---

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

              Friday, June 14, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 120

                            Headlines

3M CO: Settles Class Action Over Saipan Water Contamination
APPLE INC: Bodenburg Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling to 9th Cir.
ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to August 8
ASTRAZENECA PHARMA: Bid for Conditional Cert. Denied w/o Prejudice
BANK OF CHINA: S.G. Appeals Dismissal of Futures Contracts Suit

BEYOND INC: Pretrial Management Order Entered in Wahab Class Suit
BLACKBAUD INC: Court Denies Motion to Certify Data Breach Suit
BNP PARIBAS: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Kashef Suit
BOB EVANS: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Mitchell Due April 14, 2025
BRADFORD EXCHANGE: Appeals Remand Order in Ruiz Suit

BROOKDALE SENIOR: Court Tosses Bright Class Cert Bid w/o Prejudice
CONSILIO LLC: Cohen Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to 8th Cir.
CREW AVIATION: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Sept. 16
CVS PHARMACY: Shotorbani Sues Over California Labor Laws' Violation
DAPPER LABS: Agrees to Settle Securities Class Action for $4 Mil.

DOLPHIN MALL: Brito Sues Over Facilities' Noncompliance With ADA
EDDIE BAUER: Court Stays Discovery in Clark Suit
ENVATO ELEMENTS: Faces Class Action Over Subscribers' Data Sharing
EPIC AIRCRAFT: Appeals Class Cert Ruling in Hanney Suit
FORT LAUDERDALE, FL: Protesters File Anew Police Misconduct Suit

GOOGLE INC: May Face Class Action Over Illegal Data Collection
GOOGLE LLC: Andren Appeals Final OK of Location History Suit Deal
GUARDIAN ANALYTICS: Class Settlement in Holden Gets Final Nod
HOST INTERNATIONAL: Court Certifies Three Classes in Lewis Lawsuit
HUGO BOSS: Wright Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid

I FUND: Parties Must Submit Proposed Class Cert Deadlines
J-M MANUFACTURING: Hearing on Daubert Bids Continued to July 8
JC LICHT: Cabana Sues Over Worker Misclassification
JCF HOUSEMENTS: Court Extends Two Phase One Deadlines in Hadley
JEFF ZMUDA: Younger Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Inmates

LEAVING OUR LEGACY: Bouffanie Sues Over Unfair Reimbursement Policy
LENOVO INC: Axelford Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
LENOVO INC: Axelford Suit Seeks to Seal Class Cert Documents
LEVITT ROBINSON: Court Grants Leave to Appeal to Slash Settlement
LG ELECTRONICS: Henenfent Suit Voluntarily Dismissed

LIVE NATION: Confirms Class Suit Over Ticketmaster Data Breach
LLOYD AUSTIN: Seeks to Stay Class Cert Briefing in Feds for Freedom
LONSDALE QUAY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Drip Pricing
LOS COMPADRES: Caballero and Vargas Sue Over Illegal Pay Practices
LUMIO HX: Court Grants Motion to Amend Class Action Complaint

MADONNA: Files Motion to Dismiss False Advertising Class Suit
MARATHON REFINING: Butel Class Cert. Bid Partly OK'd
MARINUS PHARMACEUTICALS: Bishins Sues Over Misleading Statements
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Class Settlement in Rivera Gets Final Nod
MISS KITTY'S: Court Certifies Two Classes in Jones Labor Suit

MISSISSIPPI: Jackson Can File Unredacted Declaration
MOUNTAIRE FARMS: Judge Dismisses Groundwater Contamination Suit
MYEYEDR OPTOMETRY: Parties Must Confer Class Cert. Deadlines
NATERA INC: Schneider Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Class Certification Bids in Cochran Due Nov. 6

NINE NETWORK: Faces Suit Over Sexual Harassment and Discrimination
NORTHERN TRUST: Class Cert Hearing Rescheduled to August 20
OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY: Ct. Directs Voegel Discovery Plan Filing
PITTSBURGH REGIONAL: Class Cert Opposition Reply Due June 17
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Parties Must File Class Cert Papers by July 12

POWER ELECTRONICS: Filing for Conditional Status Bid Due Oct. 30
PREMIUM VELOCITY: Court Extends Time to File Response
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Roberts Appeals Case Dismissal to 6th Cir.
REDBUBBLE INC: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Wallster
RETIREMENT PLAN: Settlement in Durnack Suit Gets Final Nod

REYNOLDS CONSUMER: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Feb. 4, 2025
RYDER INTEGRATED: Parties in Nance Seek to Stay Discovery
SCHENKER INC: Bid to Stay All Pre-Trial Hearings Tossed
SHADE STORE: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Fitzgerald Due Dec. 20
SIGNATURE LANDSCAPE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Nov. 26

SOUTH DAKOTA: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Supplemental Brief
SPRINGFIELD, MA: Bid to Exclude Expert Opinion Tossed
STATE FARM: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Nater Suit
STATE FARM: Epiq Appointed as Class Administrator in Chadwick Suit
STERICYCLE INC: M&A Investigates Merger With Waste Management

SUCCESS SYSTEMS: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid
TD BANK: Parties in Nelipa Ask Court to Set Briefing Schedule
TERVIS TUMBLER: General Pretrial Management Order Entered
UNITED AIRLINES: England Appeals Judgment in Contract Breach Suit
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Sur-Reply

UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Seeks to Seal Material in LD Class Action
UNITED STATES: Brewer Suit Seeks to Certify Class
UNITED STATES: Seeks to Stay Class Cert Proceedings in Mathis
UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS: Cawley et al. Sue Over WARN Act Breaches
VESTIS CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 16

VISA INC: Bid to Enforce Settlement Deal in Antitrust Suit OK'd
VISA INC: Bid to Enforce Settlement Deal in Block Suit OK'd
VISA INC: Bid to Enforce Settlement Deal in Intuit Suit OK'd
VISA INC: Bid to Enforce Settlement Deal in Lanning Suit OK'd
WALMART INC: Carter Discrimination Suit Removed to D. New Jersey

WHEATLEIGH CORP: Challenges Final Approval of Mongue Suit Deal

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Has $14.2MM Asbestos Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: JM Eagle Files Federal Lawsuit Over Fraud Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Patients Sues J&J on Fraudulent Chapter 11 Filings


                            *********

3M CO: Settles Class Action Over Saipan Water Contamination
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Rabago of Saipan Tribute reports that the Office of the
Attorney General said several class action settlements have been
reached to resolve claims of public water systems against certain
companies related to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
contamination of drinking water.

These class action settlements were reached in a large
multi-district litigation known as the Aqueous Film-Forming Foam
Product Liability Litigation, or MDL 2873, overseen by the U.S.
District Court in South Carolina. The settling defendants include:
3M company and E. I. Du Pont de Nemours and company (n/k/a EIDP,
Inc.), DuPont de Nemours Inc., The Chemours Company, the Chemours
Company FC, LLC, and Corteva, inc. (collectively, the "DuPont
Companies").

Public water systems on Saipan may be entitled to monetary relief
under the settlements.

Based on records maintained by CNMI agencies, you may meet the
definition of a public water system and may be eligible to submit a
claim. The amount of compensation each public water system may
receive under the settlement depends on factors including the level
of PFAS contamination in your system and its flow rate. Additional
information about the settlements, including eligibility
requirements, instructions for filing claims, and claim deadlines
is available online at https://www.pfaswatersettlement.com/. Please
note that initial claims are due July 12, 2024.

The CNMI Office of the Attorney General cannot advise you regarding
your eligibility to participate in the class action settlements and
this press release is not legal advice. You will either need to
file a claim on your own behalf or engage your own legal counsel
for assistance.

Separate and apart from these settlements, please note that the
CNMI OAG remains committed to pursuing legal action against
companies responsible for contamination from PFAS. The CNMI OAG's
lawsuit against these companies remains pending. [GN]

APPLE INC: Bodenburg Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling to 9th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff LISA BODENBURG has filed an appeal from the District
Court's May 8, 2024 Order entered in the lawsuit styled LISA
BODENBURG, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. APPLE INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-04409-TLT, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.

This action was filed in the Northern District of California on
Aug. 25, 2023. The core allegation in the complaint is that "Apple
has failed to deliver the cloud storage capacity that class members
paid for and that Apple contracted to deliver" to iCloud+
subscribers because "Apple deliver[s] 5 GB less of cloud storage
than what it had promised."

On Nov. 9, 2023, the Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint.
Apple filed the Motion to Dismiss the FAC and a renewed request for
judicial notice or incorporation by reference on Nov. 24, 2023. On
Dec. 8, 2023, the Plaintiff opposed the Motion to Dismiss and the
renewed request for judicial notice or incorporation by reference.
Apple filed its reply on Dec. 15, 2023.

The Court held an initial case management conference on Jan. 25,
2024 and entered a scheduling order establishing case deadlines
including for class certification.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Defendant
filed a motion on May 6, 2024 pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7-11,
for an order granting an interim stay of this litigation pending
resolution of Apple's Motion to Dismiss.

On May 8, 2024, Judge Trina L. Thompson signed an Order granting
Defendant's motion to dismiss and request for judicial notice and
incorporation by reference.

The appellate case is captioned as Bodenburg v. Apple Inc., Case
No. 24-3335, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, filed on May 28, 2024.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Mediation Questionnaire for Appellant was due June 3, 2024;

   -- Appeal Opening Brief for Appellant is due on July 8, 2024;

   -- Appeal Answering Brief for Appellee is due on August 6,
2024;

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

Defendant-Appellee APPLE INC. is represented by:

          Matthew David Powers, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP
          Two Embarcadero Center 28th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111

ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to August 8
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDRE MILLER, KAARON
WARREN, AND JOE DIGIACINTO, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, V. ARIZONA BEVERAGES USA LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, Case No. 3:23-cv-03540-RFL (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Rita Lin entered an order extending deadlines for
class certification briefing, fact discovery, expert discovery and
dispositive motion:

                  Event                         New Deadline

  Class certification motion                    Aug. 8, 2024

  Defendants' opposition to class               Oct. 17, 2024
  certification and expert disclosures
  opposing class certification

  Plaintiffs reply in support of class          Nov. 19, 2024
  ce1tification

  Defendant's Daubert Motions regarding         Oct. 17, 2024
  Plaintiffs motion for class certification

  Hearing on Class Certification Motion         Jan. 14, 2025

  Dispositive Motion Hearing Date               Mar. 4, 2025

  Close of Expert Discovery                     Dec. 31, 2024

Arizona is a producer of many flavors of iced tea, juice cocktails,
and energy drinks.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 3, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=C2gDZO at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kyle Gurwell, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KYLE GURWELL
          7755 Center Ave Suite 1100
          Huntington Beach, CA 92647

The Defendant is represented by:

          Leticia C. Butler, Esq.
          Olivia J. Miner, Esq.
          WILSON TURNER KOSMO LLP
          402 West Broadway, Suite 1600
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 236-9600
          E-mail: lbutler@wilsonturnerkosmo.com
                  ominer@wilsonturnerkosmo.com

                - and -

          Robert P. Donovan, Esq.
          STEVENS & LEE
          669 River Drive, Suite 201
          Elmwood Park, NJ 07407
          Telephone:(201) 857-6778
          E-mail: robert.donovan@stevenslee.com

ASTRAZENECA PHARMA: Bid for Conditional Cert. Denied w/o Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robert Wilhoit, Christina
Hargrove, Giji Mischel Dennard, Julie Magers, Megan Small, Regina
Rusgrove, and Lisa Marshall, individually, and on behalf of the
class and all others similarly situated, v. AstraZeneca
Pharmaceuticals, LP, Case No. 1:22-cv-01634-GBW-SRF (D. Del.), the
Hon. Judge Gregory Williams entered an order that:

   1. Mag. Judge Fallon's Report and Recommendation (R&R) is
adopted.

   2. Plaintiffs' objection to the R&R is overruled.

   3. Defendant's motion is granted.

   4. Defendant's motion to strike is granted.

   5. Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of the
      collective action is denied without prejudice.

AstraZeneca manufactures, fabricates, and processes drugs in
pharmaceutical preparations.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g8WiUz at no extra
charge.[CC]

BANK OF CHINA: S.G. Appeals Dismissal of Futures Contracts Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs S.G., et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's
Orders entered on April 29, 2024 in the lawsuit styled S.G. and
M.G., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. BANK OF CHINA LTD.; BANK OF CHINA U.S.A.; BOC
INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD.; BOCI COMMODITIES & FUTURES (USA) LLC;
CME GROUP INC.; and NEW YORK MERCANTILE EXCHANGE, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 1:23-cv-02866, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this complaint
filed on April 5, 2023, is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all
similarly situated customers of Defendant Bank of China Ltd. in and
outside China, who were lured to purchase the Crude Oil Treasure
(COT) between January, 2018 and April, 2020 and suffered staggering
loss.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants colluded
in an unlawful scheme to devise, implement and market to mass
retail market the COT in violation of Commodity Exchange Act. The
COT is an extremely risky derivative investment product
encapsulating the West Texas Intermediate light sweet crude oil
futures contracts traded on the NYMEX, a futures and options
exchange owned and operated by Defendants CME Group Inc. and New
York Mercantile Exchange, Inc.

The Defendants managed the COT in a reckless and negligent manner,
especially in the case of May 2020 WTI futures contracts, in breach
of their contractual and fiduciary duty owed to Plaintiffs,
resulting in irreparable and severe harm to Plaintiffs, says the
suit.

On April 29, 2024, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan ruled that in view of
BOCI's joinder on the motions to dismiss by other Defendants, the
complaint is dismissed also as to BOCI for the reasons stated in
the decision granting those motions to dismiss. BOCI's March 8,
2024 motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is denied
as moot. The order, together with the Memorandum Opinion of even
date, dispose of this action as to all Defendants except Bank of
China Ltd. ("BOC"), which is based in China and has not been served
in the more than a year during which this action has been pending.
In the circumstances, there is no just reason for delay. The Clerk,
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), also entered Final Judgment
dismissing the action as to all Defendants except BOC.

The appellate case is captioned as S.G. v. Bank of China Ltd., Case
No. 24-1426, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, filed on May 24, 2024.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants S.G. and M.G., on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, are represented by:

          John Y. Tang, Esq.
          TANG PC
          1702 Flushing Ave
          Ridgewood, NY 11385

Defendants-Appellees BANK OF CHINA U.S.A., et al., are represented
by:

          Brian Stryker Weinstein, Esq.
          DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP NYC
          450 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017

               - and -

          Jonathan K. Youngwood, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          425 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017

               - and -

          Shari A. Brandt, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          1155 Avenue of the Americas 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10036

BEYOND INC: Pretrial Management Order Entered in Wahab Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELA WAHAB, v. BEYOND,
INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-03786-JHR-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial
management as follows:

-- All pretrial motions and applications, including those related
to
    scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or
for
    judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary
    judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23)

    must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's

    Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's
    website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses.

-- Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must
be
    initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set
by
    the Court.

-- Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting
    discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for

    such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil
Rule
    37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices.

-- For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion
conferences
    are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe
that
    an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for
a
    motion or narrow the issues.

Beyond provides household products.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fsoZ1L at no extra
charge.[CC]

BLACKBAUD INC: Court Denies Motion to Certify Data Breach Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
D. Howard Kass, writing for MSSP Alert, reports that a U.S.
District Court judge in South Carolina has denied a motion to
certify a class action lawsuit against Blackbaud, a third-party
software and data services provider hit by a large cyber breach in
February 2020.

Judge Joseph Anderson Jr. said that a method proposed by the
plaintiffs' experts had not shown how class members would be
determined. That was that, inasmuch as the class action, based on
the number of records stolen in the high-profile heist, could have
reached 1.5 million people. Some estimates put it as high as 20
million individuals.

"Given Plaintiffs' failure to provide this Court with an
administratively feasible method of ascertaining class members,
this Court declines to join the minority of courts that have
certified a class in a consumer data breach case such as this,"
Judge Anderson wrote.

Blackbaud sells tools for fundraising, nonprofit financial
management and education. Its customers include nonprofit
organizations, foundations, schools and healthcare organizations.
The company claims that more than $100 billion is raised, granted
or invested through its software annually.

Its channel partners include independent software providers (ISVs),
referral partners and developers involved in building, selling,
referral and service solutions.

Blackbaud has been the target of an unsolicited offer by private
equity firm Clearlake for $4.3 billion.

Clearlake had initially offered $71 a share but later upped its bid
to $80. Clearlake invested in Blackbaud in 2020 and currently owns
an 18.9% stake in the company.

Blackbaud subsequently rejected the revised offer in mid-May, the
NonProfitTimes reported.

Blackbaud Pays Ransom in Bitcoin

As for the cyberattack, Blackbaud was hacked in February 2020 and
information was compromised on roughly 1.5 billion individuals from
some 13,000 Blackbaud customers. The breach was not discovered by
the company until May 14, 2020, and customers were not notified
until July 16, 2020.

Blackbaud paid the hackers 24 Bitcoin, valued at the time at about
$250,000, in exchange for the attacker's promise to delete the
stolen data. But Blackbaud reportedly has been unable to confirm
that the attackers actually destroyed the data.

Blackbaud has already paid several penalties stemming from the
breach. In 2023, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) said
Blackbaud agreed to pay a $3 million fine to settle charges for
making misleading disclosures about the ransomware attack.

Blackbaud claimed that the ransomware attackers had not stolen
donor bank account information or social security numbers when it
had, in fact, exfiltrated that material and other personally
identifiable information (PII).

The SEC further determined that Blackbaud lacked proper disclosure
controls and procedures and, as a result, omitted material
information about the cyber breach in an August 2020 quarterly
filing.

Separately, in October 2023, Blackbaud agreed to pay $49.5 million
to settle investigations by 49 states and the District of Columbia.
California's attorney general did not participate in the
agreement.

The action by the SEC presaged its new regulation that went into
effect in December 2023 requiring registrants to report a security
incident in an 8-K document within four business days of the
incident. [GN]

BNP PARIBAS: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Kashef Suit
------------------------------------------------------
BNP PARIBAS SA, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's
May 9, 2024 Order entered in the lawsuit styled ENTESAR OSMAN
KASHEF, et al., v. BNP PARIBAS SA, a French corporation; and B.N.P.
Paribas US Wholesale Holdings, Corp. (f/k/a BNP Paribas North
America, Inc.), a Delaware corporation, Case No.
1:16-cv-03228-AKH-JW, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The Plaintiffs in this action are 19 U.S. residents who formerly
lived in Sudan and allege that they were harmed at the hands of the
Sudanese government (or militia groups allegedly linked to the
government) between 1997 and 2011. They claim BNP Paribas SA (BNPP)
and its New York subsidiary are secondarily liable under Swiss tort
law for their varied injuries based on financial services that BNPP
provided to the Sudanese government and Sudanese entities during
the class period. Plaintiffs have sought approval to proceed on
behalf of a class of over 23,000 individuals, each of whom
Plaintiffs allege suffered human-rights abuses during that period
stemming from the complex ethnic, tribal, and political conflicts
that embroiled the country for decades.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge Alvin
Hellerstein entered an Order on May 9, 2024 granting the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify the class for the reasons described
in the transcript of the oral argument held on May 7, 2024.

