---

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

              Wednesday, September 25, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 193

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Firefighters Exposed to Toxic Chemicals, Sheppard Says
3M COMPANY: Firefighters Exposed to Toxic Chemicals, Shulman Says
3M COMPANY: Firefighters Exposed to Toxic Chemicals, Stroh Says
3M COMPANY: Firefighters Exposed to Toxic Chemicals, Turner Says
A.T.N. INC: Faces De La Cruz Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Nguyen Sues over Unlawful Info Disclosure
AGENUS INC: Olsen Sues Over 58.83% Drop in Share Price
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Stores' Sale Prices "False," Hassan Alleges
ALDI INC: Product's 100% Pure Avocado Oil Label "False," Frost Says
ALLARITY THERAPEUTICS: Faces Mukeljic Suit Over Stock Price Drop

ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Shannon
ALLY BANK: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Owens Suit Says
AMC NETWORKS INC: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Settlement in Ismael Suit Gets Initial OK
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Scanlan Suit

AMERICAN HOME: Has Until Oct. 21 to Respond to Robertson Class Suit
ANDY MACMILLAN: Dickerson Class Suit Dismissed with Leave to Amend
ANIMAL DOCTOR: Mismanages Profit Sharing Plan, Paszkiet Says
APPLE INC: Costa Suit Seeks to Seal Class Cert Documents
ARISTON FLORIST: Picon Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers

ASR GROUP: Faces Suit Over Granulated Sugar Price Monopoly
AVIAT NETWORKS: Johnson Fistel Probes Securities Law Violations
AVIS RENT: Pestano Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Customers' Info
BAI BRANDS: Civil Case Management Plan Entered in Kouyate Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Nelson Seeks Initial Approval of Settlement

BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks Leave to File Sur-Reply in Tristan Suit
BANK OF NEW YORK: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid
BASSFORD REMELE: Dingmann Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
BIOTE CORP: Koontz Suit Removed to S.D. West Virginia
BK EXOTIC: Igartua Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website

BLUEBIRD BIO INC: Continues to Defend Gill Class Suit in MA
BOJANGLES OPCO: Collective Action Gets Partial Conditional Status
BOZZUTO'S INC: Loiseau Suit Seeks to Seal Declarations
BRAVO EXPRESS: Theodore Sues Over Unpaid Wages
BRIDGESTONE RETAIL: Bid to Dismiss Amended Consentino Suit Denied

BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Martin Seeks Sealing of Class Cert Bid
BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Martin Suit Seeks to Certify Class
BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Martin Wins Bid for Class Certification
BROAD RIVER: Honeycutt Sues Over Breach of Provider Agreement
BROOKLYN BEDDING: Fact Discovery in Phillips Due Dec. 4

CALIFORNIA UNITED: Class Settlement in Alcazar Suit Gets Final Nod
CENTRAL BANK: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Rutherford Suit Denied
CHARLES RIVER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rhone Alleges
CHILD DEVELOPMENT: Court Closes Amended Gambill Class Complaint
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Beckford Suit Removed From Sup. Ct. to N.D. Cal.

CHINESE AMERICAN: Faces Estevez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
CHURCH & DWIGHT: Goodman Sues Over Mislabeled Condom Products
CIB WIRE: Fails to Properly Pay Fabricators, Padilla Suit Alleges
CLOOPEN GROUP: Court Dismisses Dong Securities Suit
CNBC LLC: Court Refuses to Dismiss Nino Suit Over VPPA Violations

COINBASE GLOBAL: Seeks to Strike Pearl Class Allegations
COSMED GROUP: Morton and Keller Suit Removed to W.D. Pa.
CREDIT ONE BANK: McCrackin Sues Over Unlawful Debt Communication
CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April, 4, 2025
DAILY CALLER: Discloses Video Buying Habits to Meta, Penning Says

DARREN INDYKE: Bensky Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
DAVEK ACCESSORIES: Ortiz Sues Over Blind's Access to Online Store
DELAWARE NORTH: Hookano Suit Removed from Sup. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
DEVRY UNIVERSITY: Brown Seeks Student Support Advisors' Unpaid OT
DIRECTTOU LLC: Removes To Class Suit to N.D. Cal.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Court Grants in Part Pappas' Bid for Notice
DMS OPERATING: Franklin Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Lead Testers
DRIFTWOOD ASSOCIATES: Disabled Can't Access Property, Feltzin Says
EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Settles Securities Class Suit for $40-Mil.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Rangel Stayed Pending Arbitration Completion

FINANCIAL EDUCATION: Rule 11 Sanctions Denied in Cofer Class Suit
FIRST SOURCE: N.D. New York Denies Bid to Dismiss Hayes Class Suit
FITNESS INTERNATIONAL: Diaz Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
FLUX POWER: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
FOR LIFE: Plaintiffs Seek to File Experts' Declarations Under Seal

GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Trauernicht's Bid to Nix Expert Opinions Denied
GKN DRIVELINE: Carson Seeks Conditional Status of Collective Action
GLOBAL EXCHANGE: Court Extends Deadline to File Class Cert Bid
GMRI INC: Seeks Stay of Briefing on Bid for Conditional Status
GOOGLE LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Consumer Suit Due Nov. 8

GREENWICH HOMECARE: Shorter Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
GROOMIT FOR PETS: Agostini Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
GROUNDWORKS FRS: Human Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
HANDI-FOIL CORP: Court Grants Hood Leave to Amend Class Complaint
HAWX SERVICES LLC: Diaz Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.

HEADLESS WIDOW: Conditional Collective Cert. Bid Due Oct. 25
HEALTHEQUITY INC: Vent Files Suit in D. Utah
HERSHA HOSPITALITY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Gomberg Says
HOME DEPOT: Eisele Loses Bid to Remand Case to Circuit Court
HOME DEPOT: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Picon Suit Says

HORIZON HEALTH: Patients Appeal Class Certification Bid Denial
HOSPITAL SISTERS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Wade Alleges
HOSPITAL SISTERS: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Avery Says
HOSPITAL SISTERS: McCoy Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach
IBM: Burgard Seeks Conditional Certification of Collective Action

ILLINOIS BONE: Faces Phelps Suit Over Clients' Compromised Info
IMS FUND: Scheduling Order in Cardenas Class Action Entered
JEFFERSON COUNTY, NY: M.C.'s Consent Decree Has Final Approval
JOHN B. STETSON: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Herrera Says
JOHN'S PANINI: Shalto Sues Over Discrimination on Premises

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Cert Discovery Extended to Jan. 17, 2025
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Girgis Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
JOHNSON AND JOHNSON: Montenegro Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
JOSEPH PAPA: SMF Not Allowed to Opt Out of Roofer Action
KATZ NANNIS: Godbee Sues Over Failure to Protect Sensitive Data

KEMPER SPORTS: Getzinger Sues Over Customers' Compromised Info
KING'S COLLEGE: M.D. Pennsylvania Refuses to Dismiss Dantone Suit
KLAP6 TECHNOLOGIES: Machado Suit Removed to S.D. California
KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Seeks to Continue Deadline to File Reply
LAKEVIEW HEALTH: Hurley Suit Removed to M.D. Florida

LANCASTER GENERAL: Class Cert Oral Argument Set for Oct. 8
LATOYA HUGHES: Brozak Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
LEAF HOME: Loses Bid to Dismiss Lirones TCPA Class Suit
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Parties Seek Extension of Class Cert Deadlines
LIGHTFIRE PARTNERS: Seeks Reconsideration of August 30 Order

LOVESAC COMPANY: Proposes $615,000 Securities Class Settlement
MADISONVILLE HEALTH: Wedding Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MAGELLAN HEALTH: Court Grants Deakin's Bid for Summary Judgment
MARSH & McLENNAN: Bid to Strike Bohnak's Class Allegations Granted
MARYLAND: Parties in Connor Seek More Time to File Class Cert Reply

MAXLINEAR INC: Bid to Dismiss Water Island Securities Suit Granted
MAZDA MOTOR: Class Settlement in Vance Gets Partial OK
MD NOW MEDICAL: Herman Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
MERCK SHARP: Court Grants Baltimore's Bid to Amend Complaint
MERIDIAN SERVICES: Hagen Suit Seeks Case Managers' Unpaid Overtime

MIGUEL GOMEZ: Judge Recommends Denial of Bryant Class Cert Bid
MIGUEL PAREDES: Plan Participant Class Wins Certification
MIKE BLOOMBERG: Appeals Court Order in Wood FLSA Suit to 2nd Cir.
MJ FOOTWEAR: Agnone Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
NATURE'S PATH: Bid to Dismiss Miller Class Action Tossed

NAVARRO HOSPITAL: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Kelly Says
NEW YORK CITY: Bid for Summary Judgment in CIDNY v. MTA Denied
NEW YORK CITY: Bid to Enforce Accords in Taxis v. Comm'n Granted
NEW YORK LIFE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Prosser Alleges
NEW YORK, NY: Violates Protestors' Rights, Friedland Suit Claims

NEW YORK: Burns Files Suit in N.D. New York
NEXGEN INTERIOR: Banks Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
NORDSTROM INC: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration; McGee Suit Stayed
OKLAHOMA STUDENT: Wins Bid to Modify Protective Order in Carr Suit
OLD NATIONAL: Galindo Hits Unfair Overdraft Fee Charges

ONLY WHAT YOU NEED: Fagnani Hits Blind-Inaccessible Website
OREGON: Foster Care Youth Testify in Class Settlement Hearing
ORTHOFIX MEDICAL: O'Hara Alleges False Registration Statements
OS RESTAURANT: Wins Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Guerra Suit
PAC HOUSING: Hills Seeks to Expedite Resolution of Extension Bid

PARKER PLASTICS: Underpays Quality Control Staff, Generose Alleges
PENNEY OPCO: Must Oppose Arguelles Class Cert Bid by Oct. 22
PETCO ANIMAL: Frost Sues Over Disabled's Equal Access to Website
PIEDMONT HEALTHCARE: Wins Bid to Dismiss Amended T.D. Complaint
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Thurston Seeks OK of Amended Class Cert Bid

R&L CARRIERS: Removes Vazquez Suit to C.D. Calif.
R.C. BIGELOW: Newton Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge
RBS CITIZENS: Plaintiffs Can Send Notice to PMWA Subclasses Members
REDFIN CORP: Court Extends Stay in Jutla, et. al Lawsuit
RETAIL DATA LLC: Pyatte Files Suit in E.D. Virginia

ROYAL GUARDS: Aghatise Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class Action
RSCR CALIFORNIA: Delgado Suit Removed to C.D. California
RUSSELL INVESTMENTS: Court Approves New Deadlines in Wanek Suit
SAINT ELIZABETH: Faces Laws Suit Over Inflated Hospital Bills
SALEM HEALTH: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss M.R. Class Suit

SAVOYA LLC: Class Action Discovery Stayed Pending Bid to Dismiss
SCIENCE 37: Masserman Sues Over Mandatory Vaccination Policy
SELECTQUOTE INC: Opposition Reply on Bid to Dismiss Due Nov. 1
SNOWFLAKE INC: NYC Funds Named as Lead Plaintiff in Flannery Suit
SOLID WASTE: Herrington Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Drivers

STEEL DYNAMICS: N.D. Indiana OK's Bid to Dismiss Baird ERISA Suit
SUNDT CONSTRUCTION: Underpays Construction Workers, Enriquez Claims
SWEET BASIL: Fails to Pay Chefs' Proper Wages, Liu Suit Says
TEACHERS INSURANCE: Spohnheimer Sues Over Failure to Secure PII
TECHNICAL RESPONSE: Laboy Balks at Mass Layoff Without Notice

TECO ENERGY: M.D. Florida Grants Bid to Dismiss Roche ERISA Suit
TELEPERFORMANCE SE: Court Refuses to Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
TEMECULA VALLEY: L.R. Sues Over Failure to Provide Equal Access
TEN OAKS: Layoffs Employees Without Advance Notice, Munro Suit Says
TEQUESTA MALL LLC: Feltzin Sues Over Denial of Access to Property

TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Seek OK of Settlement
THERAPYMATCH INC: Court Narrows Claims in M.G. Data Privacy Suit
THOMSON REUTERS: Jackson Suit Removed to N.D. West Virginia
TJAR GROUP: Pacheco Seeks Unpaid Wages for Construction Workers
TRANSCORE LP: Court Grants in Part Bids to Dismiss Thomas Suit

TRIDENT RESTORATION: Ortega Seeks to Certify Class of Workers
TRTCLE CORP: Discloses Video Buying Habits to Meta, Comarow Claims
TWITTER INC: Seeks to Maintain Portions of Exhibits Under Seal
TWITTER INC: Zeman Suit Seeks to Conditionally Certify Class
TYSON FOODS: Seeks More Time to Respond to Pearson Class Cert Bid

UNITED 1ST: Sends Unsolicited Telephone Sales Calls, Ownby Claims
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Non-Dispositive Bids Referred to Mag. Judge
UNITED MORTGAGE: Bid to Deny Class Cert Should Be OK'd, Court Says
UNITED ROAD: Class Action Settlement in Sales Suit Gets Final Nod
UNITED STATES: Burton Seeks to Certify Class of Vietnam Veterans

UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO: Bid for Class Cert Due Nov. 21
UNIVERSITY OF SCRANTON: Nouri Seeks Initial Approval of Settlement
UPPER ECHELON: Ortiz Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
USAA FEDERAL: Solana Sues Over Failure to Protect Customers' Info
VALVE CORP: Time to Respond to Elliott Complaint Moved to Oct. 15

VERISOURCE SERVICES: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Fay Suit Claims
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Parker Sues Over BIPA Violations
VERTIV CORP: Class Settlement Order Entered in Torok Suit
VERTIV CORP: Initial Disclosures in Torok Due Sept. 25
W6LS INC: Faces Nash Suit Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls

WALMART INC: Artistic Industries Sues Over Organized Retail Crime
WALMART INC: Imposes Unlawful Tobacco Surcharges, Cunningham Says
WALMART INC: McLean Sues Over Unsafe Apple Juice Products
WARNER BROS: Visually Impaired Can't Access Website, Herrera Says
WATSON CLINIC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Viviani Alleges

WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Faces Class Suit Over Foreclosure Sale Profits
WEATHERMAN INC: Ortiz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
WELLPATH LLC: Faling-Davis Suit Set for Scheduling Conference
WELLS FARGO: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Perez Due April 30, 2025
WESTERN REFINING: Parties Must Confer Class Action Worksheet

WORLDPAC INC: Application to Briefly Continue Deadlines Tossed
WORLDPAC INC: Parties Seek to Continue Class Cert Deadlines
WYETH INC: Class Action Settlement in PDCI Gets Final Nod
WYNDHAM VACATION: Kirchner Suit Loses Class Certification Bid
YOUNG ADULT: Bose Class Suit Stayed Pending Mediation

ZULILY LLC: Smith Sues Over WARN Act Violation

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Firefighters Exposed to Toxic Chemicals, Sheppard Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALAN SHEPPARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.;
ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY;
CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS,
INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE
NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; NATION
FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS,
LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY,
LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-04991-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 12, 2024) is an action resulting
from Plaintiff's exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), which includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.

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

The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the
Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants'
instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and dermal absorption of PFAS
from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein, says
the suit.

3M Company conducts operations in electronics, telecommunications,
industrial, consumer and office, health care, safety, and other
markets. The Company businesses share technologies, manufacturing
operations, marketing channels, and other resources. 3M serves
customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
          THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
          600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone (305) 375-0111
          Email: james@ferrarolaw.com

3M COMPANY: Firefighters Exposed to Toxic Chemicals, Shulman Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SHULMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB
GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCT USA, INC.;
INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC INC.; L.N. CURTIS
& SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY
APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION
FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE
PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING
CO., INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SOUTHERN
MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES,
INC.; and WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-04979-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 12, 2024) is an action resulting
from Plaintiff's exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), which includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.

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

The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the
Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants'
instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and dermal absorption of PFAS
from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein, says
the suit.

3M Company conducts operations in electronics, telecommunications,
industrial, consumer and office, health care, safety, and other
markets. The Company businesses share technologies, manufacturing
operations, marketing channels, and other resources. 3M serves
customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
          Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
          Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
          Yahn Olson, Esq.
          ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
          2160 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 328-9200
          Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
          Email: Gary@elglaw.com

3M COMPANY: Firefighters Exposed to Toxic Chemicals, Stroh Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
MORGAN STROH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffv.3M COMPANY (f/k/a MinnesotaMining and
Manufacturing Company);AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.;AMEREX
CORPORATION;ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION;ARCHROMA U.S.,
INC.;ARKEMA INC.;BASF CORPORATION;BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY;CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICASCORP., INC.;CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION;CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.;CHEMGUARD INC.;CHEMICALS,
INC.;CLARIANT CORPORATION;CORTEVA, INC.;DEEPWATER CHEMICALS,
INC.;DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.DYNAX CORPORATION;E. I. DUPONT DE
NEMOURS ANDCOMPANY;MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY,LLC;NATION FORD
CHEMICAL COMPANY;NATIONAL FOAM, INC.;PERIMETER SOLUTIONS,
LP;RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIESCORPORATION;ROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY,
LTD.;THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS, LP;and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20,Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-04960-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 12, 2024)is an action resulting
from Plaintiff's exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), which includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.

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

The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the
Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants'
instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and dermal absorption of PFAS
from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein, says
the suit.

3M Company conducts operations in electronics, telecommunications,
industrial, consumer and office, health care, safety, and other
markets. The Company businesses share technologies, manufacturing
operations, marketing channels, and other resources. 3M serves
customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
          THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
          600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone (305) 375-0111
          Email: james@ferrarolaw.com

3M COMPANY: Firefighters Exposed to Toxic Chemicals, Turner Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ARDEN TURNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.;
ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY;
CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS,
INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE
NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; NATION
FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS,
LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY,
LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-04982-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 12, 2024) is an action resulting
from Plaintiff's exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), which includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.

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

The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the
Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants'
instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and dermal absorption of PFAS
from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.

3M Company conducts operations in electronics, telecommunications,
industrial, consumer and office, health care, safety, and other
markets. The Company businesses share technologies, manufacturing
operations, marketing channels, and other resources. 3M serves
customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
          THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
          600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone (305) 375-0111
          Email: james@ferrarolaw.com

A.T.N. INC: Faces De La Cruz Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO DE LA CRUZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A.T.N. INCORPORATED, LAWN RAIDERS,
INC., BARRY ROSE and TREVOR ROSE, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-06301
(E.D.N.Y., Sept. 9, 2024) is a wage and hour suit against the
Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the New York Labor Law and the supporting New York State Department
of Labor Regulations, and the New York State Human Rights Law.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to pay overtime
compensation, failure to provide a written notice upon hire,
failure to furnish an accurate statement of his wages, and
engagement in discriminatory conduct because he was disabled and/or
perceived to be disabled.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a laborer from in
or about July 2018 to in or about June 2024.

A.T.N. Inc. provides landscaping services for Fairfield Properties,
one of the largest owners of rental communities across Long Island,
with approximately 200 properties in Nassau, Suffolk and
Queens.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC
          490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Telephone: (631) 257-5588
          E-mail: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Nguyen Sues over Unlawful Info Disclosure
--------------------------------------------------------------
LILY NGUYEN, EMZORA MITCHELL and FRANK ORTEGA, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ABBOTT
LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-08289 (N.D. Ill.,
September 11, 2024) seeks to address Defendant's illegal and
widespread practice of disclosing its customers' confidential
personally identifiable information and protected health to
unauthorized third parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a
Meta and Google LLC, without consent, through the use of tracking
software that is embedded in Defendant's website for its Freestyle
Libre products.

By installing tracking tools, including the Pixel, on its website,
the Defendant effectively planted a bug on Plaintiffs' and Class
Members' web browsers that caused their communications with
Defendant to be intercepted, accessed, viewed and captured by third
parties in real time. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs assert claims for
negligence and for violations of the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act.

Headquartered in Illinois, Abbott manufactures and sells medical
devices and health care equipment worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Matthew J. Langley, Esq.
         David S. Almeida, Esq.
         Britany Kabakov, Esq.
         ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
         849 W Webster Avenue
         Chicago, IL 60614
         Telephone: (312) 576-3024
         E-mail: matt@almeidalawgroup.com
                 david@almeidalawgroup.com
                 britany@almeidalawgroup.com

                 - and -

         David DiSabato, Esq.
         Tyler Bean, Esq.
         SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
         745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
         New York, NY 10151
         Telephone: (929) 677-5144
         E-mail: ddisabato@sirillp.com
                 tbean@sirillp.com

AGENUS INC: Olsen Sues Over 58.83% Drop in Share Price
------------------------------------------------------
BYRON OLSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AGENUS INC., GARO H. ARMEN, CHRISTINE M.
KLASKIN, and STEVEN J. O'DAY, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-12299-AK
(D. Mass., Sept. 6, 2024) is a federal securities class action on
behalf of the Plaintiff and a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired
Agenus securities between January 23, 2023 and July 17, 2024, both
dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.

The Company is developing balstilimab, an anti-PD-1 antagonist that
has completed a Phase 2 clinical trial to treat second line
cervical cancer; and botensilimab (AGEN1181), an antigen 4 (CTLA-4)
blocking antibody that is in a Phase 2 clinical trial for the
treatment of pancreatic cancer and melanoma. Agenus has focused on
the development of the "botensilimab/balstilimab combination," the
Company's investigational therapy for the treatment of patients
with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
the combination therapy of botensilimab and balstilimab was less
effective than Defendants had led investors to believe; (ii)
accordingly, botensilimab and balstilimab's clinical results, as
well as their regulatory and commercial prospects, were overstated;
and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times, says the
suit.

On this news, Agenus's stock price fell $10.43 per share, or
58.83%, to close at $7.30 per share on July 18, 2024.

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

Agenus Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company that
discovers and develops immune-oncology products in the U.S. and
internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Emily C. Finestone, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
          E-mail: efinestone@pomlaw.com
                  jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com

               - and -

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

ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Stores' Sale Prices "False," Hassan Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NAZZY HASSAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:24-cv-01562-IM (D. Ore., September 16, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendant for violation of Oregon's Unlawful
Trade Practices Act, fraud and unjust enrichment or restitution.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged practice of deceiving
consumers, including the Plaintiff, into believing they are
receiving a bargain on their online purchases to induce them into
making a purchase they otherwise would not have made. According to
the complaint, the Defendant employs inflated, fictitious reference
prices for the sole purpose of increasing its sales. As a result of
the 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.

Albertsons Companies, Inc. is an operator of supermarket chain with
its principal place of business in Boise, Idaho. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Stanton R. Gallegos, Esq.
       Jermaine F. Brown, Esq.
       MARKOWITZ HERBOLD PC
       1455 SW Broadway, Suite 1900
       Portland, OR 97201
       Telephone: (503) 295-3085
       Email: StantonGallegos@MarkowitzHerbold.com
              JermaineBrown@MarkowitzHerbold.com

               - and -
  
       Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
       BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
       1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
       Walnut Creek, CA 94596
       Telephone: (925) 300-4455
       Email: ndeckant@bursor.com

               - and -

       Stephen A. Beck, Esq.
       701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420
       Miami, FL 33131
       Telephone: (305) 330-5512
       Email: sbeck@bursor.com

               - and -

       Matthew Girardi, Esq.
       Julian Diamond, Esq.
       1330 Avenue of the Americas, Floor 32
       New York, NY 10019
       Telephone: (646) 837-7150
       Email: mgirardi@bursor.com
              jdiamond@bursor.com

ALDI INC: Product's 100% Pure Avocado Oil Label "False," Frost Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MAGGIE FROST, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALDI INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07095
(S.D.N.Y., September 18, 2024) is a class action against the
Defendant for violations of New York's General Business Law, breach
of express warranty, and fraud.

