICE, LLC, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO.
LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and BofA SECURITIES, INC., Case
No. 1:24-cv-02506 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York to , he U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Texas on May 20, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00544-DII to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commodities.

agilon health, inc. -- http://agilonhealth.com/-- provides
healthcare services for seniors through primary care physicians in
the communities of the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: (631) 367-7100
          Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: 312/674-4674
          Fax: 312/674-4676
          Email: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Alex J. Kaplan, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          787 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (212) 839-5300

               - and -

          Barret V. Armbruster, Esq.
          Mason Parham, Esq.
          Yolanda Cornejo Garcia, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          2021 McKinney Avenue, Suite 2000
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: (214) 981-3300
          Fax: (214) 981-3400
          Email: mparham@sidley.com
                 ygarcia@sidley.com


ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Trammel Sues Over Cereal Bars' False Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARK TRAMMELL, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Case No. 3:24-cv-00862-AJB-AHG (S.D. Cal., May 15, 2024) alleges
that the Defendant's Signature Select Fruit & Grain cereal bars,
Blueberry and Strawberry flavors are misbranded and falsely
advertised because they contain artificial flavoring.

The front label (or "principal display panel") of the Products
state that the Products are "Naturally Flavored." But these
labelling claims are false. The Products are flavored using an
artificial flavoring, DL malic acid, that is derived from
petrochemicals, the Plaintiff contends.

Mr. Trammell viewed and purchased the Products on June 10, 2023
from a Vons Market in Carlsbad, California. Mr. Trammell is a
student who attempts to eat "clean." He prefers to consume only
products that contain all-natural flavorings.

The Plaintiff suffered economic injury by the Defendant's
fraudulent and deceptive conduct, and there is a causal nexus
between the Defendant's deceptive conduct and the Plaintiff's
injury, the suit asserts.

The Plaintiff brings this action individually and as representative
of all those similarly situated pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 on behalf of all consumers in the state of California
who purchased the Products within four years prior to the filing of
this Complaint.

Excluded from the Class are the Defendant and its affiliates,
parents, subsidiaries, employees, officers, agents, and directors.
Also excluded are any judicial officers presiding over this matter
and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff.

Mr. Trammell is a citizen of the state of California, domiciled in
San Diego, California.

Albertsons formulates, manufactures, and sells inter alia fruit and
grain breakfast cereal bars under its in-house generic brand,
Signature Selects.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles C. Weller, Esq.
          CHARLES C. WELLER, APC
          11412 Corley Court
          San Diego, CA 92126
          Telephone: (858) 414-7465
          Facsimile: (858) 300-5137
          E-mail: legal@cweller.com

ALDEYRA THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Paice Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Aldeyra Therapeutics 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 2, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Paice class suit in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

On July 31, 2023, a purported stockholder filed a putative class
action lawsuit (the Securities Class Action) in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, against the Company and
certain current and former officers, captioned Juliana Paice v.
Aldeyra Therapeutics, Inc., et al. (No. 23-cv-11737).

On January 2, 2024, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.


The lawsuit alleges violations by the defendants of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule
10b-5.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made false or misleading
statements or failed to disclose certain information concerning (i)
the New Drug Application (NDA) for and the prospects of ADX-2191
for the treatment of primary vitreoretinal lymphoma and (ii) the
NDA for and the prospects of reproxalap for the treatment of dry
eye disease.

The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages on
behalf of herself and all persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's securities between January 7,
2021, and October 16, 2023, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs.


On March 4, 2024, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, and the plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion on
April 18, 2024.

The Company disputes the plaintiff's claims and intends to
vigorously defend the suit.

Aldeyra Therapeutics, Inc. is a pharmaceutical firm, with principal
executive offices located at 131 Hartwell Avenue, Suite 320,
Lexington, Massachusetts. [BN]

ALFA MUTUAL INSURANCE: Rancher Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Gladys Rancher, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. ALFA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case
No. 01-CV-2024-900923.00 was removed from the Circuit Court of
Jefferson County, Alabama, Birmingham Division, to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on April
8, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00439-MHH.

In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Alfa issued her automobile
insurance policy, and that she was in an automobile accident on
July 3, 2020, and that Alfa determined that her car was a total
loss. The Plaintiff alleges that Alfa improperly valued her
total-loss claim because it used a valuation system provided by
Mitchell International, Inc. that applies a Projected Sold
Adjustment ("PSA"). The PSA adjusts comparable unsold vehicles'
advertised prices to account for typical negotiation differences
between list prices and sale prices, a practice Plaintiff contends
does not "reflect market realities" and results in under-payment of
claims.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Connie Ray Stockham, Esq.
          STOCKHAM, COOPER & POTTS, P.C.
          505 North 20th Street, Suite 1111
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: (205) 776-9001
          Fax: (205) 776-9099
          Email: cstockham@scplaw.net

               - and -

          Jeffrey S. Cashdan, Esq.
          Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq.
          James Matthew Brigman, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1180 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 1600
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: (404) 572-4600
          Fax: (404) 572-5100
          Email: jcashdan@kslaw.com
                 zmcentyre@kslaw.com
                 mbrigman@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Julia C. Barrett, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          500 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1800
          Austin, TX 78701
          Phone: (512) 457-2000
          Fax: (512) 457-2100
          Email: jbarrett@kslaw.com


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

The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: "Failure to
compensate for all hours worked; Failure to pay minimum wages;
Failure to pay overtime; Failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements; Failure to pay wages when employment ends; Failure to
pay wages owed every pay period; Failure to give rest breaks;
Failure to give meal breaks; Private Attorneys General Act
("PAGA"); (10) Failure to reimburse for business expenses;
Retaliation in violation of Labor Code; Wrongful termination in
violation of public policy; and Violation of California Business
and Professions Code."[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

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


ALLEGIANT TRAVEL: Calzada Sues Over Alleged Use of Tracking Pixel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KELLY CALZADA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ALLEGIANT TRAVEL COMPANY, Case No. 2:24-at-00622 (E.D.
Cal., May 16, 2024) accuses the Defendant of invasion of privacy
arising from Defendant's alleged use of the Facebook tracking
pixel.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons in
California who have a Facebook account and booked travel
arrangements on the website, www.allegiantair.com, operated by
Defendant.  Allegedly, the Defendant integrates the Facebook
Tracking Pixel into its website, allowing it to assist Facebook
with intercepting communications of customers that book travel
arrangements on the website. The communications include those that
contain customers' personally identifiable information and their
travel itinerary details. The intercepted data are then used for
targeted advertising. The whole process takes place without users'
consent, says the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff asserts claims for violation of the California
Invasion of Privacy Act and invasion of privacy under California's
Constitution.

Allegiant Travel Company is an airline holding and hospitality
company based in Las Vegas, NV. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
        BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.     
        701 Brickell Ave., Suite 1420
        Miami, FL 33131
        Telephone: (305) 330-5512
        Facsimile: (305) 679-9006
        E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com

ALLIANCE MOBILE: Davis Sues Over Unlawful Report & Background Check
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Davis, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. ALLIANCE MOBILE, Case No. 2:24-cv-10943-LVP-DRG (E.D. Mich.,
April 11, 2024), is brought against Defendant pursuant to the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (the "FCRA"), and Michigan's Sales
Representative Commission Act as a result of the Defendants
unlawful report of the Plaintiff's background check (the
"Background Report").

In October 2023, Plaintiff applied for a Sales Representative
position for Defendant. Defendant offered Plaintiff the role, and
Plaintiff gladly accepted. One month after she was hired, Defendant
terminated Plaintiff after having conducted a third-party
background check. It was not until after termination that Defendant
provided Plaintiff with a copy of the background report, and at no
point did Defendant provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to
discuss the report.

While working for Defendant, Plaintiff procured significant sales
for Defendant and, in accordance with the terms of her employment,
accrued commission over those sales. Since terminating Plaintiff,
Defendant has failed to pay Plaintiff any of her earned
commission.

Recognizing that the contents of consumer reports are private,
contain sensitive information, and can have a profound impact on
people's lives, the FCRA requires that information within a
consumer report be utilized in a manner that is "fair and equitable
to the consumer." Congress has imposed strict disclosure
requirements on employers to ensure consumers are aware of their
rights to dispute, control and correct information that is used as
the basis for employment decisions, as well as to protect a
consumer's right to privacy.

The Defendant routinely obtains and uses information in consumer
reports to conduct background checks on prospective employees, and
frequently relies on such information, in whole or in part, as a
basis for adverse employment actions such as whether a prospective
employee should be hired for a position. Accordingly, on behalf of
herself and the Putative Classes proposed herein, Plaintiff seeks
statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees,
equitable relief, and all other relief pursuant to the FCRA, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff began working for Defendant on October 23, 2023.

The Defendant is a telecommunications service provider that
operates numerous stores throughout the country, and approximately
40 stores within Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noah S. Hurwitz (P74063)
          HURWITZ LAW PLLC
          340 Beakes St. STE 125
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Phone: (844) 487-9489
          Email: Noah@hurwitzlaw.com


AMAZON.COM INC: Stephenson Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Matthew Stephenson, as an individual and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM INC., a Delaware
corporation; AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, a Delaware limited liability
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 24CV434301
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Santa Clara, to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on May 17, 2024, and assigned
Case No. 5:24-cv-03001.

The Plaintiff asserts causes of action for: violation of Labor
Code; and Violation of Business & Professions Code. The Plaintiff
also asserts that Amazon is liable for waiting time penalties,
under Labor Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Max Fischer, Esq.
          Samson C. Huang, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue
          Twenty-Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Phone: +1.213.612.2500
          Fax: +1213612.2501
          Email: max.fischer@morganlewis.com
                 samson.huang@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Brian D. Berry, Esq.
          Katya N. Abelsky, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One Market
          Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
          Phone: +1.415.442.1000
          Fax: +1.415.442.1001
          Email: brian.berry morganlewis.com
                 katyaabelsky@morganlewis.com


AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Bahamonde Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AMAZON.COM SERVICES,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Javier Bahamonde, an individual
and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff/Petitioner v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, AMPLIO LOGISTICS,
Defendant/Respondent, Case No. C24-00903 (Cal. Super. Ct., Contra
Costa Cty., April 3, 2024).

The case type is stated as "Unlimited Other Employment-eFile."

Amazon.com Services LLC -- https://www.amazon.com/ -- provides
e-commerce services. The Company retails books, diamond jewelry,
electronics, appliances, apparels, and accessories.[BN]

AMERICA'S COLLECTIBLES: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind, Riley Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
AMANIE RILEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICA'S COLLECTIBLES NETWORK, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-03654 (S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2024) alleges
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

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

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

AMERICA'S COLLECTIBLES NETWORK INC., doing business as Jewelry
Television, retails jewelry online. The Company offers rings,
earrings, bracelets, necklaces, gemstones, diamonds, and gift
items. Jewelry Television serves customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

AMERICAN EAGLE: Tarantino Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Eagle
Outfitters, Inc. The case is styled as Megan Tarantino,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00139 (S.D. Tex.,
May 17, 2024).

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

American Eagle Outfitters, Inc. -- http://www.aeo-inc.com/-- is an
American clothing and accessories retailer headquartered at
SouthSide Works in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


AMERISLEEP LLC: Faces Villaverde Suit Over Telephonic Sales Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA VILLAVERDE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AMERISLEEP, LLC, Case No. CACE-24-006829
(Fla. Cir., May 15, 2024) contends that the Defendant violated the
FTSA's Caller ID Rules by transmitting a phone number that was not
capable of receiving phone calls when it made Telephonic Sales
Calls by text message.

Allegedly, the Defendant made Text Message Sales Calls that
promoted Amerisleep and violated the Caller ID Rules when it
transmitted to the recipients' caller identification services a
telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone
calls.

The Defendant transmitted 833-219-8003 to Plaintiff's Cell Phone's
caller identification service when it made the Amerisleep Text
Message Sales Calls. The Plaintiff called 833-219-8003, and call
could not be completed, the suit alleges.

The Plaintiff brings this class action pursuant to the FTSA's
Caller ID Rules, and is a member of and seeks to represent a class
of persons defined as:

     "All persons and entities that reside in Florida whose caller
     identification service was transmitted a telephone number
that
     was not capable of receiving telephone calls when Amerisleep
     Text Message Sales Calls were made to them since July 1,
     2021."

Ms. Amanda Villaverde is the regular user of a cellular telephone
number that receives Defendant's telephonic sales calls, and she
resides in Broward County, Florida.

Amerisleep produces memory foam mattresses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ANYWHERE REAL ESTATE: Continues to Defend Batton Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anywhere Real Estate 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 2, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Batton class suit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern
Division.

Batton, Bolton, Brace, Kim, James, Mullis, Bisbicos and Parsons v.
The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp.,
Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, HSF Affiliates,
LLC, The Long & Foster Companies, Inc., RE/MAX LLC, and Keller
Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois Eastern Division). In this putative nationwide
class action filed on January 25, 2021 (formerly captioned as
Leeder), the plaintiffs take issue with certain NAR policies,
including those related to buyer-broker compensation at issue in
the Moehrl and Burnett matters, as well as those at issue in the
2020 settlement between the DOJ and NAR, but claim the alleged
conspiracy has harmed buyers (instead of sellers).

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made agreements and
engaged in a conspiracy in restraint of trade in violation of the
Sherman Act and were unjustly enriched, and seek a permanent
injunction enjoining NAR from establishing in the future the same
or similar rules, policies, or practices as those challenged in the
action as well as an award of damages and/or restitution, interest,
and reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses.


On July 6, 2022, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint substituting
in eight new named plaintiffs and containing allegations
substantially similar to the original complaint but also adding
certain claims under state antitrust statutes and consumer
protection statutes.

Motions to dismiss remain pending and discovery has not commenced.


On February 20, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

The court dismissed the federal Sherman Act claim and two state law
claims, but rejected dismissal of the remaining state law claims.

In addition, the court dismissed one corporate defendant for lack
of personal jurisdiction in light of the dismissal of the federal
Sherman Act claim.

On April 15, 2024, Anywhere filed a Motion to Dismiss the remaining
state law claims for lack of personal jurisdiction following the
dismissal of the federal Sherman Act claims.

Anywhere also filed an Answer to the amended complaint.

The Company disputes the allegations against it in this case,
believes it has substantial defenses to plaintiffs' claims, and is
vigorously defending this litigation.

Madison, NJ-based, Anywhere Real Estate Inc (NYSE: HOUS) provides
franchise and brokerage operations as well as national title,
settlement, and relocation companies and nationally scaled mortgage
origination and underwriting joint ventures. Anywhere's brand
portfolio includes Better Homes and Gardens(R) Real Estate, CENTURY
21(R), Coldwell Banker(R), Coldwell Banker Commercial(R),
Corcoran(R), ERA(R), and Sotheby's International Realty(R). Moody's
expects 2023 revenue of over $5.5 billion.


ANYWHERE REAL ESTATE: NAR Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anywhere Real Estate 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 2, 2024, that the United States
District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted
preliminary approval of The National Association of Realtors (NAR)
settlement on April 23, 2024.

Burnett, Hendrickson, Breit, Trupiano, and Keel v. The National
Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of
America, Inc., BHH Affiliates LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, RE/MAX LLC,
and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri).

This is a certified class action case, which was initially filed on
April 29, 2019 and amended three times and tried with a jury
verdict on October 31, 2023 (formerly captioned as Sitzer).

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a continuing
contract, combination, or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade
and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act because
defendant NAR allegedly established mandatory anticompetitive
policies and rules for the multiple listing services and its
members that require an offer of buyer-broker compensation when
listing a property.

The plaintiffs' experts argue that "but for" the challenged NAR
policies and rules, these offers of buyer-broker compensation would
not be made and plaintiffs seek the recovery of full commissions
paid to buyers' brokers as to both brokerage and franchised
operations in the relevant geographic area.

The plaintiffs further allege that commission sharing, which
provides for the broker representing the seller sharing or paying a
portion of its commission to the broker representing the buyer, is
anticompetitive and violates the Sherman Act, and that the
brokerage/franchisor defendants conspired with NAR by requiring
their respective brokerages/franchisees to comply with NAR's
policies, rules, and Code of Ethics, and engaged in other allegedly
anticompetitive conduct including, but not limited to, steering and
agent education that allegedly promotes the practice of paying
buyer-broker compensation and discourages commission negotiation.

Plaintiffs' experts dispute defendants' contention that the
practice of offering and paying buyer-broker compensation is based
on natural and legitimate economic incentives and benefits that
exist irrespective of the challenged NAR policies and rules and
plaintiffs also contend that international practices are comparable
benchmarks.

The antitrust claims in the Burnett litigation are limited both in
allegations and relief sought to home sellers who from April 29,
2015, to the present used a listing broker affiliated with one of
the brokerage/franchisor defendants in four multiple listing
services ("MLSs") that primarily serve the State of Missouri,
purportedly in violation of federal and Missouri antitrust laws.

The plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief enjoining the defendants
from requiring home sellers to pay buyer-broker commissions or from
otherwise restricting competition among brokers, an award of
damages and/or restitution for the class period, attorneys' fees
and costs of suit.

Plaintiffs allege joint and several liability and seek treble
damages.

In September 2019, the Department of Justice ("DOJ") filed a
statement of interest and appearances for this matter and, in July
2020 and July 2021, requested the Company provide it with all
materials produced in this matter.

The Court granted class certification on April 22, 2022 and as
certified, includes, according to plaintiffs, over 250,000
transactions for which the plaintiffs are seeking a full refund of
the buyer broker commissions. The Company and the plaintiffs
engaged in several mediation sessions, the most recent of which was
held at the end of August 2023 and resulted in a settlement of the
litigation as against Anywhere (the "Anywhere Settlement") (later
followed by similar settlements with the other corporate defendants
as well as a settlement by NAR, with two of the corporate
defendants and NAR settling after the jury trial referenced
below).

The court granted preliminary approval of the Anywhere Settlement
on November 21, 2023. Notice to the class was issued on February 1,
2024.

A hearing for final approval of the Anywhere Settlement (and the
settlements by two other corporate defendants) is scheduled for May
9, 2024.

Several parties have objected to the terms of these three
settlements (including the Anywhere Settlement), though the Company
believes that, notwithstanding these objections, the Anywhere
Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and anticipates
receiving final court approval.

Under the terms of the proposed nationwide Anywhere Settlement,
Anywhere has agreed to provide monetary relief of $83.5 million as
well as injunctive relief.

The proposed settlement resolves, on a nationwide basis, all claims
asserted or could have been asserted against Anywhere in the
Burnett and Moehrl cases.

Specifically, the Anywhere Settlement releases the Company, all
subsidiaries, brands, affiliated agents, and franchisees from all
claims that were or could have been asserted by all persons who
sold a home that was listed on a multiple listing service anywhere
in the United States where a commission was paid to any brokerage
in connection with the sale of the home in the relevant class
period.

The proposed settlement is not an admission of liability, nor does
it concede or validate any of the claims asserted against
Anywhere.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Anywhere has agreed to
deposit into the settlement fund (i) $10 million within 14 business
days after preliminary court approval is granted (which was paid in
December 2023); (ii) $20 million within 14 business days after the
court approval of fees and costs, which is typically granted with
final approval; and (iii) the remaining balance within 21 business
days after final court approval and all appellate rights are
exhausted.

The proposed Anywhere Settlement includes injunctive relief for a
period of five years following final court approval, requiring
practice changes in the Company owned brokerage operations and that
the Company recommend and encourage these same practice changes to
its independently owned and operated franchise network.

The injunctive relief, includes but is not limited to, reminding
Company owned brokerages, franchisees and their respective agents
that Anywhere has no rule requiring offers of compensation to buyer
brokers; prohibiting Company-owned brokerages (and recommending to
franchisees) and agents from using technology (or manually) to sort
listings by offers of compensation, unless requested by the client;
eliminating any minimum client commission for Company-owned
brokerages; and refraining from adopting any requirement that
Company-owned brokerages, franchisees or their respective agents
belong to NAR or follow NAR's Code of Ethics or MLS handbook.

The practice changes are to take place no later than six months
after the Anywhere Settlement receives final court approval and all
appellate rights are exhausted.

On November 1, 2023, following a several week trial, judgment was
entered against the non-settling defendants and awarded damages to
the plaintiffs from the non-settling defendants in the amount of
$1.785 billion, before trebling, but the court did not make any
determination of injunctive relief at that time.

While the jury found that all named defendants violated Section 1
of the Sherman Act, the judgment does not alter the Anywhere
Settlement or the settlement of the other corporate defendant who
settled before trial.

On March 15, 2024, NAR announced that it had entered into a
nationwide class action settlement under which it would pay $418
million and agree to certain practice changes.

These practice changes include, but are not limited to, prohibiting
offers of compensation to buyer brokers from being made on listings
on an MLS, requiring Realtors representing a buyer to enter into a
written agreement with a buyer, setting forth the buyer broker’s
fee and obligations before showing the buyer a property, and
prohibiting Realtors from representing their services as free, or
collecting greater compensation than set forth in the written
agreement with the buyer.

The court granted preliminary approval of the NAR settlement on
April 23, 2024.

Madison, NJ-based, Anywhere Real Estate Inc (NYSE: HOUS) provides
franchise and brokerage operations as well as national title,
settlement, and relocation companies and nationally scaled mortgage
origination and underwriting joint ventures. Anywhere's brand
portfolio includes Better Homes and Gardens(R) Real Estate, CENTURY
21(R), Coldwell Banker(R), Coldwell Banker Commercial(R),
Corcoran(R), ERA(R), and Sotheby's International Realty(R). Moody's
expects 2023 revenue of over $5.5 billion.

AOG LLC: Seelye Wage & Hour Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JAMES SEELYE, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. AOG, LLC d/b/a TRUFOOD MANUFACTURING, Case
No. GD-24- 4222, 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 May 14, 2024.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00713 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and
Collection Law, with Plaintiff seeking unpaid wages, damages, and
penalties.   

AOG, LLC is a snack food manufacturer headquartered in Pittsburgh,
PA. [BN]

The Defendant is represented
by:                                   
                                  
         Kathleen A. Nandan, Esq.
         TUCKER ARENSBERG, P.C.         
         1500 One PPG Place
         Pittsburgh, PA 15222
         Telephone: (412) 566-1212
         Facsimile: (412) 594-5619
         E-mail: knandan@tuckerlaw.com

APPLE INC: Balogh Sues Over Smartphone App Monopoly
---------------------------------------------------
CONNIE BALOGH; GEORGE BAUMAN; BRIDGET COLLINS; JACK TOWNSEND GOOD;
MOUSSA KOUYATE; ROBERT MASON; JERRY MORGAN; SHARON RABADI; TAMARA
STUCK; TAHISHA STYRON; MILICIENT SUTTERS; and DANE WEBB,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. APPLE INC., Defendant., Case No. 2:24-cv-06049
(D.N.J., May 13, 2024) alleges violation of the Sherman Antitrust
Act of 1890.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the tools Apple uses to
build and maintain its monopoly have included (a) making it
difficult and costly for consumers to switch to other smartphones,
such as those using the Android operating system; (b) preventing
developers from offering super apps, cloud-based software, and
other technologies that would make consumers less dependent on the
iPhone; and (c) forcing consumers and developers to use
Apple-controlled systems (such as the Apple's App Store and its
Digital Wallet).

By unlawfully monopolizing the market, Apple is keeping prices
higher than they otherwise would be and denying consumers choices
they otherwise would have -- including a path for consumers to be
able to choose better smartphones, apps, and services, says the
suit.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          Jennifer R. Scullion, Esq.
          Christopher L. Ayers, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
          Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
          Telephone: (973) 639-9100
          Facsimile: (973) 639-9393
          Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
                 jscullion@seegerweiss.com
                 cayers@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Paul J. Geller, Esq.
          Mark J. Dearman, Esq.
          Dorothy P. Antullis, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
          Email: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com
                 mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
                 dantullis@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          David W. Mitchell, Esq.
          Alexandra S. Bernay, Esq.
          Arthur L. Shingler III, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          Email: davidm@rgrdlaw.com
                 xanb@rgrdlaw.com
                 ashingler@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Marc A. Wites, Esq.
          Thomas B. Rogers, Esq.
          WITES & ROGERS, P.A
          4400 North Federal Highway
          Lighthouse Point, FL 33064
          Telephone: (954)933-4400
          Facsimile: (954) 354-0205
          Email: mwites@witeslaw.com
                 trogers@witeslaw.com

APPLE INC: Mukherjee Sues Over Alleged Smartphone Market Monopoly
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AYAN MUKHERJEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. APPLE INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-06131 (D.N.J., May 14,
2024) accuses the Defendant of anticompetitive practices in the
smartphone market.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated direct purchasers, brings this action to address
Defendant's alleged anticompetitive and exclusionary conduct in the
smartphone industry. The Plaintiff claims that Defendant uses
anticompetitive techniques aimed at locking consumers and
developers into its ecosystem and thwarting nascent competitive
threats. This has allegedly enabled Defendant to inflate the price
for buying and using iPhones while preventing the development of
features that would drive consumer value, innovation, and improved
user experience, says the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff seeks damages and relief for Defendant’s alleged
violation of the Sherman Act and the New Jersey Antitrust Act.

Apple Inc. is a global technology company headquartered in
Cupertino, CA. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
        Jennifer R. Scullion, Esq.
        Christopher L. Ayers, Esq.
        SEEGER WEISS LLP     
        55 Challenger Road 6th Fl.
        Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
        Telephone: (973) 639-9100
        E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
                jscullion@seegerweiss.com
                cayers@seegerweiss.com

             - and -
     
        Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
        Gerard A. Dever, Esq.
        Jessica D. Khan, Esq.
        FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C.
        One South Broad St., 23rd Floor
        Philadelphia, PA 19107
        Telephone: (215) 567-6565
        Facsimile: (215) 568-5879
        E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
                gdever@finekaplan.com
                jkhan@finekaplan.com

APPLOVIN CORP: Mitchell Sues Over Unauthorized Data Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
Weador Mitchell, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. APPLOVIN CORPORATION, Case No. 24CV434574 (Cal. Super.
Ct., April 5, 2024), is brought for invasion of privacy; under the
violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), the
California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, California Penal
Codes; and for Defendant's unjust enrichment, in relation to the
unauthorized collection, recording, and dissemination of
Plaintiff's and Class Members' personal information, geolocation
data, and communications.

Software development kits ("SDKs") are pre-code software bundles
that mobile application ("app") developers often use to minimize
development work (instead of writing the entire app code from
scratch) and to create a predictable stream of income that grows as
more people use the app. App developers embed SDKs into their apps
that the developer did not themselves create and, therefore, may
not know the full extent and function of the code in the SDK. Some
SDKs, unbeknownst to consumers, siphon consumers' location data
directly to a data broker or advertising platform, which can even
include the ability to track users' locations through public
Bluetooth beacons, which enable fine-grained tracking indoors.

Data brokers, such as AppLovin provide SDKs to app developers to
assist them in developing their apps but in exchange for using a
third party's SDK, the developer permits data brokers like AppLovin
to surreptitiously intercept location data brokers then use to
profit at the expense of consumers. AppLovin profits from its SDK
by generating and selling customized data feeds to its clients
that, among other things, assist in advertising and analyzing foot
traffic at stores or other locations. AppLovin monetizes
timestamped location based on reverse IP look up IP Address showing
the location of mobile devices. It derives benefits from the data
collected via the SDK by leveraging it to build probabilistic
attribution capabilities, increase the quality of its audience
network, and enhance its ad-tech offerings such as Max and ALX.
Because the data is associated with particular device IDs, AppLovin
can later monetize, without the cellphone user's consent,
disaggregated data--such as location and other data that AppLovin
surreptitiously collects--which can be easily de anonymized.

The California Constitution recognizes the right to privacy
inherent in all residents of the State and creates a private right
of action against private entities that invade that right.
Defendant made an unauthorized connection with Plaintiff's and
Class Members' mobile devices when Defendant collected and stored
their personal information, geolocation data specific to each
consumer's mobile device as well as other behavioral data, and then
utilized such information for the purposes of targeted
advertising.

The Defendant collected and monetized Plaintiff's and Class
Members' precise geolocation data which could be linked to visits
to sensitive locations without Plaintiff's and Class Members'
knowledge or consent. These actions cause or are likely to cause
substantial injury to Plaintiff and Class Members which are not
outweighed by any benefits to the consumer or competition. The
Plaintiff brings this action for violations of Plaintiff's and
Class Members' right to privacy, both under common law and under
the California Constitution; CDAFA; and for every violation of
California Penal Code, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff owns, carries, and regularly uses a cellular device
that contains AppLovin's surreptitious monitoring and intercepting
SDK software, which is embedded within mobile applications on
Plaintiff's device.

AppLovin is a Delaware corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John J. Nelson, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          402 W Broadway, Suite 1760
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (858) 209-6941
          Email: jnelson@milberg.com


ARDELYX INC: Filing of Bid to Toss Amended Complaint Due June 3
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ardelyx 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 2, 2024, that defendant's filing of its bid to
dismiss the third amended complaint is due on June 3, 2024.

On July 30 and August 12, 2021, two putative securities class
action lawsuits were commenced in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California naming as defendants Ardelyx and
two current officers captioned Strezsak v. Ardelyx, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 4:21-cv-05868-HSG, and Siegel v. Ardelyx, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 5:21-cv-06228-HSG (together, the Securities Class
Actions).

The complaints allege that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by making false and misleading statements
and omissions of material fact related to tenapanor.

The plaintiffs seek damages and interest, and an award of costs,
including attorneys' fees.

On July 19, 2022, the court consolidated the two putative class
actions and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel.

The lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint under which the
plaintiffs seek to represent all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired Ardelyx securities between March 6, 2020 and July 19,
2021.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on June
2, 2023.

On March 22, 2024, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss.


The court provided plaintiffs a third opportunity to amend and
plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on April 19, 2024.

Defendant's motion to dismiss the third amended complaint is
required to be filed by June 3, 2024.

The Company believes the plaintiff's claims are without merit and
it has not recorded any accrual for a contingent liability
associated with these legal proceedings.

Ardelyx, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the
discovery, development, and commercialization of innovative
first-in-class medicines to improve treatment for people with
kidney and cardiorenal diseases. The company is based in Waltham,
Massachusetts.





ARIS NYC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Riley Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
AMANIE RILEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ARIS NYC CORP., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-03659 (S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2024) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

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

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

ARIS NYC CORP. is a footwear design brand based in New York City.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ART OF PURE: Ramos Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------
Eslimerari Ramos, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. ART OF PURE, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-02843 (N.D. Ill.,
April 9, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a
violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA").

Congress provided a clear and national mandate for the elimination
of discrimination against individuals with disabilities when it
enacted the ADA. Such discrimination includes barriers to full
integration, independent living and equal opportunity for persons
with disabilities, including those barriers created by websites and
other public accommodations that are inaccessible to blind and
visually impaired persons.

Because the Defendant's website, www.artofpure.com (the "Website"),
is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers,
it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to
cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the
complaint.

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

The Defendant is a company that owns and operates www.artofpure.com
offering features which should allow all consumers to access the
goods
and services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


ASBURY AUTOMOTIVE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Acevedo Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN ACEVEDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ASBURY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-01987-VMC (N.D. Ga., May 7, 2024) is an action
against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard personal identifiable information ("PII") of more than
14,000 individuals, including, but not limited to, name and Social
Security number or driver's license number.

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, by obtaining,
collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the PII of Plaintiff
and Class Members, the Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties
to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from
unauthorized access and intrusion. Defendant admits that the
unencrypted PII that was accessed and acquired by an unauthorized
actor included name and Social Security number or driver's license
number.

The PII was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and careless
acts and omissions and the failure to protect the PII of Plaintiff
and Class Members. In addition to Defendant's failure to prevent
the Data Breach, Defendant waited more than three months after the
Data Breach occurred to report it to the states Attorneys General
and affected individuals. Defendant has also purposefully
maintained secret the specific vulnerabilities and root causes of
the breach and has not informed Plaintiff and Class Members of that
information.

As the result, the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was
compromised through disclosure to an unauthorized third party.
Plaintiff and Class Members have a continuing interest in ensuring
that their information is and remains safe, and they should be
entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief, says the suit.

ASBURY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC. operates as an automotive retailer
operating franchises and dealership locations in the United States.
The Company offers new and used vehicles, as well as financing and
insurance, vehicle maintenance and and repair services, replacement
parts, and service contracts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory Bosseler, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          191 Peachtree Street N.E., Suite 4200
          P.O. Box 57007
          Atlanta, GA 30343-1007
          Email: gbosseler@ForThePeople.com

                - and -

          Patrick A. Barthle, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 229-4023
          Facsimile: (813) 222-4708
          Email: pbarthle@ForThePeople.com

               - and -

          Ryan D. Maxey, Esq.
          MAXEY LAW FIRM, P.A.
          107 N. 11th St. #402
          Tampa, Florida 33602
          Telephone: (813) 448-1125
          Email: ryan@maxeyfirm.com

ASBURY AUTOMOTIVE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Aviles Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
OMAR AVILES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ASBURY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-01997-VMC (N.D. Ga., May 7, 2024) is an action
against the Defendant arising from its failure to safeguard certain
Personally Identifying Information and other sensitive, non-public
financial information (collectively, "Personal Information").

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Plaintiff and
Members of the Class have suffered significant injury and damages
due to the Data Breach permitted to occur by Asbury, and the
resulting misuse of their Personal Information, monetary damages
including out-of-pocket expenses, including those associated with
the reasonable mitigation measures they were forced to employ, and
other damages.

The Plaintiff and the Class also now forever face an amplified risk
of further misuse, fraud, and identity theft due to their sensitive
Personal Information falling into the hands of cybercriminals as a
result of the tortious conduct of the Defendant, says the suit.

ASBURY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC. operates as an automotive retailer
operating franchises and dealership locations in the United States.
The Company offers new and used vehicles, as well as financing and
insurance, vehicle maintenance and and repair services, replacement
parts, and service contracts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph B. Alonso, Esq.
          Daniel H. Wirth, Esq.
          ALONSO & WIRTH
          1708 Peachtree Street, NW Suite 207
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (678) 928-4472
          Email: jalonso@alonsowirth.com
                 dwirth@alonsowirth.com

              - and -

          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
          STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
          One Magnificent Mile
          980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
          Chicago IL, 60611
          Telephone: (872) 263-1100
          Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
          Email: sam@straussborrelli.com
                 raina@straussborrelli.com

ASCENDTEK LLC: Gott Sues Over WARN Act Violations
-------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY GOTT v. ASCENDTEK, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00680 (W.D. Wash.,
May 16, 2024) is a class action seeking to recover unpaid
compensation and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.

The Plaintiff and Class members were employees of Defendant and
were allegedly terminated without cause on or about December 2023,
as part of or as the reasonably expected consequence of the closure
of Defendant's office in Kent, WA, which was effectuated by
Defendant on or about that date. The Plaintiff and Class members
were allegedly not provided prior written notice of their
termination and the plant closure, in violation of the WARN Act,
says the suit.

The Plaintiff claims that he and Class members are entitled to
recover from Defendant their respective compensation and benefits
for 60 days, no part of which has been paid.
   
AscendTek LLC is an IT service provider based in Washington. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

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

ASCENSION HEALTH: Faces Negron Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL J. NEGRON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ASCENSION HEALTH, Case No. 4:24-cv-0669 (E.D. Mo., May
14, 2024) accuses the Defendant of data security failure.

This action arises from a data breach experienced by Defendant on
or around May 9, 2024, during which Plaintiff's and Class members'
protected health information and personally identifiable
information were illegally accessed by cybercriminals. The data
breach allegedly came as a result of Defendant's failure to
implement reasonable and industry standard data security practices.
The Plaintiff seeks remedies, including but not limited to,
compensatory damages and injunctive relief, including improvements
to Defendant's data security systems, future annual audits, and
adequate credit monitoring services funded by Defendant.   
  
Ascension Health is a non-profit Catholic health system
headquartered in St Louis, MO.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        T. J. Jesky, Esq.
        LAW OFFICES OF T.J. JESKY     
        205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 810
        Chicago, IL 60601-5902
        Telephone: (312) 894-0130, Ext. 3
        Facsimile: (312) 489-8216
        E-mail: tj@jeskylaw.com

ASCENSION HEALTH: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Negron Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
KATHERINE NEGRON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASCENSION HEALTH, Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-03857 (N.D IL., May 12, 2024) is an action seeking
monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief against the
Defendant, arising from its failure to safeguard certain Personally
Identifying Information and Protected Health Information
(collectively, "Personal Information") and other sensitive,
non-public information (collectively, "Personal Information") of
thousands of its patients resulting in a cyberattack of and
unauthorized access of Defendant's network systems on or about May
9, 2024.

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, on May 9, 2024,
Ascension's network systems were unauthorizedly accessed in a
ransomware attack, resulting in the unauthorized disclosure of the
Personal Information of Plaintiffs and the Class Members, including
names, dates of birth, patient records, Social Security numbers,
and other PHI (the "Data Breach").

The Plaintiffs and Members of the Class have suffered significant
injury and damages due to the Data Breach permitted to occur by
Ascension, and the resulting misuse of their Personal Information
and fraudulent activity, including monetary damages including
out-of-pocket expenses, including those associated with the
reasonable mitigation measures they were forced to employ, and
other damages. The Plaintiff and the Class also now forever face an
amplified risk of further misuse, fraud, and identity theft due to
their sensitive Personal Information falling into the hands of
cybercriminals as a result of the tortious conduct of Defendant,
says the suit.

ASCENSION HEALTH operates as a non-profit organization. The
Organization provides physician practice management, venture
capital investing, biomedical engineering, clinical care, risk
management, palliative care, spiritual, and information services.
Ascension Health serves communities in the State of Missouri. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          T. J. Jesky, Esq.
          Law Offices of T. J. Jesky
          205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 810
          Chicago, IL 60601-5902
          Telephone: (312) 894-0130, Ext. 3
          Facsimile: (312) 489-8216
          Email: tj@jeskylaw.com

ASCENSION HEALTH: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, McClellan Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINA MCCLELLAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. ASCENSION HEALTH, Case No. 4:24-cv-00686 (E.D. Mo., May
16, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure and
safeguard sensitive information of its patients.

The Defendant is a Catholic health-system that "includes
approximately 134,000 associates, 35,000 affiliated providers and
140 hospitals, serving communities in 19 states and the District of
Columbia."

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.

According to the complaint, Ascension collected and maintained
certain personally identifiable information and protected health
information of Plaintiff and the putative Class Members, who are
(or were) patients at Defendant. The Private Information
compromised in the Data Breach included Plaintiff’s and Class
Members' personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected
health information ("PHI", and collectively with PII, "Private
Information") as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA").

As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members
suffered concrete injuries in fact including, but not limited to:
(i) invasion of privacy; (ii) theft of their Private Information;
(iii) lost or diminished value of Private Information; (iv) lost
time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate
the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (v) loss of benefit of
the bargain; (vi) lost opportunity costs associated with attempting
to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (vii)
statutory damages; (viii) nominal damages; and (ix) the continued
and certainly increased risk to their Private Information, which:
(a) remains unencrypted and available for unauthorized third
parties to access and abuse; and (b) remains backed up in
Defendant’s possession and is subject to further unauthorized
disclosures so long as Defendant fails to undertake appropriate and
adequate measures to protect the Private Information, says the
suit.

The Plaintiff and the Class seek: (1) to recover actual damages
sustained; (2) to recover punitive damages; (3) to recover
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; and (4) such equity relief as
the Court deems necessary or proper to protect Plaintiff and the
members of the Class from Defendant's deceptive conduct and any
other statutorily available damages or relief the court deems
proper.

Ascension is one of the largest private healthcare systems in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John F. Garvey, Esq.
          Colleen Garvey, Esq.
          Ellen A. Thomas, Esq.
          J. Gerard Stranch, Esq.
          STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
          701 Market Street, Suite 1510
          St. Louis, Missouri 63101
          Telephone: (314) 390-6750
          E-mail: jgarvey@stranchlaw.com
                  cgarvey@stranchlaw.com
                  ethomas@stranchlaw.com
                  gstranch@stranchlaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
          One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 332-4200
          E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com

ASCENSION HEALTH: Shuta Sues Over Data Security Failure
-------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SHUTA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ASCENSION HEALTH, Defendant, Case No.
4:24-cv-00683 (E.D. Mo., May 16, 2024) arises from Defendant's
failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of
its patients.

The Defendant failed to implement adequate and reasonable
cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect its
patients' private information from a foreseeable and preventable
cyber-attack. In or about May 2024, the Defendant posted a notice
to its website informing Plaintiff and Class Members about the data
breach. However, its online notice failed to disclose the date(s)
of the data breach, the identity of the details of the root cause
of the data breach, the vulnerabilities exploited, and the remedial
measures undertaken to ensure such a breach does not occur again,
says the suit.

Headquartered in Missouri, Ascension Health is a Catholic
health-system that includes approximately 134,000 associates,
35,000 affiliated providers and 140 hospitals, serving communities
in 19 states and the District of Columbia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         John F. Garvey, Esq.
         Colleen Garvey, Esq.
         Ellen A. Thomas, Esq.
         STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
         701 Market Street, Suite 1510
         St. Louis, MO 63101
         Telephone: (314) 390-6750
         E-mail: jgarvey@stranchlaw.com
                 cgarvey@stranchlaw.com
                 ethomas@stranchlaw.com

                 - and -

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

                 - and -

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

                  - and -

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
          One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 332.4200
          E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com

ASCENSION HEALTH: Turner Balks at Failure to Protect Personal Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANA MARIE TURNER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASCENSION HEALTH, Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-00510 (W.D. Tex., May 13, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected health
information and personally identifiable information stored within
Defendant's information network.

On May 9, 2024, Ascension's network systems were accessed in a
ransomware attack, resulting in the unauthorized disclosure of the
personal information of Plaintiffs and the Class Members, including
names, dates of birth, patient records, Social Security numbers,
and other PHI. The Plaintiffs and Members of the Class have
suffered significant injury and damages due to the data breach
permitted to occur by Ascension, and the resulting misuse of their
personal information and fraudulent activity, including monetary
damages and out-of-pocket expenses, including those associated with
the reasonable mitigation measures they were forced to employ, and
other damages, says the suit.

The Plaintiff seek damages and injunctive and declaratory relief
arising from Ascension's failure to adequately protect their highly
sensitive personal information.

Ascension Health is a non-profit Missouri healthcare
organization.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          T. J. Jesky, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF T. J. JESKY
          205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 810
          Chicago, IL 60601-5902
          Telephone: (312) 894-0130
          Facsimile: (312) 489-8216
          E-mail: tj@jeskylaw.com

ASR GROUP: Jennivee's Sues Over Sugar Price-Fixing Conspiracy
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jennivee's Bakery, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASR Group International, Inc.,
American Sugar Refining, Inc., Domino Foods, Inc., United Sugar
Producers & Refiners Cooperative f/k/a United Sugars Corporation,
Michigan Sugar Company, Cargill, Inc., Commodity Information, Inc.,
and Richard Wistisen, Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-01848 (D. Minn.,
May 17, 2024), seeks to recover treble damages, injunctive relief,
and any other relief as appropriate, based on violations of the
Sherman Act and various state antitrust and consumer protection
laws.

Since at least January 1, 2019, Defendants and their
co-conspirators allegedly conspired and combined to fix, raise,
maintain, and stabilize prices for granulated sugar sold throughout
the United States. In furtherance of this conspiracy, among other
things, Defendants engaged in price signaling and exchanged
competitively sensitive information about prices, capacity, sales
volume, and demand. As a result of Defendants' combination and
conspiracy, granulated sugar prices in the United States have been
artificially inflated throughout the class period, causing
Plaintiff and other commercial, industrial, and institutional
indirect purchasers to suffer overcharges, says the suit.

Based in West Palm Beach, FL, ASR Group is a privately held Florida
corporation that produces and sells granulated sugar. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         David M. Cialkowski, Esq.
         Ian F. McFarland, Esq.
         Zachary J. Freese, Esq.
         1100 IDS Center
         80 S. 8th St.
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Telephone: (612) 341-0400
         Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
         E-mail: david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com
                  ian.mcfarland@zimmreed.com
                  zachary.freese@zimmreed.com

AT&T INC: Brazinsky Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as John Brazinsky, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. AT&T INC., RANDALL L.
STEPHENSON, JOHN T. STANKEY, PASCAL DESROCHES, and JOHN STEPHENS,
Case No. 2:23-cv-04064 was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas on May 20, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01196-N to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutes:
Securities/Commodities/Exchange.

AT&T Inc. -- https://www.att.com/ -- is an American multinational
telecommunications holding company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          One Gateway Center, Suite 2600
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Phone: (973) 313-1887
          Fax: (973) 833-0399
          Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.co

The Defendants are represented by:

          Richard B Harper, Esq.
          James J Beha, II, Esq.
          John Benjamin Lawrence, Esq.
          Kirstie L. Wallace, Esq.
          BAKER BOTTS LLP
          30 Rockefeller Plaza
          New York, NY 10112
          Phone: (212) 408-2675
          Fax: (212) 259-2475
          Email: richard.harper@bakerbotts.com
                 jessica.pulliam@bakerbotts.com
                 john.lawrence@bakerbotts.com
                 kirstie.wallace@bakerbotts.com


AT&T INC: Burris Sues Over Data Security Failure
------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY BURRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AT&T Inc., Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-01208-X (N.D. Tex., May 20, 2024) arises from Defendant's
failure to protect the personal identifiable information of an
estimated total of 73 million customers and asserts claims for
negligence, unjust enrichment, and for violating Section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission Act.

In or about March 2024, Defendant AT&T admitted that it lost
control over its current and former customers' highly sensitive
personal information in a data breach perpetrated by
cybercriminals. Moreover, AT&T failed to protect the PII in its
possession; failed to maintain adequate computer systems and
allowed unauthorized access to and exfiltration of Plaintiff's and
Class Members' PII; failed to disclose the material fact that
AT&T's computer systems and data security practices were inadequate
to safeguard the PII in its possession from theft; and failed to
disclose in a timely and accurate manner to Plaintiff and Class
Members the material facts of the data breach, says the suit.

Headquartered in Dallas, TX, AT&T Inc. is a telecommunications
holding company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Ori Raphael, Esq.
        Damon Mathias, Esq.
        MATHIAS RAPHAEL PLLC
        13101 Preston Road, Suite 501
        Dallas, TX 75240
        Telephone: (214) 739-0100
        Facsimile: (214) 739-0551
        E-mail: ori@mr.law
                damon@mr.law

                - and -

        Patrick Yarborough, Esq.
        917 Franklin Street, Suite 220
        Houston, TX 77002
        Telephone: (713) 331-5254
        Facsimile: (713) 513-5202
        E-mail: patrick@fosteryarborough.com

                - and -

        Marshal J. Hoda, Esq.
        THE HODA LAW FIRM, PLLC
        12333 Sowden Road, Suite B
        Houston, TX 77080
        Telephone: (832) 848-0036
        E-mail: marshal@thehodalawfirm.com

                - and -

        Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
        GEORGE FELDMAN McDONALD, PLLC
        102 Half Moon Bay Drive
        Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520
        Telephone: (917) 983-9321
        E-mail: lfeldman@4-justice.com

AT&T INC: Faces McGreevy Class Action Suit Over 2021 Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
KELLY MCGREEVY and STEVE SENTI, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated v. AT&T, INC. and DIRECTV, INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-04097 (N.D. Ill., May 17, 2024) arises from AT&T denial of
2021 data breach.

In 2021, AT&T learned of a purported online auction of a database
containing sensitive personal information belonging to 73 million
of its customers. When questioned by reporters, AT&T denied any
such information was taken from its systems and declined to comment
on whether its third-party vendors could have been involved. AT&T
ignored the possibility of this enormous data breach and continued
with its usual operations. By March 2024, however, this data was
made freely available on the dark web, causing AT&T to acknowledge
at last that sensitive information belonging to tens of millions of
its customers, past and present, had indeed been compromised. This
included information AT&T required its customers to hand over to
purchase its services, including their full name, email address,
mailing address, phone number, Social Security number, date of
birth, and proprietary AT&T information, such as account numbers
and passcodes (collectively, "PII"), says the suit.

Upon first learning of the likely existence of this breach three
years prior, the company did not investigate any details—until
its recent publication on the dark web. Had AT&T done so and
informed its customers of the Data Breach, they could have taken
steps to protect themselves, their finances, and their financial
reputations from further preventable harm. The Data Breach, and the
harm it caused and will cause AT&T's customers, is a result of
AT&T's failures to adopt reasonable procedures and practices for
information security, to exercise appropriate managerial control
over its third-party partners’ information security, and to
notify the Data Breach victims in a timely manner, the suit adds.

The Plaintiffs and Class members must now live forever with the
consequences of AT&T's failures, including actual and significantly
elevated risks of financial fraud and identity theft, harms for
which they seek damages and other relief in this action.

Plaintiff Kelly McGreevy is a citizen and resident of Dundee,
Illinois whose PII was compromised from AT&T.

Plaintiff Steve Senti is a citizen and a resident of Illinois whose
PII was compromised from AT&T.

Defendant AT&T, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in Dallas, Texas.

AT&T is the largest provider of mobile telephone services and one
of the largest internet providers in the United States, where it
services hundreds of millions of customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
          VLAHAKIS LAW GROUP LLC
          20 N. Clark Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 766-0511
          Facsimile: (312) 648-6202
          E-mail: jamesv@vlahakislaw.com

               - and -

          David M. Berger, Esq.
          Linda P. Lam, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          1111 Broadway, Ste. 2100
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: 510-350-9700
          E-mail: dmb@classlawgroup.com
                  lpl@classlawgroup.com

AT&T INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Head Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN HEAD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AT&T INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-01144-S (N.D. Tex., May 14, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the
Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former
customers' ("Class Members") sensitive information, including full
names, email addresses, mailing addresses, phone numbers, Social
Security numbers, dates of birth, and AT&T account numbers and
passcodes ("personally identifiable information" or "PII").

