---

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

              Monday, August 26, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 171

                            Headlines

630 CLEANING: Faces McGreal Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Ill.
808 LEX: Must Oppose Tenezaca Class Cert Bid by August 28
ACTIVEHOURS INC: Orubo Hits Illegal Charges in Cash Advance App
AHMAD TEA: Blind Can't Access Website Properly, Knowles Suit Says
AMICK FARMS: Must Respond to Diaz Class Cert Bid by Sept. 4

AMRK ENTERPRISES: Elyashiv Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
ARDISAM INC: Calcano Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
ASCENSION HEALTH: Lyons Sues Over Compromised Patients' Info
ASR GROUP: Faces Sathler Suit Over Price Fixing of Granulated Sugar
BANK OF MISSOURI: Bishop Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website

BARCLAYS PLC: Boston Retirement Seeks to Certify Class Action
BATH & BODY: Glaser Sues Over Failure to Pay on Weekly Basis
BATON ROUGE, LA: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 24, 2025
BAYHEALTH MEDICAL: Dunlop Sues Over Failure to Protect Data
BEAUTY FX SPA: Fried Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York

BEYEL BROTHERS: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Perez Suit Alleges
BH MANAGEMENT: Seeks More Response Time to Chiodini Class Cert Bid
BINANCE HOLDINGS: Aids in Cryptocurrency Conversion, Martin Says
BKLYN LOCAL DRAFT: Rosales Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
BLACKHAWK NETWORK: Scheib Appeals Final Approval of Pryor Suit Deal

BRIAD WENCO: Maurer Sues Over Inaccessible Properties
BRIDGESTONE CORP: Alford Sues Over Conspiracy to Fix Tire Prices
BRIDLEWOOD CONSTRUCTION: Avilez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
BUTTERFLY EFFECTS: Gauzner Suit Removed to E.D. California
BWW RESOURCES: Daniels Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

BX AUTO CONCEPT: Almanzar Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CALIFORNIA STATE: Plaintiffs Must File Renewed Briefings by Oct. 22
CAO INVESTMENT IV: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property
CAPITAL ONE BANK: Kromrey Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Virginia
CARMAX AUTO: Pilcher Suit Removed to E.D. California

CARVANA CO: Faces Securities Suits in Various Courts
CDK GLOBAL LLC: Brown Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
CELESTRON ACQUISITION: Seeks Leave to File Sur-Reply in Spectrum
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Mills Cashway Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Tennessee
CHAR-BROIL LLC: Winokur Sues Over Defective Electric Smokers

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to Oct. 4
CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Monteiro Due Nov. 18
CHOBANI LLC: Albrigo Suit Removed to S.D. California
CINTAS CORP: Settlement in Principle Reached in Laurel City Suit
CLEARVIEW HEALTH: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Lewis Alleges

COMCAST CABLE: Pond Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
CONOCOPHILLIPS: Continues to Defend Federal Securities Class Suit
CRAFT REVOLUTION: Class Cert Response in Bell Suit Due August 30
DAMM FINE PIZZA: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
DANIEL HODGE: Belin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

DAS ACQUISITION: Parties in Nash Suit Directed to Begin Discovery
DEVON ENERGY: Settlement in Wright Suit Wins Final OK
DOXIM INC: Faces Lattimore Suit Over Unauthorized Access of Info
DREAM GAMES: Schudde Files Suit in W.D. Washington
DXC TECHNOLOGY: Roofers' Pension Sues Over Inflated Share Price

EAGLES NEST: Calcano Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
ENERGY TRANSFER: Summary Judgment Bid vs ACERS Partly OK'd
ESSILORLUXOTTICA SA: Newton Alleges Eyewear Market Conspiracy
EVOLVE BANK: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Walker Says
EYEBUYDIRECT INC: Hulett Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. New York

FAIR HARBOR: Murphy Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
FALFURRIAS CAPITAL: Bellyard Partners Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct.
FIFTH THIRD BANK: Yarnall Files Suit in D. New Jersey
FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Dahan Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
FIRST PREMIER HOME: Johnson Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York

FULCRUM THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Celano Suit Pending
GARRETT MOTION: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Suits
GATX CORPORATION: Bid to Dismiss Class Action Remains Pending
GEICO GENERAL: Court Strikes Case Schedule in Nichols Class Suit
GEISINGER HEALTH: Faces O'Brien Suit Over Compromised Info

GEISINGER HEALTH: Seeks to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal
GEISINGER SYSTEM: Can File Exhibits Under Seal in Antitrust Suit
GENERAL MILLS: Haver Suit Removed to S.D. California
GIANT COMPANY: Must Oppose Holbert Class Cert Bid by August 30
GILEAD SCIENCES: Class Cert Hearing in Searcy Suit Set for Sept. 5

GOALS AESTHETIC: Court Decertifies Class in Lawrence Suit
GOOSEHEAD INSURANCE: Dollens Stockholder Suit Stayed
GROUNDGAME.HEALTH INC: Rosado Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
GUARDIAN INDUSTRIES: Espinoza Suit Removed to E.D. California
GULLY TRANSPORTATION: Court Nixes Approval of Settlement in Seals

HARVARD DRUG: Benzoyl Peroxide Wash Contains Benzene, Kouyate Says
HEALTHEQUITY INC: Baker Sues Over Data Breach
HUEL INC: Espinal Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
ICF TECHNOLOGY: Tomasello Seeks to Certify Class Action
IMPERIAL HEALTH: Class Cert Bid Filing in Katz Due March 31, 2025

IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Calif.
J&C AMBULANCE: Class Cert Responses in First Suit Due Sept. 4
J&C PROPERTY MANAGEMENT: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property
JANUS HENDERSON: Continues to Defend Schissler Class Suit
JERICO PICTURES: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Perry Suit Claims

JERICO PICTURES: Wilcox Alleges Failure to Protect Personal Info
JONATHAN HUBERMAN: Reuter Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
JP CONSTRUCTION: Graves Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Virginia
K & K LOS LATINOS: Chajon Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
KAIZENCURE LLC: Shelat Balks at Deceptive Sales Practices

KENT WATER SPORTS: Calcano Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
KERING AMERICAS: Cohen Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
KERR MCGEE: Class Settlement in Epperson Suit Gets Initial Nod
KIPP BAY AREA SCHOOLS: Edwards Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
KNIGHT MATERIAL: Underpays Machine Operators, Scott Claims

LA SUPERIOR WATERLOO: Cabrera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
LAKEVIEW HEALTH SYSTEMS: Walker Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida
LAKEVIEW HEALTH: Skov Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
LAMB WESTON: West Palm Fund Sues Over 28% Share Price Drop
LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL: Brown Suit Removed to D. New Jersey

LEARFIELD COMMUNICATIONS: Brown Appeals Suit Dismissal to 5th Cir.
LESSEREVIL LLC: Augustine Sues Over Toxic Levels of Lead
LITTLE FALLS PIZZA: Holtry Files FLSA Suit in D. South Dakota
LOEWS HOLLYWOOD HOTEL: Marin Suit Removed to C.D. California
LORIAN HEALTH HOME CARE: Jacopetti Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

LOVELY SKIN INC: Wahab Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
MALIBU BOATS: Reid Sues Over Cobia Boat's Anchoring System Defect
MARINOSCI LAW: Stevenson Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
MARRIOTT INT'L: Lopez Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Nov. 15
MDL 2903: Settlement in Flores v Fisher-Price Wins Initial Nod

MDL 2903: Settlement in Nadel v Fisher-Price Gets Initial Nod
MDL 2903: Settlement in Shaffer v Mattel Gets Initial Nod
MDL 2903: Settlement in Sleeper Lawsuit Gets Initial Nod
MDL 2903: Settlement in Wray v. Fisher-Price Gets Initial Nod
MERASTAR INSURANCE: Fuqua Suit Removed to C.D. California

METAL TRANSPORTATION: Guimaraes Suit Transferred to M.D. Pa.
MICHAEL BETLEY: Matthew's Claims Voluntarily Dismissed
MMS GROUP: Torres Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Deaf Residents
MOELIS & COMPANY: Faces WPBFPF Securities Suit in Delaware
NATIONAL ENTERTAINMENT: Bid to Dismiss Hines Class Suit Tossed

NEW YORK, NY: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Sept. 20
NEW YORK, NY: Illegally Suspends Drivers' Licenses, Pena Says
NEW YORK, NY: Santiago Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Laborers
NEXT BRIDGE: Faces Targgart Securities Suit in NY Court
NORTHWEST BANK: Achard Sues Over Unfair Statement & Multiple Fees

NOVOCURE LIMITED: Faces Securities Suit Over Material Misstatements
O PLUFF & COMPANY: Knowles Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers
O'CONNOR WOODS HOUSING: Leblanc Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
OLO INC: Settlement in STABILAPF Suit Gets Final Approval
OPENAI INC: Collects Data Without Consent, Millette Says

PECO FOODS INC: Patrick Files Suit in N.D. Alabama
PENNYMAC MORTGAGE: Continues to Defend Verthelyi Class Suit
PENUMBRA INC: PAGA Settlement Agreement for Prelim. Court Approval
PERMIAN RESOURCES: Conspires to Fix Shale Oil Prices, Link Claims
PETE'S ARBOR: $34,890K Atty's Fees Awarded to Plaintiffs' Counsel

PETER LIRIDONI PIZZA: Cabrera Sues Over Unpaid Wages
PMG OPCO-GUEST HOUSE: Davis Suit Removed to W.D. Louisiana
PRESTO AUTOMATION: Court Dismisses w/o Prejudice Wiretapping Suit
PRIME NOW: Jauregui Suit Removed to C.D. California
PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Angulo's Bid for Class Certification Tossed

REAL NEW YORK: Sale Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York
RED LOBSTER: Hill Sues Over Underpayment of Minimum Wage
RICE DRILLING: Joint Bid to Amend Preliminary Pretrial Order OK'd
ROSE HILLS: Appeals Remand Order in Perez Labor Suit to 9th Cir.
RXO LAST: Bid for Class Decertification Tossed in Gonzalez Suit

RYDER SYSTEM: Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Initial Nod
SAFECO INSURANCE: Gonzalez Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
SAGORA SENIOR LIVING: Watts Suit Removed to E.D. California
SAMUEL YAKOBOWICZ: Bryan Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Brackens Appeals Atty.'s Fees Bid Ruling

SCOTTSDALE, AZ: Quinn Suit Removed to D. Arizona
SECOND NATURE: Parties Seek Class Cert Briefing Schedule
SELECTQUOTE AUTO: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Davis Due Nov. 8
SISKIYOU COUNTY, CA: Provisional Status of Class Sought
SLIPMATE CO: Horcher Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data

SNOWFLAKE INC: Conte Sues Over Failure to Safeguard & Secure PII
SNOWFLAKE INC: Townsend Files Suit in D. Montana
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON: Faces Suit Over Wildfires
SOUTHERN FARM: Donley Class Cert Filing Extended to Jan. 15, 2025
SOUTHERN NEW HAMPSHIRE: Cancelmo Suit Removed to D. New Hampshire

SPORTSMANS WAREHOUSE: Cordero Files Suit in D. Utah
SPRINKLR INC: Boshart Sues Over Securities Laws Violation
STABILITY AI: Court Narrows Claims in Andersen Suit
STANLEY BLACK: Hakomori Suit Removed to N.D. California
STATE FARM MUTUAL: Peck Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois

STOP & SHOP: Bids for Class Cert. in Schotte Suit Due Oct. 28, 2025
SUNRISE PLAZA: Maurer Sues Over Property's Architectural Barriers
SUNRISE SENIOR: Class Settlement in Heredia Suit Wins Initial Nod
SYNCHRONY BANK: CareCredit Interest Rates "Illegal," S.G. Suit Says
SYSCO SACRAMENTO: Fite Class Action Stayed Until Oct. 30

TD BANK: Class Cert Hearing in AFL Suit Rescheduled to Oct. 15
TD BANK: Class Cert. Hearing in Burns Suit Rescheduled to Oct. 15
TICKETMASTER LLC: Yarbough Alleges Inadequate Data Security
TIPTREE INC: Mullins Securities Suit Dismissed
TKO GROUP: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit in NY Court

TOJA REALTY: Property Has Architectural Barriers, Maurer Says
TOP GAUGE: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Rodgers Suit Claims
TULANE EDUCATIONAL: Court Cancels Class Cert Hearing in Jones Suit
TYSON FOODS: Class Cert Bid in Pearson Suit Due August 26
UNITED AIRLINES: Files Cross Appeal in Sambrano Suit

UNITED SERVICES: Underpays Attendant Care Benefits, Zebley Says
UNITED STATES: Perissa Bid to Amend Complaint Denied
UNITED THERAPEUTICS: Faces RICO Charges in Florida Court
UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Plaintiffs Seek to Seal PHI and PII
UNIVERSITY OF OREGON: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Feb. 3, 2025

VALVE CORP: Bid to Seal Class Cert Reply Granted in Wolfire Suit
VERISK ANALYTICS: Ahringer Securities Suit Stayed
VERISK ANALYTICS: Faces Cantinieri Suit in New York
VERISK ANALYTICS: Mediation on ERISA-Related Suit Pending
VERVE GROUP: Woods Files Suit in N.D. California

VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY: Bids for Class Cert in Faw Due July 7, 2025
WAKEFERN FOOD CORP: Wilson Files Suit in Conn. Super. Ct.
WESTCARE CALIFORNIA: Kourm Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
WESTERN FIRST AID: Brown Suit Removed to C.D. California
WILDLY ORGANIC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Knowles Says

WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Fu Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
WILLS EYE HOSPITAL: Rocci Suit Removed to S.D. California
WIZARDS OF THE COAST: Milito Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
WOMBO STUDIOS: Branson Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
WONDERFUL COMPANY: Bocchinfuso Suit Removed to D. New Jersey

WV-AMERICAN WATER CO: Jeffries Securities Suit Ongoing
XPEL INC: Adishian Sues Over False and Misleading Statements
YELP INC: Weingrad Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
YOGI NJ LLC: Cheli Sues Over Inaccessible Properties

                            *********

630 CLEANING: Faces McGreal Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDRA MCGREAL and ERIC ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 630 CLEANING SERVICES,
LLC D/B/A TWO MAIDS & A MOP NAPERVILLE and DANIEL BROSSEAU,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-07346 (N.D. Ill., August 16, 2024) is
a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Illinois
Wage Payment and Collection Act, and the Paid Leave for All Workers
Act including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to include
non-discretionary bonuses in the overtime rate of pay, failing to
payout earned vacation time, and forced changes in rates of pay.

The Plaintiffs worked as hourly, non-exempt employees for the
Defendants.

630 Cleaning Services, LLC, doing business as Two Maids & A Mop
Naperville, is a provider of residential and commercial cleaning
services in Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
       John C. Ireland, Esq.
       THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND
       636 Spruce Street
       South Elgin, IL 60177
       Telephone: (630) 464-9675
       Facsimile: (630) 206-0889
       Email: attorneyireland@gmail.com

808 LEX: Must Oppose Tenezaca Class Cert Bid by August 28
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alfonso Tenezaca et al.,
v. 808 Lex Restaurant, LLC et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-08545-JGLC
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jessica G.L. Clarke entered an order
that:

-- Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is due no later than

    Aug. 7, 2024.

-- Defendants' opposition is due by Aug. 28, 2024.

-- Plaintiffs' reply is due by Sept. 9, 2024.

As discussed at the Aug. 7, 2024 conference, the parties shall file
a joint status letter regarding settlement no later than Aug. 14,
2024.

The Defendant operates a restaurant business.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=izZ2no at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Amanda B. Slutsky, Esq.
          KAUFMAN DOLOWICH LLP
          135 Crossways Park Drive, Suite 201
          Woodbury, NY 11797
          Telephone: (516) 681-1100
          E-mail: amanda.slutsky@kaufmandolowich.com

ACTIVEHOURS INC: Orubo Hits Illegal Charges in Cash Advance App
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRENNAN ORUBO, MICHAEL SIMS, DEMETRICE MATHIS, and CIDNEY LETT
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. ACTIVEHOURS, INC. d/b/a EARNIN, Defendant, Case No.
5:24-cv-04702 (N.D. Cal., August 2, 2024) is brought by the
Plaintiff under Georgia's Pay Day Lending Act and the Truth In
Lending Act seeking to recover the principal they paid, along with
three times the amount of any interest or other charges they paid,
attorneys' fees and costs, and all other relief available under the
law.

This action concerns a cash advance product that Defendant offers
in Georgia. The Defendant allegedly charges fees to obtain
compensation for offering its product and those fees, on average,
yield APRs of 284%. These types of excessive fees make it difficult
for consumers to pay bills, increase the likelihood that they will
overdraft a bank account, and make it harder for them to become
financially stable, says the suit.

The Defendant failed to disclose, among other things, the "finance
charge," "amount financed," "annual percentage rate," "total of
payments," and schedule of payments to Plaintiffs and the class
members. At no time before, during, or after Plaintiffs or any
class member obtained a loan or advance did Defendant disclose any
of the said terms, the suit further assets.

Activehours, Inc., d/b/a EarnIn, is a technology company
headquartered in Palo Alto, California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gillian L. Wade, Esq.
          Sara D. Avila, Esq.
          Marc A. Castaneda, Esq.
          Kristin K. Graham, Esq.
          WADE KILPELA SLADE, LLP
          2450 Colorado Avenue, Suite 100E
          Santa Monica, CA 90404
          Telephone: (310) 667-7273
          Facsimile: (424) 276-0473
          E-mail: gwade@waykayslay.com
                  sara@waykayslay.com
                  marc@waykayslay.com
                  kkg@waykayslay.com

                - and -

          Kevin Tucker, Esq.
          Kevin Abramowicz, Esq.
          EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC
          6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215
          Pittsburgh, PA 15208
          Telephone: (412) 223-5740
          Facsimile: (412) 626-7101
          E-mail: ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com
                  kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com

AHMAD TEA: Blind Can't Access Website Properly, Knowles Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLTON KNOWLES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AHMAD TEA USA2, CORP., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-06227 (S.D.N.Y., August 16, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.ahmadtea.com/, contains access barriers which hinder
the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that
contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing
alt-text.

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

Ahmad Tea USA2, Corp. is a company that sells online goods and
services, doing business in New York. [BN]

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

AMICK FARMS: Must Respond to Diaz Class Cert Bid by Sept. 4
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Diaz et al v. Amick Farms,
LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-01246 (D.S.C., Filed April 18, 2022), the
Hon. Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin entered an order granting unopposed
motion for extension of time.

-- The Defendant's response to Plaintiff's motion to certify class
is
    now due Sept. 4, 2024.

The suit alleges violation of the Equal Pay Act.

Amick Farms produces fresh and frozen chicken products.[CC]

AMRK ENTERPRISES: Elyashiv Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amrk Enterprises,
Inc. The case is styled as Joshua Elyashiv, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Amrk Enterprises, Inc.
d/b/a Premium Capital, Case No. 0:24-cv-61477-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug.
13, 2024).

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

Amrk Enterprises, Inc. -- https://amrkenterprises.com/ -- is a firm
dedicated to helping businesses expand their reach, increase their
market share, and achieve exponential growth.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael Jarallah Said Hindi, Esq.
          Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1700
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (754) 444-7539
          Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                 zane@jibraellaw.com


ARDISAM INC: Calcano Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------
Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. ARDISAM, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-06151
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 13, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical location, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Because the Defendants' Website https://gazelletents.com, is not
equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it
violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to
cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices,
and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and
remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says
the complaint.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
                 Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
                 Danalgottlieb@aol.com


ASCENSION HEALTH: Lyons Sues Over Compromised Patients' Info
------------------------------------------------------------
CHARMENY LYONS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ASCENSION HEALTH, Defendant, Case No.
4:24-cv-01125-JSD (E.D. Wis., August 16, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of
fiduciary duty, and breach of implied contract.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and
protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly
situated individuals stored within its information networks and
servers following a data breach. The Defendant also failed to
timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals
about the data breach.

As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class
members was compromised and damaged through access by and
disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the
suit.

Ascension Health is a healthcare services provider based in
Missouri. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
         Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
         BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
         600 West Broadway, Suite 900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 230-0800
         Facsimile: (619) 230-1874
         Email: sbasser@barrack.com
                sward@barrack.com

ASR GROUP: Faces Sathler Suit Over Price Fixing of Granulated Sugar
-------------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR SATHLER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ASR GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC., AMERICAN
SUGAR REFINING, INC., DOMINO FOODS, INC., MICHIGAN SUGAR COMPANY,
UNITED SUGAR PRODUCERS & REFINERS COOPERATIVE F/K/A UNITED SUGARS
CORPORATION, COMMODITY INFORMATION, INC., and RICHARD WISTISEN,
Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-03313 (D. Minn., August 19, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendants for price fixing, unjust
enrichment, and violations of antitrust laws and consumer
protection laws of various states in the United States.

The case arises from the Defendants' unlawful agreement to
artificially raise, fix, maintain, or stabilize prices of
granulated sugar throughout the Class Period. The Defendants have
implemented their agreement by sharing accurate, competitively
sensitive, non-public information with one another, including
through Commodity. Commodity provided this reciprocal information
to the Defendants rapidly, often within hours of having received
it. The Defendants then used the information they received from
Commodity when deciding how much to charge for their products, says
the suit.

ASR Group International, Inc. is a global producer and seller of
granulated sugar based in West Palm Beach, Florida.

American Sugar Refining, Inc. is a sugar producer based in West
Palm Beach, Florida.

Domino Foods, Inc. is a marketing and sales subsidiary of ASR Group
in Florida.

United Sugar Producers & Refiners Cooperative, formerly known as
United Sugars Corporation, is a marketing cooperative based in
Edina, Minnesota.

Michigan Sugar Company is a cooperative of sugar beet owners,
headquartered in Bay City, Michigan.

Commodity Information, Inc. is corporation based in Orem, Utah.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
         NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
         80 South 8th Street
         4700 IDS Center
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Telephone: (612) 256-3239
         Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
         Email: srey@nka.com

BANK OF MISSOURI: Bishop Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cedric Bishop, for himself and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, v. THE BANK OF MISSOURI, Case No. 1:24-cv-06075
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 10, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website,
https://www.bankofmissouri.com/, including all portions thereof or
accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's
Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become
and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By
failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with
computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and
visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services all benefits it affords nondisabled
individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the
complaint.

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

THE BANK OF MISSOURI, operates the BOM online bank, as well as the
BOM interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in
the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
                 dana@gottlieb.legal
                 jeffrey@gottlieb.legal


BARCLAYS PLC: Boston Retirement Seeks to Certify Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Barclays PLC Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:22-cv-08172-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Lead Plaintiff Boston
Retirement System asks the Court to enter an order:

   (1) certifying this action as a class action consisting of the
       "Class" as defined in the accompanying memorandum of law in

       support of the Motion;

   (2) appointing Lead Plaintiff as Class Representative; and

   (3) appointing Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP as Class Counsel.

Pursuant to the Court-approved schedule for briefing related to the
Motion entered on April 17, 2024, Defendants' response in
opposition to the Motion shall be filed by Oct. 12, 2024,
Plaintiff's reply in further support of the Motion shall be filed
by Nov. 26, 2024.

Barclays is a British multinational universal bank.

A copy of the Lead Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 12, 2024, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=06K4bU
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lauren A. Ormsbee, Esq.
          Christine M. Fox, Esq.
          James M. Fee, Esq.
          Lisa M. Strejlau, Esq.
          David Saldamando, Esq.
          LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: lormsbee@labaton.com
                  cfox@labaton.com
                  jfee@labaton.com
                  lstrejlau@labaton.com
                  dsaldamando@labaton.com

BATH & BODY: Glaser Sues Over Failure to Pay on Weekly Basis
------------------------------------------------------------
Brittany Glaser, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BATH & BODY WORKS, LLC, Case No. 612899/2024 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., Nassau Cty., July 23, 2024), is brought under the New York
Labor Law ("NYLL") as a result of the Defendant failure to pay on a
weekly basis.

New York Law requires companies to pay their manual workers on a
weekly basis unless they receive an express authorization to pay on
a semi-monthly basis from the New York State Department of Labor
Commissioner.

On February 8, 2022, Defendant received authorization from the New
York State Department of Labor Commissioner to pay its manual
workers on a biweekly basis. However, at all times prior to
February 8, 2022, Defendant had no such authorization.

Prior to receiving authorization from the Department of Labor
Commissioner on February 8, 2022, Defendant violated this law by
paying its manual workers every other week rather than on a weekly
basis, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from April 2018 to August
2018 at a Bath & Body Works store located in Lake Grove, New York.

The Defendant owns and operates Bath & Body Works locations that
employ hundreds, if not thousands, of manual workers in the State
of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1330 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          Email: ykopel@bursor.com
                 aleslie@bursor.com


BATON ROUGE, LA: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 24, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BOBBY HARDNETT, V. CITY OF
BATON ROUGE – PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE, ET AL., Case No.
3:23-cv-01393-BAJ-SDJ (M.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Scott Johnson
entered an order setting deadlines as follows:

   1. Discovery on the issue of class              Jan. 25, 2025
      certification  must be completed by:

   2. Deadline to file motion for class            Feb. 24, 2025
      certification:

   3. The deadline to join other parties or        April 25, 2025
      to amend the pleadings is:

   4. Exchanging initial disclosures               Aug. 24, 2024
      required by F.R.C.P. 26(a)(1):

   5. Filing all discovery motions and             July 19, 2025
      completing all discovery except
      experts:

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ddz8xw at no extra
charge.[CC]

BAYHEALTH MEDICAL: Dunlop Sues Over Failure to Protect Data
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sally Cannon Dunlop, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. BAYHEALTH MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-00946-UNA (D. Del., Aug. 14, 2024), is brought arising from
the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data.

As such, Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal
identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information
("PHI")--together "PII/PHI"--about its current and former patients.
But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals
infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data
breach (the "Data Breach").

It is unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access
to Defendant's network before the breach was discovered. In other
words, Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop,
or mitigate breaches of its systems—thereby allowing
cybercriminals unrestricted access to its current and former
patients' PII/PHI.

On information and belief, cybercriminals were able to breach
Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train
its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable
security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII/PHI. In
short, Defendant's failures placed the Class's PII/PHI in a
vulnerable position—rendering them easy targets for
cybercriminals.

The exposure of one's PII/PHI to cybercriminals is a bell that
cannot be unrung. Before this data breach, its current and former
patients' private information was exactly that--private. Not
anymore. Now, their private information is forever exposed and
unsecure, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim.

The Defendant is a healthcare system based in Dover, Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dean R. Roland, Esq.
          R. Grant Dick IV, Esq.
          COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
          The Brandywine Building
          1000 N. West Street, Suite 1500
          P.O. Box 1680
          Wilmington, DE 19899-1680
          Phone: (302) 984-3851
          Fax: (302) 984-3867
          Email: droland@coochtaylor.com
                 gdick@coochtaylor.com

               - and -

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


BEAUTY FX SPA: Fried Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beauty FX Spa Inc.
The case is styled as Jonathan Fried, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Beauty FX Spa Inc. doing business
as: BeautyFix Medspa, Case No. 1:24-cv-06040 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 8,
2024).

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

BeautyFix -- https://www.beautyfixmedspa.com/ -- is one of the best
NYC-based med spas that offer simple, safe, nonsurgical treatments
to help rejuvenate your natural beauty, with no downtime.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BEYEL BROTHERS: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Perez Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BEYEL BROTHERS CRANE AND RIGGING OF SOUTH
FLORIDA (dba) BEYEL BROTHERS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
6:24-cv-01519 (M.D. Fla., August 19, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a nonexempt, hourly paid
rigger from approximately October 2019 through June 24, 2024.

Beyel Brothers Crane and Rigging of South Florida, doing business
as Beyel Brothers, Inc., is a heavy haul and rigging company based
in Cocoa, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Noah E. Storch, Esq.
       RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
       10368 W. SR 84, Suite 103
       Davie, FL 33324
       Telephone: (866) 344-9243
       Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
       Email: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com

BH MANAGEMENT: Seeks More Response Time to Chiodini Class Cert Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOUGLAS CHIODINI, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. BH
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 6:23-cv-00147-CEM-DCI (M.D.
Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting
motion for enlargement of time to respond to Plaintiff's motion to
certify class and permit the Defendant an additional 14 days,
through and including, Aug. 29, 2024, to respond to the motion to
Certify Class.

The Defendant and counsel need to review these 100 claims and
potentially provide its own sample out of the 6,000 potential class
members demonstrating the individual issues that preclude class
certification.

Furthermore, the Parties recognized the need for additional
briefing time when they filed the Uniform Case Management Report,
wherein the Plaintiff agreed to 45-day deadline to respond to any
class certification motion.

The Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the requested extension and
it is not being sought for the purpose of delaying the case as
there is no request to extend any of the pending deadlines in the
Case Management and Scheduling Order.

The Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit against the
Defendant bringing claims for violation of the Florida Residential
Landlord Tenant Act (Count I) and the Florida Consumer Collection
Practices Act (Count II).

On July 25, 2024, the Plaintiff filed his Motion to Certify Class
and, pursuant to Local Rule 3.01, the Defendant has until Aug. 15,
2024 to file its response in opposition.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vYAqhF at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Frank A. Zacherl, Esq.
          Oliver Sepulveda, Esq.
          SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP
          200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Ste. 4100
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 358-6300
          Facsimile: (305) 381-9982
          E-mail: FZacherl@shutts.com
                  OSepulveda@shutts.com
                  LMarchante@shutts.com

BINANCE HOLDINGS: Aids in Cryptocurrency Conversion, Martin Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
PHILIP MARTIN, T.F. (NATALIE) TANG, and YATIN KHANNA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
BINANCE HOLDINGS, LTD. d/b/a BINANCE, BAM TRADING SERVICES INC.
d/b/a BINANCE.US, a Delaware corporation, and CHANGPENG ZHAO,
Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01264 (W.D. Wash., August 16, 2024) is
a class action against the Defendants for violation of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, conversion, and
aiding and abetting conversion.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action complaint on behalf of
themselves and all persons or entities in the United States whose
cryptocurrency was removed from a non-Binance/BAM digital wallet,
account, or protocol as a result of a hack, ransomware, or theft
and, between August 16, 2020, and the date of judgment, transferred
to a Binance.com account, and who have not recovered all of their
cryptocurrency that was transferred to Binance.com. According to
the complaint, the Defendants violated federal statutory
obligations and engaged in the conversion of, and aided and abetted
the conversion of, cryptocurrency properly belonging to the
Plaintiffs and the members of the Class. Specifically, the
Defendants, inter alia, (i) committed, and aided and abetted, acts
constituting indictable offenses under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1960
(relating to illegal money transmitters) and Sec. 1961(1)(E) (act
indictable under the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting
Act aka the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), and (ii) aided and abetted acts
constituting indictable offenses under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1956
(laundering of monetary instruments), Sec. 1957 (engaging in
monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful
activity), and Sec. 2314 (relating to interstate transportation of
stolen property). As a result of Binance's conduct and systemic
failures, the Plaintiffs and Class members have been damaged, says
the suit.

Binance Holdings, Ltd., doing business as Binance, is an operator
of cryptocurrency trading platforms.