The class is defined as: All refugees or asylees admitted by the
United States who formerly lived in Sudan or South Sudan between
November 1997 and December 2011. The Court found that the class,
estimated to be over 23,000 individuals, is sufficiently numerous
such that joinder is impracticable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(l).

The appellate case is captioned as Kashef et al. v. BNP Paribas SA
et al., Case No. : 24-1446, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, filed on May 28, 2024.[BN]

Defendants-Petitioners BNP PARIBAS SA, a French corporation, and
B.N.P. PARIBAS US WHOLESALE HOLDINGS CORP. (f/k/a BNP Paribas North
America, Inc.), a Delaware corporation, are represented by:

          Carmine D. Boccuzzi, Jr., Esq.
          Abena Mainoo, Esq.
          Charity E. Lee, Esq.
          Katherine Lynch, Esq.
          CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP
          One Liberty Plaza
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 225-2000

               - and -

          Karen Patton Seymour, Esq.
          Suhana S. Han, Esq.
          Alexander J. Willscher, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 558-4000

BOB EVANS: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Mitchell Due April 14, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RODNEY MITCHELL, et al.,
v. BOB EVANS RESTAURANTS, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-02123-MHW-KAJ (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Kimberly Jolson entered an order setting the
following deadlines based upon the parties' previous scheduling
order:

  Discovery Due: Feb. 12, 2025

  Dispositive Motions Due: March 31, 2025

  Motions for Class Certification, Final Certification, or
  Decertification Due: April 14, 2025

  Primary Expert Reports Due: Feb. 12, 2025

  Rebuttal Expert Reports Due: March 12, 2025

  Plaintiffs will make a settlement demand by March 12, 2025.
  Defendant will respond within fourteen days of that demand.

  Plaintiffs' motion is due July 22, 2024; Defendant's response is
due
  Aug. 27, 2024; and Plaintiffs' reply is due Sept. 10, 2024).

Bob Evans is a chain of family style restaurants founded and
headquartered in Columbus, Ohio.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0EZqvI at no extra
charge.[CC]

BRADFORD EXCHANGE: Appeals Remand Order in Ruiz Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The Bradford Exchange, Ltd. has filed an appeal from the District
Court's May 16, 2024 Order entered in the lawsuit styled Jose Ruiz,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The
Bradford Exchange, LTD., Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No.
3:23-cv-01800-WQH-KSC, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case was removed from
the Superior Court, San Diego County, to the Southern District of
California on Sept. 28, 2023.

The Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendant under the
California's False Advertising Law and the Unfair Competition Law
based on allegations that Defendant enrolled customers in an
ongoing subscription program without their knowledge or consent.

On October 11, 2023, the Plaintiff filed the Motion to Remand,
which requests that the Court remand this action to state court on
the basis that it lacks equitable jurisdiction.

On October 30, 2023, the Defendant filed a Response in opposition
to the Motion to Remand. On November 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed a
Reply.

On March 4, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Supplemental
Authority.

On May 16, District Judge William Q. Hayes entered an Order
granting Plaintiff's motion to remand to state court.

The appellate case is captioned as The Bradford Exchange, Ltd. v,
Ruiz, Case No. 24-3372, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 29, 2024.[BN]

BROOKDALE SENIOR: Court Tosses Bright Class Cert Bid w/o Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEGHAN BRIGHT, ET AL, v.
BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-00374 (M.D. Tenn.),
the Hon. Judge William Campbell, Jr. will deny the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification without prejudice.

The parties' motions to exclude expert witnesses will also be
denied without prejudice. An appropriate Order will enter.

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs' proposed criteria for
determining enforceability of arbitration agreement is likely to
result in individualized discovery for each arbitration agreement
and that individualized questions regarding the enforceability of
the arbitration agreements directly impact class membership
eligibility. While the individualized inquiries precluding the
proposed class definitions from satisfying Rule 23 may be satisfied
if Plaintiffs proposed different class definitions to address the
issues described above, the proposed definitions fail to
predominate over questions affecting individual members.

The Plaintiffs allege that Brookdale systematically and willfully
understaffed communities to meet predetermined corporate labor
budgets and profit margins using a staffing algorithm known as the
Service Alignment Operating Software ("SAOP") to purposely dilute
and underestimate the staffing time actually needed in communities.


On Aug. 14, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed the pending Motion for Class
Certification.

The Plaintiffs proposed the following classes for certification
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3):

   (1) North Carolina Classes:

       a. North Carolina Consumer Protection Class:

          "All persons who resided at a Brookdale assisted living
or
          memory care facility in North Carolina between April 24,

          2016 and this Court's preliminary approval date of the
          class, whether currently or formerly residing, and who
          contracted with a Brookdale facility to assess their
          personal service needs and develop a Personal Service
Plan
          for which they paid, but for whom there does not exist an

          arbitration agreement that Brookdale can enforce"; and
       b. North Carolina Contract Class:

          "All persons included in the North Carolina consumer
          protection class except residents whose contractual
          relationship with Brookdale is governed exclusively by a

          predecessor's agreement and not by a standard Brookdale
          agreement.

   (2) Florida Classes:

       a. Florida Consumer Protection Class:

          "All persons who resided at a Brookdale assisted living
or
          memory care facility in Florida between March 14, 2022
and
          this Court's preliminary approval of the class, whether
          currently or formerly residing, and who contracted with a

          Brookdale facility to assess their personal service needs

          and develop a Personal Service Plan for which they paid,
but
          for whom there does not exist an arbitration agreement
that
          Brookdale can enforce"; and

       b. Florida Contract Class:

          "All persons who resided at a Brookdale assisted living
or
          memory care facility in Florida between May 3, 2015 and
this
          Court’s preliminary approval of the class, whether
currently
          or formerly residing, and who contracted with a Brookdale

          facility to assess their personal service needs and
develop
          a Personal Service Plan for which they paid, but for whom

          there does not exist an arbitration agreement that
Brookdale
          can enforce."

The Defendant owns and operates retirement homes across the United
States.

A copy of the Court's memorandum dated June 5, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jzqlNo at no extra
charge.[CC]

CONSILIO LLC: Cohen Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to 8th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Bruce Charles Cohen has filed an appeal from the District
Court's Order dated April 24, 2024 entered in the lawsuit styled
Bruce C. Cohen, individually, as private attorney general, and on
behalf of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Consilio
LLC, and Consilio Services, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
0:20-cv-01689-DSD-DTS, in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota.

The Plaintiffs filed this suit on August 4, 2020 seeking unpaid
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Minnesota Overtime Statute, and other similar state statutes. They
further seek to enjoin Defendants from engaging in the unauthorized
practice of law in Minnesota because Defendants failed to register
and comply with the registration and reporting requirements of the
Minnesota Professional Firms Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 319B.
They further seek declaratory judgments under Delaware and Virginia
law regarding the unlawful splitting of fees the result from the
unauthorized practice of law.

On May 27, 2021, the Court entered an Order granting in part
Defendants' September 11, 2020 motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction; denying Plaintiff's motion to alter/amend/supplement
pleadings; denying Plaintiff's February 26, 2021 motion to
alter/amend/supplement pleadings.

On March 6, 2024, the Court ruled that the Defendants' August 22,
2023 motion for summary judgment is granted and the case is
dismissed with prejudice. The Court's Order specifically dismissed
Cohen's claims under the Minnesota Wage Theft Act, the Minnesota
Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Minnesota Payment of Wages Act.

Cohen argues that the court erred in three ways.  

Cohen first contends that the court erred in determining that he is
not entitled to seek statutory penalties under the MPWA.  Second,
he claims that the court erred in dismissing his MFLSA claims with
prejudice because it deprives him of the right to seek injunctive
relief requiring Consilio to obey the law. Third, he argues that
the court erred in not allowing him to pursue attorney's fees.  

On April 2, the Plaintiff filed a motion to alter/amend/correct
judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Judge
David S. Doty denied the motion on April 24.

The appellate case is captioned as Bruce Cohen v. Consilio, LLC, et
al., Case No. 24-2079, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit, filed on May 24, 2024.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Transcript is due on or before July 3, 2024;

   -- Appendix is due on July 15, 2024;

   -- BRIEF APPELLANT, Bruce Charles Cohen, is due on July 15,
2024; and

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues
the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Bruce Charles Cohen, individually, as private
attorney general, and on behalf of similarly situated individuals,
is represented by:

          Matt J. Pierce, Esq.
          ASHER & GITTLER
          200 W. Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1900
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 263-1600

               - and -

          Earl John Singh, Esq.
          SINGH & SINGH
          1012 Grain Exchange Building
          400 S. Fourth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55415-0000
          Telephone: (612) 332-0351

Defendant-Appellee Consilio Services, LLC is represented by:

          Grant Daniel Goerke, Esq.
          John H. Lassetter, Esq.
          LITTLER & MENDELSON
          1300 IDS Center
          80 S. Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-2136
          Telephone: (612) 313-7614

CREW AVIATION: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Sept. 16
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOM LAWSON, et al., v.
CREW AVIATION, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00374-BJB-CHL (W.D.
Ky.), the Hon. Judge Colin Lindsay entered an order granting the
joint motion to extend deadlines filed by the Parties.

The Court's Jan. 10, 2024 Scheduling Order is amended as follows:

   (1) On or before Aug. 1, 2024, the Parties shall jointly report
on
       the status of discovery and on settlement discussions,
       including: (1) the Parties' respective positions on
scheduling
       a settlement conference or ex parte calls regarding
settlement;
       (2) whether settlement discussions remain ongoing; and (3)
any
       respective proposals for resolving the case. The report
shall
       not include the terms of any offers or demands.

   (2) Close of class certification discovery: Aug. 15, 2024

   (3) The telephonic status conference shall remain as scheduled
on
       Sept. 10, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. ET before Magistrate Judge
Colin
       H. Lindsay. Counsel for the Parties shall connect to the
       conference by dialing toll free number 1-888-808-6929 and
       entering access code 2773744#.

   (4) Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed no

       later than Sept. 16, 2024. Responses and replies shall be
filed
       consistent with the Local Rules.

   (5) Close of fact discovery: Sept. 30, 2024

   (6) Disclosure of experts (Rule 26(a)(2))
       a. By Plaintiff: Oct. 3, 2024
       b. By Defendants: Nov. 22, 2024

   (7) Close of expert discovery: Jan. 17, 2025

   (8) All Daubert/dispositive motions shall be filed no later than

       Feb. 17, 2025. Responses and replies shall be filed
consistent
       with the Local Rules.

Crew Aviation offers executive–level air travel and associated
services.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=y7N0oT at no extra
charge.[CC]

CVS PHARMACY: Shotorbani Sues Over California Labor Laws' Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Styf of Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Suzanne
Shotorbani filed a class action lawsuit under the Private Attorneys
General Act against CVS Pharmacy.

Why: The lawsuit claims that CVS violated California labor laws
related to overtime, breaks, employment documentation and more.

Where: The CVS class action was filed in Los Angeles County
Superior Court in California.

A former CVS employee filed a class action lawsuit under the
Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claiming that CVS Pharmacy
violated California labor laws related to overtime, breaks,
employment documentation and more.

A PAGA lawsuit could lead to a set of statutory fines of between
$50-$100 for the first employment law violation per pay period and
double that for the second offense and beyond.

Three quarters of the fine amount would go to the Labor and
Workforce Development Agency for the enforcement of labor laws and
education of employers and employees about their rights and
responsibilities; the other 25% would go to the class of current
and former hourly, non-exempt CVS employees.

CVS required work during meal breaks, before/after shifts, lawsuit
says

The plaintiff, who worked at CVS from 2007 until March 2024, claims
in the lawsuit that employees were regularly required to "perform
work tasks before and/or after their scheduled shifts, and/or
during off-the-clock meal breaks and/or during rest breaks" due to
understaffing.

The PAGA complaint alleges that CVS failed to provide proper
employment records upon request, follow overtime and double time
rules, provide meal breaks and rest time, pay minimum wage, keep
accurate itemized payroll records, pay reporting time wages, pay
split shift wages, pay wages earned on time, pay fully upon
resignation, provide notice of sick time and vacation accrual and
reimburse business-related expenses.

SaaS company Quantum Metric wiretapped the electronic
communications of visitors to CVS's website and, in doing so,
captured personally identifiable information (PII) such as
prescription and over-the-counter medication activity, a class
action lawsuit from a month ago claims.

The plaintiff is represented by Haig B. Kazandjian, Cathy Gonzalez
and Melissa Robinson of Haig B. Kazandjian Lawyers APC.

The CVS class action lawsuit is Shotorbani v. CVS Pharmacy Inc.,
Case No. 24VECV02441, in the Superior Court of the State of
California County of Los Angeles.[GN]

DAPPER LABS: Agrees to Settle Securities Class Action for $4 Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cheyenne Ligon, writing for CoinDesk, reports that Dapper Labs has
reached a tentative settlement agreement with a group of investors
who sued the non-fungible token (NFT) company and its co-founder
and CEO Roham Gharegozlou for allegedly violating federal
securities laws.

If approved by District Court Judge Victor of the Southern District
of New York (SDNY), the settlement would bring a nearly
three-year-long legal battle to an end.

In 2021, the class action plaintiffs accused Dapper Labs' flagship
product -- the NBA Top Shot Moments -- of being unregistered
securities because, they said, the value of the NFTs would increase
with the popularity of the project as a whole. Plaintiffs also
claimed that Dapper Labs prevented investors from cashing out for
"months on end" to keep value locked on the platform, and did not
allow Moments to be bought or sold on outside NFT platforms at the
time the suit was filed.

In subsequent court filings, Dapper Labs' lawyers vehemently denied
that their NFTs were securities, arguing that they were essentially
digital basketball cards.

The settlement agreement would bar the plaintiffs from claiming
that their NFTs are securities, in exchange for an aggregate
settlement fund of $4 million. According to Gharegozlou, the money
will go towards payments to the class members, attorneys' fees and
settlement administrator costs.

Dapper Labs also agreed to other business changes to settle the
suit, according to a representative for the company, including the
implementation of mandatory employee training programs focused on
"compliance with federal securities laws and ethical marketing
practices" and increased payment and withdrawal speeds.

Additionally, Dapper Labs promised to relinquish any control over
its remaining FLOW tokens to the Flow Foundation to ensure the
decentralization of the Flow ecosystem.

Though the proposed settlement is between Dapper Labs and
investors, not regulators, Gharegozlou told CoinDesk the agreement
was a "great start" towards increased legal clarity on whether the
company's NFTs can be classified as securities.

"We are continuing to push for more overarching regulatory clarity
to showcase that consumer NFTs are not financial products and, as
such, should be regulated under well-established consumer
protection regimes at the state level," Gharegozlou said. "This
includes pushing for legislation at the federal level that makes it
clear that consumer product NFTs, such as NBA Top Shot, are not
subject to federal financial regulation."

Gharegozlou added that the company is "not aware of any regulator"
like the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) claiming
that Moments NFTs are securities. In April, Fortune reported that
the SEC had at one time launched an investigation into Dapper Labs
but closed it in September 2023. [GN]

DOLPHIN MALL: Brito Sues Over Facilities' Noncompliance With ADA
----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS BRITO, Plaintiff v. DOLPHIN MALL ASSOCIATES LLC; GDF
PARTNERS FLORIDA, LLC; and NUNO DOLPHIN MALL, INC, Defendants, Case
No. 1:24-cv-22159-XXXX  (S.D. Fla., June 5, 2024) is a class action
alleging the Defendants of violating the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers at the
Defendants commercial property. Moreover, these barriers 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 suit.

Dolphin Mall Associates owns, operates, and oversees a retail and
shopping center.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Beverly Virues, Esq.
         Armando Mejias, Esq.
         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

EDDIE BAUER: Court Stays Discovery in Clark Suit
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Clark v. Eddie Bauer LLC,
et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01106 (W.D. Wash., Filed July 16, 2020),
the Hon. Judge Richard A. Jones entered an order granting
stipulated motion to stay discovery pending decision on defendants'
motion to dismiss and to strike deadlines in scheduling order.

  -- Discovery is stayed pending the court's decision on the
     Defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's first amended
     complaint.

  -- If the motion to dismiss is denied, discovery shall be
     automatically re-opened and defendants' responses to the
     Plaintiffs' discovery shall be due 20 days after the court's
     decision on the motion to dismiss.

  -- The current deadlines set forth in the court's scheduling
order
     related to class certification are stricken, to be reset if
     necessary to 6 months from the date of the court's decision on

     the motion to dismiss.

The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Fraud.

Eddie Bauer is an American clothing store chain.[CC]


ENVATO ELEMENTS: Faces Class Action Over Subscribers' Data Sharing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org, reports that the companies
behind Envato Elements face a proposed class action that claims the
online platform secretly tracks and shares subscribers' personal
information with Meta (formerly Facebook).

According to the 22-page privacy lawsuit, Envato Elements is a
subscription service that allows customers to download stock
photos, video templates, royalty-free music and other content from
its library of digital assets. What subscribers don't know, the
case alleges, is that defendants Envato Pty Ltd. and Envato
Elements Pty Ltd. have embedded a tracking tool into
Elements.Envato.com that records which video clips they view or
download and transmits this data to Meta.

The complaint specifies that Envato Elements shares this
information via the Meta pixel, a piece of code website operators
can program to track how visitors interact with their platform,
including what pages they view or buttons they click. Facebook then
processes, analyzes and assimilates this information into datasets
used for targeted advertising purposes, the suit says.

Per the filing, these transmissions also reveal subscribers'
Facebook IDs, which are unique identifiers that can be used to
match the individual's video-viewing and downloading behavior with
their Facebook profile.

"Anyone can identify a Facebook profile -- and all personal
information publicly listed on that profile, including a person's
first and last name -- by appending the Facebook ID to the end of
Facebook.com," the lawsuit reads. "For example, Meta CEO Mark
Zuckerberg's Facebook ID is four and the URL 'www.facebook.com/4'
will take you to Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook page."

The complaint claims Envato Elements' conduct violates the Video
Privacy Protection Act, a federal law that prohibits "video tape
service provider[s]" from disclosing information about the videos
an individual has requested or watched without first obtaining
their consent.

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States who
subscribed to Envato Elements and, while having a Facebook account,
viewed or downloaded prerecorded video content on
Elements.Envato.com when the Meta pixel was active on the website.
[GN]

EPIC AIRCRAFT: Appeals Class Cert Ruling in Hanney Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Epic Aircraft, LLC has filed an appeal from the District Court's
May 10, 2024 Order entered in the lawsuit entitled BRUNO HANNEY;
and PAUL TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, v. EPIC AIRCRAFT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Case No. 6:21-cv-01199-MK, in the United States District
Court for the District of Oregon.

The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action against the
Defendant alleging breach of contract, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and for violating the
Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act, Or. Rev. Stat. Sections
646.605, et seq. They allege that Epic breached the terms of E1000
aircraft customer reservation agreements and made material
misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the marketing
and sale of E1000 aircraft. The Defendant moved to dismiss and
moved to strike.

The Court recommended that those motions be denied. The Defendant
filed an Answer with 19 affirmative defenses, nine of which the
Plaintiffs moved to strike.