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, by obtaining,
collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the PII of the
Plaintiff and Class Members, the Defendant assumed legal and
equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that
information from unauthorized access and intrusion.

As a result of a cybersecurity incident ("Data Breach"), the PII of
Plaintiff and approximately 73 million Class Members, including 7.6
million current AT&T customers and 65.4 million former AT&T
customers, was exfiltrated. The Defendant failed to adequately
protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII––and failed to even
encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This
unencrypted, unredacted PII was compromised due to the Defendant's
negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure
to protect its clients' customers' sensitive data. Hackers targeted
and obtained the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII because of its
value in exploiting and stealing the identities of the Plaintiff
and Class Members. The present and continuing risk to victims of
the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes, says
the suit.

AT&T Inc. operates as a communications holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries and affiliates, provides local
and long-distance phone, wireless and data communications, Internet
access and messaging, IP-based and satellite television,
telecommunications equipment, and directory advertising and
publishing services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce W. Steckler, Esq.
          STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE, PLLC
          12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045
          Dallas, TX 75230
          Telephone: (972) 387-4040
          Facsimile: (972) 387-4041
          Email: bruce@swclaw.com

               - and -

          Joel R. Rhine, Esq.
          Martin A. Ramey, Esq.
          Ruth A. Sheehan, Esq.
          RHINE LAW FIRM, P.C
          1612 Military Cutoff Road Suite 300
          Wilmington NC 28403
          Telephone: (910) 772-9960
          Email: jrr@jrr@rhinelawfirm.com
                 mjr@rhinelawfirm.com
                 ras@rhinelawfirm.com

AT&T INC: Turner Sues Over Stolen Personal Information
------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Turner, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AT&T, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00864-E (N.D.
Tex., April 8, 2024), is brought on behalf of all other individuals
whose personal information, including names, email addresses,
mailing addresses, phone numbers, social security numbers, dates of
birth, AT&T account numbers and passcodes (hereinafter "Personal
Information" or "PI") was stolen from AT&T and leaked on the Dark
Web (the "Data Breach").

AT&T collects and maintains the sensitive information of its
customers, like the Personal Information at issue in the Data
Breach. On March 30, 2024, AT&T confirmed that the Personal
Information of approximately 7.6 million current customers and 65.4
million former account holders, or approximately 73 million total
customers, was leaked on the Dark Web approximately two weeks
prior. While AT&T has reported that its investigation is ongoing,
AT&T has determined that "AT&T data-specific fields were contained
in a data set released[,]" but maintains that "it is not yet known
whether the data in those fields originated from AT&T or one of its
vendors.

As a result of Defendant's misconduct and the Data Breach, the
Personal Information of approximately 73 million Americans who had
entrusted their sensitive information to Defendant has been
exposed. Victims have had their Personal Information compromised,
their privacy violated, are at an increased risk of exposure to
fraud and identity theft, have suffered a loss of control over
their personal and financial information, and have otherwise been
injured. Through this suit, Plaintiff and the Class seek to recover
damages caused by Defendant's breaches of common law duties and
violations of other laws. Plaintiff also seeks injunctive and
declaratory relief on behalf of themselves and similarly situated
Class members, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was a AT&T cellular phone account holder from 2016 to
May 2023.

AT&T is a publicly traded company that provides wireless network,
cell phone, digital television, internet, and landline
telecommunication services to consumers throughout the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael K. Hurst, Esq.
          Rebecca L. Adams, Esq.
          Yaman Dasai, Esq.
          Jessica D. Cox, Esq.
          LYNN PINKER HURST & SCHWEGMANN, LLP
          2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: (214) 981-3800
          Facsimile: (214) 981-3839
          Email: mhurst@lynnllp.com
                 radams@lynnllp.com
                 ydesai@lynnllp.com
                 jcox@lynnllp.com

               - and -

          Julie Pettit, Esq.
          THE PETTIT LAW FIRM
          2101 Cedar Springs, Suite 1540
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: (214) 329-0151
          Facsimile: (214) 329-4076
          Email: jpettit@pettitfirm.com

               - and -

          Laurence D. King, Esq.
          Matthew B. George, Esq.
          Blair E. Reed, Esq.
          Clarissa R. Olivares, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Phone: 415-772-4700
          Facsimile: 415-772-4707
          Email: lking@kaplanfox.com
                 mgeorge@kaplanfox.com
                 breed@kaplanfox.com
                 colivares@kaplanfox.com


ATA TOWING: Jones Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
----------------------------------------------------
DANIEL E. JONES II, on behalf of himself, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v.  A.T.A.
TOWING INC., and RAJ KUMAR, individually, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-03612 (E.D.N.Y., May 17, 2024) seeks for damages and other
redress based upon Defendants' willful violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a tow truck driver from in
or around March 2017 until on or about January 30, 2024. Throughout
Plaintiff's employment, Defendants required Plaintiff to work, and
Plaintiff did work, in excess of 40 hours each week, or virtually
each week. However, the Defendants paid Plaintiff a flat weekly
salary that did not include overtime premiums for the hours that
Plaintiff worked in a week over 40. Among other things, Defendants
failed to provide Plaintiff with any wage statement on each payday,
says the suit.

ATA Towing Inc. is a New York corporation that operates an
auto-mechanic and towing shop, which is located at 5354 Van Dam
Street, Long Island City, NY. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ATLANTA WOMEN'S HEALTH: M.T. Sues Over Failure to Secure Data
-------------------------------------------------------------
M.T., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. ATLANTA WOMEN'S HEALTH GROUP, P.C., Case No. 1:24-cv-01422-SEG
(N.D. Ga., April 3, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its
failure to secure and safeguard Plaintiff's' and Class Members'
highly sensitive Private Information from unauthorized disclosure,
exfiltration, and theft by third parties, and for its failure to
timely and accurately notify Plaintiff and Class Members of the
data breach.

On April 12, 2023, Defendant, an OB/GYN practice, learned that
unauthorized persons had accessed its servers. In the ensuing days,
Defendant discovered that the most sensitive personal health
information belonging to tens of thousands of Defendant's patients,
including Plaintiff and the Class Members, had been exposed and
obtained in a data breach.

The information exposed and obtained by the attackers included
Plaintiff's and the Class Members' demographic information,
including names, dates of birth, addresses, phone numbers, and
patient account numbers (collectively, "Personally Identifiable
Information" or "PII"); clinical information, such as medical
histories, diagnoses, and treatment plans with information relating
to matters such as pregnancies, abortions, sexual partners,
sexually transmitted diseases, genetic diseases, mental health
diagnoses, and prescriptions (collectively, "Protected Health
Information" or "PHI"); and health insurance information, including
insurance plans, ID numbers, and claims information (i.e., PHI).

Ten months later, on January 30, 2024, Defendant sent an email to
Plaintiff and the Class Members notifying them, for the first time,
of the breach. The Defendant did not explain why it waited ten
months to notify Plaintiff and the Class Members that Defendant's
systems had been breached and that Plaintiff's and Class Members'
Private Information had been accessed ten months earlier and was in
the possession of unknown third parties. Due to Defendant's
inadequate data security, which breached duties imposed by law,
unauthorized third parties gained access to Defendant's computer
network and to highly valuable and highly sensitive PII and PHI
belonging to Plaintiff and the Class Members.

As a result of Defendant's unreasonable and inadequate data
security practices that resulted in the Data Breach, Plaintiff and
Class Members have now been exposed to a present injury in the form
of actual misuse of their PII and PHI and have further been exposed
to an ongoing substantial, heightened, and imminent risk of
financial fraud and identity theft for years to come. Plaintiff and
Class Members must now and in the future closely monitor their
financial accounts, credit reports, and tax returns to secure their
accounts in an effort to deter and detect identity theft and fraud,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff received an email dated January 30, 2024, from
Defendant AWHG notifying Plaintiff that Defendant's network had
been breached and that Plaintiff's PII and PHI were compromised in
the Data Breach.

The Defendant is an OB/GYN physician service practice group that
purports to be "one of the largest OB/GYN practices in the
Southeast responsible for serving approximately 300,000 patients
representing over 400,000 visits annually."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Sullivan, Esq.
          David H. Bouchard, Esq.
          Gabriel Knisely, Esq.
          FINCH MCCRANIE, LLP
          229 Peachtree St., NE, Suite 2500
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Phone: (404) 658-9070
          Email: msullivan@finchmccranie.com
                 david@finchmccranie.com
                 gabe@finchmccranie.com

               - and -

          MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq.
          GIBSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
          4729 Roswell Road, Suite 208-108
          Atlanta, GA 30342
          Phone: (678) 642-2503
          Email: marybeth@gibsonconsumerlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Todd McClelland, Esq.
          STERLINGTON, PLLC
          One World Trade Center
          285 Fulton St., 85th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 433-2993
          Email: todd.mcclelland@sterlingtonlaw.com


AVEANNA HEALTHCARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
T.C. a minor, by and through his guardian, ELIZABETH ROBERTS,
individually and on behalf of behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AVEANNA HEALTHCARE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-02152-MLB (N.D. GA., May 16, 2024) is a class action
against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard
sensitive information of its patients.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's and Class Members'
sensitive personal information, which they entrusted to the
Defendant on the mutual understanding that the 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 included the
Plaintiff's and Class Members' full names ("personally identifiable
information" or "PII") and medical treatment information, which is
protected health information ("PHI," and collectively with PII,
"Private Information") as defined by the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA").

The Data Breach was a direct result of the Defendant's failure to
implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and
protocols necessary to protect patients' Private Information from a
foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack, says the suit.

The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk
because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the Private
Information that Defendant collected and maintained has been
accessed and acquired by data thieves.

AVEANNA HEALTHCARE LLC provides health care services. The Company
offers pediatric skilled nursing, therapy, autism, enteral
nutrition, and adult services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq.
          GIBSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
          4279 Roswell Road Suite 208-108
          Atlanta, GA 30342
          Telephone: (678) 642-2503
          Email: marybeth@gibsonconsumerlawgroup.com

                - and -

          David K. Lietz, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          5335 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 440
          Washington, DC 20015
          Telephone: (866)252-0878
          Email: dlietz@milberg.com

AVMAC LLC: Oliverio-Still Seeks Material Coordinators' Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC WILLIAM OLIVERIO-STILL, individually and on behalf of others
similarly, Plaintiff v. AVMAC LLC, a Virginia limited liability
company, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00870-L-DEB (S.D. Cal., May
16, 2024) accuses the Defendant of numerous violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code, and the California
Business and Professions Code.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant in California as hazardous
material coordinator from about July 2019 to April 2024. Allegedly,
Defendant did not consistently pay all meal and rest premiums, to
the extent paid, Defendant improperly excluded all forms of
additional remuneration, such as the cash benefits, from the
calculation of overtime premium pay. Among other things, the
Defendant is engaged in a policy of automatically deducting
30-minute meal periods each day, regardless of Plaintiff's ability
to take a compliant meal period, says the suit.

AVMAC LLC is a Virginia limited liability company that provides
consulting services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Nicholas J. Ferraro, Esq.
        Lauren N. Vega, Esq.
        FERRARO VEGA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, INC.
        3333 Camino del Rio South, Suite 300
        San Diego, CA 92108
        Telephone: (619) 693-7727
        Facsimile: (619) 350-6855
        E-mail: nick@ferrarovega.com
                lauren@ferrarovega.com

BANYAN TREATMENT: Faces Suit Over Unlawful Private Info Disclosure
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN DOE 1 and JOHN DOE 2, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BANYAN TREATMENT AND RECOVERY,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-01060 (C.D. Cal., May 2024) arises
out of Defendant's illegal and widespread practice of disclosing
Plaintiffs’ and Class Members' confidential and personally
identifiable information and protected health information to third
parties including, but not limited to, Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a
Facebook, Google and likely other third parties, via invisible
tracking codes, without Plaintiffs' knowledge or consent.

The Defendant embedded the invisible Facebook's Meta Pixel and/or
Google Analytics on its digital properties, which transmit an
incredible amount of personal and protected data about its Users to
Facebook and/or Google, LLC. Moreover, the Plaintiffs assert claims
for breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of
privacy and for violations of the California Constitution, the
Electronics Communications Privacy Act, the California Invasion of
Privacy Act, the California Confidentiality of Medical Information
Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, the Florida Security of
Communications Act, and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act.

Banyan Treatment and Recovery LLC is a network of detox, mental
health, and addiction treatment facilities in the United States.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel Srourian, Esq.
          SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 474-3800
          Facsimile: (213) 471-4160
          E-mail: daniel@slfla.com

                  - and -

          David S. Almeida, Esq
          Elena A. Belov, Esq.
          Matthew J. Langley, Esq.
          ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
          849 W. Webster Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60614
          Telephone: (312) 576-3024

BARTON T. LTD: Berkowitz Sues Over Unfair and Deceptive Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Berkowitz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. BARTON T., LTD., M&V LIVERY CORPORATION., and FAST
OPERATING CORPORATION, all d/b/a as CARMEL CAR AND LIMO SERVICE,
Case No. 1:24-cv-02726-KPF (S.D.N.Y., April 10, 2024), is brought
against the Defendants' misleading advertisements and unfair and
deceptive charges.

Despite the law and Carmel's proclamations of fairness to its
passengers, Carmel passengers have a long history of being
subjected to overcharge schemes. Carmel passengers are routinely
subjected to three types of unfair and deceptive charges. First,
customers can be forced to pay the higher, cash price for tolls –
even though drivers only incur the discounted E-ZPass rate
(referred to herein as "overcharges"). Second, Carmel passengers
are charged return tolls that are not disclosed until the end of
the trip (referred to herein as "hidden charges"). Third, Carmel
passengers get double billed when Carmel charges two passengers –
a picked-up and a dropped-off passenger – for the same toll
(referred to herein as "double charges").

Despite these entrenched practices, Carmel misleadingly advertises
that, beyond the base fare, passengers will only be responsible for
gratuity and tolls, if any – implying that passengers only have
to pay tolls actually incurred as part of the passenger's trip.
Carmel's advertising and car reservation process does not explain
that toll charges can exceed the toll charges actually incurred by
Carmel drivers due to E-ZPass/cash price disparities, does not
disclose that passengers can be subjected to return tolls incurred
by a driver (even when there are no tolls incurred while the
passenger is in the Carmel vehicle), and do not explain that
Carmel's drivers can charge two customers for the same toll, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff is domiciled in New York County.

Carmel operates prearranged transportation-for-hire in markets
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Brandon Walker, Esq.
          Lawrence P. Eagel, Esq.
          Marion C. Passmore, Esq.
          BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
          810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 620
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (212) 308-5858
          Facsimile: (212) 214-0506
          Email: walker@bespc.com
                 eagel@bespc.com
                 passmore@bespc.com

               - and -

          Casey C. DeReus, Esq.
          BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
          Post Office Box #830436
          New Orleans, LA 70185
          Phone: (213) 612-7735
          Facsimile: (212) 214-0506
          Email: dereus@bespc.com


BATES COLLEGE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Ortiz Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH ORTIZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. PRESIDENT AND TRUSTEES OF BATES COLLEGE, Case No.
1:24-cv-00466 (W.D.N.Y., May 14, 2024) accuses the Defendant of
violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State
Human Rights Law, and the Rehabilitation Act by failing to provide
equal website access to blind and visually impaired persons.

The Plaintiff is a visually impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content via his
computer. The Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant over
its alleged failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
interactive website to be fully accessible and independently usable
by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The
Plaintiff claims that Defendant's website, https://www.bates.edu,
is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers,
depriving them of the benefits of its online goods, content, and
services.

The Plaintiff seeks damages and a permanent injunction to cause a
change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures
so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.
   
Bates College is a private liberal arts college in Lewiston, ME.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
        Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
        Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
        GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC     
        150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
        New York, NY 10003
        Telephone: (212) 228-9795
        Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
        E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
                Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
                Dana@Gottlieb.legal

BAYER HEALTHCARE: Mirena IUD Use Increases Risk of Breast Cancer
----------------------------------------------------------------
TRAVETTE COPELAND and LILA CHU, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BAYER HEALTHCARE
PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-03042 (N.D. Cal.,
May 20, 2024) arises from Defendant's failure to provide warnings
to Plaintiffs, Class Members, and their doctors that the use of
Mirena intrauterine device (IUD) would lead to a statistically
significant increased risk of breast cancer.

Contrary to Defendant's representations to doctors and patients,
studies point to a statistically significant increased risk of
breast cancer among Mirena users. Specifically, Mirena users have
approximately 20-30% excess risk for breast cancer as compared with
non-users of hormonal contraceptives. And, despite its knowledge of
these studies, Defendant failed to update the Food and Drug
Administration with this newly acquired information, or to
otherwise update the products' warnings, says the suit.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs brings this action on behalf of
themselves and the Class for equitable relief and to recover
damages and restitution for breach of implied warranty, fraud, and
for violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

Headquartered in Whippany, NJ, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals
Inc. manufactures, markets and/or distributes products relating to
health and pharmaceuticals in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com

                  - and -

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

BEACH LAUNDRY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ahuatl Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA AHUATL, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff V. BEACH LAUNDRY WORLD INC. (d/b/a BEACH
LAUNDRY WORLD); ANDY JINHUI ZHUO; and YUE YING HE, Defendants, Case
No. 1:24-cv-03515 (S.D.N.Y., May 7, 2024) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff Ahuatl was employed by the Defendants as a laundry
clerk.

BEACH LAUNDRY WORLD INC. own, operate, or control a laundromat,
located at Bronx, NY, under the name "Beach Laundry World". [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

BELLINO EQUITIES: Faces Payne Suit Over Architectural Barriers
--------------------------------------------------------------
DENISE PAYNE v. BELLINO EQUITIES BOCA LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-21873
(S.D. Fla., May 14, 2024) is a class action seeking relief for
Defendant's violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Plaintiff, an individual with disabilities, encountered ADA
violations in a commercial property located at 9060 Kimberly
Boulevard, Boca Raton, Florida which is owned by Defendant.
According to Plaintiff, the commercial property, and the businesses
located within it, have architectural barriers which have denied or
diminished Plaintiff's and other similarly situated disabled
persons' ability to visit the property. The barriers also pose a
risk of injury, embarrassment, and discomfort to Plaintiff and
others similarly situated, in violation of the ADA, says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief requiring Defendant to make
the necessary modifications to the commercial property in question
and the businesses within it to ensure equal access for all.
   
Based in Jamaica, NY, Bellino Equities Boca LLC operates commercial
properties in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Beverly Virues, Esq.
        GARCIA-MENOCAL P.L.     
        350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
        Coral Gables, FL 33134
        Telephone: (305) 553-3464
        E-mail: bvirues@lawgmp.com
                amejias@lawgmp.com
                aquezada@lawgmp.com
                jacosta@lawgmp.com

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

BEYOND INC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Wahab Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA WAHAB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. BEYOND, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-03786 (S.D.N.Y., May 16, 2024) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

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

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

Beyond Incorporated of Massachusetts provides software services.
The Company operates throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

BICENTENNIAL INC: Kemmerlin Sues Over Wage & Hour Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
SAMANTHA KEMMERLIN, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated persons v. BICENTENNIAL INC. d/b/a LADY GODIVAS, Case No.
4:24-cv-00230-CDL (N.D. Okla., May 14, 2024) accuses the Defendant
of violating the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a dancer from January
2019 to November 2023 at its club in Tulsa, Oklahoma called Lady
Godivas. The Plaintiff and other dancers did not receive any wage
from Defendant as they were classified as independent contractors.
They received tips from customers and were required to share their
tips with Defendant and other employees at the club. The tips which
Plaintiff and other dancers were allowed to keep constituted the
entirety of their pay, says the suit.

Allegedly, Defendant intentionally misclassified Plaintiff and
other dancers as independent contractors to avoid paying them the
required minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime premium for
hours worked in excess of 40 each week. The Plaintiff seeks
declaratory judgment, damages, prejudgment interest, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs for Defendant's alleged violations of the
FLSA.

Bicentennial Inc. operates as an adult entertainment club and is
located in Tulsa, OK. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Colby Qualls, Esq.
        FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC     
        400 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 700
        Dallas, TX 75201
        Telephone: (214) 210-2100
        E-mail: cqualls@foresterhaynie.com

BIG LOTS: Bellomo Sues Over Mislabeled Sunscreen Products
---------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW BELLOMO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BIG LOTS INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-03480
(E.D.N.Y., May 12, 2024) alleges that the Defendant's sunscreen
product contains chemicals harmful to corals.

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant
manufactures and markets sunscreen labeled as "Reef Conscious,"
next to a graphic of a reef, with "conscious" understood consistent
with its common usage with respect to environmental issues, and
dictionary definitions, as "especially aware of or worried about
something," under its Sound Body brand ("Product").

The description of the Product as "Reef Conscious," next to a
graphic of a reef, is "false or misleading," because its active and
inactive ingredients, including avobenzone, homosalate,
octocrylene, and octylacrylamide copolymer, do not "protect and
safeguard" reef ecosystems and the environment, because they are
harmful to them, causing it to be "misbranded."

As a result of the false and misleading representations, the
Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than
$3.79 for 5.5 oz (156 g), excluding tax and sales, higher than
similar products, represented in a non-misleading way, and higher
than it would be sold for absent the misleading representations and
omissions, says the suit.

BIG LOTS INC. provides consumables, house wares, toys, electronics,
home decor, tools, gifts, and other related products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
           Sheehan & Associates P.C.
           60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
           Great Neck NY 11021
           Telephone: (516) 268-7080
           Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
           Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com

BLUEGRASS HOSPITALITY: Dean Sues Over Unlawful Tip Credit Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
HALEY DEAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. BLUEGRASS HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC and BLUEGRASS
HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00417
(M.D.N.C., May 20, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants employed Plaintiff from approximately March 2023
through November 2023 as a server at Defendants' Burlington, North
Carolina restaurant location. The Defendants paid Plaintiff and
other tip credit employees an hourly wage below the applicable
minimum wage and minimum overtime wage rates. However, Defendants
did not inform these employees of the required information prior to
relying on the tip credit. In addition, the Defendants required
Plaintiff and other tip credit employees to spend substantial
amounts of time performing non-tip-producing and directly
supporting work while being paid an hourly wage below the
applicable minimum wage rate, says the suit.

Bluegrass Hospitality Group, LLC is a Kentucky limited liability
company that manages restaurants. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Narendra K. Ghosh, Esq.
          PATTERSON HARKAVY LLP
          100 Europa Dr., Suite 250
          Chapel Hill, NC 27517
          Telephone: (919) 942-5200
          E-mail: nghosh@pathlaw.com

                  - and -

         David W. Garrison, Esq.
         Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
         Nicole A. Chanin, Esq.
         BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC
         200 31st Avenue North
         Nashville, TN 37203
         Telephone: (615) 244-2202
         Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
         E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
                 jfrank@barrettjohnston.com
                 nchanin@barrettjohnston.com

BOSTON PROPER: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Riley Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMANIE RILEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BOSTON PROPER, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-03662 (S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2024) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

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

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

BOSTON PROPER, INC. provides women's clothing apparel. The Company
offers tops, dresses, pants, denim, skirts and shorts, jackets,
swimwear, shoes, and other related accessories. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

BRIDGESTONE RETAIL: Birenbaum Sues Over Undisclosed Services
------------------------------------------------------------
David Birenbaum, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. BRIDGESTONE RETAIL OPERATIONS, LLC d/b/a FIRESTONE
COMPLETE AUTO CARE, 2:24-cv-03611-JMA-LGD (E.D.N.Y., May 17, 2024),
is brought as a result of the Defendants undisclosed they were
optional services.

The Defendant failed to inform shoppers that its road hazard
warranty and tire replacement certificate were optional, and
charged customers for the cost of the products without their
explicit consent. Washington State's complaint likewise alleged
that Defendant automatically included the cost of the warranty or
certificate in its tire estimates and only disclosed that the
services were optional when consumers expressly inquired about
them. Customers were sold certificates at a cost typically equal to
12 percent of the tire price. Although Defendant was sued by
Washington State for the deceptive practice of including "optional"
services on its estimates, Defendant has continued such practice as
its standard operating procedure throughout the State of New York.

On June 3, 2022, Plaintiff visited one of Defendant's Firestone
Complete Auto Care facilities at 715B Merrick Avenue, Westbury, NY
11590 for purposes of replacing 1 tire on his vehicle. At the time,
Defendant's employees represented to Plaintiff that the cost for
the replacement tire was $210.39. After completing the work,
Defendant provided Plaintiff with a "Final Invoice" that reflects
the purchase/installation of the replacement tire in addition to
various other line items. one of the charges on the Final Invoice
is for "Road Hazard Protection" and amounts to approximately 12.5%
of the cost of the replacement tire.

This is the same "Road Hazard Protection" that was at issue in the
investigation by the Washington State Office of the Attorney
General. The Final Invoice likewise includes a charge for "Rubber
Valve Stem" ($2.99). Both the "Road Hazard Protection" and the
"Rubber Valve Stem" are optional items that Defendant automatically
added to the Final Invoice without alerting Plaintiff to the fact
that neither option was mandatory. Defendant's Westbury location
did not post any signs therein disclosing that the "Road Hazard
Protection" or "Rubber Valve Stem" charges were optional nor did
Defendant's employees disclose and/or explain the charges to
Plaintiff. Defendant's employees simply tendered the Final Invoice
without any explanation as to what these charges were for.

The Plaintiff would not have purchased Road Hazard Protection or
the "Rubber Valve Stem" from Defendant if its employees had
actually disclosed they were optional services or explained their
purpose and limitations. Indeed, Plaintiff would not have purchased
the tire itself if he had known the total price in advance, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of New York.

The Defendant operates the world's largest chain of company-owned
auto care and tire stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel DeSouza, Esq.
          Christine Zaffarano, Esq.
          COPYCAT LEGAL PLLC
          3111 N. University Drive, Suite 301
          Coral Springs, FL 33065
          Phone: (877) 437-6228
          Email: dan@copycatlegal.com
                 christine@copycatlegal.com


CAMPBELL SOUP: Serrano Sues Over False Advertising
--------------------------------------------------
Monic Serrano, and Debra Shaw, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY, Case No.
1:24-cv-04660-RMB-MJS (D.N.J., April 8, 2024), is brought for the
violation of state consumer protection, unfair competition, and
false advertising statutes, as well as for breach of express and
implied warranties, negligent and intentional misrepresentation,
and fraud by omission and in the inducement, regarding the
Defendant's line of beverages called "V8 Splash."

V8 Splash products are labeled with names like, "Berry Blend,"
"Strawberry Kiwi," and "Fruit Medley." These products are marketed
to families with children as wholesome, naturally-flavored,
healthful fruit-juice beverages for kids. They are none of those
things. Rather than wholesome, natural fruit-juice beverages as
marketed, the "V8 Splash" products included in this action (the
"Products") are almost entirely water and high fructose corn syrup,
artificially flavored to taste like fruit juice.

The Products all contain an artificial flavoring called dl-malic
acid or 1-hydroxy-1,2-ethanedicarboxylic acid, without which none
of the Products would taste like the advertised fruits. None of the
Products bear the federal- and state-law required mandatory
labeling disclosing the artificial flavoring but instead
affirmatively conceal the presence of artificial flavoring. The
Products instead are labeled as if they were solely
naturally-flavored beverages, with the names of fruits and berries
and photo-realistic images of fresh, ripe, natural fruits and
berries, and label claims to be flavored only with "other natural
flavors."

Instead, the Products are predominantly water and sweeteners,
artificially flavored to mimic the taste of fruit. The Products
contain at most token amounts, 1-2% or less, of the juice of any of
the fruits and berries shown on the labels. This quantity is not
enough to make any of the Products taste like any of the fruits or
berries displayed on the labels.

The Product labels are designed to lead reasonable consumers to
believe the beverages consist of and are flavored solely with
natural fruit and fruit juices--or at least contain some fruit
juice. Defendant violates multiple states' consumer protection laws
by misbranding the Products and by failing to disclose and actively
concealing from consumers that the Products contain artificial
flavoring in the form of malic acid, and inducing consumers to
believe that the Products contain significant amounts of healthful
fruit juice when those Products instead are artificially flavored
sugar-water with either minuscule amounts of fruit juice or no
fruit juice at all.

The Plaintiffs, who purchased the Products multiple times and were
deceived by Defendant's unlawful and misleading labeling and
advertising, bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of
those similarly situated, to halt and to remedy Defendant's
unlawful conduct, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs purchased the Products multiple times.

Campbell Soup Company manufactures, packages, labels, and sells a
line of beverages called "V8 Splash."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lee Albert, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Avenue, Suite 358
          New York, NY 10169
          Phone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          Email: lalbert@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Marc L. Godino, Esq.
          Keven F. Ruf, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          Email: mgodino@glancylaw.com
                 kruf@glancylaw.com


CATO CORPORATION: Ramos Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
Eslimerari Ramos, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. THE CATO CORPORATION, Case No. 1:24-cv-02837 (N.D.
Ill., April 9, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its failure
to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a
violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA").

Congress provided a clear and national mandate for the elimination
of discrimination against individuals with disabilities when it
enacted the ADA. Such discrimination includes barriers to full
integration, independent living and equal opportunity for persons
with disabilities, including those barriers created by websites and
other public accommodations that are inaccessible to blind and
visually impaired persons.

Because the Defendant's website, www.catofashions.com (the
"Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually
impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a
permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate
policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers, says the complaint.

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

The Defendant is a company that owns and operates
www.catofashions.com offering features which should allow all
consumers to access the goods
and services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


CECIL SPORT EQUIPMENT: Ramos Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eslimerari Ramos, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. CECIL SPORT EQUIPMENT LTD., Case No. 1:24-cv-02841
(N.D. Ill., April 9, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a
violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA").

Congress provided a clear and national mandate for the elimination
of discrimination against individuals with disabilities when it
enacted the ADA. Such discrimination includes barriers to full
integration, independent living and equal opportunity for persons
with disabilities, including those barriers created by websites and
other public accommodations that are inaccessible to blind and
visually impaired persons.

Because the Defendant's website, www.grandstandsox.com (the
"Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually
impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a
permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate
policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers, says the complaint.

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

The Defendant is a company that owns and operates
www.grandstandsox.com offering features which should allow all
consumers to access the goods
and services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


CERIDIAN HCM: Morris Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Dale Morris, as an individual and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CERIDIAN HCM, INC. dba CERIDIAN
DAYFORCE; and does 1 through 100, Case No. CIVSB2332761 was removed
from the Superior Court of California, San Bernadino County, to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on April 2, 2024, and assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-00691-JGB-DTB.

The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges, inter alia, that Ceridian's
"Dayforce" payroll services platform was breached by hackers in
August 2023, resulting in the unauthorized disclosure of personal
identifiable information of "countless employees nationwide."[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Myriah Jaworski, Esq.
          CLARK HILL LLP
          One America Plaza
          600 West Broadway, Suite 500
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 557-0404
          Facsimile: (619) 557-0460
          Email: mjaworski@clarkhill.com


CERIDIAN HCM: O'Donnell Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Brooke O'Donnell, Shantriece Mitchell, Qunae
Wilkerson, Claudia Retana, and Marina Monterroso, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CROCS RETAIL, LLC, a
Ohio1 Corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No.
24STCV05067 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on April 4,
2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-02726-SVW-PD.

In the Complaint, Plaintiffs seek recovery for actual damages,
statutory damages, punitive damages, restitution, and disgorgement;
equitable, injunctive, and declaratory relief; pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest to the maximum extent allowable; reasonable
attorney fees, costs, and expenses, as allowable; and other
favorable relief as allowable under the law.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Alexander D. Terepka, Esq.
          WATSTEIN TEREPKA LLP
          515 South Flower Street, 19th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (404) 782-9821
          Email: alex@wtlaw.com


CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Faces Ferguson Data Breach Suit
--------------------------------------------------
MEI’HWA FERGUSON, individually and on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC., UNITEDHEALTH
GROUP INC., UNITEDHEALTHCARE INC., and OPTUM INC., Case No.
3:24-cv-00617 (M.D. Tenn., May 16, 2024) accuses the Defendants of
data security failures.

This action stems from a recent cyberattack and data breach on
Defendant Change Healthcare's systems where unauthorized
third-party criminals exfiltrated the highly-sensitive data of
Plaintiff and Class members. Allegedly, the data breach was
primarily caused by Defendants' failure to reasonably and
adequately secure the private data of Plaintiff and Class members,
says the suit.

The Plaintiff asserts claims for negligence and negligence per se,
breach of implied contract, breach of contractual duties owed to
third-party beneficiaries, unjust enrichment, bailment, and breach
of fiduciary duty.   

Change Healthcare Inc. is a health technology company headquartered
in Nashville, TN. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and -
     
        James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
        Nicholas Murphy, Esq.
        Mandy Boltax, Esq.
        HAUSFELD LLP
        888 16th Street, N.W., Suite 300
        Washington, D.C. 20006
        Telephone: (202) 540-7200
        E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
                nmurphy@hausfeld.com
                mboltax@hausfeld.com

                - and -
     
        Steven M. Nathan, Esq.
        Ashley Crooks, Esq.
        HAUSFELD LLP
        33 Whitehall Street, Fourteenth Floor
        New York, NY 10004
        Telephone: (646) 357-1100
        E-mail: snathan@hausfeld.com
                acrooks@hausfeld.com

CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Faces Humphreys Class Suit Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
HEIDI HUMPHREYS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC.; OPTUM, INC.; UNITEDHEALTH GROUP
INCORPORATED; and UNITEDHEALTHCARE, INC., Case No. e 3:24-cv-00619
(M.D. Tenn., May 16, 2024) arises after UHG disclosed in an SEC
filing on Feb. 21, 2024, that Change Healthcare was the subject of
a massive data breach whereby hackers known as "ALPHV/Blackcat"
gained unauthorized access to its networks (the "Data Breach").

According to the complaint, Blackcat accessed, copied, and
exfiltrated highly sensitive information stored on Defendants’
servers for millions of individuals, including active US
military/navy personnel identifiable information, medical records,
dental records, payment information, claims information, patients'
information (such as phone numbers, addresses, Social Security
numbers, emails, etc.), insurance records, and more ("PHI").
Blackcat also encrypted portions of Defendants' network, rendering
them unusable. PHI is considered "the most confidential and
valuable type of [PII] irrevocable once breached."

The patients and providers throughout the United States are
suffering the consequences of what might be the most consequential
data breach in history -- one that has resulted in network outages
that have already impacted millions of patients and physicians
across the country. The fallout from this Data Breach has and
continues to wreak havoc on the healthcare industry, says the
suit.

According to the Department of Justice, Blackcat typically steals
victims' data and encrypts the institution’s data, networks, and
servers, blocking the institution from accessing them.

Once the institutions are immobilized, the group then demands that
they pay a ransom in exchange for the keys to decrypt the
institution’s network and servers, and a promise that Blackcat
will not publish the institution’s data to the group's site on
the Dark Web.

Change Healthcare, as part of Defendants' healthcare empire,
provides revenue and payment cycle management that connects payers,
providers, and patients within the U.S. healthcare system, and
processes 15 billion transactions annually, "touching one in three
U.S. patient records.

Once Defendants discovered the Data Breach, Defendants decided to
take certain systems offline, bringing significant portions of the
healthcare industry to a screeching halt.

Without Defendants' functioning systems, the healthcare industry is
immobilized.

Following the Data Breach and continuing to date, health systems
throughout the United States -- including hospitals, physician
groups, dental clinics, and pharmacies -- reported that they were
unable to fulfill or process prescriptions through patients'
insurance, making prescription medication inaccessible.

The outage has already lasted for months, and UHG still has not
fully restored all of the affected products and services.

As a result of Defendants' failure to protect the sensitive
information it was entrusted to safeguard, Plaintiff and Class
members did not receive the benefit of their bargain with
Defendants and now face a significant risk of medical-related theft
and fraud, financial fraud, and other identity-related fraud now
and into the indefinite future, the suit further alleges.

Ms. Humphreys is a citizen and resident of Pennsylvania who fills
her medical prescriptions at a local pharmacy that uses
Defendants’ Change Healthcare platform.

UHG operates through four segments: UnitedHealthcare, and three
Optum segments: (1) Optum Health, (2) Optum Insight, and (3) Optum
Rx.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark P. Chalos, Esq.
          Kenneth S. Byrd, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN
          222 2nd Avenue South, Suite No. 1640
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 313-9000
          E-mail: mchalos@lchb.com
                  kbyrd@lchb.com

               - and -

          Nada Djordjevic, Esq.
          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          Amy E. Keller, Esq.
          Ten North Dearborn St., Sixth Floor
          DICELLO LEVITT LLP
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-7900
          E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
                  akeller@dicellolevitt.com
                  ndjordjevic@dicellolevitt.com

CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Shillito Sues Over Unprotected Private Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALICIA SHILLITO, individually and on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated and PARKER MEDICAL CENTER LPD,
individually and on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC., UNITEDHEALTH GROUP
INC., UNITEDHEALTHCARE INC., and OPTUM INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:24-cv-00618 (D. Mass., May 16, 2024) arises out of the recent
targeted cyberattack and data breach where unauthorized third-party
criminals retrieved and exfiltrated the highly-sensitive consumer
data of millions of Americans, as a result of the Defendants'
failure to reasonably and adequately secure this highly-sensitive
consumer data.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendants,
seeking redress for Defendants' unlawful conduct and asserting
claims for: (i) negligence; (ii) breach of implied contract; (iii)
breach of third-party beneficiary contracts; and (iv) unjust
enrichment. Through these claims, Plaintiffs seek damages in an
amount to be proven at trial, as well as injunctive and other
equitable relief, including reasonable and adequate improvements to
Defendants' data security systems, policies, and practices,
implementation of annual audits reviewing the same, and adequate
reimbursement for all Class Members for the financial injuries
suffered as a result of the Data Breach and ensuing services
outage, says the suit.

Headquartered in Nashville, TN, Change provides payment and revenue
cycle services, clinical and imaging services, and patient and
member engagement services to healthcare providers. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

                  - and -

          James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
          Nicholas Murphy, Esq.
          Mandy Boltax, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          888 16th Street, N.W., Suite 300
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
                  nmurphy@hausfeld.com
                  mboltax@hausfeld.com

                  - and -

          Steven M. Nathan, Esq.
          Ashley Crooks, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (646) 357-1100
          E-mail: snathan@hausfeld.com
                  acrooks@hausfeld.com

CHICAGO MATTRESS: Scottsdale Insurance Suit Removed to N.D. Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Scottsdale Insurance Company, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CHICAGO MATTRESS COMPANY, INC.,
and TERRELL SMITH, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Case No. 2024 CH 04018 was removed from the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on May 17,
2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-04079.

On May 1, 2024, Scottsdale filed its Complaint for Declaratory
Judgment ("Complaint") against Defendants Chicago Mattress Company
and TERRELL SMITH. On May 7, 2024, counsel for Scottsdale informed
counsel for Chicago Mattress Company via email that Scottsdale had
filed its Complaint.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Robert Muriel, Esq.
          Jay Zenker, Esq.
          HOKE LLC
          400 S. Green Street, Suite 556
          Chicago, IL 60607
          Email: rmuriel@hokellc.com
                 jzenker@hokellc.com


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: McMahon Appeals Summary Judgment to 3rd Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs BRIDGET MCMAHON and JAMES RICE filed an appeal from the
District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated May 1, 2024
entered in the lawsuit styled BRIDGET MCMAHON and JAMES RICE, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC. trading and doing business as
CHIPOTLE, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-1448, in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit was removed from
the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, to the
Western District of Pennsylvania on Sept. 25, 2020. The Plaintiffs
allege that Chipotle misappropriated funds and engaged in unfair
trade practices by failing to provide exact change to customers.

On April 3, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion to certify
the putative class action. Only Plaintiffs' individual claims
remain.

On October 13, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment which the Court granted on May 1, 2024 through an
Memorandum Opinion and Order signed by Judge William S. Stickman. A
Judgment pursuant to Rule 58 was then entered in favor of Defendant
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. and against Plaintiffs Bridget McMahon
and James Rice.

The appellate case is captioned as Bridget McMahon and James Rice,
et al v. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc., Case No. 24-1883, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on May
14, 2024. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants BRIDGET MCMAHON and JAMES RICE, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are presented by:

          Frank G. Salpietro, Esq.
          ROTHMAN GORDON
          310 Grant Street, 3rd Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 338-1185

Defendant-Appellee CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL INC, trading and doing
business as CHIPOTLE, is represented by:

          Betsy Bulat, Esq.
          Robert J. Mollohan, Jr., Esq.
          MARTENSON HASBROUCK & SIMON
          2573 Apple Valley Road NE
          Atlanta, GA 30319
          Telephone: (404) 909-8100

               - and -

          Derek J. Illar, Esq.
          ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT
          600 Grant Street
          44th Floor, US Steel Tower
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 566-6771

CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Rodriguez Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cinemark Holdings 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 2, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Rodriguez class suit in Cook County
Circuit Court in Illinois.

Gerardo Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of a class of all
others similarly situated vs Cinemark USA, Inc. and Cinemark
Holdings, Inc., et al. This class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company on February 24, 2023 in the Cook County Circuit Court
in Illinois alleging violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act.

The Company firmly maintains that the allegations are without merit
and will vigorously defend itself against the lawsuit.

Cinemark Holdings, Inc. is a holding company. Its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Cinemark USA, Inc., operates in the motion picture
exhibition industry, with theatres in the United States, Brazil,
Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Peru, Honduras, El Salvador,
Nicaragua,
Costa Rica, Panama, Guatemala, Bolivia and Paraguay.





CITIZENRY INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Hernandez Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. THE CITIZENRY, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-03569 (E.D.N.Y.,
May 16, 2024) seeks damages for Defendant's alleged discrimination
against visually-impaired and blind persons.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer. He attempted to access Defendant's website,
www.the-citizenry.com, to shop for Defendant's products but
encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to
Defendant's online goods, content, and services.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people. According to Plaintiff, the Defendant's
denial of full and equal access to its website constitutes a denial
of the goods and services offered thereby, which is in violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Citizenry Inc. offers home décor products and is headquartered
in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

CITIZENS AND FARMERS: Archer Sues Over Unlawful Overdraft Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Archer, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. CITIZENS AND FARMERS BANK, Case No. 3:24-cv-00267-RCY
(E.D. Va., April 11, 2024), is brought concerning the Defendant's
unlawful business practice of assessing $36 overdraft fees
("Overdraft Fees" or "OD Fees") on debit card transactions
authorized on sufficient funds, $36 OD and insufficient funds fees
("NSF fees") on days when the account balance is positive, and
multiple $36 fees on an item and challenging Defendant's practice
of charging OD Fees on what are referred to in this complaint as
"Authorize Positive, Settle Negative Transactions," or "APSN
Transactions."

These practices breach promises made in Defendant's "Terms and
Conditions of Your Account," "Notice of Changes of Terms and
Conditions," the Defendant's "Personal Service Pricing Updates,"
(the "Fee Schedule"), "Notice Regarding Posting Order of Items and
Holds Due to Pending Transactions," and, upon information and
belief, Defendant's Overdraft Opt-In Form (together the
"Contract").

The Defendant's practice is as follows: the moment debit card
transactions are authorized on an account with positive funds to
cover the transaction, Defendant immediately reduces consumers'
checking accounts for the amount of the purchase, sets aside funds
in the checking account to cover that transaction, and adjusts the
consumer's displayed "available balance" to reflect that subtracted
amount. As a result, customers' accounts will always have
sufficient funds available to cover these transactions because
Defendant has already held the funds for payment.

However, Defendant still assesses crippling $36 OD Fees on many of
these transactions and misrepresents its practices in the Contract.
Despite putting aside sufficient available funds for debit card
transactions at the time those transactions are authorized,
Defendant later assesses OD Fees on those same transactions when
they settle days later into a negative balance. These types of
transactions are APSN Transactions.

There is no justification for these practices, other than to
maximize Defendant's OD Fee revenue. APSN Transactions only exist
because intervening transactions supposedly reduce an account
balance. But Defendant is free to protect its interests and either
reject those intervening transactions or charge OD Fees on those
intervening transactions--and it does the latter to the tune of
significant profit each year.

But Defendant was not content with this profit from OD Fees on
intervening transactions alone. Instead, it sought even more in OD
Fees on APSN Transactions. Besides being deceptive, these practices
breach contract promises made in Defendant's adhesion contracts,
which fundamentally misconstrue and mislead consumers about the
true nature of Defendant's processes and practices. Defendant also
exploits its contractual discretion by implementing these practices
to gouge its customers.

The Plaintiff and other customers of Defendant have been injured by
Defendant's improper fee maximization practices. Plaintiff,
individually and on behalf of the classes of individuals, brings
claims for Defendant's breach of contract, including the duty of
good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a citizen of Virginia.

Citizens and Farmers Bank is a bank with its principal place of
business located in West Point, King William County, Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Devon J. Munro, Esq.
          MUNRO BYRD, P.C.
          120 Day Avenue SW, Suite 100
          Roanoke, Virginia 24016
          Phone: (540) 283-9343
          Email: dmunro@trialsva.com

               - and -

          David M. Berger, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          1111 Broadway, Suite 2100
          Oakland, California 94607
          Phone: (510) 350-9700
          Fax: (510) 350-9701
          Email: dmb@classlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Shawn K. Judge, Esq.
          Mark H. Troutman, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          1554 Polaris Parkway, Suite 325
          Columbus, Ohio 43240
          Phone: (510) 350-9700
          Fax: (510) 350-9701
          Email: skj@classlawgroup.com
                 mht@classlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Phone: 317-636-6481
          Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com

               - and -

          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
          Nashville, Tennessee 37203
          Phone: (615) 254-8801
          Fax: (615) 255-5419
          Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com


CLEVELAND, OH: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Pickett to 6th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF CLEVELAND, OH is taking an appeal from a court order
granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the
lawsuit entitled Albert Pickett, Jr., et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. City of
Cleveland, OH, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02911, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

On December 18, 2019, the Plaintiffs, who are all African American
current or former customers of Cleveland Water, filed a class
action suit against the Defendant due to a pattern of not providing
procedural safeguards to customers before terminating their water
service. The Plaintiffs allege that customers of Defendant are
frequently given extremely high-water bills even after the
customers confirm that there are no leaks anywhere on their
properties. Some customers were even assessed high water bills
after Cleveland Water had already shut-off their water service. The
Plaintiffs further allege that these high-water bills are erroneous
and are caused by Defendant's water meters incorrectly recording
water usage. The Plaintiffs further assert that the Defendant never
gives customers who believe that their meters are inaccurately
recording water usage an opportunity to contest their bills.

On Oct. 3, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which the Court granted through an Order entered by
Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on Sept. 30, 2023. The Court certified
Plaintiffs' Water Lien Class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (b)(2),
(b)(3), and its Shutoff and Overbilling Classes pursuant to (b)(3).
The Court further appointed current counsel for the Plaintiffs as
class counsel.

The appellate case is captioned Albert Pickett, Jr., et al. v. City
of Cleveland, OH, Case No. 24-3395, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on May 7, 2024. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees ALBERT PICKETT, JR., et al., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Jason Paul Bailey, Esq.
          NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
          700 14th Street, N.W., Suite 600
          Washington, DC 20011
          Telephone: (202) 682-1300

                  - and -

          Tiffani Burgess, Esq.
          Arielle Humphries, Esq.
          Alexandra Sloane Thompson, Esq.
          NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE FUND
          40 Rector Street, Fifth Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (646) 784-1170
                     (646) 530-0899
                     (212) 965-2200

                  - and -

          Neil K. Roman, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING
          850 Tenth Street, N.W., Unit 303
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 662-6000

Defendant-Appellant CITY OF CLEVELAND, OH is represented by:

          Robert J. Hanna, Esq.
          Michael James Ruttinger, Esq.
          Lindsey Elizabeth Sacher, Esq.
          Christine M. Snyder, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS
          950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 592-5000

                  - and -

          Bryan T. Kostura, Esq.
          Michael John Matasich, Esq.
          MCDONALD HOPKINS
          600 Superior Avenue, E., Suite 2100
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 348-5400

CLOUD HEALTH SYSTEMS: Simmons Sues Over Unlawful Telemarketing Call
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Margo Simmons, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. CLOUD HEALTH SYSTEMS LLC d/b/a SUNRISE HEALTH, Case No.
4:24-cv-02023-DMR (N.D. Cal., April 3, 2024), is brought under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA") as a result of
the Defendant's unlawful telemarketing calls.

Telemarketing calls are intrusive. A great many people object to
these calls, which interfere with their lives, tie up their phone
lines, and cause confusion and disruption on phone records. Faced
with growing public criticism of abusive telephone marketing
practices, Congress enacted the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
of 1991.

The Plaintiff brings this action to enforce the consumer-privacy
provisions of the TCPA alleging that the Defendant the TCPA by
making telemarketing calls in the form of text messages to
Plaintiff and other putative class members listed after they had
previously requested to no longer receive such communications, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff is an individual and has never been a customer of
Sunrise Health.

Cloud Health Systems LLC d/b/a Sunrise Health is a limited
liability company that has its principal place of business in this
District.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dana J. Oliver, Esq.
          OLIVER LAW CENTER, INC.
          8780 19th Street #559
          Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
          Phone: (855)384-3262
          Facsimile: (888)570-2021
          Email: dana@danaoliverlaw.com


CLOUD PAPER: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Bullock Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN BULLOCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. CLOUD PAPER, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-03723 (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2024) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

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

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

CLOUD PAPER, INC. provides traditional paper products. The Company
offers toilet paper and paper towels. Cloud Paper serves in the
United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Telephone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com

CMB EXPORT: Fang Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Chen Fang, a California resident, and YU LIN, a
California resident, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. CMB EXPORT INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT GROUP
48, LP, a Delaware limited partnership; CMB EXPORT, LLC, a
California limited liability company; NK IMMIGRATION SERVICES, LLC,
an Illinois limited liability company; PATRICK F. HOGAN, an
individual; NOREEN HOGAN, an individual; DOE MARKETING AND SALES
DEFENDANTS (1-10);DOE MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS (11-20); DOE PROJECT
MANAGEMENT AND DUE DILIGENCE DEFENDANTS (21 30); DOE ENTERPRISE
DEFENDANTS; AND DOES (31-40), Case No. 22STCV25895 was removed from
the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, California, to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on May 17, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-04151.