BAM Trading Services Inc., doing business as Binance.US, is a
cryptocurrency trading platforms operator, with a principal place
of business in Miami, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
         Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
         Chris N. Ryder, Esq.
         KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
         1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3400
         Seattle, WA 98101
         Telephone: (206) 623-1900
         Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
         Email: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
                dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
                cryder@kellerrohrback.com

                 - and -

         Eric I. Niehaus, Esq.
         ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101-8498
         Telephone: (619) 231-1058
         Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
         Email: ericn@rgrdlaw.com

                 - and -

         Silver Miller, Esq.
         David C. Silver, Esq.
         Jason S. Miller, Esq.
         4450 NW 126th Avenue, Suite 101
         Coral Springs, FL 33065
         Telephone: (954) 516-6000
         Email: dsilver@silvermillerlaw.com
                jmiller@silvermillerlaw.com

                 - and -

         John C. Herman, Esq.
         HERMAN JONES LLP
         3424 Peachtree Road, N.E., Suite 1650
         Atlanta, GA 30326
         Telephone: (404) 504-6555
         Facsimile: (404) 504-6501
         Email: jherman@hermanjones.com

BKLYN LOCAL DRAFT: Rosales Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Justino Cruz Rosales, Luis Diaz, and Carlos Navarro, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BKLYN LOCAL DRAFT
LLC d/b/a THE BROOKLYNEER, BILLY WAITE, and JUAN GOMEZ, Case No.
1:24-cv-05572 (S.D.N.Y., July 23, 2024), is brought seeking
equitable and legal relief for Defendants’ violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”); the New York Labor Law
("NYLL”); as a result of the Defendants unpaid overtime wages.

The Defendants have intentionally, willfully, and repeatedly harmed
Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs by engaging in a
pattern, practice, and/or policy of violating the FLSA. This policy
and pattern or practice includes, inter alia, failing to pay
employees the applicable overtime rates for all hours worked in
excess of 40 per week. The Defendants have engaged in their
unlawful conduct pursuant to a corporate policy of minimizing labor
costs and denying employees compensation, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs was employed the Defendants.

The Brooklyneer is a domestic limited liability company with its
principal place of business located in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Trinidad-Lira
          KATZ MELINGER PLLC
          370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1512
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 460-0047
          Fax: (212) 428-6811
          Email: jtrinidadlira@katzmelinger.com


BLACKHAWK NETWORK: Scheib Appeals Final Approval of Pryor Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SHANE SCHEIB, et al. have filed an appeal in the lawsuit entitled
Steven Pryor, et al., individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Blackhawk Network, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-07084-CRB, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure
and safeguard the personally identifiable information provided by
customers that appeared on the MyPrepaidCenter.com profile.

On Nov. 3, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of class action settlement, which the Court granted
through an Order entered by Judge Charles R. Breyer on Dec. 15,
2023.

On Feb. 29, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for attorney fees.

On Mar. 22, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for final approval
of class action settlement.

On May 31, 2024, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
attorney fees and motion for final settlement approval. The Court's
final approval order was entered on June 3, 2024.

The appellate case is captioned Pryor, et al. v. Blackhawk Network,
Inc., Case No. 24-4326, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, filed on July 15, 2024.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants' Appeal Transcript Order was due on July 26,
2024;

   -- Appellants' Appeal Transcript Due is due on August 26, 2024;

   -- Appellants' Appeal Opening Brief is due on September 30,
2024; and

   -- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief Due is due October 30,
2024. [BN]

Objectors-Appellants SHANE SCHEIB, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Miriam Mabel Brown, Esq.
          P.O. Box 9007
          Providence, RI 02940

               - and -

          David Lopez, Esq.
          Tiahuapan 20-1
          Colonia la Paz Oficina, Ste. 235
          Puebla, Mexico 72160

BRIAD WENCO: Maurer Sues Over Inaccessible Properties
-----------------------------------------------------
Dennis Maurer, an individual, on his own behalf and on the behalf
of all other similarly situated v. BRIAD WENCO, L.L.C., a New
Jersey Limited Liability Company, Case No. 3:24-cv-08024 (D.N.J.,
July 25, 2024), is brought for injunctive relief, damages,
attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the New Jersey Law
Against Discrimination ("LAD").

The Defendant's property is a fast-food restaurant, known as
Wendy's Store #8356, located at 301 Route 9 North, Lanoka Harbor,
New Jersey 08734 (the "Property" or "Wendy's"). The Plaintiff has
visited the Property on several occasions both as a patron and to
inspect the Property; his last visit as a patron occurred on or
about July 9, 2024. He purchased lunch when he was in the process
of conducting inspections at other properties in the surrounding
area. The Plaintiff found that the Property was littered with
violations of the ADA, both in architecture and in policy.

The Plaintiff personally encountered exposure to architectural
barriers and otherwise harmful conditions that have endangered his
safety during his visits to the Property. The ADA has been law for
over 30 years and yet the Property remains non-compliant. Thus, the
Plaintiff has actual notice and reasonable grounds to believe that
he will continue to be subjected to discrimination by the
Defendant, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has multiple sclerosis and therefore has a physical
impairment that substantially limits many of his major life
activities.

BRIAD WENCO, L.L.C., owns or operates a place of public
accommodation, in this instance a fast-food restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq.
          SHADINGER LAW, LLC
          717 E. Elmer Street, Suite 7
          Vineland, NJ 08360
          Phone: (609) 319-5399
          Email: js@shadingerlaw.com


BRIDGESTONE CORP: Alford Sues Over Conspiracy to Fix Tire Prices
----------------------------------------------------------------
James (Jimmy) Alford, John (Jack) Bengel, Robert (Bob) Buchner,
Michael Curran, Percy Price, Rena Sampayan, Louise Shumate, and
Nancy Stephan on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Bridgestone Corporation; Bridgestone Americas, Inc.;
Continental Aktiengesellschaft; Continental Tire the Americas, LLC;
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company; Compagnie Generale des
Etablissements Michelin; Michelin North America, Inc.; Nokian Tyres
plc; Nokian Tyres Inc.; Nokian Tyres U.S. Operations LLC; Pirelli &
C. S.p.A.; and Pirelli Tire LLC, Case No. 5:24-cc-00100-SL (N.D.
Ohio, Aug. 9, 2024), is brought for violations of Sections 1 and 3
of the Sherman Act arising from a conspiracy among Defendants, who
are the largest tire manufacturers in the world, to fix the prices
of new "replacement tires" for passenger cars, vans, trucks, and
buses sold in the United States.

On January 30, 2024, the Directorate-General for Competition of the
European Union, widely known and referred to as European Commission
("EC"), conducted unannounced inspections, colloquially known as
"dawn raids," of major replacement tire makers. The EC explained
that "the inspected companies may have violated EU antitrust rules
that prohibit cartels and restrictive business practices," citing
concerns that "price coordination took place amongst the inspected
companies, including via public communications." "The Commission
officials were accompanied by their counterparts from the relevant
national competition authorities of the Member States where the
inspections were carried out. Defendants Bridgestone, Continental,
Goodyear, Michelin, Nokian, and Pirelli each confirmed that they
were targets of the dawn raids.

The Defendants' substantial price increases are not explained by
market forces, such as the cost of raw materials. Contrary to
Defendants' public statements, Defendants' price increases were not
necessary to account for rising raw material costs. The cost of
rubber--the main ingredient in tires--actually declined in 2021 and
2022. As a result, Defendants were able to publicly promote to
their investors that "increases in the replacement tire prices,
more than offset 6 costs." One industry source noted that, "it goes
without saying that 2021 and 2022 were unusually strong years" for
Defendants' replacement tire businesses.

The Defendants' conspiracy has unreasonably restrained trade in
violation of Section 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act and Sections 4 and
16 of the Clayton Act. As a direct result of Defendants'
conspiracy, Plaintiffs and the Class have each paid artificially
high prices for replacement tires. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and the
Class seek to recover treble damages, injunctive relief, and other
relief as direct purchasers under the federal antitrust laws.
Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs purchased replacement tires directly from Defendant
Bridgestone.

Bridgestone Corporation is the world's largest tire and rubber
company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dena C. Sharp, Esq.
          GIRARD SHARP LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: (415) 981-4800
          Email: dsharp@girardsharp.com


BRIDLEWOOD CONSTRUCTION: Avilez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Servando Avilez, and Nelson Lituma, on behalf of themselves,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
BRIDLEWOOD CONSTRUCTION CORP., and CHARLES FRACAPANE, as an
individual, Case No. 2:24-cv-05525 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 7, 2024), is
brought to recover damages for the Defendants' systemic and
continuous violations of: the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"); the overtime provisions of the New York
Labor Law ("NYLL"), and New York Comp. Codes R. & Regs ("NYCRR");
the NYLL's requirement that employers furnish employees with wage
statements containing specific categories of accurate information
on each payday, as codified in the New York Wage Theft Prevention
Act ("WTPA") and any other claim(s).

Despite regularly working beyond forty hours in a week, Defendants
failed and refused to pay Plaintiffs overtime compensation for any
hours worked beyond forty each week, resulting in their suffering
unpaid overtime compensation in willful violation of the FLSA and
NYLL.

The Plaintiffs therefore bring this lawsuit against Defendants
pursuant to the collective action provisions of the FLSA, on behalf
of themselves, individually, and on behalf of all other persons
similarly-situated during the applicable FLSA limitations period
who suffered damages as a result of the Defendant's willful
violations of the FLSA. In addition, Defendants failed to furnish
Plaintiffs with accurate wage statements on each payday in
violation of NYLL, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as carpenters from April 1996
until September 17, 2022.

Bridlewood is a construction company that employs construction
workers, carpenters, day laborers, and other personnel to work at
locations throughout New York and Connecticut, throughout the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
          Michael R. Minkoff, Esq.
          Avraham Y. Scher, Esq.
          JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
          110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 227-5700
          Fax: (212) 656-1889


BUTTERFLY EFFECTS: Gauzner Suit Removed to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jeelan Gauzner, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated v. BUTTERFLY
EFFECTS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive; Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0007090 was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Joaquin, to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California on Aug. 7, 2024, and assigned Case
No. 2:24-at-01009.

The Complaint is a purported putative class action alleging the
following causes of action against Defendant: Unpaid Overtime;
Unpaid Meal Period Premiums; Unpaid Rest Premiums; Unpaid Minimum
Wages; Final Wages Not Timely Paid; Non-Compliant Wage Statements;
Unreimbursed Business Expenses; all in Violation of California
Labor Code and Violation of California Business & Professions
Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mara D. Curtis, Esq.
          Tanner J. Hendershot, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1514
          Phone: +1 213 457 8000
          Facsimile: +1 213 457 8080
          Email: mcurtis@reedsmith.com
                 thendershot@reedsmith.com


BWW RESOURCES: Daniels Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BWW Resources, LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Sidney Tyrone Bernard Daniels, an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BWW
Resources, LLC, et al., Case No. 24CV015758 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., Aug. 7, 2024).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."

BWW Resources, LLC is in the Restaurants & Food Service.[BN]

BX AUTO CONCEPT: Almanzar Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Antonio De La Cruz Almanzar, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BX AUTO CONCEPT CORP. and BRONX AUTO
CONCEPT CORP. and GERARDO ORTEGA, as an individual, Case No.
1:24-cv-06146 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 13, 2024), is brought to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages for Defendants' egregious
violations of state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of
Plaintiff's employment.

The Plaintiff was regularly required to work 58 hours per week from
in or around January 2021 until December 2023 and 50 hours per week
from January 2024 until May 2024. Although Plaintiff regularly
worked 58 hours or more hours per week from January 2021 until
December 2023 and approximately 50 hours or more hours per week
from January 2024 until May 2024, the Defendants did not pay
Plaintiff at a wage rate of time and a half for his hours regularly
worked over 40 hours in a work week, a blatant violation of the
overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL. The Defendants
willfully failed to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime
wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their
employment as required by the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff residing in Bronx, New York who was employed by the
Defendant as a car painter.

AUTO CONCEPT CORP., is a New York domestic business corporation,
organized under the laws of the State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CALIFORNIA STATE: Plaintiffs Must File Renewed Briefings by Oct. 22
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Anders, et al., v.
California State University, Fresno, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00179
(E.D. Cal., Filed Feb. 12, 2021), the Hon. Judge Jennifer L.
Thurston entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' second request
for an extension of time to file a renewed brief in support of
class certification and Defendants' opposition to this request.

-- The Plaintiffs shall file any renewed briefings in support of
    Class certification on or before Oct. 22, 2024.

-- The Defendants' opposition is due on or before Nov. 26, 2024,
and
    any reply is due on or before Dec. 10, 2024.

The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Education.

California State University, Fresno is a public university in
Fresno, California, United States. It is part of the California
State University system.[CC]

CAO INVESTMENT IV: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property
--------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated mobility-impaired individuals v. CAO INVESTMENT IV, LLC,
and YOYITO'S CAFE, CORP. d/b/a YOYITO'S CAFE RESTAURANT, Case No.
1:24-cv-23091-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 13, 2024), is brought for
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result
of the Defendants' commercial retail plaza (hereinafter the
"Commercial Property") being inaccessible to people who are
disabled.

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

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

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

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

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

CAO INVESTMENT IV, LLC, owned and operated a commercial property at
481 East 49th Street, Hialeah, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


CAPITAL ONE BANK: Kromrey Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Virginia
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital One Bank,
N.A. The case is styled as Craig Kromrey, Zaher Murray, on behalf
of themselves and similarly situated individuals v. Capital One
Bank, N.A., Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Case No.
3:24-cv-00575-REP (E.D. Va., Aug. 13, 2024).

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

Capital One, National Association -- https://www.capitalone.com/ --
operates as a bank. The Bank offers financial products and services
such as personal and business checking, savings accounts,
investment, mortgages, issues credit card, business loans, and
commercial banking solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
          Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
          Casey Shannon Nash, Esq.
          KELLY GUZZO PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Phone: (703) 424-7570
          Fax: (703) 591-9285
          Email: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com
                 aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
                 casey@kellyguzzo.com


CARMAX AUTO: Pilcher Suit Removed to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Douglas Pilcher, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated v. CARMAX
AUTO SUPERSTORES, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
BCV-24-101786 was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of Kern, to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California on July 24, 2024, and assigned Case No.
1:24-cv-00854-CDB.

The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts that CarMax violated the
California False Advertising Law ("FAL") and the California Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL") by allegedly failing to perform advertised
125+ point inspections of three vehicles that were purchased by
Plaintiff from CarMax.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
          21031 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 340
          Woodland Hills, CA 91364
          Phone: (323) 306-4234
          Fax: (866) 633-0228
          Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                 abacon@toddflaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Chad R. Fuller, Esq.
          TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
          11682 El Camino Real, Suite 400
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Phone: 858.509.6000
          Facsimile: 858.509.6040
          Email: chad.fuller@troutman.com


CARVANA CO: Faces Securities Suits in Various Courts
----------------------------------------------------
Carvana Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 31, 2024, that the company is involved in
various claims and legal actions.

The cases are "In re Carvana Co. Securities Litigation," United
States District Court for the District of Arizona (Case No.
CV-22-2126-PHX-MTL), "Dana Jennings, et al. v. Carvana, LLC,"
Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 5:21-cv-05400-EGS),
"Syretta Harvin et al. v. Carvana, LLC et al.," Eastern District of
Pennsylvania (Case No. 2:23-cv-02068-MRP), "In re Carvana Co.
Stockholders Litigation," Delaware Chancery Court (Case No.
2023-0600-KSJM) and "Michael Cribier v. Carvana, LLC," Southern
District of California (Case No. 3:24-cv-00094-DMS-JLB).

Carvana Co. and its wholly-owned subsidiary Carvana Co. Sub LLC
and, together with its consolidated subsidiaries, is an e-commerce
platform for buying and selling used cars.


CDK GLOBAL LLC: Brown Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CDK Global LLC. The
case is styled as Garland Brown, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CDK Global LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-06981
(N.D. Ill., Aug. 8, 2024).

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

CDK Global Inc. -- https://www.cdkglobal.com/ -- is an American
multinational corporation based in Austin, Texas, providing data
and technology to the automotive, heavy truck, recreation, and
heavy equipment industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CELESTRON ACQUISITION: Seeks Leave to File Sur-Reply in Spectrum
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Spectrum Scientifics, LLC
et al., v. CELESTRON ACQUISITION, LLC et al. (TELESCOPES ANTITRUST
LITIGATION), Case No. 5:20-cv-03642-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants
ask the Court to enter an order granting their administrative
motion for leave to file a sur-reply brief and supporting sur-reply
declaration from Mr. David Kaplan in order to have an opportunity
to adequately respond to the brand new arguments and evidence
raised for the first time in Plaintiffs' Reply Brief, as well as
respond to Dr. Zona's newly submitted "Rebuttal" expert report in
support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (ECF 599).

In the alternative, Defendants request that the new arguments and
evidence (including a new rebuttal expert report) raised for the
first time on reply be stricken in their entirety.

Good cause exists to grant this administrative motion because the
Plaintiffs improperly raised entirely new arguments, and presented
brand new evidence, including new opinions from an expert witness,
on reply.

In their Reply Brief, the Plaintiffs present for the first time new
calculations, new expert opinions and new claims that Dr. Zona's
model controls for demand through "hundreds" of variables.
Plaintiffs also make a new argument that adding the personal
consumption expenditures ("PCE") variable does not materially
impact class-wide injury.
In addition to new calculations with the PCE variable, Dr. Zona
presents a new argument relating to principles of multicollinearity
and the Variance Inflation Factor.

Dr. Zona also introduces new arguments negating the impact of
off-invoice discounts, claiming that baseline prices were elevated
due to the alleged conspiracy without indicating the basis of that
elevation that is not tethered to Plaintiffs' theory of damages

The Plaintiffs, for the first time on reply in their Aug. 5, 2024,
filings, contend that the new arguments raised by both Dr. Zona
provide new and independent grounds for granting their Motion for
Class Certification.

Celestron manufactures life science equipment.

The Plaintiffs include AURORA ASTRO PRODUCTS, LLC, PIONEER CYCLING
& FITNESS, LLP; and those similarly situated.

The Defendants include CELESTRON ACQUISITION, LLC, SUZHOU SYNTA
OPTICAL TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., SYNTA CANADA INT’L ENTERPRISES
LTD., SW TECHNOLOGY CORP., OLIVON MANUFACTURING CO. LTD., OLIVON
USA, LLC, NANTONG SCHMIDT OPTOELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD.,
NINGBO SUNNY ELECTRONIC CO., LTD., PACIFIC TELESCOPE CORP., COREY
LEE, DAVID SHEN, SYLVIA SHEN, JACK CHEN, JEAN SHEN, JOSEPH LUPICA,
DAVE ANDERSON, LAURENCE HUEN, and DOES 1-50.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=miBtJd at no extra
charge.[CC]


The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher Frost, Esq.
          John Maatta, Esq.
          Joshua Stambaugh, Esq.
          Lawrence J.H. Liu, Esq.
          FROST LLP
          10960 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 254-0441
          E-mail: chris@frostllp.com
                  john@frostllp.com
                  josh@frostllp.com
                  lawrence@frostllp.com

                - and -

          Shauna A. Izadi, Esq.
          IZADI LEGAL GROUP, PLLC
          13155 Noel Rd, Suite 900
          Dallas, TX 75240
          E-mail: sizadi@izadilegal.com

CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Mills Cashway Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Tennessee
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Change Healthcare
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Mills Cashway Pharmacy, Inc., a
Louisiana corporation, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly-situated persons v. Change Healthcare Inc., John
Does 1-5, Case No. 3:24-cv-00978 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 9, 2024).

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

Change Healthcare -- https://www.changehealthcare.com/ -- is a
provider of revenue and payment cycle management that connects
payers, providers, and patients within the U.S. healthcare
system.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David L. Cooper, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DAVID L. COOPER, P.C.
          208 Third Avenue, N, Suite 300
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Phone: (615) 256-1008
          Email: dcooper@cooperlawfirm.com

               - and -

          David M. Oppenheim, Esq.
          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          BOCK & HATCH, LLC
          203 N La Salle Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 658-5500
          Fax: (312) 658-5555
          Email: service@classlawyers.com
                 service@classlawyers.com


CHAR-BROIL LLC: Winokur Sues Over Defective Electric Smokers
------------------------------------------------------------
SUZANNE WINOKUR and GIL WINOKUR, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CHAR-BROIL, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05774 (E.D.N.Y., August 19, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendant for breach of implied warranty
of merchantability, violations of state consumer fraud acts and the
New York Consumer Fraud Act, unjust enrichment/quasi-contract,
breach of express warranties.

The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its digital
electric smokers. The Defendant represents the smokers as safe and
family-friendly devices that would smoke food over a pre-set time
while unattended, and thereby free-up time for family members to
enjoy themselves more. However, the smokers are defective because
they would leak electrical current during use, thereby energizing
their outer case and presenting a shock hazard to the user and/or
anyone coming into contact with the smoker while in operation. As a
result of the Defendant's misrepresentations, the Plaintiffs and
similarly situated consumers incurred significant monetary and
non-monetary damages, alleges the suit.

Char-Broil, LLC is a manufacturer of charcoal, gas, and electric
outdoor grills, smokers, fryers and related accessories,
headquartered in Columbus, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
      Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
      Daniel B. Rehns, Esq.
      Jay P. Saltzman, Esq.
      John W. Baylet, Esq.
      HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE, LLP
      112 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 213-8311
      Email: fschirripa@hrsclaw.com
             drehns@hrsclaw.com
             jsaltzman@hrsclaw.com
             jbaylet@hrsclaw.com

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to Oct. 4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LIONEL HARPER, DANIEL
SINCLAIR, HASSAN TURNER, LUIS VAZQUEZ, and PEDRO ABASCAL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and all
aggrieved employees, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Case No.
2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC (E.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order
granting stipulation to continue various deadlines and hearing
dates as follows:

             Event                             New Deadline/Date

  Motion for Class Certification                Oct. 4, 2024

  Opposition to Class Certification             Nov. 1, 2024

  Reply in Support of Class Certification       Nov. 22, 2024

  Hearing on Class Certification Motion         Dec. 9, 2024
                                                at 1:30 pm.

Charter Communications is an American telecommunications and mass
media company.

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

CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Monteiro Due Nov. 18
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Monteiro, et al., v. The
Children's Hospital Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-10069 (D.
Mass., Jan. 18, 2022), the Hon. Judge Julia E. Kobick entered an
order granting amended scheduling order:

-- Fact Discovery to be completed by:            Nov. 11, 2024

-- Plaintiffs to move for Class                  Nov. 18, 2024

-- Any opposition to Motion for Class            Dec. 9, 2024
    Certification due:

-- Any reply to opposition to Motion for         Dec. 23, 2024
    Class Certification due:

-- Parties to serve affirmative Expert           Dec. 3, 2024
    Reports by:

-- Parties to serve rebuttal Expert              Jan. 16, 2025
    Reports by:

-- Close of Expert Discovery is:                 Feb. 27, 2025

-- Dispositive Motions and Daubert               March 27, 2025
    Motions to be filed by:

-- Oppositions to Dispositive and                April 28, 2025
    Daubert Motions to be filed by:

-- Replies in Support of Dispositive             May 22, 2025
    and Daubert Motions to be filed by:

The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA).

The Children's Hospital Corporation, doing business as Boston
Children's Hospital, operates as a non-profit health care
organization.[CC]

CHOBANI LLC: Albrigo Suit Removed to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Laura Willis Albrigo, on behalf of herself, all
others similarly situated, and the general public v. CHOBANI, LLC,
Case No. 37-2024-00031263-CU-NP-CTL was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, San Diego, to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California on Aug. 9,
2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01418-DMS-KSC.

The Complaint alleges three causes of action: Violations of
California Business & Professions Code; Violations of the False
Advertising Law; and unjust enrichment.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Trenton H. Norris, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 3500
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: +1 (415) 374-2300
          Facsimile: +1 (415) 374-2499
          Email: trent.norris@hoganlovells.com


CINTAS CORP: Settlement in Principle Reached in Laurel City Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cintas Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended August 31, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 5, 2023, that in March 2024, an
agreement in principle was reached with the plaintiff which would
require a one-time monetary payment related to the contract dispute
of $45.0 million in a purported class action lawsuit, "City of
Laurel, Mississippi v. Cintas Corporation No. 2," filed on March
12, 2021.

This is a contract dispute whereby plaintiffs allege that Cintas
breached its contracts with participating public agencies and seek,
among other things, contract-based damages in an unspecified
amount.

In March 2022, the District Court denied Cintas' motion to compel
arbitration, and on March 6, 2023, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals affirmed. Any liability in this matter is not probable nor
estimable at this time.

Cintas is a provider of corporate identity uniforms through rental
and sales programs, as well as a significant provider of related
business services, including entrance mats, restroom cleaning
services and supplies, first aid and safety services and fire
protection products and services.


CLEARVIEW HEALTH: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Lewis Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
HALEY LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CLEARVIEW HEALTH LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-04271 (E.D. Pa., August 16, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt employee for the Defendant
within the last three years.

Clearview Health LLC is a health services provider based in Wayne,
Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Nicole D. Galli, Esq.
       Andrew J. Costa, Esq.
       Kelley Bregenzer, Esq.
       ND GALLI LAW LLC
       One Liberty Place
       1650 Market Street, Suite 3600
       Philadelphia, PA 19103
       Telephone: (215) 525-9580
       Facsimile: (215) 525-9585
       Email: ndgalli@ndgallilaw.com
              ajcosta@ndgallilaw.com

                 - and -

       Christopher J. Lalak, Esq.
       Anna M. Jadue, Esq.
       LALAK LLC
       1991 Crocker Rd., Suite 600-748
       Westlake, OH 44145
       Telephone: (440) 892-3380
       Email: clalak@employmentlawohio.com
              ajadue@employmentlawohio.com

COMCAST CABLE: Pond Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Comcast Cable
Communications, LLC. The case is styled as Travis Pond,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-03553-AT (N.D.
Ga., Aug. 9, 2024).

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

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC doing business as Xfinity --
https://corporate.comcast.com/ -- is an American telecommunications
business segment and division of Comcast Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33133
          Phone: (305) 469-5881
          Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com

               - and -

          Tristan Wade Gillespie, Esq.
          600 Blakenham Court
          Johns Creek, GA 30022
          Phone: (404) 276-7277
          Email: gillespie.tristan@gmail.com


CONOCOPHILLIPS: Continues to Defend Federal Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ConocoPhillips disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 1, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from a federal securities class suit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

In July 2021, a federal securities class action was filed against
Concho, certain of Concho's officers, and ConocoPhillips as
Concho's successor in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas.

On October 21, 2021, the court issued an order appointing Utah
Retirement Systems and the Construction Laborers Pension Trust for
Southern California as lead plaintiffs (Lead Plaintiffs).

On January 7, 2022, the Lead Plaintiffs filed their consolidated
complaint alleging that Concho made materially false and misleading
statements regarding its business and operations in violation of
the federal securities laws and seeking unspecified damages,
attorneys’ fees, costs, equitable/injunctive relief, and such
other relief that may be deemed appropriate.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint
on March 8, 2022.

On June 23, 2023, the court denied defendants' motion as to most
defendants including Concho/ConocoPhillips.

The Company believes the allegations in the action are without
merit and are vigorously defending this litigation.

ConocoPhillips is an exploration and production company based in
Texas. On January 15, 2021, it completed the acquisition of Concho
Resources Inc. (Concho), an independent oil and gas exploration
and
production company with operations in New Mexico and West Texas
focused on the Permian Basin.







CRAFT REVOLUTION: Class Cert Response in Bell Suit Due August 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bell v. Craft Revolution,
LLC, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00012 (W.D.N.C., Filed Jan 08, 2024),
the Hon. Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr. entered an order granting joint
motion for extension of time to file response and reply briefs
regarding plaintiff's class and collective certification motions:

  -- Responses due by Aug. 30, 2024.

  -- Replies due by Sept. 13, 2024.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Craft Revolution is an Australian owned premium beverage company
formed in 2015.[CC]

DAMM FINE PIZZA: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DAMM Fine Pizza, LLC.
The case is styled as Fernando Lopez, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated and the general public v. DAMM Fine Pizza,
LLC, Case No. 24STCV19802 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug.
7, 2024).

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

DAMM Fine Pizza LLC is a franchise organization of corporate Blaze
Pizza.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9665 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 430
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Phone: 310-888-7771
          Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com


DANIEL HODGE: Belin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DANIEL HODGE, et al.
The case is styled as Kyle Belin, an individual and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. DANIEL HODGE, an individual, HSNI,
LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, DOES 1-100, Case No.
CIVSB2424446 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Bernardino Cty., Aug. 12,
2024).

The case type is stated as "Employment - Complex."

HSNI, LLC operates as a interactive multichannel retailer. The
Company provides multichannel-retailing services on television,
online, mobile, catalogs, and brick and mortar stores.[BN]

DAS ACQUISITION: Parties in Nash Suit Directed to Begin Discovery
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RODERICK NASH et al., on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. DAS
ACQUISITION COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-00473-SRC (E.D. Mo.),
the Hon. Judge Stephen Clark entered a preliminary case-management
order:

Accordingly, the Court authorizes the parties to begin discovery
immediately, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1), limited to the issue of
conditional class certification. The Court shortens all 30-day
discovery deadlines to 21 days.

In March 2024, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in relevant part under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) alleging that the Defendant DAS
Acquisition Company, LLC failed to pay the required overtime
premium pay rate for hours worked in excess of 40 per week.

DAS Acquisition operates as a mortgage bank.

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

DEVON ENERGY: Settlement in Wright Suit Wins Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Madeline A. Wright, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Devon
Energy Production Company, L.P., Case No. (D. Wyo.), the Hon. Judge
Kelly Rankin entered an order granting final approval of
settlement:

The Settlement Class, which was certified in the Court's
Preliminary Approval Order, is defined as follows:

      "All non-excluded persons or entities owning interests in
      Wyoming oil and gas wells who:

      (1) received Late Payments from Defendant during the Claim
          Period for proceeds of Wyoming oil or gas production, or

          whose proceeds for Wyoming oil or gas production were
Late
          Payments sent to escrow by the Defendant during the Claim

          Period, or whose proceeds from Wyoming oil or gas
production
          were Late Payments held in suspense by the Defendant and
not
          escrowed or paid during the Claim Period; and

      (2) such Late Payments did not include 18% interest.

       A "Late Payment" for purposes of this class definition means

       payment, escrow, or held in suspense by the Defendant after
the
       statutory periods identified in W.S. section 30-5-301. Late

       Payments do not include prior period adjustments, including

       retroactive adjustments to wells on federal units.

       Excluded from the Class are: (1) Defendant, its affiliates,

       predecessors, and employees, officers, and directors; (2)
       agencies, departments, or instrumentalities of the United
       States of America or the State of Wyoming; (3) publicly
traded
       oil-and-gas companies and their affiliates or subsidiaries;
and
       (4) any Indian tribe as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(4)
or
       Indian allottee as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(2).

This is a class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf
of herself and as a representative of a class of owners, against
the Defendant for the alleged failure to pay statutory interest on
payments made outside the time periods set forth in the Wyoming
Royalty Payment Act ("WRPA"), for oil and gas production proceeds
from oil and gas wells in Wyoming.

On March 29, 2024, the Parties executed a Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement finalizing the terms of the Settlement.
On April 8, 2024, the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement
and issued an Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement, Certifying the Class for Settlement Purposes, Approving
Form and Manner of Notice, and Setting Date for Final Fairness
Hearing

Devon Energy is a company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aIP7ZX at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Reagan E. Bradford, Esq.
          Ryan K. Wilson, Esq.
          BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC
          431 W. Main Street, Suite D
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 698-2770
          E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com
                  ryan@bradwil.com

                – and –

          Rick Erb, Esq.
          RICHARD A. ERB, JR., PC
          Gillette, WY 82717
          Telephone: (307) 682-0215
          Facsimile: (307) 682-1339
          E-mail: rick@rickerb.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John F. Shepherd, Esq.
          Christopher A. Chrisman, Esq.
          Michelle R. Seares, Esq.
          Jeffrey S. Pope, Esq.
          HOLLAND & HART LLP
          555 Seventeenth Street, Suite 3200
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 295-8000
          E-mail: jshepherd@hollandhart.com
                  cachrismas@hollandhart.com
                  mrseares@hollandhart.com
                  jspope@hollandhart.com

DOXIM INC: Faces Lattimore Suit Over Unauthorized Access of Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN LATTIMORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DOXIM INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-12160-JJCG-CI (E.D. Mich., August 16, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, and
unjust enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff
and similarly situated individuals stored within its computer
systems following a data breach on or about December 30, 2023. The
Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly
situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the
private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was
compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown
and unauthorized third parties.