The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Simply Nature
100% Pure Avocado Oil. The Defendants represents that the product
is "100% Pure Avocado Oil." However, unbeknownst to consumers, the
product is adulterated with other oils. As a result of the
Defendant's misrepresentations, the Plaintiff and Class members
paid a premium price for the product.

Aldi Inc. is a retail company headquartered in Batavia, Illinois.
[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
       Email: ndeckant@bursor.com

ALLARITY THERAPEUTICS: Faces Mukeljic Suit Over Stock Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------------------
OSMAN MUKELJIC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ALLARITY THERAPEUTICS, INC., THOMAS JENSEN, JAMES G.
CULLEM, STEVE R. CARCHEDI, JOAN Y. BROWN, and JENS ERIK KNUDSEN,
Case No. 1:24-cv-06952 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 13, 2024) is a federal
securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons and entities other than the Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Allarity securities between May 17, 2022 and
July 19, 2024, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages
caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws
and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the
Defendants had overstated the Dovitinib NDA's continued regulatory
prospects; (ii) Allarity and three of its former officers had
engaged in illegal, illicit, and/or otherwise improper conduct in
connection with the Dovitinib NDA and/or the Dovitinib-DRP PMA; and
(iii) the foregoing misconduct subjected the Company to an
increased risk of regulatory and/or governmental scrutiny and
enforcement action, as well as significant legal, monetary, and
reputational harm, the suit contends.

On April 2, 2021, Allarity A/S announced that it had submitted the
Dovitinib-DRP PMA to the FDA.

On Aug. 2, 2022, during pre-market hours, Allarity issued a press
release disclosing that it would no longer seek approval of
Dovitinib as a monotherapy following additional communications with
the FDA.

Then, on Feb. 6, 2023, during pre-market hours, Allarity filed a
current report on Form 8-K with the SEC disclosing that the SEC was
investigating the Company for potential violations of the federal
securities laws in connection with the Company's disclosures
regarding the Dovitinib NDA and/or the Dovitinib-DRP PMA.

Despite the foregoing declines in Allarity's stock price on June
30, 2022, August 2, 2022, and February 6, 2023 the Company's
securities continued trading at artificially inflated prices
throughout the remainder of the Class Period because of the
Defendants' continued misstatements and/or omissions regarding
Allarity and its former officers' illegal, illicit, and/or
otherwise improper conduct in connection with the Dovitinib NDA
and/or the Dovitinib-DRP PMA, the suit asserts.

On July 22, 2024, during pre-market hours, Allarity filed a current
report on Form 8-K with the SEC, disclosing that it had received a
Wells Notice from the SEC's staff "relating to the Company's
previously disclosed SEC investigation."

On this news, Allarity's stock price fell $0.004 per share, or
2.38%, to close at $0.164 per share on July 22, 2024.

The Plaintiff acquired Allarity securities at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation
of the alleged corrective disclosures.

Allarity is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that
develops oncology therapeutics using drug-specific companion
diagnostics generated by its Drug Response Predictor
technology.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          James M. LoPiano, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  jlopiano@pomlaw.com

ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Shannon
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANNON, et al., v.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00448-ADA (W.D. Tex.),
the Hon. Judge Alan Albright entered an order adopting the Report
and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Mark Lane.

The report recommends the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
be granted, and the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification be
denied.

Regarding the Motion for Summary Judgment, the Plaintiff filed
objections on Aug. 21, 2024.

The Court has conducted a de novo review of the motion for summary
judgment, the responses, the report and recommendation, the
objection to the report and recommendation, and the applicable
laws. After that thorough review, the Court is persuaded that the
Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendation should be adopted.

Regarding the Motion to Certify Class, the Plaintiff filed
objections on Feb. 15, 2024. The Court has conducted a de novo
review of the motion, the responses, the report and recommendation,
the objection to the report and recommendation, and the applicable
laws.

After that thorough review, the Court is persuaded that the
Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendation should be adopted.

Allstate offers insurance for your car, home, rental, motorcycle
and more.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1TqD8P at no extra
charge.[CC]

ALLY BANK: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Owens Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------
SEBESTIAN OWENS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALLY BANK and ALLY FINANCIAL INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00811 (W.D.N.C., Sept. 7, 2024) is a
class action arising out of the data breach wherein an unauthorized
actor accessed Defendants' computer systems that they discovered on
July 17, 2024.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint against the Defendants for
their failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally
identifiable information that they collected and maintained as part
of their customer relationship with Plaintiff and Class Members.
Upon information and belief, such sensitive information includes,
but is not limited to, Plaintiff's and Class Members' names and
Social Security numbers.

According to the complaint, the data breach was a direct result of
Ally's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security
procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' PII. As
a result of the data breach, Plaintiff and Class Members are now at
a current, imminent, and ongoing risk of fraud and identity theft.
The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and for years into the
future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against
identity theft. Due to Ally's unreasonable and inadequate data
security practices, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered
numerous actual and concrete injuries and damages, the suit
alleges.

Ally Bank offers online-only financial services, including
banking.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Wilkerson, Esq.
          THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
          11 N. Market Street
          Asheville, NC 28801
          Telephone: (828) 258-2991
          E-mail: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com

               - and -

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

AMC NETWORKS INC: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edery Herrera, for himself and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, v. AMC NETWORKS INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-07055
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 17, 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://bbcamerica.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 the
computer.

AMC NETWORKS INC., operates the BBC America online retail store, as
well as the BBC America 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
                 dana@gottlieb.legal


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Settlement in Ismael Suit Gets Initial OK
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Essameldin Ismail v.
American Airlines, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01111-KK-JPR (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Kenly Kiya Kato entered an order as follows:

   1. The Court preliminarily finds the terms of the settlement
      agreement are fair, adequate, and reasonable.

   2. The Court conditionally certifies the settlement class as
      defined in the settlement agreement.

   3. The Court approves the form, substance, and requirements of
the
      class notice attached to the settlement agreement, as well as

      the procedures set forth in the settlement agreement for
      requesting exclusion from or objecting to the settlement.

   4. The Court appoints Phoenix Settlement Administrators as
      settlement administrator.

   5. No later than October 1, 2024, Defendant shall provide the
class
      member list to Phoenix Settlement Administrators as provided
in
      the settlement agreement. No later than ten days after
receipt
      of the class member list, Phoenix Settlement Administrators
      shall complete dissemination of class notice in accordance
with
      the settlement agreement.

   6. Plaintiff shall file a motion for attorney's fees and costs,
as
      well as any incentive payment, no later than October 24,
2024,
      and notice the motion for hearing on the date of the final
      approval hearing set forth below.

   7. Any class member who wishes to object to the settlement,
      including the requested attorney's fees, costs, and/or
incentive
      award, must file their objection to the settlement no later
than
      November 21, 2024.

   8. Plaintiff shall file a motion for final approval of the
      settlement and a response to any objection(s) to the
settlement
      no later than December 5, 2024, and notice the motion for
      hearing on the date of the final approval hearing set forth
      below.

   9. Defendant may file and serve a memorandum in support of final

      approval of the settlement and/or in response to any
      objection(s) to the settlement no later than December 12,
2024.

American Airlines is a major airline in the United States
headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2Qv1jh at no extra
charge.[CC]

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Scanlan Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Harvey Bartle, III, of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania grants the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' request for liquidated damages
in the lawsuit styled JAMES P. SCANLAN, et al. v. AMERICAN AIRLINES
GROUP, INC., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-04040-HB (E.D. Pa.).

Plaintiff James P. Scanlan, an American Airlines pilot and retired
Major General in the United States Air Force Reserve, and Carla
Riner, an American Airlines pilot and a Brigadier General in the
Delaware Air National Guard, have brought this class action against
Defendants American Airlines Group, Inc., and American Airlines,
Inc., under the Uniformed Services Employment & Reemployment Rights
Act, 38 U.S.C. Section 4301, et seq. ("USERRA") and for breach of
the profit sharing plan initiated and established by the
Defendants.

The second amended complaint alleges that the Defendants violated
Section 4316(b)(1) of USERRA and the terms of the profit sharing
plan because they pay or credit employees for their imputed
earnings when on jury duty and bereavement leave but not when
employees are on short-term military leave.

Before the Court is the Defendants' motion for summary judgment on
the Plaintiffs' request for liquidated damages under USERRA and the
Defendants' motion to strike the Plaintiffs' jury trial for any
claims seeking non-liquidated damages under USERRA.

The action has a prolonged history. After discovery, the Court
certified several subclasses under Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court thereafter granted
the Defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims. The
Court of Appeals affirmed on the breach of contract claim relating
to the profit sharing plan but reversed on the USERRA claims. It
held that these latter claims must be resolved by the factfinder
(Scanlan v. Am. Airlines Grp., Inc., 102 F.4th 164, 70 (3d Cir.
2024)).

In granting the motion for summary judgment, the Court did not
reach the issue related to liquidated damages and did not have
before it at that time the motion to strike the jury demand.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants acted willfully because
they were advised by the Plaintiffs of their violation of USERRA
and then did nothing.

Judge Bartle finds the Plaintiffs have presented no evidence to
establish willfulness. Their citations to the record provide
nothing to support their assertion that the Defendants knew that
they were violating USERRA or that they acted in reckless disregard
of whether their position violated USERRA, Judge Bartle opines.

The critical issue under USERRA pending before the Court is whether
short term military leave, for which employees receive no pay or
benefits from the Defendants, is comparable to jury duty and
bereavement leave for which employees do receive pay and benefits.
The Court of Appeals in this action ruled that the issue of
comparability is for the factfinder.

Judge Bartle holds that the Plaintiffs have pointed to no case
where any factfinder has found or any court has determined that
bereavement leave or jury duty is comparable to military leave. On
the contrary, there have been district judges, who have held that
military leave is not comparable to bereavement leave or jury duty
or that plaintiffs, such as those here, are not entitled to relief
under USERRA as a matter of law, citing White v. United Airlines,
Civ. A. No. 19-114 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 24, 2024), among other cases.

On the record before the Court, Judge Bartle points out that the
Plaintiffs have advanced no evidence to prove willfulness on the
part of the Defendants, and, thus, the Defendants cannot be held
liable for iquidated damages. Accordingly, the Defendants are
entitled to summary judgment on this issue.

Judge Bartle notes that the Defendants concede that the Plaintiffs
would be entitled to a jury trial for liquidated damages had that
remedy remained available in this case but argue that the right to
a jury trial extends no further. The Defendants now move to strike
the Plaintiffs' demand for a jury trial on claims for
non-liquidated damages with respect to loss of wages and benefits.

In this action, the Plaintiffs have sued the Defendants for failing
to pay them wages and provide them with benefits while they were on
short-term military leave. The Plaintiffs seek declaratory,
injunctive, and monetary relief for themselves and the members, who
comprise the certified classes under Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23
(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finally, the Court notes, among other things, that it has certified
classes under Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3). These
classifications do not control whether a party is entitled to a
jury trial under the Seventh Amendment. Accordingly, the motion of
the Defendants to strike the Plaintiffs' demand for a jury trial
will be denied.

Therefore, the Court rules as follows:

   (1) The motion of Defendants American Airlines Group, Inc.,
       and American Airlines, Inc., for summary judgment on the
       Plaintiffs' request for liquidated damages under the
       Uniformed Services Employment & Reemployment Rights Act,
       38 U.S.C. Section 4301, et seq., is granted; and

   (2) The motion of said Defendants to strike the Plaintiffs'
       demand for a jury trial is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated Aug. 29, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3ey83y8e from PacerMonitor.com.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 29, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/z82wsffa from PacerMonitor.com.


AMERICAN HOME: Has Until Oct. 21 to Respond to Robertson Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah of the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada granted American Home Shield
Corporation's request to extend the deadline to respond to the
class action complaint captioned as ERIN ROBERTSON, on behalf of
herself and other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN HOME
SHIELD CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, CASE NO.
2:24-cv-01571-RFB-EJY (D. Nev.).

The Court said the defense requested an extension because their
counsel was recently retained and needed more time to review the
case; this was the first extension request and was made in good
faith without intent to delay.

The Defendant's deadline to respond to the Complaint has been
extended from September 19 to October 21, 2024.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated September 16, 2024, is
available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cxWivS

ANDY MACMILLAN: Dickerson Class Suit Dismissed with Leave to Amend
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as BRENNA DICKERSON, Plaintiff, v. ANDY
MACMILLAN, et al.,Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-01320-AMO (N.D.
Calif.), Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend.
The Court also granted the defendants' four administrative motions
to seal.

Defendant UserTesting is a company that went public on November 17,
2021, at $14 per share. Following its Initial Public Offering, the
company's stock declined, consistent with declines in the stock
market. In 2020 and 2021, Defendant Andy MacMillan (UserTesting's
Chief Executive Officer and former Board Chair) and other officers
and directors met with Thoma Bravo, a private equity firm, to
discuss a potential acquisition of UserTesting by Thoma Bravo. In
July of 2022, Thoma Bravo indicated its interest in acquiring
UserTesting.

On September 8, 2022, Thoma Bravo submitted a non-binding
indication of interest to acquire all outstanding shares of
UserTesting for $9.50 per share. The Board reviewed the proposal on
September 10, 2022, and Thoma Bravo submitted a revised proposal
for $10 per share on September 14, 2022. The Board considered the
September 14 proposal at a September 16 meeting, and instructed
Morgan Stanley to reach out to two other potential acquirers. On
September 30, 2022, the last day of the third quarter, Defendants
and Morgan Stanley met with Thoma Bravo representatives to discuss
anticipated 2022 third quarter performance.

On October 3, 2022, Thoma Bravo informed Morgan Stanley that it was
no longer willing to proceed at the proposed price of $10 per share
because of the company's 2022 third quarter performance. The
following day, Thoma Bravo indicated that it was prepared to resume
discussions at $7.50 per share. UserTesting rejected that proposal,
terminated Morgan Stanley, and disengaged from negotiations. On
October 10, 2022, Defendants provided Morgan Stanley with the
"October Forecast".

On October 20, 2022, Thoma Bravo submitted a non-binding written
offer for $7.50, and the Board formally considered the proposal on
October 23, 2022, and rehired Morgan Stanley. The Board met over
the next several days, and on October 26, 2022, Morgan Stanley
delivered an opinion that the acquisition agreement was fair from a
financial point of view to holders of UserTesting's common stock.

On October 27, 2022, UserTesting issued a press release announcing
the acquisition, and stating that the transaction valued
UserTesting at $1.3 billion, $700 million less than the IPO in
November of 2021.

On December 26, 2022, UserTesting issued a Schedule 14A ("Proxy")
to stockholders inviting them to a special meeting and announcing
the proposed merger. On January 10, 2023, UserTesting's
shareholders voted to approve the acquisition by Thoma Bravo.

On March 21, 2023, Plaintiff Brenna Dickerson initiated the instant
suit against Defendants on behalf of herself and a putative class.
On August 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint,
the operative complaint, alleging violations of Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act. Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants made eight false or misleading statements in the Proxy.

The instant motion to dismiss followed.

Plaintiff's theory is that UserTesting management decided to
downwardly revise its projections to secure shareholder approval of
Thoma Bravo's offer, and not based on its own good faith judgments
in the financial outlook of the company. Because Plaintiff asserts
that UserTesting management knew that the financial projections in
the October Forecast were false and were made to convince
shareholders to accept the merger with Thoma Bravo, the claim
"sounds in fraud."

Plaintiff challenges eight statements that Defendants made in the
Proxy as materially false, misleading, or omissive. Defendants move
to dismiss Plaintiffs' Section 14(a) claim
based on each of these statements, arguing (1) protection under the
PSLRA safe harbor; (2) the opinion statements are not subjectively
or objectively false; (3) none of the statements are materially
false or misleading; and (4) Plaintiff has not alleged the
requisite state of mind.

The Court finds that Dickerson has sufficiently alleged that the
first Proxy statement is false or misleading. As Plaintiff fails to
plead particularized facts "giving rise to a strong inference that
[each] defendant acted with the required state of mind,"  the Court
dismisses the Section 14(a) claim with leave to amend. Because
Plaintiff has failed to allege a Section 14(a) claim, the Section
20(a) claim also fails. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the
Section 20(a) claim with leave to amend.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated September 16, 2024, is
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XdyfuI


ANIMAL DOCTOR: Mismanages Profit Sharing Plan, Paszkiet Says
------------------------------------------------------------
CATHY PASZKIET, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE ANIMAL DOCTOR, LTD.; and LORI W. WYATT,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-08403 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 13, 2024)
alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974.

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants breach
their fiduciary duties and violated ERISA in connection with the
investments of the assets of the The Animal Doctor, Ltd. Profit
Sharing Plan. By deciding to invest such a large amount of the
Plan's assets in a single investment and class of investment and by
continuing to maintain such investments, the Defendants breached
their fiduciary duties to invest the assets of the Plan in the best
interests of the participants, prudently, in diversified assets,
and consistent with the terms of the Plan and ERISA. As a result
the Defendants' decision to invest the Plan's assets in these
undiversified investments, the Plan has lost millions of dollars.
And Plaintiff's own account has declined precipitously, says the
suit.

The Animal Doctor, Ltd. is a full-service veterinary hospital,
offering medical and surgical care for pets. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Bartolic, Esq.
          BARTOLIC LAW
          180 W. Washington, Suite 700
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 635-0948
          Email: michael@bartoliclaw.com

               - and -

          R. Joseph Barton, Esq.
          BARTON & DOWNES LLP
          1633 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 734-7046
          Email: jbarton@bartondownes.com

APPLE INC: Costa Suit Seeks to Seal Class Cert Documents
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Francis Costa, Amanda
Hoffman, and Olivia McIlravy-Ackert, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, v. Apple, Inc., Case No.
3:23-cv-01353-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting their administrative motion to consider
whether another Party's material should be sealed.

On Aug. 29, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Motion and
Motion for Class Certification.

The Defendant requested that in addition to the proposed documents
identified in Dkt. 298 to be sealed, that the Plaintiffs redact
certain lines from Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion for
Class Certification that Defendant believes are confidential.

The Plaintiffs redacted those lines requested, refiled the redacted
version of the Notice of Motion and Motion for Class Certification
and filed a request to remove the previously filed unredacted brief
from the docket.

Apple designs, manufactures, and markets smartphones, personal
computers, tablets, wearables and accessories.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cK5yvC at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel S. Brome, Esq.
          Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
          235 Montgomery St., Suite 810
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          E-mail: dbrome@nka.com
                  fisher@nka.com

                - and -

          Loren B. Donnell, Esq.
          Michael J. Palitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          951 Yamato Rd. Suite 285
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          E-mail: ldonnell@shavitzlaw.com
                  mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com

ARISTON FLORIST: Picon Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers
---------------------------------------------------------------
YELITZA PICON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ARISTON FLORIST, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-07028 (S.D.N.Y., September 17, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New
York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights
Law, and declaratory relief.

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.aristonflowers.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 navigation links, inaccurate landmark
structure, ambiguous link texts, inaccessible drop-down menus,
inaccurate labeling of form fields, the denial of keyboard access
for some interactive elements, redundant links where adjacent links
go to the same URL address, changing of content without advance
warning, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely
with a mouse.

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.

Ariston Florist, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and
services, doing business in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
       GABRIEL A. LEVY, PC
       1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
       Manhasset, NY 11030
       Telephone: (347) 941-4715
       Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com

ASR GROUP: Faces Suit Over Granulated Sugar Price Monopoly
----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT E. SUNSERI and ANTHONY MINICUCI, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs 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-03646 (D.
Minn., Sept. 12, 2024) alleges violation of the Sherman Antitrust
Act of 1890, the Clayton Antitrust Act, and the antitrust and trade
regulation laws.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants
financially benefited from their unlawful acts at the expense of
the Plaintiff and members of the Class, who paid supracompetitive
prices for Granulated Sugar during the Class Period.

The Defendants formed an unlawful contract, combination, or
conspiracy in unreasonable restraint of to raise, fix, maintain, or
stabilize Granulated Sugar prices. The Defendants agreed to and did
share pricing and other information that distorted and suppressed
competition in the relevant market knowing and intending that the
information would be used to raise, fix, maintain, or stabilize
prices of Granulated Sugar sold to Plaintiff and members of the
Class, says the suit.

American Sugar Holdings, Inc. operates as a holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, refines purchased raw cane sugar
and sugar syrup. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robin F. Zwerling, Esq.
          Jessica Hermes, Esq.
          ZWERLING, SCHACHTER &
          ZWERLING, LLP
          41 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (212) 223-3900
          Email: rzwerling@zsz.com
                 jhermes@zsz.com

AVIAT NETWORKS: Johnson Fistel Probes Securities Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP is investigating
whether Aviat Networks, Inc. (NASDAQ: AVNW) or any of its executive
officers or others violated securities laws by misrepresenting or
failing to timely disclose material, adverse information to
investors. The investigation focuses on investors’ losses and
whether they may be recovered under federal securities laws.

What if I purchased Aviat securities? If you purchased securities
and suffered losses on your investment, join our investigation
now:

Or for more information, contact Jim Baker at
jimb@johnsonfistel.com or (619) 814-4471.

There is no cost or obligation to you.

What is Johnson Fistel investigating? On September 11, 2024, Aviat
announced its inability to file the Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ending June 28, 2024, within the prescribed
deadline. The management of Aviat has reported the discovery of
certain material weaknesses during its preliminary assessment of
internal controls over financial reporting for the aforementioned
fiscal year.

What if I have relevant nonpublic information? Individuals with
nonpublic information regarding the company should consider whether
to assist our investigation or take advantage of the SEC
Whistleblower program. Under the SEC program, whistleblowers who
provide original information may, under certain circumstances,
receive rewards totaling up to thirty percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC. For more information, contact Jim Baker
at (619) 814-4471 or jimb@johnsonfistel.com.

About Johnson Fistel, LLP:

Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York, Georgia, and
Colorado. The firm represents individual and institutional
investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action
lawsuits. For more information about the firm and its attorneys,
please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com.

Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.

Johnson Fistel, LLP has paid for the dissemination of this
promotional communication, and Frank J. Johnson is the attorney
responsible for its content.

Contacts

     Johnson Fistel, LLP
     501 W. Broadway, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101
     James Baker, Investor Relations or Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
     (619) 814-4471
     jimb@johnsonfistel.com or fjohnson@johnsonfistel.com  [GN]

AVIS RENT: Pestano Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Customers' Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BROOKE PESTANO and JENNIFER SIGNORILE, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AVIS RENT A CAR
SYSTEM, LLC and AVIS BUDGET GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-09243-JXN-MAH (D.N.J., September 18, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se,
breach of contract, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment,
violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act, and declaratory judgment.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiffs
and similarly situated individuals following a data breach on their
computer systems between August 3, 2024, and August 6, 2024. The
Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiffs and
similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result,
the private information of the Plaintiffs and Class members was
compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown
and unauthorized third parties, says the suit.

Avis Rent A Car System, LLC is a rental car service company
headquartered in Parsippany, New Jersey.