The Plaintiffs Chen Fang and his wife Yu Lin initiated the State
Court Action on August 10, 2022. They asserted three individual
claims in an attempt to recover Fang's $550,000 investment in Group
48. The parties litigated the case as an individual action, not a
class action, for nearly two years. On February 6, 2024, the Los
Angeles Superior Court granted Defendants' motion for judgment on
the pleadings and dismissed all three of Plaintiffs' individual
claims.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Scott S. Humphreys, Esq.
          Lex Conboy, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2915
          Phone: 424.204.4400
          Facsimile: 424.204.4350
          Email: humphreyss@ballardspahr.com
                 conboya@ballardspahr.com


COFFEE-SERV INC: Website Not Accessible to Blind, John Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAMON JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Coffee-Serv, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-03774 (S.D.N.Y., May 16,
2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products
and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant is denying
blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States
with equal access to the goods and services Coffee-Serv provides to
their non-disabled customers through https://www.coffeeforless.com,
the Plaintiff adds.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website
available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader
programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired
individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services
-- all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals -- thereby.

This discrimination is particularly acute during the current
COVID-19 global pandemic. According to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (“CDC”), Americans with disabilities are
at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19 and, therefore, are
recommended to shelter in place throughout the duration of the
pandemic. This underscores the importance of access to online
retailers, such as Defendant, for this especially vulnerable
population. The COVID-19 pandemic is particularly dangerous for
disabled individuals.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer. Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired"
to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal
definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with
correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who
meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision.

In a September 25, 2018 letter to U.S. House of Representative Ted
Budd, U.S. Department of Justice Assistant Attorney General Stephen
E. Boyd confirmed that public accommodations must make the websites
they own, operate, or control equally accessible to individuals
with disabilities.

Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually-impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually-impaired persons live in the State of New York.

Coffee-Serv, Inc. provides commercial coffee machines for offices,
shops, restaurants, hotels and others.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

CONGRESS PROPERTIES: Feltzin Sues Over ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Feltzin, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. CONGRESS PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS, LLC, Case No.
9:24-cv-80447-RLR (S.D. Fla., April 10, 2024), is brought for
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result
of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff
by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or
accommodations of the Commercial Property and businesses located
therein.

The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability and
requires landlords and tenants to be liable for compliance. The
subject Commercial Property is open to the public. The individual
Plaintiff visits the Commercial Property and businesses located
within the commercial property, to include a visit to the
Commercial Property and business located within the Commercial
Property on January 16, 2024, and encountered multiple violations
of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the
Commercial Property. He often visits the Commercial Property in
order to avail himself of the goods and services offered there, and
because it is 5 miles from his residence and is near other
businesses and restaurants he frequents as a patron. He plans to
return to the Commercial Property within 2 months of the filing of
this Complaint, in order to avail himself of the goods and services
offered at the place of public accommodation and check if it has
been remediated of the ADA violations he encountered.

The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property and the businesses
named herein located within the Commercial Property to be rife with
ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at
the Commercial Property, and businesses named herein located within
the Commercial Property, and wishes to continue his patronage and
use of each of the premises.

The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in
violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and
businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to
access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each
denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial
Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate and uses
a manual wheelchair.

CONGRESS PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS, LLC owned and operated the
commercial buildings located at in Miami, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Sued for Antitrust Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Anderson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT; CONTINENTAL
TIRE THE AMERICAS, LLC; COMPAGNIE GENERALE DES ETABLISSEMENTS
MICHELIN SCA; COMPAGNIE FINANCIÈRE MICHELIN SA; MICHELIN NORTH
AMERICA, INC.; NOKIAN TYRES PLC; NOKIAN TYRES INC.; NOKIAN TYRES
U.S. OPERATIONS LLC; THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY; PIRELLI &
C. S.P.A.; PIRELLI TIRE LLC; BRIDGESTONE CORPORATION; BRIDGESTONE
AMERICAS, INC.; AND DOES 1-100, Case No. 5:24-cv-00637-SL (N.D.
Ohio, April 9, 2024), is brought against the Defendants' violation
of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act.

Beginning from January 1, 2020, through the present, Defendants
entered into an unlawful agreement to artificially increase,
maintain, stabilize and fix the prices of replacement tires sold in
the Unites States for passenger cars, vans, trucks and busses. The
Defendants effectuated their price fixing conspiracy by, among
other means, signaling price increases during earnings calls and
other public statements, implementing revenue management software
to facilitate and exchange pricing information, participating in
annual industry meetings and coordinating supply reductions to keep
prices artificially high.

On January 30, 2024, the European Commission ("EC") announced dawn
raids at the premises of "companies active in the tyres industry in
several Member States. The EC justified its dawn raids over
suspicion that these companies "violated EU antitrust rules that
prohibit cartels and restrictive business practices," and further
announced that it suspected Defendants engaged in illegal price
coordination. The Defendants' conduct is facially anticompetitive
and illegal per se. As a direct result of Defendants' conspiracy,
Plaintiff and the Class purchased Tires directly from Defendants at
artificially inflated prices and were thereby directly injured in
their business or property, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased Tires directly from one or more the
Defendants.

The Defendants are among the largest manufacturers of tires in the
world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric H. Zagrans, Esq.
          ZAGRANS LAW FIRM LLC
          1640 Roundwyck Lane
          Columbus, OH 43065-8416
          Phone: (440) 452-7100
          Email: eric@zagrans.com

               - and -

          Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
          Roberta A. Yard, Esq.
          REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
          222 South 9th Street, Suite 1600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (651) 287-2100
          Email: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
                 r.yard@rwblawfirm.com


CVS PHARMACY: Davis Ice Cream Sues Over Breach of Contract
----------------------------------------------------------
Davis Ice Cream Alabama, LLC on behalf of itself and all similarly
situated v. CVS PHARMACY, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00209-ECM-CWB
(M.D. Ala., April 3, 2024), is brought involving allegations that
CVS breached a contract with Davis Ice Cream Alabama, LLC d/b/a Ice
Cream Warehouse (hereinafter, "Plaintiff" or "ICW").

To stock their freezers, coolers, and grocery shelves, CVS enters
into a standard Direct Store Delivery Agreement ("DSD Supplier
Agreement" or "Agreement") with various suppliers around the
country. CVS uses its own standard form DSD Supplier Agreement for
all DSD Suppliers. Direct Store Delivery ("DSD") refers to the
process of retailers contracting with a supplier to ship products
directly to a retail store rather than to the retailer's
distribution center. The supplier delivers the products and places
them on the retailer's shelves.

On April 5, 2019, ICW entered into a standard form "DSD Supplier"
contract with CVS to deliver frozen foods to the Defendant's
stores. From April 5, 2019, through January 2024, ICW followed the
Agreement between the parties, delivering frozen foods to 71 CVS
stores.

At some point, CVS decided not to follow the DSD Supplier Agreement
with ICW and the Class Members by disposing of the Returned Goods
before the DSD Supplier could pick up the goods. Despite disposing
of the Returned Goods, CVS took credit on the amount owed to the
DSD Supplier for subsequent deliveries.

First, ICW and the Class Members are owed sums totaling the amount
CVS deducted from the payment of their invoices for the cost of the
Returned Goods CVS disposed of, preventing the DSD Suppliers from
picking up the goods for their application of credit to their
producers. Further, on July 21, 2023, in direct contravention of
the DSD Supplier Agreements entered into with ICW and the Class
Members, CVS decided to retroactively charge back the cost of
Returned Goods it had not previously deducted from all previous
months in 2023 and the entire year of 2022. Second, ICW is now owed
more than $10,000 for deliveries made from August 2023 to January
2024. The Class Members are also owed amounts due to the
retroactive chargeback by CVS, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff conducts business in all districts of Alabama under
the name Ice Cream Warehouse.

CVS sells frozen foods and other grocery items from its retail
pharmacy stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph "Jay" H. Aughtman, Esq.
          AUGHTMAN LAW FIRM, LLC
          1772 Platt Place
          Montgomery, AL 36117
          Phone: (334) 215-9873
          Fax: (334) 213-5663
          Email: jay@aughtmanlaw.com


CVS PHARMACY: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 16
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE ONE, RICHARD ROE,
in his capacity as executor for JOHN DOE TWO, JOHN DOE SIX; and
JOHN DOE SEVEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated and for the benefit of the general public, v. CVS
PHARMACY, INC.; CAREMARK, L.L.C.; CAREMARK CALIFORNIA SPECIALTY
PHARMACY, L.L.C.; GARFIELD BEACH CVS, L.L.C.; CAREMARKPCS HEALTH,
L.L.C.; and DOES 1–10, inclusive, Case No. 3:18-cv-01031-EMC
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward Chen entered an order setting
the schedule for Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, as
follows:

           Event                                   New Deadline

  Motion for Class Certification:                 Sept. 16, 2024

  Opposition for Motion for Class Certification   Nov. 15, 2024

  Reply in Support of Motion for Class            Dec. 6, 2024
  Certification:

  Hearing on Motion for Class Certification       Jan. 9, 2025

CVS distributes pharmaceutical products.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 21, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Wdcy91 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
          16970 W. Bernardo Dr., Suite 400
          San Diego, CA 92127
          Telephone: (858) 674-6641
          Facsimile: (855) 274-1888
          E-mail: amansfield@whatleykallas.com

                - and -

          Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq.
          Edith M. Kallas, Esq.
          Henry C. Quillen, Esq.
          152 West 57th Street, 41st Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 447-7060
          Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
          E-mail: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com
                  ekallas@whatleykallas.com
                  hquillen@whatleykallas.com

                - and -

          Jerry Flanagan, Esq.
          Benjamin Powell, Esq.
          CONSUMER WATCHDOG
          6330 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 250
          Los Angeles, CA 90048
          Telephone: (310) 392-0522
          E-mail: jerry@consumerwatchdog.org
                  ben@consumerwatchdog.org

The Defendants are represented by:

          Enu Mainigi, Esq.
          Craig D. Singer, Esq.
          Grant A. Geyerman, Esq.
          Benjamin W. Graham, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
          680 Maine Ave., S.W.
          Washington, DC 20024
          Telephone: (202) 434-5000
          Facsimile: (202) 434-5029

                - and -

          John J. Atallah, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          555 South Flower Street, Ste. 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 972-4500
          Facsimile: (213) 486-0065

CYBERFOX.COM LLC: Shumway Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT
------------------------------------------------------------
BRIANNE SHUMWAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CYBERFOX.COM LLC, f/k/a AUTOELEVATE, LLC and
f/k/a PASSWORD BOSS LLC and DAVID BELLINI Defendants, Case No.
8:24-cv-01032 (M.D. Fla., April 29, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendants for alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act by creating and maintaining a scheme to avoid paying overtime
wages to Plaintiff and all others similarly situated.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a Business Development
Manager or Business Development Representative from September 2022
until December 2023. She asserts that employees were not paid all
overtime compensation due for all hours they worked in excess of 40
hours per week.

CYBERFOX.COM, LLC is a global cybersecurity solutions
provider.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
          FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
          12610 Race Track Road, Suite 225
          Tampa, FL 33626
          Telephone: (813) 639-9366
          Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
          E-mail: mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com

DANCE AMERICA: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dance America, Inc.
The case is styled as Jessica Karim, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Dance America, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-02605-VEC (S.D.N.Y., April 5, 2024).

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

Dance America -- https://www.dance-america.com/ -- is the
one-stop-shop for all your Ballroom Dancewear needs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gabriel Levy, Esq.
          GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
          1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
          Manhasset, NY 11030
          Phone: (516) 287-3458
          Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com


DANRICK COMMERCE: Jones Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
DAMON JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Danrick Commerce Group, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-03775 (S.D.N.Y.,
May 16, 2024) accuses the Defendant of discriminating against
visually-impaired and blind people by not providing equal and full
access to its website.

The Plaintiff, a visually-impaired and legally blind person, brings
this action over Defendant's alleged failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, www.dcgstores.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons. The alleged significant access
barriers make it difficult if not impossible for Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated to use the website, denying them of the
products and services offered therein, in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, says the suit.  

Based in Livermore, CA, Danrick Commerce Group, LLC offers home
furniture products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

DELTA STAR: Wilson Must File Class Cert Bid by August 28
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Max Wilson, individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated, v. Delta Star, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-07326-LB (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Laurel Beeler entered an order extending the time for
the Plaintiff to file his motion for class certification.

-- The Plaintiff's time to file his motion for class certification
is
    continued by 180 days to Aug. 28, 2024.

-- The Defendant opposition on the motion for class certification

    shall be filed on or before Sept. 28, 2024.

-- The Plaintiff's reply in support of his motion for class
    certification shall be filed on or before Oct. 27, 2024.

Delta Star manufactures medium-power transformers, mobile
transformers, and mobile substations.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 21, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uKz3fZ at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Talia Lux, Esq.
          Douglas Han, Esq.
          Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
          JUSTICE ALW CORPORATION

The Defendant is represented by:

          Tyler M. Paetkau, Esq.
          Olgae Savage, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACK LLP    



DIKAY LTD: Longhini Sues Over ADA Violation
-------------------------------------------
Doug Longhini, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. DIKAY, LTD. and RINCONCITO CUBANO #4 CORP d/b/a
RINCONCITO CUBANO #4, Case No. 1:24-cv-21269-KMM (S.D. Fla., April
4, 2024), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees,
litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's
discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him
access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services,
facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the
Commercial Property and businesses located therein.

The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability and
requires landlords and tenants to be liable for compliance. The
subject Commercial Property is open to the public. The individual
Plaintiff visits the Commercial Property and businesses located
within the commercial property, to include a visit to the
Commercial Property and business located within the Commercial
Property on January 16, 2024, and encountered multiple violations
of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the
Commercial Property. He often visits the Commercial Property in
order to avail himself of the goods and services offered there, and
because it is 8 miles from his residence and is near other
businesses and restaurants he frequents as a patron. He plans to
return to the Commercial Property within 2 months of the filing of
this Complaint, in order to avail himself of the goods and services
offered at the place of public accommodation and check if it has
been remediated of the ADA violations he encountered.

The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property and the businesses
named herein located within the Commercial Property to be rife with
ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at
the Commercial Property, and businesses named herein located within
the Commercial Property, and wishes to continue his patronage and
use of each of the premises.

The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in
violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and
businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to
access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each
denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial
Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate.

DIKAY, LTD., owned and operated the commercial buildings located at
in Miami, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


DNVB INC: Riley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------
AMANIE RILEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DNVB, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-03834 (S.D.N.Y., May 17, 2024), arises from Defendant's
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons and asserts claims for
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York
State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and
the New York City Human Rights Law.

Despite readily available accessible technology, Defendant has
chosen to rely on an exclusively visual interface in which only its
sighted customers can independently browse, select, and buy online
without the assistance of others. Moreover, 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 suit.

Headquartered in New York, NY, DNVB, Inc. owns and operates the
website, https://www.thursdayboots.com, which sells a a wide range
of shoes, sneakers, boots, belts, socks and accessories. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

DOLCE & GABBANA: Brown Sues Over Alleged NFT Scam
-------------------------------------------------
LUKE BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DOLCE & GABBANA USA INC., a Delaware Corporation, UNXD,
INC., a Dubai Corporation, BLUEBEAR ITALIA S.R.L. d/b/a
INBETWEENERS, an Italian Corporation, Case No. 1:24-cv-03807
(S.D.N.Y., May 16, 2024) accuses the Defendants of fraud involving
digital assets.

The Defendants jointly created and marketed the "DGFamily", a
digital asset project based off Dolce & Gabbana's brand popularity.
Under the project, Defendants sold digital assets in the form of
Non-Fungible Tokens (NFT), promising "high value" benefits that
would be delivered to customers, including Plaintiff, over a period
of two years. In the end, Defendants failed to provide the complete
set of benefits they promised. The Defendants allegedly
misrepresented the status of their NFT project to persuade
Plaintiff, its investors, and the public into investing into
DGFamily, and then failed to deliver on its promises, says the
suit.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased
digital assets from Defendants' NFT project from April 24, 2022, or
the initial transfer of DGFamily Products, whichever date is
earlier, through the original filing date of this suit, seeks to
recover damages for Defendants alleged violations of common law,
state consumer statutes, and federal law, including the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Dolce & Gabbana is an international fashion company headquartered
in New York City, NY. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Alex P. Clavering, Esq.
        ATTORNEY AT LAW     
        1252 Carlls Straight Path  
        Dix Hills, NY 11746
        Telephone: (929) 266-3926
        E-mail: alex.clavering@columbia.edu

                - and -
     
        Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
        Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
        Alexander G. Kykta, Esq.
        ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
        1105 Milford Street
        Houston, TX 77006
        Telephone: (888) 350-3931
        Facsimile: (888) 276-3455
        E-mail: jarrett@ellzeylaw.com
                leigh@ellzeylaw.com
                alex@ellzeylaw.com

                - and -
     
        Tom Kherkher, Esq.
        ATTORNEY TOM & ASSOCIATES
        5909 West Loop South Suite 525
        Houston, TX 77401
        Telephone: (855) 866-9467
        E-mail: tom@attorneytom.com

DOLLAR TREE: Lopez Sues Over Order Selectors' Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
NELSON JAVIER LOPEZ, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v DOLLAR TREE DISTRIBUTION, INC., Case No. 5:24-cv-00254
(M.D. Fla., May 14, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant in or around November 23,
2022 as an order selector at Defendant's distribution center in
Ocala, FL. The Plaintiff was paid on both a piece rate and hourly
rate basis and regularly worked more than 40 hours in a work week.
However, the Plaintiff was allegedly not paid proper overtime
premium owing to Defendant's policy and practice of improperly
calculating the lawful overtime rate of Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees, in violation of the FLSA. The
Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, prejudgment
interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the FLSA.


Dollar Tree Distribution, Inc. is a discount variety stores
operator headquartered in Chesapeake, VA. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
        Christopher D. Gray, Esq.
        Miguel Bouzas, Esq.
        Troy Longman, Esq.
        FLORIN GRAY     
        16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
        Lutz, FL 33558
        Telephone: (727) 220-4000
        Facsimile: (727) 483-7942
        E-mail: wolfgang@floringray.com
                debbie@fgbolaw.com
                chris@floringray.com
                miguel@fgbolaw.com
                tlongman@floringray.com

                - and –
     
        Anthony G. Simon, Esq.
        Jeremiah W. Nixon, Esq.
        THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C.
        800 Market Street, Suite 1700
        St. Louis, MO 63101
        Telephone: (314) 241-2929
        Facsimile: (314) 241-2029
        E-mail: asimon@simonlawpc.com
                jnixon@simonlawpc.com

DONE GLOBAL: Faces Suit Over Disclosure of Private Communications
-----------------------------------------------------------------
M.H., individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. DONE GLOBAL, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-03040-AGT (N.D. Cal., May 20, 2024) arises out of Done's
unlawful use of third-party tracking technologies to
surreptitiously intercept and disclose its patients' private and
protected communications, including communications concerning
highly sensitive personal health information, to third parties,
without patients' knowledge or consent.

One of the Tracking Tools Done deployed on its website is the Meta
Pixel, a snippet of code that is embedded on its website and tracks
the website visitor's activity on that website and sends that data
to Meta. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action individually,
and on behalf of Classes of similarly situated individuals, to
recover for harms suffered and asserts claims for violations of the
California Invasion of Privacy Act, invasion of privacy in
violation of California Constitution, common law invasion of
privacy-intrusion upon seclusion, breach of confidence, and for
violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, says the
suit.

Headquartered in San Francisco, CA, Done Global, Inc. is a
telehealth and technology company that provides mental health and
prescription treatment options for individuals with attention
deficit hyperactivity disorder. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Caleb Marker, Esq.
         Flinn T. Milligan, Esq.
         ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
         6420 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1080
         Los Angeles, CA 90048
         Telephone: (877) 500-8780
         Facsimile: (877) 500-8781
         E-mail: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com
                 flinn.milligan@zimmreed.com

                 - and -

         Ryan J. Ellersick, Esq.
         ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
         14648 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 130
         Scottsdale, AZ 85254
         Telephone: (480) 348-6400
         E-mail: ryan.ellersick@zimmreed.com

DOT: Shelton Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JOHN DOE ENTITY
IDENTIFIED AS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT) COMPLIANCE
SERVICES. The case is styled as James E. Shelton, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JOHN DOE ENTITY
IDENTIFIED AS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT) COMPLIANCE
SERVICES, Case No. 2:24-cv-02140 (E.D. Pa., May 20, 2024).

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq.
          PERRONG LAW LLC
          2657 Mt. Carmel Ave
          Glenside, PA 19038
          Phone: (215) 225-5529
          Fax: (888) 329-0305
          Email: a@perronglaw.com


DOUBLE K LIQUOR: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Palacio Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WINDER ANTHUAN PALACIO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DOUBLE K LIQUOR CORP. d/b/a
SERGIO’S WINE & LIQUORS and LIZA LEDAIN, as an individual,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-03559 (E.D.N.Y., May 16, 2024) accuses
the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff Palacio was employed by Defendants as a cleaner, stocker,
and customer assistant while performing related miscellaneous
duties for the Defendants, from in or around November 2022 until in
or around December 2023. Although Plaintiff regularly worked 60 to
70 hours or more hours per week throughout his employment, the
Defendants did not pay Plaintiff at a wage rate of time and a half
for his hours regularly worked over 40 hours in a work week, a
blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA
and NYLL, says the suit.

Double K Liquor Corp operates a wine and liquor store in Brooklyn,
NY. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
        HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
        80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
        Kew Gardens, NY 11415
        Telephone: (718) 263-9591
        Facsimile: (718) 263-9598

DREAMLAND BABY: Faces Monsch Suit Over Weighted Sleep Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Monsch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Dreamland Baby Company, Case No. 3:24-cv-02996 (N.D.
Cal., May 17, 2024) is a consumer class action individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated consumers to redress the
false and misleading, as well as deceptive and unfair, trade
practices, acts, and omissions employed by Defendant in the
marketing and sale of its Weighted Sleep Products.

The Defendant manufactures, markets, and sells weighted sleep
products for children, including, but not limited to, weighted
sleep sacks such as the Dream Weighted Sleep Sack; weighted
swaddles such as the Dream Weighted Sleep Swaddle, the Dream
Weighted Transition Swaddle, and the Bamboo Weighted Transition
Swaddle; and a Weighted Toddler Blanket.

According to the complaint, the Defendant touts these products as
"gently weighted sleep solutions to help your baby sleep -- so you
can too. " The problem is that these products do not help children
sleep. Worse, Defendant markets its products as "design[ed]
according to the American Academy of Pediatricts safe sleep
guidelines," when this is patently false.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arthur H. Bryant, Esq.
          Bart D. Cohen, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
          1999 Harrison Street, Suite 660
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 272-8000
          E-mail:abryant@baileyglasser.com
                 bcohen@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Zachary Arbitman, Esq.
          Alan M. Feldman, Esq.
          George Donnelly, Esq.
          FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER TANNER
          WEINSTOCK & DODIG, LLP
          1845 Walnut Street, 21st Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 567-8300
          Facsimile: (215) 567-8333
          E-mail: afeldman@feldmanshepherd.com
                  zarbitman@feldmanshepherd.com
                  gdonnelly@feldmanshepherd.com

DRILL-QUIP INC: Faces Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Drill-Quip 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 2, 2024, that the Company faces the Steamfitters
Local 449 Pension Fund class suit.

On March 21, 2024, a purported Company stockholder filed a putative
class action complaint captioned Steamfitters Local 449 Pension
Fund v. Dril-Quip, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2024-0284-LWW (Del. Ch.)
(the "Steamfitters Complaint").

The Steamfitters Complaint alleges that members of the Company's
Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing, in
connection with the proposed merger with Innovex, to enter into a
stockholders agreement with Amberjack Capital Partners
("Amberjack") requiring Amberjack to vote in favor of the Board of
Director's nominees at the Company's 2025 annual meeting of
stockholders and prohibiting certain transfers from Amberjack
directly to activist stockholders not through public market sales.


The Steamfitters Complaint further alleges that Innovex and
Amberjack aided and abetted the directors' alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties.

The complaint seeks an order certifying a class of the Company's
stockholders, finding that the directors breached their fiduciary
duties and that Innovex and Amberjack aided and abetted the
directors' breaches of fiduciary duties, enjoining enforcement of
the challenged provisions of the stockholders agreement, and
awarding the plaintiff its reasonable attorneys' and experts'
witness fees and other costs.

The defendants, including the Company and the members of the
Company's Board of Directors, believe that they have substantial
defenses against the claims asserted in the Steamfitters Complaint.
Nevertheless, the outcome of this lawsuit is uncertain and cannot
be predicted with any certainty.

Drill-Quip Inc. -- https://www.dril-quip.com/ -- leads the way in
developing innovative technologies for the energy industry. The
company engineers and manufactures top-tier products for
traditional oil and gas operations and energy transition
initiatives.


DULUTH HOLDINGS: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Duluth Holdings Inc., d/b/a Duluth Trading Company,
Case No. 0:24-cv-01175-PJS-DTS (D. Minn., April 5, 2024), is
brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.duluthtrading.com)
(the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally
accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in
violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the
effective communication and auxiliary aids and services
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and
its implementing regulations.

The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is
responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning
the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her
experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past
year, and from investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff
found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that
deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to
important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its
sighted Website users.

Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to
access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or
shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant
offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and
operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully
accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with
vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class
have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to
be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to
provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is
compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind.

The Defendant offers Men's and Women's clothing and accessories for
sale including, but not limited to, shirts, outerwear, underwear,
pants, shorts, footwear, tools, travel bags, and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
          THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
          Jason Gustafson (#0403297)
          222 South Ninth Street, Suite 1600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (763) 515-6110
          Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com
                 jason@throndsetlaw.com


EAST SIDE HEALTH: M.C Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as M.C., individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated persons v. East Side Health District, Elizabeth
Patton-Whiteside, Case No. 24-LA-0440 was removed from the St.
Clair County, Illinois Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois on May 17, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01336 to the
proceeding.

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

East Side Health District -- https://eastsidehealthdistrict.org/ --
operates Hospitals and Health Care.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Adama K. Wiltshire, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. - ST. LOUIS
          600 Washington Avenue, Suite 900
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Phone: (314) 659-2000
          Fax: (314) 659-2099
          Email: awiltshire@littler.com


EAST VILLAGE: Faces Hernandez Suit Over Alleged Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. EAST VILLAGE HATS, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-03567
(E.D.N.Y., May 16, 2024) accuses the Defendant of discriminating
against blind and visually-impaired persons by not providing full
and equal access to its website.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
relies on screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's website,
www.eastvillagehats.nyc, is not equally accessible to blind and
visually impaired consumers, which is in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired people.
  
East Village Hats is a custom hatworks and millinery shop located
in New York City. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ELITE INSURANCE: Burdi Seeks Proper Wages for Sales Agents
----------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN BURDI, Individually and on behalf of all Others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ELITE INSURANCE PARTNERS LLC, and JAGGER
ESCH, Defendants, Case No. 8:24-cv-01217 (M.D. Fla., May 20, 2024)
accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a sales agent from July
of 2017 to April 25, 2024. Plaintiff Burdi, and the putative class
of similarly situated employees were not compensated for all hours
worked over 40 in each and every work week and were unlawfully and
intentionally misclassified by Defendants as salaried exempt
employees through a scheme to avoid and evade their obligations
under the FLSA, says the suit.

Headquartered in Palm Harbor, FL, Elite Insurance  Partners LLC is
an insurance brokerage company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Mitchell Feldman, Esq.
         FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
         12610 Race Track Road #225
         Tampa, FL 33626
         Telephone: (813) 639-9366
         Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
         E-mail: mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com

EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend Palm Tran Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emergent Biosolutions 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 Palm Tran class suit in the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland.

On April 20, 2021, May 14, 2021, and June 2, 2021, putative class
action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its
current and former senior officers in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Exchange Act.

These complaints were filed by Palm Tran, Inc. – Amalgamated
Transit Union Local 1577 Pension Plan; Alan I. Roth; and Stephen M.
Weiss, respectively.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants made
false and misleading statements about the Company's manufacturing
capabilities with respect to COVID-19 vaccine bulk drug substance
(referred to herein as "CDMO Manufacturing Capabilities").

These cases were consolidated on December 23, 2021, under the
caption In re Emergent BioSolutions Inc. Securities Litigation, No.
8:21-cv-00955-PWG (the "Federal Securities Class Action").

The lead plaintiffs in the consolidated matter (the "Lead
Plaintiffs") are Nova Scotia Health Employees' Pension Plan and The
City of Fort Lauderdale Police & Firefighters' Retirement System.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 19, 2022 and the
Lead Plaintiffs filed an opposition to that motion on July 19,
2022.

A hearing on the motion to dismiss was conducted on April 19, 2023
and an order was entered on September 1, 2023, granting in part and
denying in part the motion to dismiss.

The defendant's answer to the complaint was filed on October 30,
2023.

The defendants believe that the allegations in the complaints are
without merit and intend to defend the matters vigorously.

Emergent is an American multinational specialty biopharmaceutical
company.[CC]

EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Barzi Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Charlotte Barzi, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. EQUINOX HOLDINGS, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, Case No. 24STCV08668 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
17, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-04117.

The Plaintiff seeks class damages for alleged: failure to pay wages
for all hours worked at minimum wage, failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to authorize or permit meal periods, failure to
authorize or permit rest periods, failure to indemnify employees
for employment-related losses and expenditures, failure to provide
complete and accurate wage statements, failure to timely pay all
earned wages due at time of separation, and unfair business
practices.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          John S. Battenfeld, Esq.
          Samson C. Huang, Esq.
          Eva M. Nofri, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue
          Twenty-Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Phone: +1.213.612.2500
          Fax: +1.213.612.2501
          Email: john.battenfeld@morganlewis.com
                 samson.huang@morganlewis.com
                 eva.nofri@morganlewis.com


EQUITY ONE: Feltzin Sues Over ADA Violation
-------------------------------------------
Lawrence Feltzin, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. EQUITY ONE (FLORIDA PORTFOLIO) LLC, Case No.
9:24-cv-80430-RLR (S.D. Fla., April 8, 2024), is brought for
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result
of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff
by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or
accommodations of the Commercial Property and businesses located
therein.

The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability and
requires landlords and tenants to be liable for compliance. The
subject Commercial Property is open to the public. The individual
Plaintiff visits the Commercial Property and businesses located
within the commercial property, to include a visit to the
Commercial Property and business located within the Commercial
Property on January 16, 2024, and encountered multiple violations
of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the
Commercial Property. He often visits the Commercial Property in
order to avail himself of the goods and services offered there, and
because it is 33 miles from his residence and is near other
businesses and restaurants he frequents as a patron. He plans to
return to the Commercial Property within 2 months of the filing of
this Complaint, in order to avail himself of the goods and services
offered at the place of public accommodation and check if it has
been remediated of the ADA violations he encountered.

The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property and the businesses
named herein located within the Commercial Property to be rife with
ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at
the Commercial Property, and businesses named herein located within
the Commercial Property, and wishes to continue his patronage and
use of each of the premises.

The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in
violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and
businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to
access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each
denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial
Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate.

EQUITY ONE (FLORIDA PORTFOLIO) LLC, owned and operated the
commercial buildings located at in Miami, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


ETAIROS HEALTH: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bueno Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
ISABEL GARCIA BUENO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ETAIROS HEALTH, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 24-002129-CI (Fla., Cir., Pinella Cty., May 14, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly
secure and safeguard personal identifiable information ("PII") of
the Defendant's current and former employees, including name,
address, government issued ID, license credential, phone number,
and Social Security number.

On or before February 20, 2024, Defendant detected unauthorized
access on its network, during which an unauthorized individual
accessed Defendant's systems (the "Data Breach"). By obtaining,
collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the PII of Plaintiff
and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to
those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from
unauthorized access and intrusion. Defendant admits that the
unencrypted PII exposed to "suspicious activity" included first and
last name; address; Social Security number; driver's license or
government-issued identification number; health insurance
information, medical condition(s) and diagnoses, or other health-
or medical-related information; and dates of birth, says the suit.

The PII were compromised due to Defendant's negligent and careless
acts and omissions and the failure to protect the PII of Plaintiff
and Class Members. In addition to Defendant's failure to prevent
the Data Breach, Defendant waited several months after the Data
Breach occurred to report it to the states' Attorneys General and
affected individuals. The Defendant has also purposefully
maintained secret the specific vulnerabilities and root causes of
the breach and has not informed Plaintiff and Class Members of that
information, the suit alleges.

Etairos Health, Inc. provides home healthcare services. The Company
offers its services in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Patrick A. Barthle
         MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
         201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
         Tampa, FL 33602
         Telephone: (813) 229-4023
         Facsimile: (813) 222-4708
         Email: pbarthle@ForThePeople.com

               - and -

         Ryan D. Maxey, Esq.
         MAXEY LAW FIRM, P.A.
         107 N. 11th St. #402
         Tampa, FL 33602
         Telephone: (813) 448-1125
         Email: ryan@maxeyfirm.com

EUCLID CHEMICAL: Birdsell Sues Over Unlawful Fixing of Prices
-------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Birdsell, as trustee of The Estate in Bankruptcy of
Agavero Readymix, LLC and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE EUCLID CHEMICAL COMPANY; RPM INTERNATIONAL INC.;
COMPAGNIE DE SAINT GOBAIN S.A.; SAINT-GOBAIN CORPORATION; CHRYSO,
INC.; GCP APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SIKA CORPORATION; SIKA AG;
CINVEN, LTD.; CINVEN, INC.; MASTER BUILDERS SOLUTIONS DEUTSCHLAND
GMBH; MASTER BUILDERS SOLUTIONS ADMIXTURES U.S., LLC; AND DOES
1-10, Case No. 1:24-cv-03817 (E.D. Pa., May 17, 2024), is brought
arising from the Defendants' unlawful agreement to fix the prices
for: chemical admixtures for concrete, chemical additives for
cement, chemical admixtures for mortar, and products containing or
bundled with any of these (collectively, "CCAs").

The roots of Defendants' conspiracy reach back to 2014, when Sika's
founding family, the Burkard family, sought to sell their
controlling stake in the company to Saint-Gobain. Sika management
viewed this as a hostile takeover and, together with key
shareholding groups, launched a campaign to block the deal. The
Burkards attempted to replace the dissenting board members but were
thwarted by the other shareholders who reduced the Burkards' voting
rights. A truce was announced on May 11, 2018 when the two
companies reached an agreement whereby Saint-Gobain sold 15.2
million of its shares in Sika, leaving it with a 10.75% stake but
not control.

The onset of Covid-19 in 2021, supercharged Defendants' conspiracy.
With no meaningful check on their pricing power, Defendants agreed
to institute price increases on the CCAs, and surcharges on top of
those price increases, including shipping surcharges and raw
material surcharges.

The Defendants' unlawful agreement caused direct purchasers of CCAs
in the United States and its territories, including Agavero and the
Class, to pay supra-competitive prices for CCAs sold by Defendants
in the United States and its territories from the period beginning
no later than May 11, 2018 and running through the date on which
the Class is certified (the "Class Period"), in violation of
Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act. The Defendants' scheme
included both price increases and the imposition of surcharges on
CCAs sold in the United States.

Beginning no later than May 11, 2018, Defendants entered into an
agreement to charge supra-competitive prices for CCAs through price
increases and the imposition of surcharges. This agreement resulted
in Agavero and members of the Class paying supra-competitive prices
for CCAs in the United States and its territories, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is the duly appointed and acting Trustee of the
Chapter 7 estate of Agavero.

Euclid manufactured and sold CCAs in the United States and its
territories, directly and/or through its predecessors, affiliates,
or subsidiaries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


EXCEL SPORTS: Hedges Files ADA Suit Over Website Inaccessibility
----------------------------------------------------------------
DONNA HEDGES, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated v. EXCEL SPORTS SCIENCE INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-03813
(S.D.N.Y., May 16, 2024) brings claims under the Americans with
Disabilities Act for alleged discrimination against blind and
visually impaired people.

This action arises from Defendant's alleged failure to make its
website fully and equally accessible for blind and visually
impaired people. The Plaintiff, a visually impaired and legally
blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website
content using her computer, encountered access barriers when
visiting Defendant's website, https://www.aquajogger.com. As a
result of Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its
website, Plaintiff and other visually impaired and blind persons
are allegedly unable to enjoy the products and services offered by
Defendant through its website, which is a violation of the ADA,
says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
  
Headquartered in Springfield, OR, Excel Sports Science Inc.
provides sports, health, fitness, and wellness solutions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
        Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
        Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
        GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC     
        150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
        New York, NY 10003
        Telephone: (212) 228-9795
        Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
        E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
                Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
                Dana@Gottlieb.legal

FACTS ON DEMAND: Moore Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Facts on Demand, Inc.
The case is styled as Kate Moore, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Facts on Demand, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-02191-MHC-CCB (N.D. Ga., May 20, 2024).

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

Facts On Demand -- https://www.factsondemand.com/ -- offers
national background checks and employment screening services to all
industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Weiner, Esq.
          Jeffrey Sand, Esq.
          WEINER & SAND LLC
          800 Battery Avenue SE, Suite 100
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Phone: (404) 254-0842
          Email: aw@wsjustice.com
                 js@wsjustice.com


FIGS INC: Hussein Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------
Sumaya Hussein, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. FIGS, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-02790 (N.D. Ill., April 8,
2024), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the
Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").

Congress provided a clear and national mandate for the elimination
of discrimination against individuals with disabilities when it
enacted the ADA. Such discrimination includes barriers to full
integration, independent living and equal opportunity for persons
with disabilities, including those barriers created by websites and
other public accommodations that are inaccessible to blind and
visually impaired persons.

Because Defendant's website, www.wearfigs.com (the "Website"), is
not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it
violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures
so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint.

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

The Defendant is a company that owns and operates www.wearfigs.com
offering features which should allow all consumers to access the
goods
and services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Vorburger Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sophie Cahen Vorburger, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Financial Business and Consumer
Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02045 (E.D. Pa., May
13, 2024) arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure
Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information
(PII) and personal health information (PHI).

On February 26, 2024, FBCS "discovered unauthorized access to
certain systems in its network." Its subsequent investigation
determined that the access persisted from February 14 and February
26, 2024. But FBCS did not disclose the incident until April 26,
2024, when it reported having sent notification letters to people
whose PII was exposed by the Data Breach. That disclosure also
reflected that 1,955,385 persons were affected by the breach.

The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated individuals whose PII and
PHI were exposed in the Data Breach. The Plaintiff seeks remedies
including compensation for time spent responding to the Data Breach
and other types of harm, free credit monitoring and identity theft
insurance, and injunctive relief including substantial improvements
to FBCS's data security policies and practices.

Financial Business and Consumer Solutions, Inc. is a
Pennsylvania-based collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bart D. Cohen, Esq.
          BAILEY GLASSER LLP
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 274-9420
          E-mail: bcohen@baileyglasser.com

FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Fails to Secure Consumers' Info, Vines Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
DERRICK VINES and BRADFORD WICKS, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated v. FINANCIAL BUSINESS AND CONSUMER
SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-02085 (E.D. Pa., May 15, 2024)
sues the Defendant for failure to properly secure and safeguard the
Plaintiffs' and Class members' personally identifiable information
stored within the Defendants' information network.

As a direct and proximate result of FBCS's inadequate data
security, and its breach of its duty to handle PII with reasonable
care, the Plaintiffs are now at a significantly increased and
certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft, misappropriation
of health insurance benefits, intrusion of his health privacy, and
similar forms of criminal mischief, and such risk may last for the
rest of her life. Consequently, the Plaintiffs must devote
substantially more time, money, and energy to protect themselves,
to the extent possible, from these crimes, the lawsuit asserts.

On May 13, 2024, the Plaintiffs were notified of the Data Breach
and of the impact to their PII via letter from the Defendant.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, bring claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
fiduciary duty, breach of confidences, breach of an implied
contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment, seeking
actual and putative damages, with attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses, and appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief.

To recover from FBCS for their sustained, ongoing, and future
harms, the Plaintiffs seek damages in an amount to be determined at
trial, declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief requiring the
Defendant to: disclose, expeditiously, the full nature of the Data
Breach and the types of PII accessed, obtained, or exposed by the
hackers; implement improved data security practices to reasonably
guard against future breaches of PII possessed by Defendant; and
provide, at its own expense, all impacted victims with lifetime
identity theft protection services, says the suit.

Mr. Vines is an adult individual and a citizen of Connecticut,
residing in Bristol, Connecticut.

Mr. Wicks is an adult individual and a citizen of Indiana, residing
in Renssalaer, Indiana.

FBCS is a nationally licensed debt collection agency providing
accounts receivable management and collection services across a
variety of industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
          Liberato P. Verderame, Esq.
          EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
          411 S. State Street, Suite N300
          Newtown, PA 18940
          Telephone: (215) 867-2399
          E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com
                  lverderame@edelson-law.com

FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Frasier Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Financial Business
and Consumer Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Jerome Frasier,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Financial Business and Consumer Solutions, Inc., Case No.
2:24-cv-02121 (E.D. Pa., May 17, 2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Financial Business and Consumer Solutions, Inc. (FBCS) --
https://www.fbcs-inc.com/ -- is a nationally licensed and bonded
collection agency offering pre-charge off, early out, and third
party collection services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vincent A. Coppola, Esq.
          PRIBANIC & PRIBANIC
          513 Court Place
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: (412) 281-8844
          Email: vcoppola@pribanic.com


FLORIDACENTRAL CREDIT: Cucuta Sues Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
ADELAIDA CUCUTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FLORIDACENTRAL CREDIT UNION, Case No.
8:24-cv-01186-WFJ-CPT (M.D. Fla., May 16, 2024) accuses the
Defendant of failing to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class
members' private information, resulting in a data breach.

The Defendant's data security failures allegedly paved the way for
a targeted cyberattack which compromised Plaintiff's and Class
members' personally identifiable information. The data breach took
place on or around April 4, 2024 but Defendant only began informing
affected individuals about the incident on May 14, 2024. The
Plaintiff and Class Members allegedly suffered and will continue to
suffer injury as a result of the data breach as they are now at a
current, imminent, and ongoing risk of fraud and identity theft.

The Plaintiff brings this action to seek redress for Defendant's
alleged unlawful conduct and to assert claims for negligence and
negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary
duty, and unjust enrichment.

Floridacentral Credit Union provides financial solutions and is
located in Tampa, FL. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and -
     
        William "Billy" Peerce Howard, Esq.
        Amanda J. Allen, Esq.
        THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM
        401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2340
        Truist Place
        Tampa, FL. 33602
        Telephone: (813) 500-1500
        E-mail: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
                Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com               
            

FONTEN PLAZA: Longhini Sues Over ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------
Doug Longhini, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. FONTEN PLAZA INC and JARDINES DE CONFUCIO, INC. d/b/a
JARDINES DE CONFUCIO, Case No. 1:24-cv-21246-JB (S.D. Fla., April
3, 2024), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees,
litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's
discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him
access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services,
facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the
Commercial Property and businesses located therein.

The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability and
requires landlords and tenants to be liable for compliance. The
subject Commercial Property is open to the public. The individual
Plaintiff visits the Commercial Property and businesses located
within the commercial property, to include a visit to the
Commercial Property and business located within the Commercial
Property on January 16, 2024, and encountered multiple violations
of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the
Commercial Property. He often visits the Commercial Property in
order to avail himself of the goods and services offered there, and
because it is 8 miles from his residence and is near other
businesses and restaurants he frequents as a patron. He plans to
return to the Commercial Property within 2 months of the filing of
this Complaint, in order to avail himself of the goods and services
offered at the place of public accommodation and check if it has
been remediated of the ADA violations he encountered.

The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property and the businesses
named herein located within the Commercial Property to be rife with
ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at
the Commercial Property, and businesses named herein located within
the Commercial Property, and wishes to continue his patronage and
use of each of the premises.

The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in
violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and
businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to
access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each
denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial
Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate.

FONTEN PLAZA INC, owned and operated the commercial buildings
located at in Miami, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


FORD MOTOR: Dorfman Sues Over Unfair and Deceptive Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Dorfman, Travis Corby, Chad Hobson and Allen Davis,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FORD
MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, Case No.
2:24-cv-10942-SFC-APP (N.D. Ill., April 11, 2024), is brought
against Ford for breach of the manufacturer's warranty and for
unfair and deceptive practices pertaining to its design and
manufacture of 2020-2023 Ford Explorer, 2020-2023 Lincoln Aviator,
and 2020-2023 Lincoln Corsair vehicles outfitted with a 360-Degree
Camera system (the "Class Vehicles"), arising from Ford's
concealment of latent defect(s) in the Class Vehicles' 360-Degree
Camera system causing glitches, blue or black screens, and camera
failures, rendering the Class Vehicle's Camera inoperative (the
"Camera Defect").

Ford manufactured, marketed, distributed, sold and/or caused to be
sold or leased the Class Vehicles to consumers, including
Plaintiffs, without disclosing the Camera Defect, a safety defect
that Ford still has yet to properly remedy. Significantly, this
Camera Defect poses a safety risk to operators and passengers of
the Class Vehicles because the loss of the rear camera image while
in reverse increases the risk of a crash. This exposes drivers and
occupants of the Class Vehicles, as well as others sharing the road
with them, including pedestrians, to increased risk of accident or
injury. As discussed further herein, numerous owners and lessees of
the Class Vehicles have experienced the Camera Defect while
operating Class Vehicles, thus placing themselves and those around
them at an increased risk of crash and injury.

As a result of Ford's unfair, deceptive and/or fraudulent business
practices, owners and/or lessees of the Class Vehicles, including
Plaintiffs, have suffered an ascertainable loss of money and/or
property and/or loss in vehicle value. As a result of the Camera
Defect and Ford's continued inability to remedy the safety defect,
Plaintiffs and the Class members have suffered injury in fact,
incurred damages, and have been otherwise harmed and continue to be
harmed by Ford's conduct, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs leased one of the Class Vehicles that contained
defect.

Ford is a motor vehicle manufacturer and a licensed distributor of
Ford and Lincoln brand motor vehicles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Derek Y. Brandt, Esq.
          Leigh M. Perica, Esq.
          231 North Main Street, Suite 20
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Phone: (618) 307-6116
          Email: dyb@mccunewright.com
                 lmp@mccunewright.com

               - and -

          Richard D. McCune, Esq.
          David C. Wright
          3281 E. Guasti, Road, Suite 100
          Ontario, CA 91761
          Phone: (909) 557-1250
          Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
          Email: rdm@mccunewright.com
                 dcw@mccunewright.com

               - and -

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Sharon Almonrode, Esq.
          Emily E. Hughes, Esq.
          Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
          Mitchell Kendrick, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          950 W University Dr # 300,
          Rochester, Michigan 48307
          Phone: (248) 841-2200
          Email: epm@millerlawpc.com
                 ssa@millerlawpc.com
                 eeh@millerlawpc.com
                 dal@millerlawpc.com
                 wk@millerlawpc.com


FRANCESCA'S HOLDINGS: Ramos Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eslimerari Ramos, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. FRANCESCA'S HOLDINGS CORPORATION, Case No.
1:24-cv-02844 (N.D. Ill., April 9, 2024), is brought against
Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a
violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA").

Congress provided a clear and national mandate for the elimination
of discrimination against individuals with disabilities when it
enacted the ADA. Such discrimination includes barriers to full
integration, independent living and equal opportunity for persons
with disabilities, including those barriers created by websites and
other public accommodations that are inaccessible to blind and
visually impaired persons.

Because the Defendant's website, www.francescas.com (the
"Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually
impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a
permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate
policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers, says the complaint.

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

The Defendant is a company that owns and operates
www.francescas.com offering features which should allow all
consumers to access the goods
and services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


FRANKLIN PARK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arenas Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
GILBERTO VAZQUEZ ARENAS; RAFAEL BAEZ ORTIGOZA; and MANUEL EUGENIO
GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FRANKLIN PARK LLC; MATTHEW ROFF; ANATOLY
DUBINSKY; and SIVAN VIGDER, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-03545
(E.D.N.Y., May 15, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as kitchen workers.

FRANKLIN PARK LLC operates as a restaurant and bar at Brooklyn, New
York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yale Pollack, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF YALE POLLACK, P.C.
          66 Split Rock Road
          Syosset, NY 11791
          Telephone: (516) 634-6340
          Email: ypollack@yalepollacklaw.com

FROST BANK: Criswell Sues Over Unlawful Overdraft Fees
------------------------------------------------------
Lanita Criswell and Lasheena Neal, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. FROST BANK, Case No. 5:24-cv-00327
(W.D. Tex., April 1, 2024), is brought against the Defendant
arising from Defendant's routine policy and practice of charging
its customers Overdraft Fees ("OD Fees") on transactions that did
not overdraw an account.

The plain language of Frost Bank's adhesion contracts specifically
promises that Frost Bank will only charge OD Fees on items when
such items cause the account to have a negative balance. Overdraft
fees represent one of the biggest profit centers for banks,
stemming from practices susceptible to high levels of abuse which
pose the largest burden on consumers. For example, investigations
undertaken by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB")
revealed that some banks intentionally create confusion for their
accountholders regarding the terms of their overdraft policies,
intentionally obscure how fees are charged for overdraft and
insufficient funds transactions, and design their accountholder
application and onboarding process to allow the banks to capitalize
on this confusion. This confusion allows banks to maximize the
number of overdraft fees they can charge leading directly to
increased revenue for the bank.