The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant's first, sixth, twelfth,
sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth affirmative defenses are
either not legally cognizable defenses; or improperly challenge the
elements of the Plaintiffs' prima facie case. The Plaintiffs also
assert that the Defendant's eighth, ninth, and tenth affirmative
defenses are insufficiently pled and, thus, fail to give the
Plaintiffs sufficient notice of the defense.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge
Michael McShane entered an Order on May 10, 2024 granting
Plaintiff's October 6, 2023 motion for class certification and
denying Defendant's motion to deny class certification and motion
to strike.

The appellate case is captioned as Epic Aircraft, LLC v. Hanney, et
al., Case No. 24-3306, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 24, 2024.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents BRUNO HANNEY and PAUL TAYLOR, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:

          Alan J. Leiman, Esq.
          LEIMAN LAW, PC
          P.O. Box 5383
          Eugene, OR 97405

FORT LAUDERDALE, FL: Protesters File Anew Police Misconduct Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sasha Jones, writing for 6 South Florida, reports that four years
after a protest over the murder of George Floyd, attorneys have
filed a federal class-action lawsuit against the City of Fort
Lauderdale and Fort Lauderdale Police Department.

The lawsuit alleges the civil rights of protesters were violated
when police, without warning, dispersed tear gas into the crowd and
deployed rubber bullets on May 31st, 2020.

It was during this incident that LaToya Ratlieff was shot in the
face with a rubber bullet. She suffered a broken eye socket, nerve
damage, and a gash on her forehead.

"It's something that, and I am sorry I am getting a little choked
up now, but I replay often and even as I am coming down here, I
don't hang out in this area as much anymore, it's just something
that has shaped my life in a different way," Ratlieff said at a
press conference.

In 2022, she filed a federal lawsuit accusing the officer and the
department of violating her civil rights.

Now, other people who were there that day are coming forward and
joining a newly filed class-action lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges the rights of protesters were violated
including free speech, the right to assemble, and protection of
unreasonable search and seizure.

"We helped her into a strangers car and we ended up helping to get
her to the hospital," Mike Gabelus said.

Gabelus was one of the people who helped Ratlieff after she was
injured.

"We were there to peacefully protest and we were tear gassed
without warning and forced to leave," Gabelus said.

Jayanna Jackson was also tear gassed that day.

"I was tear gassed, I was scared. As a community, we must stand so
this doesn't happen again," Jackson said.

The lawsuit currently has three plaintiffs, but attorneys say more
people are eligible to join the suit.

Attorneys for Ratlieff have previously questioned whether actions
taken by police were justified. In May, attorneys released video
they say shows protesters were not jumping on a police car at the
time a distress call was made by an officer.

"If you were forced to leave the protest because of tear gas and
rubber bullets, your rights were violated. If you suffered abuses
of the fort Lauderdale police department that day, your rights were
violated," Ratlieff said.

Ratlieff says she hopes this new lawsuit will encourage others to
speak up.

"We wouldn't be where we are without protesting, without people
standing up and saying this isn't right and if people aren't able
to say something isn't right, against something that wasn't right,
then where are we as a country and what are we saying to the
community," Ratlieff said.

In 2021, the detective who fired the rubber bullet that hit
Ratlieff was cleared of all wrongdoing.

NBC6 reached out to the City of Fort Lauderdale and the Police
Department, and a spokesperson for the Police Department said they
do not comment on ongoing litigation. [GN]

GOOGLE INC: May Face Class Action Over Illegal Data Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Hanson of Courthouse News Service reports that Google must
face class action claims that it collected and recorded private
information from people who used tax filing websites such as H&R
Block in violation of state and federal wiretapping laws.

Google users from across the country showed they have a reasonable
expectation to their tax information being kept private, and that
Google Analytics breached that expectation when it intercepted
their data, U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts said in a 14-page
ruling dismissing Google's attempt to toss the claims.

The tech giant isn't just the vendor of the tool used to record
users' interactions on websites; it can also read or use the data
that's collected, the Google user plaintiffs said in their July
2023 complaint. They also say Google didn't enforce against the tax
prep sites its own policies that prohibit customers from sending
personally identifiable information to Google.

Some courts have ruled that tracking tools like Google Analytics
are akin to tape recorders handed to website operators to collect
user data, Judge Pitts wrote -- but a Northern District of
California judge recently concluded that for an online tracking
service to operate like a tape recorder, the service must be
entirely incapable of using the data it collects and stores for any
other purpose.

"If Google Analytics is like a tape recorder, the question is who
is 'holding' it," wrote Pitts, a Biden appointee. "Did Google
simply build a tape recorder and pass it off to the tax sites to
use for their own purposes? Or did Google not only create the tape
recorder but also use it to make a recording?"

If users' data is "aggregated" and presented to Google Analytics
customers in an online "account dashboard," that suggest that
Google processes and analyzes the data it collects, the judge
reasoned.

The judge also shut down Google's argument that there is a
presumption under California law that online communications are not
confidential, because the Google users didn't claim that Google had
intercepted their communications with another person. Rather, they
expected their tax information to remain confidential because
sharing tax return information without consent is a crime.

The judge also denied Google's attempt to avoid the claim it
violated the federal Wire Tap Act on several grounds. Pitts noted
the plaintiffs' claim that Google Analytics' code is invisible to
users, and by default collects detailed information about them.

However, Pitts added that he cannot presume that every website
owner who installed Google Analytics understood exactly what data
was going to Google and how Google might use it.

The judge denied Google's motions to dismiss the claim that it knew
the potential criminal use of its tools, and claims under the
Florida Security of Communications Act, the Texas Wiretap Statute
and Illinois Eavesdropping Statute. Pitts said the plaintiffs'
claim that the Google Analytics tracking code is "invisible" and
helped to "quietly transmit" sensitive financial information to
Google is enough to proceed under those statutes.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs and Google did not immediately respond
to requests for comment. The parties return to court for a hearing
on June 27.

Google, Meta and H&R Block already face separate claims that they
coordinated a plan to scrape and use taxpayer data to their
advantage. Users in that suit claim that H&R Block used their
income and financial records to train Google and Meta's algorithms
and create targeted ads. [GN]

GOOGLE LLC: Andren Appeals Final OK of Location History Suit Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN ANDREN, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's
Order and Judgment dated May 3, 2024 entered in the lawsuit styled
IN RE: GOOGLE LOCATION HISTORY LITIGATION, Case No.
5:18-cv-05062-EJD, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

The class action filed on August 17, 2018 involves the
surreptitious location tracking of millions of mobile phone users
by Defendant Google, Inc. Google is a mobile operating system and
mobile applications developer.  Google expressly represented to
users of its operating system and apps that the activation of
certain settings will prevent the tracking of users' geolocations.
This representation was false, says the suit. Despite users'
attempts to protect their location privacy, Google collects and
stores users' location data, thereby invading users' reasonable
expectations of privacy, counter to Google's own representations
about how users can configure Google's products to prevent such
egregious privacy violations, the suit asserts.

After undergoing two rounds of motions to dismiss, the Court
ultimately found Plaintiffs adequately pled that Google's alleged
conduct gave rise to the following claims: (1) intrusion upon
seclusion; (2) violation of the California Constitution's right to
privacy; and (3) unjust enrichment.

The Parties proceeded to engage in approximately 26 months of
contentious discovery, requiring participation in regular discovery
conferences before Magistrate Judge Cousins. The Parties also
engaged in three full-day mediation sessions and additional
discussions with experienced mediator Professor Eric D. Green, as
well as a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Spero.
Approximately five years into this litigation, the parties finally
reached their Settlement Agreement.

The Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval and
provisionally certified the Settlement Class; appointed Tina
Wolfson of Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC and Michael W. Sobol of Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP as Lead Class Counsel for the
Settlement Class; appointed Plaintiffs as Class Representatives;
and appointed Epiq Class Action and Claims Solutions, Inc., as
Class Administrator.

On January 29, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a MOTION for Attorney
Fees and Expenses, and for Class Representative Service Awards.

Members of the Settlement Class John Michael Andren, Matthew
Gregory Lilley, and Joseph Scott St. John (collectively
"Objectors"), during the class period and while residing in the
United States, owned and used mobile devices while their Google
Account "Location History" setting was disabled. They filed
OBJECTIONS to the Order on Motion for Settlement, MOTION for
Attorney Fees and Expenses, and for Class Representative Service
Awards, and Motion for Settlement on March 4, 2024. They assert
that the court should deny final approval of the settlement, either
because the settlement is unfair because distribution is feasible,
or because class certification is inappropriate. If the settlement
is approved, class counsel is not entitled to fees, and, at a
minimum, not entitled to the 30% it has requested, say the
Objectors.

On May 3, Judge Edward J. Davila ruled that the terms of the
Settlement Agreement and the awards of attorneys' fees, expenses,
and service awards, is fair, adequate, and reasonable; that it
satisfies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) and the fairness
and adequacy factors; and that it should be approved and
implemented. The Motion for Final Approval was GRANTED.  The
Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs was also GRANTED.
Class Counsel was awarded $18,600,000 in attorneys' fees and
$151,756.23 in litigation expenses. Class Representatives were
granted a service award of $5,000 each. A final Judgment was then
entered for purposes of Rule 58, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.


The appellate case is captioned as Andren, et al. v. Google LLC, et
al., Case No. 24-3387, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 29, 2024.[BN]

Objectors-Appellants JOHN ANDREN, et al., are represented by:

          Theodore H. Frank, Esq.
          HAMILTON LINCOLN LAW INSTITUTE
          1629 K Street NW Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20006

GUARDIAN ANALYTICS: Class Settlement in Holden Gets Final Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK S. HOLDEN, RICHARD
ANDISIO, EDWARD MARSHALL, ANN MARIE MARSHALL, ARTHUR CHRISTIANI,
JOHNIELLE DWYER, PAWEL KRZYKOWSKI, MARIOLA KRZYNOWEK, JAMES HOWE,
CINDY A. PEREIRA, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, V. GUARDIAN ANALYTICS, INC., ACTIMIZE INC., and
WEBSTER BANK, N.A., Case No. 2:23-cv-02115-WJM-LDW (D.N.J.), the
Hon. Judge William Martini entered an order granting Plaintiffs'
unopposed motion to certify the Class and for final approval of the
Class Action Settlement.

The Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees and expenses is also
fair and reasonable, and accordingly, is also granted in part.
Class Counsels' request for a service fee award of $1,000 per named
plaintiff is also granted.

In sum, the Settlement, which has no objectors, is fair,
reasonable, and adequate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c), notice was
adequate, and certification of the proposed Class is appropriate
under Rules 23(a) and (b). Thus,

The Settlement Agreement defines the Class as:

    "all persons who were notified that their personally
identifiable
    information may have been impacted as a result of the data
    incident that occurred on Guardian's systems between Nov. 27,
2022
    and Jan. 22, 2023."

    Guardian's, Actimize's, and Webster Bank's officers and
directors
    are excluded from the Settlement Class, as well as (i) all
    Settlement Class Members who timely and validly request
exclusion
    from the Settlement Class; (ii) the judges assigned to the
    Litigation and to evaluate the fairness, reasonableness, and
    adequacy of this settlement; and (iii) any other Person found
by a
    court of competent jurisdiction to be guilty under criminal law
of
    perpetrating, aiding or abetting the criminal activity
occurrence
    of the Data Incident or who pleads nolo contendere to any such

    charge.

On Apr. 14,2023, Plaintiffs Mark Holden and Richard Andisio filed a
Class Action Complaint against Defendants for falling to secure and
safeguard Plaintiffs' and class members' PII.

On Nov. 3,2023, the parties sought preliminary approval of the
proposed class settlement.

Guardian offers online fraud protection solutions.

A copy of the Court's opinion dated June 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9SxXvJ at no extra
charge.[CC]

HOST INTERNATIONAL: Court Certifies Three Classes in Lewis Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBRA LEWIS, et al., v.
HOST INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00075-JAK-SK
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt entered an order
modifying Class Certification Order as follows:

The following three classes are Certified:

    LWO Class:

    "All employees of Host who worked at Los Angeles International

    Airport ("LAX") from Jan. 1, 2018 through July 1, 2019, who
were
    members of the bargaining unit represented by UNITE HERE Local
11,
    and who received less than the cash wage portion of the cash
wage
    with health benefits amount under section 10.37.2(a)(2)(1) of
the
    Los Angeles Living Wage Ordinance ("LWO") (i.e., less than
$12.08
    from Jan. 1, 2018 through June 30, 2018 and less than $13.75
from
    July 1, 2018 through July 1, 2019)."

    Vacation Time Class:

    "All employees of Host who worked at LAX and were members of
the
    bargaining unit represented by UNITE HERE Local 11 and who were

    laid off or "furloughed" in March/April 2020 and were not paid
out
    accrued but unused vacation at the time of the
layoff/furlough."

    Waiting Time Penalties Class:

    "Any member of the LWO Class and/or Vacation Time Class who was

    laid off or "furloughed" in March-April 2020."

Host International provides catering services to travelers.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 3, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WTO7DA at no extra
charge.[CC]

HUGO BOSS: Wright Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWRENCE WRIGHT, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. HUGO BOSS
FASHIONS, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00544-KM (M.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion for
enlargement of time to file his motion for class certification and
directing the Plaintiff to file his motion for class certification
on a date to be determined by the Court.

Such an enlargement of time will allow this Honorable Court, in
consultation with the parties, to determine whether any discovery
will be required prior to class certification and will permit time
for said discovery to be completed. In short, the Plaintiff's
current request will ensure satisfaction of the twin goals judicial
efficiency and judicial economy in this matter, in addition to
providing the "good cause" required by L.R. 23.3 for enlarging the
time for the filing of the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.

On April 1, 2024, the Plaintiff commenced this civil action by
filing his Class Action Complaint with this Honorable Court.

Since the Plaintiff filed his Class Action Complaint, the Defendant
moved to extend the responsive pleading deadline to July 1, 2024,
which the Court subsequently granted.

Hugo offers clothing for men and women such as shirts, pants,
shorts, skirts, swim wear, and socks.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 5, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EJ04i3 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Max S. Morgan, Esq.
          THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC
          1515 Market Street, 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (267) 587-6240
          Facsimile: (215) 689-0875
          E-mail: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com

I FUND: Parties Must Submit Proposed Class Cert Deadlines
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Landers v. I Fund Daily
LLC, Case No. 6:24-cv-00985 (M.D. Fla., Filed May 28, 2024), the
Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing the parties
regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification
and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case
management report.

-- The deadlines should include a deadline for (1) disclosure of
    expert reports - class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2)
    discovery - class action; (3) motion for class certification;
(4)
    response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to
    motion for class certification.

The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.[CC]

J-M MANUFACTURING: Hearing on Daubert Bids Continued to July 8
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAMBRIDGE LANE, LLC, v.
J-M MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. dba J-M PIPE MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
et al., Case No. 2:10-cv-06638-GW-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
George Wu entered an order denying J-M's ex parte application and
modifying scheduling order:

   1. Denying J-M's ex parte request to advance the hearing on its

      motion to strike. The hearing on the Motion to strike shall
be
      continued to July 8, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. Cambridge Lane shall
file
      an opposition to the motion to strike not later than June 10,

      2024 and J-M shall file a reply, if any, not later than June
24,
      2024.

   2. The hearing on J-M's two Daubert motions shall be continued
to
      July 8, 2024, at 8:30 a.m.

   3. The Court will consider J-M's motion for summary judgment
after
      it has ruled on the two Daubert motions and the Motion to
      Strike. The hearing on J-M's Motion for Summary Judgment
shall
      therefore be continued to July 29, 2024 at 8:30 a.m.

   4. The Court will consider Cambridge Lane' Motion for Class
      Certification after it has ruled on the Motion to Strike, the

      Daubert motions, and the Motion for Summary Judgement. The
      hearing on Cambridge Lane’s Motion for Class Certification
shall
      therefore be continued to August 12, 2024 at 8:30 a.m.

   5. J-M's ex parte request for leave to file a surreply in
response
      to Cambridge Lane's class certification reply is denied.
      Cambridge Lane's request to file an additional response if
the
      Court grants J-M's request for a surreply is denied as moot.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 3, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Hehe1x at no extra
charge.[CC]

JC LICHT: Cabana Sues Over Worker Misclassification
---------------------------------------------------
ERIC CABANA, on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown v. JC LICHT, LLC, A DELAWARE
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04663 (N.D.
Ill., June 5, 2024) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Employee Classification
Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an installer from July
28, 2021 to August 31, 2022. Plaintiff was misclassified as an
independent contractor. As a result, Plaintiff only received his
regular piece-rate wages each week. In addition, the Plaintiff
never received any additional pay, including an additional
half-rate for all hours worked over 40 in a work week, says the
suit.

Based in Addison, IL, JC Licht, LLC sells and installs home
improvement materials and products such as paint, wallpaper, blinds
and other window treatments. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel D. Engelson, Esq.
          Michael D. Kuhn, Esq.
          Andrew E. Swan, Esq.
          Samuel D. Engelson, Esq.
          LEVENTHAL | LEWIS  KUHN TAYLOR SWAN PC
          3773 Cherry Creek N. Drive, Suite 710
          Denver, CO 80209
          Telephone: (720) 699-3000
          Facsimile: (866) 515-8628
          E-mail: mkuhn@ll.law
                  aswan@ll.law
                  sengelson@ll.law

                  - and -

          John W. Billhorn, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1137
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 853-1450
          E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com

JCF HOUSEMENTS: Court Extends Two Phase One Deadlines in Hadley
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHERIKA HADLEY, et al.,
personally, and on behalf of other current and former similarly
situated, non-exempt employees of Defendants, v. JCF HOUSEMENTS
MANUFACTURING LLC, et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-00023-KAC-SKL (E.D.
Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Susan Lee entered an order extending the two
Phase One deadlines:

-- On Feb. 1, 2024, the Court entered a Phase One Scheduling
Order,
    which covers discovery and motion practice concerning
    "class/collective issues."

-- The order sets a deadline of May 31 for the completion of Phase

    One discovery and for the parties to file any motion for
court-
    facilitated notice or class certification.

-- Currently before the Court is a joint motion, filed by all
parties
    to this case on May 28, seeking to extend these two Phase One
    deadlines.

The case is filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Worker Adjustment and Retaining Notification Act, and related state
law.

The parties indicate their "discovery efforts have been hampered by
the current insolvent status of the Defendants," but they are
working to find alternative methods of obtaining and producing the
discovery Plaintiffs have requested.

JCF specializes in premier manufactured homes.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ptuL1T at no extra
charge.[CC]

JEFF ZMUDA: Younger Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Inmates
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kimberly Younger, Barbara
Frantz, Kora Liles, Michaela Spencer, Sharon Huddleston, Jennifer
Lockett, v. Jeff Zmuda et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-03091-JWL (D.
Kan.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a
class of:

  "all presently incarcerated at Topeka Correctional Women's
  Facility."

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 5, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NiLyID at no extra
charge.[CC]

LEAVING OUR LEGACY: Bouffanie Sues Over Unfair Reimbursement Policy
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAD BOUFFANIE, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. LEAVING OUR LEGACY PIZZA, LLC, and PENNE L.
CARPENTER, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01435 (E.D. La., June 5,
2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Defendant's Domino's stores employ delivery drivers who all have
the same primary job duty: to deliver pizzas and other food items
to customers' homes or workplaces. However, Defendants' delivery
driver reimbursement policy reimburses drivers on a per mile basis,
but the per-mile reimbursement equates to below the Internal
Revenue Service's business mileage reimbursement rate or any other
reasonable approximation of the cost to own and operate a motor
vehicle, says the suit.