Avis Budget Group, Inc. is the parent company of Avis Rent A Car
System, LLC, headquartered in Parsippany, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         David J. DiSabato, Esq.
         Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
         SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
         745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
         New York, NY 10151
         Telephone: (212) 532-1091
         Email: tbean@sirillp.com

BAI BRANDS: Civil Case Management Plan Entered in Kouyate Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOUSSA KOUYATE, on behalf
of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public,
v. BAI BRANDS, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-03993-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Arun Subramanian entered an order on civil case management
plan as follows:

-- First request for production of documents, if any, must be
served
    by Oct. 1, 2024.

-- Interrogatories pursuant to Rule 33.3(a) of the Local Civil
Rules
    of the Southern District of New York must be served by Oct. 1,

    2024.

Bai Brands LLC produces beverages for health-conscious consumers.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9v2ktN at no extra
charge.[CC]

BANK OF AMERICA: Nelson Seeks Initial Approval of Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARY NELSON and KAYLEIGH
POTTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Case No.
5:23-cv-00255-JS (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order preliminarily approving the proposed Agreement to settle
on a class-wide basis and to notify the Class of the proposal,
along with their right to object or opt out, pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(1)–(2).

The Plaintiffs filed this consumer class action alleging, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated, that the Defendant
violated the Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC") by failing to send
them proper notice after a vehicle repossession.

For this class consisting of approximately 819 borrowers who had
their vehicles repossessed by BANA, the Agreement provides a cash
fund of $3,250,000.

Bank of America offers saving and current account, investment and
financial services.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Cary L. Flitter, Esq.
          Andrew M. Milz, Esq.
          Jody Thomas Lopez-Jacobs, Esq.
          FLITTER MILZ, P.C.
          450 N. Narberth Avenue
          Narberth, PA 19072
          Telephone: (610) 822-0782
          Facsimile: (610) 667-0552
          E-mail: cflitter@consumerslaw.com
                  amilz@consumerslaw.com
                  jlopez-jacobs@consumerslaw.com

BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks Leave to File Sur-Reply in Tristan Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATALIE TRISTAN, AVANTIKA
AHUJA, and PHILLIP MYERS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; and EARLY WARNING
SERVICES, LLC D/B/A ZELLEPAY.COM, Case No. 8:22-cv-01183-DOC-ADS
(C.D. Cal.), the Defendants will move the Court for leave to file a
sur-reply in response to new arguments in the Plaintiffs' reply
brief in support of their Motion for Class Certification.

The hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is
scheduled for Sept. 30, 2024 at 8:30 AM in the courtroom of the
Hon. David O. Carter, Courtroom 9D.

The Plaintiffs' Reply in support of their Motion for Class
Certification presents requests for certification of new classes
not included in their original motion, including two entirely new
classes.

The Reply also raised new arguments and authorities not presented
in their opening brief. This motion is made following the
conference between counsel pursuant to Local Rule 7-3, which took
place on Sept. 10, 2024.

The Plaintiffs stated that they oppose the Bank's filing of a
sur-reply. This motion is supported by the accompanying Memorandum
of Points and Authorities, the proposed sur-reply attached as
Exhibit 1, and other evidence or argument as may be presented at or
before the hearing.

Bank of America offers saving and current account, investment and
financial services, and online banking.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 1, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3WUUEU at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Noah Levine, Esq.
          Matthew D. Benedetto, Esq.
          Benjamin Chapin, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
          HALE AND DORR LLP
          7 World Trade Center
          250 Greenwich St.
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 230-8875
          Facsimile: (212) 230-8888
          E-mail: noah.levine@wilmerhale.com
                  matthew.benedetto@wilmerhale.com
                  benjamin.chapin@wilmerhale.com

BANK OF NEW YORK: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SERGIO MOGOLLON, et al.,
v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Case No. 3:19-cv-03070-N-BV (N.D.
Tex.), the Parties ask the Court to enter amending scheduling order
regarding class certification deadlines:

The submission deadline would allow for the extension of the
existing deadlines for service of each of the Parties’ briefs, by
two weeks, as follows:

   a. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification (which was
previously
      to be served no later than Sept. 24, 2024) would now be
served
      no later than Oct. 8, 2024;

   b. BNYM's response (which was previously to be served no later
than
      Oct. 24, 2024) would now be served no later than Nov. 7,
2024;
      and

   c. Plaintiffs' reply (which was previously to be served no later

      than Nov. 12, 2024) would now be served no later than Nov.
26,
      2024.

This requested extension is not made for purposes of delay, and the
Parties have met and conferred and are in agreement.

Bank of New York Mellon is an American banking and financial
services corporation.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=48JNjl at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eugene E. Stearns, Esq.
          Jay B. Shapiro, Esq.
          Joshua Munn, Esq.
          Veronica L. de Zayas, Esq.
          Ezra Greenberg, Esq.
          STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER
          ALHADEFF & SITTERSON, P.A.
          Museum Tower
          150 W Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 789-3200
          Facsimile: (305) 789-3395
          E-mail: estearns@stearnsweaver.com
                  jshapiro@stearnsweaver.com
                  jmunn@stearnsweaver.com
                  vdezayas@stearnsweaver.com
                  egreenberg@stearnsweaver.com

                - and -

          Michael E. Criden, Esq.
          Lindsey C. Grossman, Esq.
          CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
          7301 S.W. 57th Court, Suite515
          South Miami, FL 33143
          Telephone: (305) 357-3900
          Facsimile: (305) 357-9050
          E-mail: mcriden@cridenlove.com
                  lgrossman@cridenlove.com

                - and -

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Zachary S. Bower, Esq.
          CARELLA BYRNE CECCH
          BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
          E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
                  zbower@carellabyrne.com

                - and -

          Michael A. Hanzman, Esq.
          BILZIN SUMBERG BAENA PRICE &
          AXELROD LLP
          1450 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2300
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 374-7580
          E-mail: mhanzman@bilzin.co

The Defendant is represented by:

          Thomas M. Farrell, Esq.
          Jeffrey J. Chapman, Esq.
          Melek J. Dunn, Esq.
          Philip A. Goldstein, Esq.
          Seth M. Kruglak, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          845 Texas Avenue, 24th Floor
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 571-9191
          Facsimile: (713) 571-9652
          E-mail: tfarrell@mcguirewoods.com
                  jchapman@mcguirewoods.com
                  mdunn@mcguirewoods.com
                  PaGoldstein@mcguirewoods.com
                  skruglak@mcguirewoods.com

BASSFORD REMELE: Dingmann Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as David G. Dingmann, and Randall D. Hebrink,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Bassford Remele PA, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Schwebel Goetz & Sieben
PA, Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, Lewis A. Remele Jr., Daniel E.
Gustafson, and John Does 1-10, Case No. CACE-24-011627 was removed
from the District Court for the Seventh Judicial District for the
State of Minnesota, to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on Sept. 16, 2024, and assigned Case
No. 0:24-cv-03675.

August 28, 2024, Plaintiffs David G. Dingmann, and Randall D.
Hebrink, personally served Defendants Gustafson Gluek PLLC and
Daniel E. Gustafson with the Summons and Complaint.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael M. Lafeber, Esq.
          TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
          2200 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-2157
          Phone: 612-977-8400
          Email: mlafeber@taftlaw.com

               - and -

          Suzanne L. Jones, Esq.
          GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
          80 S. 8th Street, Suite 3850
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 216-3455
          Email: sljones@grsm.com

               - and -

          David A. Schooler, Esq.
          NAUEN PLLP
          80 S. 8th Street, Suite 3850
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 216-3455
          Email: dschooler@grsm.com

               - and -

          William L. Davidson, Esq.
          LIND, JENSEN, SULLIVAN & PETERSON, P.A.
          901 Marquette Avenue South, Suite 1900
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 333-3637
          Email: william.davidson@lindjensen.com


BIOTE CORP: Koontz Suit Removed to S.D. West Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Timothy P. Koontz, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Biote Corp., BioTE
Holdings, LLC, BioTE Medical, LLC, Gary S. Donovitz, M.D., Case No.
24-C-936 was removed from the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West
Virginia, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
West Virginia on Sept. 17, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00506 to the
proceeding.

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

Biote Corp. -- https://biote.com/ -- operates in practice-building
business within the hormone optimization space.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Headley, Esq.
          Paul Andrew Kettering
          HEADLEY LAW FIRM
          297 Seven Farms Drive, Suite 302
          Daniel Island, SC 29492
          Phone: (304) 525-2300
          Fax: (843) 375-6185
          Email: brian@headleyfirm.com
                 paul@headleyfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kurt Douglas Weaver, Esq.
          WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON
          555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1100
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          Phone: (919) 755-8163
          Email: kurt.weaver@wbd-us.com

               - and -

          Thomas J. Hurney, Jr., Esq.
          JACKSON KELLY
          P. O. Box 553
          Charleston, WV 25322-0553
          Phone: (304) 340-1000
          Fax: (304) 340-1050
          Email: thurney@jacksonkelly.com


BK EXOTIC: Igartua Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN IGARTUA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BK EXOTIC OUTLET LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-07091 (S.D.N.Y., September 18, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New
York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights
Law, and declaratory relief.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.broooklynexotic.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 navigation links, redundant alternative text,
linked images missing alternative text, and missing form labels.

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.

BK Exotic Outlet LLC is a company that sells online goods and
services, doing business in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
       Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
       JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
       110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
       New York, NY 10022
       Telephone: (212) 227-5700
       Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
       Email: jon@norinsberglaw.com
              bennitta@employeejustice.com

BLUEBIRD BIO INC: Continues to Defend Gill Class Suit in MA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bluebird Bio Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on September 13, 2024, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Gill class suit in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

On March 28, 2024, a class action lawsuit captioned Garry Gill v.
bluebird bio, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-10803-PBS, was filed
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.

An amended complaint was filed on August 15, 2024. The amended
complaint purports to assert claims against the Company and certain
of its current and former officers pursuant to Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of a putative class of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's shares
between April 24, 2023 and December 8, 2023 (the "class period").

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages allegedly caused by purported
misstatements and omissions regarding (i) whether the Company could
obtain FDA approval for the lovo-cel BLA without a black box
warning for hematologic malignancies; and (ii) whether the Company
would be granted a priority review voucher by the FDA in connection
with the BLA, which it could sell in order to strengthen its
financial position.

The amended complaint claims these alleged statements and omissions
operated to artificially inflate the price paid for our common
stock during the class period.

On September 2, 2024, the Court entered the parties' stipulated
schedule for briefing a motion to dismiss the amended complaint:
the opening brief in support of a motion to dismiss is due October
11, 2024; the opposition brief is due December 5, 2024; and a reply
brief in further support of a motion to dismiss is due December 20,
2024.

The Company intendswe to vigorously defend against the claims in
this action.

bluebird bio is pursuing curative gene therapies to give patients
and their families more bluebird days.




BOJANGLES OPCO: Collective Action Gets Partial Conditional Status
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DORIEN ANDREWS II AND
CONNER CRISCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. BOJANGLES OPCO, LLC AND BOJANGLES RESTAURANTS INC.,
Case No. 3:23-cv-00593-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Robert
Conrad Jr. entered an order granting in part and denying in part
the Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify collective action:

The Plaintiffs have brought forth substantial allegations that AGMs
were allegedly subject to a common practice which may have resulted
in Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime violations.

The Defendants are ordered to provide the names, dates of
employment, addresses, and email addresses of potential plaintiffs
within 14 days of the entry of this Order. If any potential
plaintiffs’ notice by mail and email are returned as
undeliverable, Defendants shall provide their telephone number
within 10 days of notice by Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs point to previous conditional certification orders
by this Court and insist that because this Court did not limit the
scope of notice or require a plaintiff’s evidence to have a
minimum threshold of geographic representation at this stage, it
should not limit the geographic scope here.

However, the Plaintiffs provide no meaningful analysis of how the
Court ought to apply its reasoning in those cases to the one at
bar. Thus, the Court is unpersuaded. The proposed definition of the
conditional collective will be limited to North Carolina employees.
The conditional collective will be defined as follows:

   "All Assistant General managers, Assistant Managers, Assistant
Unit
   Managers, and employees in similar positions but different job
   titles (collectively "AGMs") who worked for Defendants at any of

   its restaurant locations in North Carolina from September 19,
2020,
   to the present.

The Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in this Court on Sept. 19, 2023.
In their Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants
willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as Assistant General
Managers ("AGM") at Defendants' restaurants in various locations in
North Carolina.

Bojangles owns and operates chicken and biscuits restaurants
throughout parts of the United States, primarily in the
southeastern United States.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Lv4XyM at no extra
charge.[CC]

BOZZUTO'S INC: Loiseau Suit Seeks to Seal Declarations
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONRUDY LOISEAU, QUINTON
L. HEBRON and DWAYNE SMALL, individually and, on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. BOZZUTO'S INC., JAMES JONES, CHUCK
CERRETA and JOEL SANTIAGO, Case No. 3:22-cv-01485-JCH (D. Conn.),
the Plaintiffs will move the Court for an order granting their
motion to seal two declarations filed in support of their class
certification reply brief.

The two declarations at issue are from current Bozzuto's employees,
which Plaintiffs have designated Highly Confidential – Attorneys'
Eyes Only in order to protect the confidentiality of the declarants
who would be subjected to retaliation by Bozzuto's (likely
including termination) for speaking out against the company's
discriminatory and hostile practices.

In their reply brief, the Plaintiffs have identified the declarants
only by their initials, and seek to file the declarations under
seal in their entirety, given that the declarations contain various
information identifying the employees (e.g., name, supervisor, work
location, name of Bozzuto’s employee(s) to whom complaints were
raised and the nature of those complaints).

The declarations meet the standard for sealing in this District,
which requires sealing requests to be "narrowly tailored" and
"supported by clear and compelling reasons."

This standard is met in light of the danger to the declarants if
their identities are disclosed to Bozzuto's or the public, and the
fact that the declarations contain private salary information.

Further, the sealing request is narrowly tailored, as redactions
would not offer sufficient protection to the declarants, warranting
that the declarations be filed under seal in their entirety.

This motion is based upon this Notice of Motion, the accompanying
Memorandum of Law, all accompanying exhibits, and such argument as
the Court may require.

Buzzuto's is a New England-based wholesale distributor serving
smaller grocery retailers along the East Coast of the United
States.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6Vkj15 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel A. Kotchen, Esq.
          Lindsey Grunert, Esq.
          KOTCHEN & LOW LLP
          1918 New Hampshire Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 471-1995
          Facsimile: (202) 280-1128
          E-mail: dkotchen@kotchen.com
                  lgrunert@kotchen.com

                - and -

          Nitor V. Egbarin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NITOR V. EGBARIN, LLC
          100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor
          Hartford, CT 06103-3007
          Telephone: (860) 249-7180
          Facsimile: (860) 408-1471
          E-mail: NEgbarin@aol.com

BRAVO EXPRESS: Theodore Sues Over Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------
Alex Theodore, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. BRAVO EXPRESS TRANSPORTATION CO., Case No.
1:24-cv-08476 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 16, 2024), is brought for
Defendant's violations of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection
Act (the "IWPCA") and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), including, without limitation, all unpaid wages,
liquidated damages, civil penalties as appropriate, appropriate
ancillary relief, injunctive relief, interest, attorneys' fees,
costs, and all other relief to which they are entitled.

The Defendant violated the IWPCA and FLSA because the company:
misclassified him and certain other drivers as independent
contractors when they are, as a matter of law, employees; failed to
pay Plaintiff and those other drivers all wages they earned; took
unlawful deductions from the wages Plaintiff and other drivers
earned; and failed to reimburse Plaintiff and other drivers for
expenses they incurred. The violated the IWPCA and FLSA because the
company misclassified him and certain other drivers as independent
contractors when they are, as a matter of law, employees, and
failed to pay them an hourly rate that equaled or exceeded minimum
wage for each hour they worked, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a truck driver.

The Defendant is a trucking company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLC
          222 W. Adams St, Suite 2020
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 233-1550
          Fax: (3120 233-1560
          Email: jzouras@stephanzouras.com

               - and -

          Brook S. Lane, Esq.
          FAIR WORK, P.C.
          192 South Street, Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          Phone: (617) 607-3260
          Fax: (617) 488-2261
          Email: brook@fairworklaw.com


BRIDGESTONE RETAIL: Bid to Dismiss Amended Consentino Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David S. Leibowitz of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida denies the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's Amended Class Action Complaint in the
lawsuit captioned ELISA CONSENTINO, Plaintiff v. BRIDGESTONE RETAIL
OPERATIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-60703-DSL (S.D.
Fla.).

The Defendant operates Firestone Complete Auto Care in Plantation,
Florida. On March 28, 2022, Plaintiff Elisa Consentino went to
Firestone to purchase new tires for her vehicle. The written
estimate and the final invoice for the purchase and installation of
new tires included line-item charges for "Road Hazard Protection"
("RHP") and "TPMS [Tire Pressure Monitoring System] valve service
kit labor."

Though the Defendant's website indicates that RHP is an optional
service, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant did not orally
inform her, or indicate on her written estimate or final invoice,
that RHP was optional. The Plaintiff further contends that TPMS
valve service kit labor is an optional service because a new tire,
purchased from a reputable manufacturer, should not require
additional "TPMS valve service kit labor" to operate on any
vehicle.

The Plaintiff filed a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
(FDUTPA) and the Florida Motor Vehicle Repair Act (FMVRA). The
Plaintiff's proposed class includes:

     [A]ll persons in the State of Florida who, within four (4)
     years before the filing of [the Amended Complaint],
     purchased one or more tires from Defendant who were charged
     for [RHP] or "TPMS Valve Service Kit Labor" (or a similar
     charge for replacement of "TPMS" parts).

Before the Motion can be decided, the Court needs to make clear
what it is considering. In addition to the Amended Complaint
itself, the Defendant urges the Court to consider the exhibits
attached to the Motion under the doctrine of incorporation, which
include the initial work order from the tire sale, a revised work
order, and the final invoice (together, "the transaction
paperwork").

As a threshold matter, the Court agrees with the Defendant and
considers the transaction paperwork attached to the Motion as part
of its determination. Moreover, the Plaintiff concedes that the
Court can consider "the subject invoice/work order." Accordingly,
the transaction paperwork is properly considered by the Court as
part of the Amended Complaint for purposes of the Motion.

With this preliminary issue disposed of, the Court turns its
attention to the Defendant's attack on both counts of the
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. The Defendant argues that the
Plaintiff's FDUTPA claim should be dismissed because: (1) she fails
to allege a deceptive trade practice; (2) she failed to properly
allege damages under the FDUTPA; and (3) conducting TPMS valve
service kit labor on her vehicle was required by statute.

Judge Leibowitz holds that all these arguments fail; the Plaintiff
has sufficiently stated a cause of action under the FDUTPA. The
Plaintiff's allegation that she would not have purchased RHP and
TPMS valve service kit labor supports a prima facie case of actual
damages under the FDUTPA.

While additional discovery may lead to a determination that failure
to provide TPMS valve service kit labor would render the existing
TPMS system inoperable, Judge Leibowitz points out that at this
stage, the Defendant has not demonstrated that TPMS service kit
labor was required by statute. For all these reasons, the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as to Count I is denied.

Judge Leibowitz finds that the Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a
cause of action under the FMVRA. The Defendant argues that the
Plaintiff's FMVRA claim should be dismissed because: (1) the FMVRA
does not apply to RHP or to TPMS valve service kit labor; (2) the
Defendant was required by the TREAD Act to conduct TPMS service kit
labor when the Plaintiff asked the Defendant to install her tires;
(3) the FMVRA does not apply to omissions; and (4) the Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint does not allege with particularity a claim for
"fraud or misrepresentation" under FMVRA Section 559.920(20).

All these arguments fail, Judge Leibowitz holds. A plain, common
sense reading of the Amended Complaint suggests that the
Defendant's conduct was fraudulent because it purposely enticed
consumers to purchase products or services on the mistaken belief
that such products were required, or part in parcel to their
desired purchase, Judge Leibowitz opines. For all these reasons,
the Plaintiff's allegations under Section 559.920(20) survive a
motion to dismiss. Therefore, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as
to Count II is denied.

For these reasons, the Court denies the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss as to Counts I and II. The Defendant's deadline to file its
Answer to the Amended Complaint was Sept. 20, 2024.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 29, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3syavbnj from PacerMonitor.com.


BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Martin Seeks Sealing of Class Cert Bid
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Martin v. Brighthouse Life
Insurance Company et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02923-MMG (S.D.N.Y.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting provisional
sealing of Plaintiff's forthcoming Motion for Class Certification
and accompanying exhibits until the parties can meet and confer and
determine which information contained in the Motion and
accompanying exhibits, if any, the Defendants request to be
redacted.

Following the meet and confer with Defendants, the Plaintiffs will
re-file a redacted Motion and corresponding exhibits.

The basis for this request is that the Motion and exhibits may
contain sensitive personal and proprietary commercial information
of Defendant Brighthouse.

In particular, certain documents may reveal personal financial
information, or confidential business strategies and internal
communications.

Brighthouse is a provider of annuities and life insurance in the
United States.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell Breit, Esq.
          Tyler Litke, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
          405 E. 50th Street
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (202) 932-7081
          E-mail: mbreit@milberg.com
                  tlitke@milberg.com

                - and -

          Andrei Rado, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ANDREI RADO PLLC
          99 Wall Street, Suite 1343
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (646) 915-0515
          E-mail: arado@radolawfirm.com

BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Martin Suit Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWRENCE E. MARTIN, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. BRIGHTHOUSE
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:21-cv-02923-MMG (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying certification
of this action, which consists of a breach of contract claim, and a
breach of the implied good faith and fair dealing, against the
Defendant as a class action on behalf of the following class:

    "All persons who own or owned1 a UL insurance policy in any of
the
    50 states, Puerto Rico or any United States territory issued
    and/or currently administered by Brighthouse Life Insurance
    Company that contains the following language: "We will base
these
    [cost of insurance] rates only on our future outlook for
mortality
    and expenses.""

The Plaintiff also requests that he be appointed by the Court as
the Class Representative and that Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips
Grossman PLLC be appointed as Class Counsel.

Brighthouse is a provider of annuities and life insurance in the
United States.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell Breit, Esq.
          Tyler Litke, Esq.
          Rachel Soffin, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
          405 E. 50th Street
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (202) 932-7081
          E-mail: mbreit@milberg.com
                  tlitke@milberg.com
                  rsoffin@milberg.com

                - and -

          Andrei Rado, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ANDREI RADO PLLC
          99 Wall Street, Suite 1343
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (646) 915-0515
          E-mail: arado@radolawfirm.com

BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Martin Wins Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Martin v. Brighthouse Life
Insurance Company et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02923-MMG (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Margaret Garnett entered an order granting the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The Court further entered an order that:

-- the parties shall promptly meet and confer to determine which
    information contained in the motion for class certification;
and

-- the Plaintiff shall refile a redacted Motion for class
    certification and accompanying exhibits in accordance with the

    Court's Individual Rules no later than Sept. 26, 2024

Brighthouse is a provider of annuities and life insurance in the
United States.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Udn8my at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell Breit, Esq.
          Tyler Litke, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
          405 E. 50th Street
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (202) 932-7081
          E-mail: mbreit@milberg.com
                  tlitke@milberg.com

                - and -

          Andrei Rado, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ANDREI RADO PLLC
          99 Wall Street, Suite 1343
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (646) 915-0515
          E-mail: arado@radolawfirm.com

BROAD RIVER: Honeycutt Sues Over Breach of Provider Agreement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bettina Honeycutt, Francisco Gilmore, and Jennifer Colburn,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Broad River Physicians Group, LLC and Medlytix, LLC, Case No. (S.C.
Com. Pleas, Sept. 13, 2024) alleges that Broad River acted in
concert with Medlytix to implement a scheme that targets insureds
who have been in car accidents and received emergency treatment.