Doxim Inc. is a software as a service provider doing business in
Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
         Ronald Podolny, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN
         COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
         201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
         Tampa, FL 33602
         Telephone: (813) 223-5505
         Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
         Email: JYanchunis@forthepeople.com
                ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com

DREAM GAMES: Schudde Files Suit in W.D. Washington
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dream Games Teknoloji
Anonim irketi. The case is styled as Janna Schudde, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dream Games
Teknoloji Anonim irketi, Case No. 2:24-cv-01214 (W.D. Wash., Aug.
8, 2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Dream Games -- https://dreamgames.com/ -- is a leading mobile
gaming company founded in 2019.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Omer Salik, Esq.
          CARTER ARNETT BENNETT & PEREZ PLLC
          111 Pier Ave., Suite 101
          HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254
          Phone: (214) 295-3688
          Email: osalik@carterarnett.com


DXC TECHNOLOGY: Roofers' Pension Sues Over Inflated Share Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROOFERS' PENSION FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DXC TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, MICHAEL J. SALVINO,
JOHN SWEENEY, KENNETH P. SHARP, and ROBERT F. DEL BENE, Defendants,
Case No. 1:24-cv-01351 (E.D. Va., August 2, 2024) is a securities
class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons or
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired shares of DXC common
stock between May 26, 2021, and May 16, 2024, inclusive, asserting
claims against DXC and certain of the Company's current and former
executive officers under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder.

Throughout the Class Period, the Company misrepresented its ongoing
"transformation journey" and the Company's ability to integrate
previously acquired companies and business systems. While touting
its ongoing success in implementing that integration, DXC
repeatedly stressed its commitment to reducing the Company's
restructuring and transaction, separation, and integration (TSI)
costs in order to increase its free cash flow and unleash earnings
power. These and similar statements made by Defendants during the
Class Period were materially false and misleading. In truth, the
Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that the Company was only
able to reduce its restructuring and TSI costs by limiting its
integration efforts. As a result of Defendants' misrepresentations,
shares of DXC common stock traded at artificially inflated prices
throughout the Class Period, says the suit.

Plaintiff Roofers' Pension Fund is a pension fund for the Local No.
11 of the United Union of Roofers Waterproofers & Allied Workers.

DXC Technology Company is an information technology services and
consulting company based in Ashburn, Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Emily M. Scott, Esq.
          HIRSCHLER FLEISCHER, P.C.
          2100 E. Cary Street
          Richmond, VA 23223
          Telephone: (804) 771-9539
          Facsimile: (804) 644-0957
          E-mail: escott@hirschlerlaw.com

               - and -

          Avi Josefson, Esq.
          Scott R. Foglietta, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 554-1400
          Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
          E-mail: avi@blbglaw.com
                  scott.foglietta@blbglaw.com

EAGLES NEST: Calcano Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------
Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. EAGLES NEST OUTFITTERS, INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-06113 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 12, 2024), is brought against the
Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical location, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Because the Defendants' Website,
https://eaglesnestoutfittersinc.com,, is not equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible
with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and
visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services—all benefits it affords nondisabled
individuals—thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the
complaint.

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

EAGLES NEST OUTFITTERS, INC., operates the Eagles Nest online
retail store, as well as the Eagles Nest interactive Website and
advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
                 Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
                 Danalgottlieb@aol.com


ENERGY TRANSFER: Summary Judgment Bid vs ACERS Partly OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as ALLEGHENY COUNTY EMPLOYEES'
RETIREMENT SYSTEM et al., v. ENERGY TRANSFER LP et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-00200-GAM (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Gerald Austin McHugh
will deny in part and grant in part the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment.

Judge McHugh says that Because he is denying the Defendants' motion
only as to the August 2018 loss causation date, only the pipeline
capacity and construction timeline statements and their
corresponding scienter survive. He will also partially grant
Plaintiffs' partial motion for summary judgment as to the February
2018 to June 2018 statements and the corresponding scienter as to
Defendants Long, McCrea, and Ramsey, but otherwise deny the motion.


This case arises out of the construction of the Mariner East
pipeline in Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiffs are retirement systems and pension plans bringing
this action on behalf of a class of shareholders in Energy Transfer
LP against Energy Transfer, its subsidiary, and certain executives.
They allege securities fraud in the form of false and misleading
public statements affecting the price of Energy Transfer stock.

The case survived dismissal and Plaintiffs obtained class
certification.

Energy Transfer is engaged in the pipeline transportation, storage,
and terminaling for natural gas, crude oil, NGLs, refined products
and liquid natural gas.

A copy of the Court's memorandum dated Aug. 8, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=w6hph1 at no extra
charge.[CC]

ESSILORLUXOTTICA SA: Newton Alleges Eyewear Market Conspiracy
-------------------------------------------------------------
RENEE NEWTON, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ESSILORLUXOTTICA S.A., LUXOTTICA GROUP, S.p.A.,
ESSILOR INTERNATIONAL SAS, GRANDVISION BV, ESSILORLUXOTTICA USA
INC., LUXOTTICA U.S. HOLDINGS CORP., LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA, INC.,
ESSILOR OF AMERICA INC., FRAMES FOR AMERICA, INC., FOR EYES OPTICAL
COMPANY, INC., COSTA DEL MAR, INC., OAKLEY, INC., EYEMED VISION
CARE, LLC, and VISION SOURCE, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-05907 (S.D.N.Y., August 2, 2024) is brought by the
Plaintiff under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act for injunctive
relief and under certain state antitrust and consumer protection
statutes based on Defendants' anticompetitive conduct. The
Plaintiff seeks to remedy the harm this conduct has inflicted on
her and similarly situated consumers.

According to the complaint, the Defendants and their
co-conspirators conspired to raise, fix, and stabilize the prices
charged for eyewear. The Defendants did so by devising a scheme to
create an illegal monopoly and to dominate the consumer eyewear
market and by entering into unlawful agreements to fix the price of
eyewear at supra-competitive rates.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' unlawful and
anticompetitive scheme and Defendants' anticompetitive practices,
Plaintiff and the members of the Classes have paid higher prices
for eyewear than they would have paid in a competitive marketplace
absent the scheme and the anticompetitive practices, and have
thereby suffered, and continue to suffer, antitrust injury, says
the suit.

EssilorLuxottica S.A. manufactures eyewear. The Company offers sun
glasses, lenses, and other eye care products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey C. Zwerling, Esq.
          Justin M. Tarshis, Esq.
          Jessica Hermes, Esq.
          ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP
          41 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (212) 223-3900
          E-mail: jzwerling@zsz.com
                  jtarshis@zsz.com
                  jhermes@zsz.com

EVOLVE BANK: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Walker Says
-------------------------------------------------------
SAMANTHA WALKER and STEVEN MASON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EVOLVE BANK AND TRUST,
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02552 (W.D. Tenn., August 5, 2024)
arises from Evolve's failure to implement reasonable and industry
standard data security practices to properly secure, safeguard, and
adequately destroy Plaintiffs' and the proposed Class Members'
sensitive personally identifiable information that it had acquired
and stored as part of its business relationship with various
financial technology companies.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's data security failures
allowed a targeted cyberattack on or about June 18, 2024, in which
cyber criminals compromised Defendant's information systems which
contained Plaintiffs' and other individuals PII. Because of the
data breach, the Plaintiffs and Class Members are now at a current,
imminent, and ongoing risk of fraud and identity theft. The
Plaintiffs and Class Members must now and for years into the future
closely monitor their medical and financial accounts to guard
against identity theft, says the suit.

Through this complaint, the Plaintiffs pursue legal redress for
these harms on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated
individuals whose PII was accessed during the data breach. The
Plaintiffs further seek remedies including, but not limited to,
compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and
injunctive relief including improvements to Defendant's data
security systems, future annual audits, as well as long-term and
adequate credit monitoring services funded by Defendant, and
declaratory relief.

Evolve Bank and Trust is a national financial services institution
recognized as a global leader in the payments and
banking-as-a-service industry.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
          Amina A. Thomas, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636-6481
          E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
                  athomas@cohenandmalad.com

               - and -

          Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq.
          Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
          JENNINGS PLLC
          500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 110
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (601) 270-0197
          E-mail: tyler@jenningspllc.com
                  chris@jenningspllc.com

EYEBUYDIRECT INC: Hulett Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eyebuydirect, Inc.
The case is styled as Joseph Hulett, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Eyebuydirect, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-00996-AMN-MJK (N.D.N.Y., Aug. 13, 2024).

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

Eyebuydirect, Inc. -- https://www.eyebuydirect.com/ -- is an online
retailer of prescription glasses, based in Austin, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zane C. Hedaya, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1700
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (754) 444-7539
          Email: zane@jibraellaw.com


FAIR HARBOR: Murphy Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------
James Murphy, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. FAIR HARBOR CLOTHING PBC, Case No. 1:24-cv-05577
(S.D.N.Y., July 23, 2024), is brought against the Defendants for
its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website
to be fully and equally accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website,
https://www.fairharborclothing.com, including all portions thereof
or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's
Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become
and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible
with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and
visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled
individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the
complaint.

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

FAIR HARBOR CLOTHING PBC, operates the Fair Harbor online retail
store, as well as the Fair Harbor interactive Website and
advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: dana@gottlieb.legal
                 michael@gottlieb.legal
                 jeffrey@gottlieb.legal


FALFURRIAS CAPITAL: Bellyard Partners Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Falfurrias Capital
Partners, LP, et al. The case is styled as Bellyard Partners, LLC,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Falfurrias
Capital Partners, LP, Global Plasma Solutions Inc., Case No.
24CV010221 (Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton Cty., Aug. 13, 2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Cause of Action.

Falfurrias Capital Partners -- https://falfurrias.com/ -- is a
Charlotte-based private equity investment firm that acquires or
invests in lower, middle-market businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steffan T. Keeton, Esq.
          THE KEETON FIRM LLC
          100 S Commons, Ste. 102
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212


FIFTH THIRD BANK: Yarnall Files Suit in D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FIFTH THIRD BANK,
N.A., et al. The case is styled as Neda Yarnall, Cheryl Hibbard,
Mark Hibbard, Madelene Funk, Christopher Funk, Tatiana Mykyta
Polanin, Hector Chaverra, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. FIFTH THIRD BANK, N.A. surviving company of
DIVIDEND FINANCE, LLC, UNIDENTIFIED ENTITIES A THROUGH Z, Case No.
2:24-cv-07244-JXN-JBC (D.N.J., June 25, 2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Fifth Third Bank, National Association -- https://www.53.com/ --
operates as a bank. The Bank offers debit card, bill pay, mobile
and online banking, savings account, insurance, loan, financial,
and investment services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Diane E. Sammons, Esq.
          Bruce Heller Nagel, Esq.
          NAGEL RICE, LLP
          103 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Phone: (973) 618-0400
          Email: dsammons@nagelrice.com
                 bnagel@nagelrice.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Philip S. Rosen
          ZEICHNER, ELLMAN & KRAUSE, LLP
          33 Wood Avenue South
          Iselin, NJ 08830
          Phone: (973) 618-9100
          Email: prosen@zeklaw.com


FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Dahan Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Andrew Dahan and Jared O'Connor, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SINCLAIR, INC.,
Case No. 2024CH05888 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, Chancery Division, to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Aug. 7, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-06955.

The only cause of action upon which the Complaint is premised is an
alleged violation of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act
("VPPA"), related to Sinclair's alleged disclosure of personally
identifiable information ("PII") to third parties. The Complaint
seeks: certification of the putative class, "damages related to
Class Members' loss of privacy in an amount to be determined at
trial," "an order enjoining Defendant from continuing to engage in
unlawful conduct and practices described herein," "an award of
attorney's fees and costs," and any "further relief as the Court
deems reasonable and just."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
          Jordan R. Frysinger, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: 312-893-7002
          Email: eturin@mcgpc.com
                 jfrysinger@mcgpc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael M. Rosenberg, Esq.
          ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
          353 N Clark Street, Suite 3600
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Phone: (312) 924-9800
          Fax: (312) 924-9899
          Email: mrosenberg@orrick.com


FIRST PREMIER HOME: Johnson Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against First Premier Home
Warranty Corp. The case is styled as Antwane Johnson, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. First Premier
Home Warranty Corp., Case No. 1:24-cv-05542 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 8,
2024).

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

First Premier Home Warranty --
https://firstpremierhomewarranty.com/ -- offers insurance plans,
home warranty products, and services for homeowners, real estate
brokers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ross Howard Schmierer, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          275 Seventh Avenue, 7th Floor, Suite 410
          New York, NY 10001
          Phone: (800) 400-6808
          Email: ross@kazlg.com


FULCRUM THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Celano Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Fulcrum Therapeutics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 31, 2024, that on April 28, 2023, a
class action complaint, "Celano v. Fulcrum Therapeutics, Inc., et
al.," Case No. 1:23-cv-11125-IT, was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey against the company
and current and former officers. On November 28, 2023, all
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Securities Action.
Briefing was completed on the motion in February 2024, and the
motion is currently pending.

On May 19, 2023, case was transferred to the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts. The Securities Action
alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against
all defendants and control person violations of Section 20(a)
against the individuals, related to the company's February 2023
announcement that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a
clinical hold regarding the investigational new drug application
for "FTX-6058" for the potential treatment of sickle cell disease.
The case alleges that the defendants made misleading statements and
omitted to disclose material information related to the clinical
hold and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages in
connection with an allegedly inflated stock price between March 3,
2022, and March 8, 2023, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

Fulcrum Therapeutics, Inc. is focused on treatment of
genetically-defined rare diseases in areas of high unmet medical
need.


GARRETT MOTION: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Garrett Motion Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in July 25, 2024, that in 2020, various
securities class action complaints were filed against Garrett
Motion Inc. and certain current and former Garrett officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York asserting claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, for alleged
securities fraud and control person liability.

In March 2022, the trial court dismissed with prejudice the claims
against certain of the defendants, and in March 2023, the trial
court dismissed with prejudice all remaining claims. In April 2023,
the plaintiffs appealed the trial court's decision to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In April 2024, the
Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of the claims, and the deadline
for further appeals has passed.

Garrett Motion Inc. provides differentiated solutions for emission
reduction and energy efficiency. It designs, manufactures, and
sells turbocharging, air and fluid compression, and high-speed
electric motor technologies to original equipment manufacturers and
distributors within the mobility and industrial space.


GATX CORPORATION: Bid to Dismiss Class Action Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
GATX Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 24, 2024, that on December 8, 2023, the company
and three other defendants were named as defendants in a putative
class action lawsuit originally filed in federal court in
Pennsylvania against Norfolk Southern by Pennsylvania school
districts and school children. The amended complaint seeks monetary
damages for personal injury and property damage for the
Pennsylvania plaintiffs allegedly related to the Norfolk Southern
Train Derailment in East Palestine, Ohio. The company and other
defendants filed a motion to dismiss on February 23, 2024. Briefing
has been completed and the motions remain pending and undecided.
The court has not set any further deadlines.

GATX Corporation is a leading global railcar lessor, owning fleets
in North America, Europe, and India. In addition, through GATX
Engine Leasing, its wholly owned aircraft spare engine leasing
business, and joint ventures with Rolls-Royce plc.


GEICO GENERAL: Court Strikes Case Schedule in Nichols Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MERLE NICHOLS, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. GEICO GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign automobile insurance company, Case No.
2:18-cv-01253-TL-SKV (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge S. Kate Vaughan
entered an order striking the current case schedule and trial date.


The Parties are provided 100 days to conduct a mediation, and shall
prepare and file a joint status report within 30 days of mediation
advising the Court of its outcome.

If the Parties do not, for whatever reason, reach a resolution,
they will propose a new case schedule and trial date in the
aforementioned joint status report.

This is a certified class action arising from GEICO's alleged use
of a Maximum Medical Improvement ("MMI") standard to limit Personal
Injury Protection ("PIP") benefits, an alleged violation of
Washington law. GEICO denies these allegations.

In April 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification and certified the Nichols class.

In April 2022, the Parties reached an agreement and submitted a
Joint Discovery Plan detailing the production and review process.

In July 2024, Plaintiff's Counsel completed its review, and
published an MS-Excel spreadsheet to GEICO identifying which
putative claimants are asserted to satisfy the Nichols Class
definition, and thus, would be entitled to certification/opt-out
notice.

Geico General offers vehicle, property, motorcycle, boat,
homeowners, flood, mobile home, general liability, and pet
insurance.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark A. Trivett, Esq.
          Duncan C. Turner, Esq.
          BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER
          19929 Ballinger Way NE, Suite 200
          Seattle, WA 98155
          Telephone: (206) 621-6566
          E-mail: mtrivett@badgleymullins.com;
                  dturner@badgleymullins.com

                - and -

          Randall C. Johnson, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RANDALL C. JOHNSON
          Seattle, WA 98115
          Telephone: (206) 890-0616
          E-mail: rcjj.law@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Stacy L.R. DeMass, Esq.
          Rodney L. Umberger, Esq.
          WILLIAMS KASTNER & GIBBS PLLC
          601 Union Street, Suite 4100
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 628-6600
          E-mail: sdemass@williamskastner.com
                  rumberger@williamskastner.com

                - and -

          John Marino, Esq.
          Kristen L. Wenger, Esq.
          RIVKIN RADLER LLP
          1301 Riverplace Blvd, 10th floor
          Jacksonville, FL 32207
          Telephone: (904) 792-8963
          E-mail: john.marino@rivkin.com
                  kristen.wenger@rivkin.com

GEISINGER HEALTH: Faces O'Brien Suit Over Compromised Info
----------------------------------------------------------
ERIC O'BRIEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GEISINGER HEALTH and NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-01397-MWB (M.D. Pa., August 19,
2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence,
negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidence,
unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and
protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly
situated individuals stored within their computer systems following
a data breach on November 29, 2023. The Defendants also failed to
timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals
about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the
Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through
access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third
parties.

Geisinger Health, doing business as Geisinger Health Foundation, is
a healthcare provider, headquartered in Danville, Pennsylvania.

Nuance Communications, Inc. is a provider of information technology
services, headquartered in Burlington, Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
         Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
         LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
         1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
         Pittsburgh, PA 15222
         Telephone: (412) 322-9243
         Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
         Email: gary@lcllp.com
                jamisen@lcllp.com

                 - and -

         Clifford A. Rieders, Esq.
         161 W. Third St.
         Williamsport, PA 17701
         Telephone: (570) 323-8711
         Facsimile: (570) 323-4192
         Email: crieders@riederstravis.com

GEISINGER HEALTH: Seeks to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Geisinger Health and Evangelical
Community Hospital Healthcare Workers Antitrust Litigation, Case
No. 4:21-cv-00196-MWB (M.D. Pa.), the Defendants ask the Court to
enter an order, pursuant to Middle District Local Rule 5.8,
granting their motion to file under seal unredacted copy of the
Defendants' Joint Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for class
certification, along with supporting Exhibits 1-91.

The Defendants submit a Statement of Justification in Support and a
proposed order along with this motion.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 6, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UL4U2K at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Daniel T. Brier, Esq.
          Donna A. Walsh, Esq.
          Richard L. Armezzani, Esq.
          MYERS, BRIER & KELLY, LLP
          425 Biden Street, Suite 200
          Scranton, PA 18503

                - and -

          Chahira Solh, Esq.
          Stefan M. Meisner, Esq.
          Rosa M. Morales, Esq.
          CROWELL & MORING LLP
          3 Park Plaza, 20th Floor
          Irvine, CA 92614

GEISINGER SYSTEM: Can File Exhibits Under Seal in Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Geisinger System Services and
Evangelical Community Hospital Healthcare Workers Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 4:21-cv-00196-MWB (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
Matthew Brann entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to
file under seal.

The Clerk of Court is directed to seal an unredacted copy of the
Defendants' Joint Opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for Class
Certification, along with supporting Exhibits 1-91.

Geisinger is a health and wellness organization.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AIj3Va at no extra
charge.[CC]

GENERAL MILLS: Haver Suit Removed to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Diana Haver, on behalf of herself, all others
similarly situated, and the general public v. GENERAL MILLS, INC.,
Case No. 37-2024-00028888-CU-BT-CTL was removed from the Superior
Court of California, County of San Diego, to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California on July 23,
2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01269-CAB-MMP.

In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the marketing and labeling
of the Fruit Snacks are false and misleading “because the Fruit
Snacks are sweetened entirely with added sugar.” The Plaintiff
alleges the phrase “Made with Real Fruit Juice” is false and
misleading due to the presence of added sugar. The Plaintiff
alleges that they and each class member would not have purchased
the Product or would have paid less for them had the labels not
been purportedly false or misleading.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Charles C. Sipos, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
          Seattle, WA 98101-3099
          phone: +1.206.359.8000
          Facsimile: +1.206.359.9000
          Email: CSipos@perkinscoie.com

               - and -

          Natalie K. Sanders, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          1888 Century Park East, Suite 1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-1721
          Phone: +1.310.788.9900
          Facsimile: +1.310.788.3399
          Email: NSanders@perkinscoie.com


GIANT COMPANY: Must Oppose Holbert Class Cert Bid by August 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CORBIN HOLBERT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE
GIANT COMPANY LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00501-JPW (M.D. Pa.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting an extension of
the briefing schedule for the Plaintiff's Class Certification
Motion as follows:

        Submission                   Current Deadline    New
Proposed
                                                          
Deadline

  Defendant's Response in Opposition   Aug. 16, 2024    Aug. 30,
2024
  to Plaintiff's Class Certification
  Motion

  Plaintiff's Reply Brief in further   Aug. 30, 2024    Sept. 20,
2024
  support of his Class Certification
  Motion

The Defendant's request is made in good faith and not for any
improper purpose, will provide the Parties with adequate time to
fully brief the Court on the issues, and will not unnecessarily
delay the resolution of this Action.

On June 21, 2024, the Plaintiff filed the Class Certification
Motion and simultaneously moved for leave to file the motion.

Because the Court's decision on Plaintiff's Motion for Leave would
have determined whether Plaintiff could file his Class
Certification Motion, and in order to avoid any unnecessary
expenditure of time and resources on the latter, the Parties moved
jointly to modify the briefing schedule for Plaintiff's Class
Certification Motion to dates keyed off the Court's disposition of
Plaintiff's Motion for Leave.

The Defendant ultimately withdrew its opposition to Plaintiff's
Motion for Leave and consented to Plaintiff's filing of the Class
Certification Motion.

On July 26, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for Leave,
and Plaintiff’s Class Certification Motion was deemed "filed" as
of that date.

Giant Company is an American regional supermarket chain.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 9, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Asg9Vu at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Brendan T. Killeen, Esq.
          Michael J. Puma, Esq.
          Caroline R. Robb, Esq.
          Catherine S. Houseman, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          101 Park Ave.
          New York, NY 10178
          Telephone: (212) 309-6712
          Facsimile: (212) 309-6001

GILEAD SCIENCES: Class Cert Hearing in Searcy Suit Set for Sept. 5
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN SEARCY, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, et al., v. GILEAD
SCIENCES, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-01523-MTS (E.D. Mo.), the Hon.
Judge Matthew Schelp entered an order that a Hearing will be held
in this matter on the Motion for Class Certification and Motions to
Exclude on Thursday, Sept. 05, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom
Sixteen South (16-S) of the Thomas F. Eagleton United States
Courthouse.

Gilead Sciences is an American biopharmaceutical company.

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


GOALS AESTHETIC: Court Decertifies Class in Lawrence Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEYLEE LAWRENCE, et al.,
v. GOALS AESTHETIC AND PLASTIC SURGERY, et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-08649-GHW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gregory Woods entered
an order granting the Defendants' motion to preclude evidence and
decertify the class.

The Court observes that even with respect to this motion for
decertification, counsel have continued their pattern of deficient
representation.

In response to Defendants' motion for preclusion, Plaintiffs'
counsel failed to raise any argument about the importance of
class-wide damages to Plaintiffs’ claims, which as described
above, is a significant consideration in determining the
appropriateness of preclusion.

The prejudice to the class here is manifest because counsel's
failings have left them unable to prove class damages at trial.
Accordingly, the class is decertified.

The Plaintiffs are former employees of the Defendant.

Goals Aesthetic is a New York cosmetic surgery practice.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GmS7b9 at no extra
charge.[CC]

GOOSEHEAD INSURANCE: Dollens Stockholder Suit Stayed
----------------------------------------------------
Goosehead Insurance, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 21, 2024, that on November 10,
2022, a verified stockholder class action complaint for declaratory
relief, captioned "Mickey Dollens v. Goosehead Insurance, Inc.,"
C.A. No. 2022-1018-JTL, was filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware, alleging certain corporate governance documents
adopted by the company were invalid under Delaware law. The matter
is currently stayed.

On August 8, 2023, the parties entered into a proposed settlement
providing for certain non-monetary benefits to the class (i.e.,
revisions to the company's Stockholder Agreement). A hearing was
held on February 22, 2024 to, among other things, consider whether
to grant final approval of the proposed settlement. Additionally,
the plaintiff has petitioned the court for attorneys' fees and
litigation expenses.

Goosehead is an independent insurance agency based out of Westlake,
Texas.


GROUNDGAME.HEALTH INC: Rosado Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
GIA ROSADO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. GROUNDGAME.HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 8:24-cv-01825 (M.D. Fla., August 2, 2024) is a collective
action brought by the Plaintiff pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act to remedy Defendant's failure to pay appropriate
wages including, but not limited to, unpaid overtime compensation,
an equal amount of liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.

The Plaintiff and the similarly situated individuals were employed
by the Defendant as care coordinators/dialers to perform services
for patients such as providing the necessary information and
resources to help them obtain clothing, transportation, food, and
medication. The Plaintiff asserts that during the term of their
employment with Defendant, she and the similarly situated
individuals regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek but
were denied overtime pay required by FLSA.

GroundGame.Health, Inc. provides care delivery including social
determinants of health for economically disadvantaged populations
and communities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary L. Printy, Jr., Esq.
          THE PRINTY LAW FIRM
          5407 N Florida Avenue
          Tampa, FL 33604
          Telephone: (813) 434-0649
          Facsimile: (813) 423-6543
          E-mail: garyjr@printylawfirm.com

GUARDIAN INDUSTRIES: Espinoza Suit Removed to E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Frank Espinoza, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated and/or aggrieved employees of Defendants in
the State of California v. GUARDIAN INDUSTRIES, LLC., and DOES 1
THROUGH 50, inclusive, Case No. 24CECG01692 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Fresno,
to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California on July 24, 2024, and assigned Case No.
1:24-cv-00853-KES-SAB.

On June 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, adding
a claim under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004
("PAGA").[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mark W. Wallin, Esq.
          Amy Choe, Esq.
          Rochelle L. Calderon, Esq.
          BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 300
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2904
          Phone: (310) 284-3880
          Facsimile: (310) 284-3894
          Email: mark.wallin@btlaw.com
                 amy.choe@btlaw.com
                 rcalderon@btlaw.com


GULLY TRANSPORTATION: Court Nixes Approval of Settlement in Seals
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAWN SEALS, ON BEHALF OF
HIMSELF INDIVIDUALLY AND ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED EMPLOYEES, v.
GULLY TRANSPORTATION, INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-00824-RK (W.D. Mo.),
the Hon. Judge Roseann A. Ketchmark entered an order denying
without prejudice the motion to certify settlement class and the
motion to approve settlement of this Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") action.

Because it appears that the FLSA merits settlement and the attorney
fees issues were settled together (rather than separately), in
order to approve the proposed FLSA settlement, the Court must
consider the reasonableness of the attorney fee award under a
traditional lodestar and reasonableness framework, to ensure there
is no conflict of interest.

The current record is insufficient in this regard and does not
allow the Court to meaningfully consider the reasonableness of both
the proposed merits settlement to the Plaintiffs and the requested
attorney fee award together.

The Plaintiff brought this lawsuit against the Defendant Gully
Transportation for alleged violations of the FLSA. The Plaintiff
seeks relief on behalf of a putative collective consisting of
current and former employees of Gully Transportation, asserting
they worked overtime hours without compensation.

On March 4, 2024, the Parties mediated the case, and the matter
resolved at mediation.

Gully Transportation offers truckload, temperature controlled
transportation, brokerage, and trailer leasing services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=E8gnRh at no extra
charge.[CC]

HARVARD DRUG: Benzoyl Peroxide Wash Contains Benzene, Kouyate Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
MOUSSA KOUYATE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE HARVARD DRUG GROUP LLC d/b/a RUGBY
LABORATORIES, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-06223 (S.D.N.Y., August
16, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of
New York False Advertising Act, fraud or misrepresentation, and
negligence per se.

The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its Benzoyl
Peroxide Wash USP 10% product. According to the complaint, the
Defendant misrepresented, omitted, and concealed the presence of
benzene on its product. The Plaintiff and Class members reasonably
relied on the Defendant's representations that the product was
safe, unadulterated, and free of any carcinogens that are not
listed on the label. Had the Plaintiff and all other similarly
situated consumers known the truth, they would not have purchased
or paid premium for the product, says the suit.

The Harvard Drug Group LLC, doing business as Rugby Laboratories,
is a supplier of generic and branded pharmaceuticals based in
Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       D. Nicole Guntner, Esq.
       AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
       17 East Main Street, Suite 200
       Pensacola, FL 32502
       Telephone: (850) 202-1010
       Facsimile: (850) 916-7449
       Email: nguntner@awkolaw.com

HEALTHEQUITY INC: Baker Sues Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------
Tyler Baker and Joshua Rhoades, on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. HEALTHEQUITY, INC., Case
No. 2:24-cv-00580-AMA (D. Utah, Aug. 13, 2024), is brought for
negligence, negligence per se, breach of an implied contract,
unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment, seeking actual and
putative damages, with attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, and
appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief as a result of the
Data Breach.

On July 2, 2024, in a disclosure reported to the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Defendant announced that "earlier this year"
it became aware of unauthorized access to and disclosure of
information including "personally identifiable information, which
in some cases is considered protected health information" (the
"Data Breach").

It was not until later that HealthEquity admitted that the
personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health
information ("PHI", together with PII, "Protected Information")
that was accessed affected 4.3 million of its customers and
included information such as "first name, last name, address,
telephone number, employee ID, employer, social security number,
health card number, health plan member number, dependent
information (for general contact information only), HealthEquity
benefit type, diagnoses, prescription details, and payment card
information (but not payment card number, and/or HealthEquity
account type."

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's inadequate data
security measures and its breach of its duty to handle Protected
Information with reasonable care, Plaintiffs' and Class Members'
Protected Information have been accessed by hackers and exposed to
an untold number of unauthorized individuals.

The Plaintiffs and Class Members are now at a significantly
increased and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft,
misappropriation of health insurance benefits, intrusion of their
privacy, and similar forms of criminal mischief, which may last for
the rest of their lives. Consequently, Plaintiffs and Class Members
must devote substantially more time, money, and energy to protect
themselves, to the extent possible, from these crimes, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff used HealthEquity from March of 2021 through March
2023 to coordinate payments of his daycare premiums.

The Defendant describes itself as a leader and an innovator in
providing technology-enabled services that empower consumers to
make healthcare saving and spending decisions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John P. Mertens, Esq.
          PIA HOYT LAW FIRM, LLC
          170 South Main, Suite 1100
          Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
          Phone: (801)350-9000
          Email: jmertens@piahoyt.com

               - and -

          Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          923 Fayette Street
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Phone: 610.234.6486
          Email: jjagher@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
          Nicholas R. Lange, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          100 Tri-State International Drive, Suite 128
          Lincolnshire, IL 60629
          Phone: 224.632.4500
          Email: nlange@fklmlaw.com
                 dmillen@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          William E. Hoese, Esq.
          Zahra R. Dean, Esq.
          Elias Kohn, Esq.
          KOHN SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215)238-1700
          Email: whoese@kohnswift.com
                 zdean@kohnswift.com
                 ekohn@kohnswift.com


HUEL INC: Espinal Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------
Frangie Espinal, Individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons v. HUEL INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-05986
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 7, 2024), is brought this civil rights action
against the Defendant for their failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website,
https://www.huel.com, including all portions thereof or accessed
thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is
not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it
violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures
so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.