At the moment debit card transactions are authorized on an account
with positive funds to cover the transaction, Defendant immediately
reduces consumers' checking accounts for the amount of the
purchase, sets aside funds in a checking account to cover that
transaction, and as a result, the consumer's displayed "available
balance" reflects that subtracted amount. As a result, customers'
accounts will always have sufficient available funds available to
cover these transactions because Defendant has already sequestered
these funds for payment.

However, Defendant still assesses crippling $35 OD Fees on many of
these transactions and mispresents its practices in its Account
Contract. Despite putting aside sufficient available funds for
debit card transactions at the time those transactions are
authorized, Defendant later assesses OD Fees on those same
transactions when they purportedly settle days later into a
negative balance. These practices breach contractual promises made
in Defendant's Account Contract--a contract which fundamentally
misconstrues and misleads consumers about the true nature of
Defendant's processes and practices. These practices also exploit
contractual discretion to gouge consumers. In plain, clear, and
simple language, Defendant's Account Contract promises that
Defendant will only charge OD Fees on transactions that have
insufficient funds to "cover" that
transaction.

The Defendant is therefore not authorized by the Account Contract
to charge OD Fees on transactions that have not overdrawn an
account, but Defendant has done so and continues to do so in
violation of the Account Contract. The Plaintiffs and other Frost
Bank customers have been injured by Frost Bank's practices. On
behalf of themselves and the putative class, Plaintiffs seek
damages and restitution for Frost Bank's breach of contract, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are Frost Bank customers.

Frost is engaged in the business of providing retail banking
services to consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew Shamis, Esq.
          Edwin E. Elliott, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
                 edwine@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Jacob Phillips, Esq.
          Joshua Jacobson, Esq.
          JACOBSON PHILLIPS PLLC
          478 E. Altamonte Dr., Ste. 108-570
          Altamonte Springs, FL 32701
          Phone: (407) 720-4057
          Email: jacob@jacobsonphillips.com
                 joshua@jacobsonphillips.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
          KALIELGOLD PLLC
          1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Phone: (202) 350-4783
          Email: jkaliel@kalielgold.com
                 sgold@kalielgold.com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (305) 975-3320
          Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com


GARDA CL: Cravens Sues Over Failure to Protect Sensitive Data
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andre Cravens, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. GARDA CL SOUTHEAST, INC., GARDAWORLD CASHLINK LLC,
GARDAWORLD CASH SERVICES, INC., d/b/a GARDAWORLD CASH U.S., Case
No. 9:24-cv-80400-RLR (S.D. Fla., April 2, 2024), is brought
arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive
data.

Garda stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable
information ("PII") and protected health information
("PHI")--together "PII/PHI"--about its current and former employees
and/or customers. But Garda lost control over that data when
cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer
systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach").

It is unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access
to Garda's network before the breach was discovered. In other
words, Garda had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or
mitigate breaches of its systems--thereby allowing cybercriminals
unrestricted access to its current and former employees' and/or
customers' PII/PHI.

Cybercriminals were able to breach Garda's systems because Garda
failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and
failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to
protect the Class's PII/PHI. In short, Garda's failures placed the
Class's PII/PHI in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy
targets for cybercriminals.

The exposure of one's PII/PHI to cybercriminals is a bell that
cannot be unrung. Before this data breach, its current and former
employees' and/or customers' private information was exactly
that--private. Not anymore. Now, their private information is
forever exposed and unsecure, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim.

Garda is "one of the world's largest privately owned integrated
security and risk company."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua R. Jacobson, Esq.
          Jacob L. Phillips, Esq.
          JACOBSON PHILLIPS PLLC
          478 E. Altamonte Dr., Ste. 108-570
          Altamonte Springs, FL 32701
          Phone: (407) 612-2206
          Email: joshua@jacobsonphillips.com
                 jacob@jacobsonphillips.com

               - and -

          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
          613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
          Madison, WI 53703
          Phone: (608) 237-1775
          Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
          Email: sam@turkestrauss.com

GENERAL MOTORS: Green Sues Over Concealment of Defective Vehicles
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbie Green, Karen Malmkar, Maria Garza, Glenda Brown, Michelle
Crosier, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-10917-SJM-EAS (E.D. Mich.,
April 9, 2024), is brought against the Defendant's fraudulent
concealment of defective vehicles, breaches of the express and
implies warranties, violations of state consumer protection and
unfair and deceptive trade practices acts.

The Defendant sold Plaintiffs and the putative class members
defective 2021-2023 Chevrolet Trailblazer, 2020-2022 Chevrolet
Traverse, 2020 2023 Chevrolet Malibu and 2020-2023 Buick Encore
vehicles (the "Class Vehicles") that contain defective transmission
control (shifter) assemblies. The defective shifter assemblies
prevent the vehicles from detecting when the driver places the car
in "Park." As a result, the vehicle goes into accessory mode and
the driver cannot shut off or lock the vehicle, the instrument
cluster displays a "Shift to Park" message even though the gear
shifter is already in "Park," and the battery drains (the "Shift to
Park Defect" or the "Defect").

When the Defect manifests, owners must resort to all manner of
gimmicks to get the vehicle to recognize the transmission has been
placed in Park and allow the driver to turn off the vehicle. For
instance, owners must manipulate the shifter back and forth or
repeatedly drive forwards and backwards before placing the vehicle
in Park again. Class Vehicle owners have reported that it can take
as long as 20 minutes to get their vehicles to shut off. Because
drivers cannot reliably turn off their vehicles when reaching their
destination, the Defect substantially impairs the Class Vehicles'
ability to provide safe and reliable transportation and renders the
vehicles unmerchantable and worth less money at the time of sale or
lease.

Additionally, GM had knowledge of the common defect before selling
the Class Vehicles to Plaintiffs and class members. For instance,
prior model year GM vehicles (2016-2019) also had defective
transmission control (shifter) assemblies that suffered from the
Shift to Park Defect and GM issued several technical service
bulletins acknowledging the defect that pre-date the sale of the
Class Vehicles at issue in this case.

GM also learned about the Defect via pre-sale testing on the Class
Vehicles, early consumer complaints directly to GM and its
dealerships, and from reports from dealerships. Nonetheless, GM
failed to disclose the defect to Plaintiffs or other putative class
members at the time of sale or lease. GM's sale of the defective
Class Vehicles with the undisclosed defect and failure to repair
constitute fraudulent concealment, breaches of the express and
implies warranties, violations of state consumer protection and
unfair and deceptive trade practices acts, and give rise to unjust
enrichment claims. To remedy GM's unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs, on
behalf of the proposed class members, seek damages and restitution
from GM, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs purchased one of the Defendant's Vehicles.

General Motors LLC is a Delaware limited liability company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sergei Lemberg
          43 Danbury Road
          Wilton, CT 06897
          Phone: (203) 653-2250
          Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
          Email: slemberg@lemberglaw.com


GENUINE DATA: Amar Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA
-------------------------------------------------
TOMER AMAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GENUINE DATA SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 3:24-cv-03035-JFA (D.S.C.., May 15, 2024) alleges violations of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The case is assigned to Judge Joseph F Anderson, Jr.

GENUINE DATA SERVICES, LLC is engaged in centralizing clients'
efforts to gain access to data from sources from all across the
nation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Penny Hays Cauley, Esq.
          HAYS CAULEYS, P.C.
          1303 West Evans Street
          Florence, SC 29501
          Telephone: (843) 665-1717
          Facsimile: (843) 665-1718
          Email: phc917@hayscauley.com

               - and -

          Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
          Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C
          763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Ste. 1-A
          Newsport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          Email: lenbennett@clalegal.com
                 craig@clalegal.com

GEOCKO INC: Reichert Sues Over WARN Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------
Dylan Reichert, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. GEOCKO, INC. d/b/a FORWARD, Case No.
8:24-cv-00887-WFJ-TGW (M.D. Fla., April 10, 2024), is brought for
the recovery by the Named Plaintiff, on his own behalf and on
behalf of over 50 other similarly situated former employees,
seeking to recover damages in the amount of 60 days' compensation
and benefits for each of them by reason of the Defendant's
violation of their rights under the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act (the "WARN Act").

The Named Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members were employees
of Defendant who were terminated without cause on their part on
December 4, 2023, or within 30 days thereof, as part of or as the
reasonably expected consequence of a mass layoff or plant closing,
which was effectuated by Defendant on or about that date. The
Defendant failed to provide Plaintiffs with the 60 days advance
written notice that is required by the WARN Act. In fact, Defendant
provided Plaintiff with no advance notice, at all. Plaintiffs are
entitled under the WARN Act to recover from the Defendant their
wages and benefits for 60 days, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked from home in Tampa, Florida, but reported to
Defendant's Seattle, Washington office.

The Defendant was a Washington corporation, which had been
authorized to operate in the state of Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GILEAD SCIENCES: Fust Appeals Case Dismissal Order to 9th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
DEBORAH FUST, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
denying their motion for reconsideration in the lawsuit entitled
Deborah Fust, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Gilead Sciences, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-02853-WBS-DB, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California.

The Plaintiffs bring personal injury claims against the Defendant.

On Dec. 13, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss.

On Jan. 5, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand.

On Feb. 22, 2024, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion to remand
and granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss through an Order
entered by Senior Judge William B. Shubb. The Plaintiffs' complaint
is dismissed with prejudice.

On Mar. 4, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration,
which the Court denied on Apr. 1, 2024. The Court concluded that
they have not presented any newly discovered evidence, shown clear
error or manifest injustice, or pointed to an intervening change in
controlling law that would justify reconsideration.

The appellate case is captioned Fust, et al. v. Gilead Sciences,
Inc., Case No. 24-2954, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 8, 2024.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on May 13, 2024;

   -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on May 15, 2024;

   -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on June 14, 2024;

   -- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on July 24, 2024;
and

   -- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on August 23, 2024.
[BN]

GOLDEN POND: Rosete Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Golden Pond, L.P., et
al. The case is styled as Layleny Rosete, and others similarly
situated v. Golden Pond, L.P., Case No. 24CV006510 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 4, 2024).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."

Golden Pond, L.P. doing business as Golden Pond Retirement
Community -- https://www.goldenpond.com/ -- offers independent,
assisted living, and memory care.[BN]

GRASSHOPPER MANAGEMENT: Williams Sues Over Inaccessible Space
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN WILLIAMS v. GRASSHOPPER MANAGEMENT, LLC, AND GRASSHOPPER
HOSPITALITY, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01404 (D.D.C., May 15, 2024) is
a class action alleging that the services, features, elements and
spaces of the Defendants' place of public accommodation are not
readily accessible to, or usable by the Plaintiff, in violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

On Sept. 6, 2023 through Sept. 9, 2023, the Plaintiff was a guest
at the Premises. In order to enter the lobby to access his room
inside of the hotel, the Plaintiff was forced to crawl up the
stairs in front of other hotel guests because no ramp or other
reasonable accommodation was offered for Mr. William's assistive
devices. The Plaintiff brought this issue to the attention of the
Defendants' employees. No action was taken, the Plaintiff claims.

Through the entirety of the Plaintiff's stay he was forced to
endure humiliation of crawling in order to enter the hotel, upon
each and every attempt to enter. In some instances, employees
offered assistance. Some employees just watched; others openly
laughed, the Plaintiff adds.

The Defendants have and are continuing to discriminate against the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated disabled individuals by
failing to provide accessible facilities on or before Jan. 26,
1992
in violation of the ADA, the lawsuit asserts.

The Plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive and equitable relief,
as well as monetary damages and attorney's fees, costs and expenses
to redress Defendants' unlawful disability discrimination against
the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA and its implementing
regulation, and the District of Columbia Official Code ("D.C.
Code").

Mr. Williams is an adult male confined to a wheelchair, and in a
limited capacity, a walker. He is incapable of moving around
outside of his home without assistance and assistive devices. He
has further restrictions speaking, caring for himself, and
performing other tasks associated with daily living. He resides in
the County of Queens, State of New York.

Grasshopper is the owner and operator of The Eldon Hotel property
located at 933 L Street, N.W., Washington, District of Columbia
(the "premises").[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence S. Lapidus, Esq.
          THE LAPIDUS LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Thomas Circle, N.W., Suite 700
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 785-5111
          E-mail: llapidus@lapiduslawfirm.com

                - and -

          Jonathan Bell, Esq.
          Daniel A. Johnston, Esq.
          BELL LAW GROUP PLLC
          116 Jackson Blvd.
          Syosset, NY 11791
          Telephone: (516) 280-3008
          E-mail: JB@BellLG.com
                  DJ@BellLG.com

GREAT LAKES: Mills Sues Over Unlawful Collecting of Biometrics
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robyn Mills, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
individuals v. GREAT LAKES INFOTRONICS, INC. d/b/a INFOTRONICS,
INC., a Michigan Corporation, Case No. 1:24-cv-04131 (N.D. Ill.,
May 20, 2024), is brought for damages and other legal and equitable
remedy resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant in
collecting, obtaining, storing and/or using and profiting off of
Plaintiff's, and other similarly situated individuals' biometric
identifiers and biometric information (referred to collectively as
"biometrics") without receiving informed written consent and
without providing a publicly available retention schedule in
violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act
("BIPA").

In direct violation of each of the foregoing provisions of the
BIPA, Defendant failed to provide, publish, or otherwise make
publicly available data retention policies. In direct violation of
the foregoing provisions of the BIPA, Defendant actively collected,
stored, obtained, and used the biometrics of Illinois residents,
including Plaintiff, without providing notice, or obtaining
informed written consent. Specifically, during the relevant time
period, Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals in
Illinois were required to scan their fingerprints on Defendant's
biometric devices to keep track of the amount of time Plaintiffs
were working for Defendant's customers.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and a class
of similarly situated individuals to prevent Defendant from further
violating privacy rights and to recover statutory damages for
Defendant's unauthorized collection, storage and use of Plaintiff's
biometrics in violation of BIPA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by a third-party who utilized
Defendant's biometric timekeeping devices during her employment
from March 2023 until March 11, 2024.

The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls several biometric
devices which it has delivered to the State of Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan Richards, Esq.
          JORDAN RICHARDS PLLC
          1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Phone: (954) 871-0050
          Email: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
                 michael@usaemploymentlawyers.com
                 sarah@usaemploymentlawyers.com
                 charles@usaemploymentlawyers.com
                 intake@usaemploymentlawyers.com


GREEN TRIPS: Washington Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliation
--------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN WASHINGTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREEN TRIPS INC. d/b/a GREEN
TRIPS, and PETER KIM, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-03585 (E.D.N.Y.,
May 16, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for failure
to pay wages, including overtime, and retaliation in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law and
violation of statutory rights under the New York State Human Rights
Law and the New York City Human Rights Law.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a driver from on or
around May 2, 2023, until or around January 8, 2024.

Green Trips Inc., doing business as Green Trips, is a provider of
ambulatory wheelchair services, headquartered in Flushing, New
York. [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

GUCCI AMERICA: Sendis Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Andres Sendis, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. GUCCI AMERICA, INC., a
corporation; KERING EYEWEAR USA, INC., a corporation, and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2401710 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Riverside, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on May 20, 2024, and assigned Case No.
5:24-cv-01069.

The Plaintiff asserts causes of action for: failure to pay minimum
and straight time wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to
provide lawful meal periods; failure to provide lawful rest
periods; failure to timely pay final wages at termination; failure
to furnish accurate itemized wage statements; failure to reimburse
expenses; unfair competition all in violation of the California
Labor Code and the Business & Professions Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian D. Fahy, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue
          Twenty-Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Phone: +1.213.612.2500
          Fax: +1.213.612.2501
          Email: brian.fahy@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          J.P. Schreiber, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One Market, Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: +1.415.442.1000
          Fax: +1.415.442.1001
          Email: jp.schreiber@morganlewis.com


GUNSTER YOAKLEY: Faces Whalen Suit Over Inadequate Data Security
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARY JANE WHALEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GUNSTER, YOAKLEY & STEWARD, PA
Defendant, Case No. 9:24-cv-80612 (S.D. Fla., May 13, 2024) seeks
to hold the Defendant responsible for the injuries it inflicted on
Plaintiff and thousands of similarly situated persons due to the
Defendant's impermissibly inadequate data security, which caused
the personal information of Plaintiff and those similarly situated
to be exfiltrated by unauthorized access by cybercriminals on
November 27, 2022.

According to the complaint, the data which the Defendant collected
from the Plaintiff and Class Members, and which was exfiltrated by
cybercriminals from the Defendant, were highly sensitive. The
exfiltrated data included personal identifying information and
personal health information.

As evidenced by the Data Breach, the Defendant inadequately
maintained its network, platform, software -- rendering these easy
prey for cybercriminals. Then, after the Data Breach, Defendant
failed to provide timely notice to the affected Plaintiff and Class
Members for nearly 18 months -- thereby exacerbating their
injuries, says the suit.

Gunster, Yoakley & Steward, PA operates a law firm headquartered in
West Palm Beach, Florida, with 12 additional offices throughout the
state.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Brian Murray, Esq.
          GLANCY, PRONGAY & MURRAY
          230 Park Avenue, Suite 358
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340  
          E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com

HAMILTON-RYKER IT: Pickens Appeals Suit Dismissal to 6th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
LYNWOOD PICKENS is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing
the lawsuit entitled Lynwood Pickens, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hamilton-Ryker IT
Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00141, in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

The suit is brought over the Defendant's alleged failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

On Apr. 28, 2023, the Defendant and the Plaintiff filed motions for
summary judgment.

On Mar. 28, 2024, the Court denied the Plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment and granted the Defendant's motion for summary
judgment through an Order entered by Judge William L. Campbell, Jr.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's claims were dismissed with prejudice.

The appellate case is captioned Lynwood Pickens v. Hamilton-Ryker
IT Solutions, LLC, Case No. 24-5459, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on May 9, 2024. [BN]

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

          Richard Burch, Esq.
          David Michael Mathews, Esq.
          Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
                     (713) 352-1100

Defendant-Appellee HAMILTON-RYKER IT SOLUTIONS, LLC is represented
by:

          Ashlee Cassman Grant, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER
          811 Main Street, Suite 1100
          Houston, TX 77022
          Telephone: (713) 646-1316

HEARST TELEVISION: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 6
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Saunders, et al., v.
Hearst Television, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-10998 (D, Mass., Filed
May 5, 2023), the Hon. Judge Richard G. Stearns entered an order
granting in part and denying in part motion to amend the pretrial
schedule:

-- All fact discovery will be completed by:      Aug. 12, 2024

-- Class certification motions are due:          Sept. 6, 2024

           with any opposition filed by:          Sept. 27, 2024

-- Plaintiffs' expert disclosures under          Oct. 18, 2024
    Rule 26 are due:

-- Defendant's expert disclosures are due:       Nov. 8, 2024

-- Expert discovery ends on:                     Dec. 6, 2024

-- Dispositive motions are due:                  Jan. 3, 2025

       with Oppositions due by:                   Jan. 24, 2025

The nature of suit states Other Statutes - Other Statutory
Actions.

Hearst Television is a national multimedia company.[CC]

HIGHMARK INC: Fails to Pay Insurance Commissions, Mollinea Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CATHY MOLLINEA and her spouse, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HIGHMARK INC. D/B/A HIGHMARK
HEALTH PLAN, HIGHMARK BLUECROSS BLUE SHIELD, and HIGHMARK BLUE
SHIELD, a Pennsylvania non-profit corporation; HIGHMARK HEALTH, a
Pennsylvania Nonprofit Corporation; and XYZ Corporations,
Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01080-SMB (D. Ariz., May 10, 2024) is
a class action against the Defendants for breach of contract,
breach of third-party beneficiary contract, breach of duty of good
faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and negligence.

The case arises from the Defendants' violation of their contracts
with brokers by failing to issue commission payments to broker for
all health insurance policies sold by the Plaintiffs, or in the
alternative negligently failing to maintain records sufficient to
link the payments they made to the brokers to the sales made by the
Plaintiffs. As a result of the unpaid and/or delayed commissions,
the Plaintiffs were damaged by the loss and deprivation of use of
commissions funds, says the suit.

Highmark Inc., doing business as Highmark Health Plan, is an
American non-profit healthcare company based in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.

Highmark BlueCross Blue Shield is an American non-profit healthcare
company based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Highmark Blue Shield is an American non-profit healthcare company
based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Highmark Health is an American non-profit healthcare company based
in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         James Weiler, Esq.
         WEILER LAW, PLLC
         5050 N. 40th St., Suite 260
         Phoenix, AZ 85018
         Telephone: (480) 442-3410
         Email: jweiler@weilerlaw.com

HOMEADVISOR INC: Hudson Sues Over Breaches of TCPA
--------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY HUDSON, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HOMEADVISOR, INC. D/B/A ANGI, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-01408-DDD-KAS (D. Colo., May 20, 2024) seeks to
stop Defendant's unlawful sending of improper telemarketing
solicitation text messages and accuses the Defendant of violating
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and the TCPA's corresponding
regulations.

Allegedly, Defendant sent telemarketing text messages to Plaintiff
and the putative class members despite Hudson's and the putative
class members phone numbers being registered on the National
Do-Not-Call Registry, says the suit.

Headquartered in Denver, CO, HomeAdvisor, Inc. is advertising
company that offers a platform for homeowners and service
professionals to connect for their home improvement, maintenance,
and remodeling projects. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher E. Roberts, Esq.
          BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES LLC
          7777 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 1300
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 863-5700
          Telephone: croberts@butschroberts.com

HUCKBERRY INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind People, Riley Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMANIE RILEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Huckberry, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-03835 (S.D.N.Y., May 17, 2024) arises from Defendant's
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons.

Plaintiff Riley alleges that the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its website is a violation of Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human
Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. By failing to
make the website accessible to blind persons, Defendant is
violating basic equal access requirements under both state and
federal law.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Huckberry's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's
website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.

Headquartered in San Francisco, CA, Huckberry, Inc. owns and
operates the website, Huckberry.com, which sells apparel, footwear
and accessories. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

HUDDLESON LINENS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Fernandez Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. HUDDLESON LINENS, INC., Case No. e 1:24-cv-03793
(S.D.N.Y., May 16, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant’s website,
www.huddleson.com (the "Website"), to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, and
therefore denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act. The Defendant's website is not equally accessible
to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is
in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and
legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read
website content using the computer, the lawsuit says.

Huddleson Linens provides bed and table linens.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

IBM: Allman Suit Removed to D. Colorado
---------------------------------------
The case styled as Frederick L. Allman and Jorge A. Torres,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, Case No. 2023-CV-33103
was removed from the District Court of Denver County, Colorado, to
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on
April 12, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00996-PAB.

This case, like hundreds of other related cases already coordinated
in a federal multidistrict litigation, relates to a previously
unknown, "zero-day" critical security vulnerability in Progress
Software Corporation's ("Progress") MOVEit Transfer ("MOVEit")
application. As a result of the vulnerability in Progress's MOVEit
application, hundreds of cases have been filed in courts across the
country against more than a hundred defendants who used an impacted
MOVEit application or whose data was impacted via the zero-day
MOVEit vulnerability.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

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


INCA BOOT: Riley Sues Over Noncompliance of Website's Accessibility
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AMANIE RILEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Inca Boot Company, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-03842 (S.D.N.Y., May 17, 2024) arises from Inca Boot's
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons and asserts claims for
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York
State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services Inca Boot provides to their non-disabled customers through
its website. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to
cause a change in Inca Boot's policies, practices, and procedures
to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers. She also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination, says the suit.

Based in Austin, TX, Inca Boot  owns and operates a website known
as Fortress.shoes which provides consumers with access to an array
of goods and services, including, the ability to view a wide range
of boots, flats, sandals, sneakers, clogs, mules and shoe care
products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

INNOV8TIVE NUTRITION: Fernandez Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. INNOV8TIVE NUTRITION, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-03796
(S.D.N.Y., May 16, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website,
www.innov8tive.com (the "Website"), to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to the Website, and therefore denial of the goods and
services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant's website
is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers;
therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA, says the
Plaintiff.

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

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

INNOV8TIVE NUTRITION, INC. provides nutritional supplements.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Knight Appeals Dismissal Order to 2nd Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs JOSHUA KNIGHT, et al., filed an appeal from the District
Court's Opinion & Order and Judgment dated April 4, 2024 entered in
the lawsuit styled Joshua Knight, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. International Business
Machines Corporation, the Plan Administrator Committee, and the IBM
Personal Pension Plan, Defendants, Case No. 7:22-cv-04592, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(White Plains).

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit filed on June 2,
2022 is a civil enforcement action brought under Sections 502(a)(2)
and 502(a)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974, concerning Defendants' alleged violations of ERISA's
actuarial equivalence, anti-forfeiture, and joint and survivor
annuity requirements with respect to an IBM Personal Pension Plan.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Class members are
vested participants in the IBM Plan, which denies them their full
ERISA-protected pension benefits. Specifically, Plaintiff and Class
members receive pension benefits in the form of a joint and
survivor annuity -- a benefit that pays an annuity both to the
participant for his life and for the life of the participant's
surviving spouse. In determining the amount of Plaintiff's and
Class members' joint and survivor annuities, however, Defendants
employed actuarial assumptions over 40 years out of date. That
means Plaintiff and Class members receive less than the "actuarial
equivalent" of their vested accrued benefit, contrary to ERISA,
alleges the suit.

As a result, these Participants and their beneficiaries receive
significantly less than the actuarial equivalent of their single
life annuity, directly contrary to ERISA's requirements, the suit
adds.

On January 18, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
case.

On April 4, 2024, the Court entered an Opinion and Order signed by
Judge Nelson Stephen Roman wherein he granted Defendants' motion to
dismiss the amended complaint and dismissed all claims with
prejudice as time-barred under the applicable statute of
limitations.

The appellate case is captioned as Knight v. International Business
Machines Corporation, Case No. 24-1281, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on May 13, 2024.[BN]

Defendants-Appellees THE IBM PERSONAL PENSION PLAN, et al., are
represented by:

          David Timothy Raimer, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          51 Louisiana Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20001

INTERSTATE BROKERS: Sends Unsolicited Calls/Texts, Thrower Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GENE THROWER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INTERSTATE BROKERS OF AMERICA LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-60829-WPD (S.D. Fla., May 16, 2024) is
a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act, and the Florida Telemarketing Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's unlawful practice of placing
multiple telemarketing calls and multiple text messages to the
personal cellular telephones of the Plaintiff and similarly
situated consumers for the purpose of selling its insurance
products and services despite having their numbers registered on
the national do-not-call registry. The Defendant also made such
calls and texts without obtaining the Plaintiff's and similarly
situated consumers' prior express written consent. As a result of
the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class members
suffered damages, says the suit.

Interstate Brokers of America LLC is a provider of insurance
products and services based in Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Rachel Soffin, Esq.
       MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
       3833 Central Ave.
       St. Petersburg, FL 33713
       Telephone: (865) 247-0080
       Email: rsoffin@milberg.com

                - and -

       Aleksandr "Sasha" Litvinov, Esq.
       SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC
       867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor #1520
       Boston, MA 02116
       Telephone: (617) 377-7404
       Facsimile: (888) 410-0415

J.M. SMUCKER: Ward Appeals Consumer Suit Dismissal to 6th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NAYTHAN A. WARD, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Naythan A. Ward, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. J.M. Smucker Company, Defendant, Case No.
5:22-cv-00885, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendant for breach of express warranty,
breach of implied warranty, negligence, negligent failure to warn,
negligent design defect, breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, unjust
enrichment, and punitive damages.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Jif peanut
butter products sold in the U.S. between February 2022 and May
2022. The Defendant advertised the products' ingredients as high
quality and safe for human consumption, however, the products sold
within the said period were contaminated with Salmonella. The
Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers seek refunds and all
other economic losses suffered as the result of their purchases of
Jif peanut butter products contaminated with Salmonella, says the
suit.

On Feb. 3, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim and motion strike.

On Apr. 10, 2023, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss through an Order entered by Judge John R. Adams. The
Defendant's accompanying motion to strike is denied as moot. The
Court agrees with the authorities that the exposure to such a
potential risk of contamination is insufficient to create Article
III standing. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss the class action
complaint is hereby granted. The case is dismissed without
prejudice.

The appellate case is captioned Naythan Ward, et al. v. J.M.
Smucker Company, Case No. 24-3387, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on May 6, 2024. [BN]

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

          Marc E. Dann, Esq.
          DANN LAW
          15000 Madison Avenue
          Lakewood, OH 44107
          Telephone: (216) 373-0539

                 - and -

          Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES
          77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 440-0020

Defendant-Appellee J.M. SMUCKER COMPANY is represented by:

          Ronald Y. Rothstein, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN
          35 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 4600
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 558-5600

JAMES VELISSARIS: Must File Class Cert Response in Day by June 10
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERRY DAY, individually
and on behalf of similarly situated persons, v. JAMES VELISSARIS,
Case No. 1:22-cv-04987-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Thomas
Thrash, Jr. entered an order granting the Defendant's motion for an
extension of time to respond to plaintiff’s motion for
conditional certification .

-- The Defendant's deadline to file any response to the
Plaintiff's
    motion for conditional certification shall be extended to June
10,
    2024.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 21, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dotVX8 at no extra
charge.[CC]

JESSIE LORD BAKERY: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Paulina Lopez, individuals, on behalf of herself all aggrieved
employees, and the State of California as a Private Attorneys
General v. JESSIE LORD BAKERY, LLC., a California limited liability
company; CORTECH INTERNATIONAL, LLCs, a Georgia limited) liability
company; CORTECH WEST STAFFING LLC, a Califomia limited liability)
company, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV08694 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 5, 2024), is brought pursuant
to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"), Cal Labor
Code for the Defendant's failure to pay, minimum and overtime
wages.

The Defendant has had a consistent policy and/or practice of:
failing to pay for all hours worked, including overtime hours
worked; failing to pay minimum wage; failing to pay all  wages owed
twice per month; failing to pay wages due upon termination; failing
to provide timely meal breaks; failing to provide rest breaks;
failing to provide potable drinking water; failing to provide safe
working conditions; failing to provide suitable seating; failing to
provide accurate itemized wage statements and maintain accurate
personnel records; and failing to produce personnel records.
Defendant is therefore liable for civil penalties under the Cal
Labor Code, including the Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA"),
Labor Code, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked in the packaging department for Defendants
from 2017 until September of 2023.

The Defendant operates a bakery.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian, II, Esq.
          Garen Majarian, Esq.
          MAJARIAN LAW GROUP, APC
          18250 Ventura Blvd.
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Phone: (818) 609-0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
          Email: Sahagii@aol.com
                 garen@majarianlawgroup.com


JOHNSON CONTROLS: Reiss Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as April Reiss, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., a Wisconsin
corporation; JOHNSON CONTROLS SECURITY SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; and DOES 2 - 50, inclusive, Case No.
30-2023-01371130-CU-OE-NJC was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of Orange, to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California on May 17, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 8:24-cv-01080.

The First Amended Complaint asserts claims for: Failure to Produce
Employee Personnel Records; Misclassification of a Non-Exempt
Employee; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest
Periods; Failure to Pay Overtime; Failure to Maintain Accurate
Records; Failure to Pay Wages Timely During Employment; Failure to
Furnish Accurate Wage Statements; Failure to Reimburse Work-Related
Expenses; Failure to Timely Pay Wages Upon Termination of
Employment; Violation of California's Unfair Competition Law; and
Violation of the Private Attorney Generals Act of 2004
("PAGA").[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Marlene M. Moffitt, Esq.
          Katie M. Greenbaum, Esq.
          Michelle N. Gonzalez, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Phone: 858-652-3110
          Facsimile: 858-652-3101
          Email: marlene.moffitt@ogletree.com
                 katie.greenbaum@ogletree.com
                 michelle.gonzalez@ogletree.com


JOHNSON CONTROLS: Riccitelli Labor Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LINDA RICCITELLI, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON CONTROLS INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 152782/2024, was removed from the Supreme Court
of the State of New York, County of New York, to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on April 29,
2024.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:24-cv-03243 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff's complaint asserts that JCI failed to pay her sales
commissions she claims she has earned. She asserts claims for
breach of contract (Count I), violation of the New York Labor Law
(Count II), and unjust enrichment (Count III).

Johnson Controls Inc. is a global diversified technology and
industrial business company.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jocelyn Merced, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          599 Lexington Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          E-mail: Jocelyn.merced@ogletree.com

JONES BROS JEWELERS: Ramos Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eslimerari Ramos, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. JONES BROS JEWELERS, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-02838 (N.D.
Ill., April 9, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its failure
to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a
violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA").

Congress provided a clear and national mandate for the elimination
of discrimination against individuals with disabilities when it
enacted the ADA. Such discrimination includes barriers to full
integration, independent living and equal opportunity for persons
with disabilities, including those barriers created by websites and
other public accommodations that are inaccessible to blind and
visually impaired persons.

Because the Defendant's website, www.jonesbros.com (the "Website"),
is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers,
it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to
cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the
complaint.

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

The Defendant is a company that owns and operates www.jonesbros.com
offering features which should allow all consumers to access the
goods
and services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN: Submission of Reply Brief Extended to June 14
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Roderick Roberson, Michael
Hudson, Dylon White, Caleb Schmitt, Justin Berberich, Chris Ulrich,
and Ron Collins, individually and on behalf of the proposed class,
v. The Kansas City Southern Railway Co., Case No. 4:22-cv-00358-RK
(W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting
Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for an extension of time to submit a
reply brief in support of class certification to June 14, 2024.

On March 14, 2024, the Plaintiffs moved for class certification.

On March 21, 2024, the Defendant moved for an extension of time to
file its opposition to class certification.

On April 30, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for an
extension of time to file their reply brief. The Court granted that
motion and extended Plaintiffs' reply deadline to May 31, 2024.

Kansas City Southern is an American Class I railroad.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 21, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EMK3nO at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam W. Hansen, Esq.
          Colin Reeves, Esq.
          Emma Freeman, Esq.
          APOLLO LAW LLC
          333 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 927-2969
          E-mail: adam@apollo-law.com
                  colin@apollo-law.com
                  emma@apollo-law.com

                - and -

          Nicholas D. Thompson, Esq.
          Mark Thomson, Esq.
          CASEY JONES LAW
          525 Junction Rd., Suite 6500
          Madison, WI 53717
          Telephone: (757) 477-0991
          E-mail: nthompson@caseyjones.law
                  mthomson@caseyjones.law

                - and -

          Steven L. Groves, Esq.
          GROVES POWERS LLC
          One U.S. Bank Plaza
          505 N. 7th St., Suite 2010
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 696-2300
          E-mail: sgroves@grovespowers.com

KEENAN & ASSOCIATES: Joffre Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Mauricio M. Joffre, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. KEENAN & ASSOCIATES and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV05690 was removed from the
Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on April 8, 2024, and assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-02853-MCS-DTB.

In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims for: Negligence; Breach
of Implied Contract; Unjust Enrichment; Bailment; and Breach of
Fiduciary Duty.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          John A. Vogt, Esq.
          Ryan D. Ball, Esq.
          Matthew T. Billeci, Bar No. 329014
          JONES DAY
          3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800
          Irvine, CA 92612.4408
          Phone: +1.949.851.3939
          Facsimile: +1.949.553.7539
          Email: javogt@jonesday.com
                 rball@jonesday.com
                 mbilleci@jonesday.com


KELLER WILLIAMS: Caudill Sues Over Breach of Contract
-----------------------------------------------------
Jana Caudill, and Dennis Caudill, on behalf of themselves
individually and all others similarly situated v. Keller Williams
Realty, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00120-CCB-MGG (N.D. Ind., April 9,
2024), is brought arising from a breach of contract by Keller
Williams, for unjust enrichment to Keller Williams relating to
payments owed under the Keller Williams Profit Sharing Program, for
a declaratory judgment seeking a declaration of this Court that any
changes reducing Profit Sharing Program distributions earned by and
owed to vested Profit Sharing Program participants cannot be made
retroactive, and for temporary and permanent injunctive relief
prohibiting Keller Williams from reducing the Profit Sharing
Program distributions to vested plan participants.

The Profit Sharing Program was developed to be a way to reward
those associates who helped build the company. Keller Williams used
the Profit Sharing Program as a way to encourage the recruitment of
top associates to Keller Williams by Keller Williams associates.
The Profit Sharing Program was designed to be an open-ended profit
sharing program that allowed Keller Williams associates, investors,
Team Leaders, Market Center staff, Keller Williams staff, and
Regional Directors to participate in profits they helped to create
without assuming any financial risk.

According to the Policies & Guidelines Manual, Keller Williams did
not have the right to amend any aspect of the Profit Sharing
Program method of calculating a Market Center's Profit Sharing
Contribution or a recruiting sponsor's profit sharing distribution
except as specifically directed by the International Associate
Leadership Counsel ("IALC").

The IALC changed the terms of the Profit Sharing Program for
Effected Participants and reduced the monthly Profit Sharing
distribution from down to 5% of what they are owed. They are owed
the full amount because they are vested and earned this amount when
they recruited sales associates to join Keller Williams. In an
effort to force Effected Participants to return to work with Keller
Williams, the IALC included a provision that Effected Participants
could return to Keller Williams within six months of receiving
notice that their Profit Sharing Program was to be reduced and have
the distribution reinstated to 100% payment.

Anticipating that the changes to the Profit Sharing Program were a
breach of contract or other actionable conduct, the IALC added a
provision in the section regarding termination or amendment of the
Profit Sharing Program that stated "Administration and Defense of
the Profit Sharing Program. Any and all funds in the Profit Share
program may be utilized by KWRI for administration or defense of
the Profit Share program, including to cover all costs, attorneys'
fees, expenses, sums of money, debts, interest, losses, damages,
settlements, fines, penalties, assessment, and judgments incurred,
levied or resulting from any claims or disputes relating to the
Profit Share program," says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were sales associates with Keller Williams.

Keller Williams has its corporate headquarters in Austin,
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin G. Harvey, Esq.
          ALLEN WELLMAN HARVEY KEYES COOLEY, LLP
          Five Courthouse Plaza
          P.O. Box 455
          Greenfield, IN 46140
          Phone: (317) 462-3455
          Fax: (317) 467-6109
          Email: kgh@awhkc.com

               - and -

          Kenneth B. McClain, Esq.
          Kevin D. Stanley, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Soper, Esq.
          HUMPHREY, FARRINGTON & MCCLAIN, P.C.
          221 West Lexington Ave., Ste. 400
          Independence, MO 64051
          Phone: (816) 836-5050
          Fax: (816) 836-8966
          Email: kbm@hfmlegal.com
                 jms@hfmlegal.com
                 kds@hfmlegal.com


KELLER WILLIAMS: Mendoza Sues Over Breach of Contract
-----------------------------------------------------
Eric Mendoza and Jack LeVine individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, INC., a Texas
Corporation; DOE DEFENDANTS 1 through 10; and ROE DOE DEFENDANTS 1
through 10; Case No. 2:24-cv-00692-RFB-EJY (D. Nev., April 9,
2024), is brought arising from a breach of contract by Keller
Williams, unjust enrichment to Keller Williams relating to payments
owed under the Keller Williams Profit Sharing Program, declaratory
judgment seeking a declaration of this Court that any changes
reducing Profit Sharing Program distributions earned by and owed to
vested Profit Sharing Program participants cannot be made
retroactive, and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting Keller
Williams from reducing the Profit Sharing Program distributions to
vested plan participants.

The Profit Sharing Program was developed to be a way to reward
those associates who helped build the company. Keller Williams used
the Profit Sharing Program as a way to encourage the recruitment of
top associates to Keller Williams by Keller Williams associates.
The Profit Sharing Program was designed to be an open-ended profit
sharing program that allowed Keller Williams associates, investors,
Team Leaders, Market Center staff, Keller Williams staff, and
Regional Directors to participate in profits they helped to create
without assuming any financial risk. Eligibility to participate in
the Profit Sharing Program was determined by contributing to the
growth of Keller Williams by recruiting new sales associates to any
Market Center located anywhere in the United States or Canada.

Funds in the Profit Sharing Program were distributed in a
multi-tiered format based upon the sponsorship of one associate or
employee by another associate or employee. Keller Williams
associates participated in the Profit Sharing Program by recruiting
other associates who contribute to the profitability of a Keller
Williams Market Center.

According to the Policies & Guidelines Manual, Keller Williams did
not have the right to amend any aspect of the Profit Share Program
method of calculating a Market Center's Profit Sharing Contribution
or a recruiting sponsor's profit sharing distribution except as
specifically directed by the International Associate Leadership
Council ("IALC"). According to the Policies & Guidelines Manual,
any termination or amendment to the Profit Share Program would be
prospective only and would not affect a Market Center or a
recruiting sponsor with respect to Profit-Sharing Contributions
owed or profit sharing distributions earned prior to the effective
date of the termination or amendment.

A report was presented to the Keller Williams IALC on August 14,
2019, by Matt Green regarding the findings of the Profit Share Task
Force. Mr. Green reported that in the last year, approximately $25
million to $40 million was paid in profit sharing distributions to
non-Keller Williams participants who are directly competing with
Keller Williams.

During the August 2023 meeting of the IALC, a motion to change the
terms of the Profit Share Program was made, voted on, and approved
by the IALC. With the August 2023 changes to the Profit Sharing
Program, the IALC designated Effected Participants as "Vested
Competing Associates." The IALC changed the terms of the Profit
Sharing Program for Effected Participants and reduced the monthly
Profit Sharing distribution from 100% to 5%. In an effort to force
Effected Participants to return to work with Keller Williams, the
IALC included a provision that Effected Participants could return
to Keller Williams within six months of receiving notice that their
Profit Sharing Program was to be reduced and have the distribution
reinstated to 100% payment.

Anticipating that the changes to the Profit Sharing Program were a
breach of contract or other actionable conduct, the IALC added a
provision in the section regarding termination or amendment of the
Profit Sharing Program that stated "Administration and Defense of
the Profit Sharing Program. Any and all funds in the Profit Share
program may be utilized by KWRI for administration or defense of
the Profit Share program, including to cover all costs, attorneys'
fees, expenses, sums of money, debts, interest, losses, damages,
settlements, fines, penalties, assessment, and judgments incurred,
levied or resulting from any claims or disputes relating to the
Profit Share program," says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were sales associates with Keller Williams.

The Defendant is a Texas Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael R. Mushkin, Esq.
          L. Joe Coppedge, Esq.
          MUSHKIN & COPPEDGE
          6070 S. Eastern Avenue, Suite 270
          Las Vegas, NV 89119
          Phone: 702-386-3999
          Facsimile: 702-454-3333
          Email: michael@mccnvlaw.com
                 jcoppedge@mccnvlaw.com

               - and -

          Kenneth B. McClain, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Soper, Esq.
          Kevin D. Stanley, Esq.
          HUMPHREY, FARRINGTON & MCCLAIN, P.C.
          221 West Lexington Ave., Ste. 400
          Independence, MO 64051
          Phone: (816) 836-5050
          Facsimile: (816) 836-8966
          Email: kbm@hfmlegal.com
                 jms@hfmlegal.com
                 kds@hfmlegal.com


KIMERA INTERNATIONAL: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Fernandez Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KIMERA INTERNATIONAL, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-03831 (S.D.N.Y., May 17, 2024) arises from Defendant's
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people and alleges that the
Defendant violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New
York City Human Rights Law.

Due to Defendant's failure to build the website in a manner that is
compatible with screen access programs, Plaintiff was unable to
understand and properly interact with the website, and was thus
denied the benefit of purchasing the booties that Plaintiff wished
to acquire from the website, says the suit.

Kimera International owns and operates the website,
www.lilianashoes.com, which sells footwear products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

KLM TRANS: Fails to Pay Drivers' Minimum Wage, Tereshkun Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
OLEG TERESHKUN, ROMAN YERMAK, LIUBOMYR OSTASHUK, SERHIY
ZAKRYVYDOROHA, BOHDAN SNIHUR, OLEKSANDR SKYBA, ROMAN NETSKO, SERHIY
DANYLYUK, OLEH PELIUSHKEVICH, HENNADII ZAVGORODNII, VOLODYMYR
OSOKHOVSKYI, SERHII VOLKOV, AND ANDRIY FIGEL, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KLM TRANS, INC., IHOR
KOTSYULYM, and Viktor KOTSYULYM, Case No. 1:24-cv-04000 (N.D. Ill.,
May 15, 2024) challenges KLM Trans' unlawful practice of making
deductions from delivery drivers' wages and requiring them to bear
expenses which should have been properly borne by KLM Trans, as a
result, the Plaintiffs and other delivery drivers were not paid
minimum wage for all hours worked in violation of the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law.

The Plaintiffs contend that, although they and other delivery
drivers were classified by KLM Trans as independent contractors,
they were, in fact, employees of KLM Trans. Furthermore, the
Plaintiffs allege that, as a result of KLM Trans's policies,
illegal deductions were made from their and other delivery drivers'
wages in violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act
("IWPCA"). The Plaintiffs also allege that KLM Trans unlawfully
required them and others similarly situated to incur expenses that
should have properly been borne by KLM Trans in violation of 820
Ill. Comp. Stat. 115/9.5.

The Plaintiffs bring this case as a class action under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23 on behalf of all current and former delivery drivers who have
contracted with the Defendants to provide delivery services for KLM
Trans between May 2014 and the present.

The Plaintiffs also bring this case as a collective action under
the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), on behalf of all
current and former delivery drivers who have provided delivery
services for KLM Trans between May 2021 and the present. They
allege that it was KLM Trans’s policy and practice not to pay
drivers for their final weeks of work.

Tereshkun worked for KLM Trans as a truck driver, making deliveries
in Illinois and other states between approximately January 2024 and
March 2024.

KLM Trans provides logistics services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bradley Manewith, Esq.
          Harold Lichten, Esq.
          Olena Savytska, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          5 Revere Drive, Suite 200
          Northbrook, IL 60062
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
          E-mail: bmanewith@llrlaw.com
                  hlichten@llrlaw.com
                  osavytska@llrlaw.com

KRAFT HEINZ: Brinker Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Cecil Brinker, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THE KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY and DOES
1–10, inclusive, Case No. 2422-CC00690 was removed from the
Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis, Twenty-Second Judicial
Circuit, to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri on May 20, 2024, and assigned Case No.
4:24-cv-00704.

The Plaintiff alleges that Kraft Heinz mislabels certain products
sold under the Kraft Mac & Cheese brand (the "Products") by
labeling them with the phrase "No Artificial Flavors,
Preservatives, or Dyes." The Plaintiff alleges that this
representation is false because the Products contain citric acid,
which Plaintiff characterizes as "a well-known synthetic
preservative in food." ("Because of the presence of citric acid
which functions as a preservative in the Products, the claim 'No
Artificial Flavors, Preservatives, or Dyes,' is false.").[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian D. Fahy, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue
          Twenty-Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Phone: +1.213.612.2500
          Fax: +1.213.612.2501
          Email: brian.fahy@morganlewis.com


KUMON NORTH AMERICA: Heiting Sues for Tracker Software Installation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANNE HEITING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KUMON NORTH AMERICA, INC., a New Jersey
corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-04130 (C.D. Cal., May 17, 2024) arises from Defendant's
installation of the TikTok tracing process that violates
California's Trap and Trace Law and the California Invasion Privacy
Act.

Without Plaintiff's knowledge or consent, the Defendant alleged
deployed a de-anonymization process to identify Plaintiff using
electronic impulses generated from Plaintiff's device. As part of
Defendant's marketing regime, Kumon has partnered with TikTok to
install sophisticated software on its landing page to learn the
location, source, and identity of consumers who happen to land on
their website. The TikTok Software gathers device and browser
information, geographic information, referral tracking, and url
tracking by running code or "scripts" on the Website to send user
details to TikTok, says the suit.

Kumon North America, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation that owns,
operates, and/or controls www.kumon.com. The company offers
afterschool educational program focusing on improving children's
math and reading skills. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Robert Tauler, Esq.
        Matthew J. Smith, Esq.
        TAULER SMITH LLP
        626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550
        Los Angeles, CA 90017
        Telephone: (213) 927-9270
        E-mail: robert@taulersmith.com
                matthew@taulersmith.com

L.C. RICHARDSON: Hicks Sues Over Restaurant's ADA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER M. HICKS, SR., Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. L.C. RICHARDSON REVOCABLE LIVING
TRUST and LC RICHARDSON RVOC LIVING TR UTA 12 13 2011, LLC d/b/a
LC's Bar-B-Q, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-00356-RK (W.D. Mo., May
20, 2024) arises from Defendants' noncompliance with the Americans
with Disabilities Act.

On or about October 16, 2023, Plaintiff went to Defendant's
restaurant to eat. He was present with his service dog, "Bub".
However, Plaintiff was allegedly denied access based upon his
disability in violation of the ADA. Among other things, the
restaurant's employees did not know that service animals are
permitted in places of public accommodation, or they knew but still
attempted to deny Plaintiff and his service dog access to the
restaurant. Additionally, the restaurant allegedly does not have
accessible seating, which constitutes a violation of the 2010 ADA
Standards, Section 226.1, says the suit.