The suit contends that Broad River breached the provider
agreement(s) by not submitting bills directly to Blue Cross Blue
Shield of South Carolina for services rendered to patients who are
covered by BCBS health insurance, and instead pursuing payment
directly from the Plaintiffs and Class members for amounts greater
than the discounted reimbursement rates set forth in the provider
agreement(s), by asserting liens against the Plaintiffs' and Class
members' property (such as third-party tort claims), pursuing
payment from tortfeasors' liability insurers and/or insurers
providing uninsured motorist coverage, and/or turning Class
members' accounts over to Medlytix for collection.

Each Plaintiff, following their own individual car accidents,
sought emergency treatment. Following these incidents, the
Defendants schemed to (1) falsely assert that the Plaintiffs'
health insurance plans do not cover the emergency care provided by
Broad River, (2) subvert, undermine, prevent, divert, or otherwise
interfere with payments, contractual adjustments, and/or other
contractual benefits with respect to medical bills from Broad River
that the Plaintiffs were entitled to through their health insurance
policies with BCBS, and/or (3) circumvent the Plaintiffs' BCBS
contractual benefits by directly submitting claims to the
Plaintiffs' automobile insurance carriers through the Medical
Payment and/or Personal Injury Protection coverages, all in an
effort to collect exorbitant, inflated, and unreasonable charges
for medical treatment at rates much higher than the pre-negotiated
contractual rates set forth by BCBS, the suit says.

On Dec. 31, 2023, Plaintiff Honeycutt sustained bodily injuries in
a motor vehicle collision. On the day of the collision, she
presented to the emergency room at Roper Hospital in Charleston
County, and Broad River's emergency medicine physicians provided
treatment to Plaintiff Honeycutt for her injuries.

Plaintiff Honeycutt's treatment by Broad River resulted in medical
charges totaling $645.00. Broad River refused to submit those bills
for medical services to Anthem BCBS for payment, despite being
contractually bound to do so by its provider agreement with Anthem
BCBS, the suit claims.

Broad River provides medical care services and emergency medicine
physicians in various South Carolina counties.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James L. Ward, Jr., Esq.
          MCGOWAN, HOOD, FELDER & PHILLIPS, LLC
          10 Shem Drive, Suite 300
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 388-7202
          E-mail: jward@mcgowanhood.com

                - and -

          Mark Bringardner, Esq.
          BRINGARDNER INJURY LAW FIRM
          41 Broad Street
          Charleston, SC 29401
          Telephone: (843) 380-5299
          E-mail: mark@bringardner.com

                - and -

          Gibson Solomons, III, Esq.
          SPEIGHTS & SOLOMONS, LLC
          100 Oak Street, East
          Hampton, SC 29924
          Telephone: (803) 943-4444
          E-mail: gsolomons@speightsandsolomons.com

BROOKLYN BEDDING: Fact Discovery in Phillips Due Dec. 4
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEAN PHILLIPS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BROOKLYN BEDDING LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-03781-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order confirming stipulated
schedule as follows:

   1. The deadline for the parties to conclude fact discovery on
      issues related to class certification is December 4, 2024.

   2. The deadline for the parties to serve expert disclosures and

      discovery on issues related to class certification shall be
      extended from Dec. 4, 2024, to coincide with class
certification
      briefing dates below, with the deadline for each Party to
serve
      its expert disclosures to coincide with the deadline for the

      filing of their respective brief, and the close of expert
      discovery on issues related to class certification to be
      extended until briefing is complete.

   3. The deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion for class
      certification and supporting brief is Dec. 18, 2024.

   4. The deadline for Defendant to file a brief in opposition to
the
      motion for class certification shall be extended from Jan.
29,
      2025, to February 12, 2025.

   5. The deadline for Plaintiff to file a reply brief in further
      support of its motion for class certification shall be
extended
      from Feb. 19, 2025, to March 5, 2025.

Brooklyn Bedding is an American made manufacturer of mattresses.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9UADaK at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Grace Bennet, Esq.
          Simon C. Franzini, Esq.
          Christin Cho, Esq.
          DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
          201 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 600
          Santa Monica, CA 90401

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ana Tagvoryan, Esq.
          Harrison Brown, Esq.
          Erica R. Graves, Esq.
          BLANK ROME LLP
          2029 Century Park East, 6th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (424) 239-3400
          Facsimile: (424) 239-3434
          E-mail: ana.tagvoryan@blankrome.com
                  harrison.brown@blankrome.com
                  erica.graves@blankrome.com

CALIFORNIA UNITED: Class Settlement in Alcazar Suit Gets Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ESTEBAN ALCAZAR, v.
CALIFORNIA UNITED MECHANICAL, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-09003-TLT
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Trina Thompson entered an order
granting the motion for final approval of class settlement.

-- The motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and service awards is
    granted as modified. Amounts are fair and reasonable as
negotiated
    with the assistance of mediator Jeffrey Ross.

-- Class Counsel is awarded $298,500.00 in attorneys' fees and
    $16,269.29 in litigation costs.


-- CPT Group is awarded $14,500.00 in settlement administration
    costs.

-- The Plaintiff Esteban Alcazar is granted an incentive award of

    $10,000.00.

-- Further, the Court grants PAGA Payment of $50,000, seventy-five

    percent (75%) of which ($37,500) will be paid to the California

    Labor and Workforce Development Agency and twenty-five percent

    (25%) of which ($12,500) will be paid to the subclass of Class

    Members employed by Defendant in California as a non-exempt or

    hourly employee at any time during the period from July 10,
2020,
    through January 15, 2023.

The Defendant specializes in HVAC and Plumbing systems design,
construction, retrofit, repair, and 24/7 emergency services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cSjUkg at no extra
charge.[CC]

CENTRAL BANK: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Rutherford Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington, Tacoma, issued an Order denying
the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and motion to dismiss
in the lawsuit captioned SAMUEL C. RUTHERFORD, III, Plaintiff v.
CENTRAL BANK OF KANSAS CITY, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-05299-TLF
(W.D. Wash.).

The case is a putative class action. The matter comes before the
Court on Defendant Central Bank of Kansas City's ("CBKC") motion to
compel arbitration. The Plaintiff opposes the motion. Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Section 636(c), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73, and
Local Rule MJR 13, the parties have consented to have this matter
heard by the Magistrate Judge. For the reasons stated in this
Order, the Court denies the motion to compel arbitration with
prejudice and denies the motion to dismiss without prejudice.

In 2023, Plaintiff Samuel C. Rutherford III was incarcerated in the
Pierce County Jail and was released on April 22, 2023. At the time
of booking, he had approximately $300 cash on him, which was
confiscated and deposited into an account with Defendant CBKC.
Additional money sent to him by others while he was incarcerated
was also deposited into this account. Upon release, the Plaintiff's
money was returned to him on a CBKC prepaid debit card.

The Plaintiff requested the return of his money in cash but was
told that the prepaid debit card was the only way for his funds to
be returned to him. After he signed a form authorizing return of
his funds on a prepaid MasterCard, the Plaintiff was handed the
prepaid debit card, and a folded Cardholder Agreement. His name had
already been written on the signature block on the back of the
prepaid MasterCard, by someone other than himself.

Under the signature block the card stated, "By accepting, signing
or using this Card, you agree to the terms of the Cardholder
Agreement." After his release, the Plaintiff visited a cash machine
and withdrew $494 from the prepaid debit MasterCard that had
$500.49 loaded on to it.

The prepaid debit cards are provided through a contract between
Numi Financial ("Numi"), a program manager that provides prepaid
card management services to banks, and Pierce County that permits
Numi to select and/or change the card brand, issuing bank, or
program manager at any time without the County's approval. Here
Numi partnered with CBKC. Numi requires the facilities it partners
with to require inmates to sign a receipt requesting the card.
Facilities are also required to provide a Cardholder Agreement and
prepaid debit card to released inmates.

The Cardholder Agreement begins with a Fee Schedule. Users are
notified that the Card Grace Period is thirty (30) days. After the
Fee Schedule, the first sentence of the Cardholder Agreement states
bolded and in all caps: "NOTICE: THIS AGREEMENT REQUIRES ALL
DISPUTES BE RESOLVED BY WAY OF BINDING ARBITRATION UNLESS YOU OPT
OUT AS DETAILED IN THE ARBITRATION SECTION BELOW." Under a headline
entitled "Arbitration" the Agreement states bolded in all caps:
ACTIVATION OR USE OF YOUR CARD ACCOUNT OR CARD CONSTITUTES
ACCEPTANCE OF THIS ARBITRATION INCLUDING WAIVER OF YOUR RIGHTS TO
CLASS ACTION.

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff manifested mutual assent to
the terms of the Cardholder Agreement through a course of dealing
by accepting and using the prepaid debit MasterCard. Specifically,
the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff had a meaningful choice of
whether to accept and use the prepaid debit card because he was not
required to use the debit card to get his money back and yet he did
not utilize any of the alternative options or opt out of the
arbitration provision.

The Plaintiff responds that no assent was sought or obtained from
him because he was required to accept the prepaid debit card and
the Cardholder Agreement as a means to access his funds. He relies
on Reichert v. Rapid Invs., Inc., 56 F.4th 1220 (9th Cir. 2022) and
contends it is similar to this case, as Reichert involved the use
of prepaid debit cards distributed to prisoners and involved a
substantially similar agreement.

Judge Fricke finds that the Defendant has not shown a genuine
dispute of material facts on the issue of mutual assent. As a
matter of law, the Plaintiff did not objectively manifest an
agreement to assent to the terms of the contract, and therefore,
mutual assent to form a contract was not achieved.

Because no contract was formed, Judge Fricke holds that the
Plaintiff is not bound by the arbitration clause of the contract
and the motion to compel arbitration is denied.

The Defendant alternatively argues that this case should be
dismissed for lack of standing or based on the rule against double
recovery. The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff is a member of a
settlement class in another action, Brown v. Stored Value Cards,
Inc., Case No 3:15-cv-01370-MO (D. Or.); the Defendant asserts a
settlement in that case will fully compensate the Plaintiff for the
specific harms alleged here.

Judge Fricke notes that the Defendant's argument regarding double
recovery similarly relies on the Plaintiff's membership in the
Brown class.

The Plaintiff responds that although there is a proposed settlement
in Brown, it is not final as it has not received final court
approval as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2). On Aug. 19, 2024,
the Plaintiff informed the Court that on Aug. 7, 2024, he submitted
notice that he chose to opt out of the Brown case and its
settlement.

At this time, Judge Fricke says, it is not clear from the record
whether the Plaintiff's membership in Brown would now or in the
future bar his recovery in this case; but it appears that his case
is not moot. For this reason, the Court denies the Defendant's
motion to dismiss without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 29, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5n6u4d4w from PacerMonitor.com.


CHARLES RIVER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rhone Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
CHARLIE RHONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHARLES RIVER LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-01575 (N.D. Ohio, Sept. 13, 2024) seeks to recover
from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Rhone was employed by the Defendant as a necropsy
technician.

Charles River Laboratories, Inc. provides clinical tests and drug
development services. The Company offers test and development
services for vaccines, biosimilars, and medicine to treat
cardiovascular, skeletal, endocrine, central nervous system,
cancer, and other sorts of ailments. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
          Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
          Tristan T. Akers, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Rd Suite #126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
                 agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
                 khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com
                 takers@mcoffmanlegal.com

CHILD DEVELOPMENT: Court Closes Amended Gambill Class Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as DEBORAH GAMBILL, et al., Plaintiffs v.
CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTERS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-286-SPB (W.D. Pa.), Judge Susan Paradise Baxter of the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the amended
class action complaint with prejudice.

The defendant's motion to strike the plaintiffs' class allegations
is dismissed as moot.

The Clerk is directed to mark the case "CLOSED."

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 16, 2024, is available
at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=D4qJi1

CHILDREN'S PLACE: Beckford Suit Removed From Sup. Ct. to N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as AJA BECKFORD, ZACHARY CUBAS,
CHRISTINA LABAJO, and ALEXUS WALLACE, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, v. THE CHILDREN'S PLACE, INC., a
Delaware corporation, Case No. 24CV086768 (Filed Aug. 9, 2024), was
removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda,
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on Sept. 13, 2024.

The Northern California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:24-cv-06468 to the proceeding.

The Complaint alleges that the Defendant has inserted
"unconscionable provisions" in its arbitration agreement in order
to "deprive Plaintiffs of the ability to arbitrate their claims
with Judicial Arbitration Mediation Services, Inc.

The Plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class of "all persons,
within the State of California, who . . . made a purchase from
Children's Place's website, childrensplace.com."

Children's Place is an American specialty retailer of children's
apparel and accessories.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          P. Craig Cardon, Esq.
          Jay T. Ramsey, Esq.
          Alyssa Sones, Esq.
          Patrick Rubalcava, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6055
          Telephone: (310) 228-3700
          Facsimile: (310) 228-3701
          E-mail: ccardon@sheppardmullin.com
                  jramsey@sheppardmullin.com
                  asones@sheppardmullin.com
                  prubalcava@sheppardmullin.com

CHINESE AMERICAN: Faces Estevez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
WENDY JOEL ESTEVEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHINESE AMERICAN PLANNING COUNCIL
HOME ATTENDANT PROGRAM INC., CPC TRIBECA CENTER INC., CPC HAP
HOLDINGS, INC., CPC TENANT AND BUILDING SERVICES, INC.,
CHINESE-AMERICAN PLANNING COUNCIL, INC., and WAYNE HO, Defendants,
Case No. 1:24-cv-07069 (S.D.N.Y., September 18, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendants for failure to pay their employees
for all hours worked, including overtime wages, in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals worked for the
Defendants as direct support professionals.

Chinese American Planning Council Home Attendant Program Inc. is a
company that operates and manages home care services in New York,
New York.

CPC Tribeca Center Inc. is a company that operates and manages home
care services in New York, New York.

CPC HAP Holdings, Inc. is a company that operates and manages home
care services in New York, New York.

CPC Tenant and Building Services, Inc. is a company that operates
and manages home care services in New York, New York.

Chinese-American Planning Council, Inc. is a company that operates
and manages home care services in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         C.K. Lee, Esq.
         Anne Seelig, Esq.
         LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
         148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
         New York, NY 10011
         Telephone: (212) 465-1188
         Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

CHURCH & DWIGHT: Goodman Sues Over Mislabeled Condom Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW GOODMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHURCH & DWIGHT CO., INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-06813 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 9, 2024) is a class action on
behalf of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers who
purchased Trojan condom products pursuant to the New York General
Business Law.

The Defendant manufactures and distributes latex and non-latex male
condoms in the United States, primarily under its Trojan brand. The
Products' packaging claims the brand is "trusted for over 100
years" and is "triple tested."  However, unbeknownst to consumers,
the products are unfit for their intended purpose because they
contain PFAS, "forever chemicals," which are dangerous to human
health. This not disclosed anywhere on the product packaging, says
the suit.

Accordingly, Plaintiff bring claims against Defendant individually
and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated for
claims of breach of warranties, fraud, state consumer protection
laws, and unjust enrichment.

Church & Dwight Co. manufactures, markets, and sells Trojan brand
condoms worldwide in a variety of shapes and styles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
          Matthew A. Girardi, Esq.
          Caroline C. Donovan, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1330 Avenue of the Americas, Fl 32
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: jarisohn@bursor.com
                  mgirardi@bursor.com
                  cdonovan@bursor.com

CIB WIRE: Fails to Properly Pay Fabricators, Padilla Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ETHAN PADILLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CIB WIRE & IRON WORKS LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 2:24-cv-01182-LA (E.D. Wis., September 17, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendant for failure to pay regular and
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws.

The Plaintiff worked as a fabricator at the Defendant's Mukwonago,
Wisconsin location from June 2024 until August 2024.

CIB Wire & Iron Works LLC is a manufacturer of woven and welded
wire mesh, headquartered in Mukwonago, Wisconsin. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         James A. Walcheske, Esq.
         Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
         David M. Potteiger, Esq.
         WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
         235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
         Brookfield, WI 53005
         Telephone: (262) 780-1953
         Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
         Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com

CLOOPEN GROUP: Court Dismisses Dong Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Cloopen Group Holding Limited disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 29, 2024, that on January 23, 2024,
the Supreme Court of the State of New York issued an order granting
final approval of a settlement and dismissing all claims in a
securities class action filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York captioned "Dong v. Cloopen
Group Holding Limited et al.," Case No. 1:21-cv-10610-JGK-RWL.

On December 10, 2021, the company and certain of the company’s
current and former directors and officers, the underwriters in the
IPO and its agent for service of process were sued in said court,
out of certain public disclosures made in connection with the
company’s initial public offering. On July 15, 2022, defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, and on March 16, 2023, the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
denied that motion to dismiss.

On June 5, 2023, the company, as well as all parties, executed a
binding term sheet for the settlement. On June 6, 2023, the parties
informed the courts that they had reached an agreement-in-principle
to settle the claims in the class action lawsuits, and, the same
day, the court discontinued and closed said action. On August 16,
2023, the company entered into a stipulation of settlement with all
parties to the suits reflecting the terms of the settlement. The
settlement required the company to pay a total of US$12.0 million
in cash to the plaintiff class. On October 5, 2023, the Supreme
Court of the State of New York preliminarily approved the
settlement.

Cloopen is a multi-capability cloud-based communications solution
provider in China offering a full suite of cloud-based
communications solutions, covering communications platform as a
service, cloud-based contact centers, or cloud-based CC, and
cloud-based unified communications and collaborations.


CNBC LLC: Court Refuses to Dismiss Nino Suit Over VPPA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York denies without prejudice the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit entitled NINO, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. CNBC LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-05025-ALC
(S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiffs George Nino, Sandra Sion, and Joseph Wawrocki bring this
putative class action against Defendant CNBC LLC alleging that the
Defendant unlawfully disclosed their personally identifiable
information ("PII") without their consent to Facebook and, thereby,
violated the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2710
("VPPA").

The Defendant has moved to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the
reasons set forth in this Opinion & Order, the Court rules that the
Defendant's motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is denied without
prejudice and the Plaintiff's requested stay is granted.

CNBC is a media publisher that developed, owns, and operates
cnbc.com, which, in turn, offers a wide array of prerecorded video
content. The website receives millions of visits a day and the
Defendant has thousands of subscribers, who watch videos on their
site.

In order to subscribe to the website, individuals click a link
entitled "Create Free Account" and are notified of the benefits of
creating an account. These benefits include making watchlists,
following favorite stocks and make more informed trades. The site
also discloses to account-holders that the information they provide
when they create an account may be shared with other NBCUniversal
businesses and used to help the Defendant better tailor their
services, products, and advertising and that as part of their
account, the Defendant may send them newsletters, promotions, and
other marketing material. Users are then required to enter in their
email address and a password in order to create an account.

The Plaintiffs allege that CNBC shared information with Facebook
using software called the "Facebook Pixel." Facebook Pixel tracks
the pages and content subscribers view on cnbc.com. When viewing a
video on the website, the site's URL, as well as the user's
"Facebook ID," a unique value associated with a user's individual
Facebook account, are sent to Facebook via the Pixel. The user's
video viewing history is, therefore, disclosed to Facebook by
virtue of the fact that said video forms a basis of the site's
URL.

The Plaintiffs are subscribers to the Defendant's website and have
each watched many videos on the site. They also have had Facebook
accounts, which contain their own names, continuously since
subscribing to cnbc.com. Each Plaintiff has also disclosed their
email address to the Defendant in order to create their accounts.

According to the Plaintiffs, they have accessed cnbc.com to watch
video content on devices and/or browsers in which they were also
logged into their Facebook accounts. They allege that when they
watched videos on CNBC's website, the Defendant disclosed their
unique Facebook IDs, as well as the full URL of the page visited,
to Facebook via the Pixel tool without their consent.

The Plaintiffs filed the Complaint in this action on June 14, 2023.
The Defendant was then granted an extension of time to file a
responsive pleading to the Complaint.

On Dec. 15, 2023, the Defendant filed their motion to dismiss
alongside a declaration from defense counsel. The Plaintiffs filed
their opposition on Jan. 16, 2024. The Plaintiffs then amended
their opposition filing on Jan. 19, 2024, in order to "correct an
inadvertent factual misstatement." On Jan. 30, 2024, the Defendant
filed its reply memorandum. After the motion to dismiss was fully
briefed, the Plaintiffs filed a notice of supplemental authority on
March 29, 2024, which they responded to on April 5, 2024.

The Defendant raises two arguments in support of its motion to
dismiss. The first is that the Plaintiffs have not adequately
pleaded that they qualify as "consumers" under the VPPA and, as
such, are unable to bring claims under the statute. The second is
that the Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly plead that CNBC
actually disclosed their PII to third parties without users'
consent.

Because the Plaintiffs do not allege that they rented or purchased
goods or services from cnbc.com, in order for their claims to
survive, they must qualify as subscribers under the statute, Judge
Carter opines. As the Defendant points out and as the Plaintiffs
concede, courts throughout this District have consistently held
that the plain meaning of "subscriber" requires an ongoing
commitment or relationship between the user and the entity, which
owns and operates the website or all.

All this, taken together, strongly supports a finding that the
Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly plead a claim under the VPPA,
Judge Carter holds.

Nevertheless, Judge Carter notes, as the Plaintiffs point out, a
stay of this case is warranted given the Second Circuit's current
consideration of Salazar v. National Basketball Association,
23-1147 (2d Cir.). The operative legal question the Circuit will
consider in Salazar is the same legal question centrally at issue
here--whether plaintiffs, who created accounts on sites where such
accounts were not necessary to view video content, qualify as
"subscribers" under the VPPA.

As this Court noted in its prior opinion staying Lamb v. Forbes, a
similarly-situated VPPA action, "[t]he Second Circuit's decision in
Salazar 'could contain guidance that would allow this litigation to
proceed on a reasonable and efficient basis.'" No.
1:22-cv-06319-ALC, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59355, at *6 (S.D.N.Y.
Apr. 1, 2024) (citing Loftus v. Signpost Inc., 464 F. Supp. 3d 524,
527 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)).

Judge Carter holds that the grant of a stay would not unduly
prejudice the Defendant as this case is rather undeveloped and no
discovery has been exchanged. Indeed, the Defendants do not
reference any substantial burden a stay would impose. A stay is
also in the interests of the court as it would promote judicial
efficiency and minimizee the possibility of conflicts between
different courts.

For these reasons, the Court rules that the Defendant's motion
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is denied without prejudice and the
Plaintiffs' request for a stay is granted. The Clerk of the Court
is directed to terminate ECF No. 13. The Parties are also ordered
to file a joint status report within seven days of the issuance of
the Second Circuit's decision in Salazar informing the Court of the
manner in which the Parties would like to proceed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order dated Aug. 29,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3ty8nw2r from
PacerMonitor.com.


COINBASE GLOBAL: Seeks to Strike Pearl Class Allegations
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARRY PEARL, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. COINBASE GLOBAL,
INC. and COINBASE, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-03561-MMC (N.D. Cal.),
the Defendants, on Dec. 13, 2024, will move this Court for an order
striking the class allegations from Plaintiff's Third Amended Class
Action Complaint or otherwise denying class certification.

This Motion is based on the Court's authority, under Rules 12(f),
23(c)(1)(A), and 23(d)(1)(D) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, to strike class allegations or otherwise "deny class
certification before a plaintiff files a motion to certify a
class."