By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible
with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and
visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services—all benefits it affords nondisabled
individuals thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the
complaint.

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

HUEL INC., operates the Huel online retail store, as well as the
Huel interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in
the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: dana@gottlieb.legal
                 michael@gottlieb.legal
                 jeffrey@gottlieb.legal


ICF TECHNOLOGY: Tomasello Seeks to Certify Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIA TOMASELLO, on behalf
of herself, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals, v. ICF TECHNOLOGY, INC., ACCRETIVE TECHNOLOGY GROUP,
INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-03759-MCA-JRA (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order certifying this lawsuit as a class
action.

The proposed Class is defined as follows:

    "All persons who, at any time from Aug. 6, 2019 continuing
through
    entry of judgment in this case, worked as Performers for ICF
    Technology, Inc. and/or Accretive Technology Group, Inc. in New

    Jersey and were classified as independent contractors under
their
    Performer Agreements."

ICF Technology is a streaming and processing service provider.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 9, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ch7K3s at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
          Tyler J. Burrell, Esq.
          Gaetano J. DiPersia, Esq.
          McOMBER McOMBER & LUBER, P.C.
          50 Lake Center Drive, Suite 400
          Marlton, NJ 08053
          Telephone: (856) 985-9800
          Facsimile: (732) 530-8545
          E-mail: cjk@njlegal.com
                  tjb@njlegal.com
                  gjd@njlegal.com

IMPERIAL HEALTH: Class Cert Bid Filing in Katz Due March 31, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFERY KATZ, v. IMPERIAL
HEALTH HOLDINGS, A PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL CORPORATION, Case No.
3:24-cv-02854-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Araceli
Martinez-Olguin entered an order vacating the case management
conference set for Aug. 14, 2024 and setting the following
deadlines in this matter:

                Event                              Deadline

  Parties to exchange initial disclosures         Aug. 8, 2024

  Defendants' ADR certification                   Aug. 9, 2024

  Proposed stipulated protective order            Sept. 12, 2024

  Last day to add parties or amend pleadings      Oct. 4, 2024

  Plaintiff's motion for class certification      Mar. 31, 2025
  and class certification expert reports  

  Defendant's opposition to motion for class      Apr. 21, 2025
  certification and opposing class certification
  expert reports, Daubert motion(s)

  Plaintiff's reply in support of motion for      May 2, 2025
  class certification and rebuttal class
  certification expert reports, Daubert motions,
  and opposition(s) to Defendant's Daubert
  motion(s)

  Defendant's reply in support of Daubert         May 12, 2025
  motion(s), opposition to Plaintiff's
  Daubert motion(s)

  Hearing on motion for class certification       Sept. 4, 2025
  and Daubert motions

Imperial operates a network of healthcare, wellness and fitness
products and services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8vMraw at no extra
charge.[CC]

IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
iRhythm Technologies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 1, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the securities class suit in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.

On February 1, 2021, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California (the "Court") alleging that the Company and its former
Chief Executive Officer, Kevin M. King, violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

On August 2, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
and filed a further amended complaint on September 24, 2021.

The amended complaint names as defendants, in addition to the
Company and Mr. King, its former Chief Executive Officer, Michael
J. Coyle, and former Chief Financial Officer and former Chief
Operating Officer, Douglas J. Devine.

The purported class in the amended complaint includes all persons
who purchased or acquired the Company's common stock between August
4, 2020 and July 13, 2021, and seeks unspecified damages
purportedly sustained by the class.

On October 27, 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, which
the Court granted on March 31, 2022, entering judgment in favor of
the Company and the other defendants.

On April 29, 2022, the original named plaintiff appealed to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On October 11, 2023, after briefing by the parties and oral
argument, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.

The appellant filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which was
denied on December 6, 2023.

On April 16, 2024, the original named plaintiff appealed the Ninth
Circuit's decision regarding jurisdiction to the United States
Supreme Court (the "Supreme Court") and, on May 20, 2024, the
Company waived its right to provide a statement of opposition with
respect to the issue of jurisdiction.

On June 4, 2024, the Supreme Court requested the Company provide a
statement of opposition, which is due August 2, 2024.

The Company believes the above securities class action lawsuit to
be without merit and plans to continue to defend itself
vigorously.

iRhythm Technologies Inc. is a digital healthcare company into the
design, development, and commercialization of device-based
technology to provide ambulatory cardiac monitoring services.






J&C AMBULANCE: Class Cert Responses in First Suit Due Sept. 4
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as First, et al., v. J&C
Ambulance Services, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-03296 (S.D. Ohio,
Filed Aug. 31, 2022), the Hon. Judge Michael H. Watson entered an
order granting joint motion to extend time to file opposition
briefs to motions for partial summary judgment and for class
certification.

-- Responses due by Sept. 4, 2024.

The suit alleges violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act.

J&C Ambulance provides ambulance services.[CC]

J&C PROPERTY MANAGEMENT: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated mobility-impaired individuals v. J&C PROPERTY MANAGEMENT,
INC., and HZ COFFEE GROUP, LLC d/b/a DUNKIN DONUTS,, Case No.
1:24-cv-22808-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 23, 2024), is brought for
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result
of the Defendants' commercial retail plaza (hereinafter the
"Commercial Property") being inaccessible to people who are
disabled.

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

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

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

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

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

J & C PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC., owned and operated a commercial
property at 8300 West Flagler Street, Miami, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


JANUS HENDERSON: Continues to Defend Schissler Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Janus Henderson Group Plc disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 1, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Schissler class suit in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado.

On September 9, 2022, a class action complaint, captioned Schissler
v. Janus Henderson US (Holdings) Inc., et al., was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado. Named as
defendants are Janus Henderson US (Holdings) Inc. ("Janus US
Holdings") and the Advisory Committee to the Janus 401(k) and
Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the "Plan").

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of a class
consisting of participants and beneficiaries of the Plan that
invested in Janus Henderson funds on or after  September 9, 2016.

On January 10, 2023, in response to the defendants' motion to
dismiss filed on November 23, 2022, an amended complaint was filed
against the same defendants.

The amended complaint names two additional plaintiffs, Karly Sissel
and Derrick Hittson.

As amended, the complaint alleges that for the period September 9,
2016, through September 9, 2022, among other things, the defendants
breached fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence by (i) selecting
higher-cost Janus Henderson funds over less expensive investment
options, (ii) retaining Janus Henderson funds despite their alleged
underperformance and (iii) failing to consider actively managed
funds outside of Janus Henderson to add as investment options.

The amended complaint also alleges that Janus US Holdings failed to
monitor the Advisory Committee with respect to the foregoing.

The amended complaint seeks various declaratory, equitable and
monetary relief in unspecified amounts.

On February 9, 2023, the defendants filed an amended motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.

On March 13, 2023, the plaintiffs filed an opposition to the
amended motion to dismiss.

The defendants filed their reply to the plaintiffs' opposition on
March 28, 2023.

On September 7, 2023, a magistrate judge issued a report and
recommendation, which recommended that the motion to dismiss be
granted in part and denied in part.

On September 21, 2023, the parties filed objections to the report
and recommendation.

Briefing on the parties' objections concluded on October 12, 2023.

On January 22, 2024, the district court judge adopted the
magistrate judge's report and recommendation and entered an order
granting in part and denying in part Janus US Holdings' motion to
dismiss.

Janus US Holdings believes that it has substantial defenses and
intends to vigorously defend against these claims.

Janus Henderson Group PLC is a global asset manager and manages a
range of investment products, operating across various product
lines, distribution channels and geographic regions.





JERICO PICTURES: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Perry Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JEFF PERRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JERICO PICTURES, INC. d/b/a NATIONAL PUBLIC
DATA, Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-61499 (S.D. Fla., August 16,
2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence,
negligence per se, and unjust enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its
computer systems following a data breach in or around April 2024.
The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and
similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result,
the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was
compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown
and unauthorized third parties, the suit alleges.

Jerico Pictures, Inc., doing business as National Public Data, is a
background check company located in Coral Springs, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
       KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
       One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500
       Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
       Telephone: (954) 332-4200
       Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com

               - and -

       Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq.
       LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
       33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
       New York, NY 10004
       Telephone: (212) 363-7500
       Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
       Email: cmaccarone@zlk.com

JERICO PICTURES: Wilcox Alleges Failure to Protect Personal Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
LOWANDA WILCOX, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JERICO PICTURES, INC. d/b/a NATIONAL PUBLIC
DATA, Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-61418-AHS (S.D. Fla., August 5,
2024) is a class action arising from the data breach that, upon
information and belief, occurred around April of 2024, involving
Defendant NPD that compromised Plaintiff and similarly situated
personally identifiable information.

The Plaintiff alleges Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard PII that it collected and maintained as part of its
regular business practices. She asserts that the Defendant scrapes
the PII of potentially billions of individuals from non-public
sources. The Plaintiff and Class Members at no point knowingly
provided their PII to Defendant and Defendant instead scraped their
PII from non-public sources. To make matters even worse, the
Defendant did this without her and Class Members' consent or
knowledge, says the Plaintiff.

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

Jerico Pictures, Inc. d/b/a National Public Data is a background
check company that allows its customers to search billions of
records with instant results.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.  
          Steven Sukert, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 332-4200
          E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                  sukert@kolawyers.com

JONATHAN HUBERMAN: Reuter Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JONATHAN S. HUBERMAN,
et al. The case is styled as Donald Reuter, Jennifer Reuter, and
Dina Tsourdinis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JONATHAN S. HUBERMAN, MIKE NIKZAD, ANDREW K. NIKOU, C.
MATTHEW OLTON, STEPHANIE DAVIS, STEVEN GUGGENHEIMER, PETER H.
DIAMANDIS, and SOFTWARE ACQUISITION HOLDINGS II LLC, Case No.
2024-0833-LWW (Del. Chancery Ct., Aug. 8, 2024).

The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties."

Huberman was the Chairman of the Board, CEO, and CFO
of SWAG II.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael J. Barry, Esq.
          Kelly L. Tucker, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          123 Justison Street, 7th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 622-7000


JP CONSTRUCTION: Graves Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JP Construction Group
Inc. The case is styled as Maximo Graves, individually and on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. JP
Construction Group Inc., B & A Construction Services Inc., Case No.
3:24-cv-00574-RCY (E.D. Va., Aug. 13, 2024).

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

JP Construction Group Inc. -- https://www.jpconstinc.com/ -- is a
construction company based in Woodbridge, Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
          Samantha Galina, Esq.
          Zev Hillel Antell, Esq.
          BUTLER CURWOOD PLLC
          140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Phone: (804) 648-4848
          Fax: (804) 237-0413
          Email: craig@butlercurwood.com
                 samantha@butlercurwood.com
                 zev@butlercurwood.com


K & K LOS LATINOS: Chajon Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Waldemar Solares Chajon, Ruth Noemy Nunez Perez, Flor De Maria
Solares Chajon, and Mariela Del Rosario Solares Chajon,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. K &
K LOS LATINOS CORP. and KUKUZI GROCERY INC. d/b/a LOS LATINOS and
FERNANDO MOREL and JOSE PERALTA, as individuals, Case No.
2:24-cv-05660 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2024), is brought against the
Defendants to recover minimum wage and overtime wage and damages
for egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws
arising out of Plaintiff's employment under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Although the Plaintiffs regularly worked for over 40 hours or more
hours per week, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff at a wage rate
of time and a half for his hours regularly worked over 40 hours in
a work week, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions
contained in the FLSA and NYLL. The Defendants willfully failed to
post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in
a conspicuous place at the location of their employment as required
by the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants.

K & K LOS LATINOS CORP., is a New York domestic business
corporation, organized under the laws of the State of New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80—02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Phone: 718-263-9591
          Fax: 718-263-9598


KAIZENCURE LLC: Shelat Balks at Deceptive Sales Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
JWAL SHELAT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KAIZENCURE LLC, d/b/a CRAFTORIA, Defendant,
Case No. 4:24-cv-04696 (N.D. Cal., August 2, 2024) is a class
action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all
purchasers of the Defendant's products available on its website for
violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair
Competition Law, False Advertising Law, fraud, and unjust
enrichment.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's products perceived by
consumers to be discounted are not always actual bargains. In an
effort to give off the appearance of a bargain, the Defendant
intentionally misleads consumers, including Plaintiff, as to the
quality and value of the merchandise available on its website
through its deceptive sales tactics.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's false and
misleading sales practices, the Plaintiff and members of the Class,
were induced into purchasing the products under the false premise
that they were of a higher grade, quality, or value than they
actually were, says the suit.

Kaizencure LLC d/b/a Craftoria manufactures, markets, sells, and
distributes its products throughout the United States, including
California, through its online e-commerce store.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455  
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com

KENT WATER SPORTS: Calcano Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. KENT WATER SPORTS HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-06179 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2024), is brought against the
Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website,
https://www.boteboard.com, including all portions thereof or
accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's
Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become
and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible
with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and
visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled
individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the
complaint.

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

KENT WATER SPORTS HOLDINGS, LLC, operates the Bote online retail
store, as well as the Bote interactive Website and advertises,
markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
                 Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
                 Danalgottlieb@aol.com


KERING AMERICAS: Cohen Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Tracy Cohen, individually and for others
similarly situated v. KERING AMERICAS, INC. AND GUCCI AMERICA,
INC., Case No. 2024 CH 05844 was removed from the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Aug. 9,
2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-07046.

The First Amended Complaint ("FAC") in this action alleges that the
Plaintiff, a former Gucci sales associate, personally purchased
"python-skin bags and shoes for her own personal use." The
Plaintiff also alleges, based upon a news report regarding
publications by the organization known as People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals ("PETA"), that "two python farms allegedly
supplying Kering-owned Caravel engaged in abusive python killing
practices in Thailand," and that another facility in Thailand
engaged in the skinning of crocodiles.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          John W. Rotunno, Esq.
          Nicole C. Mueller, Esq.
          Kenn Brotman, Esq.
          Marvis A. Barnes, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP
          70 West Madison Street, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60602-4207
          Phone: (312) 372-1121
          Fax: (312) 827-8000
          Email: john.rotunno@klgates.com
                 nicole.mueller@klgates.com
                 kenn.brotman@klgates.com
                 marvis.barnes@klgates.com


KERR MCGEE: Class Settlement in Epperson Suit Gets Initial Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSE L. EPPERSON, v. KERR
MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00053-JDC-CBW (W.D.
La.), the Hon. Judge James Cain, Jr. entered an order granting the
motion for preliminary approval of settlement with Occidental and
Anadarko.

The Court finds and concludes that the proposed plan for
distributing the Notice will provide the best notice practicable
and complies with all legal requirements, including, but not
limited to, the Class Action Fairness Act and Due Process Clause of
the United States Constitution.

Accordingly, for purposes of settlement only, and pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court conditionally
certifies a Settlement Class composed of:

    "All residents, homeowners, and landowners within the
geographical
    boundaries depicted in Exhibit E to the Settlement Agreement
    (i.e., residents, homeowners, and landowners within the
estimated
    boundaries of the floodplain and subsurface aquifer that
extends
    from northeast corner of the southeast of boundary of the
American
    Creosote DeRidder Superfund Site to the northeast along the
    railroad right of way to Louise Street, then south to Rock
Street,
    east to Ronald Regan Highway (U.S. Hwy 190), southeast on
Ronald
    Regan Highway to Carr de Louisiana 26, southeast along Carr de

    Louisiana 26, then south down Townsley Road, then southwest
from
    the intersection of Townsley Road and Scallon Road to State
Route
    394, to the west-northwest along State Route 394 to Bobby
    Stracener Road, before continuing west to Ronald Regan Highway,

    and then north-northwest to Ball Road, west along Ball Road to

    immediately before the DeRidder Wastewater Treatment Plant and

    then north-northwest to the southeast corner of the southeast
    boundary of the American Creosote DeRidder Superfund Site)
and/or
    other individuals (e.g., former residents) who may have
suffered
    bodily might assert a claim for personal injury (including
medical
    monitoring),and/or property damage and might assert a claim for

    associated harms, including compensatory damages, medical
    monitoring, economic damages, and/or injunctive relief based on

    contamination alleged to emanate from the American Creosote
    DeRidder Superfund Site."

    The Settlement Class does not include (i) federal, state,
and/or
    local government agencies; or (ii) any judge, clerk, or officer
of
    the Court, their spouses, and persons within the third degree
of
    relationship to either of them or the spouses of such
persons."

Kerr-McGee Chemical is a former creosote wood-treating facility.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fx07bW at no extra
charge.[CC]

KIPP BAY AREA SCHOOLS: Edwards Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kipp Bay Area
Schools. The case is styled as Paytn Edwards, individually, and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated
and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the
California Private Attorneys General Act v. Kipp Bay Area Schools,
a California Nonprofit Corporation, Case No. 24CV086759 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Aug. 9, 2024).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."

KIPP -- https://kippnorcal.org/ -- is a network of 17 public
charter schools in Northern Calilfornia serving grades TK - 12 that
provides college-prep, tuition free education.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harut Voskanyan, Esq.
          VOSKANYAN LAW FIRM, PC
          303 Glenoaks Boulevard, Suite 200
          Burbank, CA 91502
          Phone: 213-296-2681
          Fax: 213-296-2691
          Email: Hvoskanyan@voskanyanlaw.com


KNIGHT MATERIAL: Underpays Machine Operators, Scott Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Mitchell Scott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Knight Material Technologies LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 5:24-cv-01332-JRA (N.D. Ohio, August 2, 2024) is a
collective action brought by the Plaintiff as a result of
Defendant's practices and policies of not paying him and other
similarly-situated non-exempt employees, for all hours worked,
including overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as machine operator
from approximately October 2021 through May 2024 at its East
Canton, Ohio facility. He alleges that Defendant has a practice and
policy of not paying him and other similarly-situated employees
overtime compensation at a rate of one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay for all of the hours they worked over 40 in a
workweek.

Knight Material Technologies manufactures corrosion-resistant
materials and equipment for industrial applications.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alanna Klein Fischer, Esq.
          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          The Heritage Bldg., Suite 250
          34555 Chagrin Blvd.
          Moreland Hills, OH 44022
          Telephone: (216) 696-5000
          Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
          E-mail: alanna@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com

LA SUPERIOR WATERLOO: Cabrera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against La Superior Waterloo,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Augustin Hernandez Cabrera, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. La Superior Super Mercados, La Superior Waterloo, Inc., Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2024-0009568 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Aug.
13, 2024).

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

La Superior Mercados -- https://lasuperiormercados.com/ -- is a
local grocery store in Stockton, California that offers a variety
of fresh produce, meats, and household goods to the community.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
          KOUL LAW FIRM
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1710
          Los Angeles, CA 90010-2003
          Phone: 213-761-5484
          Fax: 818-561-3938
          Email: nazo@koullaw.com

LAKEVIEW HEALTH SYSTEMS: Walker Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Kevin Walker, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated persons v. Lakeview Health Systems, LLC, Case
No. 9:24-cv-80871 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida on Aug. 13, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00826-WWB-MCR to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.

Lakeview Health -- https://www.lakeviewhealth.com/ -- is a drug and
alcohol rehabilitation center in Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael Jarallah Said Hindi, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1700
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (754) 444-7539
          Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com

               - and -

          Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO PA
          401 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 400-4713
          Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Carlos Mariano Lastra, Esq.
          BRODSKY GREENBLATT RENEHAN
          16061 Comprint Circle
          Gaithersburg, MD 20877
          Phone: (301) 869-1700
          Email: clastra@c-wlaw.com

               - and -

          Amanda Ruggieri, Esq.
          CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C.
          450 Sentry Parkway, Suite 200
          Blue Bell, PA 19422
          Phone: (610) 213-0105
          Fax: (610) 567-0712
          Email: aruggieri@c-wlaw.com


LAKEVIEW HEALTH: Skov Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Brock Skov, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated persons v. LAKEVIEW HEALTH SYSTEMS, LLC, Case
No. 2024-CA-003154 was removed from the Circuit Court of the Fourth
Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County, Florida, to the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on July
23, 2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00732.

The Plaintiff alleges that he, and similarly situated individuals,
experienced damages as a result of a third-party cyber-attack on
Lakeview’s computer network. The Plaintiff has raised four causes
of action: Negligence, Breach of Implied Contract, Breach of
Fiduciary Duty, and Violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Carlos M. Lastra, Esq.
          CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C.
          603 E. Fort King Street
          Ocala, FL 34471
          Phone: (888) 473-2720
          Email: CLastra@c-wlaw.com


LAMB WESTON: West Palm Fund Sues Over 28% Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------------
WEST PALM BEACH FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAMB WESTON
HOLDINGS, INC., THOMAS P. WERNER, and BERNADETTE M. MADARIETA,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00350-AKB (D. Idaho, August 2, 2024)
is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and
all persons and entities who purchased Lamb Weston common stock
between July 25, 2023 and July 23, 2024, inclusive, against Lamb
Weston and certain of its officers and executives, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly made positive
statements about the design and implementation of its new
Enterprise Resource Planning software system and failed to disclose
any issues with the system. For example, Lamb Weston emphasized
that, through the design of its new ERP system, the Company had
"strengthen[ed] [its] operational infrastructure." The Company also
claimed that it had experienced only the "usual bumps" during its
transition to the ERP system, and specifically assured investors
that "[t]he estimated financial impact of the [ERP] system's go
live is included in our fiscal 2024 targets."

However, these and similar statements made throughout the Class
Period were false and misleading. In truth, the Defendants knew of,
or recklessly disregarded, significant, ongoing problems associated
with the Company's new ERP system that would hinder its successful
implementation. Notwithstanding these problems, Lamb Weston
proceeded with transitioning to the new ERP system despite the risk
that an unsuccessful implementation would negatively impact the
Company's business and operations, says the suit.

Following this news, the price of Lamb Weston common stock declined
by another $22.20 per share, or more than 28%, from a closing price
of $78.62 per share on July 23, 2024, to a closing price of $56.42
per share on July 24, 2024.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
resulting declines in the market value of Lamb Weston common stock
when the truth was disclosed, Plaintiff and other Class members
have suffered significant losses and damages, the suit alleges.

Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc. based in Eagle, Idaho, is one of the
largest producers and distributors of frozen potato products,
including French fries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jaren Wieland, Esq.
          MOONEY WIELAND WARREN
          512 W. Idaho St., Ste. 103
          Boise, ID 83702
          Telephone: (208) 401-9219
          Facsimile: (888) 234-8543
          E-mail: jaren.wieland.service@mooneywieland.com

               - and -

          Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          7777 Glades Road, Suite 300
          Boca Raton, FL 33434
          Telephone: (561) 394-3399
          Facsimile: (561) 394-3382
          E-mail: lhooker@saxenawhite.com

               - and -

          Rachel A. Avan, Esq.
          Marco A. Dueñas, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          10 Bank Street, Suite 882
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 437-8551  
          Facsimile: (888) 631-3611
          E-mail: ravan@saxenawhite.com
                  mduenas@saxenawhite.com
  
               - and -

          Robert D. Klausner, Esq.
          Bonni S. Jensen, Esq.
          KLAUSNER KAUFMAN JENSEN & LEVINSON
          7080 NW 4th Street
          Plantation, FL 33317
          Telephone: (954) 916-1202
          Facsimile: (954) 916-1232
          E-mail: bob@robertdklausner.com
                  bonni@robertdklausner.com

LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL: Brown Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Arnissia Brown, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL J. FILIPPIS, LLC
and MICHAEL J. FILIPPIS, Case No. ESX-L-72734-24 was removed from
the Essex County Superior Court of New Jersey, to the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey on Aug. 13, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-08421.

In the Complaint, Plaintiffs allege claims against Defendants for
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). In
the Complaint, Plaintiffs allege Defendants were retained to
collect from Plaintiff Arnissia Brown "residential rent allegedly
due and owing for the apartment in which she resided."[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Leonard, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, L.L.P
          One Riverfront Plaza, Suite 800
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Phone: (973) 792-8740
          Email: jeffrey.leonard@lewisbrisbois.com


LEARFIELD COMMUNICATIONS: Brown Appeals Suit Dismissal to 5th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM BROWN is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his
lawsuit entitled Adam Brown, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Learfield Communications,
LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00374, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas.

The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations
of the Video Privacy Protection Act for sharing its website
subscribers' personal identifying information (PII) without
consent.

On Mar. 6, 2024, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
the Defendants moved to dismiss on April 3, 2024.

On June 27, 2024, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss through an Order entered by Judge David A. Ezra.

The appellate case is captioned Brown v. Learfield Communications,
Case No. 24-50632, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit, filed on August 5, 2024. [BN]

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

          Patrick Yarborough, Esq.
          FOSTER YARBOROUGH P.L.L.C.
          917 Franklin Street
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 331-5254

Defendants-Appellees LEARFIELD COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, et al. are
represented by:

          Bonnie Keane Delgobbo, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER, L.L.P.
          One N. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 416-6200

                  - and -

          Rachel Palmer Hooper, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER, L.L.P.
          811 Main Street
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 646-1329

LESSEREVIL LLC: Augustine Sues Over Toxic Levels of Lead
--------------------------------------------------------
Elise Augustine, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LESSEREVIL LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01309 (D. Conn., Aug.
13, 2024), is brought against the Defendant's failure to disclose
toxic levels of lead in their kids snack products, including
LesserEvil Lil' Puffs kids snacks (the "Products").

Lead is a toxic metal. When consumed, it accumulates in the body
and "affects multiple body systems." It is linked to "a host of
health problems in children and adults." Due to its toxicity, lead
exposure has been regulated. For example, the state of California
has set a maximum allowable dose level for lead, at 0.5 micrograms
a day, because exceeding this maximum allowable dose is unhealthy
and unsafe.

The Defendant's Products are snacks intended for consumption by
children. Yet, there is no warning or disclosure telling consumers
that the products contain lead. And, independent laboratory testing
shows that the kids snacks do in fact contain lead in harmful
amounts that even exceed California's maximum allowable daily dose
limit.

Like other consumers, Plaintiff Elise Augustine purchased
LesserEvil Lil' Puffs Kids Snacks. The products did not disclose
the presence of lead. She believed that the product was properly
manufactured, free from defects, safe for consumption, and not
adulterated or misbranded, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff regularly purchased the LesserEvil Lil' Puffs kids
snacks from Spring 2023–Spring 2024.

The Defendant makes, sells, and distributes kids snacks, including
LesserEvil Lil' Puffs Kids Snacks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig A. Raabe, Esq.
          Seth R. Klein, Esq.
          IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE LLP
          29 South Main Street, Suite 305
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Phone: (860) 493-6292
          Fax: (860) 493-6290
          Email: craabe@ikrlaw.com

               - and -

          Christin K. Cho, Esq.
          DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
          201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Phone: (310) 656-7066
          Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
          Email: christin@dovel.com


LITTLE FALLS PIZZA: Holtry Files FLSA Suit in D. South Dakota
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Little Falls Pizza,
Inc. The case is styled as James Holtry, individually and on behalf
of similarly situated persons v. Little Falls Pizza, Inc., Case No.
5:24-cv-05064-RAL (D.S.D., Aug. 14, 2024).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act for Denial of Overtime Compensation.

Little Falls Pizza, Inc. doing business as Papa John's --
http://www.papajohns.com/-- is an American pizza restaurant
chain.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sarah Baron Houy, Esq.
          BANGS MCCULLEN LAW FIRM
          333 West Boulevard, Suite 400
          PO Box 2670
          Rapid City, SD 57701
          Phone: (605) 343-1040
          Fax: (605) 343-1503
          Email: sbaronhouy@bangsmccullen.com


LOEWS HOLLYWOOD HOTEL: Marin Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Estela Marin, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. LOEWS HOLLYWOOD HOTEL, LLC, a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
24STCV15847 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 7,
2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-06696.

The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: Failure to
Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; Failure to
Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Breaks;
Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses; Failure to Timely
Pay Final Wages at Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate
Itemized Wage statements; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ryan C. Bykerk, Esq.
          Joseph M. Dietrich, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 500
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Phone: 949.732.6500
          Facsimile: 949.732.6501
          Email: Joe.dietrich@gtlaw.com
                 bykerkr@gtlaw.com


LORIAN HEALTH HOME CARE: Jacopetti Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lorian Health Home
Care, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Joshua Jacopetti,
Stephanie Holmes, on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly
situated v. Lorian Health Home Care, Inc., Prestige Home Health
Services, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0009536 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
San Joaquin Cty., Aug. 12, 2024).

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

Lorian Home Health -- https://www.lorianhealth.com/ -- offers a
variety of medical services that are tailored to meet the needs of
each individual patient.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Douglas Sinclair, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CORREN & CORREN
          3425 Brookside Rd. Ste. B
          Stockton, CA 95219-2388
          Phone: 209-478-2621
          Fax: 209-478-3038
          Email: Ssinclair@correnlaw.com


LOVELY SKIN INC: Wahab Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
Angela Wahab, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated v. LOVELY SKIN, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-05644 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 25, 2024), is brought against Defendant for the failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website,
www.lovelyskin.com (the "Website"), to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, and
therefore denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's website is not equally
accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore,
Defendant is in violation of the ADA. Plaintiff now seeks a
permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate
policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers, says the complaint.

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

The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website,
offering features which should allow all consumers to access the
goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of
such goods throughout the United States, including New York
State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MALIBU BOATS: Reid Sues Over Cobia Boat's Anchoring System Defect
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN REID, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MALIBU BOATS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00341-TAV-JEM (E.D. Tenn., August 19, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of warranty,
violation of Virginia Consumer Protection Act, and injunctive
relief.

The case arises from the Defendant's design, production, and
distribution of Cobia Boat with defective anchoring system.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is aware or should have
been aware of the design defects but failed to rectify them or
provide adequate warnings to users. As a result of the Defendant's
alleged misconduct, the Plaintiff encountered life-threatening
situation and incurred charges and expenses in repairing the boat.

Malibu Boats, Inc. is a boat manufacturer, with its principal place
of business in Loudon, Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Brian D. Flick, Esq.
         Marc E. Dann, Esq.
         DANNLAW
         15000 Madison Avenue
         Lakewood, OH 44107
         Telephone: (216) 373-0539
         Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
         Email: notices@dannlaw.com

                 - and -

         Brent Snyder, Esq.
         DANNLAW
         2125 Middlebrook Pike
         Knoxville TN 37921
         Telephone: (865) 264-3328
         Email: bsnyder@dannlaw.com

MARINOSCI LAW: Stevenson Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Charles Stevenson, Vanita Stevenson,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Marinosci Law Group, P.C., Bank of America, N.A., Case No.
2024CH05522 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Chancery Division, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on Aug. 9, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-07058 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Real Property.

Marinosci Law Group, PC -- https://www.mlg-defaultlaw.com/ -- is a
law practice company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Elizabeth Lemond McKeen, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1700
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Phone: (949) 823-7150
          Email: emckeen@omm.com


MARRIOTT INT'L: Lopez Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Nov. 15
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL ESTEBAN CAMAS
LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons, v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No.
1:23-cv-03308-RMR-KAS (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Kathryn Starnella
entered an order granting the parties' Joint Motion to Modify
Scheduling Order to Extend Deadlines.

-- The Phase 1 discovery cut-off is extended to:      Oct. 11,
2024

-- The deadline to file a class certification         Nov. 15,
2024
    motion is extended to:

-- The deadline to file a response to the             Jan. 6,
2025
    motion for class certification is
    extended to:

-- The deadline to file a reply to the motion          Feb. 6,
2025
    for class certification is extended to:

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 Aug. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZVGWO9 at no extra
charge.[CC]

MDL 2903: Settlement in Flores v Fisher-Price Wins Initial Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Karen Flores v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-01076 (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Geoffrey Crawford entered an order granting the motion for
preliminary certification of a settlement class and approval of
class action settlement.