Leaving Our Legacy Pizza, LLC is a limited liability company that
operates Domino's franchise stores. [BN]

The Plaintiff is reviewed by:

         A. Todd Caruso, Esq.
         TODD CARUSO, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC
         233 Capitol Street
         Denham Springs, LA 70726
         Telephone: (225) 271-4941
         Facsimile: (225) 271-4961
         E-mail: todd@carusolawllc.com

LENOVO INC: Axelford Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW AXELROD and ELIOT
BURK, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated, v.
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
4:21-cv-06770-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Jan. 17, 2025,
pursuant to Rule 23(a), 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, will move the Court to certify the following
classes:

   1. An Injunctive Relief Class under Rule 23(b)(2) defined as:

      "All individuals who purchased two or fewer Class Products in
a
      single transaction from Lenovo through the website
      lenovo.com/us/en primarily for personal or family purposes
while
      in the State of California on any Class Day on or after June
2,
      2017."

   2. A Damages Class under Rule 23(b)(3) defined as:

      "All individuals who purchased two or fewer Class Products in
a
      single transaction from Lenovo through the website
      lenovo.com/us/en primarily for personal or family purposes
while
      in the State of California on any Class Day between June 2,
2018
      and April 12, 2022 (inclusive)."

   3. A Web Price Damages Subclass under Rule 23(b)(3) defined as:


      "All members of the Damages Class who made their purchase
      between June 2, 2018 and Aug. 24, 2022 (inclusive)."

      Excluded from all classes are Lenovo, its employees, co-
      conspirators, officers, directors, board members, legal
      representatives, heirs, successors and wholly or partly owned

      subsidiaries or affiliated companies; class counsel and their

      employees; and all judges and their court staff assigned to
hear
      any aspect of this litigation, as well as their immediate
family
      members.

The Injunctive Relief Class seeks injunctive relief under
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), False Advertising Law
("FAL"), and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"). The Damages
Class and Damages Subclass seek monetary relief and all other
available relief available under the CLRA

The Plaintiffs also request that the Court appoint (i) Plaintiffs
Andrew Axelrod and Eliot Burk as class representatives for all
classes, and (ii) EDGE, A Professional Law Corporation and Capstone
Law APC as co-lead class counsel.

Lenovo operates as a software and hardware reseller.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 5, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j7UGqB at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel A. Rozenblatt, Esq.
          Natasha Dandavati, Esq.
          EDGE, A PROFESSIONAL LAW
          CORPORATION
          1341 La Playa Street 20
          San Francisco, CA 94122
          Telephone: (415) 515-4809
          E-mail: daniel.rozenblatt@edge.law
                  natasha.dandavati@edge.law

                - and -

          Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
          Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
          Laura E. Goolsby, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: tarek.zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
                  cody.padgett@capstonelawyers.com
                  laura.goolsby@capstonelawyers.com

LENOVO INC: Axelford Suit Seeks to Seal Class Cert Documents
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW AXELROD and ELIOT
BURK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
4:21-cv-06770-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting administrative motion to consider whether
the provisionally sealed documents produced by the Defendant and
designated as CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS'
EYES ONLY should be sealed.

  1. References to documents produced by Defendant and designated
as
     CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
or
     deposition testimony of Lenovo employees designated as
     CONFIDENTIAL, included and referenced in Plaintiffs’ Motion
for
     Class Certification.

  2. References to, and screenshots of, documents produced by
     Defendant and designated as CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY
CONFIDENTIAL –
     ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY or references to deposition testimony of

     Lenovo employees designated as CONFIDENTIAL, referenced in or

     included as exhibits to the Declaration of Daniel A.

  3. References to and screenshots of documents produced by
Defendant
     and designated as CONFIDENTIAL or references to deposition
     testimony of Lenovo employees designated as CONFIDENTIAL,
     referenced in or included as exhibits to the Declaration of
     Christian Tregillis in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Class
     Certification.

Lenovo operates as a software and hardware reseller.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 5, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5uWFVm at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel A. Rozenblatt, Esq.
          Natasha Dandavati, Esq.
          EDGE, A PROFESSIONAL LAW
          CORPORATION
          1341 La Playa Street 20
          San Francisco, CA 94122
          Telephone: (415) 515-4809
          E-mail: daniel.rozenblatt@edge.law
                  natasha.dandavati@edge.law

                - and -

          Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
          Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
          Laura E. Goolsby, Esq.
          Nathan N. Kiyam, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: tarek.zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
                  cody.padgett@capstonelawyers.com
                  laura.goolsby@capstonelawyers.com
                  nate.kiyam@capstonelawyers.com

LEVITT ROBINSON: Court Grants Leave to Appeal to Slash Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Naomi Neilson, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that last
December, Justice Bernard Murphy of the Federal Court criticised
Levitt Robinson for its "serious lack of expedition and efficiency"
during a class action against the operator of retirement
communities, which prolonged the matter by months.

Levitt Robinson settled the class action for $11 million but
claimed that entire figure on legal costs and left the applicants
with nothing.

Justice Murphy slashed that figure by $1,334,864, based on an
expert report from an experienced costs consultant and took a
further $1,141,078 away for the legal costs found to be avoidable.

Appearing in the Federal Court this month, Levitt Robinson
requested leave to appeal the avoidable costs order on an
undertaking it would not seek to recover costs of the application
or any appeal and would front the costs for a contradictor.

The proceedings against Aveo Group were filed in September 2017 on
behalf of 2,700 residents who alleged changes to property contracts
meant they received less from the sale of their units.

Levitt Robinson also alleged Aveo failed to disclose this.

The settlement offer was made when court documents filed in the
days before the March and April 2023 trial found the applicant's
ability to establish loss was "seriously damaged".

In his reasons, Justice Murphy found Levitt Robinson's failure to
obtain an expert report from a property valuer within the five
years it conducted the class action was "seriously derelict".

"It beggared belief that Levitt Robinson would have run up such
huge costs when it did not have a proper basis for understanding
whether it could establish loss, or the approximate quantum of any
loss that it could establish," Justice Murphy said.

He went on to say Levitt Robinson did not act with expedition "and
showed serious inefficiency" between November 2021 and July 2022,
when pretrial timetables required the filing of expert evidence.

Justice Murphy said the contents of those reports were "pivotal" to
the settlement and "it is likely both the applicants and Aveo would
have filed their respective expert evidence . . . prior to the
mediation in December 2022" if Levitt Robinson acted efficiently.

Had the firm filed the reports earlier, Justice Murphy said the
matter would have been settled during the December 2022 mediation.

In its appeal submissions, Levitt Robinson said Justice Murphy
erred in finding that Levitt Robinson did not act expeditiously
between November 2021 and July 2022 and finding that the case would
have settled at mediation in December 2022 if it had done so.

Stewart Levitt, the firm's senior partner, argued he should have
been joined as a party to the proceedings, which he submitted would
have meant the firm could have the appeal "as a right".

The firm also submitted the group members' interests would not be
prejudiced by an appeal because even if they succeed, the avoidable
costs figure of $1,141,078 should never have been deduced "so as to
be available in the settlement distribution".

Justice Yaseen Shariff found force in both submissions.

He was also satisfied that "at an impressionistic level" there was
an arguable case to be made on both grounds of appeal.

"It would not be appropriate for me to express any view as to the
merits of these arguments, other than to state that I am satisfied
that they are, at reasonably impressionistic level, sufficiently
arguable," Justice Shariff said.

Justice Shariff said he would grant leave to appeal, but with a
"degree of hesitation" given the length of time that has passed
since the matter was first filed in the court back in September
2017.

The undertaking provided by the firm also went a long way in
addressing Justice Shariff's concerns "about the ongoing costs of
the continuation of the proceedings".

The matter was allocated to the national judicial registrar to
determine if it is possible to be listed during the Full Court's
next appellate sitting period. [GN]

LG ELECTRONICS: Henenfent Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFF HENENFENT, v. LG
ELECTRONICS USA, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00354-KES-SAB (E.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Stanley Boone entered an order directing clerk the
of court to adjust the docket to reflect voluntary dismissal
pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the federal rules of civil procedure.

-- The Court ordered that all pending dates and matters are
vacated.

As no class has been certified in this action, the putative class
members are not bound by the settlement and dismissal of this
action. Therefore, the Court construes Plaintiff's notice of
dismissal to be with prejudice as to himself and without prejudice
as to the putative class members.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, filed this action on March 9, 2023, against the
Defendant. On May 24, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to compel
arbitration and a motion to dismiss. On March 27, 2024, findings
and recommendations issued recommending holding the Defendant's
motion to compel arbitration and motion to dismiss in abeyance
pending a summary trial.

On April 18, 2024, the Court granted the parties stipulation for a
stay of this action in light of a forthcoming settlement agreement
between the parties. On June 4, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a notice
of voluntary dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i).

LG manufactures and distributes consumer electronic products.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zo0zKQ at no extra
charge.[CC]

LIVE NATION: Confirms Class Suit Over Ticketmaster Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Cooke, writing for CMU, reports that Live Nation issued a
Securities and Exchange Commission filing confirming that it is
investigating what it calls "unauthorised activity" on a "a
third-party cloud database environment" containing data from its
Ticketmaster division.

Hackers last week claimed to have accessed personal data relating
to more than half a billion Ticketmaster customers, in a data
breach that has been connected to a similar hack impacting the bank
Santander, with both companies being clients of cloud storage
provider Snowflake.

Snowflake has denied that the breaches are the fault of its system,
saying "we do not believe this activity is caused by any
vulnerability, misconfiguration or malicious activity within the
Snowflake product". It blames the attacks on "unrelated cyber
threat activity" that left "customers' user credentials exposed".

In more simple terms, the suggestion is that someone at
Ticketmaster had their Snowflake credentials compromised, which
allowed hackers access to the data.

Ahead of SEC statement, Live Nation's failure to formally comment
on the hacking claims was criticised in a class action lawsuit led
by two Ticketmaster customers.

The lawsuit noted that, at the point of filing the litigation, the
live giant had not "released a statement nor notified its customers
that their private information has been compromised and is likely
in the hands of threat actors".

As a result of Live Nation's failure to quickly communicate, it
went on, "Ticketmaster consumers are in the dark, unaware that
their private information may be used to effectuate identity theft,
phishing scams, plunging credit scores and related cybercrimes".

In December 2023, the SEC introduced a controversial new rule that
required publicly traded companies to disclose "material"
cybersecurity incidents "within four business days after the
company determines the incident to be material".

In the statement that Live Nation filed with the SEC, it said that
it first identified the "unauthorised activity" on 20 May. In
response, Live Nation launched an investigation working with
"industry-leading forensic investigators".

Last week the hacker group ShinyHunters posted its claim to have
accessed personal data relating to 560 million Ticketmaster
customers, putting that data up for sale on the dark web. In
response to that Live Nation said that it is, "working to mitigate
risk to our users and the company" and has "notified and is
cooperating with law enforcement".

In terms of the impact of the data hack, Live Nation's statement
continues, "As of the date of this filing, the incident has not
had, and we do not believe it is reasonably likely to have, a
material impact on our overall business operations or on our
financial condition or results of operations. We continue to
evaluate the risks and our remediation efforts are ongoing".

However, depending on the outcome of investigations -- including by
data protection authorities around the world -- as well as the
class action lawsuit, that may be a somewhat optimistic assessment.
In 2020, the UK Information Commissioner's Office fined
Ticketmaster £1.25 million following a much smaller data breach in
2018 that affected about 40,000 customers.

The speedily filed class action lawsuit in the California courts
seeks to represent any American Ticketmaster customer whose
personal data was allegedly hacked. It claims that the data breach
was the result of Live Nation's "failure to implement adequate and
reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols, consistent with
the industry standard".

The lawsuit then claims that Ticketmaster customers are now
incurring the cost and hassle of "mitigating the effects of the
attack", so changing passwords, monitoring bank statements for
fraudulent charges, and carefully screening phone calls and emails
for possible scams.

On top of that, there is the "emotional distress" and "the imminent
risk of future harm" depending on what happens to the hacked data.


It was also ShinyHunters that last week claimed to have stolen data
relating to customers and employees of the bank Santander.
According to the BBC, cyber-security company Hudson Rock linked the
Ticketmaster and Santander data breaches, stating that they are
both part of a major ongoing hack of Snowflake's platform.

However, Hudson Rock has since removed its blog post that made the
connection between Santander, Ticketmaster and Snowflake. [GN]

LLOYD AUSTIN: Seeks to Stay Class Cert Briefing in Feds for Freedom
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FEDS FOR FREEDOM, et al.,
v. LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-05490-DGE (W.D.
Wash.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order to stay
briefing on class certification until after the Court has resolved
the Defendants' motions to dismiss, at which point the Parties will
meet and confer regarding a proposed briefing schedule.

The Plaintiffs filed their original Complaint in this action on May
25, 2023, followed by an Amended Complaint on June 20, 2023.

On Nov. 2, 2023, the Plaintiffs moved for leave to further amend
their Amended Complaint, which was denied on November 6,
resubmitted on November 7, and denied again on November 17.

The Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint on Jan. 9,
2024.

On May 29, 2024, following the completion of briefing on the
Defendants' motions to dismiss, the Plaintiffs filed their motion
for class certification.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 3, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=55ttBt at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Andrew J. Rising, Esq.
          UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          CIVIL DIVISION, FEDERAL PROGRAMS BRANCH
          1100 L Street NW, Rm. 11406
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 514-0265
          E-mail: Andrew.J.Rising@usdoj.gov

                - and -

          Shmuel Bushwick, Esq.
          Patrick b. Fenior, Esq.
          UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          TORTS BRANCH, CIVIL DIVISION
          Ben Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044-7146
          Telephone: (202) 305-0401
          Facsimile: (202) 616-4314
          E-mail: Shmuel.Bushwick@usdoj.gov
                  Patrick.B.Fenior@usdoj.gov

LONSDALE QUAY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Drip Pricing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Susan Lazaruk, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that a customer
who was charged an extra fee in a practice called drip pricing when
he booked online with a North Vancouver hotel has launched a
class-action lawsuit on behalf of all customers charged the fee.

The proposed class-action says such a fee violates two sections of
the federal Competition Act, which was amended on June 23, 2022, to
state additional fees other than taxes would "constitute a false or
misleading representation."

He's seeking damages on behalf of anyone who has paid a facility or
property fee at the hotel after June 23, 2022, and is asking the
court to order the hotel refrain from drip pricing.

In an example cited in the case, with screen shots of the booking
pages, the hotel's website offered an executive room with two queen
beds at $333.75 a night, before taxes, for what it called the
"super save flexible rate."

This price was repeated when the user clicked on the blue
information button, but when he hit the reserve button, the next
page showed a $12 a night charge, for a new price of $345.75, the
claim said.

"The additional facility fee is an obligatory charge that is not
imposed by an Act of Parliament or the legislature of a province,"
it said.

Kirkwood is identified only as a B.C. resident and his lawyer Kevin
McLaren at Hammerco Lawyers declined to comment.

The lawsuit said Kirkwood booked a room on April 12 and stayed
there from April 18 to April 19 for an average nightly rate of $228
plus a facility fee of $12.

It estimates the class consists of "at least 10s of thousands" of
people who booked the hotel online.

It alleges the hotel represented a room rate, "which was not
attainable due to the additional facility fee" and constitutes a
false or misleading representation in contravention of Sec. 52 of
the Competition Act.

And it contravened Sec. 54 of the Act by representing two prices
for its room rate and charging the class members the higher rate,
it said.

"Lonsdale Quay Hotel was only legally entitled to charge the first
price" and the class members were entitled to pay the first price,
and "suffered loss and/or damage equivalent to the amount of the
facility fee," it said.

Damages sought include the equivalent of the facility fee, plus
costs to investigate and legal fees, it said.

"This false or misleading representing was made knowingly or
recklessly" to increase its revenue, which violates the Competition
Act, the claim said.

The hotel manager said he wasn't aware of the lawsuit and refused
to comment.

None of the allegations in the claim have been proven in court and
a class-action proceeding would have to be certified by the court
to proceed.

The federal Competition Bureau's website says, "drip pricing is the
offer of a product or service at a price that is unattainable
because consumers must pay additional non-government-imposed
charges or fees to buy it."

"It is when a company advertises a lower price to a consumer
initially, then revealing (or "dripping") additional, unavoidable
fees on to the price as they go through the buying process,
disclosing the real, higher full price until later in the buying
process," it says.

On June 23, 2022, when a ban on the practice passed into law, the
government also increased fines for offences, of up to $750,000
(and $1 million for each subsequent violation) plus three times the
value of the benefit derived from the deceptive concept for
individuals.

And for corporations, up to $10 million (and $15 million for each
subsequent violation), plus three times the value of the benefit
derived from the deceptive conduct or three per cent of the
corporation's annual worldwide gross revenues, it said.

It said the most common offenders are companies in the travel
industry, including airlines that add baggage and seat selection
fees, hotels that drop resort fees at the last minute and Airbnb
listings that carry cleaning and service fees and taxes, event
ticketing that add service, processing, delivery and instant
download fees, new car dealers that add documentation, floor plan,
preparation, advertising, destination, delivery or processing fees
and any businesses that offer service or convenience.

Businesses that the Competition Bureau has taken action against are
car rental companies, including Enterprise Rent-A-Car Canada, which
was fined $1 million for what the bureau deemed misleading
advertising when prices were not available to Canadian consumers.
It has also laid a total of $5.25 million in fines against Avis and
Budget and Hertz and Dollar Thrifty and Discount.

Also found to have violated the act were FlightHub, fined $5
million in part for hidden fees, Ticketmaster, StubHub and
TicketNetwork and Airbnb, and Cineplex, the bureau said. [GN]

LOS COMPADRES: Caballero and Vargas Sue Over Illegal Pay Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
TOMAS CABALLERO and KEVIN AGUILAR VARGAS, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LOS COMPADRES
LIQUOR STORE, INC., a Colorado corporation, LOS COMPADRES LIQUOR
STORE LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, LOS COMPADRES
LIQUOR STORE 2 LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, LOS
COMPADRES LIQUOR #2 LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, LOS
COMPADRES SMOKE SHOP LLC, a Colorado limited liability company,
SPEEDY'S SMOKE SHOP #2 LLC, a Colorado limited liability company,
SPEEDY'S SMOKE SHOP 3 LLC, a Colorado limited liability company,
and CARMEN GARCIA, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01569
(D. Colo., June 5, 2024) arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Colorado Wage Act, and the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay
Standards Order.

The Defendants employed Plaintiffs as associates and terminated
them on May 30, 2024. However, Defendants did not implement any
time-keeping system for Plaintiffs to record their work hours. The
Plaintiffs regularly worked more than 40 hours each week, but
Plaintiffs never received overtime pay at one and one-half their
regular rates of pay for hours worked over 40 in individual work
weeks and/or 12 hours in a work day, says the suit.