L.C. Richardson is a Missouri limited liability company that
operates the restaurant known as LC's Bar-B-Q, which is located at
5800 Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway, Kansas City, MO. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas R. Carnes, Esq.
          GUSDORF LAW FIRM, LLC
          9666 Olive Blvd., Suite 211
          St. Louis, MO 63132
          Telephone: (314) 942-6571 ext. 102
          E-mail: tcarnes@attystl.com

                  - and -

          Brandon A. Rotbart. Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF BRANDON A. ROTBART, P.A.
          11098 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 401-18
          Miami, FL 33161
          Telephone: (305) 350-7400
          E-mail: rotbart@rotbartlaw.com

LAND COAST: Minaya Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, PMWA
-----------------------------------------------------------
IGNACIO MINAYA, individually and on behalf of others
similarly-situated v. LAND COAST INSULATION, INC., Case No. e
2:24-cv-02122 (E.D. Pa., May 17, 2024) is a nationwide collective
action to recover unpaid compensation and overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, unlawfully withheld wages, statutory penalties,
and damages owed to Plaintiff, and all similarly situated current
and former employees of Defendant.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint contending that Defendant has
unlawfully failed to pay him and other similarly-situated
individuals employed as Laborers, overtime compensation pursuant to
the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

Plaintiff Ignacio Minaya currently resides at 3903 Palmetto Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Groh, Esq.
          Michael Murphy, Esq.
          MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC
          Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000
          1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 273-1054
          Facsimile: (215) 525-0210
          E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
                  mgroh@phillyemploymentlawyer.com

LANZATECH GLOBAL: Schara Suit Asserts Breach of Fiduciary Duty
--------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM A. SCHARA, JR. and GONUL SCHARA, Plaintiffs v. LANZATECH
GLOBAL INC. F/K/A AMCI ACQUISITION CORP. II, NIMESH PATEL, BRIAN
BEEM, PATRICK MURPHY, HANS MENDE, ADRIAN PATERSON, MARK PINHO, JILL
WATZ, KATE BURSON, and AMCI SPONSOR II LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2024-0505 (Del. Ch., May 13, 2024) is a class action brought by the
Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated current
and former stockholders of LanzaTech Global, Inc., for breach of
fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims arising from AMCI II's
merger with LanzaTech NZ Inc.

According to the complaint, as directors of AMCI II, the AMCI II
Individual Defendants owed Plaintiffs and the Class the utmost
fiduciary duties of care and loyalty, which subsume an obligation
to act in good faith, with candor, and to make accurate material
disclosures to AMCI II stockholders. However, the AMCI II
Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs
and the Class by prioritizing their own personal, financial, and/or
reputational interests and approving the Merger, which was unfair
to public AMCI II stockholders, reflecting an unfair price and an
unfair process. The AMCI II Individual Defendants also breached
their duty of candor by issuing a false and misleading Proxy
statement, says the suit.

Lanzatech Global Inc. operates as a nature-based carbon refining
company in the United States and internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Russell D. Paul, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          800 N. West Street, 2nd Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 691-9545   
          E-mail: rpaul@bm.net
      
               - and -

          Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq.
          Andrew Abramowitz, Esq.
          Radha Nagamani Raghavan, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          E-mail: mdellangelo@bm.net
                  aabramowitz@bm.net
                  rraghavan@bm.net

               - and -

          Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
          Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
          EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP  
          411 South State Steet, Suite N-300
          Newtown, PA 18940
          Telephone: (215) 867-2399
          E-mail: elechtzin@edelson-law.com
                  medelson@edelson-law.com

LAZ PARKING: Harris Sues Over Breach of Contract for Illegal Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMY HARRIS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. LAZ PARKING LTD, LLC, LAZ KARP ASSOCIATES, LLC, Case No.
3:24-cv-00889 (D. Conn., May 16, 2024), accuses the Defendants of
breach of contract arising from an alleged illegal service fee
imposed on customers.

This action arises from an alleged unlawful service fee imposed by
Defendant LAZ Parking on its customers, including Plaintiff.
Defendant invites customers to avail of its parking services by
displaying LAZ signs that contain the terms of its offer. The
stated offer is a set rate for a certain period of time the
customer parks. The service fee in question is not disclosed in the
LAZ signs. However, when customers process their payments via LAZ's
cashless payment system, LAZ applies the additional service fee,
causing the amount charged to be higher than what was initially
agreed by LAZ and the customer. Such a fee is allegedly a form of
"junk fee" and violates the terms of the contract between LAZ and
the customer, says the suit.

Based in Hartford, CT, LAZ Parking is a national parking company
that operates parking facilities throughout the United States.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        William M. Bloss, Esq.
        KOSKOFF, KOSKOFF & BIEDER, P.C.     
        350 Fairfield Avenue
        Bridgeport, CT 06604
        Telephone: (203) 336-4421
        Facsimile: (203) 368-3244
        E-mail: bbloss@koskoff.com

                - and -
     
        Bryant T. Lamer, Esq.
        Dane C. Martin, Esq.
        SPENCER FANE LLP
        1000 Walnut St., Suite 1400
        Kansas City, MO 64106
        Telephone: (816) 474-8100
        Facsimile: (816) 474-3216
        E-mail: blamer@spencerfane.com
                dmartin@spencerfane.com

LEO V. GOVONI: Orris Sues Over Breach of Duties
-----------------------------------------------
Shawnta Orris, as Guardian Ad Litem on behalf of T.L., a Disabled
Adult, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LEO V.
GOVONI, an individual; JOHN W. STAUNTON, an individual; TODD
BELISLE, an individual; RICHARD SHONTER, an individual; CAITLIN
JANICKI, an individual; TRACEY GREGORY, an individual; MICHELLE
DIEBERT, an individual; LAURA DAVIS, an individual; CAROL
SCHROEDER, an individual; BOSTON FINANCE GROUP, LLC a Florida,
limited liability corporation, Case No. 8:24-cv-00874-CEH-AEP (M.D.
Fla., April 9, 2024), is brought seeking to hold the current and
former directors and officers of a Florida 501(c)(3) entity known
as The Center for Special Needs Trust accountable for their breach
of duties, failure of oversight, failure to implement adequate
checks and balances and processes and controls, and failure to act,
which breaches and failures both allowed and failed to prevent The
Center's founder Leo Govoni from stealing over an eleven-year
period, $100 million from over 1,000 special needs trusts ("SNT")
managed by The Center, and from The Center itself. The $100 million
was purportedly paid out as a loan under a line of credit agreement
to the Boston Finance Group, LLC ("BFG"), an entity controlled by
Govani.

The SNTs victimized by Govoni's scheme were held by The Center for
the benefit of, i.e., in trust for, some of the nation's most
vulnerable people; the victims of catastrophic injury who depend on
that money for their living expenses. On February 9, 2024, The
Center filed a petition for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (the
"Bankruptcy Action"). The filings in the Bankruptcy Action reveal
that the money is gone leaving Plaintiff and the Class to suffer
the consequences.

According to the filings in the Bankruptcy Action, The Center
claims to have discovered the $100 million diversion in April 2022,
when Govoni's daughter Kaitlin Janicki resigned from her position
with The Center, and left behind "an unsigned letter dated November
11, 2021 from BFG to The Center's Board of Directors ("Board"),
seeking to modify the terms of the long-since matured agreement by
extending the maturity date and reducing the required interest
payment." However, statements and admissions in the Bankruptcy
Action filings show that The Center's Directors and Officers were
aware, or should have been aware, of the "agreement" between BFG
and The Center for over a decade before it was purportedly
discovered in 2022.

The Plaintiff and the members of the purported Class had no notice
of a diversion of their assets prior to the bankruptcy filing. They
have had their trust funds stolen and are now left without a
crucial means of financial support. Despite the Directors' and
Officers' knowledge of the credit agreement with BFG, no reasonable
action has been taken to recover the stolen funds on behalf of the
SNT beneficiaries, other than what appears to be a written demand
to BFG for repayment. Accordingly, Plaintiff, by and through his
guardian ad litem, filed this class action in an effort to hold
those responsible accountable for the harm caused to Plaintiff and
the Class, and to seek the return of the misappropriated funds.
Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
brings this Action against the Defendants seeking money damages for
breach of fiduciary duty and negligence, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff T.L., a disabled adult, and his legal guardian,
Shawnta Orris, were individuals and citizens of Omaha, Douglas
County, Nebraska.

Govoni was The Center's founder.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan M. Stein, Esq.
          STEINLAW FLORIDA, PLLC
          1825 NW Corporate Blvd., Suite 110
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Phone: (561) 834-2699
          Email: jon@SteinLawFlorida.com

               - and -

          Alan L. Rosca, Esq.
          ROSCA SCARLATO LLC
          2000 Auburn Drive- Suite 200
          Beachwood, OH 44122
          Phone: 216-946-7070
          Email: arosca@rscounsel.law

               - and -

          Paul J. Scarlato, Esq.
          ROSCA SCARLATO LLC
          161 Washington Street-Suite 1025
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Phone: 216-946-7070
          Email: pscarlato@escounsel.law

               - and -

          J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
          Brian O. Marty, Esq.
          SHINDLER ANDERSON GOPLERUD & WEESE P.C.
          5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
          West Des Moines, IA 50265-5749
          Phone: (515) 223-4567
          Facsimile: (515) 223-8887
          Email: goplerud@sagwlaw.com
                 marty@sagwlaw.com

LEWIS BROTHERS: Duffy Sues Over Unsecured Sensitive Private Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARISSA DUFFY, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LEWIS BROTHERS BAKERIES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:24-cv-00081-RLY-CSW (S.D. Ind., May 17, 2024) arises out
of the public exposure of the confidential, private information of
Lewis Brothers's current and former employees, as well as
potentially its customers and asserts claims for negligence,
negligence per se, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy,
and bailment.

Defendant skirted its duties and failed to seriously invest in the
necessary protections to guard against the theft of the critical
personal information of its employees and potentially its
customers, which then allowed cybercriminals to gain access to the
same. On or about May 9, 2024, the Defendant began sending
notification letters to affected persons. However, its letters
fails to illuminate how the threat actors gained entry into
Defendant's systems or what safeguards Defendant intends to
implement to prevent such a breach in the future, says the suit.

Based in Evansville, IN, Lewis Brothers Bakeries, Inc. is a bakery
company, employing around 2000 people and provides bakery products
in seventeen states. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                 - and -

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

LIFESTYLE INTEGRITY: Faces Hodge Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALYSSA HODGE and JAQUA SOWELLS, on behalf of themselves and
similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs v. LIFESTYLE INTEGRITY &
FULLNESS TREATMENT CENTER LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-02124
(E.D. Pa., May 17, 2024) seeks all available relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

The Defendant employs workers who are paid an hourly wage to
provide services to Defendant's clients and perform other work
associated with Defendant's business operations. The Plaintiffs,
like other hourly employees, often worked over 40 hours per week.
However, Defendant failed to pay proper overtime premium
compensation in violation of the FLSA and PMWA. In paying
Plaintiffs and other collective members regular hourly pay rates
for total combined hours worked over 40 per week, Defendant has
acted willfully and with reckless disregard of clearly applicable
FLSA provisions and, as such, willfully violated the FLSA, says the
suit.

Headquartered in Allentown, PA, Lifestyle Integrity & Fullness
Treatment Center LLC owns and operates a business that provides
various services including, among other things, socialization,
literacy, wellness, and recreation services to adults with
intellectual disabilities. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Peter Winebrake, Esq.
         Michelle Tolodziecki, Esq.
         WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
         715 Twining Road, Suite 211
         Dresher, PA 19025
         Telephone: (215) 884-2491
         E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
                 mtolodziecki@winebrakelaw.com

LOUISIANA: Sued Over Deficiencies in Child Welfare System
---------------------------------------------------------
JACOB B. and AMELIA M. by their next friend Ramona Fernandez;
JOSEPH S. by his next friend Charles Cusimano; ALAN W. and JACKSON
J. by their next friend Hector Linares; CARTER P. and MIKAELA S. by
their next friend Steven Scheckman; JUSTINE S. by her next friend
Bert Babington; KATRINA R. by her next friend Claris Smith,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES ("DCFS"),
DAVID N. MATLOCK in his official capacity as the Secretary of the
Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services, and JEFFREY
LANDRY in his official capacity as the Governor of Louisiana, Case
No. 3:24-cv-00289-BAJ-SDJ (M.D. La., April 10, 2024), is brought to
seek declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants to remedy
the harm and risk of harm to thousands of foster children in
Louisiana as a result of the Defendants failure to adequately
address the myriad deficiencies of its child welfare system.

Louisiana has consistently failed to adequately address the myriad
deficiencies of its child welfare system. DCFS does not have a
sufficient number of workers to ensure the safety and wellbeing of
the children in its care. Upon information and belief, caseloads
are so high that caseworkers are prevented from adequately
overseeing children in DCFS custody, including making required
visits, ensuring the provision of services, and ensuring children
move quickly to permanency.

These failures also mean that Louisiana's foster children are not
provided appropriate mental health or medical assessments, nor do
they receive adequate mental or medical healthcare. DCFS also fails
to provide sufficient educational services. As demonstrated by the
experiences of the named Plaintiffs, Louisiana foster children
often spend weeks, if not months, without receiving any education.
This only compounds the difficulties that these already traumatized
children face while in DCFS custody.

DCFS also often unnecessarily places children in group homes and
institutions. There, children face harm or a risk of harm,
including violence perpetrated by staff members and other children.
Named Plaintiff Jacob B., for example, was sexually assaulted
during his placement at a behavioral health hospital in Louisiana.
Despite knowing of the assault, DCFS did not remove Jacob from that
facility for around seven more months. Additionally, Jacob received
no schooling for the nine months he resided at that facility. Named
Plaintiff Mikaela S. has been in 27 placements since entering
foster care in October 2020—almost all of which have been
institutions or group homes. She has not received any schooling for
almost the last two years.

In addition, many of the placements available to children in DCFS
custody are inadequate. Placement homes are poorly screened, and
DCFS fails to timely provide the support services necessary to help
families care for traumatized children. By failing to act, DCFS and
its officials violated and continue to violate their statutory and
constitutional obligations. Moreover, despite the dysfunction of
the state's child welfare system, state officials continue to
operate it without regard for reasonable professional standards.
This exhibits deliberate indifference to the ongoing harm faced by
children who depend on the state for protection and care. This
lawsuit seeks to have Louisiana's child welfare system brought into
compliance with applicable federal law and constitutional
standards, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were seven- to sixteen-year-olds and have been in
DCFS custody.

DCFS is a state agency created and authorized under the laws of
Louisiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert L. Redfearn, Jr., Esq.
          Windsor V. Richmond, Esq.
          Kelly A. Gismondi, Esq.
          SIMON, PERAGINE, SMITH & REDFEARN, LLP
          1100 Poydras St., Suite 3000
          New Orleans, LA 70163
          Phone: (504)569-2996
          Email: robertjr@spsr-law.com
                 windsorr@spsr-law.com
                 kellyg@spsr-law.com

               - and -

          Galen D. Bellamy, Esq.
          Allison R. McLaughlin, Esq.
          Kevin D. Homiak, Esq.
          Emily Linehan, Esq.
          Iva Velickovic, Esq.
          WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP
          370 Seventeenth Street, Suite 4500
          Denver, CO 80202
          Phone: (303) 244-1800
          Facsimile: (303) 244-1879
          Email: bellamy@wtotrial.com
                 mclaughlin@wtotrial.com
                 homiak@wtotrial.com
                 linehan@wtotrial.com
                 velickovic@wtotrial.com

               - and -

          Marcia Robinson Lowry, Esq.
          Julia Tebor, Esq.
          Lindsay Gus, Esq.
          David Baloche, Esq.
          A BETTER CHILDHOOD
          355 Lexington Avenue, Floor 16
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (646) 795-4456
          Facsimile: (212) 692-0415
          Email: mlowry@abetterchildhood.org
                 jtebor@abetterchildhood.org
                 lgus@abetterchildhood.org
                 dbaloche@abetterchildhood.org


LOVO INC: Faces Lehrman Suit Over Voice-Over Related Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL LEHRMAN and LINNEA SAGE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. LOVO, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-03770
(S.D.N.Y. May 16, 2024) is a class action brought on behalf of
Plaintiffs and similarly situated persons whose voices and/or
identities were stolen and used by LOVO -- to create millions of
voice-over productions -- without permission or proper
compensation, in violation of numerous state right of privacy laws,
and the federal Lanham Act.

LOVO is a technology company with proprietary software driven by
artificial intelligence (AI) that allows LOVO's clients to create
and edit voice-over narrations adapted from real actors.

According to the complaint, the product that customers purchase
from LOVO is stolen property. They are voices stolen by LOVO and
marketed by LOVO under false pretenses: LOVO represents that it has
the legal right to market these voices, but it does not, say the
Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs Lehrman and Sage are residents of New York and are
voice-over actors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steve Cohen, Esq.
          Anna Menkova, Esq.
          POLLOCK COHEN LLP
          111 Broadway, Suite 1804
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 337-5361
          E-mail: SCohen@pollockcohen.com

LSG1 EL PARAISO: Brito Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Facilities
-------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS BRITO v. LSG1 EL PARAISO LLC, and LA PUPUSA FACTORY, INC.
d/b/a LA PUPUSA FACTORY, Case No. 1:24-cv-21898 (S.D. Fla., May 16,
2024) is a class action accusing the Defendants of violating the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

This action arises from alleged architectural barriers encountered
by Plaintiff within a commercial property in Haileah, FL owned and
operated by Defendants. The Plaintiff, a mobility-impaired
individual who requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate,
accuses Defendants of discriminating against him by denying him
access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services,
facilities, privileges, advantages, and/or accommodations of the
commercial property in question and the businesses located therein.
The Plaintiff identified ADA violations relating to the property's
parking, entrance access and path of travel, access to goods and
services, and public restrooms, says the suit.    

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation
expenses, and costs, and other relief pursuant to the ADA.

Headquartered in Boston, MA, LSG1 EL PARAISO LLC operates
commercial properties in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

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

LSG1 EL PARAISO: Plaza Not Accessible to Mobility-Impaired Person
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS BRITO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LSG1 EL PARAISO LLC; SOLARES ENTERPRISES,
INC. d/b/a SEDANOS SUPERMARKET NO 10; and CARIBE RESTAURANT HIALEAH
INC. d/b/a CARIBE CAFE RESTAURANT, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-21892-XXXX (S.D.Fla., May 15, 2024) alleges violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's retail
plaza located at 1700 West 68th Street, Hialeah, Florida, is not
accessible to mobility-impaired persons.

LSG1 EL PARAISO LLC owns and operates a commercial retail plaza
located at Hialeah, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and -

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

LYFT INC: Azizan Sues to Recover Lost Wages
-------------------------------------------
Fazail Azizan, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated v. LYFT, INC., Case 1:24-cv-01491-MLB (N.D. Ga., April 8,
2024), is brought to recover lost wages, reimbursement of expenses,
and other relief resulting from Lyft's willful decision to
misclassify him and other drivers as independent contractors in
violation the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Georgia Labor
Code, and Georgia's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), which protect
Plaintiff and other drivers from being misclassified.

By working for Lyft, Plaintiff has not independently made the
decision to go into business for himself. Lyft has unilaterally
determined that drivers are an independent contractor while
precluding them from taking the usual steps toward promoting and
establishing independent businesses, such as forming business
relationships with Lyft customers or otherwise promoting their
services to the public. Lyft also prohibits drivers from setting or
in any way affecting the rates of pay for their own services. Lyft
prohibits drivers from communicating with riders about future ride
services. Lyft's Misclassification of Drivers Violates the FLSA and
Georgia Law.

Lyft does not pay Plaintiff and drivers overtime for hours worked
over eight in a day or over 40 in a week. Furthermore, although
Lyft suffers or permits Plaintiff and drivers to log on to the Lyft
App and make himself available to pick up rides , Lyft fails to pay
them while they are logged on but not providing a ride. In this
way, Lyft fail s to pay the minimum wage for all hours actually
worked and instead limits his drivers to a piece rate for each
ride. Even limiting the calculation of minimum wage to the hours
Plaintiff is engaged in providing a ride, Lyft fails to pay him a
minimum wage for all hours worked, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a driver for Defendant.

Lyft owns and operates the Lyft ride sharing service and is
authorized to and does conduct business throughout the State of
Georgia.[BN]

M&D CAPITAL PREMIER: Lee Sues Over Failure to Secure Information
----------------------------------------------------------------
Youn Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. M&D Capital Premier Billing LLC, and BL Pain
Management, PLLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-02475-NCM-VMS (E.D.N.Y., April
2, 2024), is brought arising out of Defendants' failures to
implement reasonable and industry standard data security practices
to properly secure, safeguard, and adequately destroy Plaintiff's
and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that
it had acquired and stored for its business purposes.

The Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted
cyberattack to compromise M&D's network (the "Data Breach") that,
upon information and belief, contained personally identifiable
information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI")
(collectively, "Private Information") of Plaintiff and other
individuals ("the Class"). The Data Breach occurred between 20,
2023 and July 8, 2023, and M&D began notifying state Attorney
Generals on March 18, 2024.

According to the Notice of Data Breach letter that M&D sent to
Plaintiff and Class Members (the "Notice Letter"), M&D admits an
unauthorized threat actor unlawfully accessed M&D's system. The
Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included certain
personal or protected health information of individuals whose
Private Information was maintained by Defendants, including
Plaintiff. A wide variety of PII and PHI was implicated in the
breach, including potentially: names, addresses, medical billing
and insurance information, medical diagnoses, treatments,
medications, dates of birth, financial information, and Social
Security numbers.

The Data Breach was a direct result of M&D's failure to implement
adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols
necessary to protect individuals' Private Information which it was
hired to protect.

The Defendants disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class
Members by, inter alia, intentionally, willfully, recklessly,
and/or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures
to ensure their data systems were protected against unauthorized
intrusions; failing to disclose that they did not have adequately
robust computer systems and security practices to safeguard
Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information; failing to take
standard and reasonably available steps to prevent the Data Breach;
and failing to provide Plaintiff(s) and Class Members with prompt
and full notice of the Data Breach, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of New York whose Private
Information was improperly accessed and obtained by unauthorized
third parties, including his Social Security number.

M&D provides billing services to healthcare providers and offers
physician billing, facility billing, hospital billing, professional
coding, claims recovery, and credentialing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven Sukert, Esq.
          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
          1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 525-4100
          Email: sukert@kolawyers.com
                 ostrow@kolawyers.com

               - and -

          Ken Grunfeld, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
          65 Overhill Road
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Phone: (215) 267-8799
          Email: grunfeld@kolawyers.com


M&T BANK: Hart Seeks Injunctive Relief, Damages for RESPA Breaches
------------------------------------------------------------------
CAROL HART, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. M&T BANK CORPORATION, Case No. 2:24-cv-00921 (D. Nev.,
May 16, 2024), accuses the Defendant of violating the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act.

The Defendant serviced the Plaintiff's mortgage loan for a
residence located in Henderson, Nevada. Concerned about the
possibility of an error, the Plaintiff reached out to Defendant
and, through her counsel, mailed a qualified written request letter
via certified mail to Defendant. The QWR letter was both a Notice
of Error and a Request for Information pursuant to RESPA. The
Defendant refused to treat the letter as a QWR, claiming that it
failed to include necessary details on any specific error made by
the servicer. Though it provided certain documents, Defendant
failed to provide complete documentation in its possession,
including audio recordings and transcripts, which was responsive to
Plaintiff's QWR letter, arguing that many of them were
"proprietary" to Defendant. The Plaintiff made a second request but
to no avail, says the suit.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's blanket refusal to Plaintiff
appears to be a uniform template response sent to many consumers,
which indicates a pattern and practice of non-compliance with
RESPA.

M&T Bank Corporation is a commercial banking corporation based in
Buffalo, NY. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MANGANARO MIDATLANTIC: Fails to Pay Laborers' OT Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS ANTONIO GUZMAN TORRES and JOSE SANTOS GUZMAN TORRES, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
MANGANARO MIDATLANTIC, LLC, and MANGANARO BUILDING GROUP, LLC, Case
No. 3:24-cv-00343-RCY (E.D. Va., May 15, 2024) is an action for
unpaid overtime and employment benefits, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, the Virginia Overtime Wage Act, and the
Virginia Misclassification Law, and for unpaid wages in violation
of the Virginia Wage Payment Act.

The Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have violated and continue
to violate the FLSA and VOWA by having a policy or practice of
failing to pay overtime compensation to the Plaintiffs and
similarly situated employees for work in excess of 40 hours per
week.

The Plaintiffs further contend that the Defendants have violated
and continue to violate the VML by having a policy or practice of
misclassifying the Plaintiffs and similarly situated laborers as
non-employees.

The Defendants effect these policies and practice by paying the
Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees through labor brokers,
who in turn pay these employees only straight time without any
overtime premiums when they work in excess of 40 hours per week,
and do not provide these employees with employment benefits, the
lawsuit asserts.

Throughout their employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiffs
worked from 7:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. or later Monday through Friday,
plus Saturdays and/or Sundays when directed to by the Defendants.
Other laborers worked similar hours through their employment with
the Defendants, totaling more than 40 hours per week, says the
lawsuit.

Mr. Carlos Torres is a resident of Virginia who worked for the
Defendants as a laborer from July 2022 through at least December
2023.

Mr. Jose Torres is a resident of Virginia who worked for the
Defendants as a laborer during 2023, including February and March
2023.

Manganaro is a construction subcontractor that specializes in
drywall and similar construction work.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

                - and -

          Timothy Coffield, Esq.
          COFFIELD PLC
          106-F Melbourne Park Circle
          Charlottesville, VA 22901
          Telephone: (434) 218-3133
          Facsimile: (434) 321-1636
          E-mail: tc@coffieldlaw.com

MARKET WAREHOUSE: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Karim Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA KARIM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Market Warehouse, Inc., Case No. e 1:24-cv-03760
(S.D.N.Y., May 16, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products
and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant is denying
blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States
with equal access to the goods and services Market Warehouse
provides to their non-disabled customers through
https://www.chefsarsenal.com, the Plaintiff adds.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website
available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader
programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired
individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services
-- all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals -- thereby, says
the Plaintiff

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer. Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired"
to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal
definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with
correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who
meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision.

Market Warehouse, Inc. is an online retailer of computer software,
consumer electronics and cookware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
          GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
          Manhasset, NY 11030
          1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
          Telephone: (347) 941-4715
          E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com

MARLOW INC: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Trippett Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALFRED TRIPPETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MARLOW, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-03468 (E.D.N.Y., May 10, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York
State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, Dinernyc.com,
contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class
members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and
services offered to the public through the website. The
accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to:
lack of headings, hidden elements on the web page, ambiguous link
texts, lack of alt-text on graphics, unclear labels for interactive
elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely
with a mouse, says the suit.

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

Marlow, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services,
doing business in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
       GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
       1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
       Manhasset, NY 11030
       Telephone: (347) 941-4715
       Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com

MASIMO CORPORATION: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Himmelberger Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
DIANNE HIMMELBERGER, Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant
MASIMO CORPORATION v. JOE KIANI, MICAH YOUNG, BILAL MUHSIN, ELI
KAMMERMAN, ADAM MIKKELSON, CRAIG REYNOLDS, MICHELLE BRENNAN,
QUENTIN KOFFEY, JULIE A. SHIMER, and H. MICHAEL COHEN, and MASIMO
CORPORATION, Case No. 3:24-cv-00868-BAS-VET (S.D. Cal., May 16,
2024) is a verified shareholder derivative complaint seeking to
remedy the Individual Defendants' breach of fiduciary duties and
violations of federal law.

The case is a shareholder derivative action brought by Plaintiff on
behalf of Masimo against certain current and former Masimo
executives and directors for breaches of their fiduciary duties
between at least May 4, 2022 and August 8, 2023, inclusive, and the
federal securities laws.

Masimo initially operated exclusively in the healthcare industry.
Its flagship product is its pulse oximeter, which utilizes Signal
Extraction Technology ("SET") to measure pulse rate, oxygen
saturation, and other physiological data. Masimo offers products to
hospitals, physicians, home care providers, veterinarians,
long-term care facilities, and consumers via its direct sales team,
distributors, and partnerships with original equipment
manufacturers.

In Feb. 2022, Masimo announced that it had entered into an
agreement to acquire Sound United, a company specializing in
consumer audio equipment.

Despite the stark differences in their respective industries,
Masimo proceeded with the acquisition in April 2022. The
acquisition bewildered the Company's employees, consultants, and
investors. Indeed, the announcement led to a significant drop in
the Company's stock value, resulting in a staggering $5.1 billion
reduction in Masimo's market capitalization. Following the
acquisition, Masimo encountered challenges including escalating
inventory levels and stagnant sales within its newly acquired
non-healthcare segment. These difficulties were compounded by
widespread weaknesses in the Company's internal controls and a lack
of successful integration of Sound United into Masimo's existing
operations, says the suit.

During the Relevant Period, the Individual Defendants disseminated
statements that were materially false and misleading, overstating
demand for the Company's products, exaggerating Masimo's financial
forecasts, and concealing the widespread shortcomings in the
Company's internal controls.

The truth emerged over several months in 2023, as Masimo disclosed
disappointing financial results for the second fiscal quarter and
drastically revised its financial projections for the remainder of
2023. These revelations shocked the market, leading to a sharp
decline in the price of Masimo’s common stock. As a result of the
foregoing, on August 22, 2023, the Securities Class Action was
filed against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer ("CEO")
Joseph Kiani, and its Chief Financial Officer ("CFO") Micah Young,
the suit alleges.

The Plaintiff has been a shareholder of Masimo at all relevant
times.

Masimo is a biotechnology company that manufactures that sells
non-invasive health monitoring solutions, including medical
devices, sensors, and automation software.

The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of
Masimo.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
          Rachele R. Byrd, Esq.
          Alex J. Tramontano, Esq.
          Ferdeza Zekiri, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
          FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          750 B Street, Suite 1820
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-4599
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
          E-mail: manifold@whafh.com
                  byrd@whafh.com
                  tramontano@whafh.com
                  zekiri@whafh.com

MASTORA STONE: Mora Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Angel Mora, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. MASTORA STONE SUPPLY CORP, NCNA STONE CORP and NICHOLAS
CALLEGARI, individually, Case No. 1:24-cv-03646 (S.D.N.Y., May 20,
2024), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), as recently amended by
the Wage Theft Prevention Act ("WTPA"), and related provisions from
Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations ("NYCRR") and to
recover, among other things, unpaid overtime wage compensation for
the Plaintiff.

Throughout the entire period of the Plaintiff's employment,
Defendants were required, under relevant New York State law, to
compensate Plaintiff with overtime pay at one and one-half the
regular rate for work in excess of 40 hours per work week. Despite
the mandatory pay obligations under state laws, the Defendants
compensated the Plaintiff only at a flat hourly rate of $32.50,
failing to provide the required overtime pay rate. Defendants
deliberately and unjustifiably failed to comply with the FLSA and
NYLL by not providing the Plaintiff with the lawful overtime
compensation of one and a half times his regular rate for the
period from September 2017 until June 2022, a period during which
he consistently worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants.

MASTORA STONE SUPPLY CORP and NCNA STONE CORP are duly organized
New York Corporations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lina Stillman, Esq.
          STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
          42 Broadway, 12t Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 203-2417
          Web: www.StillmanLegalPC.com


MCKIMMEY ELECTRIC: Santiago Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against McKimmey Electric,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Edgar Santiago, individually,
and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. McKimmey Electric,
Inc., J.M.B. Electric, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0005859 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May 17, 2024).

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

McKimmey Electric -- https://www.mckimmeyelectric.com/ -- offers
electrical contracting & engineering services in residential
construction and large design-build projects.[BN]

MEAD JOHNSON: Infant Formula Contains Toxic Chemicals, Hawes Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOEL HAWES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MEAD JOHNSON & COMPANY, LLC.; RECKITT
BENCKISER, LLC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 3:24-cv-02930-JCS (N.D. Cal., May 14, 2024) alleges that the
Defendants' Infant Formula Product Line contains organic fluorine
and Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants omitted
and withheld information of potential health risks from, organic
fluorine in infant formula produced, marketed and sold by the
Defendants. Through Defendants' marketing and advertising campaign,
the Defendants were able to sell products from the Infant Formula
Product Line to thousands of consumers throughout California and
the rest of the United States, the Plaintiff says.

The Plaintiff and the Class Members relied on the Defendants'
omissions and false, deceptive, and misleading representations and
would not have purchased the Infant Formula Product Line if not for
the omissions and false, deceptive, and misleading representations
and marketing by Defendants about the Infant Formula Product Line.

The Plaintiff and the Class Members would not have purchased the
Infant Formula Product Line if not for the omissions and false,
deceptive, and misleading representations and marketing by the
Defendants.

MEAD JOHNSON & COMPANY, LLC develops and manufactures nutritional
products for infants and children. The Company offers various
staged formulas and milk based powders. Mead Johnson & Company
operates in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul D. Stevens, Esq.
          Lauren A. Bochurberg, Esq.
          STEVENS, LC
          1855 Industrial Street, Suite 518
          Los Angeles, CA 90021
          Telephone: (213) 270-1211
          Email: pstevens@stevenslc.com
                 lbochurberg@stevenslc.com

MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Lopez Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Javier Estrada Lopez, an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. MEDLINE INDUSTRIES, LP,
an Illinois limited partnership; MEDLINE INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, L.P.,
a Delaware limited partnership; MEDLINE INDUSTRIES, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
CIVSB2405238 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on May 17, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-01054.

The Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint which asserts the
following ten causes of action: Failure to Pay Overtime Wages;
Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods;
Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Waiting Time Penalties; Wage
Statement Penalties; Failure to Timely Pay Wages; Failure to
Indemnify; Violation of Labor Code; Unfair Competition.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Steven A. Groode, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          Treat Towers
          1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600
          Walnut Creek, CA 94597
          Phone: 925.932.2468
          Fax: 925.946.9809
          Email: sgroode@littler.com

               - and -

          Jannine E. Kranz, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
          Phone: 310.553.0308
          Fax: 800.715.1330
          Email: jkranz@littler.com


MEDSTAR HEALTH: Fails to Secure Clients' Personal Info, Rios Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EVELYN RIOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MEDSTAR HEALTH INC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01418-RDB (D. Md.,
May 15, 2024) sues MedStar for its unlawful data security, which
caused the personal information of the Plaintiff and those
similarly situated to be exfiltrated by unauthorized access by
cybercriminals between Jan. 25, 2023 and Oct. 18, 2023.

The Data Breach affected 183,709 individuals. The exfiltrated data
included personal identifying information ("PII") and personal
health information ("PHI") such as: name, date of birth, Social
Security number, and brokerage and banking information. Then, after
the Data Breach, MedStar failed to provide timely notice to the
affected Plaintiff and Class Members, thereby exacerbating their
injuries. Ultimately, MedStar deprived the Plaintiff and Class
Members of the chance to take speedy measures to protect themselves
and mitigate harm, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff seeks remedies including compensatory damages, treble
damages, punitive damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs,
and injunctive relief—including improvements to MedStar's data
security systems, future annual audits, and the appointment of an
independent and qualified cyber auditor to monitor MedStar's cyber
hygiene, all of which will be funded by MedStar.

Ms. Rios is a current client of MedStar. On May 3, 2024, she
received a letter informing her of the Data Breach.

MedStar offers cancer care, cardiovascular, diabetes,
gastroenterology, neurology, mental health, orthopedics,
rehabilitation, and urology services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and -

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          2000 Pennsylvania Ave. NW - Suite 1010
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 973-0910
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com

MERCURY MANAGEMENT: Caldwell Brings Claim for Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB CALDWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MERCURY MANAGEMENT LLC, a Kansas limited liability
company, Garrett Wiseman, an individual, and Blake Wiseman, an
individual, jointly and severally, Case No. 2:24-cv-02210 (D. Kan.,
May 16, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as
appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt
employee in Michigan from approximately September 25, 2022 to March
1, 2024. Throughout his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff
allegedly was not properly compensated for all hours worked over 40
in a work week due to Defendants' failure to incorporate all forms
of remuneration, including hazard pay and other non-discretionary
remuneration, into their hourly employees' regular hourly rate
calculation, in violation of the FLSA.

Mercury Management LLC is an investment management firm based in
Topeka, KS. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Paul D. Snyder, Esq.
        SNYDER LAW FIRM, LLC     
        10955 Lowell Ave., Suite 710
        Overland Park, KS 66210
        Telephone: (913) 685-3900
        E-mail: psnyder@snyderlawfirmllc.com

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

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

                - and -
     
        Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
        Laura Supanich, Esq.
        MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C.
        1801 Century Park East, Suite 850
        Los Angeles, CA 90067
        Telephone: (310) 824-3828
        E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com
                lms@melmedlaw.com

MEYER CORP: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Jackson Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
SYLINIA JACKSON, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. MEYER CORPORATION, U.S.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-03905 (S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2024) arises
from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons.

Plaintiff Jackson asserts that the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its website constitutes violations of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the
New York City Human Rights Law. Accordingly, the Plaintiff invokes
her right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.

Based in Vallejo, CA, Meyer Corporation owns and operates the
interactive website, https://farberwarecookware.com, which
advertises and markets several products, including cookware,
bakeware and kitchen accessories. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: Dana@Gottlieb.legal
                  Michael@Gottlieb.legal
                  Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal

MICHAEL BURBIDGE: Gutierrez Sues Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------
Rafael Osorio Gutierrez, Gilberto Ferrufino-Garcia, Dominga Madrid
Rodriguez, Otilia Madrid Rodriguez, Nilson Jose Alvarenga Cruz and
Isaias Vega Enamorado, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. THE MOST REVEREND MICHAEL F. BURBIDGE, BISHOP
OF THE CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF ARLINGTON t/a BISHOP IRETON HIGH SCHOOL,
MARK LINEBERRY, Individually and as Liquidating Trustee for
Universal Janitorial Services, Inc., a Terminated Virginia
Corporation., Case No. CL24001454 (Va. Cir. Ct., April 10, 2024),
is brought for unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages in violation
Of the Virginia Wage Payment Act ("VWPAS"), the Virginia Minimum
Wage Act ("VMWA"), and the Virginia Overtime Wage Act ("VOWA")
arising out of work that Plaintiffs performed as employees of
Defendants.

The Plaintiffs and others similarly situated worked full-time
hours, 30 or more hours per week, at Bishop Ireton High School on a
schedule set by BIHS. Prior to terminating its relationship with
Lineberry, Lineberry was rarely present at the school and the
workers who performed janitorial services were under the
supervision of BIHS who directed the work to be performed. During
the final two months of that relationship, Defendants allowed
Plaintiffs to continue working full time at Bishop Ireton High
School but never paid them for this work. BIHS knew that the
Plaintiffs were not being paid during this period because Plaintiff
Rafael Osorio Gutierrez informed a school official that they were
not being paid by Lineberry. Defendants violated the VWPA, VMWA,
and VOWA by having a policy and practice Of not paying Plaintiffs
statutory minimum wages, overtimes wages or any wages for their
labor for the final two months of their employment, approximately
August and September of 2022, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are individual residents of Virginia and Maryland
and were employed as janitors by the Defendants.

The Most Reverend Michael F. Burbidge, Bishop of the Catholic
Diocese Of Arlington, is named as a Defendant in his official
capacity as the Head Of the Catholic Diocese of Arlington which
operates Bishop Ireton High School.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew T. Sutter, Esq.
          SUTTER & TERPAK, PLLC
          7540A Little River Turnpike
          Annandale, VA 22003
          Phone: 703-256-1800
          Facsimile: 703-991-6116
          Email: matt@sutterandterpak.com

               - and -

          Timothy Coffield, Esq.
          COFFIELD PLC
          106-F Melbourne Park Circle
          Charlottesville, VA 22901
          Phone: (434) 218-3133
          Facsimile: (434) 321-1636
          Email: tc@coffieldlaw.com


MICHIGAN BLUE: Payne Sues Over Architectural Barriers in Property
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DENISE PAYNE, Plaintiff v. MICHIGAN BLUE HENS, LLC, and SUNSHINE
RESTAURANT MERGER SUB, LLC d/b/a IHOP #36-209, Defendants, Case No.
9:24-cv-80632-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 16, 2024) is a class action
seeking for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation
expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Plaintiff Payne alleges that the Defendants violated ADA by failing
to remove the architectural barriers of their commercial property
and commercial restaurant business. Moreover, she asserts that the
Defendants have discriminated against her by denying her access to,
and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities,
privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial
property.

Michigan Blue Hens, LLC owns and operates a commercial retail
property at 10050 Calle Comercio Drive, Boca Raton, FL. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
          ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
          7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104
          Miami, FL 33144
          Telephone: (786) 361-9909
          Facsimile: (786) 687-0445
          E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com
                  jr@ajperezlawgroup.com

MICROVAST INC: Milan Sues Over Failure to Provide Notice
--------------------------------------------------------
Deidra Milan, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v.
MICROVAST, INC.; MICROVAST HOLDINGS, INC.; Case No. 3:24-cv-00627
(M.D. Tenn., May 20, 2024), is brought under the Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act (the "WARN Act"), by the Plaintiff
against Defendants' failure to provide notice in violation of the
WARN Act.

The Defendants operate a manufacturing plant located at 780
International Blvd, Clarksville, TN ("Microvast Facility"), where
Plaintiff and those she seeks to represent worked. Over the last 90
days, Defendants abruptly terminated several groups of employees,
unilaterally and without proper notice to employees or staff,
terminating over 50 employees and at least 33% of active full-time
employees, including Plaintiff, at the Microvast Facility. Upon
information and belief, Microvast continued mass layoffs as
recently as Friday, May 17, 2024.

The Plaintiff was terminated on April 19, 2024, as part of a mass
layoff without notice. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf
of herself and other similarly situated former employees who worked
for Defendants and were terminated as part of the foreseeable
result of a mass lay off or plant closing ordered by Defendants on
or around April 19, 2024 and within 90 days of that date and who
were not provided 60 days' advance written notice of their
terminations by Defendants, as required by the WARN Act. Plaintiff
and other similarly situated employees should have received the
full protection afforded by the WARN Act, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants at the Microvast
Facility.

The Defendants run a battery manufacturing plant in Clarksville,
Tennessee, manufacturing lithium-ion battery solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          Michael C. Iadevaia, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC - NASHVILLE
          223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Phone: (615) 254-8801
          Fax: (615) 250-3937
          Email: gerards@bsjfirm.com
                 miadevaia@stranchlaw.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Martinez Sues Over Inflated Amount of Interest
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daysi L. Martinez, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
consumers v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-00597-PTG-LRV (E.D. Va., April 11, 2024), is brought for
statutory and actual damages; costs; and attorneys' fees brought
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") as a result
of the Defendant's violation of the FDCPA by listing an inaccurate,
inflated amount of interest on the garnishments it filed in
Virginia general district courts.

Even though Plaintiff and the putative class members made payments
towards their respective outstanding judgments, Midland continued
to assess post judgment interest on the full judgment amounts. In
other words, even though the outstanding balances had decreased,
Midland continued to assess interest on the full judgment amounts
as if no payments had been made. This resulted in garnishments
against Plaintiff and the putative class members in amounts
exceeding what they actually owed.

As a result, Plaintiff alleges a class claim against Midland under
the FDCPA. Because Midland's submission of false garnishment
suggestions was also a crime under Virginia law, Plaintiff also
alleges a class claim for Virginia consumers under the FDCPA.
Midland also made other errors when it garnished Plaintiff's bank
account. As a result, Plaintiff alleges individual claims against
Midland under the FDCPA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person and a consumer.

Midland is a "debt collector" and is a foreign California
corporation with its principal place of business in San Diego,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
          Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
          Casey S. Nash, Esq.
          J. Patrick McNichol, Esq.
          Matthew G. Rosendahl, Esq.
          KELLY GUZZO, PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Phone: (703) 424-7572
          Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
          Email: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
                 aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
                 casey@kellyguzzo.com
                 pat@kellyguzzo.com
                 matt@kellyguzzo.com


MIDWEST GERIATRIC: Crawford Seeks Conditional Status of Collective
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHELSEA CRAWFORD,
Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. MIDWEST
GERIATRIC MANAGEMENT, LLC d/b/a MGM HEALTHCARE, Case No.
4:23-cv-01218-SEP (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order conditionally certifying the collective action pursuant to
29 U.S.C. section 216(b) for purposes of authorizing notice to the
potential opt-in plaintiffs:

   1. Conditional certification of this action as a collective
action
      under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

   2. The Putative Collective shall be defined as:

      "All current and former hourly-paid employees who were hired
and
      worked as an LPN ("LPN") who worked for a facility in the MGM

      Healthcare family of companies and who received an automatic

      meal period deduction at any time within the three years
      preceding the date of this Court’s order granting
conditional
      certification."

   3. Plaintiff's Counsel is appointed as counsel for the
Collective
      Members.

   4. The Notice and Consent Forms attached to this Consent Motion
as
      Exhibit 1 are appropriate to accurately and neutrally inform
the
      Putative Collective Members, via U.S. Mail and email, of
their
      rights under the FLSA and to provide such Putative Collective

      Members an opportunity to join the collective action should
they
      so choose.

   5. Potential opt-in plaintiffs shall be allowed to execute
either a
      hard copy of the consent form or an electronic copy of the
      consent form with an electronic signature.

   6. Putative Collective Members will have 60 days from the date
the
      Notice is distributed to return their signed written consent

      forms. Timeliness will be determined based on the date the
      consent form is post-marked or electronically executed.

   7. Within 20 days of the entry of this Order, MGM shall provide
a
      list containing the names, last-known addresses, email
address
      (to the extent maintained by Defendant), dates of
      employment, and location(s) of work for the putative class
      members. Defendant shall provide such information in a
computer-
      readable format, such as a Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet

Midwest offers service-oriented primary care for residents in
several senior community settings.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 22, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ys5m5u at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          William M. Hogg, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  whogg@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@bruckerburch.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Chris R. Pace, Esq.
          Samuel W. Newman, Esq.
          R. Lance Witcher, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK &
          STEWART, P.C.
          700 West 47th Street, Suite 500
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 410-2232
          Facsimile: (816) 471-1303
          E-mail: chris.pace@ogletree.com
                  samuel.newman@ogletree.com
                  lance.witcher@ogletree.com

MIN NEW YORK: Faces Wahab Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA WAHAB, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MIN NEW YORK, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-03779 (S.D.N.Y., May 16, 2024) arises from Defendant's
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's denial of full and equal
access to the website is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under
the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human
Rights Law.

Min New York, Inc. owns and operates the website, www.min.com,
which offers a variety of fragrances and scent-based products,
including perfumes, body sprays, hair perfumes, and candles. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MINKIN ENTERPRISES: Longhini Sues Over ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
Doug Longhini, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. MINKIN ENTERPRISES, INC. and FRITANGA MONIMBO
FOUNTAINBLEAU, INC d/b/a FRITANGA MONIMBO FOUNTAINBLEAU, Case No.
1:24-cv-21268-CMA (S.D. Fla., April 4, 2024), is brought for
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result
of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff
by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or
accommodations of the Commercial Property and businesses located
therein.

The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability and
requires landlords and tenants to be liable for compliance. The
subject Commercial Property is open to the public. The individual
Plaintiff visits the Commercial Property and businesses located
within the commercial property, to include a visit to the
Commercial Property and business located within the Commercial
Property on January 16, 2024, and encountered multiple violations
of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the
Commercial Property. He often visits the Commercial Property in
order to avail himself of the goods and services offered there, and
because it is 8 miles from his residence and is near other
businesses and restaurants he frequents as a patron. He plans to
return to the Commercial Property within 2 months of the filing of
this Complaint, in order to avail himself of the goods and services
offered at the place of public accommodation and check if it has
been remediated of the ADA violations he encountered.

The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property and the businesses
named herein located within the Commercial Property to be rife with
ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at
the Commercial Property, and businesses named herein located within
the Commercial Property, and wishes to continue his patronage and
use of each of the premises.

The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in
violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and
businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to
access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each
denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial
Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate.

MINKIN ENTERPRISES, INC., owned and operated the commercial
buildings located at in Miami, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


MOLO SOLUTIONS: Goldsmith Files Suit in N.Y. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lens.com. The case is
styled as Samuel Goldsmith, Christopher Lynch, Andrew Pierce, Oney
Temple, Julio Vargas, all others similarly situated v. MoLo
Solutions, LLC., ArcBest II, Inc., Case No. 608373/2024 (N.Y.
Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty., Feb. 23, 2024).

The case type is stated as " Other Tort."

MoLo -- https://shipmolo.com/ -- is a service of ArcBest, provides
best-in-class truckload brokerage services across North
America.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          JAMES F. MISIANO, P.C.
          130 3rd Ave.
          Brentwood, NY 11717-4617


MOLSON COORS: Dixon and Mahan Sue Over Deceptive Product Labeling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARKUS DIXON and DEANNA MAHAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MOLSON COORS BEVERAGE
COMPANY USA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-00353-BCW (W.D. Mo.,
May 20, 2024) arises from the Defendant's misleading product
labeling and packaging that violated the Federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act and identical requirements of Chapter 196, Food, Drugs
and Tobacco, Missouri Revised Statutes and accompanying
regulations.

Molson Coors Beverage Company USA LLC sells alcoholic beverages
described as "Mimosa Hard Seltzer" in orange packaging, with
pictures of oranges, described as "Made With Real Orange Juice,"
under its Vizzy brand. However, this product does not contain
sparkling wine. Moreover, the Plaintiffs assert that the
representation "Mimosa Hard Seltzer" is misleading because unlike
other competitor products, it is not based on wine, sparkling wine
or champagne, but on fermented sugar, which qualifies it as a
beer.

Defendant Molson Coors Beverage Company USA LLC is a Delaware
limited liability company that produces and sells alcoholic
beverages. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Thomas A. Addleman, Esq.
         ADDLEMAN LAW FIRM LLC
         4041 NE Lakewood Way Ste 140
         Lee’s Summit MO 64064
         Telephone: (816) 875-5432
         E-mail: toma@creditlawcenter.com

MONTEFIORE HEALTH: Vazquez Suit Seeks Hospital Staff's Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELIQUE VAZQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONTEFIORE HEALTH SYSTEM INC.,
MONTEFIORE MOUNT VERNON HOSPITAL, and GARY ISHKANIAN, Defendants,
Case No. 1:24-cv-03811 (S.D.N.Y., May 16, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants at the Mount Vernon
Hospital from on or around September 29, 2019, until November 24,
2022. During her employment with the Defendants, she held various
titles including Medical Staff Coordinator, Podiatry Coordinator,
and Assistant to the Chairman of the Department of Surgery.