The proposed settlement class consist of:

   "All Persons in the United States, the District of Colombia,
Puerto
   Rico and all other United States territories and/or possessions

   who, during the class period, (a) purchased (including to be
given
   as a gift to another Person) or acquired (including by gift) an

   RNPS, or (b) have an RNPS in their possession."

   Excluded from the class are:

       (i) Persons who participated in the Recall and received a
cash
           refund;

      (ii) Persons who purchased an RNPS for the sole purpose of
           resale to consumer at wholesale or retail;

     (iii) Defendants, their subsidiaries, and their legal
           representatives, successors, assignees, officers,
directors
           and employees; and

      (iv) judicial officers and their immediate family members and

           associated court staff assigned to this case.

   In addition, persons or entities are not Settlement Class
Members
   once they timely and properly exclude themselves from Class, as

   provided in this Settlement Agreement, and once the exclusion
   request is finally approved by the Court.

The Court appoints Demet Basar, James Eubank and Paul Evans as
class counsel.

The Court appoints the following persons as class representatives
for the proposed settlement class: Elizabeth Alfaro, Emily Barton,
Linda Black, Luke Cuddy, Rebecca Drover, Megan Fieker, Karen
Flores, Nancy Hanson, Jena Huey, Samantha Jacoby, Megan Kaden,
Kerry Mandley, Cassandra Mulvey, Joshua Nadel, Melanie Nilius
Nowlin, Daniel Pasternacki, Jessie Poppe, Katherine Shaffer, Emily
Simmonds, Josie Willis and Renne Wray.

The Defendants shall bear the cost of the Settlement Administrator
up to $250,000. The Plaintiff shall no be responsible for these
costs.

The Flores case is consolidated in FISHER-PRICE ROCK 'N PLAY
SLEEPER MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION (MDL 2903).

These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that
FisherPrice's Rock 'n Play Sleeper (RNPS) is unsafe because, among
other reasons, its angled design does not allow infants to sleep in
a supine position, which allegedly increases the risk that infants
will
suffer from positional asphyxia, plagiocephaly, and torticollis.

The Plaintiffs uniformly allege that the defendants' advertising
and marketing for the RNPS was false and misleading, and that
Fisher Price's April 2019 recall of the RNPS was deficient.

Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ICxM8F at no extra
charge.[CC]

MDL 2903: Settlement in Nadel v Fisher-Price Gets Initial Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nadel et al v.
Fisher-Price, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00791 (W.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Geoffrey Crawford entered an order granting the motion
for preliminary certification of a settlement class and approval of
class action settlement.

The proposed settlement class consist of:

   "All Persons in the United States, the District of Colombia,
Puerto
   Rico and all other United States territories and/or possessions

   who, during the class period, (a) purchased (including to be
given
   as a gift to another Person) or acquired (including by gift) an

   RNPS, or (b) have an RNPS in their possession."

   Excluded from the class are:

       (i) Persons who participated in the Recall and received a
cash
           refund;

      (ii) Persons who purchased an RNPS for the sole purpose of
           resale to consumer at wholesale or retail;

     (iii) Defendants, their subsidiaries, and their legal
           representatives, successors, assignees, officers,
directors
           and employees; and

      (iv) judicial officers and their immediate family members and

           associated court staff assigned to this case.

   In addition, persons or entities are not Settlement Class
Members
   once they timely and properly exclude themselves from Class, as

   provided in this Settlement Agreement, and once the exclusion
   request is finally approved by the Court.

The Court appoints Demet Basar, James Eubank and Paul Evans as
class counsel.

The Court appoints the following persons as class representatives
for the proposed settlement class: Elizabeth Alfaro, Emily Barton,
Linda Black, Luke Cuddy, Rebecca Drover, Megan Fieker, Karen
Flores, Nancy Hanson, Jena Huey, Samantha Jacoby, Megan Kaden,
Kerry Mandley, Cassandra Mulvey, Joshua Nadel, Melanie Nilius
Nowlin, Daniel Pasternacki, Jessie Poppe, Katherine Shaffer, Emily
Simmonds, Josie Willis and Renne Wray.

The Defendants shall bear the cost of the Settlement Administrator
up to $250,000. The Plaintiff shall no be responsible for these
costs.

The Nadel case is consolidated in FISHER-PRICE ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL
2903).

These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that
FisherPrice's Rock 'n Play Sleeper (RNPS) is unsafe because, among
other reasons, its angled design does not allow infants to sleep in
a supine position, which allegedly increases the risk that infants
will
suffer from positional asphyxia, plagiocephaly, and torticollis.

The Plaintiffs uniformly allege that the defendants' advertising
and marketing for the RNPS was false and misleading, and that
Fisher Price's April 2019 recall of the RNPS was deficient.

Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers.

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

MDL 2903: Settlement in Shaffer v Mattel Gets Initial Nod
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shaffer v. Mattel, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00667 (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Geoffrey
Crawford entered an order granting the motion for preliminary
certification of a settlement class and approval of class action
settlement.

The proposed settlement class consist of:

   "All Persons in the United States, the District of Colombia,
Puerto
   Rico and all other United States territories and/or possessions

   who, during the class period, (a) purchased (including to be
given
   as a gift to another Person) or acquired (including by gift) an

   RNPS, or (b) have an RNPS in their possession."

   Excluded from the class are:

       (i) Persons who participated in the Recall and received a
cash
           refund;

      (ii) Persons who purchased an RNPS for the sole purpose of
           resale to consumer at wholesale or retail;

     (iii) Defendants, their subsidiaries, and their legal
           representatives, successors, assignees, officers,
directors
           and employees; and

      (iv) judicial officers and their immediate family members and

           associated court staff assigned to this case.

   In addition, persons or entities are not Settlement Class
Members
   once they timely and properly exclude themselves from Class, as

   provided in this Settlement Agreement, and once the exclusion
   request is finally approved by the Court.

The Court appoints Demet Basar, James Eubank and Paul Evans as
class counsel.

The Court appoints the following persons as class representatives
for the proposed settlement class: Elizabeth Alfaro, Emily Barton,
Linda Black, Luke Cuddy, Rebecca Drover, Megan Fieker, Karen
Flores, Nancy Hanson, Jena Huey, Samantha Jacoby, Megan Kaden,
Kerry Mandley, Cassandra Mulvey, Joshua Nadel, Melanie Nilius
Nowlin, Daniel Pasternacki, Jessie Poppe, Katherine Shaffer, Emily
Simmonds, Josie Willis and Renne Wray.

The Defendants shall bear the cost of the Settlement Administrator
up to $250,000. The Plaintiff shall no be responsible for these
costs.

The Shaffer case is consolidated in FISHER-PRICE ROCK 'N PLAY
SLEEPER MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION (MDL 2903).

These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that
FisherPrice's Rock 'n Play Sleeper (RNPS) is unsafe because, among
other reasons, its angled design does not allow infants to sleep in
a supine position, which allegedly increases the risk that infants
will
suffer from positional asphyxia, plagiocephaly, and torticollis.

The Plaintiffs uniformly allege that the defendants' advertising
and marketing for the RNPS was false and misleading, and that
Fisher Price's April 2019 recall of the RNPS was deficient.

Mattel is an American multinational toy manufacturing and
entertainment company.

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

MDL 2903: Settlement in Sleeper Lawsuit Gets Initial Nod
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Re: Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper
Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, Case
No. 1:19-md-02903 (W.D.N.Y.), Hon. Judge Geoffrey Crawford entered
an order granting the motion for preliminary certification of a
settlement class and approval of class action settlement.

The proposed settlement class consist of:

   "All Persons in the United States, the District of Colombia,
Puerto
   Rico and all other United States territories and/or possessions

   who, during the class period, (a) purchased (including to be
given
   as a gift to another Person) or acquired (including by gift) an

   RNPS, or (b) have an RNPS in their possession."

   Excluded from the class are:

       (i) Persons who participated in the Recall and received a
cash
           refund;

      (ii) Persons who purchased an RNPS for the sole purpose of
           resale to consumer at wholesale or retail;

     (iii) Defendants, their subsidiaries, and their legal
           representatives, successors, assignees, officers,
directors
           and employees; and

      (iv) judicial officers and their immediate family members and

           associated court staff assigned to this case.

   In addition, persons or entities are not Settlement Class
Members
   once they timely and properly exclude themselves from Class, as

   provided in this Settlement Agreement, and once the exclusion
   request is finally approved by the Court.

The Court appoints Demet Basar, James Eubank and Paul Evans as
class counsel.

The Court appoints the following persons as class representatives
for the proposed settlement class: Elizabeth Alfaro, Emily Barton,
Linda Black, Luke Cuddy, Rebecca Drover, Megan Fieker, Karen
Flores, Nancy Hanson, Jena Huey, Samantha Jacoby, Megan Kaden,
Kerry Mandley, Cassandra Mulvey, Joshua Nadel, Melanie Nilius
Nowlin, Daniel Pasternacki, Jessie Poppe, Katherine Shaffer, Emily
Simmonds, Josie Willis and Renne Wray.

The Defendants shall bear the cost of the Settlement Administrator
up to $250,000. The Plaintiff shall no be responsible for these
costs.

Thes actions in MDL 2903 share factual questions arising from
allegations that FisherPrice's Rock 'n Play Sleeper (RNPS) is
unsafe because, among other reasons, its angled design does not
allow infants to sleep in a supine position, which allegedly
increases the risk that infants will suffer from positional
asphyxia, plagiocephaly, and torticollis.

The Plaintiffs uniformly allege that the defendants' advertising
and marketing for the RNPS was false and misleading, and that
Fisher Price's April 2019 recall of the RNPS was deficient.

Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2GAU8W at no extra
charge.[CC]

MDL 2903: Settlement in Wray v. Fisher-Price Gets Initial Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wray v. Fisher Price, et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01067 (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Geoffrey
Crawford entered an order granting the motion for preliminary
certification of a settlement class and approval of class action
settlement.

The proposed settlement class consist of:

   "All Persons in the United States, the District of Colombia,
Puerto
   Rico and all other United States territories and/or possessions

   who, during the class period, (a) purchased (including to be
given
   as a gift to another Person) or acquired (including by gift) an

   RNPS, or (b) have an RNPS in their possession."

   Excluded from the class are:

       (i) Persons who participated in the Recall and received a
cash
           refund;

      (ii) Persons who purchased an RNPS for the sole purpose of
           resale to consumer at wholesale or retail;

     (iii) Defendants, their subsidiaries, and their legal
           representatives, successors, assignees, officers,
directors
           and employees; and

      (iv) judicial officers and their immediate family members and

           associated court staff assigned to this case.

   In addition, persons or entities are not Settlement Class
Members
   once they timely and properly exclude themselves from Class, as

   provided in this Settlement Agreement, and once the exclusion
   request is finally approved by the Court.

The Court appoints Demet Basar, James Eubank and Paul Evans as
class counsel.

The Court appoints the following persons as class representatives
for the proposed settlement class: Elizabeth Alfaro, Emily Barton,
Linda Black, Luke Cuddy, Rebecca Drover, Megan Fieker, Karen
Flores, Nancy Hanson, Jena Huey, Samantha Jacoby, Megan Kaden,
Kerry Mandley, Cassandra Mulvey, Joshua Nadel, Melanie Nilius
Nowlin, Daniel Pasternacki, Jessie Poppe, Katherine Shaffer, Emily
Simmonds, Josie Willis and Renne Wray.

The Defendants shall bear the cost of the Settlement Administrator
up to $250,000. The Plaintiff shall no be responsible for these
costs.

The Wray case is consolidated in FISHER-PRICE ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL
2903).

These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that
FisherPrice's Rock 'n Play Sleeper (RNPS) is unsafe because, among
other reasons, its angled design does not allow infants to sleep in
a supine position, which allegedly increases the risk that infants
will
suffer from positional asphyxia, plagiocephaly, and torticollis.

The Plaintiffs uniformly allege that the defendants' advertising
and marketing for the RNPS was false and misleading, and that
Fisher Price's April 2019 recall of the RNPS was deficient.

Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rGCt5O at no extra
charge.[CC]

MERASTAR INSURANCE: Fuqua Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Valerie Fuqua, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. MERASTAR INSURANCE COMPANY, a
corporation; KEMPER CORPORATE SERVICES, an unknown entity; and DOES
1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV16269 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State California for the County of Los
Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on Aug. 7, 2024, and assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-06672.

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Robert S. Blumberg, Esq.
          Alexandria Rafizadeh, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
          Phone: 310.553.0308
          Fax: 800.715.1330
          Email: rblumberg@littler.com
                 awitte-rafizadeh@littler.com

               - and -

          Edgar Sargsyan, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213.443.4300
          Fax: 800.715.1330
          Email: esargsyan@littler.com


METAL TRANSPORTATION: Guimaraes Suit Transferred to M.D. Pa.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Edgar Guimaraes & Donnell Clarke, and all others
similarly situated v. METAL TRANSPORTATION LLC; CENTURY EXPRESS;
EVANS DELIVERY COMPANY, INC and ABC CORPS. 1-10 and JOHN/JANE DOES
1-10, Case No. 2:23-cv-13183 was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on July 24, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01232-JKM to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor.

Metal Transportation LLC doing business as Century Express --
https://centuryexpress.me/ -- has been engaged in providing Express
Courier Service for over a decade to domestic and international
markets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ravi Sattiraju, Esq.
          SATTIRAJU & THARNEY, L.L.P.
          50 Millstone Road, Building 300, Suite 202
          East Windsor, NJ 08520
          Phone: (609) 469-2110
          Fax: (609) 228-5649
          Email: rsattiraju@s-tlawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Charles Lawrence Shute, Jr., Esq.
          Matthew A. Green, Esq.
          OBERMAYER REBMANN MAXWELL & HIPPEL
          1500 Market Street, Suite 3400
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Phone: (215) 665-3000
          Fax: (215) 665-3165
          Email: charles.shute@obermayer.com
                 matthew.green@obermayer.com

               - and -

          Michele-Lee Shapiro, Esq.
          Steven R. Rowland, Esq.
          Kenneth L. Moskowitz, Esq.
          BROWN MOSKOWITZ & KALLEN P.C.
          One Main Street, Suite 101
          Chatham, NJ 07928
          Phone: (973) 376-0909


MICHAEL BETLEY: Matthew's Claims Voluntarily Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned MICHAEL MCCARRELL, et al., v.
MICHAEL P. BETLEY, Case No. 1:23-cv-02781-JRR (D. Md.), the Hon.
Judge Julie Rubin entered an order granting in part and denying in
part the Plaintiff McCarrell's motion to substitute. The Motion is
granted to the extent that all claims brought on behalf of
Plaintiff Mary Matthew will be docketed as voluntarily dismissed
without prejudice; and

-- The Motion is denied in all other respects.

Madam Clerk shall ensure that the docket reflects that all claims
of Ms. Matthew are dismissed voluntarily without prejudice.

The Motion seeks the following relief:

    1) "pursuant to [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 21 to
substitute
       Daniel Schultz for Mary Matthew as a party plaintiff and  
       proposed representative of the alleged class;"

    2) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)1 an order
       dismissing Mary Matthew's claims without prejudice;" and

    3) "pursuant to [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 15 leave for
       Plaintiffs to file [a] Second Amended Complaint reflecting
Mr.
       Schultz's substitution."

Arguments as to Whether Mr. Schultz's Claims Would be Time-Barred
The court will not address the parties' arguments as to whether Mr.
Schultz's potential claims would be time-barred; the issue is
premature, as proper Rule 15/Local Rule 103.6 papers are not before
the court.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2G8Y19 at no extra
charge.[CC]

MMS GROUP: Torres Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Deaf Residents
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELEWOOD TORRES, on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated, v. MMS GROUP, LLC
d/b/a MMS Group, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-06142-DEH-VF (S.D.N.Y.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a
Plaintiffs' class for declaratory and injunctive relief, defined as
follows:

   1. The hearing impaired and/or deaf residents and visitors of
the
      184 Premises from Jan. 1, 2000, to Jan. 1, 2024; and

   2. The hearing impaired and/or deaf residents and visitors of
the
      174 Premises from Jan. 1, 2000, to Jan. 1, 2024.

As set forth in the attached declarations, exhibits and
accompanying Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion
for Class Certification, the putative class meets the requirements
for certification of a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(a), including numerosity, common questions of law and fact,
common claims, typicality, and that "the representative parties
will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class."

Moreover, this class is appropriate for certification under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), as the Defendant "has acted or
refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so
that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is
appropriate respecting the class as a whole."

Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.1, opposition papers must be served
by Aug. 21, 2024, and reply papers by Aug. 28, 2024.

MMS Group provides property management and related services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 7, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BL8sgC at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mordy Yankovich, Esq.
          LIEB AT LAW, P.C.
          308 W. Main Street, Suite 100
          Smithtown, NY 11787
          Telephone: (646) 216 – 8009
          E-mail: Mordy@liebatlaw.com

MOELIS & COMPANY: Faces WPBFPF Securities Suit in Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------
Moelis & Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in July 25, 2024, that in 2023, West Palm Beach
Firefighters' Pension Fund, a putative Class A stockholder of the
company, filed a class action lawsuit, on behalf of itself and
other similarly-situated Class A stockholders, in the Delaware
Court of Chancery against the company seeking declaratory judgment
that certain provisions of the Stockholders Agreement between the
company and Partner Holdings are invalid and unenforceable as a
matter of Delaware law.

On March 4, 2024, the Court of Chancery issued an interlocutory
order, presently in effect, that certain provisions of the
Stockholders Agreement, including the provisions relating to
approval rights and director vacancies, are facially invalid, void,
and unenforceable under Delaware law. On July 18, 2024, the Court
of Chancery issued an order awarding plaintiff's counsel $6,000 in
fees and expenses, to be paid by the company. The time to appeal
the orders issued in the case has not yet run, and the company has
the option to appeal the orders.

Moelis & Company is a global independent investment bank providing
confidential, unconflicted, strategic advice to clients across a
wide variety of industries.


NATIONAL ENTERTAINMENT: Bid to Dismiss Hines Class Suit Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA HINES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
NATIONAL ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, LLC d/b/a Vanity, Case No.
2:23-cv-02952-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Algenon Marbley
entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss.

This Court finds that the Plaintiff has standing to sue and that
the Arbitration Agreement in the Lease Agreement Waiver is void and
unenforceable.

The Court finds that the Arbitration Agreement in this case is
procedurally unconscionable. Coupled with the finding of
substantive unconscionability, the Arbitration Agreement is
rendered unenforceable. Because the Agreement is unenforceable,
this Court need not reach the remainder of the Stout analysis 228
F.3d at 714

The Plaintiff alleges that Vanity did not pay its dancers any
wages. Instead, she alleges that dancers were misclassified as
independent contractors, rather than employees, who often worked at
least forty hours per week, were paid excluisively through tips,
paid to perform, and were required to pay no-show fees if they
missed work.

On Sept. 13, 2023, the Plaintiff brought her initial Complaint on
behalf of herself and all putative collective action members
against the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
("FLSA"); the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMFWSA"); the
Ohio Semi-Monthly Payment Act,; and common law unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff Jessica Hines declares that she worked for the
Defendant as a dancer from February 2014 through August 2023.

Vanity is an adult entertainment club in Columbus, Ohio.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W6JeJY at no extra
charge.[CC]

NEW YORK, NY: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Sept. 20
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOCAL 3621, EMS OFFICERS
UNION, DC-37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, individually and on behalf of its
members, RENAE MASCOL, and LUIS RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of themselves
and on behalf of all other similarly-situated individuals, v CITY
OF NEW YORK, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-04476-LJL-JW (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Lewis Liman entered an order the parties shall work with
Judge Willis to ensure that discovery is completed well within the
time frame necessary for such motions to be made.

At the hearing on April 23, 2024, it was represented to the Court
that discovery should be complete within 12 weeks. Far more than 12
weeks have passed. Accordingly, summary judgment motions and
renewed motions for class certification shall be filed no later
than September 20, 2024, Judge Liman says.

New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SDSrlN at no extra
charge.[CC]

NEW YORK, NY: Illegally Suspends Drivers' Licenses, Pena Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDY PENA, DAEREON FRIDAY, SHAUKAT ALI, ARIFUL ISLAM,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, DAVID DO, Chair of the NYC Taxi
and Limousine Commission, SHERRYL ELUTO, Deputy Commissioner the
NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission, and MOHAMMED AKINLOLU, Associate
Commissioner for Prosecution for the NYC Taxi and Limousine
Commission, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-05893 (S.D.N.Y., August 2,
2024) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs under the Fourth,
Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution
and the Civil Rights Act of 1871; the New York State Constitution;
and the New York common law.

The Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the Taxi and Limousine
Commission policy of summarily suspending licenses without seeking
or obtaining evidence that the driver's licensure poses a direct
and substantial threat to public safety is unlawful.

The Defendants commenced Plaintiffs' prosecutions by filing a
petition based simply on the fact of there being pending
misdemeanor charges and pursued those prosecutions without
obtaining or even seeking evidence that their licensure presented a
direct and substantial threat to public safety, says the suit.

The Plaintiffs are TLC licensed drivers whose licenses were
suspended purely due to the fact that they were arrested on
misdemeanor charges.

City of New York is a municipality of the state of New York, which
includes the TLC as an administrative agency.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel L. Ackman, Esq.
           26 Broadway, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (917) 282-8178
          E-mail: d.ackman@comcast.net

NEW YORK, NY: Santiago Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Laborers
--------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB SANTIAGO, DAVID CAMIDGE, MARIO BACKMON, GIB BROWN, MATTHEW
CROCKER, GREGORY DAVIS, ORLANDO GALES, AJAMU KHALFANI, CHRISTOFORO
SAVINO, CHARLES SMITH, and RODNEY WARREN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF NEW
YORK, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-06254 (S.D.N.Y., August 19, 2024)
is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act including failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to properly calculate the regular rate of pay, and failure
to pay overtime in a timely manner.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as laborer in New York,
New York.

City of New York is a juridical entity with its principal place of
business located at Broadway and Park Row, New York, New York.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
       Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq.
       Sarah M. Block, Esq.
       Sophia Serrao, Esq.
       McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP
       1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000
       Washington, DC 20005
       Telephone: (202) 833-8855
       Email: gkm@mselaborlaw.com
              smb@mselaborlaw.com
              ss@mselaborlaw.com

                 - and -

       Hope Pordy, Esq.
       SPIVAK LIPTON LLP
       1040 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor
       New York, NY 10018
       Telephone: (212) 765-2100
       Email: hpordy@spivaklipton.com

NEXT BRIDGE: Faces Targgart Securities Suit in NY Court
-------------------------------------------------------
Next Bridge Hydrocarbons, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2024, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2024, that on March 15, 2024, a
securities class action captioned "Targgart v. Next Bridge
Hydrocarbons, Inc., et al.," No. 24-cv-1927, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The action is brought on behalf of a putative class of persons or
entities that acquired the company's shares in connection with its
spin-off from Meta Materials, Inc., in December 2022. The complaint
names as defendants the company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors. The complaint asserts claims under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, alleging that the Form
S-1 that the company filed with the SEC on July 14, 2022, which
became effective on November 18, 2022, contained untrue statements
or omissions.

Next Bridge Hydrocarbons, Inc. is an energy company engaged in the
acquisition, exploration, exploitation and development of oil and
natural gas properties in the United States.


NORTHWEST BANK: Achard Sues Over Unfair Statement & Multiple Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Achard and Shawn Thomas, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. NORTHWEST BANK, N.A., Case
1:24-cv-00216 (W.D. Pa., Aug. 8, 2024), is brought arising from
Northwest Bank's unfair and unconscionable assessment of: monthly
paper statement fees ("Paper Statement Fees"); and multiple fees on
an item.

Northwest Bank's Paper Statement Fees violate federal and state law
for two reasons. Northwest Bank may not pass to consumers its own
costs of compliance with federal law. Consumers have the
unequivocal right to receive periodic bank statements under federal
law. Northwest Bank impedes and hinders that right by charging a
fee for its own compliance with federal law.

The Electronic Fund Transfer Act ("EFTA"), Regulation E and the
Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act ("E-Sign
Act") together give consumers a right to paper periodic statements
unless consumers affirmatively choose to receive statements
electronically.

By charging Paper Statement Fees on all consumers who receive paper
statements, Northwest Bank impedes, hinders, and deters the right
of consumers to receive paper statements.

Northwest Bank's practices violate the EFTA, and 1693l, Regulation
E. Moreover, even assuming, arguendo, the provisions in Northwest
Bank's deposit agreement with Plaintiffs authorize such practices,
those provisions violate the EFTA and are invalid and
unenforceable. Northwest Bank misleadingly and deceptively
misrepresents its fee practices including, upon information and
belief, in its take-it-or leave-it form adhesion contracts with
consumers. For both of these reasons, this lawsuit challenges
Northwest Bank's practice of assessing its accountholders Paper
Statement Fees and multiple fees on the same item, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs maintained a checking account with Northwest Bank.

Northwest Bank is a bank with over $14 billion in assets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Phone: (412) 322-9243
          Email: gary@lcllp.com

               - and -

          Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN
          923 Fayette Street
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Phone: (610) 234-6770
          Email: jjagher@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
          KALIEL GOLD PLLC
          1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Phone: (202) 350-4783
          Email: jkaliel@kalielgold.com
                 sgold@kalielgold.com

               - and -

          Andrew Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


NOVOCURE LIMITED: Faces Securities Suit Over Material Misstatements
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NovoCure Limited disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in July 25, 2023, that in June 2023, a putative
class action lawsuit was filed against the company, its Executive
Chairman and its Chief Executive Officer.

The complaint, later amended to add its Chief Financial Officer as
a defendant, which purports to be brought on behalf of a class of
persons and/or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
ordinary shares of the company from January 5, 2023 through June 5,
2023, alleges material misstatements and/or omissions in its public
statements with respect to the results from its phase 3 LUNAR
clinical trial.

NovoCure Ltd. is a Canadian industrial applications and services
company into surgical and medical instruments and apparatus.


O PLUFF & COMPANY: Knowles Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CARLTON KNOWLES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. O PLUFF & COMPANY LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-06228 (S.D.N.Y., August 16, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://oliverpluff.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that
contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing
alt-text.

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

O Pluff & Company LLC is a company that sells online goods and
services, doing business in New York. [BN]

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

O'CONNOR WOODS HOUSING: Leblanc Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against O'Connor Woods
Housing Corporation. The case is styled as Annaalicia Leblanc, as
an Individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
O'Connor Woods Housing Corporation, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2024-0009405 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Aug. 7,
2024).

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

O'Connor Woods Housing Corporation -- https://www.oconnorwoods.org/
-- operates as a non-profit organization. The Organization offers
independent, assisted, skilled nursing, and rehabilitative
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Max W. Gavron, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
          515 S Figueroa St., Ste. 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316
          Phone: 213-488-6555
          Email: mgavron@diversitylaw.com


OLO INC: Settlement in STABILAPF Suit Gets Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
Olo Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 31, 2024, that on January 16, 2024, the parties
in a class action lawsuit filed on September 26, 2022 in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
asserting claims under the federal securities laws against the
company and certain of its executive officers, reached an agreement
to settle the lawsuit, and lead plaintiff filed an unopposed motion
for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement.
Said court preliminarily approved the settlement on February 20,
2024 and granted final approval of the settlement on June 11,
2024.

On December 21, 2022, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel on behalf of the class, following which the case was
captioned "Steamship Trade Association of Baltimore - International
Longshoremen's Association Pension Fund v. Olo Inc., et al.," Case
No.1:22-cv-08228-JSR.

On August 9, 2023, lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint
asserting claims on behalf of a class composed of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired its securities between March 17,
2021 and August 11, 2022, inclusive which asserts a claim against
all defendants for alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b5 promulgated thereunder and a claim under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Glass, its Chief
Executive Officer, and Benevides, its Chief Financial Officer, as
alleged controlling persons. It alleges that defendants made
materially false and misleading statements concerning, among other
things, its business relationship with the restaurant brand
"Subway," its financial position, enterprise market customers and
publicly disclosed "active locations" counts, and that these
alleged false and misleading statements caused losses and damages
for members of the class. It seeks unspecified damages, interest,
costs and attorneys' fees, and other unspecified relief that the
Court deems appropriate.

On August 24, 2023, the company filed a motion to dismiss this and
on September 26, 2023, the court issued a summary order granting in
part and denying in part its motion to dismiss, dismissing the
claims in the Second Amended Complaint to the extent they are
premised on misstatements about Subway, financial prospects, and
our prospects in the enterprise market, but permitting the
remaining claims concerning our publicly disclosed "active
locations" counts to proceed.

On December 1, 2023, the court issued an opinion confirming its
September 26, 2023, order granting in part and denying in part the
company's motion to dismiss. Also on December 1, 2023, the court
entered an order certifying a class of stockholders that purchased
Olo's Class A common stock between March 17, 2021 and August 11,
2022.

Olo is open SaaS platform for restaurants that powers their digital
ordering, delivery, and payment programs and enables them to
collect, analyze, and act on data to drive more meaningful guest
experiences. Its platform and application programming interfaces,
or APIs, seamlessly integrate with a wide range of solutions,
unifying disparate technologies across the restaurant ecosystem.


OPENAI INC: Collects Data Without Consent, Millette Says
--------------------------------------------------------
DAVID MILLETTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OPENAI, INC., OPENAI, L.P., OPENAI OPCO,
L.L.C., OPENAI GP, L.L.C., OPENAI STARTUP FUND I, L.P., OPENAI
STARTUP FUND GP I, L.L.C., and OPENAI STARTUP FUND MANAGEMENT, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-04710 (N.D. Cal., August 2, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendants for collecting and using
Plaintiff's training data for the OpenAI Language Models without
consent in violation of the California's Unfair Competition Law.

The case addresses the non-consensual transcription of millions of
YouTube users' videos by Defendants to train Defendants' AI
software products. For years, YouTube has been a popular video
sharing platform that allows content creators and users to upload
and share videos with audiences worldwide. However, unbeknownst to
those who upload videos to YouTube, the Defendants have been
covertly transcribing YouTube videos to create training datasets
that they then use to train their artificial-intelligence products,
says the suit.

The Plaintiff and Class members are YouTube users and video
creators. They have retained ownership rights in their uploaded
videos, per YouTube's Terms of Service. They did not consent to the
use of their videos as training material for ChatGPT. Nonetheless,
their materials were transcribed and used to train ChatGPT, says
the Plaintiff.

OpenAI, Inc. creates and sells artificial-intelligence software
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Joshua B. Glatt, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  jglatt@bursor.com

               - and -

          Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
          Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com
                  jdiamond@bursor.com

PECO FOODS INC: Patrick Files Suit in N.D. Alabama
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Peco Foods Inc. The
case is styled as Felicia Patrick, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated v. Peco Foods Inc, Case No.
7:24-cv-01085-LSC (N.D. Ala., Aug. 9, 2024).

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

Peco Foods -- https://pecofoods.com/ -- is a poultry products
provider for industrial, retail and food service markets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Austin Brock Whitten, Esq.
          Jonathan S. Mann, Esq.
          PITTMAN, DUTTON & HELLUMS, P.C.
          2001 Park Place North, Ste. 1100
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: (205) 322-8880
          Fax: (205) 328-2711
          Email: austinw@pittmandutton.com
                 jonm@pittmandutton.com


PENNYMAC MORTGAGE: Continues to Defend Verthelyi Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
PennyMac Mortgage Investment Trust disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2024, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Verthelyi class suit in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California.

On June 14, 2024, a purported shareholder of the Company's Series A
Preferred Shares and Series B Preferred Shares (each, as defined
hereafter) filed a complaint in a putative class action in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, captioned Roberto Verthelyi v. PennyMac Mortgage
Investment Trust and PNMAC Capital Management, LLC, Case No.
2:24-cv-05028 (the "Verthelyi Action").