Coinbase submits that the Plaintiff cannot certify a class because
the members of the putative class have agreed to arbitrate their
claims on an individual basis and signed class action waivers.

This motion is based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion, the
attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, all of the pleadings
and papers on file in this case, and on such other evidence and
argument as may be presented to the Court on this matter.

The Plaintiff Pearl and his former co-plaintiff Vladimirsky filed
the first putative class action complaint in this case over two
years ago.

The Plaintiff, but not Vladimirsky, filed the SAC in this Court,
seeking to bring a variety of claims on behalf of two putative
classes of Coinbase users:

"all persons in the United States," and "all persons in the State
of California," respectively, who "purchased or acquired" UST
"through Coinbase.""

Coinbase Global is an American publicly traded company that
operates a cryptocurrency exchange platform.

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Meredith R. Dearborn, Esq.
          Randall S. Luskey, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
          535 Mission Street, 24th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (628) 432-5100
          Facsimile: (628) 232-3101
          E-mail: mdearborn@paulweiss.com
                  rluskey@paulweiss.com

COSMED GROUP: Morton and Keller Suit Removed to W.D. Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LEANNE MORTON and SUZANNE M. KELLER, individually
and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COSMED
GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2024-11887, was removed
from the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on September 11,
2024.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00251 to the proceeding.

The case arises from Plaintiffs' personal injuries that were caused
by their exposure to ethylene oxide emitted from Defendants'
medical device sterilization facility.

Headquartered in Rhode Island, Cosmed Group, Inc. is a Delaware
corporation that provides pasteurization and sterilization services
and technologies to food producers and manufacturers. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

         Michael Coren, Esq.
         Eric S. Pasternack, Esq.
         Matthew A Capacete, Esq.
         Drew M. Renzi, Esq.
         COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C.
         Two Commerce Square
         2001 Market Street, Suite 2900
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         E-mail: mcoren@cprlaw.com
                 epastrnack@cprlaw.com
                 mcapacete@cprlaw.com
                 drenzi@cprlaw.com

                 - and -

         Robert Gitelman, Esq.
         NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
         400 Broadhollow Road, Suite 305
         Melville, NY 11747-4810
         E-mail: rgitelman@napolilaw.com

                 - and -

         John R. Fonda, Esq.
         NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
         1213 Culbreth Drive, Suite 216
         Wilmington, NC 28405-3639
         E-mail: jfonda@napolilaw.com

                 - and -

         Paul J. Napoli, Esq.
         NS PR LAW SERVICES LLC
         1302 Avenida Ponce de León
         San Juan, PR 00907-3982
         E-mail: pnapoli@nsprlaw.com

                 - and -

         Kathleen B. Campbell, Esq.
         Diana A. Silva, Esq.
         Danielle N. Bagwell, Esq.
         Kelly A. Hanna, Esq.
         MANKO, GOLD, KATCHER & FOX, LLP
         Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 700
         Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
         Telephone: (484) 430-2347
         Facsimile: (484) 430-5711
         E-mail: kcampbell@mankogold.com
                 dsilva@mankogold.com
                 dbagwell@mankogold.com
                 khanna@mankogold.com

CREDIT ONE BANK: McCrackin Sues Over Unlawful Debt Communication
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley McCrackin, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, v. Credit One Bank, Case No. CACE-24-013263 (Fla. 17th
Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Sept. 17, 2024), is brought
against the Defendant for violating the Florida Consumer Collection
Practices Act ("FCCPA") due to unlawful debt communication.

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

Pursuant to the FCCPA, in collecting consumer debts, no person
shall: "communicate with the debtor between the hours of 9 p.m. and
8 a.m. in the debtor 's time zone without lhe prior consent of the
debtor."

On September 9, 2024, Defendant sent an electronic mail
communication to Plaintiff (the 'Communication"). The Communication
was sent by Defendant to Plaintiff at 10:46 PM in Plaintiffs time
zone. The Communication was received by Plaintiff from Defendant at
10:46 PM in Plaintiffs time zone.

The Electronic Communication was sent to Plaintiff between the
hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in the time zone of Plaintiff.
Defendant did not have the consent of Plaintiff to communicate with
Plaintiff between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM, As such, by and
through the Electronic Communication, Defendant violated the FCCPA,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is the alleged debtor of the Consumer Debt.

The Defendant is a Florida corporation, with its principal place of
business located in Dallas, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April, 4, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FERNANDO CONRIQUEZ, an
individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated, v. CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD U.S., INC., a Missouri
corporation; CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a California
corporation; INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC., a California corporation;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:22-cv-02734-RFL (N.D.
Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting
continuance of the foregoing dates to the following deadlines (or
later dates of the Court's choosing):

  Class Certification Expert Disclosures Due:     Feb. 28, 2025

  Class Certification Motion Due:                 April 4, 2025

  Class Certification Opposition Due:             June 2, 2025

  Class Certification Reply Due:                  Aug. 1, 2025

On March 27, 2024, the Parties filed a Joint Scheduling Proposal
regarding Class Certification.

On April 3, 2024, the Court adopted the Joint Scheduling Proposal.

On Sept. 3, 2024, the Parties agreed to attend mediation before
Judge Mary H. Strobel (Ret.), which is set for Nov. 12, 2024.

Cushman is a full-service global commercial real estate company.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Joshua D. Boxer, Esq.
          Clare E. Moran, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
          E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
                  jboxer@maternlawgroup.com
                  cmoran@maternlawgroup.com

                - and -

          Ronald W. Makarem, Esq.
          Daniel J. Bass, Esq.
          MAKAREM & ASSOCIATES APLC
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2440
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-1760
          Telephone: (310) 312-0299;
          Facsimile: (310) 312-0296
          E-mail: makarem@law-rm.com
                  bass@law-rm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          John R. Giovannone, Esq.
          Linda Wang, Esq.
          CDF LABOR LAW LLP
          707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 5150
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 612-6300
          E-mail: jgiovannone@cdflaborlaw.com
                  lwang@cdflaborlaw.com

                - and -

          Torey Joseph Favarote, Esq.
          GLEASON & FAVAROTE, LLP
          4014 Long Beach Blvd., Suite 300
          Long Beach, CA 90807
          Telephone: (213) 452-0510
          Facsimile: (213) 452-0514
          E-mail: tfavarote@gleasonfavarote.com

DAILY CALLER: Discloses Video Buying Habits to Meta, Penning Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ED PENNING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE DAILY CALLER, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-02662 (D.D.C., August 17, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has disclosed to Meta
Platforms, Inc. (Facebook) information regarding the video viewing
and buying habits of the visitors on its website,
www.dailycaller.com, without consent. The Defendant embedded within
the website a "Meta Pixel" that was provided by Facebook. That
pixel tracked the Plaintiff's and the Class members' video viewing
history while on the website and reported their viewing history to
Facebook. As a result, the Defendant violated the Plaintiff's and
the Class members' statutorily protected privacy rights, the suit
alleges.

The Daily Caller, Inc. is a company that sells pre-recorded videos,
headquartered in Washington, D.C. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Tyler K. Somes, Esq.
         HEDIN LLP
         1100 15th Street NW, Ste 04-108
         Washington, DC 20005
         Telephone: (202) 900-3332
         Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
         Email: tsomes@hedinllp.com

DARREN INDYKE: Bensky Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Danielle Bensky and Jane
Doe 3, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Case No. 1:24-cv-01204-AS
(S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   (1) certifying this action pursuant to Rule 23 as a class
action;

   (2) appointing Jane Doe 3 as the Class Representative;

   (3) appointing Boies Schiller Flexner LLP as Class Counsel; and


   (4) granting such other and further relief as the Court may deem

       just and proper.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 13, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8uwA3b at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Boies, Esq.
          Andrew Villacastin, Esq.
          Alexander Law, Esq.
          Sigrid McCawley, Esq.
          Daniel Crispino, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
          55 Hudson Yards
          New York, NY
          Telephone: (212) 446-2300
          Facsimile: (212) 446-2350
          E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com
                  avillacastin@bsfllp.com
                  alaw@bsfllp.com
                  smccawley@bsfllp.com
                  dcrispino@bsfllp.com

DAVEK ACCESSORIES: Ortiz Sues Over Blind's Access to Online Store
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH ORTIZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DAVEK ACCESSORIES INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-00877 (W.D.N.Y., September 16, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act and the New York State 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://davekny.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text) or a text
equivalent, empty links that contain no text, 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.

Davek Accessories Inc. 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: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
              Dana@Gottlieb.legal
              Michael@Gottlieb.legal

DELAWARE NORTH: Hookano Suit Removed from Sup. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Jason Mico Hookano,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
Delaware North Companies, Incorporated; The Patina Group NewCo,
LLC; and Does 1 through 50, Case No. 24STCV19302 (Filed Aug. 1,
2024), 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 Sept. 13,
2024.

The Central California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-07880 to the proceeding.

The suit alleges violation of the California Labor Code and
California Business and Professions Code: (1) "Failure To Pay
Earned Wages; (2) Failure To Pay Minimum Wage; (3) Failure To Pay
Overtime Compensation; (4) Failure To Provide Meal Breaks; (5)
Failure To Provide Rest Breaks; (6) Failure To Provide Accurate
Wage Statements; (7) Failure To Timely Pay Final Wages; (8) Failure
To Reimburse all Reasonable and Necessary Business Expenses; and
(9) Violation of Business & Professions Code section 17200, et
seq."

The Plaintiff seeks to certify the following class of individuals
("Class Members"):

    "All current and former non-exempt employees who worked for
    the Defendants within the State of California at any time
    during the period from four years preceding the filing of this

    Complaint until final judgment."

Delaware North Companies provides hospitality and food
services.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jon D. Meer, Esq.
          Bethany A. Pelliconi, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          E-mail: jmeer@seyfarth.com
                  bpelliconi@seyfarth.com

DEVRY UNIVERSITY: Brown Seeks Student Support Advisors' Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RECKEITTA BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DEVRY UNIVERSITY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-08564 (N.D. Ill., September 18, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for unpaid overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, breach of contract, and unjust
enrichment.

The Plaintiff worked remotely for the Defendant as a non-exempt
student support advisor from approximately July 2021 to November
2022.

DeVry University, Inc. is private university, headquartered in
DuPage County, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
         Paulina R. Kennedy, Esq.
         SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
         One Towne Square, 17th Floor
         Southfield, MI 48076
         Telephone: (248) 355-0300
         Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com
                pkennedy@sommerspc.com

DIRECTTOU LLC: Removes To Class Suit to N.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of JONATHAN HOANG TO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DIRECTTOU,
LLC, Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda (Case
No. 24CV086809) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on Sept. 12, 2024.

The clerk of court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:24-cv-06447. The case is assigned to Judge William H.
Orrick.

DirectToU LLC operates in the consumer electronics & computers
retail industry. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Teresa C. Chow, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-4301
          Telephone: (310) 820-8800
          Facsimile: (310) 820-8859
          Email: tchow@bakerlaw.com

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Court Grants in Part Pappas' Bid for Notice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Rudolph Contreras of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs'
motion for notice in the lawsuit titled STEVE PAPPAS, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02800-RC (D.D.C.).

The Plaintiffs, a certified class of current and former D.C.
Metropolitan Police Department officers, are suing the Defendants
alleging that the Defendants violated the Americans with
Disabilities Act. The Plaintiffs move the Court to issue an Order
directing that notice be sent to members of the class certified in
this case informing class members that this case is proceeding for
injunctive relief and that, if class members seek other relief,
class members must take additional action.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to apply the doctrine of
vicarious exhaustion of administrative remedies to all members of
the class who intervene in this case. In response, the Defendants
contend that providing class members with notice is costly and
unnecessary and that applying the doctrine of vicarious exhaustion
on a class-wide basis is inappropriate.

The Court assumes familiarity with the factual and procedural
background related in Pappas v. Dist. Columbia ("Pappas I"), 513 F.
Supp. 3d 64, 74–77 (D.D.C. 2021) and Pappas v. Dist. Columbia
("Pappas II"), No. 19-cv-2800, 2024 WL 1111298, at *1–2 (D.D.C.
Mar. 14, 2024). As relevant here, in Pappas II, the Court denied
the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) but granted the Plaintiffs' motion to
certify a class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(2).

Now that a 23(b)(2) class has been certified, the Plaintiffs move
the Court to issue an order directing that Court-approved notice be
sent to members of the certified class of their right to pursue
their damages claims individually. The Plaintiffs also ask the
Court to hold, and inform class members, that they need not file
their own charge of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission to challenge MPD's involuntary retirement
policy, because class members' claims have been vicariously
exhausted by named Plaintiff Pappas.

In response, the Defendants argue that providing notice to absent
class members is both costly and unnecessary under governing law.
The Defendants also argue that applying the doctrine of vicarious
exhaustion of administrative remedies to all class members, who
intervene would be inappropriate given that intervening class
members may have issues in their individual cases that make their
claims distinguishable from the claims that were exhausted by
Plaintiff Pappas, and therefore, ineligible for vicarious
exhaustion.

Judge Contreras holds that providing absent class members with
notice is consistent with due process principles and basic
fairness. Because the Court certified only a 23(b)(2) class,
damages claims are unavailable to the class in this case but there
is a risk that after this case concludes, absent class members will
be barred by res judicata in future individual lawsuits--if they
were to file individual lawsuits--from pursuing damages claims.

Indeed, Judge Contreras says it appears that the Plaintiffs seek to
provide notice to absent class members to protect them from the
potential claim preclusive effect of this litigation.

Although notice is not necessary to bind absent class members in a
23(b)(2) class action seeking only injunctive and declaratory
relief, Judge Contreras points out that due process does require
notice before the individual monetary claims of absent class
members may be barred.

Given the risk that a future court would bar absent class members'
individual damages claims--if those class members were to seek
damages in future individual lawsuits--the Court believes that it
is consistent with due process to provide absent class members with
notice and an opportunity to intervene or seek to opt out of the
class certified in this case. Moreover, it does not appear that
providing absent class members with notice has the potential to
prejudice the prospects for classwide recovery because the class
certified here is certified with respect to declaratory and
injunctive relief that is capable of changing the Defendants'
conduct regardless of the number of class members.

Additionally, as the Court discussed in its earlier opinion, any
"monetary claims of the class members were insufficiently cohesive
to warrant collective treatment," which is why the Court did not
certify a 23(b)(3) class. Given the fairness considerations at
issue in this case, the Court concludes that providing the class
with notice and informing class members of the need to intervene or
opt out to preserve their rights to pursue individual relief is
appropriate. The Court, therefore, concludes that providing notice
to the class is appropriate.

The parties disagree about the wording of the class notice, and the
Defendants point to parts of the Plaintiffs' proposed notice that,
they say, are misleading. Accordingly, the Court directs the
parties to meet and confer regarding what should be contained in
the notice and how it should be sent to putative class members. The
parties will, thereafter, file a joint status report with a joint
proposed notice attached.

The Plaintiffs also request that the Court apply the doctrine of
vicarious exhaustion of administrative remedies to the claims of
all class members who intervene in this case--and include a
statement to that effect in the notice.

Because the claims of class members, who seek to intervene may
require individualized determinations due to differences in their
claims from that of Plaintiff Pappas, the Court cannot conclude ex
ante that Plaintiff Pappas's EEO filing could have put the EEOC or
MPD on notice regarding intervening class members' claims, or
provided the MPD and EEOC with an opportunity for administrative
consolidation and resolution. But such a conclusion would be
required to apply the doctrine of vicarious exhaustion to the
claims of all class members, who seek to intervene. Thus, the Court
will need to analyze the claims of class members, who intervene
individually, to determine whether their claims are sufficiently
similar to Plaintiff Pappas's claims such that vicarious exhaustion
applies.

Accordingly, the Court will not grant the Plaintiffs' motion to
treat all intervening class members' claims as vicariously
exhausted. Rather, if any class member seeks to intervene, the
Court can address the issue of vicarious exhaustion of
administrative remedies--if raised and relevant--at that time.

For these reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part the
Plaintiffs' motion. The Parties will meet and confer about the
precise language of the notice and provide the Court with a status
report proposing the notice's language on or before Sept 25, 2024;
14 days after the Court approves the notice, the Defendants will
provide Class Counsel with the last-known mail and email addresses
for all class members; 14 days after Class Counsel receive the
addresses, Class Counsel will send the notice to class members; and
the deadline for absent class members to intervene in this case
will be 90 days after Class Counsel sends notice to the class
members.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Aug. 29,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mrv7bjau from
PacerMonitor.com.


DMS OPERATING: Franklin Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Lead Testers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CARLETON FRANKLIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DMS OPERATING, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 4:24-cv-03494 (S.D. Tex., September 18, 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 lead tester at multiple
equipment yards, facilities, and warehouses in Texas and North
Dakota from approximately May of 2022 to August of 2024.

DMS Operating, LLC is a staffing company headquartered in Spring,
Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Beatriz-Sosa Morris, Esq.
         John Neuman, Esq.
         SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
         4151 Southwest Freeway, Suite 515
         Houston, TX 77027
         Telephone: (281) 885-8844
         Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
         Email: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com
                JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com

DRIFTWOOD ASSOCIATES: Disabled Can't Access Property, Feltzin Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE FELTZIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DRIFTWOOD ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 9:24-cv-81125-DSL (S.D. Fla., September 16, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its facilities to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
persons with disabilities. The Defendant has continued to
discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block
them from access and use of its property and business. The
Plaintiff and similarly situated disabled individuals encountered
architectural barriers in common areas such as parking and exterior
accessible routes and public restrooms.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek injunctive relief to remove
the existing architectural barriers to the physically disabled when
such removal is readily achievable for the place of public
accommodation.

Driftwood Associates, LLC is a commercial property owner and
operator doing business in Florida. [BN]

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

               - and -

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

EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Settles Securities Class Suit for $40-Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Wack of MarketWatch reports that Emergent BioSolutions said
it agreed to pay $40 million to settle previously disclosed
securities class-action litigation pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the Gaithersburg, Md.,
biopharmaceutical company Friday said insurance proceeds would be
substantially used to pay to settle the claims brought on behalf of
stockholders who bought Emergent's stock between March 10, 2020,
and Nov. 4, 2021.

The lawsuit was originally filed in 2021.

The proposed settlement, which is subject to court approval,
includes no admission of liability or wrongdoing by Emergent or any
current or former Emergent officers, directors or employees, and
will resolve all claims against the company and other defendants.
[GN]


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Rangel Stayed Pending Arbitration Completion
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as LEXUS RANGEL and GRANT BICE, individually,
and on behalf of all other similarly situated consumers,
Plaintiffs, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00642-JLT-CDB (E.D. Calif.), Judge
Jennifer L. Thurston of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California Experian's motion to compel
arbitration.

Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants are stayed pending the
completion of arbitration.

Plaintiffs filed their complaint against Experian and Loancare,
asserting the following claims:

   (1) a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act Sec. 1681 by
both Defendants;
   (2) a violation of the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act
under Cal. Civil Code Sec. 1785.1, et seq. by both Defendants; and

   (3) a violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act under Cal. Civil Code Sec. 1788.17 by Loancare.

Experian filed the motion to compel arbitration, contending that by
signing up for "CreditWorks," the Plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate
any claims against Experian. Both Experian and ECS are wholly owned
subsidiaries of Experian Holdings, Inc. under the parent company
Experian plc.

Experian alleges that to enroll in CreditWords, Plaintiffs had to
complete a single webform, which required them to enter personal
information to create an account. By clicking the "Create Your
Account" button, the Plaintiffs received a disclosure that stated
in bold text, "I accept and agree to your Terms of Use Agreement I
understand that I may withdraw this authorization at any time by
contacting ECS." They had the option to click on a hyperlink,
off-set in blue text, that, if clicked, would have presented them
with the full text of the Terms of Use. The Terms of Use in effect
during Plaintiffs' enrollment in CreditWorks included an
arbitration agreement. Experian contends that users were bound by
the Terms of Use because users were required to affirmatively
acknowledge the agreement before proceeding with use of the
website.

The Court agrees. Because Plaintiffs were informed that by clicking
"Continue" they were affirming that they would be bound by the
Terms of Use, Plaintiffs unambiguously assented to the Terms of
Use, the Court states.

The Court finds that the website provided sufficient notice of the
Terms of Use and created a valid binding arbitration agreement
between Plaintiffs and Experian. Because the Plaintiffs do not
provide any opposition to Experian's enforcement of the arbitration
agreement as an affiliate, Experian presents sufficient evidence to
establish that Experian is an affiliate of ECS during the time that
the Plaintiffs were enrolled in CreditWorks. Therefore, Experian
was a party to the arbitration agreement and may enforce the
agreement.

In addition, the Plaintiffs offer no other arguments for a finding
that the delegation provision is unconscionable or otherwise
unenforceable. Thus, the arbitration agreement has a valid
delegation clause, and the arbitrator must decide any questions
regarding both arbitrability and the merits.

For these reasons, the Court concludes that Experian was a party to
the arbitration agreement and may enforce the agreement. It stays
the action as to the claims against Experian pending completion of
arbitration.

In light of the foregoing, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants are
required to notify the Court that arbitration proceedings have
concluded within fourteen days of the issuance of the arbitrator's
decision. And because all claims are now stayed pending the
completion of arbitration, all dates currently on the calendar in
the case are vacated.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated September 16, 2024, is
available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4sv15t


FINANCIAL EDUCATION: Rule 11 Sanctions Denied in Cofer Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as MICHELLE COFER, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
FINANCIAL EDUCATION SERVICES, INC. D/B/A UNITED WEALTH EDUCATION,
et al, Defendants, Case No. 22-12759 (E.D. Mich.), Judge F. Kay
Behm of the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan denied the defendants' motion for Rule 11 sanctions.
This is a final order and closes the case.

Plaintiffs Michelle Cofer, Keedric M. Cofer, Cortez Jenkins,
Tameisha Jenkins, Marlon Hester, Sr., Geraldine Andre, Djivenino
Andre, and Monkia Green filed a class action complaint on November
14, 2022 alleging violations of the Michigan Consumer Protection
Act, breach of contract, and tortious interference with a business
relationship. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 27,
2023, adding a claim for declaratory judgment.

On April 24, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and sought an order
compelling arbitration pursuant to the parties' agreements. The
court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss on January 24, 2024.
Defendants filed their motion for sanctions on February 14, 2024,
which is fully briefed. On March 21, 2024, the court granted the
motion to dismiss in part and ordered the parties to submit to
arbitration.

Defendants FES and UWS are Michigan corporations that do business
under the assumed name United Wealth Education. UWE marketed and
sold credit repair services and investment opportunities across the
United States. Plaintiffs were engaged, at all relevant times, as
Independent Sales Representatives with UWE. Plaintiffs allege they
marketed Defendants' credit repair services while also recruiting
individuals to act as sales agents as part of a multi-level
marketing program. Plaintiffs further allege that each sales agent
was required to pay an annual fee to Defendants as well as a
monthly membership fee to retain their status. Each ISR was
allegedly paid based upon their individual sales as well as the
sales of those they recruited into the program.

The individual Plaintiffs allege their relationships with UWE were
"ostensibly governed" by an Independent Sales Representative
Agreement, but that they "were not provided copies of the
agreement." According to Defendants, the relevant provisions are
reflected in the ISR Agreement posted on UWE's website and in the
sample ISR Agreement provided to Plaintiffs' counsel.  According to
Defendants, in the event of a disagreement between the parties,
they specifically agreed that their disputes would be subject to
binding arbitration.