Montefiore Health System, Inc. is a company that operates
Montefiore Mount Vernon Hospital, a medical center located at 12 N.
7th Avenue, Mount Vernon, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         William Brown, Esq.
         BROWN, KWON & LAM LLP
         521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
         New York, NY 10175
         Telephone: (212) 295-5825
         Facsimile: (718) 795-1642
         Email: wbrown@bkllawyers.com

MONTEFIORE MEDICAL: Boyette Appeals Denied Motion to Amend Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHEILA A. BOYETTE has filed an appeal from the District Court's
Memorandum Opinion and Order dated April 5, 2024 entered in the
lawsuit styled SHEILA A. BOYETTE and TIFFANY JIMINEZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
MONTEFIORE MEDICAL CENTER, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF MONTEFIORE
MEDICAL CENTER, THE TDA PLAN COMMITTEE, DR. MICHAEL STOCKER, and
JOHN DOES 1-30, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-05280-JGK, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit filed on June
22, 2022, is a class action brought pursuant to the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), against the TDA
Plan's fiduciaries, which include Montefiore Medical Center, the
Board of Trustees of Montefiore Medical Center and its members
during the Class Period and the TDA Plan Committee and its members
during the Class Period.

According to the complaint, as a large plan both in terms of assets
and participants, the Plan had substantial bargaining power
regarding the fees and expenses that were charged against
participants' investments. The Plan's massive size in terms of the
number of participants also afforded it the luxury to leverage its
scale to obtain low recordkeeping and administration costs.

On November 14, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

On March 10, 2023, second amended complaint was filed by the
Plaintiffs. The Defendant file a motion dismiss SAC on April 21
which the Court granted on November 13 through an Order entered by
Judge John G. Koeltl.

On December 14, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
file third amended complaint which the Court denied on through an
Order signed by Judge Koeltl on April 5, 2024.

The appellate case is captioned as Boyette v. Montefiore Medical
Center, Case No. 24-1279, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, filed on May 13, 2024.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants HEILA A. BOYETTE and TIFFANY JIMINEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
          312 Old Lancaster Road
          Merion Station, PA 19066

Defendants-Appellees MONTEFIORE MEDICAL CENTER, et al., are
represented by:

          John Calandra, Esq.
          MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
          One Vanderbilt Avenue
          New York, NY 10017

MONTGOMERY PUBLIC SCHOOLS: Class Cert Discovery Due Feb. 10, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLI PARRISH-MUNCHER, v.
MONTGOMERY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00736-ECM-JTA
(M.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge Emily C. Marks entered an uniform
scheduling order as follows:

-- A pretrial conference is scheduled for:        July 10, 2025

-- Dispositive motions, e.g., motions for         March 12, 2025
    summary judgment, shall be filed no later
    than:

-- Amendments to the pleadings by motion or       Aug. 6, 2024
    notice of consent pursuant to Federal Rule
    of Civil Procedure 15, shall be filed
    on or before:

-- All discovery shall be completed on or        Feb. 10, 2025
    Before:

Montgomery Public Schools is a school district serving the city of
Montgomery and surrounding Montgomery County.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 21, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nHuPsf at no extra
charge.[CC]

MOSAIC CO: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Cruz Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Mosaic Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2024, that the Company's wholly
owned subsidiary, Mosaic Global Operations, continues to defend
itself from the Cruz class suit in the Circuit Court of the
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in Hillsborough County, Florida.

On August 27, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in
Hillsborough County, Florida against the Company's wholly owned
subsidiary, Mosaic Global Operations Inc., and two unrelated
co-defendants.

The complaint alleges claims related to elevated levels of
radiation at two manufactured housing communities located on
reclaimed mining land in Mulberry, Polk County, Florida, allegedly
due to phosphate mining and reclamation activities occurring
decades ago.

Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, including punitive damages,
injunctive relief requiring remediation of their properties, and a
medical monitoring program funded by the defendants.

On October 14, 2021, the court substantially granted a motion to
dismiss that it filed late in 2020, with leave for the plaintiffs
to amend their complaint.

On November 3, 2021, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and, in
response, Mosaic filed a motion to dismiss that complaint with
prejudice on November 15, 2021.

On December 23, 2021, plaintiffs opposed that motion and Mosaic
replied to that opposition on January 26, 2022.

On April 6, 2022, the court heard argument on the motions to
dismiss filed by Mosaic and each other co-defendant.

In late March 2023, the court denied defendants' motions to
dismiss.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend this matter.

The Mosaic Company is a producer and marketer of concentrated
phosphate and potash crop nutrients. The Company is a single-source
supplier of phosphate and potash-based crop nutrients and animal
feed ingredients.

MUSTANG FUEL: Wake Energy Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wake Energy LLC, on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated, v. Mustang Fuel
Corporation and Mustang Gas Products, LLC, Case No.
6:22-cv-00364-RAW-GLJ (E.D. Okla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:

   (1) certifying the Settlement Class for Settlement purposes;

   (2) preliminarily approving the Settlement;

   (3) appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative for the
Settlement
       Class;

   (4) appointing Brady L. Smith and Harry "Skeeter" Jordan of
Brady
       Smith Law, PLLC and Randy Smith of Randy C. Smith and
       Associates as Co-Lead Class Counsel;

   (5) approving the form and manner of the proposed Notice;

   (6) appointing JND Legal Administration as Settlement
       Administrator;

   (7) appointing JND Legal Administration as Escrow Agent; and

   (8) setting a hearing date for final approval of the Settlement
and
       application for an award of Plaintiff's Attorneys' Fees,
       Litigation Expenses and Administration, Notice, and
       Distribution Costs, and a Case Contribution Award to
Plaintiff.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff moves the Court to certify the
Settlement Class consisting of:

      "All non-excluded persons or entities who: (1) received late

      payments under the PRSA from Defendants (or Defendants'
      designee) for oil and gas proceeds from Oklahoma wells, or
whose
      proceeds from Oklahoma wells were sent as unclaimed property
to
      a government entity by Defendants; and (2) whose proceeds did

      not include the statutory interest required by the PRSA."

      Excluded from the Class are: (1) Defendants, their
affiliates,
      predecessors, and employees, officers, and directors; and (2)

      agencies, departments, or instrumentalities of the United
States
      of America or the State of Oklahoma; (3) any Indian Tribe as

      defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(4) or Indian allotee as
      defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(2); (4) persons or entities

      that Plaintiff’s counsel may be prohibited from
representing
      under Rule 1.7 of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct;

      (5) publicly traded companies; and (6) XTO Energy Inc, SK
      Nemaha, LLC, Ovintiv Mid-Continent Inc, Hinkle Oil & Gas
Inc.,
      White Star Petroleum Holdings, LLC, Continental Resources
Inc,
      Unit Petroleum Company, Staghorn Petroleum II, LLC,
Chesapeake
      Exploration, L.L.C., Canvas Energy LLC, Contango Resources
LLC,
      BCE-Mach III LLC, and Shiloh Oil Corporation.

The Plaintiff initiated this case on Dec. 14, 2022, with the filing
of the Complaint, in which Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants
violated the Production Revenue Standards Act (PRSA).

Mustang provides gas and oil exploration and production services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 22, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nVJD0H at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brady L. Smith, Esq.
          Harry "Skeeter" Jordan, Esq.
          BRADY SMITH LAW, PLLC
          One Leadership Square, Suite 132Harr0 211 N. Robinson
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 293-3029
          E-mail: brady@blsmithlaw.com
                  skeeter@blsmithlaw.com

                –and–

          Randy C. Smith, Esq.
          RANDY C. SMITH AND ASSOCIATES
          One Leadership Square, Suite 1310
          211 North Robinson Ave.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 212-2786
          Facsimile: (405) 232-6515
          E-mail: randy@rcsmithlaw.com

MYOSCI TECHNOLOGIES: Jones Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAMON JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Myosci Technologies, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-03704 (S.D.N.Y., May
14, 2024) accuses the Defendant of discriminating against blind and
visually-impaired persons by not providing full and equal access to
its website, Truenutrition.com.

The Plaintiff, a visually-impaired and legally blind person, brings
this action against Defendant for its alleged failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people. The Defendant's website through which
Defendant offers its products and services, allegedly contains
significant access barriers that make it difficult for blind and
visually-impaired customers to use the website. The Defendant's
denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore
denial of its products and services, violates the Americans with
Disabilities Act, says the suit.

Based in Vista, CA, Myosci Technologies, Inc. manufactures and
sells dietary supplements, dairy, and non-dairy products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

NATIONS DIRECT: Brown Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
--------------------------------------------------------
Yvette Brown, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. NATIONS DIRECT MORTGAGE, LLC, Case No.
2:24-cv-00697-GMN-NJK (D. Nev., April 10, 2024), is brought against
Nations Direct for its failure to properly secure and safeguard
Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former Nations
Direct customers' and employees' (collectively defined herein as
the "Class" or "Class Members") personally identifiable information
("PII"), including names, addresses, Social Security numbers and
unique Nations Direct loan numbers (collectively, the "Private
Information") from cybercriminals.

On December 30, 2023, Nations Direct learned that an unauthorized
entity had gained access to customer information on one of its
computer servers. In response, Defendant launched an investigation
and notified law enforcement. Nations Direct's investigation
revealed that an unauthorized party had access to certain customer
and employee files on the server on an undisclosed date (the "Data
Breach").

As a result of the Data Breach, and in light of their Private
Information now being in the hands of cybercriminals, Plaintiff and
Class Members were, and continue to be, at significant risk of
identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and
financial harm. This substantial and imminent risk will remain for
their respective lifetimes.

Armed with the Private Information accessed in the Data Breach, the
cybercriminals who carried out the Data Breach can and will commit
a variety of crimes, including, e.g., obtaining medical services
and/or prescriptions in Class Members' names, opening new financial
accounts in Class Members' names, taking out loans in Class
Members' names, using Class Members' names to obtain medical
services, using Class Members' information to obtain government
benefits, filing fraudulent tax returns using Class Members'
information, obtaining driver's licenses in Class Members' names
but with another person's photograph, and giving false information
to police during an arrest.

There has been no assurance offered by Nations Direct that all
personal data or copies of data have been recovered or destroyed,
or that it has adequately enhanced its data security practices
sufficiently to avoid a similar breach of its network in the
future. Therefore, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and
are at an imminent, immediate, and continuing increased risk of
suffering, ascertainable losses in the form of harm from identity
theft and other fraudulent misuse of their Private Information, the
loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses
incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach, and
the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate
the effects of the Data Breach. The Plaintiff brings this class
action lawsuit to address Nations Direct's inadequate safeguarding
of Class Members' Private Information that it collected and
maintained, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff Private Information was accessed and exfiltrated
during the Data Breach.

Nations Direct is a mortgage lending company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Mason A. Barney, Esq.
          Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
          SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
          745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
          New York, NY 10151
          Phone: (212) 532-1091
          Email: mbarney@sirillp.com
                 tbean@sirillp.com


NATURE'S BAKERY: Levit Sues Over Deceptive Marketing of Fig Bars
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW LEVIT, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated,
and the general public, Plaintiff v. NATURE'S BAKERY, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-02987-SK (N.D. Cal., May 17, 2024)
arises from Defendant's deceptive marketing and sale of fig bars
and asserts claims for breach of express warranties, breach of
implied warranty of merchantability, negligent misrepresentation,
intentional misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and for
violations of the Unfair Competition Law, the False and Advertising
Law, and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

The Defendant allegedly employs a strategic marketing campaign that
is expressly designed to convince consumers the said products are
healthy. However, the said products contain 14 grams of added sugar
per serving, contributing approximately 28% of their calories, more
than five times the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans'
recommendation for a healthy dietary pattern. Contrary to the
marketing of these products, a vast body of reliable scientific
evidence establishes that excessive consumption of added sugar --
any amount above approximately 5% of daily caloric intake -- is
toxic to the human body and greatly increases the risk of
cardiovascular disease, diabetes, liver disease, and a wide variety
of other chronic diseases, says the suit.

Headquartered in Reno, NV, Nature's Bakery, LLC manufactures bakery
products, including fruit and grain bars. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
         Melanie R. Monroe, Esq.
         Trevor Flynn, Esq.
         Caroline S. Emhardt, Esq.
         FITZGERALD MONROE FLYNN PC
         2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200
         San Diego, CA 92110
         Telephone: (619) 215-1741
         E-mail: jfitzgerald@fmfpc.com
                 mmonroe@fmfpc.com
                 tflynn@fmfpc.com
                 cemhardt@fmfpc.com

NEIMAN MARCUS: Zelvin Sues Over Website Accessibility Noncompliance
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LYNN ZELVIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-03782 (S.D.N.Y., May 16, 2024) accuses the
Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New
York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law,
and the New York City Human Rights Law.

The Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Defendant for
its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. Moreover,
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's
website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. He also seeks compensatory damages to
compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful
discrimination.

Headquartered in Dallas, TX, The Neiman Marcus Group provides to
the public a website known as Bergdorfgoodman.com which provides
consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including,
the ability to view clothing, shoes, handbags, jewelry, beauty
products, and home decor. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

NESTED BEAN: Saedi Sues Over Weighted Sleep Products' False Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roz Saedi, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
Nested Bean, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-11299-PGL (D. Mass., May 15,
2024) contends that the Defendant committed tortious acts through
its misrepresentations related to the sale, marketing, and
distribution of the Weighted Sleep Products for children, including
weighted sleep sacks such as the Zen Sack, Zen Sack Classic, Zen
Sack Winter, Zen Sack Premier, and Zen Sack Quilted, and weighted
swaddles such as the Zen Neo and the Zen Swaddle Classic.

The Defendant touts their products as "scientifically designed for
self-soothing and sounder sleep." The problem is that there is no
scientific evidence that these products help children sleep. The
Defendant also markets its products as “the safe alternative to
all-weighted sleepwear," when in fact the scientific consensus is
that these products are inherently dangerous. Accordingly, the
Defendant uses deceptive and unfair tactics to sell millions of
dollars' worth of its wholly useless Weighted Sleep Products which
are not proven to provide the benefits that the Defendant market.
Worse, the Defendant reaps these profits while omitting from its
marketing that these products are dangerous and should not be used,
says the suit.

On Feb. 14, 2024, Ms. Saedi purchased a Zen Sack Classic, one of
the Defendant's Weighted Sleep Products, from Defendant's website.
Ms. Saedi used the sleep sack on her child twice but found that her
baby was very uncomfortable and fussy while wearing the Weighted
Sleep Product. To Ms. Saedi, it appeared as though that her child
was having a hard time breathing while wearing the Weighted Sleep
Product as instructed. Given this, the Plaintiff stopped using the
Zen Sack Classic she purchased after just two times. Ms. Saedi
bought the Weighted Sleep Product because she believed that it
would safely help her child sleep. She read and relied on the
Defendant's marketing materials to this effect. She would not have
purchased the Weighted Sleep Product at the price she paid, if she
knew it did not help her child sleep. In fact, knowing the truth,
the Weighted Sleep Product is worthless to her, the suit added.

The Plaintiff brings this class action individually and on behalf
of a class of similarly situated consumers to redress the economic
harm caused by the Defendant's alleged sale of its dangerous and
ineffective Weighted Sleep Products.

Nested Bean designs and markets Zen Sleepwear.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elizabeth Ryan, Esq.
          Bart D. Cohen, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          176 Federal Street, 5th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 439-6730
          E-mail: eryan@baileyglasser.com
                  bcohen@baileyglasser.com

                - and -

          Alan M. Feldman, Esq.
          Zachary Arbitman, Esq.
          George Donnelly, Esq.
          FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER TANNER
          WEINSTOCK & DODIG, LLP
          1845 Walnut Street, 21st Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 567-8300
          Facsimile: (215) 567-8333
          E-mail: afeldman@feldmanshepherd.com
                  zarbitman@feldmanshepherd.com
                  gdonnelly@feldmanshepherd.com

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY: Faces Suit Over Breach of Civil Rights Act
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-04125 (N.D. Ill., May 20, 2024) alleges that the
Northwestern University failed to act in accordance with its legal
obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its
own policies, which are incorporated into the contract between
Plaintiff and the University formed at the time of enrollment.

The Plaintiff alleges that antisemitism or the bigoted prejudice
against Jews has been permitted to flourish on Northwestern's
campus for years and has increased exponentially since the October
7, 2023 attack in Israel by Hamas, a designated terrorist
organization. Beginning on April 25, 2024, hundreds of Northwestern
students, faculty, staff, and unaffiliated individuals took over
part of Northwestern's campus and formed an unauthorized
encampment, in what they called the "Liberated Zone." From the
start, the University knew and publicly stated that this encampment
violated University policies and was causing a hostile environment
for Jewish students. However, Northwestern allegedly took no
disciplinary action to remove the encampment from the center of
Northwestern's campus, says the suit.

Based in Evanston, IL, Northwestern University is a private,
not-for-profit, nonsectarian, coeducational institution, created by
Charter by the State of Illinois in 1851.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
          Paige Smith, Esq.
          FEGAN SCOTT LLC
          150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 741-1019
          Facsimile: (312) 264-0100
          E-mail: beth@feganscott.com
                  paige@feganscott.com

                  - and -

          Jonathan D. Lindenfeld, Esq.
          FEGAN SCOTT LLC
          305 Broadway, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (332) 216-2101
          Facsimile: (917) 725-9346
          E-mail: jonathan@feganscott.com

                  - and -

          David Freydin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID FREYDIN
          8707 Skokie Blvd # 312
          Skokie, IL 60077
          Telephone: (312) 544-0365
          Facsimile: (866) 575-3765
          E-mail: david.freydin@freydinlaw.com

NUSRET HOLDINGS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Anderson Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
DERRICK ANDERSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Nusret Holdings USA, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-03167 (E.D.N.Y., April 29, 2024) is a civil rights
action against Mohan's Custom Tailors for their failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website,
https://www.nusr-et.com.tr/, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers
that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using
keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive
and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure,
inaccurate heading hierarchy, ambiguous link texts, changing of
content without advance warning, inaccurate alt-text on graphics,
inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of navigation links, the
lack of adequate labeling of form fields, the denial of keyboard
access for some interactive elements and the requirement that
transactions be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Nusret Holdings' policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.

Nusret Holdings USA, LLC is a luxury steakhouse chain.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

OCTAPHARMA PLASMA: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Adams Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA ADAMS, individually on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OCTAPHARMA PLASMA INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00459 (W.D.N.C., May 7, 2024) is an action arising out of
the Defendant's failures to properly secure, safeguard, and
adequately destroy the Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive
personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored
for its business purposes.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's data security failures
allowed a targeted cyberattack to compromise the Defendant's
network (the "Data Breach") that, upon information and belief,
contained personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected
health information ("PHI") (collectively, "Private Information") of
Plaintiff and other individuals ("the Class"). The Data Breach was
announced online by the Defendant on April 19, 2024.

The Data Breach was a direct result of the Defendant's failure to
implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and
protocols necessary to protect individuals' Private Information
with which it was entrusted for either treatment or donors or both.
The mechanism of the Data Breach and potential for improper
disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information
was a known risk to the Defendant, and thus the Defendant was on
notice that failing to take steps necessary to secure Private
Information from those risks left that property in a dangerous
condition.

As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members are
now at a current, imminent, and ongoing risk of fraud and identity
theft. Plaintiff and Class Members must now and for years into the
future closely monitor their medical and financial accounts to
guard against identity theft. As a result of the Defendant's
unreasonable and inadequate data security practices, Plaintiff and
Class Members have suffered numerous actual and concrete injuries
and damages, says the suit.

OCTAPHARMA PLASMA INC. develops, produces, and sells medicines
derived from human proteins. The Company provides biopharmaceutical
products and therapies for haematology, intensive care & emergency
medicine, and immunotherapy. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Harris, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5003
          Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
          Email: sharris@milberg.com

              - and -

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

               - and -

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          Ken Grunfeld, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
          One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 332-4200
          Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                 grunfeld@kolawyers.com

OLD NATIONAL BANK: Lagunas Sues Over Unlawful Fees
--------------------------------------------------
Rafael Lagunas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. OLD NATIONAL BANK, Case No. 3:24-cv-00067-RLY-CSW (S.D.
Ind., April 4, 2024), is brought against the Defendant's unlawful
"Return Deposited Item Chargeback" fees.

The bank maintains highly sophisticated systems for clearing checks
and knows, or should know, when the person that wrote the check
does not have sufficient funds to cover the check or has access to
the reasons that the check may not otherwise be valid.
Nevertheless, despite having these capabilities, Old National
routinely charges and collects what it refers to as "Return
Deposited Item Chargeback" fees. By charging these Return Deposited
Item Chargeback fees, Old National unfairly targeted its customers
with financial penalties for faulty checks the customers had no
hand in issuing. Plaintiff was shocked when he was charged a fee
because he did nothing wrong yet was penalized by Old National.
There was nothing Plaintiff could do to avoid — or even
anticipate — a Return Deposited Item Chargeback fee assessed by
Old National at the time the deposit was returned. By charging its
customers significant fees in situations where the customer did
nothing wrong and could not have avoided the fee through reasonable
diligence, Old National acted in a manner that is unfair,
oppressive, and against public policy.

Recent guidance from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
("CFPB") has reaffirmed the unlawful nature of Old National's
Return Deposited Item Chargeback fee policy. In October 2022, the
CFPB issued a compliance bulletin stating that it is an unfair act
or practice for an institution to have a blanket policy of charging
Return Deposited Item Chargeback fees anytime that a check is
returned unpaid, irrespective of the circumstances or patterns of
behavior on the account; the CFPB noted that these fees cause
substantial monetary injury for each returned item, which consumers
likely cannot reasonably avoid because they lack information about
and control over whether a check will clear.

Accordingly, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class and
Subclass, now seeks to hold Old National accountable for its
unlawful and unfair policy, and seeks damages, restitution, and
injunctive relief, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff held an Old National deposit account during the
applicable statute of limitations period.

Old National is a regional bank headquartered in Evansville,
Indiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mason Barney
          Lisa R. Considine
          Oren Faircloth
          745 Fifth Ave, Suite 500
          New York, NY 10151
          Phone: 212-532-1091
          Facsimile: 646-417-5967
          Email: mbarney@sirillp.com
                 lconsidine@sirillp.com
                 ofaircloth@sirillp.com


ONCOLOGY INC: Vrana Suit Asserts Breach of Fiduciary Duty
---------------------------------------------------------
TRAVIS VRANA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated and derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant CARDIFF
ONCOLOGY, INC., Plaintiff v. JAMES O. ARMITAGE, MARK ERLANDER,
RODNEY S. MARKIN, MANI MOHINDRU, GARY W. PACE, RENEE P. TANNENBAUM,
LALE WHITE, TOD SMEAL, FAIROOZ KABBINAVAR, JAMES LEVINE, and
CARDIFF ONCOLOGY, INC., Defendants, and CARDIFF ONCOLOGY, INC., a
Delaware Corporation, Nominal Defendant, Case No. 2024-0507 (Del.
Ch., May 13, 2024) is a class and derivative action on behalf of
Plaintiff, other Cardiff stockholders, and the Company, for breach
of the Company's Bylaws, as well as breach of fiduciary duty
against the members of the Board for rejecting a letter, in order
to secure equity relief for Cardiff's stockholders.

These matters include a pair of director elections and a proposal
to increase the number of shares available for issuance under
Cardiff's 2021 Omnibus Equity Incentive Plan. In tabulating
stockholder votes, the Board failed to give the proper effect to
so-called "Broker Non-Votes" -- i.e., shares that were present at
the meetings and registered to brokers who did not receive voting
instructions on the proposals from the beneficial owners of those
shares.

To give the Board an opportunity to correct the issues, Plaintiff
sent a letter to the Board, referred here as Demand, in which he
identified the proposals that had not been approved and demanded
that the Board take remedial action, including but not limited to
refraining from granting any equity awards covering unauthorized
shares. Unfortunately, the Board rejected his Demand. After
rejecting the Demand, the Board compounded its errors. On April 25,
2024, the Company filed a Schedule 14A proxy statement with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, through which the Board is
soliciting stockholder approval of another increase in the number
of shares available for issuance under the Plan.

Cardiff is now poised to proceed with a stockholder vote predicated
upon the false and misleading 2024 Proxy, issue additional ultra
vires equity awards, and carry on with a Board including two
directors who were not validly elected under the voting standard in
the Company's Bylaws, says the suit.

Cardiff Oncology, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company
working to develop therapies across a range of cancers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
          Craig J. Springer, Esq.
          David M. Sborz, Esq.
          Andrew J. Peach, Esq.
          Jackson E. Warren, Esq.
          ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
          4001 Kennett Pike, Suite 250
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 504-4957

               - and -

          William J. Fields, Esq.
          Christopher J. Kupka, Esq.
          Samir Shukurov, Esq.
          FIELDS KUPKA & SHUKUROV LLP
          141 Tompkins Ave, Suite 404
          Pleasantville, NY 10570
          Telephone: (212) 231-1500

               - and -

          D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
          Adrienne Bell, Esq.
          KASKELA LAW LLC
          18 Campus Blvd., Suite 100
          Newton Square, PA 19073
          Telephone: (484) 258-1585

ONE KINGS: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Riley Class Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMANIE RILEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. One Kings Lane, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-03843 (S.D.N.Y.,
May 17, 2024) is a civil rights action against Up NYC for their
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons.

The Defendant is allegedly denying blind and visually impaired
persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods
and services Up NYC provides to their non-disabled customers
through h https://www.onekingslane.com. The Defendant's denial of
full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its
products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical
locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans
with Disabilities Act, says the suit.

Onekingslane.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods,
services, price specials and other programs offered by One Kings
Lane. Yet, Onekingslane.com contains significant access barriers
that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and
visually-impaired customers to use the website. In fact, the access
barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users
to even complete a transaction on the website. Thus, One Kings Lane
excludes the blind and visually impaired from the full and equal
participation in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly
a fundamental part of the common marketplace and daily living.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision;
others have no vision.

Upnycstore.com is a commercial website that offers products and
services for online sale. The online store allows the user to view
shoes, apparel and accessories, make purchases, and perform a
variety of other functions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

OVERLAKE HOSPITAL: Court Dismisses Nienaber Suit
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nienaber v. Overlake
Hospital Medical Center, Case No. 2:23-cv-01159 (W.D. Wash., Filed
Aug. 3, 2023), the Hon. Judge Tana Lin entered an order dismissing
the Plaintiff's complaint in its entirety.

-- The Court's order setting class certification briefing schedule

    and other pre-trial deadlines, is therefore stricken.

-- The Plaintiff must file an amended complaint or voluntary
dismissal of her action within 30 days of the date of this Order.

The nature of suit states wiretapping.

Overlake is a 349-bed, nonprofit regional medical center.[CC]

PALACE BK CLEANERS: Faces Ojeda Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
NICANOR ANTONIO OJEDA, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. PALACE BK CLEANERS INC. d/b/a 43 & 43
Cleaners and Koreano DOE, Case No. 1:24-cv-03526 (E.D.N.Y., May 14,
2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff has been working for the Defendants since January
2017 as a dry cleaner. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed
to pay him and other similarly situated employees overtime premium
for hours worked in excess of 40 each week and wages at least equal
to applicable statutory minimum wage. Additionally, the Defendant
failed to provide wage notices, statements, and accurate time
records to Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid wages, compensatory damages,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and other
relief under the FLSA and the NYLL.

Based in Westbury, NY, Palace BK Cleaners is engaged in the dry
cleaning business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Michael Samuel, Esq.
        THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM     
        1441 Broadway
        Suite 6085
        New York, NY 10018
        Telephone: (212) 563-9884
        E-mail: michael@thesamuellawfirm.com

PALM MARKETPLACE: Payne Suit Seeks Injunctive Relief Under ADA
--------------------------------------------------------------
DENISE PAYNE, v. PALM MARKETPLACE LLC, Case No. 0:24-cv-60836-RS
(S.D. Fla., May 17, 2024) is a class action suit for injunctive
relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to
the "Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Defendant owned and operated the commercial buildings located
at 701 NW 99th Avenue, Pembroke Pines, Florida. Plaintiff Payne
contends that although over 30 years have passed since the
effective date of Title III of the ADA, the Defendant has yet to
make its facilities accessible to individuals with
disabilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

PANDA RESTAURANT: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Sarfo Says
----------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE SARFO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:24-cv-03953 (C.D. Cal., May 11, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated Defendant
employees' sensitive information, including full names, dates of
birth, Social Security numbers and financial account numbers.

According to the complaint, by letter dated April 29, 2024, sent to
the Plaintiff and Class Members, the Defendant claims it was
alerted to activity indicating that an unknown third party had
obtained unauthorized access to Defendant's data between March
7-11, 2024 (the "Data Breach").

The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class
Members' Private Information. This Private Information was
compromised due to Defendant's negligent and careless acts and
omissions and their utter failure to protect employees' sensitive
data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members'
Private Information because of its value in making fraudulent
purchases and exploiting or stealing the identities of Plaintiff
and Class Members. The present and continuing risk to victims of
the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes, says
the suit.

The Plaintiff and Class Members seek to remedy these harms and
prevent any future data compromise on behalf of herself and all
similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and
stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to
Defendant's inadequate data security practices.

PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. operates chain of restaurants. The
Company offers prepared foods, snacks, and drinks for on and
off-premises consumption. Panda Restaurant Group serves customers
worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
          Kenneth Grunfeld, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
          One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          Email: cardoso@kolawyers.com
                 grunfeld@kolawyers.com

PARFUM FRANCIS: Tarr Sues Over Blind Users' Equal Access to Website
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ELLEN ELIZABETH TARR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PARFUM FRANCIS KURKDJIAN, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-03773 (S.D.N.Y., May 16, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New
York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights
Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.franciskurkdjian.com, contains access barriers which
hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its
online goods, content, and services offered to the public through
the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but
not limited to: hidden elements on the web page, ambiguous link
texts, inaccessible contact information, changing of content
without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements,
inaccurate alternative text (alt-text) on graphics, the lack of
adequate labeling of form fields, and the requirement that
transactions be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit.

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

Parfum Francis Kurkdjian, LLC is a company that sells online goods
and services, doing business in New York. [BN]

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

PATAGONIA INC: Knight Sues Over Use of Spy Trackers on Emails
-------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Knight, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Patagonia, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
4:24-cv-00255-RM (D. Ariz., May 20, 2024) accuses the Defendant of
violating Arizona's Telephone, Utility and Communication Service
Records Act.

Plaintiff Knight brings this class action on behalf of persons in
the State of Arizona that opened emails sent to them by Defendant
Patagonia, Inc. Allegedly, Defendant embeds hidden spy pixel
trackers within its emails. These trackers capture and log
sensitive information including the time and place subscribers open
and read their messages, how long the subscriber's read the email,
subscribers' location, subscribers' email client type, subscribers'
IP address, subscribers' device information and whether and to whom
the email was forwarded to. The Defendant never received
Plaintiff's and other subscribers’ consent to collect this
private information.

Headquartered in Ventura, CA, Patagonia, Inc. is a retailer of
outdoor recreation clothing and gear. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Gerald Barrett, Esq.
         WARD, KEENAN & BARRETT, P.C.
         3838 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1720
         Phoenix, AZ 85012
         Telephone: (602) 279-1717
         Facsimile: (602) 279-8908
         E-mail: gbarrett@wardkeenanbarrett.com

                 - and -

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

PATTERSON WAREHOUSES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brimley Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRITTANY BRIMLEY; and TRAVIS FAISON, individually, and on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PATTERSON
WAREHOUSES, INC.,Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02307 (W.D. Tenn., May
13, 2024) is an action against the Defendants' failure to pay the
Plaintiff and the class minimum wages, and overtime compensation
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as warehouse
employees.

PATTERSON WAREHOUSES, INC. provides logistics services. The Company
offers warehousing, distribution, transportation, and LTL
consolidation services. Patterson Warehouses serves retail
manufacturers, food and beverage producers, raw materials
suppliers, and web fulfillment resellers in the United States.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

PAUL NAKASONE: Parties to Seek New Scheduling Order
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Murbach v. Nakasone, Case
No. 1:22-cv-01308 (D. Md., May 31, 2022), the Hon. Judge Julie
Rebecca Rubin entered an order denying as moot the Plaintiffs
motion for leave to file for class certification.

-- The Plaintiff's counsel advises that due to delays in
discovery,
    the Plaintiff anticipates that the parties will seek a new
    scheduling order.

-- The parties shall confer and, by May 31, 2024, submit an agreed

    upon revised scheduling order, which shall include a class
    certification deadline within three weeks after the close of
    discovery consistent with Plaintiffs request in the instant
    motion.

The suit alleges violation of the American with Disabilities Act
(ADA).[CC]

PBF ENERGY: Continues to Defend Cruz Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------
PBF Energy 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 2, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the Cruz class suit.

On December 15, 2023, in Alena Cruz and Shannon Payne vs. PBF
Energy Inc., et. al, the Company and its subsidiaries PBF Energy
Western Region and MRC were named as defendants in a class action
and representative action complaint filed by Alena Cruz and Shannon
Payne, and on behalf of all others similarly situated.

The complaint contains allegations of Clean Air Act violations,
claims for medical and environmental monitoring, liability for
ultrahazardous activities, negligence, and public and private
nuisance from MRC's operations.

The proposed class is all individuals who reside and/or work in the
City of Martinez, including the surrounding communities of Alhambra
Valley and Franklin Canyon, as well as El Sobrante, Hercules,
Benicia, and Richmond, who have allegedly been exposed to elevated
levels of spent catalyst discharged from MRC's operations during
the period November 24, 2022 to the present.

On December 21, 2023, plaintiffs granted an extension until
February 5, 2024 for MRC to respond to the initial complaint.

On February 5, 2024, MRC filed a motion to dismiss on the
pleadings.

In response, on February 16, 2024, plaintiffs filed a FAC.

On February 29, 2024, MRC filed a motion to dismiss the FAC on the
pleadings.

Plaintiffs’ opposition was filed on March 14, 2024.

MRC filed its reply to plaintiffs' opposition on March 21, 2024.

At the motion hearing on April 4, 2024, the Court granted MRC's
request to dismiss all wrongly named PBF entities and plaintiffs'
Clean Air Act and Medical Monitoring causes of action.

At the following Status Conference on April 4, 2024, the Court
agreed that the Cruz and Piscitelli cases should now be related.

The Court ordered the Cruz and Piscitelli plaintiffs to meet and
confer on a joint discovery schedule and report back to the Court
by the end of April 2024.

MRC’s renewed motion to relate the Cruz and Piscitelli cases was
filed on April 26, 2024.

The Company presently believes the outcome will not have a material
impact on its financial position, results of operations, or cash
flows.

PBF Energy Inc. is the sole managing member of PBF Energy Company
LLC, with a controlling interest in PBF LLC and its subsidiaries.
PBF LLC, together with its consolidated subsidiaries, owns and
operates oil refineries and related facilities in North America.
PBF LLC, together with its subsidiaries, owns an interest in an
equity method investment that owns and operates a biorefinery
co-located with the Chalmette refinery in Louisiana.

PBF ENERGY: Continues to Defend Goldstein Class Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------------
PBF Energy 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 2, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the Goldstein class suit in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Los Angeles.

On February 17, 2017, in Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil
Corporation, et al., the Company and PBF LLC, and its subsidiaries,
PBF Western Region LLC and Torrance Refining Company LLC and the
manager of its Torrance refinery along with ExxonMobil were named
as defendants in a class action and representative action
complaint.

The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles and alleges negligence, strict
liability, ultra-hazardous activity, a continuing private nuisance,
a permanent private nuisance, a continuing public nuisance, a
permanent public nuisance and trespass resulting from the February
18, 2015 electrostatic precipitator explosion at the Torrance
refinery which was then owned and operated by ExxonMobil.

The operation of the Torrance refinery by the PBF entities
subsequent to its acquisition in July 2016 is also referenced in
the complaint.

To the extent that plaintiffs' claims relate to the ESP explosion,
ExxonMobil retained responsibility for any liabilities that would
arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the agreement relating to the
acquisition of the Torrance refinery.

On July 2, 2018, the Court granted leave to plaintiffs to file a
Second Amended Complaint alleging groundwater contamination.

With the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, plaintiffs added
an additional plaintiff, Hany Youssef.

On October 15, 2019, the judge granted certification to two limited
classes of property owners with Youssef as the sole class
representative and named plaintiff, rejecting two other proposed
subclasses based on negligence and on strict liability for
ultrahazardous activities.

The certified subclasses relate to trespass claims for ground
contamination and nuisance for air emissions.

On May 5, 2021, the Court granted plaintiffs leave to amend their
complaint for the third time to substitute Navarro for Youssef.

On July 5, 2022, the Court issued a final order ruling that
plaintiffs' Motion to Substitute Navarro as Class Representative
was denied and decertifying both of plaintiffs' proposed Air and
Ground Subclasses.

The order provided that the case will proceed with Navarro as the
sole plaintiff.

On September 22, 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.


On February 27, 2023, the Court issued an order granting its motion
for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed plaintiff's trespass
claim with prejudice and granted plaintiff leave to amend his
nuisance claims in conformity with the order if he can do so
consistent with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures.

On March 27, 2023, plaintiff filed a Fourth Amended Complaint
relating to the remaining nuisance claims.

On May 23, 2023, the Court denied its motion to dismiss on the
pleadings for plaintiff's failure to establish standing to bring
the nuisance claims.

After completing further discovery, on August 28, 2023, it filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment.

On October 18, 2023, the Court issued an order granting its motion,
adjudged that plaintiff take nothing, and that the action be
dismissed with prejudice.

The order also allows the Company to recover the costs of suit
pursuant to a bill of costs.

On October 30, 2023, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the
Ninth Circuit regarding the Court's order granting summary judgment
and the Court has granted them an extension to file their opening
brief, which is now due May 20, 2024.

The Company presently believes the outcome of this litigation will
not have a material impact on its financial position, results of
operations, or cash flows.

PBF Energy Inc. is the sole managing member of PBF Energy Company
LLC, with a controlling interest in PBF LLC and its subsidiaries.
PBF LLC, together with its consolidated subsidiaries, owns and
operates oil refineries and related facilities in North America.
PBF LLC, together with its subsidiaries, owns an interest in an
equity method investment that owns and operates a biorefinery
co-located with the Chalmette refinery in Louisiana.



PBF ENERGY: Discovery Ongoing in Piscitelli Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
PBF Energy 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 2, 2024, that discovery is ongoing for Piscitelli
class suit.

On August 16, 2023, in Joseph Piscitelli and Lara Zanzucchi v.
Martinez Refining Company LLC, the Company's subsidiary MRC was
named as a defendant in a class action and representative action
complaint which contains allegations of public and private
nuisance, trespass, and negligence arising from MRC's operations.

MRC filed its answer to the complaint on October 31, 2023.

The initial Court hearing to discuss discovery issues was held on
January 2, 2024.

At the hearing, the Court raised the issue of mediation and
directed the parties to meet and confer and agree to stipulate to a
mediation deadline.

On January 9, 2024, the parties filed a stipulation agreeing to
consider private mediation by September 20, 2024.

On January 17, 2024, the Court issued a scheduling order setting
the class certification hearing for April 10, 2025.

On April 4, 2024, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to
file a First Amendment Complaint ("FAC") to add plaintiff Malan and
dismiss plaintiff Zanzucchi, which plaintiffs filed on April 10,
2024.

On the same day, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion.

MRC filed its answer to the FAC on April 23, 2024.

The parties are currently engaged in discovery.

The Company presently believes the outcome will not have a material
impact on its financial position, results of operations, or cash
flows.

PBF Energy Inc. is the sole managing member of PBF Energy Company
LLC, with a controlling interest in PBF LLC and its subsidiaries.
PBF LLC, together with its consolidated subsidiaries, owns and
operates oil refineries and related facilities in North America.
PBF LLC, together with its subsidiaries, owns an interest in an
equity method investment that owns and operates a biorefinery
co-located with the Chalmette refinery in Louisiana.

PEPPERMILL INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Karim Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA KARIM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. The Peppermill, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-03762 (S.D.N.Y., May 16, 2024) arises from Defendant's
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks a
permanent injunction to cause a change in The Peppermill's
policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to
compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful
discrimination.

Based in Brooklyn, NY, The Peppermill owns and operates the
website, Thepeppermillinc.com, which sells kitchen accessories and
gadgets. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
          GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
          1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
          Manhasset, NY 11030
          Telephone: (347) 941-4715
          E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com

PETER MANNING: Hernandez Sues Over Website's Inaccessibility
------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PETER MANNING, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-03568 (E.D.N.Y., May 16, 2024) arises under the Americans
with Disabilities Act and New York City Human Rights Law.

Plaintiff Hernandez alleges that the Defendant violated ADA and
NYCHRL by failing to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Accordingly,
Plaintiff invokes the right to injunctive relief to remedy the
discrimination. He also seeks compensatory damages, as well as
civil penalties and fines under New York City Administrative Code.

Peter Manning, LLC owns and operates the website,
www.petermanningnyc.com, which sells men's clothing and
accessories. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

PHILADELPHIA, PA: $300 Fee Collection "Unlawful," Tri-State Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
TRI-STATE DELIVERY, INC., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Defendant,
Case No. 2:24-cv-02107-KSM (E.D. Pa., May 16, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendant for violation of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983,
unjust enrichment/disgorgement, general equity, and conversion.

The case arises from the City of Philadelphia Department of
Licenses & Inspections' ("L & I") alleged unlawful policy which
demands $300 for each alleged violation of Philadelphia Code
Section 10-723.2, an ordinance prohibiting the distribution of
handbills to homeowners who have notified L & I they do not wish to
receive handbills. According to the complaint, the governing
legislative body which created and authorized Section
10-723.2(2)(d) expressly set the maximum fine for a violation of
this ordinance at only $100 per violation, not $300 per violation
as demanded by L & I. The Plaintiff and the Class seek an order of
injunctive and monetary relief to end this unlawful municipal
policy and monetary refunds of the amounts unlawfully collected
from them under that policy.

Tri-State Delivery, Inc. is a provider of integrated operation,
warehousing, and transportation services, with its primary place of
business located at 1 Shingle Oak Drive, Voorhees, New Jersey.

City of Philadelphia is a municipal government in Pennsylvania.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
         Shane T. Prince, Esq.
         DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
         1515 Market Street, Suite 1200
         Philadelphia, PA 19102
         Telephone: (215) 564-1721
         Facsimile: (215) 564-1759
         Email: sdenittis@denittislaw.com
                sprince@denittislaw.com

PLYMOUTH TUBE: Weaver Sues Over Failure to Protect Sensitive Data
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Weaver, on behalf of himself, his minor child, A.W., and all
others similarly situated v. PLYMOUTH TUBE COMPANY, Case No.
1:24-cv-02902 (N.D. Ill., April 10, 2024), is brought arising from
Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data.

As such, Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal
identifiable information ("PII/PHI") and protected health
information ("PHI")--together "PII/PHI"--about its current and
former employees (and their dependents). But Defendant lost control
over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently
protected computer systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach").

It is unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access
to Defendant's network before the breach was discovered. In other
words, Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop,
or mitigate breaches of its systems—thereby allowing
cybercriminals unrestricted access to its current and former
employees' (and their dependents') PII/PHI.

Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because
Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity
and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols
to protect the Class's PII/PHI. In short, Defendant's failures
placed the Class's PII/PHI in a vulnerable position—rendering
them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are Data Breach victims.

The Defendant is a "global specialty manufacturer of carbon alloy,
nickel alloy, and stainless precision steel tubing."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
          TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
          908 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Phone (872) 263-1100
          Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
          Email: sam@turkestrauss.com
                 raina@turkestrauss.com


PORTLAND LEATHER: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Bunting Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
RASHETA BUNTING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PORTLAND LEATHER, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-03539 (E.D.N.Y., May 15, 2024) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

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

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

PORTLAND LEATHER, INC. is a seller of leather bags, shoes, wallets,
and footwear. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Telephone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com

PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MD: Butler Appeals Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER BUTLER, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Christopher Butler, et al.,
individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Prince George's County, Maryland, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 8:22-cv-01768-PJM, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland.

The putative class action has been brought by current and former
detainees charged with crimes in Prince George's County, Maryland
against Defendants Prince George's County and Maryland state court
judges sitting in Prince George's County. It challenges the process
by which pretrial release determinations are accomplished in the
County. The Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Entry of Judgment Under
Rule 54(b), or, in the Alternative, to Certify a Partial Appeal
Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292.

In its Memorandum Opinion dated June 7, 2023, the Court denied the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration Under Rule 54(b) and the
Judge Defendants' Motion for Clarification and Reconsideration or,
in the Alternative, to Substitute Defendant Proper Parties.

On June 20, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Entry of
Judgment. In their Motion, the Plaintiffs asked the Court to enter
partial judgment with respect to the Court's dismissal of their
monetary damages claims against the County so that they may pursue
an immediate appeal. Alternatively, they asked the Court to certify
for appeal the question of the County's quasi-judicial immunity
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292. The County opposed the Motion.

On Jan. 18, 2024, Subpoenaed Judges filed a motion to quash and the
Defendants filed motions for summary judgment, which the Court
granted through an Order entered by Judge Peter J. Messitte on Mar.
29, 2024. The Court entered its final judgment in favor of all
Defendants against all Plaintiffs.

The appellate case is captioned Christopher Butler v. Prince
George's County, Case No. 24-1380, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on April 30, 2024. [BN]

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

          Robert L. Boone, Esq.
          Thomas K. Bredar, Esq.
          WILMERHALE LLP
          250 Greenwich Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 295-6314
                     (212) 295-6343

                   - and -

          Jeremy Dakota Cutting, Esq.
          Sumayya Saleh, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Stein, Esq.
          CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
          1601 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 800
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 844-4975
                     (202) 932-1278

                   - and -

          Sonika R. Data, Esq.
          Donna M. Farag, Esq.
          Britany Nicole Riley, Esq.
          Howard Morris Shapiro, Esq.
          WILMERHALE LLP
          2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 663-6079
                     (202) 663-6137
                     (202) 663-6606

                   - and -

          Sarah E. Maciel, Esq.
          WILMERHALE LLP
          2600 El Camino Real
          Palo Alto, CA 94306
          Telephone: (650) 600-5048

                   - and -

          Seth Wayne, Esq.
          GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER
          600 New Jersey Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (415) 516-4939

Defendants-Appellees PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND, et al. are
represented by:

          Kevin Michael Cox, Esq.
          James Spiker, IV, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND
          200 Saint Paul Place
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 576-6388
                     (410) 576-6389

                   - and -

          Shelley Lynn Johnson, Esq.
          Andrew Jensen Murray, Esq.
          PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW
          1301 McCormick Drive
          Largo, MD 20774
          Telephone: (301) 952-3932
                     (301) 952-5225

QUAKER OATS: Hill Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------
The case styled as Hartence Hill, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. THE QUAKER OATS COMPANY, Case No.
2024 CH
01562 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois,
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on May 16, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-02609.

The Complaint alleges three causes of action: violation of the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act; breach of implied warranty
of merchantability; and unjust enrichment.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Stephen J. Siegel, Esq.
          ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
          100 North Riverside Plaza
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 419-6900
          Email: ssiegel@atllp.com


QVC INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lee Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL LEE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. QVC, INC., Defendant, Case No. 240502259 (Ct. Com.
Pl., Philadelphia Cty., May 17, 2024) alleges that Defendant has
violated the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act by failing to pay wages
for time associated with certain work activities arising at the
beginning and end of the workday and during unpaid meal breaks.

The Plaintiff was employed at the Bethlehem distribution center and
was paid an hourly wage from approximately April 2022 until
approximately July 2022. At the beginning and end of the workday
and during unpaid meal breaks, the Defendant has required Plaintiff
and other class members to undergo security screenings conducted
inside the warehouse. However, the Defendant has not awarded
payroll credit for all time associated with these mandatory
security screenings, says the suit.

Headquartered in West Chester, PA, QVC, Inc. operates 11
distribution centers where it stores products for distribution to
customers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          Deirdre A. Aaron, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491

RE/MAX HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Canadian Antitrust Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
RE/MAX Holdings 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 2, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Canadian antitrust class suit.

On April 9, 2021, a putative class action claim (the "Sunderland
Action") was filed in the Federal Court of Canada against the
Toronto Regional Real Estate Board ("TRREB"), The Canadian Real
Estate Association ("CREA"), RE/MAX Ontario-Atlantic Canada Inc.
("RE/MAX OA"), which was acquired by the Company in July 2021,
Century 21 Canada Limited Partnership, Royal Lepage Real Estate
Services Ltd., and many other real estate companies (collectively,
the "Defendants"), by the putative representative plaintiff, Mark
Sunderland (the "Plaintiff").

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants conspired, agreed or
arranged with each other and acted in furtherance of their
conspiracy to fix, maintain, increase, control, raise, or stabilize
the rate of real estate buyers' brokerages' and salespersons'
commissions in respect of the purchase and sale of properties
listed on TRREB's multiple listing service system (the "Toronto
MLS") in violation of the Canadian Competition Act.

On February 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Fresh as Amended Statement
of Claim.

With respect to RE/MAX OA, the amended claim alleges franchisor
defendants aided and abetted their respective franchisee brokerages
and their salespeople in violation of Section 45(1) of the Canadian
Competition Act.

Among other requested relief, the Plaintiff seeks damages against
the defendants and injunctive relief.

On September 25, 2023, the Court dismissed the claims against
RE/MAX OA, and on October 25, 2023, the Plaintiff appealed the
decision and RE/MAX OA has cross appealed.

A copycat lawsuit to the Sunderland Action was filed by plaintiff
Kevin McFall (the “McFall Action”) on January 18, 2024.

The complaint makes substantially similar allegations and seeks
substantially similar relief as the Sunderland Action, but alleges
a national class.

The McFall Action names over 70 defendants, including RE/MAX, LLC.


The McFall Action and the Sunderland Action are collectively
referred to as the "Canadian antitrust litigations."