The Verthelyi Action alleges, among other things, that the Company
(and its external investment advisor, PCM), committed unlawful and
unfair acts in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law by
replacing its floating three-month London Inter-bank Offered Rate
("LIBOR") dividend rate for the Series A and Series B Preferred
Shares with a fixed rate, in violation of the LIBOR Act, 12 U.S.C.
§ 5801 et seq., and the LIBOR Rule, 12 C.F.R. § 253 et seq.

The Verthelyi Action seeks injunctive relief requiring the Company
to implement SOFR as a replacement to the three-month LIBOR rate
and damages for the putative class in the form of restitution,
interest, disgorgement and other relief.

The Company believes it has interpreted the Articles Supplementary
to its Series A and Series B Preferred Shares consistent with their
terms and, more specifically, the interest rate fallback provisions
contained therein, as applied under the LIBOR Act and the LIBOR
rules, and that the Verthelyi Action is without merit. Accordingly,
while no assurance can be provided as to the ultimate outcome of
this claim, the Company and PCM plan to vigorously defend the
matter.

PennyMac Mortgage Investment Trust is a mortgage real estate
investment trust that invests primarily in residential mortgage
loans and mortgage-related assets.[BN]


PENUMBRA INC: PAGA Settlement Agreement for Prelim. Court Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
Penumbra Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 30, 2024, that the proposed PAGA settlement
agreement is for the preliminary approval of the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Alameda.

On April 7, 2023, a former contractor who had been retained by the
Company through a third party staffing agency filed a putative
class action lawsuit as well as a Private Attorney General Act
("PAGA") representative action complaint against the Company in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Alameda, on behalf of the contractor and similarly situated Company
contractors and employees in California, alleging various claims
pursuant to the California Labor Code related to wages, overtime,
meal and rest breaks, reimbursement of business expenses, wage
statements and records, and other similar allegations.

Additionally, on April 10, 2023, a current employee of the Company
filed a PAGA representative action complaint against the Company in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Alameda, on behalf of the employee and similarly situated Company
employees in California, alleging similar claims.

The complaints seek payment of various alleged unpaid wages,
penalties, interest and attorneys' fees in unspecified amounts.

Following mediation in April 2024, in May 2024 the parties entered
into a formal agreement to settle the claims for an aggregate
amount of $4.6 million, subject to approval by the court.

The proposed settlement agreement was submitted to the court for
preliminary approval on June 18, 2024.

The Company recorded an accrual of $4.6 million in its financial
statements for the three months ended March 31, 2024 related to
these matters.

There have been no changes to the accrual as of June 30, 2024.

Penumbra is a global healthcare company that designs, develops,
manufactures and markets a broad portfolio of products for
thrombectomy, embolization, access and immersive healthcare
technologies.






PERMIAN RESOURCES: Conspires to Fix Shale Oil Prices, Link Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GUSTAVE LINK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PERMIAN RESOURCES CORP. F/K/A CENTENNIAL
RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, INC.; CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORPORATION;
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES INC.; DIAMONDBACK ENERGY, INC.; EOG
RESOURCES, INC.; HESS CORPORATION; OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM
CORPORATION; and PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES COMPANY, Defendants,
Case No. 3:24-cv-05321 (N.D. Cal., August 16, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, California's Cartwright Act, and California's Unfair
Competition Law.

The case arises from the Defendants' conspiracy to coordinate, and
ultimately constrain, domestic shale oil production, which has had
the effect of fixing, raising, and maintaining the price of retail
gasoline in and throughout the United States. The Defendants agreed
to limit their respective domestic shale production growth, which
in turn fixed and/or stabilized retail gasoline prices in the
United States at an artificially high level. As a result of the
Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiff and the Classes suffered
substantial harm from the supracompetitive prices they paid for
retail gasoline for personal use.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pioneer Natural Resources Company is an oil and gas production
company, headquartered in Irving, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Tina Wolfson, Esq.
         Theodore W. Maya, Esq.
         AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
         2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500
         Burbank, CA 91505
         Telephone: (310) 474-9111
         Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
         Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com

PETE'S ARBOR: $34,890K Atty's Fees Awarded to Plaintiffs' Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM QUINTANILLA, v.
PETE'S ARBOR CARE SERVICES, INC. and PETER FIORE, Case No.
2:19-cv-06894-JMA-ARL (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Joan Azrack
entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and costs such that the
Plaintiff is awarded $34,890.43, composed of $32,580.63 for
attorney's fees and $2,309.80 for costs.

The Plaintiff William Quintanilla obtained a jury verdict that
awarded $1,600 for unpaid overtime wages that he earned when he
worked for Defendants Peter Fiore and Pete's Arbor Care Services,
Inc. in 2015.

The Plaintiff commenced this action by filing his Complaint in
December 2019. The Plaintiff asserted, on behalf of himself and a
putative class of similar employees of Defendants, that Defendants
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and NYLL by failing
to provide a wage notice and wage statements; failing to make
minimum wage, spread of hours, and overtime payments; and
retaliating in response to complaints about the failure to pay
those amounts.

Pete's Arbor provides ornamental shrub and tree services.

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

PETER LIRIDONI PIZZA: Cabrera Sues Over Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Leodegario Narciso Cabrera, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. PETER LIRIDONI PIZZA INC. (D/B/A FRANK'S
PIZZA BRONX) and UKA HAIDAR HASANRAMAJ, Case No. 1:24-cv-06089
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 12, 2024), is brought for unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law (the "NYLL"),
and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York
Commissioner of Labor (herein the "Spread of Hours Wage Order"),
including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours
compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, Defendants
failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and
failed to pay Plaintiff Cabrera appropriately for any hours worked,
either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime
premium.

Further, Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff the required
"spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10
hours a day. The Defendants' conduct extended beyond Plaintiff
Cabrera to all other similarly situated employees.

At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants maintained a
policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and other employees
to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the
minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and
state law and regulations, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed as a dishwasher and kitchen assistant at
the restaurant.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a pizzeria, located in
Bronx, New York, under the name "Frank's Pizza Bronx."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PMG OPCO-GUEST HOUSE: Davis Suit Removed to W.D. Louisiana
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Linda Davis, as survivor on behalf of Katherine
Westley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PMG OPCO-GUEST HOUSE, L.L.C. D/B/A THE GUEST HOUSE
SKILLED NURSING AND REHABILITATION and PRIORITY MANAGEMENT GROUP,
L.L.C., the 1st Judicial District Court, Caddo Parish, Louisiana,
to the United States District Court for the Western District of
Louisiana on Aug. 7, 2024, and assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-01061.

The Second Amended Petition, stripped of reliance on the NHRBR,
makes clear that Plaintiff effectively seeks to recover federal
payments for her residency. At bottom, Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants committed fraud by falsely promising that the facility
would provide staffing as required by state and federal
regulations, that Ms. Westley relied on that promise when making
her decision to become of resident, and that as a result of that
failed promise she suffered "pecuniary harm in the form of lost
payments" made on her behalf.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jimmy R. Faircloth, Jr., Esq.
          Barbara Bell Melton, Esq.
          Mary Katherine Price, Esq.
          FAIRCLOTH MELTON SOBEL & BASH, LLC
          105 Yorktown Drive
          Alexandria, LA 71303
          Phone: (318) 619-7755
          Facsimile: (318) 619-7744
          Email: jfaircloth@fairclothlaw.com
                 bmelton@fairclothlaw.com
                 kprice@fairclothlaw.com

               - and -

          Ronald E. Raney, Esq.
          LUNN IRION LAW FIRM
          8670 Box Road, Building A
          Shreveport, LA 71106
          Phone: (318) 222-0665
          Facsimile: (318) 220-3265
          Email: RER@lunnirion.com


PRESTO AUTOMATION: Court Dismisses w/o Prejudice Wiretapping Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Presto Automation Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K report for July
24, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, that a
purported class action lawsuit filed in California in February 2024
alleged that the use of drive-through AI technology such as the
Presto Voice solution constituted wiretapping due to a lack of
consent from drive-through customers.

The lawsuit was withdrawn by the plaintiff and dismissed without
prejudice, meaning that the claim could be filed again.

Presto Automation is into prepackaged software and is based in
Greenwich CT.


PRIME NOW: Jauregui Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Luz Adriana Jauregui, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. PRIME NOW LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No.
24STCV14787 was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court,
State of California, to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on Aug. 8, 2024, and assigned Case
No. 2:24-cv-06711.

In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges five causes of action against
Prime Now: Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay Minimum
Wages; Failure to Pay All Wages Upon Termination; Failure to
Provide Accurate Wage Statements; and Unfair Competition.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Bradley J. Hamburger, Esq.
          Nasim Khansari, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Phone: 213.229.7000
          Facsimile: 213.229.7520
          Email: bhamburger@gibsondunn.com
                 nkhansari@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Megan Cooney, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          3161 Michelson Drive
          Irvine, CA 92612-4412
          Phone: 949.451.3800
          Facsimile: 949.451.4220
          Email: mcooney@gibsondunn.com


PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Angulo's Bid for Class Certification Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROLINE ANGULO, et al.,
v. PROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES – WASHINGTON, et al., Case No.
2:22-cv-00915-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge James Robart entered
an order:

-- granting the Plaintiffs' motions to strike,

-- denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and

-- granting Providence's cross-motion to strike class allegations.


The Plaintiffs may file a fourth amended complaint that addresses
the issues identified in this order by no later than Aug. 30, 2024.
If Plaintiffs do not do so within the time provided, this action
will proceed on the Plaintiffs' individual claims.

The Clerk is directed to enter an initial case scheduling order
setting deadlines for the parties to exchange initial disclosures,
to conduct a Rule 26(f) conference, and to file a joint status
report.

In sum, the court cannot find that the Plaintiffs have established
that common questions predominate over individual ones because
Plaintiffs have not shown that causation can be resolved with
class-wide proof, and class membership requires an individualized
analysis of medical necessity. Thus, even if Plaintiffs could show
that their proposed classes satisfied Rule 23(a), certification
under Rule 23(b)(3) would be unwarranted.

The Plaintiffs have not met their burden to show that certification
of issues classes is appropriate, the Court says.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a class consisting of:

   all "Washington State Patrol employees in the State of
Washington
   who drove or rode in a Class Vehicle and were injured from
carbon
   monoxide between September 2010 and [the] present date."

Providence is a not-for-profit Catholic health care system
operating multiple hospitals and medical clinics across seven
states.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sHV369 at no extra
charge.[CC]

REAL NEW YORK: Sale Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Real New York, LLC.
The case is styled as Kenneth Sale, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Real New York, LLC., Case No.
1:24-cv-06070 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 9, 2024).

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

Real New York, LLC -- https://www.realnyproperties.com/ -- is a
full-service brokerage firm (residential, commercial, and retail
leasing and sales).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RED LOBSTER: Hill Sues Over Underpayment of Minimum Wage
--------------------------------------------------------
Maggie Hill, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. RED LOBSTER RESTAURANTS LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-02132-JMC (D. Md., July 23, 2024), is brought implicating
the Defendant’s violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s
(“FLSA”) tip credit provisions and Defendant’s subsequent
underpayment of its employees below the minimum wage rate, as well
as its violations of the Maryland Wage and Hour Law (“MWHL”),
by failing to pay Plaintiff and all similarly situated workers at
the minimum wage rate.

The Defendant paid these tipped workers less than the minimum wage.
The Defendant attempted to utilize the tip credit to meet its
minimum wage obligation to its tipped workers, including the
Plaintiff and Class Members. The Defendant also maintained a policy
and practice whereby tipped employees were required to perform
non-tip producing side work unrelated to the employees’ tipped
occupation. As a result, Plaintiff and the Class Members were
engaged in dual occupations while being compensated at the tip
credit rate. While performing these non-tip generating duties, they
did not interact with customers and could not earn tips. Further,
Defendant required Plaintiff and the Class Members to perform
non-tip producing work prior to the opening of the restaurant, in
the middles of their shifts, and after the restaurants closed, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked at the Red Lobster in Frederick, Maryland.

The Defendant operates a nationwide chain of restaurants under the
trade name “Red Lobster.”[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Don J. Foty
          HODGES & FOTY, LLP
          2 Greenway Plaza, Ste 250
          Houston, TX 77046
          Phone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          Email: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com


RICE DRILLING: Joint Bid to Amend Preliminary Pretrial Order OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY GREGOR, et al., v.
RICE DRILLING D, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-03999-EPD (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers entered an order
granting the Joint Motion to amend the preliminary pretrial order.


The Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification shall be filed by no later than Sept. 16, 2024, and
Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Class Certification
shall be filed by no later than Oct, 7, 2024.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=y61WNq at no extra
charge.[CC]


ROSE HILLS: Appeals Remand Order in Perez Labor Suit to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROSE HILLS COMPANY is taking an appeal from a court order in the
lawsuit entitled Elizabeth Perez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Rose Hills Company,
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-04827, the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

The suit, which was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, for the County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, is brought against
the Defendant for alleged violations of the California Labor Code
and California's Business and Professions Code.

On July 3, 2024, the Court ordered the Defendant to show cause why
this case should not be remanded to state court.

On July 25, 2024, Judge Josephine L. Staton remanded the case to
state court. The Court held that the Defendant's failure to respond
with any evidence supporting its violation-rate assumptions
deprived the Court of subject-matter jurisdiction; even if the
Court were persuaded by the Defendant's arguments, the Court would
be unable to retain a case over which it lacked jurisdiction simply
because remand might cause "problems from a practical perspective"
for one of the parties.

The appellate case is captioned Perez v. Rose Hills Company, Case
No. 24-4798, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, filed on August 6, 2024. [BN]

Defendant-Petitioner ROSE HILLS COMPANY is represented by:

          Carrie Marie Francis, Esq.
          STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP
          1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100
          Phoenix, AZ 85004

RXO LAST: Bid for Class Decertification Tossed in Gonzalez Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAMON GONZALEZ, VICTOR
RODRIGUEZ ORTIZ, and ADDELYN MARTE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. RXO LAST MILE, INC., d/b/a RXO
LOGISTICS, Case No. 1:19-cv-10290-FDS (D. Mass.), the Court entered
an order denying the motion for class decertification of defendant
RXO.

The Court will not decertify the class at this stage based on the
deposition testimony. Indeed, it is unclear whether that testimony
represents substantially new evidence concerning carriers’
differing treatment of deductions.

On April 30, 2021, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification in this action. On January 10, 2022, Judge Hillman
granted the motion, certifying the following class as to Counts 1
and 2:

    "All drivers who performed deliveries in Massachusetts on
behalf
    of [RXO] to Lowe's customers within the period of July 20, 2015
to
    present, excluding helpers and any drivers who signed contracts

    with [RXO]"

On Aug. 5, 2022, the First Circuit denied defendant's petition for
leave to appeal the district court's grant of class certification.


On Dec. 15, 2023, the case was reassigned to the undersigned judge.


The Defendant RXO has now moved to decertify the class because it
contends that "Rule 23's commonality and predominance requirements
are not met."

The Plaintiffs allege that RXO:

-- misclassified them as independent contractors in violation of
    Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, section 148B (Count 1);

-- failed to provide them wages and benefits in violation of the
    Massachusetts Wage Act (Count 2);

-- failed to pay them a minimum wage in violation of the
    Massachusetts Minimum Wage Law (Count 3); and

-- was unjustly enriched at their expense (Count 4).

The Plaintiffs are drivers who delivered appliances and other
consumer goods on behalf of RXO to customers of Lowe's Home
Improvement stores.

RXO is a freight forwarder and logistics services provider that
organizes and arranges deliveries of large goods for retail
stores.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hTwFtu at no extra
charge.[CC]

RYDER SYSTEM: Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Initial Nod
------------------------------------------------------------
Ryder System, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 15, 2023, that in April 2023, the
parties in a putative class action reached an agreement in
principle to resolve a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of the company's securities who purchased or otherwise
acquired their securities between July 23, 2015, and February 13,
2020, inclusive. In February 2024, the court entered an order
preliminarily approving a settlement and authorizing dissemination
of the notice of settlement.

Starting in May 20, 2020, putative class actions, were commenced
against Ryder and certain of company's current and former officers.
In the U.S. District court for the Southern District of Florida, a
filed complaint alleged, among other things, that the defendants
misrepresented Ryder's depreciation policy and residual value
estimates for its vehicles during the Class Period in violation of
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks to recover, among
other things, unspecified compensatory damages and attorneys' fees
and costs.

In August 3, 2020, the State of Alaska, Alaska Permanent Fund, the
City of Fort Lauderdale General Employees' Retirement System, and
the City of Plantation Police Officers Pension Fund were appointed
lead plaintiffs. On October 5, 2020, the lead plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint.

In December 4, 2020, Ryder and the other named defendants in the
case filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint. On May 12,
2022, the court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss. The court
entered a case management schedule on June 27, 2022, which, among
other things, provides that discovery shall be completed by October
2023 and the commencement of trial in June 2024.

Ryder System, Inc. is a logistics and transportation company based
in Florida.


SAFECO INSURANCE: Gonzalez Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Oscar Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated v. SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Case No.
BUR-L-1294-24 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division of Burlington County, to the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey on Aug. 7, 2024, and assigned
Case No. 1:24-cv-08336.

The Plaintiff further alleges that for such customers who, like
Plaintiff, had previously authorized Safeco to directly debit their
bank accounts for premium charges, Safeco proceeded with
unauthorized direct debits for renewal premiums. The Plaintiff
alleges that Safeco's actions constitute violations of the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act of 1978 ("EFTA") and the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act ("CFA").[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Aaron H. Gould, Esq.
          CONNELL FOLEY LLP
          Harborside 5
          185 Hudson Street, Suite 2510
          Jersey City, NJ 07311
          Phone: 201.521.1000
          Fax: 201.521.0100
          Email: AGould@connellfoley.com


SAGORA SENIOR LIVING: Watts Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Gerald Watts, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SAGORA SENIOR LIVING, INC., a
corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
S-CV-0052708 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Placer, to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California on July 24, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 2:24-at-00938.

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Diane Marie O'Malley, Esq.
          Samantha A. Botros, Esq.
          HANSON BRIDGETT LLP
          425 Market Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: (415) 777-3200
          Facsimile: (415) 541-9366
          Email: domalley@hansonbridgett.com
                 sbotros@hansonbridgett.com


SAMUEL YAKOBOWICZ: Bryan Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hannif Bryan, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Samuel Yakobowicz (a/k/a Samuel Jacoby) (a/k/a Shmuel Yacobowicz),
Malika Nurbekova (a/k/a Julie Nurbekova), Greenpoint Industrial
Services Corp., and Solar Transport, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-05126
(E.D.N.Y., July 23, 2024), is brought to recover unpaid overtime
wages, spread-of-hours, liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), New York Labor Law ("NYLL"),
and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act ("WTPA").

The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff at the rate of one and one-
half times their hourly wage rate for hours worked in excess of
forty per workweek. The Defendants did not state the correct gross
wages, as defined by NYLL, for any employee on any pay statement as
required by NYLL or deductions from the correct gross wages. No
notification, either in the form of posted notices, or other means,
was ever given to Plaintiff regarding wages are required under the
FLSA or NYLL. the Defendants did not provide Plaintiff a statement
of wages, as required by NYLL

The Defendants did not give any notice to Plaintiff of their rate
of pay, employer’s regular pay day, and such other information as
required by NYLL. The Defendants’ failure to provide accurate
wage notices and accurate wage statements denied Plaintiff their
statutory right to receive true and accurate information about the
nature of their employment and related compensation policies.

Moreover, Defendant’s breach of these obligations injured
Plaintiff by denying Plaintiff the right to know the conditions of
their compensation, resulting in the underpayment of wages, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed as an attendant, and general worker, at
the Defendants’ gas stations and U-Haul rental facilities.

The Defendants own, operate and/or control Defendants’ Gas
Stations & U-Haul Rentals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
          Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
          LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: (212) 792-0046
          Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com


SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Brackens Appeals Atty.'s Fees Bid Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
MONTRAIL BRACKENS, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for
attorney's fees in the lawsuit entitled Montrail Brackens, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. City and County of San Francisco, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-02724-SK, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.

On May 20, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed this case in the Northern
District of California seeking to represent a class of prisoners
subjected to unconstitutional conditions in San Francisco County
jails; more specifically, those having been confined in their cells
for up to 23.5 hours per day with total denial of access to direct
sunlight or outdoor recreation. The Plaintiffs sued the Defendants
for being directly involved in designing and implementing the
policies that led to deprivations of constitutional and statutory
rights.

On Oct. 31, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for attorney fees
and costs, which the Court granted in part and denied in part
through an Order entered by Judge Sallie Kim on July 2, 2024.

The appellate case is captioned Brackens, et al. v. City and County
of San Francisco, et al., Case No. 24-4789, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on August 5, 2024.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants' Mediation Questionnaire was due on August 12,
2024;

   -- Appellants' Appeal Transcript Order was due on August 14,
2024;

   -- Appellants' Appeal Transcript Due is due on September 13,
2024;

   -- Appellants' Appeal Opening Brief is due on October 23, 2024;
and

   -- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief Due is due November 22,
2024. [BN]

SCOTTSDALE, AZ: Quinn Suit Removed to D. Arizona
------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Noel M. Quinn, a single woman, and a class of
others similarly situated v. City of Scottsdale, a municipality in
the State of Arizona; City of Glendale, a municipality in the State
of Arizona, Case No. CV2024-016873 was removed from the Maricopa
County Superior Court, State of Arizona, to the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona on Aug. 7, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01979-JJT.

The Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges that Defendant violated Fair
Labors Standards Act ("FLSA"), by failing to pay overtime
compensation.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Laurent R.G. Badoux, Esq.
          R. Shawn Oller, Esq.
          Pablo E. Castellanos, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          Camelback Esplanade
          2425 East Camelback Road, Suite 900
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Phone: 602.474.3600
          Fax: 602.957.1801
          Email: lbadoux@littler.com
                 soller@littler.com
                 pcastellanos@littler.com


SECOND NATURE: Parties Seek Class Cert Briefing Schedule
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELISABETH BEST, JENNA
BUCKLEW, RACHEL IRIAS, and CASSANDRA STEPHAN on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, v. SECOND NATURE BRANDS,
INC., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01799-JMC (D.D.C.), the Parties ask
the Court to enter an order granting joint motion to set briefing
schedule on motions to dismiss and class certification.

The Parties propose the following briefing schedule to govern the
motions to dismiss:

   i. September 13, 2024 -- Plaintiffs' deadline to serve their
      Opposition to the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, including
any
      opposition to a motion to dismiss filed by QBE on August 14,

      2024, or serve an Amended Complaint.

  ii. October 4, 2024 -- Defendants’ deadline to serve reply
briefs in
      support of the motions to dismiss, including any motion filed
by
      QBE on August 14, 2024.

The Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on April 29, 2024, in the D.C.
Superior Court.

On June 21, 2024, Defendants Second Nature Brands, Inc., and Second
Nature Insurance Services, LLC ("Second Nature Defendants") removed
the case to this Court.

On July 26, 2024, Columbia Property Management, LLC, and Scott
Bloom
moved to dismiss the complaint. Similarly, on July 26, 2024, the
Defendants Second Nature Brands, Inc., and Second Nature Insurance
Services, LLC, moved to dismiss the complaint.

On July 26, 2024, Plaintiffs moved for class certification,
issuance of class notice, and appointment of class counsel.

QBE's deadline to plead or move in response to the Complaint is
August 14, 2024.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 8, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2NVZ5f at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brendan J. Klaproth, Esq.
          Jesse C. Klaproth, Esq.
          KLAPROTH LAW PLLC
          2300 Wisconsin Ave NW, Suite 100A
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 618-2344
          E-mail: bklaproth@klaprothlaw.com
                  jklaproth@klaprothlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          J. Dickson Phillips, III, Esq.
          H. Hunter Bruton, Esq.
          Garrett A. Steadman, Esq.
          ROBINSON BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A.
          1450 Raleigh Road, Suite 100
          Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27517
          Telephone: (919) 328-8800
          Facsimile: (919) 328-8791
          E-mail: dphillips@robinsonbradshaw.com
                  hbruton@robinsonbradshaw.com

                - and -

          Sarah D. Gordon, Esq.
          STEPTOE LLP
          1330 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 429-8005
          Facsimile: (202) 429-3902
          E-mail: sgordon@steptoe.com

                - and -

          Kelly Burchell, Esq.
          BURCHELL LAW PLLC
          1140 3rd ST NE, Second Floor
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 505-3896
          Facsimile: (202) 315-3807
          E-mail: kelly@nurchelllaw.com

SELECTQUOTE AUTO: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Davis Due Nov. 8
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRADLEY P. DAVIS, v.
SELECTQUOTE AUTO & HOME INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
3:22-cv-00185-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge David Keesler
entered an order granting the parties' "Fourth Joint Motion to
Extend Deadlines in Pretrial Order And Case Management Plan
Pursuant To Court's Order."

The case management deadlines are revised as follows:

-- Defendant's Expert Report:                     Sept. 13, 2024

-- Class certification motion:                    Nov. 8, 2024

-- Defendant's response to class certification    Dec. 11, 2024
    Motion:

-- Plaintiff's reply to class certification       Dec. 27, 2024.
    Motion:

SelectQuote is a one-stop for life, auto, home and Medicare
insurance.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=J1XiNH at no extra
charge.[CC]

SISKIYOU COUNTY, CA: Provisional Status of Class Sought
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GER CHONG ZE CHANG, MAI
NOU VANG, RUSSELL MATHIS, YING SUSANNA VA, and all others similarly
situated, v. COUNTY OF SISKIYOU and JEREMIAH LARUE, in his official
capacity as Sheriff, Case No. 2:22-cv-01378-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs will move the Court on Sept. 13, 2024, for provisional
certification of a class of

   "All Asian Americans who reside or will reside within Siskiyou
   County without access to a residential well or municipal water
at
   their property."

The proposed Class plainly meets the requirements for certification
under Rule 23(b)(2). The Plaintiffs allege that the County has
promoted, and continues to promote, an unconstitutional and
racially motivated zoning policy that harms the Class by cutting
off their water access.

The Plaintiff Mathis and members of the proposed Class are Asian
American residents of Siskiyou County who do not have well or
municipal water access where they live.

Siskiyou is a county located in the northwestern part of the U.S.
state of California.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 8, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6IcObV at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:


          John Thomas H. Do, Esq.
          Emi Young, Esq.
          Grayce Zelphin, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN
          CALIFORNIA
          39 Drumm Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 293-6333
          Facsimile: (415) 255-8437
          E-mail: jdo@aclunc.org
                  eyoung@aclunc.org
                  gzelphin@aclunc.org

                - and -

          Carl Takei, Esq.
          Megan Vees, Esq.
          ASIAN LAW CAUCUS
          55 Columbus Avenue
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 896-1701
          Facsimile: (415) 896-1702
          E-mail: carlt@asialawcaucus.org
                  meganv@asianlawcaucus.org

                - and -

          Stanley Young, Esq.
          Michael Plimack, Esq.
          Alison Wall, Esq.
          Ellen Choi, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          3000 El Camino Real
          5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor
          Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112
          Telephone: (650) 632-4700
          Facsimile: (650) 632-4800
          E-mail: syoung@cov.com
                  mplimack@cov.com
                  awall@cov.com
                  echoi@cov.com

SLIPMATE CO: Horcher Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Horcher, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SLIPMATE, CO., Case No. 2024LA000881 (Ill. Cir. Ct.,
DuPage Cty., July 23, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for
its violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act
(“BIPA”), and to obtain redress for persons injured by its
conduct.

This case concerns the misuse of individuals’ biometrics by
Defendant. Using biometric enabled technology, Defendant has
captured, collected, stored, disseminated, and/or otherwise used
the biometrics of Plaintiff and otherClassmembers, without their
informed written consent as required by law, in order to track
their time at work.

The Defendant’s biometric timekeeping system works by extracting
biometric information from individuals, such as handprints,
fingerprints or portions thereof, and subsequently using the same
for authentication and timekeeping purposes. The system includes
the dissemination of biometrics to each other and third parties,
such as data storage vendors and payroll services. Plaintiff brings
this action for statutory damages and other remedies as a result of
Defendant’s conduct in violating Plaintiffs state biometric
privacy rights, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked as an employee for Defendant during 2020.

The Defendant is a for-profit corporation that conducts substantial
business throughout the state of Illinois and in DuPage
County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Hammervold, Esq.
          HAMMERVOLD LAW, LLC
          155 S. Lawndale Ave.
          Elmhurst, IL 60126
          Phone: (405) 509-0372
          Email: mark@hammervoldlaw.com


SNOWFLAKE INC: Conte Sues Over Failure to Safeguard & Secure PII
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alessandra Conte, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SNOWFLAKE, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-04443 (N.D.
Cal., July 23, 2024), is brought arising from the Defendant’s
failure to implement reasonable, industry standard cybersecurity
safeguards to secure the personal identifiable information
(“PII”) of Plaintiff and the members of the proposed Class,
where Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former employees,
customers, and others who provided their PII to Snowflake’s
clients, including Ticketmaster, who in turn used Snowflake’s
cloud-based data hosting platform to share and maintain PII.

Unfortunately, for Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant failed to
implement basic and expected data security practices appropriate to
the vast amounts of PII stored on its platform and, as a
consequence, records containing the PII of millions of individuals
(with 560 million customers’ records from Ticketmaster alone),
from over 165 organizations that used the Snowflake platform, were
accessed and acquired by the threat actors during the Data Breach.

The unlawfully accessed PII includes, Social Security numbers,
names, dates of birth, email addresses, physical addresses,
telephone numbers, driver’s license information, payroll
information, financial account information, and other confidential
personal data. Soon after they exfiltrated the PII from
Snowflake’s platform, the threat actors attempted to extort
payments from Snowflake’s clients and began publishing samples of
the stolen consumer PII on dark web marketplaces for sale to
identity thieves and fraudsters.

Because of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and millions of Class Members
were injured and the confidentiality of their PII was destroyed and
commoditized by data thieves. Plaintiff and Class Members were
entitled to, and did, expect a sophisticated data hosting company
to take reasonable steps to prevent unauthorized access to their
PII.

The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members
by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failing
to implement reasonable measures to safeguard PII from unauthorized
access and by failing to take necessary steps to prevent
unauthorized disclosure of that information. Defendant’s woefully
inadequate data security measures made the Data Breach a
foreseeable, and even likely, consequence of its actions and
omissions, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk
of fraud and identity theft.

Snowflake is a cloud storage service with nearly 20% of the data
hosting market share and is used by at least 9,437 customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


SNOWFLAKE INC: Townsend Files Suit in D. Montana
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Snowflake, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Jeremiah Townsend, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Snowflake, Inc., Advance
Stores Company, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00077-BMM (D. Mont., Aug. 7,
2024).

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

Snowflake Inc. -- https://www.snowflake.com/en/ -- is an American
cloud computing–based data cloud company based in Bozeman,
Montana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John C. Heenan, Esq.
          HEENAN & COOK
          1631 Zimmerman Trail
          Billings, MT 59102
          Phone: (406) 839-9091
          Fax: (406) 839-9092
          Email: john@lawmontana.com


SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON: Faces Suit Over Wildfires
-----------------------------------------------------
Southern California Edison Company (SCE) disclosed in its Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2024, that multiple
lawsuits related to the 2017/2018 Wildfire/Mudslide Events naming
SCE as a defendant have been filed by three categories of
plaintiffs: individual plaintiffs, subrogation plaintiffs and
public entity plaintiffs.

As of July 18, 2024, in addition to the outstanding claims of
approximately 840 of the approximately 15,000 initial individual
plaintiffs, there were alleged and potential claims of certain
public entity plaintiffs, including California Governor's Office of
Emergency Service (CAL OES), outstanding.