Headquartered in Colorado Springs, CO, Los Compadres Liquor Store
operates a chain of convenience stores under the "Los Compadres"
and "Speedy's" trade names. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael D. Kuhn, Esq.
          Andrew E. Swan, Esq.
          Samuel D. Engelson, Esq.
          LEVENTHAL | LEWIS KUHN TAYLOR SWAN PC
          3773 Cherry Creek N. Drive, Suite 710
          Denver, CO 80209
          Telephone: (720) 699-3000
          Facsimile: (866) 515-8628
          E-mail: mkuhn@ll.law
                  aswan@ll.law
                  sengelson@ll.law

LUMIO HX: Court Grants Motion to Amend Class Action Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
newsomelaw.com reports that in a pivotal victory for consumers, the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida has
granted the Plaintiff's motion to file a second amended complaint
in the Lumio HX, Inc. ("Lumio") class action lawsuit being
prosecuted by Newsome Melton and their co-counsel. The newly filed
complaint greatly expands the scope of claims on behalf of
consumers against Lumio and its alleged co-conspirators, as
detailed further below.

Background

The case, led by plaintiff Shoshana Smith, centers around
allegations of deceptive sales practices by Lumio and Atlantic Key
Energy, LLC ("AKE") with respect to solar energy systems. Smith
alleges that she and her husband contracted with Lumio and AKE for
a rooftop solar panel system that cost nearly $70,000 after being
promised that the solar system would take care off all their
electricity needs and that they would receive a tax "rebate" check
from the government. Instead of the expected benefits, Smith
alleges that the system is unreliable and does not produce the
promised 100% energy offset (meaning she is now stuck with both her
electrical bill and monthly loan payments for the system, i.e. two
bills instead of one), and the promised government rebates never
came.

Smith further alleges that her experience is not unique, and that
instead, other consumers have reported being defrauded by the same
general business practices. As such, she brought the claim as a
class action -- meaning that her goal is to secure justice for not
only herself, but for all others who she contends were defrauded by
the same business practices.

The initial complaint included claims for breach of contract and
unjust enrichment against Lumio and AKE. The second amended
complaint adds four new plaintiffs, new defendants (Fifth Third
Bank and its solar-lending subsidiary/division, Dividend Finance),
and several new claims, as summarized next.

Following the Court's Order granting leave, Plaintiffs filed the
second amended complaint on May 23.

New Claims

The first new claim asserted in the Second Amended Complaint is for
violation of the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C Sec. 1962 -- also known as a "Civil
RICO" claim. This count asserts that Lumio worked with other
individuals and organizations, including five other solar
companies. It further alleges that Lumio was aided by large banks
and lenders (known as Lumio's "Finance Partners") which provide
massive loans to consumers for the cost of the energy systems. The
complaint alleges, for instance, that Lumio would certify a project
as complete despite never obtaining the necessary permits and the
system not being operational, and that the Finance Partners would
then release the funds to Lumio, placing the customer in debt for a
system that did not work as promised. The complaint refers to this
coordinated effort of organizations and individuals as the "Lumio
Enterprise."

The complaint alleges that the Lumio Enterprise violated RICO by
using "interstate wires" -- a legal term of art meaning
communications sent across state lines -- to perpetuate their
fraudulent schemes. In particular, the complaint asserts that the
Lumio Enterprise used online advertisements, across Facebook,
YouTube, and other platforms to spread misleading information. The
complaint also asserts that the Lumio Enterprise made its deceptive
sales training tips and tactics accessible online, which not only
promoted these practices but also helped ingrain them within their
sales strategy.

In addition, the complaint introduces new counts for fraudulent
inducement and violations of consumer protection laws, including
Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and Florida's
Distributed Energy Generation System Sales Act. The complaint
asserts that the Lumio Enterprise violated these consumer
protections by overstating energy savings, misrepresenting tax
credits as "rebates," and employing high-pressure sales tactics.
These tactics allegedly include pressuring homeowners to sign
complex contracts on small tablets without proper review and
bypassing essential consumer disclosures and "cool off" period
cancellation rights.

New Parties

Most solar customers lack the liquid assets to pay outright for a
solar energy system, often costing $60,000 or more, thus requiring
financing. The complaint contends that the Finance Partners --
entities that have received massive interest payments from large
consumer loans for Lumio's solar energy systems -- are implicated
here. The complaint asserts that the Finance Partners are liable
for Lumio's alleged wrongdoing pursuant to the "Holder Rule," which
holds the lender accountable for the seller's failure to live up to
its end of the bargain. The complaint brings a Holder Rule count
against Fifth Third Bank, operating as Dividend Finance, as one of
these Finance Partners.

The complaint also introduces additional plaintiffs who have
secured financing from various Finance Partners. This widens the
lawsuit's scope, with the goal to provide greater potential relief
for the Class as a whole.

What's Next?

The plaintiffs are now proceeding forward on the second amended
complaint, which will include additional plaintiffs and defendants,
as well as expanded claims. The case remains in the discovery
stage, so the parties are continuing to exchange information as
they proceed towards the next stage: the motion for class
certification, through which the Plaintiffs will ask the Court
officially designate them as the representatives of the class so
that they can obtain relief for all other Lumio customers.

Stay tuned for further updates as this case progresses and
continues to impact the landscape of consumer rights in the solar
energy industry.

In the meantime, if you believe you have been defrauded by a solar
company or a solar lender, the Newsome Melton team would be happy
to review your potential claim, free of charge. You can contact us
via email at Inquiry@newsomelaw.com or phone at (888) 808-5977.
[GN]

MADONNA: Files Motion to Dismiss False Advertising Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Gallagher, writing for DailyMail.com, reports that Madonna
has responded to a class action lawsuit claiming her concert start
times are 'false advertising' since she never starts on time.

Back in January, the 65-year-old singer was sued by concert goers
Michael Fellows and Jonathan Hadden after her three shows at the
Barclays Center in Brooklyn last December started hours after the
time listed on the tickets.

Now the singer has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, according
to TMZ, claiming that real fans would know she never starts on
time.

The dismissal documents claim that real fans would know that she
often runs past the allotted time because of her late starts and
most true fans realize this.

'If a fan is familiar enough with Madonna's concert history to know
her performances run for two hours and fifteen minutes, that fan
would surely know that Madonna typically takes the stage well after
the ticketed event time (after an opening act, set transition, and
so on) and plays late into the night,' the document claims.

The shows mentioned in the original lawsuit took place on December
13, 14 and 16, with Fellows and Hadden claiming they were supposed
to start at 8:30 PM, though didn't actually start until 10:30 PM.

The original lawsuit claimed, 'wanton exercise in false
advertising, negligent misrepresentation, and unfair and deceptive
trade practices.'

They also state Madonna has a long history of not starting her
concerts on time.

The fans say they sent $155.90 and $292.50 respectively on the
tickets and are suing for unspecified damages.

The singer filed a response to the lawsuit in April, where she
claimed, 'No reasonable concertgoer -- and certainly no Madonna fan
- would expect the headline act at a major arena concert to take
the stage at the ticketed event time.'

'Fans got just what they paid for: a full-length, high quality show
by the Queen of Pop,' the statement added.

The filing also shared a Facebook post from Hadden where he raved
about the show, adding he has 'never missed a Madonna tour.'

Madonna was also hit with a federal lawsuit in April filed by three
fans - Elizabeth Halper-Asefi, Mary Conoboy, and Nestor Monte, Jr.
-- who said she started her show at Capital One Arena in Washington
D.C. two hours late.

They also alleged that Madonna provided, 'a hot and uncomfortable
temperature in the venue during her performance' and that she, 'lip
sync[ed] much of her performance.'

The disgruntled concertgoers declared that these alleged actions
represent 'Madonna's arrogant and total disrespect' for
ticketholders.

'In essence, Madonna and Live Nation are a consumer's worst
nightmare,' the lawsuit states.

At her tour stop in D.C., on December 18, the plaintiffs recalled
the mother-of-six told the crowd: 'I am sorry I am late. . . no, I
am not sorry, it's who I am . . . I'm always late.'

'Defendants failed to provide any notice to the ticketholders that
the Concerts would start much later than the start time printed on
the ticket and as advertised, which resulted in the ticketholders
waiting for hours for the Concerts to begin at the Venue,' the suit
claims. [GN]

MARATHON REFINING: Butel Class Cert. Bid Partly OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOUIS BUTEL and PAM
MOCHERNIAK, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
employees, v. MARATHON REFINING AND LOGISTICS SERVICES LLC, and
Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-04547-DSF-JPR (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dale Fischer entered an order:

-- granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the standby class,
and

-- denying the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a travel time class.

The Plaintiffs have presented evidence of systematic primary relief
policies that all operators were subject to. The policy is laid out
in detail in the collective bargaining agreements between Marathon
and Plaintiffs' union.

The Court is not persuaded that questions related to the variations
in discipline policy will predominate over the essential underlying
question: whether Marathon's standby policy was lawful. Marathon's
discipline policies are relevant to whether plaintiffs were
required to report to work, but they are not dispositive. "To the
extent there is genuinely conflicting evidence as to whether"
Marathon had a uniform discipline policy as regards standby shifts,
"that question is common to the class and susceptible of common
proof."

Marathon’s Los Angeles refinery (the Refinery) has two locations
– one in Carson and one in Wilmington. Each is governed by a
collective bargaining agreement. The Refinery is composed of job
stations, which must always be staffed by qualified operators.

To ensure that work units are staffed in the event that an operator
is sick or has an emergency, Marathon assigns employees primary
relief shifts, sometimes called "standby shifts." During these
shifts, operators must be available to be called in for an
unanticipated 12-hour shift for a two hour window on the scheduled
day. They may be called one and one-half hours prior to shift
change and one-half hour after shift change.

Marathon is an American petroleum refining, marketing, and
transportation company.

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

MARINUS PHARMACEUTICALS: Bishins Sues Over Misleading Statements
----------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT BISHINS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MARINUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., SCOTT
BRAUNSTEIN, and STEVEN PFANSTIEL, Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-02430 (E.D. Pa., June 5, 2024) seeks to recover compensable
damages caused by Defendant's violations of the federal securities
laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Plaintiff Bishins bring this securities class action on behalf of
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly
traded Marinus securities between March 17, 2021 and May 7, 2024,
inclusive. During this period, Defendants made false and misleading
statements and filings to the investing public. Among other things,
the Defendants understated the risks in the Randomized Therapy in
Status Epilepticus trial  (RAISE). Defendants omitted the risk to
the RAISE trial's viability if it did not meet pre-defined "early
stopping" criteria. It further omitted that the Company would stop
clinical trial enrollment in the RAISE trial if the Company did not
meet early stopping criteria. As a result of Defendants' wrongful
acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value
of the Company's common shares, Plaintiff and the other Class
members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the
suit.

Headquartered in Radnor, PA, Marinus is a pharmaceutical company
that develops treatment for seizure disorders. Its common stock
trades on the NASDAQ exchange under the ticker symbol "MRNS." [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Jacob A. Goldberg
         THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
         101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
         Jenkintown, PA 19046
         Telephone: (215) 600-2817
         Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
         E-mail: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com

                 - and -

         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 686-1060
         Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
         E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 lrosen@rosenlegal.com

                 - and -

         Brian Schall, Esq.
         THE SCHALL LAW FIRM
         2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (310) 301-3335
         Facsimile: (213) 519-5876
         E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Class Settlement in Rivera Gets Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LORENZO RIVERA, v.
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-05050-ODW-KS (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis Wright, II entered an order granting the
motion for final approval of Class Settlement and Attorneys' fees,
costs, and incentive awards.

The Court approves:

   (1) $109,140.00 for attorney fees to Class Counsel;

   (2) $12,147.84 for litigation costs to Class Counsel; and

   (3) $7,500.00 for a service payment to the class
representative.

The entire action and all claims asserted are dismissed with
prejudice and all dates and deadlines in this action are vacated
and taken off calendar.

On April 24, 2019, Mr. Rivera brought a putative class action
against Marriott in Los Angeles County Superior Court, asserting
failure to pay all wages, failure to provide meal periods or
compensation, failure to provide rest periods or compensation,
failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees, failure
to issue itemized wage statements and maintain records, and
indemnification for expenditures or losses in discharge of duties.

On June 10, 2019, Marriott removed this action to federal court.

Between December 2019 and August 2021, Rivera amended his complaint
three times.

The Settlement Agreement defines the proposed class as:

      "all individuals who are or who have been employed by the
      Defendant at the Marina del Rey Marriott hotel in California
as
      hourly non-exempt employees during any portion" of the class

      period.

      The class period is defined as April 24, 2018, through the
date
      of issue on the Preliminary Approval Order, Aug. 20, 2023.

There are 499 identified Settlement Class members who were noticed
regarding the May 6, 2024 hearing.


Marriott is an American multinational company that operates,
franchises, and licenses lodging brands that include hotel,
residential, and timeshare properties.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mMwL6z at no extra
charge.[CC]

MISS KITTY'S: Court Certifies Two Classes in Jones Labor Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISIS JONES, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated individuals, v. MISS
KITTY'S INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-01327-MAB (S.D. Ill.), the Hon.
Judge Mark Beatty entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion
for class certification and "Motion to Grant Plaintiff's Class
Certification Motion as Conceded."

The following classes are certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3):

   The IMWL class, which is comprised of:

   "all individuals who worked or performed as an exotic dancer
for,
   in, or at Defendant's Club during the period April 2020 through
the
   final date of judgment in this case."

   The IWPCA class, which is comprised of:

   "all individuals who worked or performed as an exotic dancer
for,
   in, or at Defendant's Club during the period April 2013 through
the
   final date of judgment in this case."

The Plaintiff Isis Jones is appointed as class representative for
both the IMWL class and the IWPCA class. Attorneys Gregg Greenburg
and Athena Herman are appointed as class counsel for both the IMWL
class and the IWPCA class.

The Court has no reason to doubt that the named Plaintiff and
proposed class counsel will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class.

The Plaintiff alleges that Miss Kitty's misclassified her and the
other exotic dancers as non-employee contractors when they were, in
reality, employees.

The Plaintiff filed this suit on behalf of herself and other exotic
dancers for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"),
the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA"), and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL").

Ms. Jones worked as an exotic dancer for the Defendant.

Miss Kitty's is a strip club, featuring nude and semi-nude female
exotic dancers.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UCzdK6 at no extra
charge.[CC]

MISSISSIPPI: Jackson Can File Unredacted Declaration
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAQUAY JACKSON and DANA
RICE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
MISSISSIPPI BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES, LLC., Case No.
3:22-cv-00697-CWR-LGI (S.D. Miss.), the Hon. Judge Carlton W.
Reeves entered an order order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to
permit filing of the unredacted declaration and supporting exhibits
in support of plaintiffs' motion for certification of collective
action and issuance of notice under seal.

The Court finds good cause to permit the filing of the documents
under seal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c),
and Local Rule 79, and Plaintiffs' motion is hereby GRANTED.
Plaintiffs are permitted to file unredacted Declaration of Mike
Russo and exhibits attached thereto Under Seal.

Mississippi provides behavioral rehabilitation services.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 3, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0kT8Ir at no extra
charge.[CC]

MOUNTAIRE FARMS: Judge Dismisses Groundwater Contamination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Mavit, writing for Cape Gazette, reports that a Delaware
Superior Court judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by a family that
was part of a $65 million class-action settlement against Mountaire
Farms, as the family sought damages from the attorneys who
negotiated the settlement.

The family has appealed the ruling to Delaware Supreme Court.

In April 2021, Mountaire settled a class-action lawsuit brought by
Millsboro residents whose groundwater was contaminated by failure
of the wastewater treatment plant at Mountaire's poultry processing
plant. Between Delaware and federal court settlements, Mountaire
was forced to pay $205 million. Of that, $65 million went to class
members, $120 million went toward improvements to the wastewater
treatment plant, and $20 million went toward operations and
maintenance.

As part of the settlement, members had the option to opt out of the
payments, but if they did not, they would not be able to bring
future action against Mountaire. According to court documents,
after the opt-out period expired, the family of a child only
identified as L.H., who was part of the class, retained attorney
Thomas Crumplar and sought to proceed with direct legal action
against Mountaire. L.H. had been born preterm and has suffered
health problems since being born. The family claimed that those
health problems had been brought on by nitrate ingestion caused by
the Mountaire treatment plant failure during L.H.'s mother's
pregnancy.

The family was originally due to receive $2,500 as part of the
settlement, and first sought to appeal their award, which was twice
denied by the claims administrator for the class. Crumplar filed a
claims package alleging the family was due to suffer economic
losses between $8.6 million and $21.7 million.

The family then moved to amend final approval of the class
settlement, which was denied by Judge Craig Karsnitz on the basis
that it would have disrupted the whole class. However, Karsnitz
asked the claims administrator to take another look at the family's
case.

Despite additional physician and scientific evidence presented, the
claims administrator, former Maryland Court of Appeals Judge Irma
Raker, denied the appeal.

The family then moved to file a lawsuit alleging legal malpractice
against the attorneys who negotiated the settlement: Chase
Brockstedt, Phil Federico, Brent Ceryes and Stephen Spence. The
family alleged the attorneys were negligent in failing to advise
them to affirmatively opt out of the settlement and pursue an
individual claim. The attorneys filed a motion to dismiss, stating
that the family could not definitively prove L.H.'s injuries were
caused by Mountaire, and that the family had a full and fair
opportunity to appeal their award.

Judge Frances Jones agreed with the attorneys, saying that the
family had multiple opportunities to have their case heard and were
given the opportunity to supplement their case after Karsnitz
allowed them a third hearing.

"This court concludes that plaintiffs were afforded a full and fair
opportunity to litigate the issue of the causation of plaintiff's
injuries to Mountaire's actions," Jones said.

In a statement, Brockstedt said he sympathized with the family, but
was also happy with the ruling.

"We successfully prosecuted this complex environmental case
vigorously over four years, and we are proud of the result which
has helped thousands of Millsboro residents and put an end to the
pollution caused by Mountaire," he said. "We are pleased with the
court's dismissal of what we believe to be a frivolous claim for
legal malpractice. It is unfortunate that the court's dismissal has
been appealed, and we look forward to the appeal being decided."
[GN]

MYEYEDR OPTOMETRY: Parties Must Confer Class Cert. Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ESPANOL v. MYEYEDR.
OPTOMETRY OF FLORIDA, LLC, Case No. 6:24-cv-01024 (M.D. Fla., Filed
June 4, 2024), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order
directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a
motion for class certification and advising the Court of agreeable
deadlines in their case management report.

-- The deadlines should include a deadline for (1) disclosure of
    expert reports - class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2)
    discovery - class action; (3) motion for class certification;
(4)
    response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to
    motion for class certification.

The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA).[CC]

NATERA INC: Schneider Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN HARVEY SCHNEIDER,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
NATERA, INC., STEVE CHAPMAN, MICHAEL BROPHY, MATTHEW RABINOWITZ,
and RAMESH HARIHARAN, Case No. 1:22-cv-00398-DAE (W.D. Tex.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   (1) certifying the proposed Class pursuant to Rule 23(a) and
       23(b)(3)1;

   (2) appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and

   (3) appointing KTMC and BLB&G as Class Counsel, and Nix
Patterson
       as Liaison Counsel.