RE/MAX Holdings, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries, including
RMCO, LLC, is one of the world's leading franchisors in the real
estate industry, franchising real estate brokerages globally under
the RE/MAX brand and mortgage brokerages within the United States
under the Motto Mortgage brand. The company also sells ancillary
products and services, including loan processing services, to its
Motto network through the "Wemlo" brand.


RED LOBSTER: Fails to Provide Mass Layoffs Notice, Lowe Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
DONNA LOWE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. RED LOBSTER HOSPITALITY LLC, RED LOBSTER RESTAURANTS LLC, and
RED LOBSTER SEAFOOD CO., LLC, Case No. 6:24-cv-00928 (M.D. Fla.,
May 17, 2024) is a class action complaint brought under the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and the Millville Dallas
Airmotive Plant Job Loss Notification Act, by the Plaintiff on her
own behalf and on behalf of the other similarly situated persons
against Defendants for failure to provide notice of mass layoffs.

On May 14, 2024, the Defendants made a mass layoff and/or plant
closing by unilaterally and without notice shutting down dozens of
Red Lobster locations across the country. No notice was given to
employees. The Defendants allegedly failed to provide 60 days
advance written notice as required by the WARN Act to the affected
employees.

On that same day, May 14, 2024, he Defendants informed the affected
employees that their services would no longer be required and that
they were not required nor allowed to report for work.

Because of the terminations, Defendants’ reduction in forces
constituted a mass layoff or plant closing which became effective
on or around May 14, 2024. As such, Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees should have received the full protection
afforded by the WARN act, the lawsuit says.

Plaintiff Donna Lowe is a citizen of the United States and resident
of Warren County, New Jersey. The Plaintiff Lowe was employed at
the Red Lobster.

Red Lobster is a seafood restaurant chain with its principal place
of business at 450 S. Orange Ave Suite 800 Orlando, Florid and is
incorporated in Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          951 Yamato Rd, Suite 285
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: 561-447-8888
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
          Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
          MIGLICACCIO & RATHOD LLP
          412 H St NE, Suite 302
          Washington DC 20002
          Telephone (202) 470-3520
          E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
          jrathod@classlawdc.com

RED ROBIN: Rummell EPOA Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled GARRETT RUMMELL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. RED ROBIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. and DOES
1-10, Case No. 24-2-01225-34, was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of Washington for the County of Thurston to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington on March 10,
2024.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned
Case No. 3:24-cv-05360 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings claims for the Defendant's alleged violations
of the job posting requirements of Washington's Equal Pay and
Opportunities Act.

Red Robin International, Inc. is a restaurant chain company based
in Colorado. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                
      
         Peter H. Nohle, Esq.
         Gray Jeong, Esq.
         JACKSON LEWIS PC
         520 Pike Street, Suite 2300
         Seattle, WA 98101
         Telephone: (206) 626-6436
         Email: Peter.Nohle@jacksonlewis.com
                Gray.Jeong@jacksonlewis.com

RELX GROUP: Wanna Appeals FCRA Suit Dismissal to 8th Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA WANNA is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her
lawsuit entitled Melissa Wanna, individually and on behalf of and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RELX Group, PLC, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 0:23-cv-01769-PJS, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought over the Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

On Aug. 30, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which
the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Patrick J.
Schiltz on Mar. 29, 2024. The Plaintiff's Counts 1, 2, 4, and 6
were dismissed with prejudice. The Court declined to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's remaining claims,
and those claims were dismissed without prejudice.

The appellate case is captioned Melissa Wanna v. RELX Group, PLC,
et al., Case No. 24-1916, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit, filed on April 30, 2024.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Transcript is due on or before June 10, 2024;

   -- Appendix is due on June 20, 2024;

   -- Appellant Melissa Wanna's brief is due on June 20, 2024; and

   -- Appellee's brief is due 30 days from the date the court
issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of Appellant.
[BN]

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

          David J.S. Madgett, Esq.
          MINNESOTA LEGAL ASSISTANCE
          3050 Abbott Avenue, S., Suite 15
          Minneapolis, MN 55416
          Telephone: (612) 470-6529

Defendants-Appellees RELX GROUP, PLC, et al. are represented by:

          Joshua Daniel Davey, Esq.
          TROUTMAN & PEPPER
          301 S. College Street
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 916-1503

                   - and -

          Ronald I. Raether, Jr., Esq.
          TROUTMAN & PEPPER
          5 Park Plaza, Suite 1400
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 622-2722

                   - and -

          Joseph George Schmitt, Esq.
          NILAN & JOHNSON
          250 Marquette Avenue, S., Suite 800
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 305-7500

REVAIRA LLC: Means and Radwanski Sue Over Breaches of FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
JAIME MEANS and RAINY RADWANSKI, Individually, and on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated current and former
employees, Plaintiffs v. REVAIRA, LLC, d/b/a REVAIRA ITALIAN
STEAKHOUSE and GEORGE HANNA, Individually, Defendants, Case No.
4:24-cv-00040 (E.D. Tenn., May 20, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages, overtime compensation and other damages owed to
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated current and former
restaurant employees of Defendants.

The Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by, among
other things, failing to inform Plaintiffs that all tips received
by them and other similarly situated employees must be retained by
them except for tips contributed to a valid tip pool. In addition,
Defendants also did not qualify for an FLSA tip credit compensation
plan because Plaintiffs and those similarly situated routinely
performed non-tipped tasks for an appreciable portion of their
shifts. As a result, Defendants owe Plaintiffs and those similarly
situated at least at the FLSA minimum wage rate of pay, and any
applicable overtime compensation rates of pay, for all hours worked
within weekly pay periods, without crediting any of their tips to
their wages, says the suit.

Revaira, LLC owns and operates an Italian steakhouse restaurant in
Shelbyville, TN. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

ROYAL APPLIANCE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Wahab Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA WAHAB, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROYAL APPLIANCE MFG., CO., D/B/A TTI FLOOR
CARE NORTH AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-03791 (S.D.N.Y.,
May 16, 2024) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people and asserts claims for violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights
Law.

The Plaintiff wanted to purchase a vacuum cleaner but was unable to
complete the purchase due the inaccessibility of Defendant's
website. Due to Defendant's failure to build the website in a
manner that is compatible with screen access programs, the
Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the
website, and was thus denied the benefit of purchasing the vacuum
cleaner that Plaintiff wished to acquire from the website, says the
suit.

Royal Appliance Mfg. Co. owns and operates the website,
www.dirtdevil.com, which offers products for specific cleaning
tasks such as spot cleaning, steam cleaning, and air purification.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

SAFE STREETS: Faces Salaiz Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
ROSE SALAIZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SAFE STREETS USA LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00147 (W.D. Tex.,
April 29, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for alleged
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff brings this suit to stop Defendant's illegal practice
of placing unsolicited phone calls containing artificial or
prerecorded voices to the telephones of consumers whose phone
numbers were registered on the Federal Do Not Call Registry, and to
obtain redress for all persons injured by their conduct.

By placing unwanted phone calls to people who have registered their
phone numbers on the national database, Defendant violated the
privacy and statutory rights of Plaintiff and the Class, says the
suit.

Safe Streets USA LLC is a company that sells home security
systems.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark L. Javitch, Esq.
          JAVITCH LAW OFFICE
          3 East 3rd Ave. Ste. 200
          San Mateo, CA 94401
          Telephone: (650) 781-8000
          Facsimile: (650) 648-0705
          E-mail: mark@javitchlawoffice.com

SAFEWAY INC: Garcia Sues Over False and Misleading Advertisement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ismael Garcia, an Individual on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated and the general public v. SAFEWAY, INC., a
corporation with its Headquarters and principal place of business
in California, LUCERNE FOODS, INC., a corporation with its
Headquarters and principal place of business in California, and
DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty.,
April 5, 2024), is brought against Defendants violation of
California Business & Professions Code who purchased Defendants
products (that are branded, manufactured, distributed, marketed
and/or sold by Defendants) in the State of California which
contained false and misleading advertisement.

This matter involves "Corporate Greenwashing" and alleges several
separate misrepresentations, each of which are meant to mislead the
public (including the Plaintiff), to believe that the Defendants
manufacture and or supply process actually supports the environment
and ecosystems.

For example, the Defendants advertised that they employ Sustainable
Forestry practices. As a second example, The Defendants advertise
"Environmental Sustainability at Safeway" where "sustainability
means keeping the welfare of our company customers and the
community at the forefront without compromising the ability of
future generations to prosper on the planet we share." As a third
example, the defendants advertise "Seafood Sustainability at
Safeway," where "At Safeway, we're doing our part to ensure seafood
remains available for today's customers and the customers of
tomorrow" and "We understand that protecting the long-term health
of our ocean ecosystems is essential. It ensures the continued
vitality of the species resource. And it supports the community's
resource from." These statements are all false and misleading.

Separately, the Defendants have falsely represented that an alleged
"Limited Liability Company" ("Better Living Brands LLC") is the
actual distributor of its products in the state of California. This
false entity is not registered with the California Secretary of
State and either does not exist or has violated, among other
California statues, California Corporation Codes, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff has purchased Defendants products regularly.

SAFEWAY, INC. is registered with the California Secretary of
State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric K. Yaeckel, Esq.
          Ryan T. Kuhn, Esq.
          Karoline D. Kitlowski, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & YAECKEL LAW GROUP, APC
          2330 Third Avenue
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 702-6760
          Fax: (619) 702-6761
          Email: yaeckel@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
                 ryan@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
                 karoline@sullivanlawgroupapc.com


SAN DIEGO, CA: McKinnie Civil Rights Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOHN MCKINNIE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO, a municipality; SAN
DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, a public entity; OFFICER HOFFSTETTER
(Badge No. 5773), an individual; DAVID NISLEIT, an individual; and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 37-2024-00016688-CUCR-CTL, was
removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego,
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
on March 9, 2024.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:24-cv-00827-JLS-SBC to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. Sec.
1983, in addition to four Monell claims for municipal liability
under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.

City of San Diego is a municipality in California.

San Diego Police Department is a government agency in California.
[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                
      
         Mara W. Elliott, Esq.
         M. Travis Phelps, Esq.
         Elizabeth L.A. Biggerstaff, Esq.
         OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
         1200 Third Avenue, Suite 1100
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 533-5800
         Facsimile: (619) 533-5856

SAVOYA LLC: Cuhadar et al. Sue Over Labor Law Breaches
------------------------------------------------------
HENRY HUSEYIN CUHADAR, GURHAN ERGEZER, and MAUREEN FREDERIQUE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SAVOYA, LLC, And DOES 1 THROUGH 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-03615 (E.D.N.Y., May 17, 2024) accuses the Savoya, LLC of
violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Plaintiffs Cuhadar, Ergezer, and Frederique worked for Savoya as
drivers throughout the New York City area. Throughout the relevant
time period, Savoya has controlled the terms and conditions of
Plaintiffs' employment, and the employment of similarly-situated
drivers. However, Savoya willfully misclassified its drivers as
independent contractors. As a result, Savoya's drivers in New York
were denied of proper overtime compensation and minimum wage
payments. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek payment of all unpaid
overtime and minimum wage compensation, together with liquidated
damages and interest, and the recovery of all unlawful deductions
that Savoya has taken from the wages of Plaintiffs and the proposed
class members during the statutory period, and unpaid
reimbursements for Savoya-related business expenses.

Headquartered in Dallas, TX, Savoya provides chauffeured
transportation services for corporate and individual clients in New
York and nationwide. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Bruce E. Menken, Esq.
         MENKEN SIMPSON & ROZGER LLP
         80 Pine Street, 33rd Fl.
         New York, NY 10005
         Telephone: (212) 509-1616
         E-mail: bmenken@nyemployeelaw.com

                 - and -

         Bryan Schwartz, Esq.
         180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1380
         Oakland, CA 94612
         Telephone: (510) 444-9300
         E-mail: Bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com

SECOND STREET: Marello Sues Over Labor Law Violations
-----------------------------------------------------
JASON MARELLO, an individual, on behalf of himself, and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SECOND STREET
CORPORATION, dba THE HUNTLEY HOTEL, a California corporation; and
DOES 1-50, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24SMCV02395 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 20, 2024) accuses the Defendants of
engaging in a pattern and practice of wage and hour violations
under the California Labor Code and the applicable Industrial
Welfare Commission's Wage Orders.

Plaintiff Marello was employed by Defendant in California from
October of 2021 to August of 2023 as a non-exempt employee. In
violation of the applicable sections of the California Labor Code
and the requirements of the IWC Wage Order, the Defendant failed to
provide legally compliant meal and rest periods, failed to
accurately compensate Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees for missed
meal and rest periods, failed to pay Plaintiff and Aggrieved
Employees for all time worked, failed to compensate Plaintiff for
off-the-clock work, failed to pay Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees
overtime at the correct rate of pay, failed to compensate Plaintiff
and Aggrieved Employees meal rest premiums at the correct rate,
failed to reimburse Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees for necessary
business expenses, failed to pay gratuities owed, and failed to
issue to Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees with accurate itemized
wage statements, says the suit.

Second Street Corporation owns and operates a construction
equipment rental company throughout the state of California,
including in the county of San Diego. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq.
         Monnett De La Torre, Esq.
         Andrea A. Amaya Silva, Esq.
         JCL LAW FIRM, APC
         5440 Morehouse Drive, Suite 3600
         San Diego, CA 92121
         Telephone: (619) 599-8292
         Facsimile: (619) 599-8291
         E-mail: jlapuyade@jcl-lawfirm.com
                 mdelatorre@jcl-lawfirm.com
                 aamaya@jcl-lawfirm.com

                 - and -

         Shani O. Zakay, Esq.
         ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC
         5440 Morehouse Drive, Suite 3600
         San Diego, CA 92121
         Telephone: (619) 255-9047
         Facsimile: (858) 404-9203
         E-mail: shani@zakaylaw.com

SHAR PRODUCTS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Liz Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO LIZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Shar Products Company, Case No. 1:24-cv-03739 (S.D.N.Y., May 15,
2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website "Sharmusic.com" to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons, under the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and
visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to the goods and services Shar Products provides to their
non-disabled customers through its website. The Plaintiff browsed
and intended to make an online purchase of a book on Sharmusic.com.
He planned to make a gift for a friend who enjoys music and is
interested in reading about famous musicians and other music
industry professionals. After evaluating the company's products, he
selected Violinist.com Interviews: Volume 2, as it presented the
challenges and successes of renowned violinists. Yet, he
encountered accessibility issues such as ambiguous links, and
inability to locate the Cart on the page which made it difficult to
navigate the site and complete his purchase, says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Shar Products' policies, practices, and procedures to that the
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.

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

Shar provides the website Sharmusic.com which provides consumers
with access to an array of goods and services, including, the
ability to view various string instruments, including violins,
violas, cellos, basses, alongside accessories like bows, cases, and
strings.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
          GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
          1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
          Manhasset, NY 11030
          Telephone: (347) 941-4715
          E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com

SHENGYUN LLC: Sanchez Sues Over Cal. Labor Code Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
RONNETTE SANCHEZ v. SHENGYUN LLC; XINYI LI; UNIUNI 13 LOGISTICS
INC.; BAO JIAN LIANG; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case No.
24STCV12121 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 14, 2024) accuses
the Defendants of numerous violations of the California Labor
Code.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all hourly,
non-exempt employees and those misclassified as independent
contractors who worked for Defendant Shengyun for the three years
preceding filing of this suit. The Plaintiff, whose employment with
Shengyun ended on or around late 2023, alleges that Shengyun
committed multiple Labor Code violations throughout her tenure with
the company, including failure to compensate for all hours worked,
failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime, failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay wages
owed every pay period, failure to provide rest and meal breaks,
failure to reimburse for business expenses, and failure to pay
wages when employment ends.

The Plaintiff seeks damages, as well as penalties under the Private
Attorneys' General Act (PAGA) for the alleged Labor Code
violations.

Shengyun LLC is a limited liability company based in San Diego, CA.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Harout Messrelian, Esq.
        MESSRELIAN LAW INC.     
        500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
        Glendale, CA 91203
        Telephone: (818) 484-6531
        Facsimile: (818) 956-1983

SHOPPES IN THE GARDENS: Feltzin Sues Over ADA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Feltzin, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. SHOPPES IN THE GARDENS SPE, LLC,, Case No.
9:24-cv-80434-KAM (S.D. Fla., April 9, 2024), is brought for
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result
of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff
by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or
accommodations of the Commercial Property and businesses located
therein.

The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability and
requires landlords and tenants to be liable for compliance. The
subject Commercial Property is open to the public. The individual
Plaintiff visits the Commercial Property and businesses located
within the commercial property, to include a visit to the
Commercial Property and business located within the Commercial
Property on January 16, 2024, and encountered multiple violations
of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the
Commercial Property. He often visits the Commercial Property in
order to avail himself of the goods and services offered there, and
because it is 28 miles from his residence and is near other
businesses and restaurants he frequents as a patron. He plans to
return to the Commercial Property within 2 months of the filing of
this Complaint, in order to avail himself of the goods and services
offered at the place of public accommodation and check if it has
been remediated of the ADA violations he encountered.

The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property and the businesses
named herein located within the Commercial Property to be rife with
ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at
the Commercial Property, and businesses named herein located within
the Commercial Property, and wishes to continue his patronage and
use of each of the premises.

The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in
violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and
businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to
access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each
denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial
Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate.

SHOPPES IN THE GARDENS SPE, LLC owned and operated the commercial
buildings located at in Miami, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


SKIMS BODY: Wiretaps Web Visitors' Communications, Porchia Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
CATHERINE PORCHIA and MATHILDA SILVERSTEIN, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SKIMS
BODY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-02562-TSH (N.D. Cal., April
29, 2024) is a class action suit brought against Skims for aiding,
agreeing with, employing, procuring, or otherwise enabling the
wiretapping of the electronic communications of visitors to its
website, https://skims.com, in violation of the California Invasion
of Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, Defendant aids, agrees with, procures,
or otherwise enables Meta Platforms, Inc., a third-party service
provider, to collect information from visitors to its Website. The
Defendant enables Meta to eavesdrop on Website visitors'
communications as they conduct searches for intimate wear products
on the Website without visitors' prior consent. The Defendant has
enabled Meta's interception of visitor's communications by
employing Meta's services to track users across the Website using
Meta's pixel tracker known as the Meta Pixel, says the suit.

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all California
residents who conducted searches for products and/or browsed the
Website for products while in California, and whose electronic
communications were intercepted or recorded by Meta.

Skims Body, Inc. is an American shapewear and clothing brand.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 330-5512
          Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
          E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com

               - and -

          Ines Diaz Villafana, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: idiaz@bursor.com

SNS DINER: Nunez Sues Over California Labor Code Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
MILENA NUNEZ v. SNS DINER LLC; SUDESH SOOD; AMIT SINGH; and DOES 1
to 25, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV12073 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., May 14, 2024) is a class action alleging the Defendants of
violating the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt waitress/server from on or around late 2022/early 2023
to in or around January 2024. The Plaintiff accuses Defendants of
multiple Labor Code violations, including failure to compensate for
all hours worked, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements,
failure to pay wages owed every pay period, failure to pay wages
when employment ends, failure to provide rest and meal breaks,
failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to provide
personnel file, and failure to provide pay records.

The Plaintiff seeks damages, as well as penalties under the Private
Attorneys' General Act (PAGA) for the above violations and also
brings claims for Defendant's violation of the California Business
and Professions Code.

SNS Diner LLC operates restaurants across California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Harout Messrelian, Esq.
        MESSRELIAN LAW INC.      
        500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
        Glendale, CA 91203
        Telephone: (818) 484-6531
        Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
        E-mail: nsoltman@khiks.com

SONOS INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Liz Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO LIZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Sonos, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-03740 (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2024)
sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain,
and operate their website "Sonos.com" to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons, under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services Sonos provides to their non-disabled customers through its
website. The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online
purchase of a bluetooth speaker on Sonos.com. He tried to buy the
Roam SL Speaker but encountered many accessibility issues and was
unable to complete the purchase of the desired product, the suit
claims.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Sonos' policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's
website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.

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

Sonos offers a variety of home sound system products, including
wireless speakers, home theaters, portable speakers, and smart
soundbars.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
          GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
          1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
          Manhasset, NY 11030
          Telephone: (347) 941-4715
          E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com

SPAY INC: Buffington Files Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 23andMe, Inc. The
case is styled as Steven Buffington, Nancy Helmold, Sarah Kramer,
Cyrinda Craig, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. sPay, Inc. doing business as: Stack Sports, Case No.
7:24-cv-02541-PMH (S.D.N.Y., April 3, 2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

sPay, Inc. doing business as Stack Sports --
https://stacksports.com/ -- is a global technology leader in SaaS
platform offerings for the sports industry.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Robert Reese, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Phone: (212) 643-0500
          Email: mreese@reesellp.com


STATE FARM FIRE: Ward Files Suit in N.D. Mississippi
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against State Farm Fire and
Casualty Company. The case is styled as Lori Ward and Sheila
Franklin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Case No.
3:24-cv-00083-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss., April 5, 2024).

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

State Farm Insurance -- https://www.statefarm.com/ -- is a large
group of mutual insurance companies throughout the United States
with corporate headquarters in Bloomington, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael D. Greer, Esq.
          GREER RUSSELL, DENT & MOORE, PLLC
          Post Office Box 907
          Tupelo, MS 38802-0907
          Phone: (662) 842-5345
          Fax: (662) 842-6870
          Email: mgreer@greerlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Amanda B. Barbour, Esq.
          Harrison Smith, I, Esq.
          BULTER SNOW
          1020 Highland Colony Parkway, Suite 1400
          Ridgeland, Suite 1400
          Ridgeland, MS 39157
          Phone: (601) 985-4585
          Fax: (601) 985-4500
          Email: amanda.barbour@butlersnow.com
                 harrison.smith@butlersnow.com


STATE FARM: Files 6th Circuit Appeal in Clippinger Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
STATE FARM AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY has filed an appeal in the
lawsuit entitled Jessica Clippinger, individually and on behalf of
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. State Farm
Automobile Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-02482, in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee.

The lawsuit was brought over the Defendant's alleged breach of
insurance contract.

The appellate case is captioned Jessica Clippinger v. State Farm
Automobile Insurance Company, Case No. 24-5421, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on April 30,
2024. [BN]

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

          Jacob L. Phillips, Esq.
          3165 McCrory Place, Suite 175
          Orlando, FL 32803
          Telephone: (407) 720-4057

Defendant-Appellant STATE FARM AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY is
represented by:

          Peter W. Herzog, III, Esq.
          WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL
          211 N. Broadway, Suite 2825
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 326-4129

STIIIZY INC: Byron Sues Over False and Misleading Representations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Byron and Taylor Berry, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. STIIIZY, INC., Case No.
3:24-cv-01082-MAB (S.D. Ill., April 12, 2024), is brought to
recover damages for the purchase of products manufactured, labeled,
packaged, distributed, promoted, advertised, and/or sold by
Defendant Stiiizy, Inc. which were not legal Delta 8 hemp products
as claimed, but were instead cannabis products containing more--in
some instances nearly 200% more--of the active ingredient THC.

Stiiizy's D8 Products include Delta 8 vape pens and edibles, which,
under federal, Illinois, and Missouri law, must contain less than
0.3% of active THC to qualify as Delta 8 hemp products. Stiiizy
intentionally misrepresents to consumers that its D8 Products
contain less than 0.3% of active THC via product labels, packaging,
and advertisements. In actually, Stiiizy's D8 Products contain more
than 0.3% of active THC. By engaging in this misconduct, Stiiizy
has failed to comply with any of the packaging, labeling, warning,
and/or advertising requirements applicable to cannabis and/or
cannabis-infused products. Stiiizy represents through Certificates
of Analysis that its D8 Products have been independently tested and
that those results confirm its D8 Products contain less than 0.3%
of active THC.

In actuality, Stiiizy's D8 Products contain well over 0.3% of
active THC. For example, a laboratory test performed on the Stiiizy
Skywalker OG Pen D8 showed that the product contained 3.57% of
Delta-9 THC, a percentage significantly above what is permitted by
law. The labels, packages, advertisements, active ingredient
information, and lab results provided to consumers by Stiiizy are
false, misleading, and do not accurately reflect the amount of
active THC in Stiiizy's D8 Products.

Stiiizy D8 Products contain enough active THC that they qualify as
cannabis under the 2018 Farm Bill, federal CSA, IL CRTA, Missouri
Constitution, USDA regulations, and state enforcement agency
regulations. Stiiizy D8 Products are misbranded and/or mislabeled
under the IL FDCA. Stiiizy D8 Products are advertised in a
misleading way to consumers under the IL FDCA. Stiiizy D8 Products
are mispackaged and/or mislabeled under MO DCR regulations. Stiiizy
D8 Products are advertised in a misleading way to consumers under
MO DCR regulations. Stiiizy D8 Products lack any of the protections
afforded consumers as a result of the licensing, testing, labeling,
warning, and advertising restrictions applicable to cannabis
products, meaning consumers are being placed at increased health,
safety, and medical risk by Stiiizy D8 Products that are, in fact,
a controlled substance.

Reasonable consumers rely upon the false, deceptive, and misleading
representations made on the packaging, labeling, and advertising
for Stiiizy D8 Products. Reasonable consumers would not purchase
the Stiiizy D8 Products if they knew that the representations on
the packaging, labeling, and advertising of Stiiizy D8 Products was
false. Stiiizy intends for consumers to rely upon the false,
deceptive, and misleading representations made in its packaging,
labeling, and advertising for Stiiizy D8 Products. Stiiizy profits
financially as a result of its misconduct. As intended, consumers
rely upon Stiiizy's misrepresentations and false advertisements
about its D8 Products and purchase the D8 Products, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased a Delta 8 Stiiizy Starter Pack.

Stiiizy sells a variety of cannabis and Delta 8 products through
stores and on-line sales throughout the United States, including in
Illinois and Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jamie L. Boyer, Esq.
          Ryan L. Bruning, Esq.
          Patrick T. Hinrichs, Esq.
          THE BRUNING LAW FIRM, LLC
          555 Washington Ave, Suite 600
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Phone: (314) 218-2776
          Fax: (314) 735-8020
          Email: Jamie@bruninglegal.com
                 Ryan@bruninglegal.com
                 Patrick@bruninglegal.com


STRATEGIC SECURITY: Garner Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Strategic Security
Services, Inc. et al. The case is styled as Shannen Garner, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Strategic Security
Services, Inc., Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2412063 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Bernardino Cty., April 10, 2024).

The case type is stated as "Complex Civil Unlimited."

Strategic Security Services -- https://strategicguards.com/ -- is a
privately held company that provides security and safety
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92318
          Phone: (949) 387-7200
          Fax: (949) 387-6676


STRYKER CORPORATION: Graham Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jonathan Graham, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated and as a representative for the State of
California v. STRYKER CORPORATION, STRYKER EMPLOYMENT COMPANY, LLC,
STRYKER MEDICAL AND SURGICAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 24CV007127 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento, to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California on May 17, 2024, and assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-01411-JDP.

The Plaintiff was employed by Stryker Employment as an Account
Manager from July 21, 2021, to January 27, 2024. The Plaintiff
asserts claims under the California Labor Code for: an alleged
failure to timely pay all wages when due, including at termination;
an alleged failure to furnish accurate wage statements; an alleged
failure to reimburse proposed class members for their reasonable
business expenses; and an alleged practice of making unauthorized
deductions from wages (unpaid wages); (wage statements); (expense
reimbursements); (unauthorized deductions).) In addition, based on
those alleged Labor Code violations, Plaintiff alleges that:
Defendants engaged in unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business
practices; and he is entitled to recover civil penalties pursuant
to the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.
And Plaintiff seeks attorneys' fees and costs.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michele J. Beilke, Esq.
          Kirk A. Hornbeck, Esq.
          Michael A. Pearlson, Esq.
          HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
          550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2627
          Phone: 213-532-2000
          Facsimile: 213-532-2020
          Email: mbeilke@HuntonAK.com
                 khornbeck@HuntonAK.com
                 mpearlson@HuntonAK.com


SUCCESS SYSTEMS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to August 20
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CYNTHIA GREENE POWELL, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. SUCCESS SYSTEMS
LLC, D/B/A THE CREDIT PROS, Case No. 1:23-cv-00291-JB-N (S.D.
Ala.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending:

    (1) Defendant's deadline to serve its Expert Report pursuant to

        Fed. R. Civ. 23(a)(2) from May 31, 2024, to June 14, 2024,
and

    (2) Plaintiff's deadline to file and serve her Motion for Class

        Certification from May 24, 2024, to August 20, 2024.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 21, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SJ5EM9 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Telephone: (508) 221-1510
          E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jamey R. Campellone, Esq.
          GREENSPOON MARDER LLP
          200 East Broward Blvd., Suite 1800
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 527-6296
          Facsimile: (954) 333-4027
          E-mail: jamey.campellone@gmlaw.com
                  gabby.mangar@gmlaw.com

                - and -

          Curtis R. Hussey, Esq.
          GULF COAST ADR, LLC
          139 Cox Creek Parkway #310
          Florence, AL 35630
          Telephone: (256) 203-3826
          Email: gulfcoastadr@gmail.com

SUPER CENTER: Fails to Provide Seating for Employees, Moyado Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LAURA MOYADO, an individual, v. SUPER CENTER CONCEPTS, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
24STCV12529 (N.D. Cal., Los Angeles Cty., May 17, 2024) is a class
action for alleged violations of California's Labor Code and
Private Attorney General Act of 2004.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant fails to provide adequate
seating for employees working at its California retail store
locations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kaveh Elihu, Esq.
          Saimaa Ali Gipson, Esq.
          EMPLOYEE JUSTICE LEGAL GROUP, PC
          1001 Wilshire Boulevard,
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 382-2222
          Facsimile: (213) 382-2230
          E-mail: kelihu@egljlaw.com
                  sali@egljlaw.com

SYNEL AMERICAS: Johnson Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometrics
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEE JOHNSON, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. SYNEL AMERICAS, INC., an Arizona
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04136 (N.D. Ill., May 20,
2024) alleges that Defendant failed to comply the mandates of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

The Plaintiff brings this class action for damages and other legal
and equitable remedy resulting from the illegal actions of
Defendant in collecting, obtaining, storing and/or using and
profiting off of Plaintiff's, and other similarly situated
individuals' biometric identifiers and biometric information
without receiving informed written consent and without providing a
publicly available retention schedule in violation of the BIPA.

Headquartered in Arizona, Synel Americas, Inc. is the the American
subsidiary of Synel Industries, Ltd. It has developed a Biometric
Attendance System it refers to as Synergy. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Jordan Richards, Esq.
         JORDAN RICHARDS PLLC
         1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205
         Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
         Telephone: (954) 871-0050
         E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
                 michael@usaemploymentlawyers.com
                 sarah@usaemploymentlawyers.com
                 charles@usaemploymentlawyers.com
                 intake@usaemploymentlawyers.com

SYNERGY INSPECTIONS: Hodge Sues Over WARN Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Brian Hodge, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. SYNERGY INSPECTIONS, LLC and FIRMSO, LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-00177
(S.D.W. Va., April 5, 2024), is brought against the Defendants'
violation of the WARN Act.

On March 15, 2024 Defendants terminated Mr. Hodge and all other
employees. The termination was effective immediately. The
Defendants failed to provide a 60-day "WARN" Act notice. There were
no "unforeseen business circumstances" that required termination of
Plaintiff and others without notice. Plaintiff will fairly and
adequately represent the interests of the class so as to meet the
adequacy of representation requirement of Rule 23. Prosecuting
separate actions by individual class members would create a risk of
inconsistent or varying adjudication that would establish
incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the class,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was by the Defendants employed and others at multiple
sites of employment in West Virginia until March 15, 2024.

Synergy and Defendant FIRMSO are domestic corporations that, at all
times relevant hereto, were conducting business throughout West
Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Greg A. Hewitt, Esq.
          HEWITT & SALVATORE, PLLC
          109 E. Main Street, Suite 200
          Beckley, WV 25801
          Phone: 304-574-0272
          Fax: 304-578-5345
          Email: ghewitt@hewittsalvatore.com

               - and -

          Anthony Majestro, Esq.
          POWELL & MAJESTRO, PLLC
          405 Capitol Street, Suite 1200
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Phone: 304-346-2889
          Fax: 304-346-2895
          Email: amajestro@powellmajestro.com


TABLELIST INC: Steelman Hits Hidden Ticket Purchase Processing Fee
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALYCIA STEELMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TABLELIST, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-03672 (S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2024) seeks relief in this action
individually, and on behalf of all other ticket purchasers from
Defendant's website for actual and/or statutory damages, reasonable
attorneys' costs and fees, and injunctive relief under New York
Arts and Cultural Affairs Law.

According to the complaint, whenever a user selects a ticket on the
website www.tablelist.com, she is quoted a fee-less price, only to
be ambushed by a ten percent "processing fee" at checkout after
clicking through the various screens required to make a purchase.
This cheap trick has enabled Defendant to swindle substantial sums
of money from its customers, says the suit.

Specifically, on May 4, 2024, the Plaintiff purchased one ticket to
Georgia Room's Kentucky Derby Garden Party: Presented by Woodford
Reserve through Defendant's website and was forced to pay
Defendant's processing fee. The Plaintiff was harmed by paying this
processing fee, even though that processing fee was not disclosed
to Plaintiff at the beginning of the purchase process, and
therefore, is unlawful pursuant to the law, says the suit.

Tablelist, Inc. is a real-time online ticketing, reservations, and
venue management software for hospitality, nightlife, and
events.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: sbogdanovich@bursor.com

TAILORED SHARED: Tyler Sues Over Store Leads' Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
LYNDA TYLER, on behalf of herself and the putative Class Members,
Plaintiff v. TAILORED SHARED SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-at-00390 (E.D. Cal., May 13, 2024) arises from the Defendant's
alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the California
Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code.

This action stems from Defendant's policies and practices of: (1)
failing to pay Plaintiff and putative Class Members minimum wage
for all hours worked; (2) failing to pay Plaintiff and putative
Class Members overtime wages; (3) failing to provide or make
available to Plaintiff and putative Class Members the meal periods
to which they are entitled by law, and failing to pay premium
compensation payment for non-compliant meal breaks; (4) failing to
authorize and permit rest periods, and failing to pay premium
compensation payment for non-compliant rest periods; (5) failing to
provide Plaintiff and putative Class Members with accurate,
itemized wage statements; (6) failing to reimburse Plaintiff and
putative Class Members for business expenditures; (7) failing to
timely pay all wages upon separation from employment to Plaintiff
and putative Class Members; (8) and engaging in unfair business
practices.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Store Lead from
approximately June 27, 2023 to January 25, 2024.

Tailored Shared Services, LLC is a menswear retailer delivering
personalized products and services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
          Ori Edelstein, Esq.
          Eugene Zinovyev, Esq.  
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400  
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                  oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
                  ezinovyev@schneiderwallace.com

TANDEM DIABETES: Has 30 Days to File Bid to Dismiss Lowe Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tandem Diabetes Care 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 2, 2024, that the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California gives
defendants 30 days to file second amended complaint dismissal
motion with leave.

On September 8, 2023, a purported stockholder of the Company filed
a putative securities class action complaint (captioned Lowe v.
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-cv-1657 ("Lowe"))
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California against the Company and certain of the Company's current
executive officers ("defendants").

On December 6, 2023, the court appointed Mason Raines, Thomas O.
Martel, and Linna Rae Martel to serve as co-lead plaintiffs
("plaintiffs").

On February 1, 2024, the plaintiffs filed their amended complaint.
In the amended complaint, the plaintiffs allege violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, based on alleged
materially false and misleading statements relating to our sales
trends and financial forecasts.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired Tandem common stock during the period between
August 3, 2022, and November 2, 2022, inclusive.

The plaintiffs also seek unspecified monetary damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, costs and fees, including attorneys' fees
and expert fees, and other relief.

The defendants filed their motion to dismiss the amended complaint
on March 11, 2024.

The plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to defendants' motion
to dismiss on March 27, 2024, and on April 10, 2024, defendants
filed their reply.

On April 29, 2024, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
with leave to file a second amended complaint within 30 days.

Tandem Diabetes Care Inc. -- https://www.tandemdiabetes.com/ --
develops insulin pumps & other products and services that bring
innovation, convenience & style to diabetes management.




TAPESTRY INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hernandez Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TAPESTRY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-03564 (E.D.N.Y., May 16, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.coachoutlet.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: missing alternative text (alt-text), hidden elements on
web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups,
unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that
some events be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit.

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

Tapestry, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services,
doing business in New York. [BN]

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

TECO ENERGY: Gets June 20 Extension to Oppose Roche Class Cert Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Roche v. TECO Energy, Inc.
et al., Case No. 8:23-cv-01571 (M.D. Fla., Filed July 14, 2023),
the Hon. Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywel entered an order granting
the Defendants' unopposed motion for extension of time to file
response.

Upon a showing of good cause, Defendants' deadline to respond in
opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class is extended to
and including June 20, 2024, the Court says.

The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA).

TECO is an energy-related holding company.[CC]

TESLA INC: Schwartz Sues Over False Advertising
-----------------------------------------------
Ari Schwartz, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TESLA, INC., and DOES 1-10 Inclusive, Case No.
8:24-cv-00750-ODW-KES (C.D. Cal., April 5, 2024), is brought
against Defendant to stop Defendant's practice of falsely
advertising and selling warranties for their vehicle batteries that
they have no intention of honoring and to obtain redress for a
class of consumers ("Class Members") who were misled, within the
applicable statute of limitations period, by Defendant.

The Plaintiff owns a used 2016 Model S tesla electric vehicle and
as part of Plaintiff's purchase of that vehicle Plaintiff received
a Battery Limited Warranty (the "Warranty") that expired on
February 19, 2024. During or about February, 2023, the Plaintiff's
vehicle notified him that a "battery fuse requires replacement
soon". The Plaintiff brought the vehicle to a Tesla service center
for repairs. The Defendant repaired the fuse at no cost to the
Plaintiff pursuant to the warranty. During or about July, 2023, the
Plaintiff was again notified that a battery fuse needed
replacement. The Plaintiff again brought the vehicle to a Tesla
service center for repairs.

The Plaintiff requested, pursuant to the warranty, that Defendant
honor the warranty and replace the fuse. The Defendant refused to
replace the fuse without charging Plaintiff, thereby refusing to
honor its warranty. Defendant's knowledge of the fact that
Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers could not reap the
benefits of the warranty is demonstrated by the fact that when
Plaintiff attempted to have the fuse repaired a second time,
Defendant refused to repair it without charging Plaintiff. The
Defendant omitted from its advertisements and contracts that
consumers who experience battery fuse malfunction will not be able
to utilize the Warranty.

The Plaintiff had no reasonable way of knowing that the battery
fuse would not be replaced without a charge to Plaintiff, i.e.,
Plaintiff had no reasonable opportunity to find out that Defendant
would not honor the warranty. Defendant was aware that Plaintiff
could not have reasonably known that it would not honor the
warranty. Had Plaintiff known that Defendant would not honor the
warranty, Plaintiff would not have purchased the Model S vehicle
from Defendant, rather, Plaintiff would have considered purchasing
a different vehicle from another manufacturer.

The Defendant advertised to consumers that a warranty would
accompany the purchase of its electric vehicles ("the Class
Products"), whereby the battery would be replaced or repaired if it
was defective. Warranties are of particular value to consumers
because they provide a guarantee of the value of a good after it is
purchased. This is particularly true for electric vehicle batteries
which are critical to the proper functioning of consumers' electric
vehicles.

The Plaintiff and other consumers similarly situated were exposed
to these advertisements through print and digital media. The
Defendant misrepresented and falsely advertised and represented to
Plaintiff and others similarly situated by failing to disclose in
either its advertisements or the contract itself that Defendant
would not honor the warranty. The Defendant's misrepresentations to
Plaintiff and others similarly situated induced them to purchase
Defendant's Class Products. The Defendant took advantage of
Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers unfairly and unlawfully,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff owns a used 2016 Model S tesla electric vehicle.

TESLA, INC. is a corporation that does business in California,
including San Diego County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21031 Ventura Blvd Suite 340
          Woodland Hills, CA 91364
          Phone: 323-306-4234
          Fax: 866-633-0228
          Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                 abacon@toddflaw.com


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Delays QVAR's Generic Entry, Value Drug Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VALUE DRUG COMPANY, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.; TEVA
PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; TEVA BRANDED PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS
R&D, INC.; NORTON (WATERFORD) LTD.; and AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-11312 (D. Mass., May 16, 2024)
is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections
4 of the Clayton Act and Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants entered into an
anticompetitive scheme in order to delay generic competition for
QVAR, Teva's line of brand name asthma inhalers. Teva perpetrated a
full panoply of anticompetitive delay tactics to extend its
exclusivity and continue charging astronomical prices, including
(a) submitting two device patents for listing in the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration’s (FDA) as patent expiry neared; (b)
executing an anticompetitive "product hop;" (c) listing in the
Orange Book twelve patents that Teva told the FDA, under penalty of
perjury, claimed the QVAR Redihaler drug product (beclomethasone
dipropionate HFA) when most did not; (d) submitting seven patents
for listing in the Orange Book that the company wrongfully
represented claimed the original QVAR drug product; (e) engaging in
patent litigation against two of the three would-be competitors to
invoke the mandatory 30 month stay and thereby delay generic
competition; and (f) instead of suing the first would-be
competitor, Teva entered into a reverse payment agreement where the
generic competitor refrains from launching its product-to
bottleneck all competition.

As a result of the Defendants' unlawful monopoly, direct purchasers
for QVAR and QVAR Redihaler, including the Plaintiff, have been
overcharged, says the suit.

Value Drug Company is a pharmaceutical products wholesaler, located
at 195 Theater Drive, Duncansville, Pennsylvania.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. is a pharmaceutical company,
with its principal place of business in Tel Aviv, Israel.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. is a subsidiary of Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., with its principal place of
business in Parsipanny, New Jersey.

Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc. is a subsidiary of
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., with its principal place of
business in Montvale, New Jersey.

Norton (Waterford) Ltd. is a subsidiary of Teva Pharmaceutical
Industries Ltd., with its principal place of business in Waterford,
Ireland.

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company, with its
principal place of business at 400 Crossing Boulevard, Third Floor,
Bridgewater, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Sean K. McElligott, Esq.
       Steven L. Bloch, Esq.
       Ian W. Sloss, Esq.
       Jonathan Seredynski, Esq.
       SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
       1 Landmark Sq., 15th Floor
       Stamford, CT 06901
       Telephone: (203) 325-4491
       Facsimile: (203) 325-3769
       Email: smcelligott@sgtlaw.com
              sbloch@sgtlaw.com
              isloss@sgtlaw.com
              jseredynski@sgtlaw.com

                - and -

       Bruce E. Gerstein, Esq.
       Dan Litvin, Esq.
       GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER LLP
       88 Pine Street, 10th Floor
       New York, NY 10005
       Telephone: (212) 398-0055
       Email: bgerstein@garwingerstein.com
              dlitvin@garwingerstein.com

                - and -

       David F. Sorensen, Esq.
       Caitlin G. Coslett, Esq.
       BERGER MONTAGUE PC
       1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
       Philadelphia, PA 19103
       Telephone: (215) 875-3000
       Email: dsorensen@bm.net
              ccoslett@bm.net

                - and -

       Stuart E. Des Roches, Esq.
       Andrew W. Kelly, Esq.
       ODOM & DES ROCHES, LLC
       650 Poydras Street, Suite 2020
       New Orleans, LA 70130
       Telephone: (504) 522-0077
       Email: stuart@odrlaw.com
              akelly@odrlaw.com

                - and -

       Susan Segura, Esq.
       David C. Raphael, Jr., Esq.
       Erin R. Leger, Esq.
       SMITH SEGURA RAPHAEL & LEGER, LLP
       221 Ansley Blvd.
       Alexandria, LA 71303
       Telephone: (318) 445-4480
       Email: ssegura@ssrllp.com
              draphael@ssrllp.com
              eleger@ssrllp.com

                - and -

       Russell Chorush, Esq.
       HEIM PAYNE & CHORUSH, LLP
       1111 Bagby, Suite 2100
       Houston, TX 77002
       Telephone: (713) 221-2000
       Email: rchorush@hpcllp.com

THE M JEWELERS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Tarr Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
ELLEN ELIZABETH TARR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE M JEWELERS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-03700 (S.D.N.Y., May 14, 2024) alleges violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

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

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

THE M JEWELERS, INC., founded by Mark Shami in 2014, was born in
the heart of The Diamond District, and continues to produce and
operate as a jewelry brand out of NYC. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

THIS IS L INC: Seaman Seeks Damages for Alleged Consumer Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA SEAMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THIS IS L., INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-03524-ARR-JAM
(E.D.N.Y., May 14, 2024) seeks damages for Defendant's alleged
misleading representations concerning one of its products.

The Defendant manufactures, markets, and sells tampons under the L.
brand. The product's label bears the statement, "NO RAYON, CHLORINE
BLEACHING, DYES OR FRAGRANCES". Plaintiff purchased the product in
the belief that it did not contain unnecessary ingredients, such as
those that do not support the efficacy of the tampon or the tampon
components. However, the product does contain titanium dioxide, a
synthetically prepared powder that works similarly to bleaching or
dyes. The product is currently sold at higher prices owing to the
alleged misleading representation. Plaintiff now brings claims for
unjust enrichment and violation of the New York General Business
Law, says the suit.

This Is L. Inc. manufactures personal care products and is based in
Cincinnati, OH. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Sue J. Nam, Esq.
        Michael R. Reese, Esq.
        Kate J. Stoia, Esq.
        REESE LLP      
        100 W 93rd St, 16th Fl
        New York, NY 10025
        Telephone: (212) 643-0500
        E-mail: snam@reesellp.com
                mreese@reesellp.com

                - and -
     
        Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
        SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
        60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
        Great Neck, NY 1102
        Telephone: (516) 268-7080
        E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

                - and -
     
        James Chung, Esq.
        CHUNG LAW FIRM P.C.
        43-22 216th St
        Bayside, NY 11361
        Telephone: (718) 461-8808
        E-mail: jchung_77@msn.com

THRYLOS 77: Rumaldo Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
----------------------------------------------------------------
FAUSTO RUMALDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THRYLOS 77 CORP., 1821 NOVELTY EATS CORP.,
SOCRATES SELLAS, and MARIA KATECHIS, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-03613 (S.D.N.Y., May 10, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to pay spread of hours wages, failure to provide wage
notice, and failure to provide wage statements.

The Plaintiff was employed as a cook and food preparer for
Defendants at 1821 Hobart Avenue, Bronx, New York from February
2018 through December 2023.

Thrylos 77 Corp. is a restaurant owner and operator located at 1821
Hobart Avenue, Bronx, New York.

1821 Novelty Eats Corp. is a restaurant owner and operator located
at 1821 Hobart Avenue, Bronx, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Yale Pollack, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF YALE POLLACK, P.C.
         66 Split Rock Road
         Syosset, NY 11791
         Telephone: (516) 634-6340
         Email: ypollack@yalepollacklaw.com

TOP GUARD: Hedges Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DONNA HEDGES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TOP GUARD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-03814 (S.D.N.Y., May 16, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the
New York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://silentbeacon.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), or a text
equivalent, empty links that contain no text causing the function
or purpose of the link to not be presented to the user, redundant
links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and linked
images missing alt-text.

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

Top Guard Technologies, LLC is a company that sells online goods
and services, doing business in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
       Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
       Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
       GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
       150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
       New York, NY 10003
       Telephone: (212) 228-9795
       Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
       Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
              Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
              Dana@Gottlieb.legal

TRIHEX ATHLETIC: Fails to Pay Overtime Premium, Hurt Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Hurt, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Trihex Athletic Apparel, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:24-cv-02556-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, May 17, 2024) challenges
Defendant's policies and practices that violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act as well as the Ohio overtime compensation statute.

Plaintiff Hurt and other similarly situated employees were
routinely required to work in excess of 40 hours per workweek.
However, they were not paid proper overtime premium. In addition,
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were not
reimbursed for mileage for travel to and from work related events,
resulting in improper kickbacks in violation of the FLSA and Ohio
law, says the suit.

Based in Ohio, TriHex Athletic Apparel, LLC is a wrestling
outfitter and apparel brand. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
         8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104
         Skokie, IL 60076
         Telephone: (847) 986-5889
         Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
         E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com

                 - and -

         James L. Simon, Esq.
         SIMON LAW CO.
         11 ½ N. Franklin Street
         Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
         Telephone: (216) 816-8696
         E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com

TRILOGY MEDWASTE: Brock Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Brock, an individual v. TRILOGY MEDWASTE, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and, DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
24STCV08787 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 5, 2024), is brought for
Discrimination in Violation of Government Code ("FEHA") and the
Defendant's Failure to Accommodate in Violation of FEHA; Failure to
Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of FEHA; Retaliation
in Violation of FEHA; Failure to Prevent in Violation of FEHA;
Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; Failure to
Provide Meal Breaks; Failure to Provide Rest Breaks; Failure to Pay
Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay Wages of Discharged Employees –
Waiting Time Penalties; Failure to Provide and Maintain Accurate
Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Maintain Accurate Records;
Unfair Business Practices; Retaliation in Violation of Cal. Lab.
Code.

During Plaintiffs employment for Defendant, Defendant paid
Plaintiff an hourly wage and classified him as non-exempt from
overtime. Defendant typically scheduled Plaintiff to work at least
five days in a workweek and at least eight hours per day, but
Plaintiff Often worked more than eight hours in a workday and more
than 40 hours in a workweek. the Defendant wrongfully failed to
provide Plaintiff with legally compliant meal periods. Defendant
regularly required Plaintiff to work more than five consecutive
hours a day without providing a 30 minute, uninterrupted, and
duty-free meal period for every five hours of work, or without
compensating Plaintiff for all missed meal periods that were not
provided by the end of the fifth hour of work or tenth hour of
work. Instead, Defendant continued to assert control over Plaintiff
by requiring, pressuring, or encouraging him and similarly situated
aggrieved employees to perform work tasks which could not be
completed without working in lieu of taking mandatory meal periods,
or by denying Plaintiff permission to take a meal period.