As of July 18, 2024, there are approximately 45 pending unsettled
lawsuits representing approximately 120 individual plaintiffs
related to the Thomas and Koenigstein Fires naming SCE as a
defendant. One of the lawsuits was filed as a purported class
action. The lawsuits, which have been filed in the superior courts
of Ventura, Santa Barbara and Los Angeles Counties allege, among
other things, negligence, inverse condemnation, trespass, private
nuisance, and violations of the public utilities and health and
safety codes. SCE and certain of the individual plaintiffs in the
Thomas and Koenigstein Fire litigation have been pursuing
settlements of claims under a mediation program adopted to promote
an efficient and orderly settlement process. As of July 18, 2024,
no trials have been set for individual plaintiffs in the
litigations.

Approximately 20 of the approximately 45 pending unsettled
individual plaintiff lawsuits mentioned in the paragraph above
allege that SCE has responsibility for the Thomas and/or
Koenigstein Fires and that the Thomas and/or Koenigstein Fires
proximately caused the Montecito Mudslides, resulting in the
plaintiffs' claimed damages. Many of the Montecito Mudslides
lawsuits also name Edison International as a defendant based on its
ownership and alleged control of SCE. In addition to other causes
of action, some of the Montecito Mudslides lawsuits also allege
personal injury and wrongful death.

As of July 18, 2024, there are approximately 140 currently pending
unsettled lawsuits representing approximately 720 individual
plaintiffs related to the Woolsey Fire naming SCE as a defendant.
Approximately 120 of the 140 lawsuits also name Edison
International as a defendant based on its ownership and alleged
control of SCE. At least one of the lawsuits was filed as a
purported class action. The lawsuits, which have been filed in the
superior courts of Ventura and Los Angeles Counties allege, among
other things, negligence, inverse condemnation, personal injury,
wrongful death, trespass, private nuisance, and violations of the
public utilities and health and safety codes. SCE and certain of
the individual plaintiffs in the Woolsey Fire litigation have been
pursuing settlements of claims under a mediation program adopted to
promote an efficient and orderly settlement process. As of July 18,
2024, a liability trial has been set for March 2025 for CAL OES and
a damages trial has been set for individual plaintiffs in December
2024 in the Woolsey Fire litigation.

The Thomas and Koenigstein Fires and Montecito Mudslides lawsuits
are being coordinated in the Los Angeles Superior Court. The
Woolsey Fire lawsuits have also been coordinated in the Los Angeles
Superior Court.

SCE is an investor-owned public utility primarily engaged in the
business of supplying and delivering electricity to an
approximately 50,000 square mile area across Southern, Central and
Coastal California.


SOUTHERN FARM: Donley Class Cert Filing Extended to Jan. 15, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PHYLLIS DONLEY, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. SOUTHERN FARM
BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:24-cv-00020-KGB (E.D.
Ark.), the Hon. Judge Kristine Baker entered an order granting the
parties' joint motion for extension of scheduling order deadlines.


The Court extends the time for filing case-in-chief expert
disclosures, including reports, to, and including, Nov. 20, 2024.

The Court extends the time for filing rebuttal expert disclosures,
including reports, to, and including, Dec. 21, 2024.

The Court extends the time for filing motions for class
certification to, and including, Jan. 15, 2025.

The parties seek an extension of deadlines to avoid potentially
unnecessary time and expense producing expert reports and briefing
to focus on a potential resolution of the case.

Southern Farm provides multi-line regional property and casualty
insurance.

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

SOUTHERN NEW HAMPSHIRE: Cancelmo Suit Removed to D. New Hampshire
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Daniel Cancelmo, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. SOUTHERN HEW HAMPSHIRE MEDICAL CENTER,
SOUTHERN NEW HAMPSHIRE HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., and SOLUTIONHEALTH,
Case No. 226-2024-CV-00346 was removed from the New Hampshire
Hillsborough County Superior Court-South, to the United States
District Court for the District of New Hampshire on Aug. 8, 2024,
and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00245.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants (referred to in the Complaint
as "SNHH"') unlawfully disclose their current and former patients'
confidential personal and protected health information to Google
for marketing purposes without the patients' consent. The Plaintiff
claims that this alleged sharing of patient information with Google
violates New Hampshire RSA 332-I, which prohibits disclosures of
protected health information without patient consent, and New
Hampshire RSA 570-A, a wiretapping statute prohibiting the
disclosure of communications without the permission of all
parties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam H. Weintraub, Esq.
          WEINTRAUB LAW
          170 Commerce Way, Suite 200
          Portsmouth, NH 03801
          Phone: 603-212-1785
          Fax: 504-708-4512
          Email: aweintraub@ahwfirm.com

               - and -

          Todd S. Garber, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          One North Broadway, Suite 900
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Phone: 914-298-3281
          Email: tgarber@fbfglaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kevin G. Collimore, Esq.
          CULLEN COLLIMORE SHIRLEY PLLC
          37 Technology Way | Suite 3W2
          Nashua, NH 03060
          Phone: 603.881.5500
          Email: kcollimore@cullencollimore.com

               - and -

          Michael Jervis, Esq.
          MULLEN COUGHLIN
          426 W. Lancaster Avenue, Suite 200
          Devon, PA 19333
          Phone: (267) 930-4498
          Email: mjervis@mullen.law


SPORTSMANS WAREHOUSE: Cordero Files Suit in D. Utah
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sportsmans Warehouse,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Miguel Cordero, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sportsmans Warehouse,
Inc., Sportsmans Warehouse Holdings, Inc., Case No.
2:24-cv-00575-CMR (D. Utah, Aug. 9, 2024).

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

Sportsman's Warehouse -- https://www.sportsmans.com/ -- is an
American outdoor sporting goods retailer which operates in 29
states across the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brady L. Rasmussen, Esq.
          PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER
          201 S. Main St., Ste. 1800
          PO Box 45898
          Salt Lake City, UT 84145-0898
          Phone: (801) 532-1234
          Email: brasmussen@parsonsbehle.com


SPRINKLR INC: Boshart Sues Over Securities Laws Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Shane Boshart, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SPRINKLR, INC., RAGY THOMAS, and MANISH SARIN, Case No.
1:24-cv-06132 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 13, 2024), is brought on behalf of
all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Sprinklr
securities between March 29, 2023 and June 5, 2024, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws (the "Class").

The Defendants created the false impression that they possessed
reliable information pertaining to the Company's projected revenue
outlook and anticipated growth while also minimizing risk from
seasonality and macroeconomic fluctuations. In truth, Sprinklr had
significantly shifted its focus away from proven growth areas to
focus aggressively on scaling a new business venture with CCaaS,
resulting in artificially inflated short-term growth. The
Defendants misled investors by continually providing projections
which failed to account for the difficulties in the implementation
of scaling their new product and/or otherwise failed to adequately
disclose the fact that the Company at the current time did not have
adequate forecasting processes.

The Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to
investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false
and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts
concerning the difficulties in the implementation of scaling in the
CCaaS market and the resulting growth slowdown on their existing
"go-to-market" initiatives associated with Sprinklr's core suite of
products, which collectively caused Plaintiff and other
shareholders to purchase Sprinklr's securities at artificially
inflated prices.

The truth emerged on December 6, 2023, during Sprinklr's earnings
call following a same day press release announcing its strong third
quarter earnings. In pertinent part, Defendants announced a
sequential decrease in the total number of customers spending more
than $1 million, attributing it to macroeconomic conditions.
Additionally, Sprinklr reduced its estimated growth for the fourth
quarter and fiscal year 2025 (ending January 31, 2025). In
particular, Defendants reduced the outlook for fiscal 2025 from
consensus expectations of 16% growth down to only 10%.

Reality came into view on June 5, 2024 when Sprinklr again
announced significantly reduced growth expectations, this time
cutting fiscal year 2025 projections another three percent, down to
a mere 7% annual growth, again attributing the losses to reduced
customer retention in Sprinklr's core business and macro headwinds.
Investors and analysts again reacted promptly to Sprinklr's
revelations. The price of Sprinklr's common stock declined
dramatically. From a closing market price of $10.84 per share on
June 5, 2024 Sprinklr's stock price fell to $9.20 per share on June
6, 2024, a decline of more than 15% in the span of one day, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased Sprinklr common stock at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.

Sprinklr is a software company that provides AI-based "Customer
Experience Management" platforms for its client's customer-facing
teams.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam M. Apton
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 363-7500
          Fax: (212) 363-7171
          Email: aapton@zlk.com


STABILITY AI: Court Narrows Claims in Andersen Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH ANDERSEN, et al., v.
STABILITY AI LTD., et al. Case No. 3:23-cv-00201-WHO (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge William Orrick entered an order granting in part and
denying in part motions to dismiss first amended complaint.

The Defendants' motions to dismiss the DMCA claims are granted and
the DMCA claims are dismissed with prejudice.

The Defendants' motions to dismiss the unjust enrichment claims are
granted and those claims are dismissed with leave to amend. The
Defendants' motions to dismiss the Copyright Act claims are denied.


Midjourney's motion to dismiss the Lanham Act claims is denied.
DeviantArt's motion to dismiss the breach of contract and breach of
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims is
granted and those claims are dismissed with prejudice.

The generic license that accompanies use of Stable Diffusion on its
face claims rights to Stable Diffusion as a work, not to the LAION
dataset and not any works that were used to create the LAION
dataset. It is implausible that a viewer reading the license
disclosure for Stable Diffusion would understand that Stability is
claiming rights to or conveying any false information regarding the
rights of the plaintiffs whose copyrighted works are among the
billions of images in the LAION datasets. The 1202(a) claim is
dismissed again, this time with prejudice as plaintiffs do not
identify a basis for this claim.

The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on behalf of
artists challenging the defendants' creation and/or use of Stable
Diffusion, an artificial intelligence ("AI") software product. They
allege that Stable Diffusion used plaintiffs' artistic works as
"training images" and as a result Stable Diffusion can produce
output images "in the style" of those images.

The Plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of six different classes:

    "Injunctive Relief Class" under Rule 23(b)(2):

    "All persons or entities nationalized or domiciled in the
United
    States that own a copyright interest in any work that was used
to
    train any version of an AI image product that was offered
directly
    or incorporated into another product by one or more Defendants

    during the Class Period."

    "Damages Class" under Rule 23(b)(3):

    "All persons or entities nationalized or domiciled in the
United
    States that own a copyright interest in any work that was used
to
    train any version of an AI image product that was offered
directly
    or incorporated into another product by one or more Defendants

    during the Class Period."

    "LAION-5B Damages Subclass" under Rule 23(b)(3):

    "All persons or entities nationalized or domiciled in the
United
    States that own a registered copyright in any work in the
LAION-5B
    dataset that was used to train any version of an AI image
product
    that was offered directly or incorporated into another product
by
    one or more Defendants during the Class Period."

    "LAION-400M Damages Subclass" under Rule 23(b)(3):

    "All persons or entities nationalized or domiciled in the
United
    States that own a registered copyright in any work in the
LAION-
    400M dataset that was used to train any version of an AI image

    product that was offered directly or incorporated into another

    product by one or more Defendants during the Class Period."

    "DeviantArt Damages Subclass" under Rule 23(b)(3):

    "All members of the Damages Class who (1) maintained an account
on
    DeviantArt; (2) posted copyrighted work on DeviantArt; and (3)
had
    that work used to train any version of an AI image product."

    "Midjourney Named Artist Class" under Rule 23(b)(3):
    "All persons or entities who appear on the Midjourney Names
List
    and whose names were invoked within prompts of the Midjourney
    Image Product during the Class Period."

Stability AI operates as an open source generative AI company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qzp00E at no extra
charge.[CC]

STANLEY BLACK: Hakomori Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Ken Hakomori, individually, and on behalf of
other similarly situated employees v. STANLEY BLACK & DECKER, INC.;
HCL GLOBAL SYSTEMS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case
No. 24CV080131 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Alameda, to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on July 24, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-04481.

In the Complaint, the Plaintiff asserts class and individual claims
for the following causes of action: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages;
Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods;
Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Failure to Timely Pay Wages During
Employment; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements;
Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination; Failure to
Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses; and Unfair Business
Practices. The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid meal
period premium wages, unpaid rest period premium wages, statutory
penalties, unreimbursed business expenses, and attorneys' fees and
costs, among other types of relief.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Amanda C. Sommerfeld, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          555 South Flower Street, Fiftieth Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071.2452
          Phone: +1.213.489.3939
          Facsimile: +1.213.243.2539
          Email: asommerfeld@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Aileen H. Kim, Esq.
          Courtney P. O'Connor, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          311 Michelson Drive, Suite 800
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Phone: +1.949.851.3939
          Facsimile: +1.949.553.7529
          Email: aileenkim@jonesday.com
                 courtneyoconnor@jonesday.com


STATE FARM MUTUAL: Peck Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michele Peck, as Special Administrator of the
Estate of Adam Peck, deceased v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2023-LA-00047 was removed from the
Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit, County of McLean, State
of Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of Illinois on Aug. 7, 2024, and assigned Case No.
1:24-cv-01274-JES-JEH.

On July 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed her Amended Complaint alleging
State Farm wrongfully denies claims for medical payments coverage
under its automobile policies.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Patrick D. Cloud, Esq.
          HEYL, ROYSTER, VOELKER & ALLEN, P.C.
          105 West Vandalia, Suite 100
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Phone: 618.656.4646
          Facsimile 309.420.0402
          Primary Email: edwecf@heylroyster.com
          Secondary Email #1: pcloud@heylroyster.com
          Secondary Email #2: dseymoure@heylroyster.com
          Secondary Email #3: abarron@heylroyster.com


STOP & SHOP: Bids for Class Cert. in Schotte Suit Due Oct. 28, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Schotte v. The Stop & Shop
Supermarket Company, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-10897 (D. Mass., Filed
April 26, 2023), the Hon. Judge Indira Talwani entered an order
granting joint motion to consolidate deadlines and setting new
scheduling order.

-- All requests for production of documents and      Feb. 28,
2025
    interrogatories must be served by:

-- All requests for admission must be served by:     Feb. 28,
2025

-- All depositions, other than expert                April 30,
2025
    depositions, must be completed by:

-- All discovery, other than expert discovery,       April 30,
2025
    must be completed by:

-- All discovery motions must be filed by:           April 30,
2025

-- Plaintiff shall disclose experts and expert       June 13,
2025
    reports by:

-- Defendant shall disclose experts and              July 30,
2025
    expert reports by:

-- All expert depositions shall be completed by:     Sept. 30,
2025

-- All Rule 702 motions, summary judgment            Oct. 28,
2025
    motions, and motions related to class
    certification shall be filed by:

-- Oppositions to any Rule 702 motions, summary      Dec. 17,
2025
    judgment motions, and motions related to class
    certification shall be filed by:

-- The close of fact discovery status conference     Dec. 20,
2024
    set for:

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

Stop & Shop is an American regional chain of supermarkets.[CC]

SUNRISE PLAZA: Maurer Sues Over Property's Architectural Barriers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS MAURER, an individual, on his own behalf and on the behalf
of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUNRISE PLAZA,
L.L.C., a New Jersey Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-08275 (D.N.J., August 5, 2024) seeks injunctive relief,
damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New Jersey Law
Against Discrimination.

Plaintiff Maurer has visited Defendant's property known as Sunset
Plaza which is located in Forked River, New Jersey, on several
occasions both as a patron and to inspect the property; his last
visit as a patron occurred on July 11, 2024. He purchased ice cream
and other items while in process of inspecting the property and
conducting inspections at other nearby properties. Mr. Maurer found
that the property was littered with violations of the ADA, both in
architecture and in policy. He personally encountered exposure to
architectural barriers in parking and exterior accessible route,
access to goods and services, and restrooms, that have endangered
his safety during his visits to the property, says the Plaintiff.

The Defendant has discriminated against the Plaintiff, and other
similarly situated mobility impaired persons, by denying access to,
and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities,
privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Property, as
prohibited by the ADA, alleges the suit.

Sunrise Plaza, L.L.C. owns or operates a place of public
accommodation, in this instance a shopping center/plaza.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq.
          SHADINGER LAW, LLC
          717 E. Elmer Street, Suite 7
          Vineland, NJ 08360
          Telephone: (609) 319-5399
          E-mail: js@shadingerlaw.com

SUNRISE SENIOR: Class Settlement in Heredia Suit Wins Initial Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Audrey Heredia as
successor-in-interest to the Estate of Carlos Heredia; Amy Fearn as
successor-in-interest to the Estate of Edith Zack; and Helen Ganz,
by and through her Guardian ad Litem, Elise Ganz; on their own
behalves and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. Sunrise
Senior Living, LLC; Sunrise Senior Living Management, Inc.; and
Does 2 - 100, Case No. 8:18-cv-01974-JLS-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Josephine Staton entered an order granting motion for
preliminary approval of class settlement.

The Court conditionally granted preliminary approval of the parties
proposed class action settlement but ordered amendment to the class
notice and method of opting out.

The Court approves the designation of CPT Group, Inc., to serve as
the settlement administrator for the settlement.

Final Approval Hearing The Court will hold a final approval hearing
on Nov. 8, 2024, at 10:30 a.m., before this Court in Courtroom 8A,
United States District Court, Central District of California, 350
West 1st Street, Los Angeles, California.

Sunrise Senior Living is an American operator of senior living
communities.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=D7AN4E at no extra
charge.[CC]

SYNCHRONY BANK: CareCredit Interest Rates "Illegal," S.G. Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
S.G., on behalf himself and of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. SYNCHRONY BANK, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-05788-SIL
(E.D.N.Y., August 19, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant
for violations of state usury laws and state consumer protection
statutes, breach of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust
enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendant's practice of offering
high-interest rate loans under the tradename CareCredit. According
to the complaint, the interest rate on new CareCredit accounts is
32.99 percent per annum as of May 30, 2024, which is above and
beyond what is permitted by New York's state usury law. As a result
of the Defendant's deceptive acts and practices, including its
omissions, the Plaintiff and the Class members have been damaged,
the suit alleges.

Synchrony Bank is a financial services company, with its principal
place of business in Draper, Utah. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Javier L. Merino, Esq.
         Brian D. Flick, Esq.
         DANNLAW
         1520 US Highway 130, Suite 101
         North Brunswick, NJ 08902
         Telephone: (216) 373-0539
         Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
         Email: notices@dannlaw.com

                 - and -

         Jennifer Czeisler, Esq.
         Edward Ciolko, Esq.
         Arturo Pena, Esq.
         STERLINGTON, PLLC
         One World Trade Center, 85th Floor
         New York, NY 10007
         Email: jen.czeisler@sterlingtonlaw.com
                ed.ciolko@sterlingtonlaw.com
                arturo.pena@sterlingtonlaw.com

                 - and -

         Adam Pollock, Esq.
         Anna Menkova, Esq.
         POLLOCK COHEN LLP
         111 Broadway, Suite 1804
         New York, NY 10006
         Telephone: (212) 337-5361
         Email: anna@pollockcohen.com
                adam@pollockcohen.com

SYSCO SACRAMENTO: Fite Class Action Stayed Until Oct. 30
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GLENN FITE and DAVID
GARCIA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. SYSCO SACRAMENTO, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-01633-DJC-AC (E.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Daniel J. Calabretta entered an order that:

   1. This case is stayed in its entirety until Oct. 30, 2024.

   2. All hearing dates and deadlines to file motions, oppositions,

      replies and documents relate thereto are vacated, including
all
      deadlines relating to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
      Certification set in the July 30th Scheduling Order, until
after
      the Parties complete their scheduled mediation on Oct. 30,
2024.

   3. The deadlines set in the Scheduling Order are continued as
      follows:

      (1) deadline for joint mid-discovery statement – continued
to
          May 15, 2025;
      (2) deadline for fact discovery – continued to Sept. 29,
2025;
      (3) deadline for expert disclosure – continued to Oct. 30,
2025;
      (4) deadline for rebuttal experts – continued to Nov. 30,
2025;
      (5) deadline for expert discovery – continued to Dec. 30,
2025;
      (6) deadline for dispositive motions – continued to Mar. 1,

          2026; and
      (7) dispositive motion hearing – continued to April 30th,
2026.

   4. The Parties shall file a post-mediation status report on
      November 13th, 2024.

On Jan. 24, 2024, the Court issued an Order granting the Parties'
Joint Stipulation which granted Plaintiff leave to file the Third
Amended Complaint and continued Plaintiff's deadline to file the
Motion for Class Certification to Sept. 27, 2024.

On July 30, 2024, this Court issued a scheduling order.

Sysco Sacramento provides food services.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stan S. Mallison, Esq.
          Hector R. Martinez, Esq.
          Daniel C. Keller, Esq.
          Caroline L. Hill, Esq.
          MALLISON & MARTINEZ
          1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 832-9999
          Facsimile: (510) 832-1101
          E-mail: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com
                  HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com
                  Dkeller@TheMMLawFirm.com
                  CHill@themmlawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jennifer C. Terry, Esq.
          Brittany M. Hernandez, Esq.
          Rodrigo J. Dryjansk, 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: jcterry@reedsmith.com
                  bmhernandez@reedsmith.com
                  rdryjanski@reedsmith.com

TD BANK: Class Cert Hearing in AFL Suit Rescheduled to Oct. 15
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMAZING FISHSTORE LLC, et
al., v. TD BANK, N.A., Case No. 1:22-cv-00958 (D.N.J., Filed Feb.
23, 2022), the Hon. Judge Karen M. Williams entered an order
rescheduling the Final Approval hearing on motion to certify class,
previously set for Oct. 10, 2024.

The new date and time is Oct. 15, 2024 at 10:00 AM in Camden -
Courtroom 4A.

The nature of suit states Breach of Contract -- Recovery of
Overpayment & Enforcement of Judgment.[CC]

TD BANK: Class Cert. Hearing in Burns Suit Rescheduled to Oct. 15
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BURNS v. TD BANK, N.A.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-18194 (D.N.J., Filed Oct. 7, 2021), the Hon. Judge
Karen M. Williams entered an order rescheduling the Final Approval
hearing on motion to certify class, previously set for Oct. 10,
2024.

The new date and time is Oct. 15, 2024 at 11:30 AM in Camden -
Courtroom 4A.

The nature of suit states Breach of Contract.

TD Bank is an American national bank and the United States
subsidiary of the multinational TD Bank Group.[CC]

TICKETMASTER LLC: Yarbough Alleges Inadequate Data Security
-----------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM YARBOUGH, PATRICIA MARSHALL, and ELIZABETH QUINBY, on
behalf of themselves and all others who are similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. TICKETMASTER, LLC, LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
and SNOWFLAKE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-06604 (C.D. Cal.,
August 5, 2024) is a class action against Defendants for their
failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs' and other
similar situated individuals' personal identifiable information.

The suit arises out of the recent targeted cyberattack against
Defendant Ticketmaster's Data Cloud virtual warehouse, managed by
Defendant Snowflake, that enabled a third party to access
Defendants' computer systems and data, resulting in the compromise
of highly sensitive private information. Due to the data breach,
Plaintiffs and Class Members suffered ascertainable losses in the
form of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses and
the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate
the effects of the attack, emotional distress, and the imminent
risk of future harm caused by the compromise of their private
information, says the suit.

As a result of Defendants' inadequate security and breach of their
duties and obligations, the private information of Plaintiffs and
Class Members was compromised through disclosure to an unauthorized
criminal third party. The Plaintiffs and Class Members have
suffered injuries as a direct and proximate result of Defendants'
conduct, the suit alleges.

Ticketmaster, LLC is an American ticket sales and distribution
company based in Beverly Hills, California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Siobhan McGreal, Esq.
          James A. Francis, Esq.
          FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, PC
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
          E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                  smcgreal@consumerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
          William E. Hoese, Esq.
          Zahra R. Dean, Esq.
          Elias A. Kohn, Esq.
          KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700
          Facsimile: (215) 238-1968
          E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com
                  whoese@kohnswift.com
                  zdean@kohnswift.com
                  ekohn@kohnswift.com

               - and -

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

TIPTREE INC: Mullins Securities Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------
Tiptree Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 31, 2024, that in December 2022, the Pike County
Circuit Court in the Commonwealth of Kentucky dismissed a consumer
protection claims of those complainants who suffered a disability
during the coverage period but allegedly received less than full
disability benefits in case captioned "Mullins v. Southern
Financial Life Insurance Co."

However, the court did not dismiss the plaintiffs' breach of
covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims. A trial, scheduled
last December 2023, has been remanded while the matter is on
appeal. In May 2024, the Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
disagreed with the court's interpretation of the policies at issue
and entered an order affirming in part, reversing in part. In June
2024, the company filed a Motion for Discretionary Review of the
Court of Appeals Order in the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of
Kentucky.

Tiptree Inc., together with its consolidated subsidiaries, is a
holding company that allocates capital across a broad spectrum of
businesses, assets and other investments namely insurance and
mortgage.


TKO GROUP: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit in NY Court
--------------------------------------------------------
TKO Group Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K for July 30,
2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31,
2024, that TKO Operating Company, LLC, a subsidiary of TKO Group
Holdings, Inc. and/or certain of its affiliates, including Endeavor
Group Holdings, Inc., TKO OpCo's ultimate parent entity  are party
to several substantially similar class-action lawsuits filed
against them by former UFC athletes, alleging violations of Section
2 of the Sherman Act. Five related class-action lawsuits filed
between December 2014 and March 2015 were consolidated into a
single action in June 2015, captioned "Le et al. v. Zuffa, LLC,"
No. 2:15-cv-1045-RFB-BNW (D. Nev.) and an additional lawsuit,
captioned "Johnson et al. v. Zuffa, LLC et al.," No.
2:21-cv-1189-RFB-BNW (D. Nev.), was filed in 2021.

The company is evaluating all of its options, including, without
limitation, an appeal, and has also initiated discussions with
plaintiffs' counsel, who have expressed a willingness to engage in
separate settlement discussions for the Le and Johnson cases. A
motion to dismiss the complaint in Johnson remains pending and no
trial date has been set.

On July 30, 2024, following the court's hearings on the parties'
submission to approve their agreement to settle all claims asserted
in both class action lawsuits (Le and Johnson) for an aggregate
amount of $335 million payable by the company and its subsidiaries
in installments over an agreed-upon period of time, the court
issued its ruling and denied the motion for preliminary approval of
the settlement agreement. The court has not issued an opinion
explaining its reasoning at this time, but the court has scheduled
a status conference for August 19, 2024 and a new tentative trial
date for Le for October 28, 2024.

TKO Group Holdings, Inc. is into amusement and recreation services
specifically American professional wrestling and MMA and is based
in New York NY.


TOJA REALTY: Property Has Architectural Barriers, Maurer Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS MAURER, an individual, on his own behalf and on the behalf
of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOJA REALTY CORP., a
New Jersey Corporation Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-08272 (D.N.J.,
August 5, 2024) seeks injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees,
litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

Plaintiff Maurer has visited the Property on several occasions both
as a patron and to inspect the Property; his last visit as a patron
occurred on July 12, 2024. He purchased lunch and other items while
in process of inspecting the property and conducting inspections at
other nearby properties. Mr. Maurer found that the Property was
littered with violations of the ADA, both in architecture and in
policy. Seemingly trivial architectural features such as parking
spaces, curb ramps, and door handles are taken for granted by the
non-disabled but, when implemented improperly, become arduous and
even dangerous, says the Plaintiff.

The Defendant has discriminated against the Plaintiff, and other
similarly situated mobility impaired persons, by denying access to,
and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities,
privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Property, as
prohibited by the ADA, alleges the suit.

Toja Realty Corp. owns or operates a place of public accommodation,
in this instance a shopping center/plaza.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq.
          SHADINGER LAW, LLC
          717 E. Elmer Street, Suite 7
          Vineland, NJ 08360
          Telephone: (609) 319-5399
          E-mail: js@shadingerlaw.com

TOP GAUGE: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Rodgers Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROOSEVELT RODGERS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOP GAUGE ENERGY, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:24-cv-00682-JRG (E.D. Tex., August 19, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an intra-state truck
driver from November 2023.

Top Gauge Energy, LLC is an intrastate freight carrier, with its
principal place of business at 2009 Fritz Swanson Rd., Kilgore,
Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq.
       HOMMEL LAW FIRM PC
       5620 Old Bullard Road, Suite 115
       Tyler, TX 75703
       Telephone: (903) 596-7100

TULANE EDUCATIONAL: Court Cancels Class Cert Hearing in Jones Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SYLVIA JONES, V.
ADMINISTRATORS OF THE TULANE EDUCATIONAL FUND, Case No.
2:20-cv-02505-SM-MBN (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Susie Morgan
entered an order:

-- granting the Joint Motion to Adjourn the Class Certification
    Hearing and Stay Deadlines;

-- vacating all deadlines established in the Court's Minute Entry

    dated May 6, 2024;

-- cancelling the Class Certification Hearing presently scheduled
for
    Aug. 26, 2024, and the pre-hearing conference presently
scheduled
    for Aug. 13, 2024; and

-- staying the submission date for the Defendant's Motion to
Certify
    Questions to the Louisiana Supreme Court; and

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TF5NWr at no extra
charge.[CC]

TYSON FOODS: Class Cert Bid in Pearson Suit Due August 26
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pearson v. Tyson Foods
Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-01080 (E.D. Ark., Filed Nov. 16, 2023), the
Hon. Judge Brian S. Miller entered an order granting motion to
extend time.

-- Motion for class certification due on or before Aug. 26. 2024.

The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Employment.[CC]

UNITED AIRLINES: Files Cross Appeal in Sambrano Suit
----------------------------------------------------
United Airlines filed a cross appeal in the lawsuit entitled David
Sambrano, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. United Airlines, Incorporated, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-1074, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas.

The suit is brought to remedy the Defendant's pattern of
discrimination against employees who requested religious or medical
accommodations from its mandate that its employees receive the
COVID-19 vaccine. The Plaintiffs say United Airlines violated the
Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") by refusing to provide reasonable
medical and religious accommodations.

On Sept. 13, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which
the Court granted in part through an Order entered by Judge Mark
Pittman on Dec. 18, 2023.

On Jan. 12, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class.

On Jan. 16, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration
of the December 18, 2023 Opinion and Order.

On June 21, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify class. Additionally, the Plaintiffs'
motion for reconsideration was denied.

On July 22, 2024, an appeal was filed by Mr. Charles Burk, Mr.
David Castillo, Ms. Kimberly Hamilton, Ms. Debra Jennefer Thal
Jonas, Ms. Genise Kincannon, Ms. Alyse Medlin, Mr. Jarrad Rains and
Mr. David Sambrano captioned Sambrano v. United Airlines, Case
No:0:24-cr-10656, in the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

On August 6, 2024, United Airlines cross appealed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and the appellate
case is captioned David Sambrano v. United Airlines, Case No.
24-10708. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants DAVID SAMBRANO, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          H. Christopher Bartolomucci, Esq.
          Brian Field, Esq.
          Mark R. Paoletta, Esq.
          Gene C. Schaerr, Esq.
          Cristina Martinez Squiers, Esq.
          SCHAERR JAFFE, L.L.P.
          1717 K Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 787-1060
                     (202) 494-6393

                  - and -

          Robert C. Wiegand, Esq.
          STEWART WIEGAND & OWENS, P.C.
          325 N. Saint Paul Street
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (469) 899-9801

                  - and -

          John Clay Sullivan, Esq.
          SL LAW, P.L.L.C.
          610 Uptown Boulevard
          Cedar Hill, TX 75104
          Telephone: (469) 523-1351

Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee UNITED AIRLINES, INCORPORATED is
represented by:

          Russell Daniel Cawyer, Esq.
          KELLY, HART & HALLMAN, L.L.P.
          201 Main Street
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 878-3562

                  - and -

          Alexander Virgil Maugeri, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          250 Vesey Street
          New York, NY 10281
          Telephone: (212) 326-3880

                  - and -

          Hashim M. Mooppan, Esq.
          Donald James Munro, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 879-3744
                     (202) 879-3939

                  - and -

          Esteban Shardonofsky, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW, L.L.P.
          700 Milam Street
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 225-2300

UNITED SERVICES: Underpays Attendant Care Benefits, Zebley Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM ZEBLEY, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION; USAA
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; and USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY;
Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-12009-DPH-DRG (E.D. Mich., August 1,
2024) is a class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of all
individuals who received allowable expenses in the form of family
provided/non-agency provided attendant care benefits under Mich.
Comp. Laws, the Michigan Automobile No-Fault Insurance Act from
Defendants USAA during the Class period.