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs should be sanctioned under
Rule 11 for filing a frivolous complaint. According to Defendants,
Plaintiffs' "artful pleading" regarding their signatures on the
arbitration agreements is unwarranted under recent precedent and
sanctionable. Defendants assert that Plaintiffs "walked back" their
allegations in the original complaint that they signed the
contracts in this case, subsequently claiming that they do not know
if they signed the contracts. And regardless, Defendants argue that
their later allegations do not meet the standard to put an
arbitration agreement at issue in this circuit. Accordingly,
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' claims are frivolous and
sanctionable under Rule 11.

In Tahfs v. Proctor, 316 F.3d 584, 594 (6th Cir. 2003), the United
States Appeals Court for the Sixth Circuit cautioned against
determining that a party violated Rule 11 at the motion to dismiss
stage of proceedings. Indeed, it expressly warned against reading
"[un]warranted by existing law, as the expression is used in Rule
11(b)(2)[,]" to mean all claims that fail to satisfy Rule 12(b)(6).


Judge Behm says, the court declines to grant the motion for
sanctions under Rule 11. In the first instance, Rule 11 is
generally not the proper vehicle to test the legal or factual
sufficiency of a complaint. Defendants did that through their
motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration, and the court ruled on
that motion in their favor. Accordingly, Rule 11 sanctions are not
appropriate for this reason.

Based on the foregoing, at the motion to dismiss stage, the
Plaintiffs' position was not frivolous and was not so egregious as
to be sanctionable.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated September 16, 2024, is
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3WpYwN


FIRST SOURCE: N.D. New York Denies Bid to Dismiss Hayes Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Brenda K. Sannes of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of New York issued a Memorandum-Decision
and Order denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit
entitled SHARON HAYES and CARIE WARMACK, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FIRST SOURCE
FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-00875-BKS-TWD
(N.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiffs Sharon Hayes and Carie Warmack bring this putative class
action under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d) asserting claims against
Defendant First Source Federal Credit Union for breach of contract,
including breach of implied covenant, and for deceptive acts or
practices prohibited under Section 349 of the New York General
Business Law.

Currently before the Court is the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

The Defendant is a bank headquartered in New Hartford, New York,
with over $930 million dollars in assets. The Plaintiffs are
residents of New York and have checking accounts with the
Defendant.

The Plaintiffs allege that during the relevant time period, i.e.,
prior to February 2023, the Defendant's account documents (the
"Account Documents") contained explicit terms indicating that fees,
specifically overdraft fees or fees for insufficient funds, would
only be assessed once per check or item. More specifically, the
Plaintiffs allege that these Account Documents indicate that a
singular fee can be assessed on checks, ACH debits, and electronic
payments, and that the Defendant will charge a single fee per item
that is returned due to insufficient funds.

According to the Plaintiffs, there is zero indication anywhere in
the Account Documents that the same item is eligible to incur
multiple fees and that the disclosures from this period never
discuss a circumstance where the Defendant may assess multiple fees
for a single check or ACH transaction that was returned for
insufficient funds and later reprocessed one or more times and
returned again.

The Plaintiffs further allege that in contrast to its Account
Documents in effect at the time, the Defendant regularly assessed
two or more fees on the same item. The Plaintiffs were assessed
multiple fees on an item prior to February 2023.

Both parties have submitted additional documents for the Court's
consideration on the motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs have
submitted guidance from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,
and guidance from the New York Department of Financial Services.

The Defendant has submitted a declaration from its Chief Financial
Officer, Pamela Goodison ("Goodison Declaration"), a declaration
from counsel in this matter, Peter G. Siachos, a copy of former
Plaintiff Jamie Sardo's redacted signature-cards, a copy of Sardo's
account statements from November 2022 to January 2023, and a copy
of a Motion for Terminating Sanctions filed in the Superior Court
of the State of California in Case No. MSC21-02089.

With respect to the Goodison Declaration, the Defendant argues that
it may attach the document because the Plaintiffs' counsel elected
to attach certain exhibits to the Amended Complaint and proffers a
reckless interpretation of the Dodd-Frank Act in an effort to
justify its bad-faith conduct.

But as stated, Judge Sannes says it is appropriate for the Court to
consider documents attached to a complaint. As the Defendant has
not provided a relevant reason for the Court to consider the
Goodison Declaration, the Court will not consider it. Further,
neither the Plaintiffs nor the Defendant provide any justification
for why the Court may consider any of the other extrinsic documents
submitted, and none appear on their face to have been incorporated
or integral to the amended complaint. Consequently, the Court
declines to consider them, as well.

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim
should be dismissed because the amended complaint fails to satisfy
the facial-plausibility standard and consists of mere conjectures.
The Defendant also argues that the amended complaint is utterly
devoid of any factual content as to whether they were in fact
charged multiple insufficient funds fees prior to February 2023 and
utterly devoid of any factual content as to why they purportedly
believe the contract language supports their allegations.

Judge Sannes finds that the Plaintiffs have pled facts that are
sufficient to allege that the Account Documents did not contain the
disclosures allowing multiple fees to be assessed prior to 2023.
The Plaintiffs have alleged that the Defendant denied their
requests to access the records associated with their accounts.

Drawing all inferences in the Plaintiffs' favor, Judge Sannes finds
they have plausibly alleged the terms of the contract. Accordingly,
the Court denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
breach of contract claim.

The Defendant also argues that the Plaintiffs' claim alleging
violations under Section 349 of the New York General Business Law
("GBL") relies on "formulaic recitations of the elements" of the
claim, rather than "actual facts."

Judge Sannes notes that the Plaintiffs have alleged that the
Defendant's policies and practices complained here were and are
consumer-oriented, in that they affect all consumers who maintain
checking accounts with the Defendant; the complained-of policies
and practices were and are misleading in a material respect,
because the Defendant promised to charge one fee per item, when in
fact it charged multiple fees on the same item; had the Plaintiffs
and the members of the New York Subclass known they could be
charged Multiple Fees on the same item, they would have made
different payment decisions so as to avoid incurring such fees
and/or would have banked elsewhere; and that the Plaintiffs and
members of the New York Subclass were injured as a result of the
Defendant's policies and practices, in that their accounts were
debited by the Defendant in violation of their agreements with the
Bank.

Judge Sannes points out that the Defendant does not cite to any
caselaw regarding how these facts fail to meet the facial
plausibility standard, nor does it identify any other possible
deficiencies. Accordingly, the Court denies the Defendant's motion
to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to Section 349.

For these reasons, the Court denies the Defendant's motion to
dismiss in its entirety.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum-Decision and Order dated
Aug. 29, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2hu74wxa from
PacerMonitor.com.

Jeffrey D. Kaliel -- jkaliel@kalielpllc.com -- KalielGold PLLC, in
Washington, D.C. 20005; Sophia G. Gold -- sgold@kalielgold.com --
KalielGold PLLC, in Berkeley, CA 94710; Christopher D. Jennings --
chris@jenningspllc.com -- Tyler B. Ewigleben, Johnson Firm, in
Little Rock, AR 72221, for the Plaintiffs.

Peter G. Siachos -- psiachos@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully
Mansukhani, LLP, in New York, NY 10004; Stephanie Imbornone --
simbornone@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, in
Florham Park, NJ 07932, for the Defendant.


FITNESS INTERNATIONAL: Diaz Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Gabriel Diaz, on behalf of himself, and other similarly situated
employees v. FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Case No. 0:24-cv-61712-WPD
(S.D. Fla., Sept. 17, 2024), is brought for unpaid minimum wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid back
wages, an additional equal amount in liquidated damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, and to obtain declaratory relief.

The Plaintiff worked approximately 25 to 35 hours per week for
Defendant. Defendant continually required the Plaintiff to work
past 11:00 p.m. so the Plaintiff could close the club, make sure
all the gym members vacated the fitness center, turn off all the
lights, and lock the doors before the Plaintiff could end his work
shift. the Plaintiff regularly worked for Defendant well past the
closing time, every night the Plaintiff worked for Defendant,
working as late as 11:38 p.m. on at least one occasion. Defendant
failed to pay the Plaintiff for any time the Plaintiff worked past
the 11:00 p.m. closing time.

The Defendant's failure and/or refusal to properly compensate the
Plaintiff for any and all time the Plaintiff worked past 11:00
p.m., was willful and unlawful. Defendant made it their policy to
not pay wages to their employees past the fitness club's closing
time, even though Defendant knew it was unfeasible for their
employees, including the Plaintiff, to properly close the club and
end their shift at exactly 11:00 p.m, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant to work part time as a
non-
exempt front desk attendant at a rate of $12.00/hour at Defendant's
fitness center.

The Defendant was, and continues to be, a Florida foreign limited
liability company, engaged in business throughout the State of
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew R. McGuigan, Esq.
          MILL STONE LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          9900 W. Sample Road, 3rd Floor
          Coral Springs, FL 33065
          Phone: 754-227-1610
          Fax: 215-475-4764
          Email: mmcguigan@millstonelegal.com


FLUX POWER: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Flux Power Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: FLUX) resulting
from allegations that Flux Power may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.

So What: If you purchased Flux Power securities you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.

What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=28783 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.

What is this about: On September 5, 2024, after the market closed,
Flux Power Holdings, Inc. filed a current report on Form 8-K with
the SEC, in which it announced that "[o]n August 30, 2024, the
Board of Directors of Flux Power Holdings, Inc. (the "Company”)
including its audit committee members, concluded that the
previously issued audited consolidated financial statements as of
and for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 and the unaudited
consolidated financial statements as of and for the quarters ended
September 30, 2023, December 31, 2023, and March 31, 2024
(collectively, the "Prior Financial Statements”), which were
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC”) on
September 21, 2023, November 9, 2023, February 8, 2024 and May 13,
2024, respectively, should no longer be relied upon because of
errors in such financial statements relating to the improper
accounting for inventory and a restatement should be
undertaken.”

On this news, the price of Flux Power common stock fell by 5.36%,
on September 6, 2024. The next trading day, it fell a further 4%.

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

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

Contacts

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

FOR LIFE: Plaintiffs Seek to File Experts' Declarations Under Seal
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS IGLESIAS, DAVID
SALAZAR, OLIVIA THURMAN, and BETHANY TORBERT, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FOR LIFE PRODUCTS, LLC,
Case No. 3:21-cv-01147-TSH (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order allowing them to file under seal portions
of the Plaintiffs' experts' declarations in support of the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

These documents contain information that third parties Circana,
Inc. and Barentz North America, LLC have designated as
confidential.

The Plaintiffs submit this request only to comply with their
obligation under Civil L.R. 79-5 and the Protective Order, and take
no position on the propriety of the designation, or whether
Circana, Inc. or Barentz North America, LLC meets the compelling
reasons standard for retaining confidentiality.

Indeed, in the event that the filing party seeks to seal a document
because another party designated it as confidential, the
designating party must submit a statement and/or declaration
pursuant to Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(1) within seven days of its filing.

For Life Products manufactures home improvement products.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 1, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dHMQ4D at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
          Bahar Sodaify, Esq.
          Alan Gudino, Esq.
          CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          22525 Pacific Coast Highway
          Malibu, CA 90265
          Telephone: (213) 788-4050
          Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
          E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  agudino@clarksonlawfirm.com

                - and -

          Christopher D. Moon, Esq.
          Kevin O. Moon, Esq.
          MOON LAW APC
          228 Hamilton Ave., 3rd Fl
          Palo Alto, CA 94301
          Telephone: (619) 915-9432
          Facsimile: (650) 618-0478
          E-mail: chris@moonlawapc.com
                  kevin@moonlawapc.com

GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Trauernicht's Bid to Nix Expert Opinions Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned PETER TRAUERNICHT, et al., Plaintiffs v.
GENWORTH FINANCIAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00532-REP
(E.D. Va.), Senior District Judge Robert E. Payne of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond
Division, denies the Plaintiffs' motion to exclude opinions and
testimony of Lorie L. Latham and Russell R. Wermers, PH.D.

Plaintiffs and Class Representatives Peter Trauernicht and Zachary
Wright, on behalf of themselves, the Genworth Financial Inc.
Retirement and Savings Plan (the "Plan"), and all other similarly
situated individuals, filed suit against Genworth Financial, Inc.,
alleging that it breached its fiduciary duties under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA").

In their Second Amended Class Action Complaint ("SAC"), the
Plaintiffs claim that Genworth violated its fiduciary duties under
ERISA by failing to appropriately monitor, and as a result,
imprudently retaining the BlackRock LifePath Target Date Funds
{"BlackRock TDFs") in the Plan despite their significant
underperformance. According to the Plaintiffs, the retention of the
BlackRock TDFs caused the Plan to incur substantial losses.

To help prove their claims, the Plaintiffs retained three expert
witnesses: Marcia S. Wagner, Richard A. Marin, and Dr. Adam Werner.
Wagner submitted a report addressing fiduciary governance and
process standards applicable to investment monitoring and opined on
whether Genworth's monitoring of the BlackRock TDFs comported with
minimum fiduciary standards. Marin submitted a report, which
depicted appropriate frameworks for determining when investment
removal should occur based on the Plan's Investment Policy
Statement ("IPS"), applied those frameworks to the Plan's retention
of the BlackRock TDFs, and identified suitable alternative
investments to the BlackRock TDFs. Werner submitted a report
estimating the Plan's losses as a result of the alleged conduct.

Genworth produced two expert reports in response to the Plaintiffs'
experts. Genworth retained Lorie L. Latham to offer opinions
regarding the Plan's governance structure and monitoring process in
response to the opinions of Wagner and Marin. Latham opined that
the Plan's governance structure and monitoring processes of the
BlackRock TDFs were reasonable and consistent with widely accepted
retirement plan fiduciary practices. Latham also identified, in her
opinion, various inaccurate claims made by Wagner and Marin on
those topics.

Genworth also retained Dr. Russell R. Wermers, who submitted a
rebuttal expert report in response to Marin's, Werner's, and
Wagner's expert reports. Wermers primarily offered criticisms of
Marin's analysis of the BlackRock TDFs' performance and the
methodology used by Marin to select suitable alternative
investments. Wermers explained that the BlackRock TDFs are
economically reasonable investments once you account for their
specific risk-balancing strategies and features, including their
asset allocations and glide paths.

The Plaintiffs argue that Wermers' and Latham's opinions are not
admissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 702 or 403.
Specifically, they argue that Latham's and Wermers' opinions are
not helpful to the trier of fact, are not based in objective
principles or methods recognized within their industries, and fail
adequately to consider important documents and evidence in the
record. The Plaintiffs also claim that the opinions and testimony
of Wermers and Latham threaten to mislead or confuse the issues in
this action.

Genworth responds that its experts' opinions are readily admissible
under Rule 702 and 403, and that the Plaintiffs' criticisms go to
the weight rather than admissibility of their testimony.

On April 17, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed their second amended class
action complaint. The Court granted the Defendant's partial motion
to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), dismissing the Plaintiffs' request
for prospective injunctive relief, and denied the Defendant's
motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). On May 29, 2024, the Court
denied the Defendant's motion to exclude the expert opinions and
testimony of Richard Marin and the Defendant's motion to exclude
the expert opinions and testimony of Adam Werner. On Aug. 15, 2024,
the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
Also pending is the Defendant's motion for summary judgment.

Judge Payne finds Wermers' and Latham's testimony to be admissible
under Rule 702, and that their testimony is generally admissible
under Rule 403. Moreover, in a bench trial, the risk that an
expert's testimony will be unduly confusing or misleading is much
lower and excluding evidence under Rule 403 for such reasons is
generally not appropriate, Judge Payne opines.

For these reasons, the Court finds that both Wermers' and Latham's
testimony satisfies the requirements of Rules 702 and 403. Hence,
the Plaintiffs' motion is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Aug. 29,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/5n9awe6z from
PacerMonitor.com.


GKN DRIVELINE: Carson Seeks Conditional Status of Collective Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN CARSON and RANDALL
STARK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. GKN DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No.
1:23-cv-00583-LCB-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:

-- granting as uncontested Plaintiffs' separate motions for
    conditional collective certification pursuant to section 216(b)
of
    the Fair Labor Standards Act in and class certification
pursuant
    to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g), or, in the alternative, and

-- granting the proposed orders submitted with the motions.

GKN manufactures automotive parts.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 13, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nwQRzY at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq.
          Hannah B. Simmons, Esq.
          Matthew Marlowe, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A.
          HERNANDEZ, PLLC
          1020 Southhill Drive, Suite 130
          Cary, NC 27513
          Telephone: (919) 741-8693
          Facsimile: (919) 869-1853
          E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com
                  hsimmons@gildahernandezlaw.com
                  mmarlowe@gildahernandezlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Paul DeCamp, Esq.
          Adriana S. Kosovych, Esq.
          EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C.
          1227 25th St., N.W., Suite 700
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 861-1819
          Facsimile: (202) 296-2882
          E-mail: PDeCamp@ebglaw.com
                  AKosovych@ebglaw.com

                - and -

          Kevin S. Joyner, Esq.
          Vanessa N. Garrido, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
          SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          8529 Six Forks Road, Suite 600
          Raleigh, NC 27615
          Telephone: (919) 787-9700
          Facsimile: (919) 783-9412
          E-mail: Kevin.joyner@ogletree.com
                  Vanessa.garrido@ogletree.com

GLOBAL EXCHANGE: Court Extends Deadline to File Class Cert Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN AVERY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GLOBAL EXCHANGE VACATION CLUB, et al., Case No.
8:23-cv-02071-JFW-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John F. Walter
entered an order granting the Defendants' stipulation to extend the
class certification deadline from October 1, 2024, until December
30, 2024.

          Matter                          Date based    Proposed
                                          on current   
modification/
                                          schedule      deadline

  Trial (jury)                            Aug. 26, 2025  unchanged


  Pre-Trial Conference                    Aug. 8, 2025   unchanged

  Class Certification Deadline            Oct. 1, 2024   Dec. 30,
2024

Global Exchange offers a unique vacation experience through its
membership-based exchange program.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uM1I8I at no extra
charge.[CC]
 


GMRI INC: Seeks Stay of Briefing on Bid for Conditional Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEANNA KAPPLER, and
CHRISTIAN GUERRA, on Behalf of Themselves and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, v. GMRI, INC., OLIVE GARDEN HOLDINGS,
LLC, and DARDEN CORPORATION, Case No. 4:23-cv-40106-IT (D. Mass.),
the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their
motion to stay briefing on the motion for conditional certification
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and motion for approval
of class notice filed by the Plaintiffs pending resolution of the
Defendants' forthcoming Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) motion for judgment
on the pleadings.

The Defendants will file a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) motion for
judgment of the pleadings no later than 45 days after the Court's
entry of an order allowing this motion to stay.

Alternatively, if the Court denies this motion, the Defendants
request that the Court enter an order establishing the date that is
30 days from the entry of such denial as the date by which the
Defendants must file their opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motions.

The Plaintiffs' Motions are based on the contention that Defendants
violated the FLSA by:

   (1) failing to provide the statutory tip credit notice to the
       Plaintiffs and putative class members;

   (2) requiring the Plaintiffs and putative class members to
perform
       work unrelated to a tipped occupation; and

   (3) requiring the Plaintiffs and putative class members to
perform
       non-tip producing work related to a tipped occupation for
       greater than 20% of their time at work.

GMRI operates a chain of restaurants.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Sept. 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PD6DD9 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher B. Kaczmarek, Esq.
          Vanessa M. Cohn, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          One International Place, Suite 2700
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 378-6000
          Facsimile: (617) 737-0052
          E-mail: ckaczmarek@littler.com
                  vcohn@littler.com
 


GOOGLE LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Consumer Suit Due Nov. 8
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned re Google RTB Consumer
Privacy Litigation, Case No. 4:21-cv-02155-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order granting the
relief requested and extending the case schedule as follows:

         Event                  Current Case           New Case
                                Schedule               Schedule

  Class Certification    Motion: Sept. 13, 2024       Nov. 8, 2024
  Motion                 Opposition: Nov. 8, 2024     Jan. 24,
2025
                         Reply: Dec. 12, 2024         Feb. 28,
2025
                         Hearing: TBD                 TBD

  Opening Expert         Jan. 31, 2025                April 18,
2025
  Reports

  Rebuttal Expert        March 14, 2025               May 30, 2025
  Reports

  Close of Expert        April 11, 2025               June 27,
2025
  Discovery

  Dispositive/Daubert    Motions: May 2, 2025         July 18,
2025
  Motions                Oppositions: June 13, 2025   Aug. 29,
2025
                         Replies: July 11, 2025       Sept. 26,
2025
                         Hearing: Aug. 26, 2025       TBD

Google is an American multinational corporation and technology
company focusing on online advertising, search engine technology,
cloud computing, computer software, quantum computing, e-commerce,
consumer electronics, and artificial intelligence.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7gBBXk at no extra
charge.[CC]

GREENWICH HOMECARE: Shorter Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Shorter, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated who were employed by GREENWICH HOMECARE LLC
and/or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by
GREENWICH HOMECARE LLC v. GREENWICH HOMECARE LLC, and any related
entities, Case No. 3:24-cv-01479 (D. Conn., Sept. 16, 2024), is
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA") and
the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act (the "CMWA"), to recover unpaid
overtime compensation as well as related damages owed to the
Plaintiff.

The Defendant has engaged in a policy and practice of depriving its
employees of the applicable overtime wages for work they performed
as mandated by federal and state law. The Defendant has engaged in
a policy and practice of requiring its employees to regularly work
in excess of 40 hours per week, without providing overtime
compensation as required by the applicable federal and state laws.
Despite regularly working more than forty hours per week, the
Plaintiff was not paid overtime compensation at the rate of one and
one-half times her regular hourly rate for all hours worked over 40
in a week, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a home health aide from
June 2023 until May 2024.

The Defendant is a domestic corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alanna R. Sakovits, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 943-9080
          Fax: (212) 943-9082
          Email: asakovits@vandallp.com

               - and -

          Ryan O'Neill, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARK SHERMAN
          29 Fifth St
          Stamford, CN 06905
          Phone: (203) 904-2382
          Email: ryan@markshermanlaw.com


GROOMIT FOR PETS: Agostini Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lunique Agostini, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Groomit for Pets, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-07036
(E.D.N.Y., Sept. 17, 2024), is brought 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 is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to services Stadium
Enterprises provides to their non-disabled customers through
https://www.groomit.me (hereinafter "Groomit.me" or "the website").
Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its services offered, and in conjunction with
its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under
the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA").

Because Defendant's website, Verizon.com, is not equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA.
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Stadium
Enterprises' policies, practices, and procedures to that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination, 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 controls and operates Groomit.me in New York State
and throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gabriel Levy, Esq.
          GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
          1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
          Manhasset, NY 11030
          Phone: +1 347-941-4715
          Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com


GROUNDWORKS FRS: Human Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Daniel A. Human, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated v. Groundworks FRS, LLC, Case No.
24SL-CC03764 was removed from the Circuit Court of St. Louis
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri on Sept. 17, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-01264 to the
proceeding.

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

Groundworks FRS, LLC doing business as Foundation Recovery Systems
--
https://www.groundworks.com/locations/foundation-recovery-systems/
-- offers expert basement and foundation repair services in
Missouri, Kansas, Arkansas, and Iowa.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Chance Lasater, Esq.
          LEWIS RICE LLC - Kansas City
          1010 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Phone: (816) 472-2528
          Email: clasater@lewisricekc.com


HANDI-FOIL CORP: Court Grants Hood Leave to Amend Class Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned BRIGETTE HOOD, Plaintiff v. HANDI-FOIL
CORP., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-02373-RS (N.D. Cal.),
Chief District Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California dismisses the complaint, with
leave to amend.