The Defendant often also interrupted his meal period and made his
return to work less than 30 minutes after he began his break, The
effect is that Plaintiff routinely worked through meal periods
"off-the-clock," and continued to work after they had clocked out
for the workday, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff began working for the Defendant on June 14, 2022.

TRILOGY MEDWASTE, INC. was and is a Delaware corporation, operating
in and under the laws ofthe State of California and conducting its
business in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Sherman (SBN 316351)
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
          Email: asherman@wilshirelawfirm.com


TROPICAL PRODUCE: Raymond Sues Over Worker Misclassification
------------------------------------------------------------
SONIA RAYMOND, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. TROPICAL PRODUCE SPECIALIST CORP., a Florida
Corporation, and MARCOS ACOSTA, an individual, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-21897-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 16, 2024) accuses the Defendants
of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a sales associate
between approximately May 2021 and January 2024. She regularly
worked in excess of 40 hours per week. However, Defendants have
failed to pay time and one-half wages for the overtime hours worked
by Plaintiff. The Defendants misclassified Plaintiff and the other
sales associates as exempt from the FLSA's overtime compensation
requirements and paid only salaried wages for 40 hours of work per
week, says the suit.

Headquartered in Homestead, FL, Tropical Produce Specialist Corp.
owns and operates a specialty tropical fruits and vegetables
business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Keith M. Stern, Esq.
         LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
         80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 2000
         Miami, FL 33130
         Telephone: (305) 901-1379
         Facsimile: (561) 288-9031  
         E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com

TUCKERNUCK INC: Riley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
AMANIE RILEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Tuckernuck, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-03677 (S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2024) is a civil rights action
against Tuckernuck for their failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate their website, www.tnuck.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has been denied the full
enjoyment of the facilities, goods and services of Tnuck.com as a
result of accessibility barriers on the website. 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 suit.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Tuckernuck's policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.

Tuckernuck, Inc. operates as a online boutique company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
          100 Duffy Avenue, Suite 510
          Hicksville, New York 11801
          Telephone: (929) 324-0717
          Facsimile: (929) 333-7774

TUMI INC: Faces Hernandez Suit Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TUMI, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-03563 (E.D.N.Y., May 16, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.tumi.com,
contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class
members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and
services offered to the public through the website. The
accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to:
missing alternative text (alt-text), hidden elements on web pages,
incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels
for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be
performed solely with a mouse, says the suit.

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

Tumi, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing
business in New York. [BN]

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

TYSON FOODS: McBride Suit Seeks Production Supervisors' Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD MCBRIDE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TYSON FOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:24-cv-00655 (E.D. Mo., May 10, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for unpaid overtime wages in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the wage laws of the Missouri Revised
Statutes.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a production supervisor
from approximately October 2017 through November 2023.

Tyson Foods, Inc. is a food processing company based in Springdale,
Arkansas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Colby Qualls, Esq.
       FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
       400 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 700
       Dallas, TX 75201
       Telephone: (214) 210-2100
       Email: cqualls@foresterhaynie.com

UNCLE JULIO'S: Keysor et al. Seek Unpaid Minimum Wages & OT Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
AUDREY KEYSOR, CYLE QUICK, and LIV WYSOCKI on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. UNCLE JULIO'S CORPORATION and THE
MEXICAN RESTAURANT, INC., D/B/A UNCLE JULIO'S MEXICAN FROM SCRATCH
RESTAURANT GROUP, Case No. 4:24-cv-00670 (E.D. Mo., May 14, 2024)
accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act
and state wage laws.

The Plaintiffs work and/or previously worked as non-exempt
servers/bartenders for Defendants. The Plaintiffs bring this action
on behalf of servers/bartenders employed by Defendants at multiple
locations throughout the United States who were not compensated at
the proper rate of pay for all hours worked, including overtime,
and were subjected to tip-related violations by Defendant. The
Plaintiffs seek to recover all unpaid wages, as well penalties and
damages under the FLSA and state wage laws.
    
Based in Irving, TX, Uncle Julio's Corporation operates several
Mexican restaurants across the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

        John J. Ziegelmeyer III, Esq.
        Brad K. Thoenen, Esq.
        HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP     
        1501 Westport Road
        Kansas City, MO 64111
        Telephone: (816) 875-3332
        E-mail: jziegelmeyer@hkm.com
                bthoenen@hkm.com
        Website: www.hkm.com

                - and –
     
        Michael Hodgson, Esq.
        The Hodgson Law Firm, LLC
        3609 SW Pryor Road
        Lee’s Summit, MO 64082
        Telephone: (816) 600-0117
        Facsimile: (816) 600-0137
        E-mail: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com

UNDERDOG APPAREL: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Hedges Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DONNA HEDGES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNDERDOG APPAREL, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-03815 (S.D.N.Y., May 16, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.homefieldapparel.com, contains access barriers which
hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its
online goods, content, and services offered to the public through
the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but
not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), or a text
equivalent, empty links that contain no text causing the function
or purpose of the link to not be presented to the user, redundant
links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and linked
images missing alt-text.

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

Underdog Apparel, LLC is a company that sells online goods and
services, doing business in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
       Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
       Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
       GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
       150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
       New York, NY 10003
       Telephone: (212) 228-9795
       Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
       Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
              Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
              Dana@Gottlieb.legal

UNIQLO USA: Hernandez Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
----------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNIQLO USA, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-03565 (E.D.N.Y., May 16, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.uniqlo.com,
contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class
members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and
services offered to the public through the website. The
accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to:
missing alternative text (alt-text), hidden elements on web pages,
incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels
for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be
performed solely with a mouse, says the suit.

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

Uniqlo USA, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services,
doing business in New York. [BN]

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

UNITED PARCEL: Fails to Provide Safe Workplace, Barnett Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
TAMMIE BARNETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Case No.
24STCV11448 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 7, 2024) is an
action against the Defendant for failure to provide a safe and
healthful place of employment.

Plaintiff Barnett was employed by the Defendant as a staff.

United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) delivers packages and documents.
The Company provides global supply chain services and
less-than-truckload transportation, primarily in business consists
of integrated air and ground pick-up and delivery network. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and -

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

UNITED SEATING: Smith Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Dustin Smith, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, and the general public v. United Seating
and Mobility L.L.C. doing business as: Numotion, Does 1 through 50
inclusive, Case No. 30-02024-01383316-CU-OE-CXC was removed from
the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on April 5,
2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:24-cv-00747-FWS-DFM to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor for Labor/Mgmnt.
Relations.

United Seating and Mobility, L.L.C., doing business as Numotion --
https://www.numotion.com/ -- provides mobility solutions,
wheelchairs, and mobility equipment to our customers with the goal
of moving their lives forward for years to come.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Emil Davtyan, Esq.
          David Keledjian, Esq.
          David Yeremian, Esq.
          Kevin Burns, Esq.
          D.LAW, INC.
          880 E. Broadway
          Glendale, CA 91205
          Phone: (818) 962-6465
          Fax: (818) 962-6469
          Email: emil@d.law
                 d.keledjian@d.law
                 d.yeremian@d.law
                 k.burns@d.law

The Defendant is represented by:

          Melis Atalay, Esq.
          Carla Stephanie Espinoza, Esq.
          Daniel N. Rojas, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK AND STEWART PC
          400 South Hope Street Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 239-9800
          Fax: (213) 239-9045
          Email: melis.atalay@ogletree.com
                 carla.espinoza@ogletree.com
                 daniel.rojas@ogletree.com


UNITED STATES: Doster Appeals Class Suit Dismissal to 6th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HUNTER DOSTER, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Hunter Doster, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Hon. Frank Kendall, III, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 1:22-cv-00084, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio.

On February 16, 2022, the Plaintiffs, servicemembers in the United
States Air Force, filed a class action complaint alleging that the
Department of Defense's COVID-19 vaccination requirement violated
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA") and the First
Amendment.

In the following months, the Court certified a class and entered
preliminary injunctions. Then, in December 2022, the James M.
Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 was
enacted. Pursuant to this legislation, on January 10, 2023, the
Secretary of Defense rescinded the vaccine mandate and specific
adverse actions for those servicemembers who sought exemptions on
religious grounds. Subsequently, the Defendants filed a petition
for rehearing with the Sixth Circuit and requested that the
preliminary injunctions be vacated as moot. The Sixth Circuit
denied rehearing and the Defendants filed a writ of certiorari with
the Supreme Court.

On December 11, 2023, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated
the Sixth Circuit's judgment, and ordered the Sixth Circuit to
instruct this Court to vacate its preliminary injunctions as moot.

On May 2, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case
as moot, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge
Matthew W. McFarland on Mar. 18, 2024. The case was dismissed
without prejudice.

The appellate case is captioned Hunter Doster, et al. v. Frank
Kendall, III, et al., Case No. 24-3404, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on May 9, 2024. [BN]

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

          Thomas Bernard Bruns, Esq.
          BRUNS, CONNELL, VOLLMAR & ARMSTRONG
          4555 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 330
          Cincinnati, OH 45242
          Telephone: (513) 312-9890

                  - and -

          Aaron Siri, Esq.
          SIRI & GLIMSTAD
          745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
          New York, NY 10151
          Telephone: (888) 747-4529

                  - and -

          Christopher David Wiest, Esq.
          50 E. Rivercenter Boulevard, Suite 1280
          Covington, KY 41011
          Telephone: (513) 257-1895

Defendants-Appellees HON. FRANK KENDALL, III, in his official
capacity as Secretary of the Air Force, et al., are represented
by:

          Sarah Jane Clark, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Room 7513
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 305-8727

UNITED STATES: National Mining Appeals EPA's Final Rule
-------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION and AMERICA'S POWER are filing a
petition for the Court to review the final action of the United
States Environmental Protection Agency published in the Federal
Register at 89 Fed. Reg. 39798 in the lawsuit entitled National
Mining Association and America's Power, Petitioners, v. United
States Environmental Protection Agency, et al., Respondents, Case
No. EPA-89FR39798.

The Petitioners assert that the final rule is in excess of the
agency's statutory authority and is otherwise arbitrary,
capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the Petitioners ask the Court to hold unlawful and set
aside the final rule, and to order such other relief as might be
appropriate.

The appellate case is captioned National Mining Association and
America's Power v. United States Environmental Protection Agency,
et al., Case No. 24-1124, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on May 9, 2024. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION, et al. are
represented by:

          Misha Tseytlin, Esq.
          Kaitlin O'Donnell, Esq.
          Carly Rothman Siditsky, Esq.
          TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3900
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (608) 999-1240
          Facsimile: (312) 759-1939
          Email: misha.tseytlin@troutman.com

                  - and -

          Carroll Wade McGuffey III, Esq.
          Melissa Horne, Esq.
          TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
          600 Peachtree St. N.E., Suite 3000
          Atlanta, GA 30308
          Telephone: (404) 885-3698
          Facsimile: (404) 885-3286
          Email: mack.mcguffey@troutman.com
                 melissa.horne@troutman.com

Defendants-Respondents ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al. are
represented by:

          Eric Gerig Hostetler, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          P.O. Box 23986
          L'Enfant Plaza Station
          Washington, DC 20026

                  - and -

          Elliot Higgins, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          150 M Street, NE
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 598-0240

                  - and -

          Chloe Hamity Kolman, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20530

UNITED STATES: National Rural Appeals EPA's Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION is filing a
petition for the Court to review the final action of the United
States Environmental Protection Agency published in the Federal
Register at 89 Fed. Reg. 39798 in the lawsuit entitled National
Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Petitioner, v. United
States Environmental Protection Agency, et al., Respondents, Case
No. EPA-89FR39798.

The Respondents released a rulemaking entitled "New Source
Performance Standards for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New,
Modified, and Reconstructed Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating
Units; Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from
Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units; and Repeal of
the Affordable Clean Energy Rule." This rulemaking establishes new
source performance standards for new gas-fired electric generating
units. The rulemaking also promulgates emissions guidelines for
existing coal-fired electric generating units.

The appellate case is captioned National Rural Electric Cooperative
Association v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al., Case No.
24-1122, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit, filed on May 9, 2024. [BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner NATIONAL RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE
ASSOCIATION, is represented by:

          Scott A. Keller, Esq.
          Steven P. Lehotsky, Esq.
          Michael B. Schon, Esq.
          LEHOTSKY KELLER COHN LLP
          200 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 700
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (512) 693-8350

                  - and -

          Mithun Mansinghani, Esq.
          LEHOTSKY KELLER COHN LLP
          619 W. Main St.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102

                  - and -

          Joshua P. Morrow, Esq.
          LEHOTSKY KELLER COHN LLP
          408 W. 11th St., 5th Floor
          Austin, TX 78701

Defendants-Respondents ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al. are
represented by:

          Eric Gerig Hostetler, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          P.O. Box 23986
          L'Enfant Plaza Station
          Washington, DC 20026

                  - and -

          Elliot Higgins, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          150 M Street, NE
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 598-0240

                  - and -

          Chloe Hamity Kolman, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20530

UNITED STATES: State of Ohio Appeals EPA's Final Rule
-----------------------------------------------------
STATE OF OHIO, et al. are filing a petition for the Court to review
the final action of the United States Environmental Protection
Agency published in the Federal Register at 89 Fed. Reg. 39798 in
the lawsuit entitled State of Ohio, et al., Petitioners, v. United
States Environmental Protection Agency, et al., Respondents, Case
No. EPA-89FR39798.

The Respondents released a rulemaking entitled "New Source
Performance Standards for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New,
Modified, and Reconstructed Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating
Units; Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from
Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units; and Repeal of
the Affordable Clean Energy Rule."

The appellate case is captioned State of Ohio, et al. v. United
States Environmental Protection Agency, et al., Case No. 24-1121,
in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit, filed on May 9, 2024. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners STATE OF OHIO, et al. are represented by:

          T. Elliot Gaiser, Esq.
          Mathura J. Sridharan, Esq.
          Zachery P. Keller, Esq.
          John K. McManus, Esq.
          OFFICE OF OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL
          30 East Broad Street, 17th Floor
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (6l4) 466-8980
          Email: thomas.gaiser@ohioago.gov

                    - and -

          Anthony J. Powell, Esq.
          OFFICE OF KANSAS ATTORNEY GENERAL
          120 SW 10th Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Topeka, KS 66612
          Telephone: (785) 368-8539
          Email: Anthony.Powell@ag.ks.gov

Defendants-Respondents ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al. are
represented by:

          Eric Gerig Hostetler, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          P.O. Box 23986
          L'Enfant Plaza Station
          Washington, DC 20026

                  - and -

          Elliot Higgins, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          150 M Street, NE
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 598-0240

                  - and -

          Chloe Hamity Kolman, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20530

UNITED STATES: West Virginia Appeals EPA's Final Rule
-----------------------------------------------------
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, et al. are filing a petition for the Court
to review the final action of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency published in the Federal Register at 89 Fed. Reg.
39798 in the lawsuit entitled State of West Virginia, et al.,
Petitioners, v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, et
al., Respondents, Case No. EPA-89FR39798.

The Respondents released a rulemaking entitled "New Source
Performance Standards for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New,
Modified, and Reconstructed Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating
Units; Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from
Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units; and Repeal of
the Affordable Clean Energy Rule." The Petitioners assert that the
final rule exceeds the agency's statutory authority and otherwise
is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in
accordance with law. The Petitioners thus ask that the Court
declare unlawful and vacate the Respondents' final action.

The appellate case is captioned State of West Virginia, et al. v.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, et al., Case No.
24-1120, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit, filed on May 9, 2024. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, et al. are
represented by:

          James A. Barta, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIANA
          302 W. Washington St.
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 232-0709
          Email: James.Barta@atg.in.gov

                  - and –

          Lindsay S. See, Esq.
          Michael R. Williams, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA
          State Capitol Complex
          Building 1, Room E-26
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 558-2021
          Email: lindsay.s.see@wvago.gov
                 michael.r.williams@wvago.gov

                  - and –

          Garrison Todd, Esq.
          ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF LAW
          1031 W. 4th Ave., Ste. 200
          Anchorage, AK 99501
          Telephone: (907) 269-5100
          Email: garrison.todd@alaska.gov gov

                  - and –

          Edmund G. LaCour Jr., Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ALABAMA
          501 Washington Avenue
          P.O. Box 300152
          Montgomery, AL 36130
          Telephone: (334) 242-7300
          Email: Edmund.LaCour@AlabamaAG.gov

                  - and –

          Henry C. Whitaker, Esq.
          James H. Percival, Esq.
          Office of the Attorney General
          The Capitol, Pl-01
          Tallahassee, FL 32399
          Telephone: (850) 414-3300
          Facsimile: (850) 410-2672
          Email: henry.whitaker@myfloridalegal.com
                 james.percival@myfloridalegal.com

                  - and –

          Nicholas J. Bronni, Esq.
          Dylan Jacobs, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ARKANSAS ATTORNEY GENERAL
          323 Center Street, Suite 200
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 682-2007
          Email: Nicholas.Bronni@ArkansasAG.gov
                 Dylan.Jacobs@ArkansasAG.gov

                  - and –

          Joshua N. Turner, Esq.
          Alan M. Hurst, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE IDAHO ATTORNEY GENERAL
          P.O. Box 83720
          Boise, ID 83720
          Telephone: (208) 334-2400
          Email: Josh.Turner@ag.idaho.gov
                 Alan.hurst@ag.idaho.gov

                  - and –

          Stephen J. Petrany, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF GEORGIA
          40 Capitol Square, SW
          Atlanta, GA 30334
          Telephone: (404) 458-3408
          Email: spetrany@law.ga.gov

Defendants-Respondents ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al. are
represented by:

          Eric Gerig Hostetler, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          P.O. Box 23986
          L'Enfant Plaza Station
          Washington, DC 20026

                  - and -

          Elliot Higgins, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          150 M Street, NE
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 598-0240

                  - and -

          Chloe Hamity Kolman, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20530

UNITED SUGAR: Pattibakes LLC Sues Over Price-Fixing Conspiracy
--------------------------------------------------------------
PATTIBAKES LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING, INC., ASR GROUP
INTERNATIONAL, INC., DOMINO FOODS, INC., CARGILL, INC., MICHIGAN
SUGAR COMPANY, UNITED SUGAR PRODUCERS & REFINERS COOPERATIVE F/K/A
UNITED SUGARS CORPORATION, COMMODITY INFORMATION, INC., AND RICHARD
WISTISEN, Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-01812-JMB-ECW (D. Minn., May
16, 2024) seeks to recover treble damages, injunctive relief, and
any other relief as appropriate, based on violations of the Sherman
Act and various state antitrust and consumer protection laws by the
largest producers and sellers of granulated sugar in the United
States.

Since at least January 1, 2019, Defendants and their
co-conspirators allegedly conspired and combined to fix, raise,
maintain, and stabilize prices for granulated sugar sold throughout
the United States. In furtherance of this conspiracy, among other
things, the Defendants engaged in price signaling and exchanged
competitively sensitive information about prices, capacity, sales
volume, and demand. As a result of Defendants' combination and
conspiracy, granulated sugar prices in the United States have been
artificially inflated throughout the Class Period, causing
Plaintiff and other commercial, industrial, and institutional
indirect purchasers to suffer overcharges, says the suit.

Headquartered in Edina, MN, United Sugar Producers & Refiners
Cooperative produces and sells granulated sugar primarily under the
brand name Crystal Sugar. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                  - and -

          Brian Murray, Esq.
          Lee Albert, Esq.
          Gregory Linkh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Avenue, Suite 358
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com
                  lalbert@glancylaw.com
                  glinkh@glancylaw.com

                  - and -

          Michele Carino, Esq.
          GREENWICH LEGAL ASSOC.
          881 Lake Ave.
          Greenwich, CT 06831
          Telephone: (203) 622-6001
          E-mail: mcarino@grwlegal.com

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF HOLLYWOOD FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITEDHEALTH
GROUP INC.; ANDREW WITTY; STEPHEN HEMSLEY; and BRIAN
THOMPSON, Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-01743 (D. Minn., May 14,
2024) is a securities fraud class action brought on behalf of all
persons or entities that purchased shares of UnitedHealth's common
stock between March 14, 2022, and February 27, 2024, inclusive,
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

During the Class Period, the Defendants carried out a plan, scheme,
and conduct which was intended to and, throughout the Class Period,
did: (i) deceive the investing public, including the Plaintiff and
other Class members, as alleged herein; and (ii) cause the
Plaintiff and other members of the Class to purchase UnitedHealth
common stock at artificially inflated prices.

On February 27, 2024, the Wall Street Journal reported that the
Department of Justice ("DOJ") had re-opened its antitrust
investigation into UnitedHealth. In that article, the public
learned for the first time that the DOJ was investigating the
relationships between the Company's various segments, including
Optum. As a result of these disclosures, the price of UnitedHealth
stock declined by $27 per share.

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

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC. owns and manages organized health systems.
The Company provides employers products and resources to plan and
administer employee benefit programs. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregg M. Fishbein, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue S, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 596-4044
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0987
          Email: gmfishbein@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Hannah Ross, Esq.
          Avi Josefson, Esq.
          Scott R. Foglietta, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 554-1400
          Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
          Email: hannah@blbglaw.com
                 avi@blbglaw.com
                 scott.foglietta@blbglaw.com

               - and -

          Robert D. Klausner, Esq.
          KLAUSNER, KAUFMAN, JENSEN & LEVINSON, P.A.
          7080 Northwest 4th Street
          Plantation, FL 33317
          Telephone: (954) 916-1202
          Email: bob@robertdklausner.com

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Liable to Halted Medical Services, Unity Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITY MEDICAL CENTER MANCHESTER a/k/a Coffee Medical Group, LLC,
and RUSSELLVILLE HOSPITAL, INC., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP
INCORPORATED, OPTUM, INC., and CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC., Defendants,
Case No. 3:24-cv-00612 (M.D. Tenn., May 16, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, breach of confidence, breach
of implied contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to timely and
adequately process and pay the amounts due for the medical services
of hospitals, including the Plaintiffs. According to the complaint,
a ransomware group known as the BlackCat/ALPHV, infiltrated the
Defendants' network system and accessed highly sensitive
information. The Defendants discovered the cyberattack on February
21, 2024. Change Healthcare disconnected its systems to prevent
further impact and as a result, the Plaintiffs and similarly
situated hospitals have been cut off from over 100 services
provided by Change Healthcare, including benefits verification,
claims submission, and prior authorization. Without those services,
the Plaintiffs and Class members have not, and cannot, be paid for
their work with patients. The Plaintiffs seek to hold the
Defendants responsible for the harms caused and will continue to
cause them and other similarly situated hospitals due to the data
breach.

Unity Medical Center Manchester, also known as Coffee Medical
Group, LLC, is a healthcare services provider in Manchester,
Tennessee.

Russellville Hospital, Inc. is a healthcare services provider in
Russellville, Alabama.

UnitedHealth Group Incorporated is a health insurance company based
in Hopkins, Minnesota.

Optum, Inc. is a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, located in Eden
Prairie, Minnesota.

Change Healthcare Inc. is a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group,
located in Nashville, Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Aubrey Harwell, Esq.
         Trey Harwell, Esq.
         Charles Barrett, Esq.
         Simon N. Levitsky, Esq.
         Daniella Bhadare-Valente, Esq.
         NEAL & HARWELL, PLC
         1201 Demonbreun St., Suite 1000
         Nashville, TN 37203
         Telephone: (615) 244-1713
         Email: aharwell@nealharwell.com
                trey@nealharwell.com
                cbarrett@nealharwell.com
                slevitsky@nealharwell.com
                dbhadare-valente@nealharwell.com

                  - and –

         Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
         Brendan S. Thompson, Esq.
         Christian Hudson, Esq.
         CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
         4725 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 200
         Washington, DC 20016
         Telephone: (202) 789-3960
         Email: charlesl@cuneolaw.com
                brendant@cuneolaw.com
                chudson@cuneolaw.com

                  - and –

         Don Barrett, Esq.
         David McMullan, Esq.
         BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
         404 Court Square North
         P.O. Box 927
         Lexington, MS 39095
         Telephone: (662) 834-2488
         Email: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
                donbarrettpa@gmail.com
                dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com

                  - and –

         Richard R. Barrett, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD R. BARRETT, PLLC
         2086 Old Taylor Rd., Suite 1011
         Oxford, MS 38655
         Telephone: (662) 380-5018
         Email: rrb@rrblawfirm.net

UP NYC: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Zelvin Class Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
LYNN ZELVIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Up NYC, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-03828 (S.D.N.Y., May 17, 2024) is
a civil rights action against Up NYC for their failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons.

The Defendant is allegedly denying blind and visually impaired
persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods
and services Up NYC provides to their non-disabled customers
through https://www.upnycstore.com.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in
conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Upnycstore.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods,
services, price specials and other programs offered by Up NYC. Yet,
Upnycstore.com contains significant access barriers that make it
difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired
customers to use the website.

In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for blind and
visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the
website. Thus, Up NYC excludes the blind and visually-impaired from
the full and equal participation in the growing Internet economy
that is increasingly a fundamental part of the common marketplace
and daily living. In the wave of technological advances in recent
years, assistive computer technology is becoming an increasingly
prominent part of everyday life, allowing blind and
visually-impaired persons to fully and independently access a
variety of services, says the suit.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision;
others have no vision.

Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.

Upnycstore.com is a commercial website that offers products and
services for online sale. The online store allows the user to view
shoes, apparel and accessories, make purchases, and perform a
variety of other functions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

VALLEY OAKS HEALTH: Smith Files Suit in N.D. Indiana
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Valley Oaks Health,
Inc. The case is styled as Jason Smith, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Valley Oaks Health, Inc., Case
No. 4:24-cv-00030-GSL-JEM (N.D. Ind., April 9, 2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Valley Oaks Health -- https://valleyoaks.org/ -- provides
comprehensive, high-quality mental health, addiction care and
primary medical care based on the needs of Hoosiers living in
Benton, Carroll, Fountain, Jasper, Montgomery, Newton, Tippecanoe,
Warren, and White Counties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
          111 W. Jackson St., Ste. 1700
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Phone: (312) 984-0000
          Email: malmstrom@whafh.com


VARO MONEY: Medlin Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
JAMES MEDLIN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. VARO MONEY, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-02932 (N.D. Cal.,
May 14, 2024) accuses the Defendant of failing to properly secure
and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class members' personally
identifiable information, which gave rise to a massive data breach.


On March 12, 2024, the Defendant discovered a cyberattack on its
systems, exposing Plaintiff's and similarly situated persons' PII
to unauthorized individuals. The Defendant only began informing
those affected by the data breach on May 7, 2024, and failed to
disclose to them when or for how long the incident occurred. The
Plaintiff blames Defendant's inadequate data security measures for
the cyberattack, claiming that Defendant failed to ensure that
Plaintiff's and Class members' private information was sufficiently
protected. The Plaintiff asserts claims for negligence, breach of
implied contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, and violations of California's Unfair Competition
Law.
      
Varo Money, Inc. is an all-digital bank based in San Francisco, CA.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
        Laura Van Note, Esq.
        Elizabeth R. Klos, Esq.
        COLE & VAN NOTE     
        555 12th Street, Suite 2100
        Oakland, CA 94607
        Telephone: (510) 891-9800
        Facsimile: (310) 566-9886
        E-mail: sec@colevannote.com
                lvn@colevannote.com
                erk@colevannote.com

VEGAMOUR INC: Fernandez Sues Over Access Barriers to Online Store
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VEGAMOUR, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-03795 (S.D.N.Y., May 16, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.vegamour.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: missing alternative text (alt-text), hidden elements on
web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups,
unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that
some events be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit.

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

Vegamour, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services,
doing business in New York. [BN]

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

VESTIS CORP: Faces Plumbers Suit Over Stock Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------
PLUMBERS, PIPEFITTERS AND APPRENTICES LOCAL NO. 112 PENSION FUND,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
VESTIS CORPORATION, KIMBERLY SCOTT, and RICK DILLON, Case No.
1:24-cv-02175-SDG (N.D. Ga., May 17, 2024) is a federal securities
class action on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased
Vestis common stock between October 2, 2023 and May 1, 2024,
inclusive, against Vestis and certain officers and executives of
Vestis, seeking to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Vestis, based in Roswell, Georgia, was created as the result of its
September 2023 spinoff from food service and facilities services
provider Aramark, in which Vestis became an independent publicly
traded company (the "Spinoff").

Prior to the Spinoff, the company that was to become Vestis
operated as the Aramark Uniform Services division of Aramark,
providing rental uniforms and workplace supplies, including:
uniform delivery; laundering for rental linens, floor mats, and
towels; restroom services; and first-aid supplies.

Vestis began trading as a public company on October 2, 2023 (the
first day of the Class Period) on the New York Stock Exchange (the
"NYSE") under the ticker symbol "VSTS." Vestis continues to provide
rental uniforms and workplace supplies in the United States and
Canada. Leading up to the Class Period, on Sept. 13, 2023, the
soon-to-be Vestis executives held "the very first Vestis Analyst
Day." Incoming Vestis Chief Executive Officer Kimberly Scott
explained that she had "joined Aramark Uniform Services a couple of
years ago with the intent of preparing the business for this exact
moment." During the same Analyst Day call, Defendants identified
three areas of the business that would support growth, including
high quality new customers.

Throughout the Analyst Day call, Defendants painted an
overwhelmingly positive picture of the state of the business that
would become Vestis, claiming to have: data analytics with a focus
on its customer base; sales representatives who could cross-sell
the existing customer base; and a sales force that was identifying
and developing new customers. The truth was revealed to investors
before markets opened on May 2, 2024, when Vestis issued a press
release reporting its financial results for the second quarter of
FY2024 ended March 29, 2024. The Company reported revenue of $705
million, a mere 0.9% year-over-year increase. CEO Scott was quoted
in the press release, stating, "Our results in the quarter and our
outlook for the year are not in line with expectations," the suit
alleges.

On this news, the price of Vestis stock plunged 45%—from a
closing price of $18.47 per share on May 1, 2024, to a closing
price of $10.16 per share on May 2, 2024—wiping out more than $1
billion in shareholder value.

Based in Binghamton, New York, Plaintiff Local 112 administers a
retirement benefit plan of $80 million with 318 active members, 380
retired members receiving benefits, and another 138 members who are
retired or separated with a right to future benefits.

Defendant Vestis Corporation is incorporated under the laws of
Delaware with its principal executive offices located in Roswell,
Georgia. The Individual Defendants are directors of the
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           W. Thomas Lacy, Jr.
           LINDSEY & LACY, PC
           200 Westpark Drive, Suite 280
           Peachtree City, GA 30269
           Telephone: (770) 486-8445
           Facsimile: (770) 486-8889
           E-mail: tlacy@llptc.com

                 - and -

           Rachel A. Avan, Esq.
           Marco A. Duenas, Esq.
           SAXENA WHITE P.A.
           10 Bank Street, Suite 882
           White Plains, NY 10606
           Telephone: (914) 437-8551
           Facsimile: (888) 631-3611
           E-mail: ravan@saxenawhite.com
                   mduenas@saxenawhite.com

VMD SYSTEMS: Rue & Boshnack Sue Over Untimely Payment of Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
CASEY RUE and LISA BOSHNACK, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VMD SYSTEMS INTEGRATORS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00476 (W.D.N.Y., May 16, 2024) arises
from Defendant's untimely payment of wages to Plaintiff and all
similarly situated manual employees, unlawful deductions, and
failure to provide compliant pay statements. Plaintiffs alleges
that the Defendant violated the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant as privately employed
airport security guards/screeners and were manual workers within
the meaning of NYLL. Rather than have weekly pay periods, Defendant
established a semi-monthly pay period from the beginning of the
Class period through July 14, 2023. As a result, Plaintiffs and the
Class were not paid weekly as required by NYLL, says the suit.

Headquartered in Fairfax, VA, VMD is a security contractor that
provides privately-employed security agents for various airports
including Rochester. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Harvey P. Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS & SANDERS
          401 Maryvale Drive
          Cheektowaga, NY 14225
          Telephone: (716) 839-1489

                 - and -

          Orin Kurtz, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          150 East 52nd Street, 1 l th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 905-0509
          Facsimile: (212) 905-0508
          E-mail: okurtz@gardylaw.com

WARM THINGS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Fernandez Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WARM THINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-03830 (S.D.N.Y., May 17, 2024), arises from Defendant's
denial of full and equal access to its website and alleges that the
Defendant violated the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.

On January 17, 2024 Plaintiff visited Defendant's website to
purchase the Supremium Extra-Fill Hungarian Goose Down Pillow.
Despite Plaintiff's efforts, however, Plaintiff was denied a
shopping experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to
the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations,
which effectively barred Plaintiff from having an unimpeded
shopping experience. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this civil
rights action against Defendant for the failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

Warm Things, Inc. owns and operates the website,
www.warmthingsonline.com, which sells  several bedding products
including down comforters, down and feather pillows, pillow
protectors, mattress toppers and pads, sheets, duvet covers, and
baby bedding items. [BN]

The Plaintiffs is represented by:

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

WEBTPA EMPLOYER: Faces Hawkins Class Suit Over Consumer Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RONNYE HAWKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WEBTPA EMPLOYER SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02060
(N.D. Tex., May 16, 2024) is a data breach consumer class action
arising out of the Defendant's failure adhere to its duty to
implement reasonable and industry standard cybersecurity practices,
which led to the Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal
identifiable information being divulged to cybercriminals bent on
extortion and identity theft.

The Defendant's alleged failures allowed a targeted cyberattack to
compromise Defendant's network (the "Data Breach”) that, upon
information and belief, contained personally identifiable
information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") of
Plaintiff and other individuals. The Data Breach occurred between
April 18, 2023, and April 23, 2023, and Defendant began sending
notice letters to Class Members on May 8, 2024.

The Defendant is a third-party administrator that provides the
following services: custom health plans for self-funded employer
groups; hospitals health plans; and administrative outsourcing. The
Defendant confirmed the Data Breach on March 25, 2024. Defendant
posted a Notice of Data Security Incident on its website
acknowledging the Data Breach.

Plaintiff Ronney Hawkins is an adult individual who at all relevant
times has been a citizen and resident of the State of Illinois. The
Plaintiff received medical services at a hospital or provider that
used WebTPA as a third-party administrator.

WEBTPA EMPLOYER SERVICES, LLC is a third-party administrator for
claims adjudication for certain products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

WEBTPA EMPLOYER: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Wood Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HEAVENLE WOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WEBTPA EMPLOYER SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01164-S
(N.D. Tex., May 15, 2024) sues the Defendant for failing to
implement reasonable and industry standard data security practices,
allowing a targeted cyberattack to compromise the Defendant's
network that contained personally identifiable information of the
Plaintiff and the Class Members.

The Data Breach occurred between April 18, 2023, and April 23,
2023, and the Defendant began sending notice letters to Class
Members on May 8, 2024. As a result of the Data Breach, the
Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a current, imminent, and
ongoing risk of fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class
Members must now and for years into the future closely monitor
their medical and financial accounts to guard against identity
theft, the lawsuit says.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendant
seeking redress for its unlawful conduct and asserting claims for:
negligence and negligence per se, breach of third-party beneficiary
contract, unjust enrichment and breach of fiduciary duty.

The Plaintiff seeks remedies including compensatory damages,
reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief
including improvements to the Defendant's data security systems,
future annual audits, as well as long-term and adequate credit
monitoring services funded by Defendant, and declaratory relief.

The Plaintiff received medical services at a hospital or provider
that used WebTPA as a third-party administrator. As a condition of
obtaining medical services at WebTPA's clients, Plaintiff was
required to provide Defendant, directly or indirectly, with her
Private Information, including her name, contact information, date
of birth and Social Security number.

The Defendant is a third-party administrator that provides custom
health plans for self-funded employer groups, hospitals health
plans, and administrative outsourcing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

                - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: 786 289-9469
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

WEBTPA EMPLOYER: France Sues Over Private Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
CORY FRANCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WEBTPA EMPLOYER SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01179-E
(N.D. Tex., May 16, 2024) accuses the Defendant of failure to
adequately secure and safeguard personally identifiable
information, resulting in a data breach.

The Defendant experienced a data breach between April 18 and April
23, 2023 during which the personal information of Plaintiff and
Class members was accessed and/or obtained by an unauthorized
actor. Defendant only notified affected individuals of the data
breach on or about May 8, 2024, more than a year after the
incident. Defendant had a duty and obligation to keep Plaintiff and
Class members' private information confidential, safe, secure, and
protected from unauthorized disclosure or access. The Defendant
allegedly failed in that aspect by not implementing and maintaining
reasonable safeguards and failing to comply with industry-standard
data security practices, says the suit.

The Plaintiff brings claims for negligence and negligence per se,
unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty, and also seeks
declaratory judgment and injunctive relief.      

WebTPA Employer Services, LLC is a third-party administrator based
in Irving, TX. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and -
     
        Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
        Kevin M. Cox, Esq.
        THE LYON FIRM
        2754 Erie Ave.
        Cincinnati, OH 45208
        Telephone: (513) 381-2333
        Facsimile: (513) 766-9011
        E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com
                kcox@thelyonfirm.com

WEBTPA EMPLOYER: Rivera Sues Over Inadequate Data Security
----------------------------------------------------------
JESUS RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WEBTPA EMPLOYER SERVICES, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:24-cv-01172-B (N.D. Tex., May 16, 2024) arises out of
Defendant’s failures to implement reasonable and industry
standard data security practices to properly secure, safeguard, and
adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive
personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored
for its business purposes and asserts claims for negligence and
negligence per se, breach of third-party beneficiary contract,
unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted
cyberattack to compromise Defendant's network that contained PII of
Plaintiff and other individuals. The data breach occurred between
April 18, 2023, and April 23, 2023. However, Defendant only began
sending notice letters to Class Members on May 8, 2024. Moreover,
Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff and Class Members with prompt
and full notice of the data breach, says the suit.

Headquartered in Irving, TX, WebTPA Employer Services, LLC is a
third-party administrator that provides several services, including
custom health plans for self-funded employer groups, hospitals
health plans, and administrative outsourcing. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

                  - and -

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

WELLS FARGO: Perez Sues Over Nonpayment of Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
SABRINA PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-04077-ODW-AS (N.D. Cal., May 16, 2024) accuses the
Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

While employed by Wells Fargo as a Senior Premier Banker, the
Plaintiff consistently worked more than 40 hours per workweek
without receiving overtime pay for all the hours she worked. Wells
Fargo does not pay overtime to workers like Plaintiff even if their
primary duties consist of work that is not exempt from overtime pay
under federal and state laws. Accordingly, this class action seeks
to recover unpaid overtime pay and other damages for Plaintiff and
similarly situated individuals who have worked as
exempt-classified, says the suit.

Headquartered in San Francisco, CA, Wells Fargo provides financial
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
          Kaelyn Mahar, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          One California Street, 12th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 638-8800
          Facsimile: (415) 638-8810
          E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com
                  kmahar@outtengolden.com

                  - and -

          Michael J. Scimone, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
          E-mail: mscimone@outtengolden.com

WILLIAM BURNS: Court Dismisses Brewer Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENNIS SHELDON BREWER, v.
WILLIAM BURNS, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00149-MKD (E.D. Wash.), the
Hon. Judge Mary K. Dimke entered an order dismissing the Brewer
action and denying the Plaintiff's motions as moot.

The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915(a)(3) that
any appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith and would
lack any arguable basis in law or fact.

The District Court Executive is directed to file this Order, enter
judgment, provide copies to pro se Plaintiff, and CLOSE THE FILE.

The Court notes that even if the case was not dismissed, the
Plaintiff is not able to represent anyone's interest but his own
because he is not a lawyer, as he has been previously informed. His
motion to certify a class would therefore be denied.

Plaintiff's motion for class certification contains a request for
appointment of counsel. The Court construes the request as a motion
for appointment of pro bono counsel. The motion requests
appointment of counsel "for the class," and as such the Court
denies the motion as moot, because Plaintiff's Complaint is
dismissed as frivolous and because Plaintiff may not bring a class
action as a pro se litigant.

Even if Plaintiff presented the motion as a motion for appointment
of pro bono counsel for himself, rather than for the class, the
motion would be denied.

The Plaintiff has not demonstrated exceptional circumstances
warranting appointment of counsel, and because the claim is
frivolous, Plaintiff cannot succeed on the merits. As such,
Plaintiff's
motion for counsel is denied.

The Plaintiff filed this pro se Complaint on May 6, 2024. The
Plaintiff's Complaint, and accompanying documents, total to 1,1371
pages. The Plaintiff alleges numerous claims, including violation
of his First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, Thirteenth, and
Fourteenth Amendment rights, violation of 18 U.S.C. sections 175,
178(2), 241-421385, 1581, 1584, 1589, 1961-68, 2331, 2340A, 5
U.S.C. section 301, and racketeering, among others.

The Defendants include CHRISTOPHER WRAY, MERRICK GARLAND, RONALD
DAVIS, AVRIL HAINES, LLOYD AUSTIN, CHRISTINE WORMUTH, DR. STEFANIE
TOMPKINS, ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, KIMBERLY CHEATLE, XAVIER BECERRA,
JEANNE MARRAZZO, COLLEEN SHOGAN, ERIC ADAMS, EDWARD CABAN, PATRICK
CALLAHAN, JOHN BILLICH, CHRISTOPHER TRUCILLO, ANTHONY CURETON,
JAMES TODESCO, JENNIFER POKORSKI, PAUL PENZONE, KING COUNTY
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY, FEDERAL WAY
SCHOOL DISTRICT, ESTABLISH INC., ACME MARKETS INC., DANIEL WEINER,
WALMART INC., WALMART (CHINA) INVESTMENT CO., LTD., COSTCO
WHOLESALE CORPORATION, THE KROGER CO., PPG INDUSTRIES INC., INSIGHT
NETWORK SPAIN, TECHNOLOGY SALES LEADS, INC., LOEB & LOEB, LLP,
RAYMOND SULLIVAN, LLC, tRADEKEY.COM, WEBLINK IN PVT., LTD., VISHAL
PATEL, MICHAEL SCIARRA, LUIS m. ASTUDILLO, MATCH GROUP, INC.,
BUMBLE INC., WILLIAM BURNS, STEPHEN BREYER, ANDREW WEISSMAN,
CHARLES ROSENBERG, ROBERT MUELLER, LESLIE CALDWELL, ANTHONY FAUCI,
ROGER STONE, LISA RUBIN, ALEXANDER VINDMAN, ARI MELBER, JOSEPH
ARPAIO, DAVID REICHERT, NEAL KATYAL, THOMAS KEENE, STEPHANIE
CLIFFORD, NORELLE DEAN, MARC CHALOM, OTHER UNKNOWN GOVERNMENT
OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES, and JOHN DOES (UNKNOWN NUMBER),

A copy of the Court's order dated May 21, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pevZmN at no extra
charge.[CC]
 


YASAIYA SHABU-SHABU: Hernandez et al. Seek Proper OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS ERNESTO MERCADO HERNANDEZ, JOSE CARLOS ZAVALA, and JOSE
DAVID AMAYA ZAVALA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. YASAIYA SHABU-SHABU INC. and LIAN
XIA and TONG CHIU, as individuals, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-03591 (E.D.N.Y., May 17, 2024) seeks to recover damages for
egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws
arising out of Plaintiffs' employment at Yasaiya Shabu-Shabu Inc.

The Plaintiffs regularly required to work in excess of 40 hours per
week. However, Defendants only paid Plaintiffs with flat weekly
rate. The Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs with accurate
wage statements that included all hours worked and all wages
received each week when Plaintiffs were paid in violation of the
NYLL, says the suit.

Yasaiya Shabu-Shabu Inc. operates a Japanese restaurant located in
Little Neck, NY. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
         HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
         80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
         Kew Gardens, NY 11415
         Telephone: (718) 263-9591
         Facsimile: (718) 263-9598

ZEGHANI LLC: Website Denied Equal Access to Blind Users, Karim Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA KARIM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ZEGHANI, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-03764 (S.D.N.Y., May 16, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York
State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.zeghani.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading
hierarchy, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without
advance warning, lack of alternative text (alt-text) on graphics,
the lack of navigation links, the lack of adequate labeling of form
fields, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely
with a mouse, says the suit.

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

Zeghani, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services,
doing business in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
       GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
       1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
       Manhasset, NY 11030
       Telephone: (347) 941-4715
       Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has 6,296 PI Claims Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation has recorded 6,296 total claims
pending for the three months ended March 31, 2024, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company states, "Claims have been asserted alleging personal
injury from exposure to asbestos-containing components historically
used in some products manufactured by predecessors of Air & Liquid
(the "Asbestos Liability"). Air & Liquid, and in some cases the
Corporation, are defendants (among a number of defendants, often in
excess of 50 defendants) in claims filed in various state and
federal courts."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fN7SAW


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Reports 398 PI Cases Pending as of March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Natura &Co Holding S.A.'s subsidiary, Avon, has been named as a
defendant in numerous personal injury lawsuits filed in U.S.
courts, alleging that certain talc products the company sold in the
past were contaminated with asbestos, according to the Company's
Form 6-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Many of these actions involve several
co-defendants, including manufacturers of cosmetics and
manufacturers of other products that, unlike the subsidiary Avon's
products, were designed to contain asbestos.

"As of March 31, 2024, there were 398 individual cases pending
against the subsidiary Avon Products, Inc. (during the three
month-period ended March 31, 2024, 38 new cases were started and 12
were dismissed, settled, or otherwise resolved).

"In December 2022, a case titled Chapman, et al, v, Avon Products,
Inc. et al., No, 22STCV05968, resulted in an adverse jury verdict
after a trial, with the jury awarding the plaintiffs a total of
US$36.0 million in compensatory damages and US$10.3 million in
punitive damages against the subsidiary Avon. The Company believes
it has strong grounds to seek the annulment of the judgment in this
case and in January 2023 began the process of appealing the verdict
seeking annulment in the trial court. On March 1, 2023, following
post-trial arguments, the trial court issued a conditional order
reducing the compensatory damages award against the subsidiary Avon
to US$29.3 million. The plaintiffs have challenged the reduction of
the award to the subsidiary Avon and have asserted that the
reduction should only apply to the subsidiary Avon's co-defendant.
The trial court has resolved this issue in the plaintiffs' favor
and the case is on appeal."

A full-text copy of the Form 6-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lSsIzr


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Constellation Energy Has $131MM Est. Liabilities
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Constellation Energy Generation, LLC, has maintained a reserve for
claims associated with asbestos-related personal injury actions at
certain facilities that are currently owned by them or were
previously owned by Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd), PECO
Energy Company, or Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE),
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "At both March 31, 2024 and December 31, 2023,
we recorded estimated liabilities of approximately $131 million in
total for asbestos-related bodily injury claims. As of March 31,
2024, approximately $18 million of this amount related to 219 open
claims presented to us, while the remaining $113 million is for
estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated
to arise through 2055, based on actuarial assumptions and analyses,
which are updated on an annual basis. On a quarterly basis, we
monitor actual experience against the number of forecasted claims
to be received and expected claim payments and evaluate whether
adjustments to the estimated liabilities are necessary.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=w9qYiN

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fundamental Global Faces Product Liability Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fundamental Global Inc. is named as a defendant in personal injury
lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
materials, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "A majority of the cases involve product
liability claims based principally on allegations of past
distribution of commercial lighting products containing wiring that
may have contained asbestos. Each case names dozens of corporate
defendants in addition to Fundamental Global. In Fundamental
Global's experience, a large percentage of these types of claims
have never been substantiated and have been dismissed by the
courts. Fundamental Global has not suffered any adverse verdict in
a trial court proceeding related to asbestos claims and intends to
continue to defend these lawsuits. Under the Fundamental Global
Asset Purchase Agreement, the Company agreed to indemnify
Fundamental Global for future losses, if any related to current
product liability or personal injury claims arising out of products
sold or distributed in the U.S. by the operations of the businesses
being transferred to the Company in the Separation, in an aggregate
amount not to exceed $250,000 per year, as well as to indemnify
Fundamental Global for all expenses (including legal fees) related
to the defense of such claims. As of March 31, 2024, the Company
has a loss contingency reserve of approximately $0.3 million, of
which $0.1 million represents future payments on a settled case and
the remaining $0.2 million represents the Company's estimate of its
potential losses related to the settlement of open cases. When
appropriate, Fundamental Global may settle additional claims in the
future. The Company does not expect the resolution of these cases
to have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Faces 503 PI Lawsuits as of March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
MRC Global Inc., as of March 31, 2024, is named a defendant in
approximately 503 lawsuits involving approximately 1,068 claims,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "We are one of many defendants in lawsuits that
plaintiffs have brought seeking damages for personal injuries that
exposure to asbestos allegedly caused. Plaintiffs and their family
members have brought these lawsuits against a large volume of
defendant entities as a result of the defendants' manufacture,
distribution, supply or other involvement with asbestos, asbestos
containing-products or equipment or activities that allegedly
caused plaintiffs to be exposed to asbestos. These plaintiffs
typically assert exposure to asbestos as a consequence of
third-party manufactured products that our MRC Global (US) Inc.
subsidiary purportedly distributed. No asbestos lawsuit has
resulted in a judgment against us to date, with a majority being
settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved. Applicable third-party
insurance has substantially covered these claims, and insurance
should continue to cover a substantial majority of existing and
anticipated future claims. Accordingly, we have recorded a
liability for our estimate of the most likely settlement of
asserted claims and a related receivable from insurers for our
estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that the amounts of
recovery are probable. It is not possible to predict the outcome of
these claims and proceedings. However, in our opinion, the
likelihood that the ultimate disposition of any of these claims and
legal proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our
condensed consolidated financial statements is remote."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at:
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6ZxjLx


                            *********

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 ***