According to the Plaintiff, the case only involves the reasonable
value of family provided/non-agency provided attendant care
benefits. There is no issue as to whether the care was reasonably
necessary or related to the motor vehicle accident; whether the
charge was actually incurred, adequately supported or timely filed;
nor any other common defense to a No-Fault claim. To be sure, the
Defendant no-fault insurers have (1) approved all the no-fault
claims for attendant care benefits, (2) for all class members, (3)
for the entirety of the class period, and (4) Defendants have
issued payment on the claims, albeit at an improper and
unreasonably low rate.

However, the Defendants engaged in a systematic underpayment of
family provided/non-agency provided attendant care benefits by
failing to include a premium for overtime, that is time-and-a-half
for hours over 40 in a week, says the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff Adam Zebley is a resident and citizen of Oakland County
Michigan and is providing attendant care benefits to his father,
Jeffrey Zebley.

Based in San Antonio, Texas, United Services Automobile Association
is a reciprocal insurance exchange and thus an unincorporated
association.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Nicholas S. Andrews, Esq.
          LISS & ANDREWS, P.C.
          39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 200
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
          Telephone: (248) 647-9700
          E-mail: nandrews@lissfirm.com

               - and -

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          950 West University Drive, Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
                  dal@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          Robert M. Giroux, Esq.
          GIROUX PAPPAS TRIAL ATTORNEYS, P.C.   
          28588 Northwestern Highway Suite 100
          Southfield, MI 48034
          Telephone: (248) 531-8665
          E-mail: rgiroux@greatmiattorneys.com

UNITED STATES: Perissa Bid to Amend Complaint Denied
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Perissa, et al. v. United
States Polo Association, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-10650-VSB
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Vernon S. Broderick entered an order
denying the Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint.

To the extent that Plaintiff would like to dismiss both Defendants,
the Plaintiff shall file a stipulation of voluntary dismissal with
prejudice.

With regard to the request to amend, the Plaintiff must demonstrate
why it is appropriate to name the two new entities in the currently
filed case as opposed to filing a new action.

In this regard, the Plaintiff should explain what, if any,
relationship there is between the dismissed entities and the two
new entities.

On Jan. 23, 2024, this Court granted USPA and Properties’ request
for a 30-day extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s
Complaint.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WtaHwW at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew J. Zevin, Esq.
          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          Scott G. Braden, Esq.
          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
          1234 Camino del Mar
          Del Mar, CA 92014
          Telephone: (619) 762-1910
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: mattz@lcllp.com
                  todd@lcllp.com
                  scott@lcllp.com
                  gary@lcllp.com

UNITED THERAPEUTICS: Faces RICO Charges in Florida Court
--------------------------------------------------------
United Therapeutics Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2024, that it is facing a class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.

On April 12, 2024, the plaintiffs filed an objection to the
magistrate judge's recommendation recommended dismissal of their
complaint against all defendants in its entirety with prejudice,
and for administrative purposes, issued an order dismissing the
complaint where on May 10, 2024, the company filed a response to
the plaintiffs' objection, as did the other defendants.

In July 2020, MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC; MSPA Claims 1, LLC;
and Series PMPI, a designated series of MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC
filed an initial class action complaint against Caring Voices
Coalition, Inc. (CVC) and the company in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts.

The complaint alleged that the company violated the federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations act (RICO) and
various state laws by coordinating with CVC when making donations
to a PAH fund so that those donations would go towards copayment
obligations for Medicare patients taking drugs manufactured and
marketed by us. Plaintiffs claim to have received assignments from
various Medicare Advantage health plans and other insurance
entities that allow them to bring this lawsuit on behalf of those
entities to recover allegedly inflated amounts they paid for its
drugs.

In April 2021, the court granted the company's motion to transfer
the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida. In October 2021, the company filed a motion for judgment
on the pleadings, seeking to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims in this
litigation. On that same day, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
that includes state antitrust claims. The amended complaint added
MSP Recovery Claims Series 44, LLC as a plaintiff and Smiths
Medical and CVC as defendants. As a result of the amended
complaint, the court ruled that the company's motion for judgment
on the pleadings was moot.

In December 2021, the filed a motion to dismiss all of the
plaintiffs' claims in the amended complaint, including the new
antitrust claims. Smiths Medical also filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' claims against Smiths Medical.

In September 2022, the court dismissed all of the plaintiffs'
claims against the company and Smiths Medical without prejudice. In
October 2022, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking clarification
or reconsideration of the court's order dismissing the complaint
without prejudice and argued that the court should allow the
plaintiffs an opportunity to amend. That same day, the plaintiffs
filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint and attached a
proposed second amended complaint. In addition to the claims
previously asserted, the proposed second amended complaint adds
federal antitrust claims and consumer protection claims under other
states' laws.

The second amended complaint also names Accredo Health Group, CVS
Health Corporation, Express Scripts, Inc., and Express Scripts
Holding company and the Adira Foundation as additional defendants.
In October 2022, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to
amend, and denied as moot plaintiffs' motion seeking clarification.
On that same day, plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint.
The company filed a motion to reconsider the court's decision to
allow plaintiffs to amend their complaint, and that motion was
denied.

In February 2023, plaintiffs moved to supplement their second
amended complaint, but that motion was denied in March 2023.
Plaintiffs have lodged an objection with the court regarding that
ruling, and that objection is pending. In March 2023, the company
filed its motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. That
motion was fully briefed as of June 30, 2023. Said motions to
dismiss are pending with the court.

United Therapeutics Corporation is a biotechnology company focused
on the development and commercialization of innovative products to
address the unmet medical needs of patients with chronic and
life-threatening conditions.


UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Plaintiffs Seek to Seal PHI and PII
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LD, DB, BW, RH, and CJ, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut Corporation,
UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, a California Corporation, and MULTIPLAN,
INC., a New York Corporation, Case No. 4:20-cv-02254-YGR (N.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting the
Parties' undisputed sealing requests.

The Parties seek to seal Patient Health Information (PHI) and
Personal Identifying Information (PII) of the named Plaintiffs and
members of the putative class.

In addition, the Parties respectfully seek to seal documents from
MultiPlan's privilege log that were ordered produced by Magistrate
Judge Spero
.
These documents contain privileged information and communications,
including work-product and attorney consultation and advice.
Plaintiffs do not dispute MultiPlan's request to maintain these
privileged communications under seal.

The Court denied class certification on March 31, 2023, and in the
same order granted some of the parties' sealing requests and denied
other requests without prejudice.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 9, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eKDc7S at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew M. Lavin, Esq.
          ARNALL GOLDEN GREGORY LLP
          1775 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 677-4030
          Facsimile: (202) 677-4031
          E-mail: Matt.Lavin@agg.com

                - and-

          David M. Lilienstein, Esq.
          Katie J. Spielman, Esq.
          DL LAW GROUP
          345 Franklin Street
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 678-5050
          Facsimile: (415) 358-8484
          E-mail: david@dllawgroup.com
                  katie@dllawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Lauren M. Blas, Esq.
          Geoffrey Sigler, 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

UNIVERSITY OF OREGON: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Feb. 3, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Schroeder. et al., v.
University of Oregon, Case No. 6:23-cv-01806 (D. Or., Filed Dec.
01, 2023), Hon. Judge Michael J. Mcshane entered an order on motion
for extension of time:

-- Motion to Certify Class to be filed by:           Feb. 3, 2025

-- Response is due by:                               March 3,
2025

-- Reply is due by:                                  April 11,
2025

-- Discovery is to be completed by:                  April 28,
2025

-- Expert disclosures are due by:                    May 19. 2025

-- Expert Discovery to be completed by:              July 15,
2025

-- Dispositive Motions are due by:                   Sept. 15,
2025

The nature of suit Civil Rights – Education -- Discrimination
Based on Sex or Blindness.

The University of Oregon is a public research university in Eugene,
Oregon. Founded in 1876, the university also has two Portland
locations; the Oregon Institute of Marine Biology in Charleston;
and Pine Mountain Observatory in Central Oregon.[CC]

VALVE CORP: Bid to Seal Class Cert Reply Granted in Wolfire Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wolfire Games LLC, et al.,
v. Valve Corporation (VALVE ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No.
2:21-cv-00563-JCC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John Coughenour
entered an order granting Valve Corporation's motion to seal.

   (1) The unredacted version of Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of
       Motion for Class Certification shall remain under seal.

   (2) The unredacted version of the Declaration of Alicia Cobb in
       Further Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification
       and Appointment of Co-Lead Counsel and in Support of
       Plaintiffs' Opposition to Valve Corporation's Motion to
Exclude
       Testimony of Steven Schwartz shall remain under seal.

   (3) The unredacted versions of these Exhibits to the Cobb Reply

       Declaration.

Valve Corporation is an American video game developer, publisher,
and digital distribution company.

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Blake Marks-Dias, Esq.
          Eric A. Lindberg, Esq.
          CORR CRONIN LLP
          1015 Second Avenue, Floor 10
          Seattle, WA 98104-1001
          Telephone: (206) 625-8600
          Facsimile: (206) 625-0900
          E-mail: bmarksdias@corrcronin.com
                  elindberg@corrcronin.com

                - and -

          Kristen Ward Broz, Esq.
          Nathan M Buchter, Esq.
          FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
          2020 K. St. NW, Ste. 500
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 794-1220
          Facsimile: (202) 461-3102
          E-mail: kbroz@foxrothschild.com
                  nbuchter@foxrothschild.com


          Charles B. Casper, Esq.
          Jessica Rizzo, Esq.
          Peter Breslauer, Esq.
          Robert E. Day, Esq.
          MONTGOMERY McCRACKEN WALKER
          & RHOADS LLP
          1735 Market Street, 21st Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone (215) 772-1500
          E-mail: ccasper@mmwr.com
                  jrizzo@mmwr.com
                  pbreslauer@mmwr.com
                  rday@mmwr.com

VERISK ANALYTICS: Ahringer Securities Suit Stayed
-------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 31, 2024, that on January 30, 2023, plaintiffs
Justin Ahringer and Michael Donner filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court, Central District of
California, titled "Ahringer et al. v. LoanDepot, Inc. and Verisk
Analytics, Inc. d/b/a Jornaya," Case No.: 8:23-cv-00186. The
parties agreed to stay the case and toll all current deadlines to
facilitate settlement negotiations

Plaintiffs assert violations of California's Invasion of Privacy
Act, Unfair Competition Law, and a violation of class members'
privacy rights under the California Constitution. Plaintiffs allege
that the Defendants recorded visitors' electronic communications
without their consent. Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide
class of individuals who provided personal information on their
website's forms to receive a quote or apply for a loan. Plaintiffs
seek compensatory, statutory or punitive damages or restitution, as
well as reasonable attorney's fees and other costs. The company
filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims on April 13, 2023. The
parties engaged in jurisdictional discovery in response to the
court's demand to Plaintiff to demonstrate why this case should not
be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court
found jurisdiction is proper and partially denied our motion on
February 7, 2024. The company filed its Answer to Plaintiffs'
Complaint on February 22, 2024.

Verisk Analytics, Inc. is a strategic data analytics and technology
partner to the global insurance industry by empowering clients to
strengthen operating efficiency, improve underwriting and claims
outcomes, combat fraud and make informed decisions about global
risks, including climate change, extreme events, ESG
(environmental, social, and governance), and political issues
through advanced data analytics, software, scientific research, and
deep industry knowledge.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Faces Cantinieri Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 31, 2024, that on December 15, 2021, plaintiff
Jillian Cantinieri brought a putative class action against Verisk
Analytics, Insurance Services Office and ISO Claims Services, Inc.
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, titled "Cantinieri v. Verisk Analytics Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. 2:21-cv-6911.

The complaint alleges that the company failed to safeguard the
personally identifiable information (PII) of the plaintiff and the
members of the proposed classes from a purported breach of our
databases by unauthorized entities. Plaintiff and class members
allege actual and imminent injuries, including theft of their PII,
fraudulent activity on their financial accounts, lowered credit
scores, and costs associated with detection and prevention of
identity theft and fraud. They seek to recover compensatory,
statutory and punitive damages, disgorgement of earnings and
profits, and attorney's fees and costs.

The company filed its motion to dismiss the claims on April 22,
2022. On March 30, 2023 the court denied the motion to dismiss
without prejudice. The company's renewed motion to dismiss was
fully briefed on February 16, 2024.

Verisk Analytics, Inc. is a strategic data analytics and technology
partner to the global insurance industry by empowering clients to
strengthen operating efficiency, improve underwriting and claims
outcomes, combat fraud and make informed decisions about global
risks, including climate change, extreme events, ESG
(environmental, social, and governance), and political issues
through advanced data analytics, software, scientific research, and
deep industry knowledge.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Mediation on ERISA-Related Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 31, 2024, that a class action complaint alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
filed the United States District Court of New Jersey is pending
mediation. On May 22, 2024, the court granted final approval of the
settlement where the effective date of the settlement was June 21,
2024.

On September 24, 2020, former employees Jillyn Peterson, Gabe Hare,
Robert Heynen and Adam Krajewski, filed Case No.
2:20-cv-13223-CCC-MF against defendants Insurance Services Office
Inc. (ISO), the Plan Administration Committee of Insurance Services
Office Inc. and its members and the Trust Investment Committee of
Insurance Services Office Inc. and its members.

The class is defined as all persons who were participants in or
beneficiaries of the ISO 401(k) Savings and Employee Stock
Ownership Plan, at any time between September 24, 2014 through the
date of judgment. The complaint alleges that all defendants are
fiduciaries with respect to the plan. Plaintiffs challenge the
amount of fees paid by plan participants to maintain the investment
funds in the plan portfolio and the amount of recordkeeper fees
paid by participants. Plaintiffs allege that by permitting the
payment of excessive fees, the defendants breached their ERISA
duties of prudence and loyalty. Plaintiffs further allege that ISO
breached its ERISA duty by failing to monitor the Committee
Defendants who they allege committed known breaches of their
fiduciary duties.

Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the complaint on January
12, 2021, which the court partially denied on April 13, 2021. Fact
discovery has been completed. The court stayed the litigation
pending the outcome of the parties' mediation, but the stay was
lifted on May 5, 2023. The parties engaged in expert discovery, and
this matter was settled before a mediator on October 4, 2023. The
settlement agreement was signed by both parties, and on January 12,
2024, the court granted preliminary approval of class action
settlement.

Verisk Analytics, Inc. is a strategic data analytics and technology
partner to the global insurance industry by empowering clients to
strengthen operating efficiency, improve underwriting and claims
outcomes, combat fraud and make informed decisions about global
risks, including climate change, extreme events, ESG
(environmental, social, and governance), and political issues
through advanced data analytics, software, scientific research, and
deep industry knowledge.


VERVE GROUP: Woods Files Suit in N.D. California
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Verve Group, Inc. The
case is styled as Alex Woods, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Verve Group, Inc., Case No.
5:24-cv-04909 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 8, 2024).

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

Verve Group -- https://verve.com/ -- offers advertising innovation
at scale with full-stack programmatic solutions in brand-safe
environments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rafey Sarkis Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          150 California Street, 18th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 212-9300
          Fax: (415) 373-9435
          Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com


VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY: Bids for Class Cert in Faw Due July 7, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEREDITH FAW, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VILLANOVA
UNIVERSITY, Case No. 2:23-cv-03897-CMR (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
Cynthia Rufe entered the following Scheduling Order to govern
further proceedings in this case:

   1. Initial disclosures shall be made on or before Aug. 22,
2024.

   2. Parties may add or drop claims or parties without leave of
Court
      on or before Aug. 22, 2024.

   3. On or before Nov. 6, 2024, the parties, through counsel,
shall
      jointly report to the Court, in writing, as to whether they
wish
      to have a settlement conference before a magistrate judge,
      attempt mediation under Local Civil Rule 53.3 (a copy of
which
      is attached hereto as Attachment A), or pursue some other
form
      of alternative dispute resolution, for assistance in
resolving
      the case and, if so, indicate by what date they will be
prepared
      to commence such proceedings. This joint report should not be

      filed of record but submitted to Chambers by email to
      Chambers_of_Judge_Cynthia_M_Rufe@paed.uscourts.gov.

   4. Fact discovery shall be completed on or before Feb. 4, 2025.

   5. Plaintiff's expert reports, if any, shall be served on the
      Defendant on or before March 7, 2025.

   6. Defendant's responsive reports, if any, shall be completed
and
      served on Plaintiff on or before Apr. 7, 2025.

   7. All depositions of expert witnesses shall be taken on or
before
      June 6, 2025.

   8. All motions for class certification, summary judgment, or the

      exclusion of experts shall be filed on or before July 7,
2025.  
      Judge Rufe's Policies and Procedures for Summary Judgment
will
      not apply in this case.

Villanova University is a private Catholic research university in
Villanova, Pennsylvania.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PWz1SV at no extra
charge.[CC]

WAKEFERN FOOD CORP: Wilson Files Suit in Conn. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wakefern Food Corp.
The case is styled as Amber Wilson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Wakefern Food Corp., Case No.
HHD-CV24-6189728-S (Conn. Super. Ct., Hartford Cty., Aug. 13,
2024).

The case type is stated as "Misc - All other."

Wakefern Food Corporation -- https://www2.wakefern.com/ -- is an
American company that was founded in 1946 and is based in Keasbey,
New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Dov Levinepstein, Esq.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
          New York, NY 10165


WESTCARE CALIFORNIA: Kourm Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Westcare California,
Inc. The case is styled as Savan Kourm, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Westcare California, Inc., Case
No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0009524 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty.,
Aug. 12, 2024).

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

WestCare -- https://westcare.com/ -- provides a wide spectrum of
health and human services in both residential and outpatient
environments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM
          9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Phone: 949-379-6250
          Fax: (949) 379-6251
          Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com


WESTERN FIRST AID: Brown Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Samantha Shaunee Brown, an individual on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. WESTERN FIRST AID &
SAFETY, a business entity of unknown form; VESTIS CORPORATION, a
business entity of unknown form; VESTIS GROUP, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; KATIE HALL, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 24STCV15418 was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
July 24, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-06238.

The Plaintiff alleges 11 causes of action for violations arising
out of the California Labor Code. These are failure to: Pay Minimum
Wages; Pay Wages and Overtime; Provide Compliant Meal Periods;
Provide Compliant Rest Breaks; Pay Accrued But Unused Vacation
Time; Provide Compliant Wage Statements; Timely Pay Final Wages;
Timely Pay All Wages; Maintain Required Payroll Records; and
Reimburse Business Expenses.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Eric Meckley, Esq.
          Sarah Zenewicz, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One Market
          Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
          Phone: +1.415.442.1000
          Fax: +1.415.442.1001
          Email: eric.meckley@morganlewis.com
                 sarah.zenewicz@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Thomas Duda, Esq.
          1400 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1124
          Phone: +1.650.843.4000
          Fax: +1.650.843.4001
          Email: thomas.duda@morganlewis.com


WILDLY ORGANIC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Knowles Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
CARLTON KNOWLES, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WILDLY ORGANIC LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-05880 (S.D.N.Y., August 2, 2024) is a civil rights
action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://wildlyorganic.com/, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually
impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City
Human Rights Law.

During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on May
25, 2024, in an attempt to purchase the "Organic Walnuts: Raw,
Soaked, and Dried, certified organic walnuts" from Defendant and to
view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered
multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping
experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal
access to the goods and services offered to the public and made
available to the public. By failing to make its website available
in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, the
Defendant deprives Plaintiff and other blind and visually-impaired
individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and
services, says the suit.

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

Wildly Organic LLC is an online store that offers organic and
natural products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Fu Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Malcolm Fu, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC., Case No.
2024-004974-CA was removed from the Circuit Court of the Circuit
Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County,
Florida, to the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on July 23, 2024, and assigned Case No.
8:24-cv-01745-MSS-AEP.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of individuals consisting
of “All persons in Florida who, during the four years prior to
the filing of this lawsuit, was charged by Defendant and paid sales
tax on a delivery fee that was separately stated on an invoice or
receipt when the person had the option to pick up the order at one
of Defendant's locations in Florida.”[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Philip E. Rothschild, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          515 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: 954-525-1000
          Fax: 954-463-2030
          Email: Phil.rothschild@hklaw.com

               - and -

          Benjamin J. Robinson, Esq.
          200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 2600
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Phone: 407-244-5256
          Email: Ben.Robinson@hklaw.com


WILLS EYE HOSPITAL: Rocci Suit Removed to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Lorraine Rocci, Individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. WILLS EYE HOSPITAL, Case No.
240602210 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California on July 23, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-03245-KNS.

The Plaintiff also alleges that WEH employed other trackers –
such as MarketingCloudFX, Google Analytics with Google Tag Manager
(“GTM”), Facebook Events, Microsoft Clarity, and DoubleClick
– which “transmitted Plaintiff’s and the Class Members’
Private Information to third parties” without authorization.
Based on these allegations, Plaintiff brings claims for:
Negligence; Negligence per se; Invasion of Privacy—Intrusion Upon
Seclusion; Invasion of Privacy—Public Disclosure of Private
Facts; Breach of Implied Contract; Unjust Enrichment; Breach of
Fiduciary Duty; Violation of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL); and Violation of
Pennsylvania’s Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control
Act (WESCA).[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Edward J. McAndrew, Esq.
          Nathalie A. Freeman, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          1735 Market Street, Suite 3300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-7501
          Phone: 215.568.3100
          Facsimile: 215.568.3439
          Email: emcandrew@bakerlaw.com
                 nfreeman@bakerlaw.com


WIZARDS OF THE COAST: Milito Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as John Milito, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated v. WIZARDS OF THE COAST LLC, a foreign
limited liability company; HASBRO, INC., a foreign profit
corporation; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities,
Case No. 24-2-13892-7 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of
Washington for King County, to the United States District Court for
the Western District of Washington on July 24, 2024, and assigned
Case No. 2:24-cv-01111.

The Complaint purports to seek relief related to Washington's Equal
Pay and Opportunities Act, which sets out requirements for job
postings. Specifically, the Complaint seeks statutory damages for
alleged violations; injunctive relief; and declaratory relief.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy W. Emery, Esq.
          Patrick B. Reddy, Esq.
          Paul Cipriani, Esq.
          EMERY REDDY, PLLC
          600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 442-9106
          Fax: (206) 441-9711
          Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com
                 reddyp@emeryreddy.com
                 paul@emeryreddy.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Catharine M. Morisset, Esq.
          Ryan Jones, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          1700 7th Avenue, Suite 2200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 682-2308
          Email: cmorisset@fisherphillips.com
                 rrjones@fisherphillips.com


WOMBO STUDIOS: Branson Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Emma Branson, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. WOMBO STUDIOS, INC., Case No.
2024CH00870 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, Chancery Division, to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on July 24, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-06301.

The Complaint, styled as a class action, purports to bring three
claims for violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
Act ("BIPA"). The Plaintiff alleges that Wombo's alleged storage
and use of "Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals'
biometric identifiers and biometric information…without obtaining
the requisite prior informed written consent or publishing the
requisite date retention and destruction policies," violated
BIPA.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Phillip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          Julian Diamond, Esq.
          Matthew Giardi, Esq.
          1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Email: pfraietta@bursor.com
                 jdiamond@bursor.com
                 mgirardi@bursor.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mark S. Eisen, Esq.
          BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP
          71 South Wacker Drive, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 212-4949
          Facsimile: (312) 767-9192
          Email: meisen@beneschlaw.com


WONDERFUL COMPANY: Bocchinfuso Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Gwen Bocchinfuso, and James Brendle individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE WONDERFUL
COMPANY LLC, Case No. MON-L-002057-24 was removed from the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County, to the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey on July 24, 2024, and assigned
Case No. 3:24-cv-08005.

The Complaint alleges a single cause of action for violation of the
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ("NJCFA") relating to alleged
manganese and bacteria contamination in FIJI Water bottled water
(the "Products") marketed and sold by Defendant.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
          SCHMIERER LAW GROUP, LLC
          3000 Atrium Way, Suite 200
          Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
          Phone: (856) 259-4800
          Email: ross@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN
          21031 Ventura Blvd., Suite 340
          Woodland Hills, CA 91364
          Phone: (323) 306-4234
          Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                 abacon@toddflaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Edward J. Fanning, Jr., Esq.
          Ryan M. Savercool, Esq.
          MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
          Four Gateway Center
          100 Mulberry Street
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Phone: (973) 622-4444
          Email: crojao@mccarter.com
                 ghindy@mccarter.com
                 rsavercool@mcccarter.com


WV-AMERICAN WATER CO: Jeffries Securities Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
American Water Works company, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q
report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2024, that on
September 9, 2024, the West Virginia Circuit Court in Kanawha
County heard a class trial on issues relating to duty and breach of
that duty with regards to the Dunbar, West Virginia water main
break incident on the evening of June 23, 2015 where a 36-inch
pre-stressed concrete transmission water main failed. The water
main is part of the West Relay pumping station located in the City
of Dunbar, West Virginia and owned by the company's West Virginia
subsidiary (WVAWC). Mediation is scheduled to take place within
this month.

On June 2, 2017, a complaint captioned "Jeffries, et al. v. West
Virginia-American Water company" was filed in West Virginia Circuit
Court in Kanawha County on behalf of an alleged class of residents
and business owners who lost water service or pressure as a result
of the Dunbar main break. The complaint alleges breach of contract
by WVAWC for failure to supply water, violation of West Virginia
law regarding the sufficiency of WVAWC's facilities and negligence
by WVAWC in the design, maintenance and operation of the water
system. The Jeffries plaintiffs seek unspecified alleged damages on
behalf of the class for lost profits, annoyance and inconvenience,
and loss of use, as well as punitive damages for willful, reckless
and wanton behavior in not addressing the risk of pipe failure and
a large outage.

In February 2020, the Jeffries plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
class certification on the issues of breach of contract and
negligence, and to determine the applicability of punitive damages
and a multiplier for those damages if imposed. In July 2020, the
Circuit Court entered an order granting the Jeffries plaintiffs'
motion for certification of a class regarding certain liability
issues but denying certification of a class to determine a punitive
damages multiplier. In August 2020, WVAWC filed a Petition for Writ
of Prohibition in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia
seeking to vacate or remand the Circuit Court’s order certifying
the issues class. In January 2021, the Supreme Court of Appeals
remanded the case back to the Circuit Court for further
consideration in light of a decision issued in another case
relating to the class certification issues raised on appeal.

On July 5, 2022, the Circuit Court entered an order again
certifying a class to address at trial certain liability issues but
not to consider damages. On August 26, 2022, WVAWC filed another
Petition for Writ of Prohibition in the Supreme Court of Appeals of
West Virginia challenging the West Virginia Circuit Court's July 5,
2022 order, which petition was denied on June 8, 2023. In August
2022, WVAWC filed another Petition for Writ of Prohibition in the
Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia challenging the West
Virginia Circuit Court’s July 2022 order, which petition was
denied on June 8, 2023. By order dated June 28, 2024, the Circuit
Court set a new date of December 3, 2024, for a class trial on
issues relating to duty and breach of that duty. This trial will
not find class-wide or punitive damages.

American Water Works company, Inc. is a water utility company based
in Camden NJ.


XPEL INC: Adishian Sues Over False and Misleading Statements
------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Adishian, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. XPEL, INC., RYAN L. PAPE, AND BARRY R. WOOD, Case No.
5:24-cv-00873 (W.D. Tex., Aug. 8, 2024), is brought on behalf of
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired XPEL
securities between November 8, 2023, and May 2, 2024, inclusive
(the "Class Period") and pursues claims against the Defendants
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") as a
result of the Defendants' materially false and/or misleading
statements.

Throughout the Class Period, XPEL, which supplies automotive paint
protection film, automotive window film, ceramic coatings,
architectural window film products, and related tools and equipment
to support the installation of these products, misled the market to
believe that it would increase its market share penetration by
reaching an increasingly large segment of non enthusiast car
customers, which would, in turn, grow its revenue by a substantial
percentage in 2023 and 2024. In reality, XPEL knew that its
competitors encroached on its market share, undermining its growth.
When the truth reached the market, XPEL's stock price suffered
significant declines, harming investors.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose that:
XPEL's competitors were siphoning an increasingly large segment of
the market; as a result, the Company's revenue growth became
increasingly dependent upon existing customers and partners; as a
result, the Company's revenue growth for 2023 and 2024 dwindled;
and as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On May 2, 2024, the Company announced its first quarter 2024
financial results, reporting only 5% revenue growth year-over-year
— well below analyst expectations. On this news, XPEL's stock
price fell $20.93, or nearly 39%, to close at $32.86 per share on
May 2, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume., says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased XPEL securities during the Class Period.

XPEL is a provider of protective films and coatings, including
automotive paint protection films, surface protection films,
automotive and architectural window films, and ceramic
coatings.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cameron Cano, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          7718 Wood Hollow Drive, Suite 105
          Austin, TX 78731
          Phone: (737) 843-2007
          Email: ccano@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq.
          Jonathan Zimmerman, Esq.
          Nicholas S. Bruno, Esq.
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Phone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          Email: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
                 jzimmerman@scott-scott.com
                 nbruno@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Schall, Esq.
          THE SCHALL LAW FIRM
          2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 301-3335
          Facsimile: (310) 388-0192
          Email: brian@schallfirm.com


YELP INC: Weingrad Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yelp, Inc. The case
is styled as Leon Weingrad, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Yelp, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01330-YK
(M.D. Pa., Aug. 7, 2024).

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

Yelp Inc. -- https://www.yelp.com/ -- is an American company that
develops the Yelp.com website and the Yelp mobile app, which
publishes crowd-sourced reviews about businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Phone: (615) 485-0018
          Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com


YOGI NJ LLC: Cheli Sues Over Inaccessible Properties
----------------------------------------------------
Charlene Cheli, an individual, on his own behalf and on the behalf
of all other similarly situated v. YOGI NJ LLC, a New Jersey
Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:24-cv-08027 (D.N.J., July 25,
2024), is brought for injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees,
litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the New Jersey Law Against
Discrimination ("LAD").

The Defendant's property is a fast-food restaurant – known as
Dunkin' Donuts – located at 10 Landis Ave, Upper Deerfield, NJ
08302 (the "Property" or "Dunkin'"). The Plaintiff has visited the
Property on several occasions both as a patron and to inspect the
Property; his last visit as a patron occurred on July 12, 2024. Ms.
Cheli visited the Property as a bone fide patron with the intent to
avail herself of the goods and services offered to the public
within but found that the Property was rife with violations of the
ADA–both in architecture and in policy.

The Plaintiff personally encountered exposure to architectural
barriers and otherwise harmful conditions that have endangered his
safety during his visits to the Property. The ADA has been law for
over 30 years and yet the Property remains non-compliant. Thus, the
Plaintiff has actual notice and reasonable grounds to believe that
he will continue to be subjected to discrimination by the
Defendant, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is mobility impaired (and having to fully rely on the
use of her wheelchair to ambulate).

YOGI NJ LLC, owns and/or operates a place of public accommodation,
in this instance a fast-food restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq.
          SHADINGER LAW, LLC
          717 E. Elmer Street, Suite 7
          Vineland, NJ 08360
          Phone: (609) 319-5399
          Email: js@shadingerlaw.com



                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***