This securities fraud class action arises from the Defendants'
repeated misstatements and omissions concerning Natera's flagship
product, Panorama. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants told
investors that Natera's impressive revenue performance was driven
by Panorama and touted the purportedly growing demand for the
product. All the while, the Defendants concealed from investors
that Panorama revenue and demand was, in fact, fueled by Natera's
deceptive and improper business practices. When investors finally
learned the truth, Natera's stock price fell 33% in one day,
harming the putative Class.

The Plaintiffs allege claims under: (1) Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act against the Exchange Act Defendants; (2) Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act against the Executive Defendants; (3) Section
20A of the Exchange Act against the Executive Defendants; (4)
Section 11 of the Securities Act against Natera and the Securities
Act Individual Defendants; (5) Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities
Act against Natera and the Underwriter Defendants; and (6) Section
15 of the Securities Act against the Securities Act Individual
Defendants, as controlling persons of Natera.

Natera is a diagnostics company that specializes in testing related
to oncology, women’s health, and organ health.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 4, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ddl8yG at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica Underwood, Esq.
          Cody Hill, Esq.
          Jeffrey J. Angelovich, Esq.
          NIX PATTERSON, LLP
          8701 Bee Cave Road
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 328-5333
          Facsimile: (512) 495-1534
          E-mail: junderwood@nixlaw.com
                  codyhill@nixlaw.com
                  jangelovich@nixlaw.com

                - and -

          Gregory M. Castaldo, Esq.
          Joshua E. D'Ancona, Esq.
          Joshua A. Materese, Esq.
          Evan R. Hoey, Esq.
          Vanessa M. Milan, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ
          MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: gcastaldo@ktmc.com
                  jdancona@ktmc.com
                  jmaterese@ktmc.com
                  ehoey@ktmc.com
                  vmilan@ktmc.com

                - and -

          Lauren McMillen Ormsbee, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER &
          GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 554-1400
          E-mail: lauren@blbglaw.com

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Class Certification Bids in Cochran Due Nov. 6
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANDERA COCHRAN, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. NATIONSTAR
MORTGAGE LLC d/b/a LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING LLC, Case No.
0:23-cv-62076-DSL (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge David Leibowitz
entered an order setting jury trial and class certification
deadlines:

Accordingly, the case is set for trial during the Court's two-week
trial calendar beginning on June 2, 2025, before the Honorable
David S. Leibowitz.

Counsel for all parties shall also appear at a calendar call at
1:45 p.m. on May 26, 2025. Unless instructed otherwise by
subsequent order, the trial and all other proceedings in this case
shall be conducted in Courtroom 202A at the U.S. Federal Building
and Courthouse, 299 East Broward Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale,
Florida 33301.

The parties shall adhere to the following schedule:

  June 24, 2024. The parties shall select a mediator in accordance

  with Local Rule 16.2; schedule a time, date, and place for
  mediation; and jointly file a proposed order scheduling mediation

  in the form specified on the Court's website,
   http://www.flsd.uscourts.gov.

  Expired. The parties filed all motions to amend pleadings or to
join
  parties.

  Aug. 21, 2024. The parties shall exchange expert witness
summaries
  and reports for class certification.

  Sept. 4, 2024. The parties shall exchange rebuttal expert witness

  summaries and reports for class certification.

  Oct. 23, 2024. Class discovery shall be completed.

  Nov. 6, 2024. Class Certification Motions due.

  Nov. 20, 2024. Class Certification Responses due.

  Jan. 7, 2025. The parties shall exchange expert witness summaries

  and reports.

  Jan. 21, 2025. The parties shall exchange rebuttal expert witness

  summaries and reports.

  Feb. 4, 2025. All discovery, including expert discovery, shall be

  completed.

  Feb. 11, 2025. The parties must have completed mediation and
filed a
  mediation report.

  Feb. 19, 2025. The parties shall file all pre-trial motions,
  including motions for summary judgment, and Daubert motions.

  May 9, 2025. The parties shall submit all trial preparation
  materials including a joint pre-trial stipulation of all
undisputed
  facts, proposed jury instructions and verdict form, witness
lists,
  exhibit lists, objections to deposition designations, and shall
file
  any motions in limine (other than Daubert motions).

  May 19, 2025. For bench trials, the parties shall submit final
pre-
  trial briefing.

Nationstar provides mortgages loan, re-financing, and home equity
loans.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ndJFX5 at no extra
charge.[CC]

NINE NETWORK: Faces Suit Over Sexual Harassment and Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Jolly of Mumbrella reports that a class action lawsuit
against Nine is becoming more and more likely, as Maurice Blackburn
has put out a call to women in the commercial television industry
who have been affected by sexual harassment and unlawful
discrimination.

The law firm put out a public statement saying it is "currently
assisting a number of women in the commercial television industry
to pursue claims of sexual harassment and unlawful discrimination",
but didn't specify a particular network.

"We believe that there may be many other women who have been
affected, either by witnessing such conduct or by experiencing it.
If you have information that could assist our clients, or if you
wish to get advice about your own experience, please contact us."

Joshua Bornstein, principal lawyer and head of employment law at
Maurce Blackburn, told the AFR -- a Nine-owned masthead -- that the
law firm was currently "acting for a number of women in commercial
television across the networks with remarkably similar experiences
and stories to tell".

The paper also reports Maurice Blackburn is acting for the woman
who filed a formal complaint against Nine's disgraced former news
boss, Darren Wick.

Bornstein suspects some women have signed NDAs that makes public
redress difficult, calling this "ironic in an industry that prides
itself on shining a light on stories in the public interest".

While a class action, which requires seven or more complainants,
wasn't mentioned, Bornstein said: "The more women that come
forward, the stronger their position will be to get some form of
redress. One of the things NDAs often do is mask the reality for
other women experiencing similar behaviour."

Wick has reportedly been the subject of complaints from "more than
a dozen former and current TV journalists from the Nine Network",
which could certainly be cause for a class action.

3AW Mornings host Tom Elliott claimed on-air last week he knows of
"four women who all allege some very bad behaviour by Darren Wick,"
stating "I know the four women – and I think they are telling the
truth" and the behaviour "ranges from belittling and berating
female employees in front of their colleagues to sexual
harassment".

A Nine personality told Sky News that, during a Logies after party
on the Gold Coast last year, Wick "was gropey, he had his hands
everywhere, breathing heavily in my ear, I had to peel him off
me".

The unnamed on-air personality also said of Wick, who spent close
to three decades at Nine: "It was commonplace for him to drink
heavily at functions and he would often get in women's personal
space. We were revolted by him."

It comes after Nine board and CEO Mike Sneesby insisted they are on
the same page, following speculation that Sneesby is on the outer.

A statement sent to staff last week read that "the group leadership
team is united with the board, and working closely, to ensure our
workplace is one of respect, safety and inclusion". [GN]

NORTHERN TRUST: Class Cert Hearing Rescheduled to August 20
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Emerson v. Northern Trust
Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00241 (N.D. Cal., Filed Jan.
18, 2023), the Hon. Judge Trina L. Thompson entered an order
granting the plaintiffs motion to continue the briefing schedule
for the dispositive motion to be determined at the further case
management conference on Aug. 29, 2024.

-- The Court also reschedules the class certification hearing date
to
    Aug. 20, 2024, at 2p.m., without adjusting the briefing
schedule.

-- Finally, absent good cause, the Court maintains the previously
scheduled date, March 11, 2025, for the Motion for Summary
Judgment.

The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Personal Property Damage.

Northern Trust is an American financial services company.[CC]

OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY: Ct. Directs Voegel Discovery Plan Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Voegel v. Obstetrics and
Gynecology Care Assoc. S.C., Case No. 1:23-cv-01459-MMM-JEH (C.D.
Ill.), the Hon. Judge entered an order Hon. Judge Jonathan E.
Hawley entered a standing order as follows:

   -- Rule 16 scheduling conference

      The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
      30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
      The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.

   -- Discovery plan

      The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
      calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.

   -- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference

      If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
      plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
      conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
      discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
      within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16

      scheduling conference be cancelled.

   -- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing

      For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
      by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a

      telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to

      appear for an in-person hearing.

   -- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the

      discovery deadline has already passed

      The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court

      after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
      disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the

      relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
      raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
      discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
      the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
      discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
      discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
      they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move

      that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any

      subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.

   -- Settlement conferences and mediation

      The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or

      mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
      settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
      Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.

Obstetrics is a medical group practice.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5tmz3K at no extra
charge.[CC]

PITTSBURGH REGIONAL: Class Cert Opposition Reply Due June 17
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE(S) AND JANE
DOE(S) v. PITTSBURGH REGIONAL TRANSIT, Case No. 2:22-cv-01736 (W.D.
Pa., Filed Dec. 6, 2022), the Hon. Judge Robert J. Colville entered
an order granting motion to extend time to reply to opposition to
class certification by Jacob Meinert.

-- The Plaintiff's Reply in Opposition for Class Certification is
due
    by June 17, 2024.

The nature of suit states Civil Rights (Employment
Discrimination).

Pittsburgh is the second-largest public transit agency in
Pennsylvania.[CC]

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Parties Must File Class Cert Papers by July 12
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NORTH v. PORTFOLIO
RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-20190 (D.N.J.,
Filed Dec. 22, 2020), the Hon. Judge Brian R. Martinotti entered an
order directing the parties are directed to:

   (1) serve the moving papers on or before July 12, 2024,

   (2) serve the opposition papers on or before August 9, 2024, and


   (3) serve the reply papers on or before August 30, 2024.

Portfolio is a publicly-traded debt buyer and debt collection
company.[CC]

POWER ELECTRONICS: Filing for Conditional Status Bid Due Oct. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NAHTAN HOFF, v. POWER
ELECTRONICS USA, INC. Case No. 3:24-cv-00098-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the
Hon. Judge Anita Marie Boor entered a preliminary pretrial
conference order as follows:

   1. Amendments to the pleadings:                    July 23,
2024

   2. Plaintiff' motion for conditional               Oct. 30, 2024

      certification of the Fair Labor
      Standards Act (FLSA) class:

   3. Motions & Briefs To Certify/Decertify           April 21,
2025
      Classes:

   4. Disclosure of liability experts:

                           Proponent:                 Aug. 26, 2025


                          Respondent:                 Oct. 7, 2025

   5. Deadline for filing dispositive                 Nov. 18,
2025
      motions:

   6. Disclosure of damages experts:

                           Plaintiff:                 Jan. 30,
2026

                          Defendants:                 Feb. 27,
2026

   7. Settlement Letters:                             March 27,
2026

   8. Discovery Cutoff:                               March 27,
2026

   9. Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures and                   April 10,
2026
      all motions in limine:

                 Objections:                          May 1, 2026

Power Electronics is a manufacturer of solar inverters for
utility-scale photovoltaic plants.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZBPjsT at no extra
charge.[CC]

PREMIUM VELOCITY: Court Extends Time to File Response
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARREN LAMONT WILLIAMS,
Individually, and on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, v. PREMIUM VELOCITY AUTO, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00901
(M.D. Tenn.), the Court entered an order granting Premium
Velocity's unopposed motion for extension of time to respond to the
Plaintiff's motion to facilitate notice of an Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) Collective Action and would show unto the Court as
follows:

   1. Darren Lamont Williams filed his Motion to Facilitate Notice
of
      an FLSA Collective Action on April 16, 2024, on behalf of
      himself and others similarly situated.

   2. Based upon the filing date and Local Rules, Defendant's
response
      is due on or about May 14, 2024.

   3. Undersigned Counsel has conferred with counsel for Plaintiff
who
      has no objection to extending said deadline until June 21,
2024.

Premium is the second largest Jiffy Lube franchise.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 3, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=N4kaQF at no extra
charge.[CC]

PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Roberts Appeals Case Dismissal to 6th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Nathan Roberts, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order and Judgment dated
May 21, 2024 entered in the lawsuit styled Nathan Roberts, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Co., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01597, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.

Progressive Preferred Insurance Company provides commercial
insurance to commercial trucking and delivery companies. It also
engages in patently unlawful racial discrimination by offering a
$25,000 "grant" to 10 "Black-owned small businesses to use toward
the purchase of a commercial vehicle." Progressive does not permit
non-black-owned small businesses to even apply for the grant.

On August 16, 2023, Plaintiffs Nathan Roberts and Freedom Truck
Dispatch bring suit to enjoin Progressive from continuing these
racially discriminatory practices and recover class-wide damages on
behalf of everyone who has suffered unlawful racial discrimination
on account of this program.

On May 21, 2024, Judge Patricia A Gaughan entered a Memorandum of
Opinion and Order granting Defendants Progressive Preferred
Insurance Company and Progressive Casualty Insurance Company's
February 7, 2024 motion to dismiss, and granting Defendant Circular
Board Inc.'s February 7 motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' first amended
class-action complaint, or to stay and compel arbitration under the
Federal Arbitration Act. A Judgment was then entered in favor of
all Defendants.

The appellate case is captioned as Nathan Roberts, et al. v.
Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 24-3454,
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed
on May 29, 2024.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants NATHAN ROBERTS, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, et al., are represented by:

          Benjamin Michael Flowers, Esq.
          ASHBROOK BYRNE KRESGE
          P.O. Box. 20464
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: (312) 898-3932

Defendants-Appellees PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et
al., are represented by:

          Michael James Ruttinger, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS
          950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 592-5000

REDBUBBLE INC: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Wallster
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WALLSTER, INC., dba
WALLSHOPPE, a California corporation, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated persons, v. REDBUBBLE, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 60, inclusive, Case No.
2:22-cv-02958-WLH-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wesley Hsu
entered an order granting Redbubble's motion for summary judgment,
and denying as moot the motion to deny class certification.

Because the court finds that Redbubble is protected from liability
for copyright infringement under the safe harbour of DMCA section
512(c), and because the relief Wallshoppe seeks is therefore not
available, the Court need not assess Wallshoppe's claims for direct
and vicarious copyright infringement.

The case is a copyright class action stemming from the sale through
Redbubble's website of products bearing Wallshoppe's copyrighted
design.

In late 2021, Wallshoppe discovered that Redbubble was selling
products featuring the Pacifico Palm Design.
According to Wallshoppe, the Pacifico Palm Design is one of its
"best-selling and most recognizable designs."

The design was created by Nathan Turner, an interior designer who
is also an equity partner in Wallshoppe, in collaboration with
Wallshoppe employees.

On Oct. 19, 2021, Kiarash Neman, a Wallshoppe employee, submitted a
takedown notice to Redbubble.

On May 3, 2022, Wallshoppe filed this putative class action
alleging one claim for copyright infringement. Wallshoppe alleges
that Redbubble directly and vicariously infringed Wallshoppe's
copyright by selling unlicensed products bearing its copyrighted
work.

Wallshoppe "sells high-quality wallpaper featuring various designs
to consumers throughout the United States."  Wallshoppe owns the
copyright in its designs.

Redbubble is the operator of a "global online marketplace" hosted
at Redbubble.com.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 31, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3z1d7Q at no extra
charge.[CC]

RETIREMENT PLAN: Settlement in Durnack Suit Gets Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNETTE M. DURNACK, et al,
v. RETIREMENT PLAN COMMITTEE OF TALEN ENERGY CORPORATION, et al,
Case No. 5:20-cv-05975-JLS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey
Schmehl entered an order as follows:

   1. Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of proposed class
action
      settlement is granted. The matters of attorneys' fees and
      reimbursement of expenses to Class Counsel, and Service
Awards
      to Named Plaintiffs, are addressed in a separate Order.

   2. This Final Order and Judgment incorporates the Settlement
      Agreement and the Preliminary Approval Order.

   3. As previously determined in the Preliminary Approval Order,
the
      Court confirms that the requirements of Rule 23 of the
Federal
      Rules of Civil Procedure have been met as to the Settlement
      Class, which has been certified for the sole purpose of
settling
      and resolving this Action.

   4. The Court hereby finds that the Settlement Class has
received
      proper and adequate notice of the Settlement, the Fairness
      Hearing, Class Counsel's application for award of
attorneys’
      fees and reimbursement of litigation costs and for Service
      Awards to the Class Representatives, and the Plan of
Allocation,
      such notice having been given in accordance with the
Preliminary
      Approval Order entered February 22, 2024 (ECF 94)

   5. The Court hereby approves the Settlement and hereby orders
that
      the Settlement shall be consummated and implemented in
      accordance with its terms and conditions.

   6. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), the Court finds that the
      Settlement embodied in the Settlement Agreement is fair,
      reasonable and adequate to the Plan and the Settlement
Class.

   7. The Plan of Allocation is finally approved as fair,
reasonable,
      and adequate. The Settlement Administrator shall direct the
      distribution of, and the Authorized Administrator shall
proceed
      to distribute the Net Settlement Amount in accordance with
the
      Plan of Allocation and the Settlement Agreement. The
Settlement
      Administrator shall have final authority to determine the
share
      of the Net Settlement Amount to be allocated to each Class
      Member in accordance with the Plan of Allocation approved by
the
      Court.

   8. All requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act have been
met.

   9. The operative Amended Complaint and all claims asserted
therein
      in the Class Action are hereby dismissed with prejudice and
      without costs to any of the Settling Parties and Released
      Parties other than as provided for in the Settlement
Agreement.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OaHCzh at no extra
charge.[CC]

REYNOLDS CONSUMER: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Feb. 4, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZULAIKA MAYFIELD, et al.,
v. REYNOLDS CONSUMER PRODUCTS LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-04587-JST (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order setting the
following case deadlines pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 16 and Civil Local Rule 16-10:

                     Event                         Deadline

  Deadline to add parties or amend the           July 26, 20242
  pleadings

  Class certification motion and Plaintiffs'     Feb. 4, 2025
  class certification expert disclosures due

  Deadline to complete depositions and           Mar. 6, 2025
  document productions for Plaintiffs'
  experts re class certification

  Class certification opposition and             Mar. 21, 2025
  Defendants' class certification expert
  disclosures due

  Deadline to complete depositions and           Apr. 21, 2025
  document productions for Defendant's
  experts re: Class Certification

  Class certification reply and Plaintiffs'      May 5, 2025
  expert rebuttal reports, if any, due

Reynolds offers aluminum foil, parchment paper, plastic wrap, oven
bags, and slow cooker liners.

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

RYDER INTEGRATED: Parties in Nance Seek to Stay Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIFFENY NANCE, on behalf
of herself and the Class Members, v. RYDER INTEGRATED LOGISTICS,
INC., a Delaware Corporation; and RYDER SYSTEM, INC., a Florida
Corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-00477-TLN-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order:

-- staying all current and pending discovery in this case for 60
days
    from June 2, 2024 until August 1, 2024;

-- stating that all current and pending discovery deadlines be
    continued by 60 days; and

-- extending the Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for class
    certification by 60 days, from Dec. 30, 2024 to Feb. 28, 2025.

on March 13, 2023, the Plaintiff filed her class-action complaint
for damages against Ryder in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of California

On Feb. 1, 2024, the Court signed an order staying discovery for 30
days and extending the deadline for the Plaintiff to file a motion
for class certification by 30 days, making the current deadline for
the Plaintiff to file her motion Sept. 6, 2024.

On Apr. 2, 2024, the Parties stipulated to stay discovery for
another 60 days and to extend Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion
for class certification to Dec. 30, 2024, as the plaintiffs in the
Perkins/Johnson matter represented to the Defendants in this case
that their Motion for Preliminary Approval would be forthcoming
shortly.