Plaintiff Brigette Hood brings this putative class action against
three affiliated businesses, Defendants Handi-Foil Corporation,
Jiffy-Foil Corporation, and Handi-Foil Aluminum Corporation (HAL).
Handi-Foil and Jiffy-Foil market a variety of disposable aluminum
products, including pans and containers, labeled "Made in the
USA."

Ms. Hood avers that the Defendants deceptively label their pans
because they derive from foreign-mined bauxite, a brownish rock
used in the manufacturing of aluminum pans. The operative complaint
consists of five claims for relief, brought under California law,
including Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition
(UCL), and False Advertising Law (FAL). She also advances claims
for breach of express and implied warranties and unjust
enrichment.

The Defendants raise several grounds for dismissal. For the reasons
set forth here, the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend.

Handi-Foil and Jiffy-Foil are based in Illinois and market a
variety of disposable aluminum pans and containers sold at retail.
They manufacture their products in facilities based in Illinois and
label the products "Made in the USA" at retail. HAL, while
affiliated with the remaining two Defendants, does not market
aluminum products at retail, but markets other products to
businesses.

Ms. Hood previously purchased several of the Defendants' aluminum
pans and containers in 2022 and brings the instant action on behalf
of other California consumers, who bought the Defendants' aluminum
products in the four years preceding the filing of the complaint.
As a consumer of the Defendants' products, Hood avers that she
suffered injury as a result of their misleading representations
about the source of their product due to significant foreign
bauxite content. In particular, she perceived the Defendants'
products, marketed as American-made, as more valuable than their
foreign counterparts and was, accordingly, influenced to buy the
products.

Accepting the facts in the complaint as true as is required on a
motion under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
bauxite is a brownish, rock-like, mixed mineral and the primary
ingredient in aluminum. Almost all bauxite in the United States is
imported, and of the less than 5% of bauxite in the United States
derived from domestic bauxite mines, none is used to make aluminum
consumer products.

Ms. Hood claims that the Defendants' aluminum pans and containers
are "substantially made" from mined mineral bauxite as there is no
way to manufacture aluminum for consumer foil, bakeware, or
grilling pans and liners except with bauxite. She further contends
that foreign bauxite makes up a significant portion of the
Defendants' products by cost of production of the product and/or
final composition of the product.

The Defendants move to dismiss the complaint on several grounds:
first, Hood has failed to show that its labels violate Section
17533.7 of the California Business and Professions Code (BPC),
barring all her claims; HAL should be dismissed because no specific
facts are plead as to that company; Hood lacks standing for
injunctive relief since she has not expressed a future intention to
buy the Defendants' products in the future; her request for
full-price restitution fails as a matter of law because she does
not aver that the at-issue products she purchased are worthless
and, finally, her equitable claims otherwise fail because she has
an adequate remedy at law.

Section 17533.7 of the BPC makes it unlawful to advertise products
as "Made in the U.S.A." or "Made in America" if the product or "any
article, unit, or part thereof" has been "entirely or
substantially" manufactured or produced outside of the United
States.

In 2016, acknowledging the evolving complexity of global trade, the
California legislature created two safe harbors for manufacturers
in Section 17533.7. Specifically, the provision now includes two
thresholds below which a product may be labeled "Made in the U.S.A"
lawfully while including (a) foreign inputs comprising no more than
5 percent of the final wholesale value of the manufactured product
or (b) foreign inputs comprising no more than 10 percent of the
final wholesale value of the manufactured product and the
manufacturer can show that it cannot produce nor obtain the foreign
input from a domestic source.

Judge Seeborg notes that Hood's CLRA, FAL, and UCL causes of action
are all grounded in fraud, so the complaint must satisfy the
traditional plausibility standards of Rules 8(a) and 12(b)(6) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as the heightened
pleading requirements of Rule 9(b).

Ms. Hood does not deny that her complaint must satisfy Rule 9(b)'s
heightened pleading standard but maintains that her complaint
satisfies it. In fact, Judge Seeborg says, Hood's complaint
consists of no factual averments to suggest that the Defendants'
products fall outside of Section 17533.7(c)(1)'s safe harbors.

Other than the limited domestic availability of bauxite for
commercial products, Judge Seeborg finds that Hood offers no facts
about the cost bauxite or price of the Defendants' products, the
process of manufacturing aluminum foil pans, or from where the
bauxite used in the Defendants' products is derived. What is more,
she fails to present facts about the amount of bauxite comprising
the Defendants' products (or even a sound basis for an estimation),
insisting instead that she satisfies the "what" element of Rule
9(b).

Even under Rule 8, Judge Seeborg points out that the allegations in
the complaint fail to cross over to the realm of plausibility as it
is bereft of specific facts on which relief can be granted. The
complaint offers no basis to support the greater-than-10-percent
claim, and her mere legal conclusions to this point do not
constitute factual averments such that 9(b) is satisfied.

Ms. Hood insists that, without the benefit of discovery, she is
unable to provide more specific factual averments about the level
of bauxite in Defendants' products. However, Judge Seeborg opines
that discovery is not the proper remedy for a deficient complaint
based on a plaintiff's mere hope that liability will arise once
discovery commences. Complaints that offer no more factual
averments than what Hood presents here are routinely dismissed for
deficient pleadings.

Judge Seeborg says Ms. Hood's next argument fares no better: she
contends that the motion to dismiss stage is the inappropriate
juncture at which to consider whether Section 17533.7's safe
harbors are met because their applicability is an "affirmative
defense," the burden of which rests on the Defendants. To advance
her claims, Hood must plead with particularity facts giving rise to
liability on the part of the Defendants consistent with Section
17533.7--a burden she has not met, Judge Seeborg points out.

All the claims advanced in Hood's complaint are predicated on the
Defendants' "Made in U.S.A" label. Accordingly, since Section
17533.7 bars Hood's claims, Judge Seeborg says no state law claim
will lie to the extent it arises out of the same conduct, citing
Flodin II, 2023 WL 3607278 at *3 (quoting Baum v. J-B Weld Co.,
LLC, No. 19-cv-01718-EMC, 2020 WL 4923624, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug.
21, 2020)).

Judge Seeborg holds that Hood's complaint is dismissed as to HAL
for the additional reason that she has offered no factual averments
specific to HAL. Hood offers no averments that she purchased a
product from HAL, received marketing from HAL, or there was any
connection between HAL and the products she bought other than HAL's
connection with the remaining Defendants.

Ms. Hood's bare conclusory allegations are insufficient to salvage
her claims as to HAL, Judge Seeborg points out. Other than labeling
the three companies "affiliated businesses," Hood provides no
averments in support of her alter ego theory or that she was
injured by HAL's conduct.

Accordingly, the Court rules that Hood's complaint is dismissed
with leave to amend because, as currently plead, Section 17533.7 on
its face bars all her claims. Her claims as to HAL are dismissed
for the additional reason that she has plead no specific averments
as to that defendant. Any amendment must be filed within 30 days of
the filing of this order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 29, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/46rvru87 from PacerMonitor.com.


HAWX SERVICES LLC: Diaz Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hawx Services LLC.
The case is styled as Cesar Diaz, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated v. Hawx Services LLC, Case No.
CACE24013170 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Sept. 15, 2024).

Hawx -- https://hawxpestcontrol.com/ -- is leveraging technology to
transform the pest control industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (754) 444-7539
          Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com

HEADLESS WIDOW: Conditional Collective Cert. Bid Due Oct. 25
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Salma Bahaa Hussein, et
al., v. The Headless Widow LLC et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-04658-LJL
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis Liman entered a case management
plan and scheduling order as follows:

-- Any motion to amend or to join additional parties shall be
filed
    no later than Oct. 12, 2024

-- All fact discovery is to be completed no later than Jan. 17,
2025.

-- Initial request for production of documents shall be served by

    Oct. 12, 2024.

-- Any motion for summary judgment must be filed no later than
Jan.
    31, 2025.

-- The deadline for Plaintiffs to move for conditional collective

    certification is Oct. 25, 2024.

-- The deadline for Plaintiffs to move for class certification is

    Dec. 27, 2024.

Headless is a cocktail bar in the East Village known for its
inviting atmosphere, attentive bartenders, and delicious drinks.

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

The Parties are represented by:

          William Brown, Esq.
          BROWN KWON & LAM, LLP
          521 5th Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10175

                - and -

          Paul Bartels, Esq.
          BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          116 Jackson Avenue
          Syosset, New York 11791

HEALTHEQUITY INC: Vent Files Suit in D. Utah
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HealthEquity, Inc.
The case is styled as Sierra Vent, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. HealthEquity, Inc., Case No.
2:24-cv-00685-RJS (N.D.N.Y., Sept. 17, 2024).

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

HealthEquity, Inc. -- https://healthequity.com/ -- is an American
financial technology and business services company that is
designated as a non-bank health savings trustee by the IRS.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brody J. Valerga, Esq.
          VALERGA PLLC
          357 S. 200 E. #101
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Phone: (801) 709-1407
          Email: brodyvalerga@gmail.com


HERSHA HOSPITALITY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Gomberg Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW GOMBERG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Hersha Hospitality, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-04750 (E.D. Pa., Sept. 9, 2024) arises from the Defendant's
failure to make its website,
https://www.therittenhousespaclub.com/, to be accessible to legally
blind individuals, including Plaintiff, which violates the
effective communication and equal access requirements of Title III
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

During Plaintiff's visits to the website, on April 24, 2024, he
made an attempt to book a massage session or an alternative with
the Defendant. He was in search of a spa with wellness amenities
and using the keywords "spa services in Philadelphia," he found the
website. After reviewing the services, he decided to schedule a
massage session. However, he encountered accessibility issues on
the website, and could not find details and finalize the booking
procedure. The Plaintiff acquired actual knowledge of and
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, 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. Defendants Website, and its online
information, is heavily integrated with its brick-and-mortar
locations.

Hersha Hospitality, LLC is a spa situated in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Glanzberg, Esq.
          Robert Tobia, Esq.
          GLANZBERG TOBIA LAW, P.C.
          123 South Broad Street Suite 1640
          Philadelphia, PA 19109
          Telephone: (215) 981-5400
          E-mail: DGlanzberg@aol.com
                  robert.tobia@gtlawpc.com

HOME DEPOT: Eisele Loses Bid to Remand Case to Circuit Court
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHLEEN EISELE, v. HOME
DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
3:24-cv-00764-HZ (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Marco Hernandez entered
an order denying Eisele's motion to remand to Multnomah County
Circuit Court.

Eisele does not allege in her Complaint that Home Depot has an
ongoing practice of including prejudgment interest in wages when
making true-up payments in class action settlements and Home Depot
represents in its Response that "there is no such ongoing
practice."

The Court, therefore, concludes that neither the TIA nor the
federal-state comity doctrine preclude Eisele's claims.

On Aug. 28, 2020, Kathleen Eisele filed a class action complaint
against Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., in Multnomah County Circuit Court
asserting claims for failure to pay wages when due in violation of
Oregon Revised Statute section 652.120 and failure to pay wages on
termination in violation of Oregon Revised Statute section
652.140.

On Feb. 23, 2023, Eisele moved for class certification in Eisele
I.

Home Depot operates home improvement retail stores.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nb1Wj4 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jon M. Egan, Esq.
          Jim W. Vogele, Esq.
          JON M. EGAN, PC
          547 Fifth Street
          Lake Oswego, OR 97034-3009

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christopher F. McCracken, Esq.
          James M. Barrett, Esq.
          E.A. Meg Barankin, Esq.
          Evan Reed Moses, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS
          222 S.W. Columbia Street, Suite 1500
          Portland, OR 97201

HOME DEPOT: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Picon Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
YELITZA PICON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HOME DEPOT PRODUCT AUTHORITY, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-06936 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 13, 2024)
alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

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

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

Home Depot Services LLC provides home improvement and decoration
products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
          GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
          1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
          Manhasset, NY 11030
          Telephone: (347) 941-4715
          Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com

HORIZON HEALTH: Patients Appeal Class Certification Bid Denial
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aidan Cox of CBC reports that a lawyer representing women who
believe they were improperly given a labour-inducing drug at the
Moncton Hospital has argued that a judge erred by not allowing a
class-action lawsuit to proceed.

John McKiggan told a panel of three judges on the Court of Appeal
of New Brunswick on Thursday, September 12, that there is an
identifiable class of women who have a claim against former nurse
Nicole Ruest, and the Horizon Health Network, and that it would be
"impractical" to require them to pursue damages by filing their own
individual lawsuits.

"We've been contacted by over 200 women who believe they have been
part of this class," said McKiggan.

"So the solution is to file hundreds of malpractice claims and
hundreds of expert statements? That is impractical. That makes no
sense."

McKiggan's comments were made during a hearing for an appeal of an
earlier decision by Court of King's Bench Chief Justice Tracey
DeWare to not certify a lawsuit against Ruest and Horizon as a
class action.

Jayde Scott is the representative plaintiff of the proposed class
action and filed the lawsuit in 2019, alleging Ruest improperly
gave her oxytocin while she was admitted to the Moncton Hospital's
labour and delivery unit.

The hormone is commonly used to induce contractions in pregnant
women, however, Scott claims Ruest administered it without her
knowledge, leading to fetal distress and ultimately requiring her
to undergo an emergency caesarian section.

Several other women have since come forward and filed affidavits
alleging similar experiences while giving birth at the Moncton
Hospital over the period Ruest was working in the labour and
delivery unit, between 2010 and 2019.

Horizon fired Ruest immediately after the complaint, yet both of
them have filed statements of defence denying any wrong-doing.

Last December, DeWare denied an application for the lawsuit to
proceed as a class action, however, the Court of Appeal of New
Brunswick granted Scott leave to appeal that decision.

None of the allegations have yet been tested in court.

Definition of class too broad, respondents say

Also in court were lawyers for Horizon and Ruest. Both argued the
lawsuit should not proceed as a class because the definition of who
would fit into it is too broad.

"I think [the class action] would be capturing a whole lot of
people who have no hope of a potential claim against the
respondents," said Andrea Pierce, a lawyer for Horizon.

While McKiggan believes there could be hundreds of potential class
members, eight women have so far come forward to provide affidavits
alleging traumatic experiences at the Moncton Hospital's labour and
delivery unit when they were required to undergo emergency
C-sections.

However, Andrew Faith, lawyer for Ruest, pointed out discrepancies
in the details described in some of the affidavits, notably that
for three of them, Ruest wasn't working on the day they gave
birth.

"On this class definition, their experience could be vastly
different," Faith said.

Faith said Scott might very well have a valid claim on her own,
but, he added that a lack in similarity between the potential class
members' experiences make a class-action lawsuit an inappropriate
avenue.

Court of Appeal Justice Ernest Drapeau told the parties the court
would reserve its decision until a later date. [GN]


HOSPITAL SISTERS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Wade Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
KIM WADE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HOSPITAL SISTERS HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant,
Case No. 3:24-cv-03255-CRL-KLM (C.D. Ill., Sept. 12, 2024) is an
action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated patients'
Personally Identifiable Information and Protected Health
Information (together, "Private Information").

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

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

Hospital Sisters Health System is a non-profit healthcare system
headquartered in Springfield, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

HOSPITAL SISTERS: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Avery Says
------------------------------------------------------------
NICK AVERY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HOSPITAL SISTERS HEALTH SYSTEM, Case No.
3:24-cv-03259-CRL-KLM (C.D. Ill., Sept. 13, 2024) sues the
Defendant for failing to secure the personally identifiable
information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and
the members of the proposed Class, where Plaintiffs are current and
former patients of the Defendant.

Between Aug. 16, 2023, and Aug. 27, 2023, HSHS experienced a
cybersecurity incident. The Private Information intruders accessed
and infiltrated from Defendant's systems included, names,
addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's
license numbers, medical record numbers, and/or limited medical,
health insurance and/or limited treatment information related to
care received at HSHS.

As a direct and proximate result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff
and Class Members have suffered actual and present injuries,
including to: (a) present, certainly impending, and continuing
threats of identity theft crimes, fraud, scams, and other misuses
of their Private Information; (b) loss of value of privacy and
confidentiality of the stolen Private Information; (c) illegal
sales of the compromised Private Information; (d) credit
freezes/unfreezes; (e) anxiety, annoyance, and nuisance; and (f)
continued risk to their Private Information, the suit asserts.

Through this lawsuit, the Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant
responsible for the injuries they inflicted on the Plaintiff and
Class Members due to their impermissibly inadequate data security
measures, and to seek injunctive relief to ensure the
implementation of security measures to protect the Private
Information that remains in the Defendant's possession.

The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of the State of Illinois,
where he intends to remain.

HSHS is a health care system comprised of 13 hospitals, 1,000 plus
physician partners, and more than 11,000 colleagues.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

                - and -

          Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON
          WEISELBERG GILBERT
          65 Overhill Road
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com

HOSPITAL SISTERS: McCoy Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
SANDRA MCCOY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HOSPITAL SISTERS HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant,
Case No. 3:24-cv-03253-CRL-KLM (C.D. Ill., September 11, 2024)
arises out of a recent cyberattack and data breach resulting from
Defendant's failure to implement reasonable and industry-standard
data security practices to protect its patients' personal
identifying information, including private information.

According to Defendant, a vulnerability in its computer networks
was exploited in or around August 27, 2023. The data breach
compromised and exposed patients' private information such as
names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's
license numbers, medical record numbers, health insurance
information, and medical and treatment information. However,
Defendant sent a letter to its patients and employees, including
Plaintiff, on August 30, 2024, advising them of "a network security
incident." However, Defendant did not state why it was unable to
prevent the data breach and how the unauthorized actors gained
access. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts claims for negligence,
negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust
enrichment.

Headquartered in Springfield, IL, Hospital Sisters Health System
provides health care services in Illinois and Wisconsin. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
         LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
         One Old Country Road, Suite 347
         Carle Place, NY 11514
         Telephone: (516) 873-9550
         E-mail: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com

                 - and -

         Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
         LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
         510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
         Philadelphia, PA 19106
         Telephone: (215) 592-1500
         E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

                 - and -

         Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
         GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
         4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
         Cincinnati, OH 45242
         Telephone: (513) 345-8291
         E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com

IBM: Burgard Seeks Conditional Certification of Collective Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERYL BURGARD, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION (IBM), Case No. 7:24-cv-02885-PMH (S.D.N.Y.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

  -- conditionally certifying the action as a collective action,

  -- equitably tolling the statute of limitations, and

  -- directing that persons similarly situated to the Plaintiff be

     given notices of the pendency of this action on an expedited
     basis.

International Business offers application, technology consulting
and support.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 13, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sPf0cx at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq.
          Joel L. Goldenberg, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com
                  jgoldenberg@vandallp.com

                - and -

          Alex J. Hartzband, Esq.
          GRUBIN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1330 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 23A
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 653-0631
          E-mail: ahartzband@grubinlaw.com


ILLINOIS BONE: Faces Phelps Suit Over Clients' Compromised Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDRA PHELPS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ILLINOIS BONE AND JOINT INSTITUTE,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-08555 (N.D. Ill., September 17,
2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence,
negligence per se, breach of implied contract, violation of
Illinois Personal Information Protection Act, and unjust
enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information and personal
health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals following a data breach on its computer network on or
about May 30, 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
asserts.

Illinois Bone and Joint Institute, LLC is a provider of orthopedic
care services, with its principal place of business in Cook County,
Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
         Sharon A. Harris, Esq.
         Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
         Jeffrey D. Blake, Esq.
         ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
         77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
         Chicago, IL 60602
         Telephone: (312) 440-0020
         Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
         Email: tom@attorneyzim.com
                sharon@attorneyzim.com
                matt@attorneyzim.com
                jeff@attorneyzim.com

IMS FUND: Scheduling Order in Cardenas Class Action Entered
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERICA CARDENAS, v. IMS
FUND LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-04041-JGK-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Gabriel Gorenstein entered a scheduling order as follows:

-- Dates for initial document requests and          Oct. 11, 2024
    initial interrogatories:

-- Deadline for joining parties or filing           Nov. 15, 2024
    amended pleadings:

-- Plaintiff proposes the following expert
    disclosure deadlines

    Affirmative expert disclosures:                  April 4, 2025

    Rebuttal expert disclosures:                     May 2, 2025

    Expert discovery cut off:                        May 30, 2025

This is a putative class action alleging that Defendant violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) by placing
unsolicited text messages to phone numbers that are registered on
the National Do Not Call registry.

IMS offers accounting, bookkeeping, income tax returns, and payroll
preparation services.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          237 S Dixie Hwy, Floor 4
          Coral Gables, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 469-5881
          E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com

                - and -

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          COLEMAN PLLC
          11 Broadway, Suite 615
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (877) 333-9427
          E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Andrew M. Schneiderman, Esq.
          OHAGAN MEYER, PLLC
          140 Kendrick Street, Bldg C
          Needham, MA 02494
          Telephone: (617) 843-6808
          E-mail: aschneiderman@ohaganmeyer.com

                - and -

          Jeff Rosin, Esq.
          OHAGAN MEYER, PLLC
          140 Kendrick Street, Bldg C
          Needham, MA 02494
          Telephone: (617) 843-6801
          E-mail: jrosin@ohaganmeyer.com

JEFFERSON COUNTY, NY: M.C.'s Consent Decree Has Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David N. Hurd of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York grants the Plaintiffs' consent motion for
final approval of proposed consent decree in the lawsuit titled
M.C. and T.G., on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs v. JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK, PETER R.
BARNETT, as Sheriff of Jefferson County, New York, BRIAN R.
MCDERMOTT, as the Undersheriff of Jefferson County, and MARK
WILSON, as the Facility Administrator of Jefferson County
Correctional Facility, Defendants, Case No. 6:22-cv-00190-DNH-ML
(N.D.N.Y.)

On March 1, 2022, Plaintiffs M.C. and T.G., recovering opioid
users, filed this putative class action against Defendants
Jefferson County, New York, the County Sheriff, Undersheriff Brian
R. McDermott, and Correctional Facility Administrator Mark Wilson.
Briefly stated, the Plaintiffs' complaint alleged that the
Defendants maintained an unlawful policy of banning certain opioid
use disorder medications for individuals in their custody.
Defendant Peter R. Barnett has succeeded Colleen M. O'Neill as
Sheriff of Jefferson County. The Clerk of the Court is directed to
amend the caption accordingly.

After the policy was preliminarily enjoined, the Court certified
the following Class and related Subclasses (for pre- and
post-conviction custody):

     all non-pregnant individuals, who are or will be detained at
     the Jefferson County Correctional Facility and had or will
     have prescriptions for agonist medication for opioid use
     disorder at the time of entry into the Defendants' custody.

At that time, Named Plaintiffs M.C. and T.G. were appointed as
Class Representatives and the New York Civil Liberties Union
Foundation was appointed as class counsel. Plaintiff M.C. died
before the parties finalized the terms of the proposed consent
decree. After a period of extensive discovery, the parties notified
the Court that they had reached a settlement.

On March 26, 2024, the Plaintiffs moved under Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for preliminary approval of the
class settlement and proposed consent decree and for an Order
directing notice to the Class and the two Subclasses. That motion,
which was unopposed, was granted on April 24, 2024. Thereafter, the
parties complied with the notice plan. No objections have been
received.