Ryder provides transportation services.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cwo7h9 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
          Ori Edelstein, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE
          COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                  oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mara D. Curtis, Esq.
          Rafael N. Tumanyan, Esq.
          Tanner J. Hendershot, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1514
          Telephone: (213) 457-8000
          Facsimile: (213) 457-8080
          E-mail: mcurtis@reedsmith.com
                  thendershot@reedsmith.com

SCHENKER INC: Bid to Stay All Pre-Trial Hearings Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wickham v. Schenker, Inc.,
Case No. 5:23-cv-00946 (N.D. Cal., Filed March 2, 2023), the Hon.
Judge P. Casey Pitts entered an order denying the parties'
stipulation to stay all pre-trial hearings and deadlines.

-- Should mediation be successful, or should the parties conclude

    upon completion of mediation that additional efforts might be
    fruitful, the parties may file a motion to continue the hearing
on
    the motion for class certification at that time.

The nature of suit states Labor Litigation.

Schenker provides transportation and logistics services.[CC]

SHADE STORE: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Fitzgerald Due Dec. 20
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEE FITZGERALD,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE
SHADE STORE, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01435-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Hon.
Judge Ricardo Martinez entered an order granting the Parties'
stipulated motion and setting the following schedule:

              Case Event                         Deadline

  FRCP 26(f) Conference Completed              May 31, 2024
  Exchange of Initial Disclosures

  Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan       June 7, 2024

  FRCP 16(b) Conference To be set by the       Sept. 2, 2024
  Court Deadline to move for leave to
  amend the pleadings

  Close of fact discovery for issues           Oct. 18, 2024
  related to class certification

  Expert reports on class certification        Nov. 1, 2024
  issues on which party has burden

  Rebuttal expert reports on class             Nov. 29, 2024
  certification issues

  Close of expert discovery for issues         Dec. 13, 2024
  related to class certification

  Deadline to file motion for class            Dec. 20, 2024
  certification

  Opposition to motion for class               Jan. 28, 2025
  certification and any Daubert motions

  Reply to motion for class certification      Feb. 18, 2025

Shade Store is a family-run, custom window treatments company.

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

The Parties are represented by:

          Maren R. Norton, Esq.
          James M. Shore, Esq.
          Jenna M. Poligo, Esq.
          STOEL RIVES LLP
          600 University Street, Suite 3600
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 624-0900
          Facsimile: (206) 386-7500
          E-mail: maren.norton@stoel.com
                  jim.shore@stoel.com
                  jenna.poligo@stoel.com

                - and -

          Steven N. Feldman, Esq.
          Shlomo Fellig, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
          Telephone: (213) 485-1234
          E-mail: steve.feldman@lw.com
                  shlomo.fellig@lw.com

SIGNATURE LANDSCAPE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Nov. 26
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OGELIO GARCIA VALDEZ and
MARBELLA GOMEZ on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, Case No. 22-2276-TC-ADM v. SIGNATURE
LANDSCAPE, LLC (Kansas Limited Liability Corporation), Case No.
2:22-cv-02276-TC-ADM (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Angel Mitchell
entered a Phase II scheduling order, as follows:

                Event                           Deadline/Settings

  Plaintiffs' settlement proposal                 July 8, 2024

  Defendant's settlement counter-proposal         July 22, 2024

  Jointly filed mediation notice, or              Aug. 5, 2024
  confidential settlement reports to
  magistrate judge

  Plaintiff experts disclosed                     Oct. 1, 2024

  Defendant experts disclosed                     Oct. 29, 2024

  Motion for Rule 23 class certification          Nov. 26, 2024

  All discovery completed                         Feb. 7, 2025

  Motion to decertify the conditionally           March 7, 2025
  certified FLSA class

  Proposed pretrial order due                     March 14, 2025

  Pretrial conference                             March 27, 2025

  Trial                                           Feb. 3, 2026

The case is a conditionally certified collective and putative class
action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
and Missouri and Kansas state law.

Signature is a family-owned landscaping and snow removal service
provider.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QoqjrS at no extra
charge.[CC]

SOUTH DAKOTA: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Supplemental Brief
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Julie Irvine, guardian ad
litem of Juan Alvarez, Aubrey Archambeau, and Joseph Baker, as
named plaintiffs on behalf of a class, v. Jeremy Johnson,
Administrator, South Dakota Human Services Center, sued in his
official capacity, and Matt Althoff, Secretary of the South Dakota
Department of Social Services, sued in his official capacity, Case
No. 4:21-cv-04224-KES (D.S.D.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting them leave to file a supplemental brief in
support of their motion to amend the class definition and to alter
or amend the order denying class certification.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 3, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MEdDs2 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James D. Leach, Esq.
          Attorney at Law


          1617 Sheridan Lake Rd.
          Rapid City, SD 57702
          Telephone: (605) 341-4400
          E-mail: jim@southdakotajustice.com

SPRINGFIELD, MA: Bid to Exclude Expert Opinion Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARC SAVAGE and RANDOLPH
BLAKE, v. THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, BERNARD J. CALVI, individually
and as Fire Commissioner for the City of Springfield, and JOSEPH
CONANT, individually and as former Fire Commissioner, Case No.
3:18-cv-30164-KAR (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Katherine Robertson
entered an order  denying the Defendant's motion to exclude opinion
testimony and declaration evidence of Dr. Christopher Erath.

The Plaintiffs have a history of challenges to various employment
decisions by the Fire Department in which they expressed their
belief they were not being treated equally based on race when those
employment decisions were made. For purposes of determining the
statute of limitations applicable to Plaintiffs' Equal Protection
claims before this court, these challenges occurred at least as
early as 2014.

The Plaintiffs filed suit on Oct. 9, 2018, and, therefore, the
Plaintiffs' equal protection claims are only viable for alleged
discriminatory failures to promote or other alleged discriminatory
acts occurring on or after Oct. 9, 2015. The time frames for the
Plaintiffs' Title VII and ch. 151B claims remain as already
calculated by this court.

The Plaintiffs, who are Black, allege that Defendants have
discriminated against them by failing to enforce the City's
residency ordinance which has denied promotional opportunities to
Black and Hispanic firefighters, by maintaining a racially hostile
work environment, and by retaliating against them for engaging in
protected activity.

The Plaintiffs submitted a declaration from economics expert
Christopher Erath, Ph. D. in support of an unsuccessful motion for
class certification. Dr. Erath identified a spreadsheet created by
the Plaintiffs' counsel based on data received from the City and
public sources, which shows the promotion history of employees of
the Fire Department from 1984 to the present, as the basis for his
expert opinions. According to Dr. Erath, his understanding was that
any firefighter hired or promoted on or after March 17, 1995, was
required to live in the City.

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

STATE FARM: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Nater Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nater, v. State Farm
Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., Case No. 1:23-cv-01408-JES-JEH
(C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge entered an order Hon. Judge Jonathan E.
Hawley entered a standing order as follows:

   -- Rule 16 scheduling conference

      The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
      30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
      The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.

   -- Discovery plan

      The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
      calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.

   -- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference

      If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
      plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
      conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
      discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
      within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16

      scheduling conference be cancelled.

   -- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing

      For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
      by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a

      telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to

      appear for an in-person hearing.

   -- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the

      discovery deadline has already passed

      The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court

      after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
      disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the

      relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
      raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
      discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
      the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
      discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct

      discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
      they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move

      that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any

      subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.

   -- Settlement conferences and mediation

      The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or

      mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
      settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
      Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
State Farm offers vehicle, auto, accident, homeowners, condo
owners, renters, life and annuities, fire and casualty, health,
disability, flood, business, and boat insurance products and
services.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NtN5dv at no extra
charge.[CC]

STATE FARM: Epiq Appointed as Class Administrator in Chadwick Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSE CHADWICK, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:21-cv-01161-DPM (E.D.
Ark.), the Hon. Judge D.P. Marshall Jr. entered an order appointing
Epiq Class Action and Claim Solutions, Inc. as the class
administrator.

The Court applauds the parties' collaboration. The proposed notice
and distribution methods are approved with tweaks as noted below.

-- Delete "and a hearing" from the last sentence of the "What has

    happened in the Class Action so far?" paragraph in the proposed

    email and long-form notice.

-- Change the date to "March 18, 2024" in the first sentence of
the
    "The Court's Class Certification Order" paragraph in the
proposed
    email and long-form notice.

-- Add the link to the class administration website where
highlighted
    in the proposed notices and opt-out form.

-- Insert the class administrator information where highlighted in

    the proposed notices and opt-out form.

-- Once the dates are finalized, add them in the highlighted
places
    in the proposed notices and opt-out form.

State Farm offers vehicle, auto, accident, homeowners, condo
owners, renters, life and annuities, fire and casualty, health,
disability, flood, business, and boat insurance products and
services.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NncDpQ at no extra
charge.[CC]

STERICYCLE INC: M&A Investigates Merger With Waste Management
-------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has
recovered money for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm
in the 2018-2022 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We
are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and
are investigating Stericycle, Inc. (Nasdaq: SRCL ), relating to its
proposed merger with Waste Management, Inc. Under the terms of the
agreement, Waste Management, Inc. will acquire all the outstanding
shares of Stericycle common stock for $62.00 cash per share.

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

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

About Monteverde & Associates PC

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

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

Contact:

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

SUCCESS SYSTEMS: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
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 Hon. Judge Katherine Nelson entered an order granting in part
and denying part the parties' joint consent motion for extension of
time to serve Defendant's expert report and file Plaintiff's motion
for class certification.

The court will grant the parties' requested modifications with
respect to the Defendant's expert disclosures and Plaintiff's
motion for class certification, but granting extensions on these
deadlines will necessitate changes to others.

Accordingly, the Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) order entered in this case
is modified as follows under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4):

The Defendant is a national credit repair firm.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=48mzVd at no extra
charge.[CC]

TD BANK: Parties in Nelipa Ask Court to Set Briefing Schedule
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nelipa, et al., v. TD
Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:21-cv-01092-LDH-JAM (E.D.N.Y.), the Parties
ask the Court to set a briefing schedule on objections and
responses to objections to the Report and Recommendation
("R&R")issued by Judge Joseph A. Marutollo on May 29, 2024
recommending the grant of Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Defendant's current deadline to
file objections to the R&R is June 12, 2024. Counsel for Defendant
has a four-day jury trial beginning June 11, 2024 and final
preparations for that trial substantially overlap with the time to
prepare objections to the 52-page R&R.

Given this and other scheduling considerations, the parties propose
the following briefing schedule:

-- Defendant's Deadline to File Objections        June 28, 2024
    to the R&R:

-- Plaintiffs' Deadline to File Responses         July 29, 2024
    to Objections:

TD Bank is an American national bank.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ql1erH at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Thomas F. Burke, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR LLP
          1735 Market Street, 51st floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599
          Telephone: (215) 864-8463
          Facsimile: (215) 864-8999
          E-mail: burket@ballardspahr.com

TERVIS TUMBLER: General Pretrial Management Order Entered
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDERY HERRERA, v. TERVIS
TUMBLER COMPANY, Case No. 1:24-cv-01739-JHR-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general
pretrial management as follows:

All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to
scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for
judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary
judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must
be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's
Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's
website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses.

It appearing to the Court that no initial case management
conference has yet taken place in this action, it is hereby ORDERED
that an initial conference in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16
will be held on July 9, 2024, at 11:00 a.m., in Courtroom 20A, 500
Pearl Street, New York, New York. At the conference, the parties
must be prepared to discuss the subjects set forth in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 16(b) and (c).

The Court further ordered that counsel shall meet and confer in
accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) no later than 21 days prior
to the initial case management conference. No later than one week
(seven calendar days) prior to the conference, the parties shall
file a Pre-Conference Statement, via ECF, signed by counsel for all
parties.

Tervis is an American manufacturer of double-walled, insulated
tumblers.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OaDUuB at no extra
charge.[CC]



UNITED AIRLINES: England Appeals Judgment in Contract Breach Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Kenneth England has filed an appeal from the District
Court's Final Judgment Order dated May 2, 2024 and Memorandum
Opinion and Order dated September 13, 2022 entered in the lawsuit
styled KENNETH ENGLAND, Plaintiff v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-02877, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

The suit arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of agreement
and violation of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economics
Security Act (CARES Act). The Plaintiff worked with Defendant as a
shift manager at Defendant's hub at Chicago O'Hare International
Airport.

According to the complaint, Defendant announced in a press release
on April 15, 2020 that an approximately $5 billion worth of
financial assistance from the government under the CARES Act is
expected to be received by them to provide funding for employees.
Additionally, Defendant and the Treasury Department entered into a
Payroll Support Program Agreement on April 20, 2020, providing for
an initial support payment of close to $2.5 billion and in exchange
Defendant shall not terminate employees and reduce their salary and
benefits between the date of the agreement and September 30, 2020.

However, Defendant implemented an unpaid time off program for
Domestic M&A employees requiring them to take 20 unpaid days off
effective between May 16 and September 30 to align with less
flying, fewer customers, and less working time for frontline
employees, thereby violating the PSP Agreement, says the suit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on September 27, 2022,
Judge Martha M. Pacold of the Northern District of Illinois granted
United's motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint without
prejudice. Judge Pacold opined that since the terms of the PSP
Agreement that United allegedly breached simply mirror the CARES
Act, a third-party beneficiary breach of contract claim is
inconsistent with the absence of a private right of action in the
CARES Act. Nor does the PSP Agreement itself (apart from the
statute) confer third-party beneficiary rights. "A nonparty becomes
legally entitled to a benefit promised in a contract only if the
contracting parties so intend." The PSP Agreement does not display
an intent for third parties to enforce the Agreement. The Agreement
does not confer third-party beneficiary rights, ruled Judge
Pacold.

On May 2, 2024, the District Court through Judge Pacold entered a
Final Judgment Order in favor of United and against Plaintiff
England.

The appellate case is captioned as KENNETH ENGLAND, Plaintiff v.
UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 24-1927, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on May 28,
2024.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant KENNETH ENGLAND is represented by:

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
          John J. Frawley, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Tel: (312) 419-1008
          Fax: (312) 419-1025
          Emails: dwerman@flsalaw.com
                  msalas@flsalaw.com

UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Sur-Reply
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LD, DB, BW, RH and, CJ, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. UNITED
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, a California Corporation, UNITEDHEALTHCARE
INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut Corporation, and MULTIPLAN, INC.,
a New York corporation, Case No. 4:20-cv-02254-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting them leave to
file the attached sur-reply to address new proposed subclasses and
a supporting expert report in Plaintiffs' reply brief in support of
their renewed motion for class certification.

In the Reply, Plaintiffs for the first time proposed four new
subclasses, purportedly as a way to address some of the flaws in
the class that they have pursued throughout the four-year history
of this case.

United Behavioral provides management services on a contract and
fee basis.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 4, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eAgWoo at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Lauren M. Blas, Esq.
          Geoffrey Sigler, Esq.
          Derek K. Kraft, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229-7000
          Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
          E-mail: lblas@gibsondunn.com
                  gsigler@gibsondunn.com
                  dkraft@gibsondunn.com

                - and -

          Errol J. King, Jr., Esq.
          Craig L. Caesar, Esq.
          Katherine C. Mannino, Esq.
          Taylor J. Crousillac, Esq.
          Brittany H. Alexander, Esq.
          PHELPS DUNBAR LLP
          II City Plaza
          400 Convention Street, Suite 1100
          Baton Rouge, LA 70802
          Telephone: (225) 376-0207
          E-mail: errol.king@phelps.com
                  craig.caesar@phelps.com
                  katie.mannino@phelps.com
                  taylor.crousillac@phelps.com
                  brittany.alexander@phelps.com

UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Seeks to Seal Material in LD Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LD, DB, BW, RH and, CJ, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. UNITED
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, a California Corporation, UNITEDHEALTHCARE
INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut Corporation, and MULTIPLAN, INC.,
a New York corporation, Case No. 4:20-cv-02254-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting the Defendants'
interim administrative motion to seal and to consider whether
another Party's material should be sealed.

Pursuant to the Feb. 13, 2024, Stipulation and Order Modifying
Sealing Procedures and Civil Local Rules 7-11(b), 79-5(c), and
79-5(f)(3), the Defendants move to seal portions of the Defendants'
Sur-Reply to the Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of the Renewed Motion
for Class Certification as well as the declaration and exhibits
filed in support thereof.

United Behavioral provides management services on a contract and
fee basis.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 4, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DnIGeh at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Lauren M. Blas, Esq.
          Geoffrey Sigler, Esq.
          Derek K. Kraft, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229-7000
          Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
          E-mail: lblas@gibsondunn.com
                  gsigler@gibsondunn.com
                  dkraft@gibsondunn.com

                - and -

          Errol J. King, Jr., Esq.
          Craig L. Caesar, Esq.
          Katherine C. Mannino, Esq.
          Taylor J. Crousillac, Esq.
          Brittany H. Alexander, Esq.
          PHELPS DUNBAR LLP
          II City Plaza
          400 Convention Street, Suite 1100
          Baton Rouge, LA 70802
          Telephone: (225) 376-0207
          E-mail: errol.king@phelps.com
                  craig.caesar@phelps.com
                  katie.mannino@phelps.com
                  taylor.crousillac@phelps.com
                  brittany.alexander@phelps.com

UNITED STATES: Brewer Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dennis Sheldon Brewer,
Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
William Burns, Director Central Intelligence Agency, et al., Case
No. 2:24-cv-00123-Z (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting his motion for class certification and
appointing class counsel.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 5, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2nDY46 at no extra
charge.[CC]


UNITED STATES: Seeks to Stay Class Cert Proceedings in Mathis
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as W. MATHIS, et al., v.
UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01312-TNM
(D.D.C.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order staying
class certification proceedings in the case pending the resolution
of their forthcoming dispositive motion.

The Defendants contend that the case presents no particular reason
to decide class certification first, and where Defendants
anticipate filing a dispositive motion in short order, this Court
should do just that.

The Plaintiffs oppose this motion. This case seeks to enjoin
Defendants for alleged violations of Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. section 794.

The Complaint was filed on May 6, 2024, and on the same day,
Plaintiffs moved to certify the class. Plaintiffs, however, did not
effect service of process on Defendants until May 7, when copies of
the summons and the complaint were served on the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the District of Columbia.

United States Parole Commission is responsible for granting or
denying parole to, and supervising the parole releases of,
incarcerated individuals.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 4, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8vtlND at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kartik N. Venguswamy, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          601 D Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 252-1790
          E-mail: kartik.venguswamy@usdoj.gov

UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS: Cawley et al. Sue Over WARN Act Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE CAWLEY, CHARIS DUKE, NICK EMBREE, LAURA FRAZURE, COLIN
KENNEY, JACQUELINE MANNI, KEVIN MERCER, REBECCA JEAN MURPHY,
BRADLEY PHILBERT, KARL STAVEN, RICHARD REIN, and ROSEMARY SAVOIA,
individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. THE UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-02445 (E.D. Pa., June 5, 2024) seeks to recover damages
equaling 60 days' pay and ERISA benefits due for violations of the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 as well
as seeks to recover wages for violations of the Pennsylvania Wage
Payment and Collection Law.

The Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees were employed by
Defendant until they discovered on or about May 31, 2024, via
public reporting, that Defendant had decided to close its doors and
cease operations, and that they would be terminated as of June 7,
2024. The Defendant did not give Plaintiffs and similarly situated
employees at least 60 days' advance written notice of termination,
in violation of the WARN Act, says the suit.

The University of the Arts is a private arts university located in
Philadelphia, PA. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

        Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq.
        Jordan R. Konell, Esq.
        Samuel H. Datlof, Esq.
        WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON
        1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor
        Philadelphia, PA 19103
        Telephone: (215)-656-3600
        E-mail: rhancock@wwdlaw.com
                jkonell@wwdlaw.com
                sdatlof@wwdlaw.com

VESTIS CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 16
------------------------------------------------------------
National plaintiffs law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP encourages investors in Vestis Corporation ("Vestis" or the
"Company") (NYSE:VSTS) who suffered losses from purchasing Vestis
common stock between October 2, 2023 and May 1, 2024, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), to contact us immediately regarding a pending
securities class action against Vestis. The deadline to apply to be
lead plaintiff is July 16, 2024.

Class Period: October 2, 2023 - May 1, 2024

Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: July 16, 2024

Case information: lieffcabraser.com/securities/vestis

Contact us: Email or text investorinfo@lchb.com or call
1-800-541-7358

Vestis is a uniform services provider that provides rental uniforms
and workplace supplies to businesses throughout the United States
and Canada. The Company used to operate as the Uniform Services
division of Aramark, a food and facilities services provider, until
it was spun off as an independent publicly traded company in
September 2023.

The action alleges that during the Class Period, Vestis
misrepresented and failed to disclose materially adverse facts
regarding the Company's operations, including that:

     (i) Aramark had not invested sufficiently in its Uniform
Services division prior to the spinoff of Vestis, and

    (ii) as a result, the Company had experienced services gaps and
was not in a position to meet the growth projections that
defendants touted.

On May 2, 2024, before the market closed, Vestis released
disappointing financial results for the second quarter of fiscal
year 2024. The Company lowered its outlook for fiscal year 2024,
reporting projected revenue growth of negative 1% to 0%. During the
Company's earnings conference call with analysts and investors held
later that day, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, defendant
Kimberly Scott, said that "service gaps have driven price
sensitivity." Analysts were surprised by the Company's
announcements, including a JP Morgan analyst who remarked, "[a]s
you had articulated, your plan had been just a couple of months ago
for a targeted area price increase, and then you pivoted to a price
decrease." On this news, Vestis's common stock price fell $8.31 per
share, or 45%, from its closing price of $18.47 per share on May 1,
2024, to close at $10.16 per share on May 2, 2024, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with over 125 attorneys in
offices in San Francisco, New York, Nashville, and Munich, Germany,
is an internationally-recognized law firm committed to advancing
the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility.
Repeatedly recognized as a "Plaintiffs' Powerhouse" by Law360,
Lieff Cabraser has litigated some of the most important civil cases
in the United States, and has assisted clients in recovering over
$129 billion in verdicts and settlements. For over 50 years, Lieff
Cabraser has remained committed to ensuring access to justice for
all.

Contact

     Sharon Lee
     Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
     415 956-1000
     slee@lchb.com [GN]

VISA INC: Bid to Enforce Settlement Deal in Antitrust Suit OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Payment Card Interchange Fee and
Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:05-md-01720
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Margo Brodie entered an order:

-- granting the Defendants' motion to enforce the Settlement
    Agreement and finds that Square's merchant-customers and
Intuit's
    merchant-customers "accepted" payment cards and are therefore
    members of the Rule 23(b)(3) Class;

-- denying the Lanning Plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary
judgment,
    and

-- denying Intuit's cross-motion for summary judgment.

Accordingly, the Court denies Intuit's motion for partial summary
judgment as to whether it has antitrust standing based on PayFac
transactions because the Court cannot determine as a matter of law
that Intuit is the direct purchaser of card-acceptance services.

On Jan. 31, 2024, the Defendants in this multidistrict litigation
moved to enforce the Superseding and Amended Definitive Class
Settlement Agreement of the Rule 23(b)(3) Class Plaintiffs and
Defendants, or, in the alternative for summary judgment, seeking to
dismiss claims brought by Plaintiffs Block, Inc., f/k/a Square,
Inc., and Intuit Inc. and Intuit Payment Solutions, LLC, that are
based on transactions in which Square or Intuit served as a
"payment facilitator" for their merchant customers.

In October of 2005, several complaints asserting similar antitrust
claims against Visa, Mastercard, and various issuing banks were
consolidated for pretrial purposes and transferred to the Eastern
District of New York, where they were joined by other similar
cases.

Visa is an American multinational payment card services
corporation.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 3, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HiBs7u at no extra
charge.[CC]



VISA INC: Bid to Enforce Settlement Deal in Block Suit OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Block, Inc. v. Visa Inc.
et al. (RE PAYMENT CARD INTERCHANGE FEE AND MERCHANT DISCOUNT
ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 23-CV-5377 (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Margo Brodie entered an order:

-- granting the Defendants' motion to enforce the Settlement
    Agreement and finds that Square's merchant-customers and
Intuit's
    merchant-customers "accepted" payment cards and are therefore
    members of the Rule 23(b)(3) Class;

-- denying the Lanning Plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary
judgment,
    and

-- denying Intuit's cross-motion for summary judgment.

Accordingly, the Court denies Intuit's motion for partial summary
judgment as to whether it has antitrust standing based on PayFac
transactions because the Court cannot determine as a matter of law
that Intuit is the direct purchaser of card-acceptance services.

On Jan. 31, 2024, the Defendants in this multidistrict litigation
moved to enforce the Superseding and Amended Definitive Class
Settlement Agreement of the Rule 23(b)(3) Class Plaintiffs and
Defendants, or, in the alternative for summary judgment, seeking to
dismiss claims brought by Plaintiffs Block, Inc., f/k/a Square,
Inc., and Intuit Inc. and Intuit Payment Solutions, LLC, that are
based on transactions in which Square or Intuit served as a
"payment facilitator" for their merchant customers.

In October of 2005, several complaints asserting similar antitrust
claims against Visa, Mastercard, and various issuing banks were
consolidated for pretrial purposes and transferred to the Eastern
District of New York, where they were joined by other similar
cases.

Visa is an American multinational payment card services
corporation.

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

VISA INC: Bid to Enforce Settlement Deal in Intuit Suit OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Intuit Inc. et al., v.
Visa Inc. et al. (RE PAYMENT CARD INTERCHANGE FEE AND MERCHANT
DISCOUNT ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No. 21-CV-1175 (E.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Margo Brodie entered an order:

-- granting the Defendants' motion to enforce the Settlement
    Agreement and finds that Square's merchant-customers and
Intuit's
    merchant-customers "accepted" payment cards and are therefore
    members of the Rule 23(b)(3) Class;

-- denying the Lanning Plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary
judgment,
    and

-- denying Intuit's cross-motion for summary judgment.

Accordingly, the Court denies Intuit's motion for partial summary
judgment as to whether it has antitrust standing based on PayFac
transactions because the Court cannot determine as a matter of law
that Intuit is the direct purchaser of card-acceptance services.

On Jan. 31, 2024, the Defendants in this multidistrict litigation
moved to enforce the Superseding and Amended Definitive Class
Settlement Agreement of the Rule 23(b)(3) Class Plaintiffs and
Defendants, or, in the alternative for summary judgment, seeking to
dismiss claims brought by Plaintiffs Block, Inc., f/k/a Square,
Inc., and Intuit Inc. and Intuit Payment Solutions, LLC, that are
based on transactions in which Square or Intuit served as a
"payment facilitator" for their merchant customers.

In October of 2005, several complaints asserting similar antitrust
claims against Visa, Mastercard, and various issuing banks were
consolidated for pretrial purposes and transferred to the Eastern
District of New York, where they were joined by other similar
cases.

Visa is an American multinational payment card services
corporation.

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

VISA INC: Bid to Enforce Settlement Deal in Lanning Suit OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lanning et al., v. Visa,
Inc. et al. (RE PAYMENT CARD INTERCHANGE FEE AND MERCHANT DISCOUNT
ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No. 21-CV-2360 (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Margo Brodie entered an order:

-- granting the Defendants' motion to enforce the Settlement
    Agreement and finds that Square's merchant-customers and
Intuit's
    merchant-customers "accepted" payment cards and are therefore
    members of the Rule 23(b)(3) Class;

-- denying the Lanning Plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary
judgment,
    and

-- denying Intuit's cross-motion for summary judgment.

Accordingly, the Court denies Intuit's motion for partial summary
judgment as to whether it has antitrust standing based on PayFac
transactions because the Court cannot determine as a matter of law
that Intuit is the direct purchaser of card-acceptance services.

On Jan. 31, 2024, the Defendants in this multidistrict litigation
moved to enforce the Superseding and Amended Definitive Class
Settlement Agreement of the Rule 23(b)(3) Class Plaintiffs and
Defendants, or, in the alternative for summary judgment, seeking to
dismiss claims brought by Plaintiffs Block, Inc., f/k/a Square,
Inc., and Intuit Inc. and Intuit Payment Solutions, LLC, that are
based on transactions in which Square or Intuit served as a
"payment facilitator" for their merchant customers.

In October of 2005, several complaints asserting similar antitrust
claims against Visa, Mastercard, and various issuing banks were
consolidated for pretrial purposes and transferred to the Eastern
District of New York, where they were joined by other similar
cases.

Visa is an American multinational payment card services
corporation.

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

WALMART INC: Carter Discrimination Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOYCE CARTER, Plaintiff, v. WALMART, INC.;
CHRISTOPHER "DOE"; JOHN DOES 1-15 (Fictitious Individuals); JANE
DOES 1-15 (Fictitious Individuals); ABC CORPS. 1-15 (Fictitious
Corps.); Jointly and Severally, Official and Individual Capacities,
Defendants, Case No. BUR-L-000196-24, was removed from the Superior
Court of New Jersey for the Burlington County to the U.S. the
District of New Jersey on June 5, 2024.

The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No.
1:24-cv-06719 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the New
Jersey Law Against Discrimination

Headquartered in Bentonville, AR, Walmart, Inc. operates a chain of
supercenters, discount stores, and neighborhood markets throughout
the U.S. and around the world. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

         John L. Lamb, Esq.
         BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
         Two Liberty Place
         50 S. 16th Street, Suite 3200
         Philadelphia, PA 19102
         Telephone: (215) 665-5354
         Facsimile: (215) 665-8760
         E-mail: john.lamb@bipc.com

WHEATLEIGH CORP: Challenges Final Approval of Mongue Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
WHEATLEIGH CORPORATION, et al., filed an appeal from the District
Court's Memorandum & Order dated April 16, 2024 entered in the
lawsuit styled ARLETA MONGUE v. THE WHEATLEIGH CORPORATION, L.
LINFIELD SIMON, SUSAN SIMON, and MARC WILHELM, Case No.
3:18-cv-30095-KAR, in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.

In her amended complaint, Plaintiff Mongue discloses that she is a
former wait staff employee of Wheatleigh, which was owned and/or
operated by the remaining Defendants L. Linfield Simon, Susan
Simon, and Marc Wilhelm. She alleges that the Defendants violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., by
failing to pay her an overtime premium, paying her less than the
federal minimum wage, not providing proper notice before utilizing
a tip credit, and operating an illegal tip pool.

The Plaintiff also asserts state law claims against these
Defendants under Massachusetts wage laws. Specifically, she claims
that the Defendants violated the Massachusetts Fair Minimum Wage
Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151, Sections 1, 7, by paying her the
service rate when she should have received full minimum wage due to
the Defendants' unlawful distribution of its tip pools, the
un-tipped tasks to which she was assigned, and the Defendants'
failure to provide proper written notice before utilizing the
service rate; the Massachusetts Tips Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149,
Section 152A, by unlawfully distributing wages from the tip pool to
non-wait staff employees and supervisors; and the Massachusetts
Wage Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, Sections 148, 150, by failing to
timely pay wages.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge
Katherine A. Robertson entered an Order on April 16, 2024, granting
Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and expenses and service
award to the named Plaintiff, and Plaintiff's motion for final
approval of class action settlement.

The appellate case is captioned as The Wheatleigh Corporation, et
al. v. Mongue, Case No. 24-1488, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on May 24, 2024.[BN]

Defendants-Appellants WHEATLEIGH CORPORATION, et al., are
represented by:

          Jennifer B. Furey, Esq.
          Matthew P. Horvitz, Esq.
          GOULSTON & STORRS PC
          1 Post Office Sq
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 574-3575

Plaintiff-Appellee ARLETA MONGUE, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, is represented by:

          Chelsea K. Choi, Esq.
          Jeffrey Stephen Morneau, Esq.
          CONNOR & MORNEAU LLP
          273 State St., Ste 2
          Springfield, MA 01103
          Telephone: (413) 455-1730

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Has $14.2MM Asbestos Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation, at March 31, 2024, has reported a
liability for asbestos-related product liability claims and related
legal costs of $14.2 million, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Like many industrial manufacturers, the Company is involved in
asbestos-related litigation.  In continually evaluating costs
relating to its estimated asbestos-related liability, the Company
reviews, among other things, the incidence of past and recent
claims, the historical case dismissal rate, the mix of the claimed
illnesses and occupations of the plaintiffs, its recent and
historical resolution of the cases, the number of cases pending
against it, the status and results of broad-based settlement
discussions, and the number of years such activity might continue.
Based on this review, the Company has estimated its share of
liability to defend and resolve probable asbestos-related personal
injury claims. This estimate is highly uncertain due to the
limitations of the available data and the difficulty of forecasting
with any certainty the numerous variables that can affect the range
of the liability. The Company will continue to study the variables
in light of additional information in order to identify trends that
may become evident and to assess their impact on the range of
liability that is probable and estimable.

A share of the Company's previously incurred asbestos-related
expenses and future asbestos-related expenses are covered by
pre-existing insurance policies. The Company had been engaged in a
legal action against the insurance carriers for those policies to
recover past expenses and future costs incurred. The Company came
to an agreement with the insurance carriers to settle its case
against them for recovery of a portion of past costs and future
costs for asbestos-related legal defense costs. The agreement was
finalized during the quarter ended September 30, 2020. The terms of
the settlement require the carriers to pay gross defense costs
prior to retro-premiums of 65% for future asbestos-related defense
costs subject to an annual cap of $1,650,000 for claims covered by
the settlement.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LQU9vL



ASBESTOS UPDATE: JM Eagle Files Federal Lawsuit Over Fraud Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Cousins, writing for thetelegraph.com, reports that J-M
Manufacturing Co. Inc., also known as JM Eagle, which is the
subject to multiple asbestos lawsuits by Alton-based Simmons Hanly
Conroy, LLP has filed a federal lawsuit against the firm, claiming
the law firm committed fraud in the filing of many of those suits.

The lawsuit claims "a multi-year pattern of racketeering activity
in which the Simmons Hanly Defendants filed sham lawsuits, pursued
baseless claims, and otherwise sought to extract money from J-M
Manufacturing through a pattern of fraud, coercion, and the
suppression of evidence."

The case was filed under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act on May 10 in U.S. District Court in the Northern
District of Illinois Eastern Division by attorneys for J-M
Manufacturing Co. Inc., also known as JM Eagle.

In addition to Simmons Hanly Conroy, the suit names a number of the
firm's partners and attorneys, as well as 25 "Jane and John Doe"
defendants.

Officials with Simmons Hanly Conroy had not responded to repeated
requests for comment as of Tuesday and had not filed any response
to the lawsuit.

From 1983 to 1988, the company sold a "limited" amount of cement
pipe containing asbestos to water districts as a "transitional
product" until those customers transitioned to PVC pipes.

According to the suit, Simmons Hanly Conroy represented more than
6,000 clients and "recovered" more than $9.3 billion in damages in
asbestos-related cases over the past 20 years. The law firm's share
of those settlements was estimated at $3 billion.

That includes "hundreds" of cases filed against J-M Manufacturing,
using a "well-developed and long-running strategy that involves
evidence suppression, shifting narratives, and fraud."

According to the suit, since 2001, Simmons Hanley Conroy has filed
more than 430 cases against J-M Manufacturing, and the company has
settled more than 75 of those cases based on "facts" presented by
the law firm. The suit claims that the "facts" were "falsehoods
peddled by Simmons Hanly" that resulted in settling cases and
larger payouts by the company.

The suit claims that the law firm knew defendants, including J-M
Manufacturing were concerned about both the high cost of defending
against the suits, and the risk of a "runaway verdict" in a
"handpicked forum," including the Madison County court system,
which became known as a hotbed of asbestos litigation.



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Patients Sues J&J on Fraudulent Chapter 11 Filings
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Travis Rodgers, writing for Asbestos.com, reports that a group of
cancer patients are bringing a class action lawsuit against Johnson
& Johnson. The suit alleges J&J's Chapter 11 attempts are
calculated tactics to avoid thousands of pending talcum powder
lawsuits.

The five plaintiffs filed their suit -- Murphy et al. v. LTL
Management Inc. et al., Case No.3:24-CV-06320 -- in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey. The lawsuit aims to
represent any or all of the more than 50,000 people with pending
J&J claims.

Defendants include LTL Management Inc., the subsidiary created to
hold and manage asbestos-contaminated talc legal claims against
J&J. Additionally J&J corporate entities are named, as are J&J
Chief Executive Officer Joaquin Duato.

Kenvue Chief Executive Officer Thibaut Mongon is also named as a
defendant. Kenvue is a consumer health company J&J launched in 2022
as a new corporate identity for brands including Tylenol,
Neutrogena, Listerine, and Band-Aid.

Lawyers representing the plaintiffs released a statement arguing
J&J has been sidestepping its obligations to people exposed to
asbestos from its products. Asbestos is the primary cause of
mesothelioma. And recent National Institutes of Health research
links asbestos in talc to ovarian cancer.

Andy Birchfield, representing the plaintiffs argued: "The bad faith
that the courts found in ruling against J&J in the two previous
bankruptcies applies to every action the company has taken during
the past three years. The individuals bringing this class action
are shining a bright light on the entire series of dubious,
unlawful and hypocritical ploys J&J has been following, and they're
saying enough is enough."

The plaintiffs' asbestos lawyers argue J&J's latest move to settle
pending litigation is "a dark game of chess with this country's
financial and judicial systems." However, Erik Haas, J&J's global
vice president of litigation, asserted in a statement to USA Today
the class action lawsuit is a "Hail Mary pass."

Haas claims the lawsuit is an attempt to block J&J's latest
proposed bankruptcy settlement. Earlier this month, the company
agreed to pay $6.475 billion to settle all current and future
claims that its talc-based products cause cancer.

The proposal could be the first step toward a potential bankruptcy
attempt No. 3 for the company. A judge denied both previous
bankruptcy attempts, ruling J&J wasn't in financial distress.

Haas said in his statement: "Why are they so desperate to stop the
[settlement] vote? Our focus has been and will remain reaching a
full, fair and final resolution of this litigation, and allowing
the claimants to speak for themselves."


                            *********

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 ***