On Aug. 15, 2024, the Plaintiffs moved for final approval of the
consent decree. That motion was unopposed. The Court scheduled a
fairness hearing that occurred on this date in open court in Utica,
New York. No objections were heard.

Upon consideration of the briefing in light of the governing law,
with due consideration to the evidence in the record, and after
hearing no objections on the record on this date in open court,
Judge Hurd rules as follows. The Plaintiffs' motion for final
approval is granted. The Proposed Consent is finally approved
because it:

   (a) is fair, adequate, and reasonable in light of the
       considerations described in Rule 23(e)(2);

   (b) satisfies the requirements for approval of a consent
       judgment set forth in Kozlowski v. Coughlin, 871 F.2d 241
       (2d Cir. 1989); and

   (c) complies with the requirements of the Prison Litigation
       Reform Act, affording prospective relief that is narrowly
       drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the
       violation of federal rights, and is the least intrusive
       means necessary to correct the violations of those rights,
       18 U.S.C. Section 3626(a)(1)(A).

The payment of attorney's fees and costs in the amount of
$352,310.10, as provided for in the Proposed Consent Decree and as
set forth in additional detail at Dkt. No. 134, is approved as
reasonable and authorized by law. The Clerk of the Court is
directed to terminate the pending motion, enter a judgment
accordingly, and close the file.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 29, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5n8r7kjx from PacerMonitor.com.


JOHN B. STETSON: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Herrera Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
EDERY HERRERA, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. JOHN B. STETSON COMPANY, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-06793 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 7, 2024) is a civil rights
action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://stetson.com/, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.

During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on
July 23, 2024, in an attempt to purchase an Ozzy Ostrich Boot and
Caiman Western Tab Belt from Defendant and to view the information
on the website, he encountered multiple access barriers that denied
him 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. The access barriers he
encountered have caused a denial of his full and equal access in
the past, and now deter him on a regular basis from accessing the
website, says the Plaintiff.

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

John B. Stetson Company, Inc. operates the website that offers
men's and women's clothing, shoes, denim, sunglasses, dress hats
and caps.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

JOHN'S PANINI: Shalto Sues Over Discrimination on Premises
----------------------------------------------------------
Lesaldo Shalto, and other similarly situated disabled individuals
v. JOHN'S PANINI GRILL INC., AND 38-01 VERNON BLVD, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-06583 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2024), is brought seeking
equitable, injunctive, and declaratory relief; monetary and nominal
damages; along with attorney's fees, costs, and expenses pursuant
to: Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"); the
New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"); and the New York State
Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL") due to the Defendants' discrimination
on their Premises.

The Defendants' Premises is a commercial space as defined by the
NYSHRL, and NYCHRL because, inter alia, a portion of the building
and structure thereof used or intended to be used as a business,
office, and commerce. On August 4, 2024, and other occasions,
Plaintiff attempted to enter Defendants' Premises, which operates a
local deli that sells paninis, snacks, and refreshments.
Defendants' Premises is less than 1.3 miles from Plaintiff's home.

Because the existing barriers prevent access and restrict the paths
of travel, such as 2 steps at the entrance, Plaintiff was unable to
enter Defendants' Premises. Because the existing barriers prevent
access and restrict the paths of travel, such as 2 steps at the
entrance, Plaintiff was denied full and equal access to, and full
and equal enjoyment of, the commercial space and public
accommodations within Defendants' Premises.

The Defendants denying Plaintiff the opportunity to participate in
and benefit from the services or accommodations offered within
Defendants' Premises because of his disability has caused Plaintiff
to suffer an injury in fact. The Plaintiff intends on immediately
returning to Defendants' Premises once the barriers to access are
removed and Defendants' Premises are ADA compliant.

The Defendants' failure to comply with the ADA, NYSHRL, NYCHRL, et
seq. impedes upon the rights of Plaintiff, and other similarly
situated disabled individuals, to travel free of discrimination and
independently access Defendants' Premises, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a paraplegic who uses a wheelchair for mobility.

John's Panini owns, leases, operates, maintains, and controls all,
or the relevant portions, of Defendants' Premises.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly G. Marks, Esq.
          THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC
          155 E 55th Street, Suite 4H
          New York, NY 1002
          Phone:(646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 867-2639
          Email: brad@markslawpc.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Cert Discovery Extended to Jan. 17, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Carr v. Johnson & Johnson
Consumer Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-06557 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Nov.
23, 2021), the Hon. Eric R. Komitee Judge entered an order on
motion for extension of time to complete discovery motions for
class certification, summary judgment, and rule motions due by Jan.
17, 2025.

The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Product
Liability.

Johnson & Johnson provides products for newborns, babies, toddlers,
and mothers, including cleansers, skin care, moisturizers, hair
care, diaper care, and sun protection.[CC]

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Girgis Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Sahar Girgis, and all others similarly situated
v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON INC; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC. f/k/a
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; and LTL MANAGEMENT LLC,
Case No. CACE-24-011627 was removed from the District Court for the
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
on Sept. 16, 2024, and assigned Case No. 9:24-cv-81130-XXXX.

Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that it is an "action that exceeds
$50,000, exclusive of interest and costs." In fact, the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000. Plaintiff claims that she was
diagnosed with ovarian cancer in "late 2022" as a result of using
Johnson Baby Powder. Plaintiff further claims that, as a result,
she was "seriously and severely injured in and about the body and
thereby rendered sick, sore, lame, and otherwise disabled."[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jennifer A. McLoone, Esq.
          Danielle A. Greenberg, Esq.
          Daria Pietropaolo, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
          Citigroup Center, Suite 3200
          201 South Biscayne Blvd.
          Miami, Florida 33131-4332
          Phone: (305) 358-5171
          Fax: (305) 358-747
          Email: jmcloone@shb.com
                 dgreenberg@shb.com
                 dpietropaolo@shb.com


JOHNSON AND JOHNSON: Montenegro Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Alan Montenegro, Melissa Medina, Noah Long,
Daniel Feldtkeller, Robin Corey, Marilyn Saavedra, Leslie LaMay,
Alexandra Donato, Jenny Qu, Kayleigh Schneider, Starnella Harder,
Johne Conte, Brenda Morgan, Joseph Long, Abdallah Al-Qudsi, Cheryl
Powers, Verunika Dujmovic, Daniel Calzado, on behalf of themselves,
and all others similarly situated, and the general public v.
JOHNSON AND JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC., Does 1 to 50, Inclusive, KENVUE
INC, Case No. 2:24-cv-01895 was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey on Sept. 17, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-09226 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Johnson & Johnson (J&J) -- https://www.jnj.com/ -- is an American
multinational pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical
technologies corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephanie B Sherman, Esq.
          WISNER BAUM
          11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 1750
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Phone: (310) 207-3233
          Fax: (310) 820-7444


JOSEPH PAPA: SMF Not Allowed to Opt Out of Roofer Action
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROOFER'S PENSION FUND,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
JOSEPH PAPA, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-02805-RMB-LDW (D.N.J.), the
Hon. Judge Renee Marie Bumb entered an order denying Sculptor
Master Fund, Ltd.' motion to opt out of the Roofer's Class Action.

All of Sculptor's arguments are unpersuasive, Judge Bumb says.

First, given this Court's clear instructions to class members on
how to opt out form this class action that Sculptor failed to
follow, the Court will not accept Sculptor's opt out by reasonable
indication approach. Even if the Court accepted this approach,
Sculptor's conduct would not satisfy it.

Second, Sculptor has not shown excusable neglect for the Court to
allow the late opt out (or give it another try to opt out).

Third, Sculptor's due process challenge to the class notice fails
because the notice adequately informed class members of the
consequences of failing to opt out. Lastly, Sculptor's estoppel
arguments are equally meritless because, among other reasons, it
has not shown it missed the opt-out deadline because of Perrigo's
supposed misconduct.

In any event, Sculptor has not shown the Court accepted Perrigo's
supposed position on Sculptor's opt-out status.

Finally, nothing in the record suggests Perrigo intentionally
"play[ed] fast and loose with the court."

In June 2017, Lead Plaintiff Perrigo Institutional Investor Group
(Lead Plaintiff) filed an amended punitive class action complaint
against Perrigo claiming it and various corporate individuals
violated federal securities laws.

In November 2019, the Court certified the class in Roofer's,
appointing the Lead Plaintiff as the Class Representative and its
counsel as Class Counsel.

A copy of the Court's opinion dated Sept. 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZF7PPv at no extra
charge.[CC]

KATZ NANNIS: Godbee Sues Over Failure to Protect Sensitive Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bertha Godbee, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. KATZ NANNIS + SOLOMON, PC, Case No. 1:24-cv-12366 (D.
Mass., Sept. 15, 2024), is brought arising from Defendant's failure
to protect highly sensitive data.

As such, Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal
identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information
("PHI")--together "PII/PHI"--about its current and former clients.
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
clients' 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
clients' 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 an accounting firm that specializes in
"early-stage, angel and venture funded technology, life science and
entrepreneurial companies."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW PC
          350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Phone: 615-485-001
          Email: anthony@paronichlaw.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


KEMPER SPORTS: Getzinger Sues Over Customers' Compromised Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
RACHEL GETZINGER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KEMPER SPORTS MANAGEMENT, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-08503 (N.D. Ill., September 16, 2024)
is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of
implied contract, 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 following a data breach on its
network systems. 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.

Kemper Sports Management, LLC is a golf course and hospitality
management company based in Northbrook, Illinois. [BN]

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

                 - and -

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

KING'S COLLEGE: M.D. Pennsylvania Refuses to Dismiss Dantone Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Julia K. Munley of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss
the lawsuit titled MICHAEL DANTONE, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KING'S COLLEGE, Defendant,
Case No. 3:23-cv-01365-JKM (M.D. Pa.).

Before the Court for disposition is Defendant King's College's
motion to dismiss Plaintiff Michael Dantone's putative class action
complaint regarding the college holding online classes during the
COVID-19 pandemic.

Defendant King's College is a private liberal arts college located
in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. Enrollment at the college is 1,900
undergraduate students and 600 part-time students. The Defendant
offers students the option to attend either online classes or have
an on-campus, in-person educational experience. The Plaintiff was
an undergraduate student enrolled in King's on-campus, in-person
education program during the spring 2020 semester.

In March 2020, in response to the outbreak of the COVID-19
pandemic, the Defendant transitioned to remote, online-only
education and cancelled on-campus recreational events and student
activity events. The Defendant further ordered students to refrain
from going on campus. Thus, for the remainder of the spring 2020
semester, no on-campus education, services, and amenities were
available to students. Thus, per the complaint, King's students
lost the services and experience for which they had paid.

The Defendant refused to provide a prorated refund of tuition and
fees related to on-campus education, services, and amenities even
though they were not available to students for a significant part
of the spring 2020 semester. The Defendant, however, did prorate
room and/or board charges for residential students for the
semester.

According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant breached its contracts
with the students by not providing prorated refunds for tuition or
fees charged for on-campus education and services. Based upon these
allegations, the Plaintiff filed the instant complaint, which
raises the following two causes of action: Count 1, breach of
contract; and Count 2, Unjust Enrichment.

The Plaintiff seeks to bring the complaint on his behalf and on
behalf of all the King's students similarly situated to him with
regard to the spring 2020 semester.

In response to the Plaintiff's complaint, the Defendant filed a
motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. The Defendant's motion raises four issues: 1) Is
the Plaintiff's complaint barred based on the educational
malpractice doctrine? 2) Does the complaint properly allege a
breach of an implied contract to provide in-person and on-campus
educational services and access to facilities and campus? 3) Do the
doctrines of frustration of purpose and/or impracticability excuse
the Defendant's actions in moving all classes online? and 4) Has
the Plaintiff properly pled an unjust enrichment claim?

Judge Munley finds that the Defendant's argument regarding the
education malpractice doctrine is unconvincing, the Plaintiff has
sufficiently pled an implied contract regarding the payment of
tuition and mandatory fees, and the Plaintiff has adequately
alleged an unjust enrichment claim.

Even if the breach is excused, Judge Munley opines that the
Defendant may have to pay damages regardless. Accordingly, at this
point in the litigation, the Court rejects the Defendant's
argument. Judge Munley adds that the Plaintiff is allowed to assert
the unjust enrichment claim in the alternative to the breach of
contract claim because the Defendant disputes the contract claim.

For these reasons, the Court denies the Defendant's motion to
dismiss. The Court holds that the Plaintiff has properly pled
causes of action for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated Aug. 29, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yweykknf from PacerMonitor.com.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 29, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/36n2hcdx from PacerMonitor.com.


KLAP6 TECHNOLOGIES: Machado Suit Removed to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jennifer Machado and Nadia Scurry, individually
and as the State of California's designated proxies pursuant to the
Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) on behalf of the State of
California and other aggrieved Employees v. KLAP6 TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
a California limited liability company; KAMALNATH NAGASUBRAMANIAM,
an individual; NARESH MADANLAL KOTHARI, an individual; INNOVATIVE
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, INC., a Louisiana corporation; TED LEMCKE, an
individual; DAN MICHAEL, an individual; MADHU BERIWAL, an
individual; and DOES 6 through 50, Case No.
37-2023-00020925-CU-OE-CTL was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of San Diego, to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California on Sept. 16,
2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01655-JO-VET.

On August 17, 2023, Machado filed a First Amended Complaint
("FAC"). On August 9, 2024, Machado and Scurry filed a Second
Amended Consolidated Complaint ("SAC"). The SAC asserts these
claims on a class basis: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to
Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay Wages Timely; Failure to Comply
with Meal and Rest Break Laws; Failure to Provide Accurate Wage
Statements; Failure to Reimburse Expenses; Private Attorneys
General Act; and Violation of Business and Professions Code, among
other claims.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Eric M. Fox, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Phone: 858-652-3100
          Facsimile: 858-652-3101
          Email: eric.fox@ogletree.com

               - and -

          Katherine S. Catlos, Esq.
          Kartikey A. Pradhan, Esq.
          KAUFMAN DOLOWICH LLP
          425 California Street, Suite 2100
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Email: kcatlos@kaufmandolowich.com
                 kpradhan@kaufmandolowich.com


KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Seeks to Continue Deadline to File Reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENNIE HAMILTON, ANTHONY
KILLION, KRISTOPHER KACZANOWSKI, LEROY COKER, DARRELL BROWN, v.
KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION, INC. dba Arizona Knight Transportation Inc.;
KNIGHT PORT SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case
No. 5:21-cv-01859-MEMF-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court
to enter an order continuing the deadline for the Defendants to
respond to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, to:

-- a date two weeks after the Defendants complete the depositions

    agreed-upon by the Parties, or

-- to such other date as this Court deems proper, as well as a
    related continuance for the Plaintiffs' Reply brief and the
    hearing date for the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification.

The Defendants have been unable to complete the depositions because
of delay scheduling the depositions:

    a witness not showing up; another witness showing up to their
    deposition from their car with bad internet connection; and

    another witness initially showing up to their deposition from
    their car, and then cancelling her deposition and stating that
she
    could not complete her deposition until October because of her

    work schedule.

As a result, the Defendants have been significantly prejudiced in
opposing class certification because they have been prevented from
gathering the evidence necessary to challenge Plaintiffs’ motion
for class certification. Defendants met and conferred with
Plaintiffs in an effort to obtain a short continuance through
stipulation, but Plaintiffs refused any extension.

The Plaintiffs' operative Fourth Amended Complaint (FAC) asserts
the following causes of action arising under California state law:


    1) Reimbursement of all Expenses and Losses,

    2) Unlawful Wage Deductions,

    3) Improper Wage Statements,

    4) Wages Not Paid Upon Separation,

    5) Violation of Unpaid Wages, Straight Time,

   6) Deficient Pay Penalties,

   7) Failure to Maintain Records,

   8) Violation of Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et

      seq., and

   9) Violation of Labor Code Section 2698, et seq. Dkt. 74.

On Feb. 26, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their original motion for
class certification.

On Sept. 4, 2024, the Parties participated in a meet-and-confer
call to discuss Ms. Allman’s deposition.

Knight Trans is a truckload carrier offering dry van, refrigerated,
intermodal and brokerage services.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 1, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=x9tnuy at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew Righetti, Esq.
          John Glugoski, Esq.
          RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C.
          2001 Union St., Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94123
          Telephone: (415) 983-0900
          E-mail: matt@righettilaw.com
                  jglugoski@righettilaw.com

                - and -

          Reuben D Nathan, Esq.
          NATHAN AND ASSOCIATES APC
          2901 West Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 200
          Newport Beach, CA 92663
          Telephone: (949) 270-2798
          E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com

                - and -

          Brian J. Kowalski, Esq.
          KOWALSKI EMPLOYMENT LAW CORP.
          1941 California Ave. No. 79453
          Corona, CA 92877
          Telephone: (925) 570-5673
          E-mail: brian@kowalskilawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Paul S. Cowie, Esq.
          John Ellis, Esq.
          Luis Arias, Esq.
          Nina Montazeri, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4109
          Telephone: (415) 434-9100
          Facsimile: (415) 434-3947
          E-mail pcowie@sheppardmullin.com
                 jellis@sheppardmullin.com
                 larias@sheppardmullin.com
                 nmontazeri@sheppardmullin.com

LAKEVIEW HEALTH: Hurley Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jeffrey W. Hurley, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated persons v. LAKEVIEW HEALTH SYSTEMS, LLC,
Case No. 2024-CA-003606 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
Sept. 17, 2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00961.

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 six causes of
action: Negligence, Breach of Implied Contract, Invasion of
Privacy, Unjust Enrichment, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and Violation
of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua R. Jacobson
          JACOBSON PHILLIPS PLLC
          478 E. Altamonte Drive, Ste
          108-570 Altamonte Springs, Florida
          Phone: (407) 720-4057
          Email: joshua@jacobonphillips.com
                 eservice@jacobsonphillips.com

               - and -

          Samuel J. Strauss
          Raina Borrelli
          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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Amanda Ruggieri, Esq.
          Helen L. Fitzpatrick, Esq.
          CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C.
          450 Sentry Parkway, Suite 200
          Blue Bell, PA 19422
          Phone: (610) 567-0700
          Email: aruggieri@c-wlaw.com
                 nfitzpatrick@c-wlaw.com


LANCASTER GENERAL: Class Cert Oral Argument Set for Oct. 8
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ST. LUKE'S HEALTH NETWORK,
INC. d/b/a ST. LUKE'S UNIVERITY HEALTH NETWORK, et al., v.
LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-02157-JLS
(E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey Schmehl entered an order setting
oral argument on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification for on
Oct. 8, 2024, at 11:00 a.m. in the courtroom of the undersigned at
The Gateway Building, 201 Penn Street, 5th Floor, Reading,
Pennsylvania.

Lancaster is a 525-bed not-for-profit hospital located in Lancaster
City.

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


LATOYA HUGHES: Brozak Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRODIE BROZAK,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v.
LATOYA HUGHES, in her official capacity as Director of the Illinois
Department of Corrections, DAWN SCROGGINS and JENNICA SEFTON, in
their individual capacities, Case No. 3:23-cv-03299-MMM-JEH (C.D.
Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

-- certifying this case as a class action against Defendant Hughes
on
    behalf of all persons currently or in the future in the custody
of
    the Illinois Department of Corrections whose sentences include
a
    term of MSR imposed by an Illinois court; and

-- appointing the undersigned attorneys as class counsel.

Brozak contends that because this case seeks class-wide injunctive
relief prohibiting enforcement of the IDOC's policy regarding
amendment of MSR terms, it is appropriate for certification as a
class action under Rule 23(b)(2).

The Plaintiffs Brodie Brozak and Andres Joyce-Dibart, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, challenge the
constitutionality of the IDOC's policy regarding the calculation of
the length of time individuals in Department custody are required
to serve on Mandatory Supervised Release ("MSR").

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 13, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WE32gD at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adele D. Nicholas, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ADELE D. NICHOLAS
          5707 W. Goodman Street
          Chicago, IL 60630
          Telephone: (847) 361-3869
          E-mail: adele@civilrightschicago.com

                - and -

          Mark G. Weinberg, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MARK G. WEINBERG
          3612 N. Tripp Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60641
          Telephone: (773) 283-3913
          E-mail: mweinberg@sbcglobal.ne

 


LEAF HOME: Loses Bid to Dismiss Lirones TCPA Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURAL LIRONES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. LEAF HOME WATER SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, CASE NO.
5:23-cv-02087 (N.D. Ohio), Judge Bridget Meehan Brennan of the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
denied the defendant's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to
certify for interlocutory appeal.

Plaintiff Laural Lirones's class action complaint seeks "to stop
the Defendant from violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
by placing unsolicited calls to phone numbers that are registered
on the National Do Not Call registry and from continuing to call
consumers who have asked for the calls to stop." Plaintiff alleges
Leaf Home Water Solutions, LLC "solicits business by placing
telephone sales calls to consumers" and "places telemarketing calls
to phone numbers that are registered on the DNC, as per Plaintiff's
experience."

Plaintiff is the subscriber and sole user of a cellular telephone
number ending with 8581. Plaintiff registered her cellular
telephone number on the DNC on July 19, 2023. The Complaint alleges
that "Plaintiff Lirones uses her cell phone number for personal and
household use only as one would use a residential landline." The
Complaint details several unwanted communications to Plaintiff's
cellular telephone number.

Plaintiff brings this class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and
23(b)(3) and seeks certification of the following Classes:

Do Not Call Registry Class: All persons in the United States who
from four years prior to the filing of this action through class
certification (1) Defendant LHWS called more than one time, (2)
within any 12-month period, (3) where the person's residential
telephone number had been listed on the National Do Not Call
Registry for at least thirty days, (4) for substantially the same
reason Defendant called Plaintiff.

Internal Do Not Call Class: All persons in the United States who
from four years prior to the filing of this action through class
certification (1) Defendant called their residential telephone line
at least two times (2) including at least once after the consumer
had communicated their wish to not receive any further calls from
the Defendant (3) for substantially the same reason Defendant
called the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff's claims arise under Sec. 227(c) of the TCPA and the
regulations at 47 C.F.R. Sec. 64.1200(c) and (d).

On January 23, 2024, Defendant filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss asserting that "Plaintiff has no claims as a matter of law
because she solely alleges calls to a cellular telephone number."
Defendant contends that a cellular telephone user is not a
"residential telephone subscriber" under Sec. 227(c). In the
alternative, if the motion to dismiss is denied, Defendant
"requests that the Court certify its order for interlocutory appeal
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b) to enable the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to determine whether a cell
phone can qualify as a residential number."

To state a claim under 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(c), a plaintiff must
allege she: (A) is a residential telephone subscriber; (B)
registered that telephone number with the Do Not Call Registry; and
(C) nonetheless received an unsolicited call to that number
initiated by a person or entity. The key inquiry is whether a
cellular telephone user can qualify as a "residential telephone
subscriber.

Plaintiff argues her allegations that her phone number has been on
the DNC since July 19, 2023, and that she uses that number "for
personal and household use only," are sufficient to state her TCPA
claim. Plaintiff asserts: (1) that Defendant's argument that a
cellular telephone user cannot be a "residential telephone
subscriber" is inconsistent with the text of the TCPA and canons of
statutory construction; (2) that the Hobbs Act precludes the Court
from invalidating the Federal Communications Commission's 2003
Order; and (3) that "courts have repeatedly recognized" that the
DNC protections apply to cellular telephones.

The Court finds the FCC's interpretation of "residential
subscriber" persuasive. The Plaintiff's allegations satisfy both
the plain text of the TCPA and the FCC's regulations. The Court
need not determine whether the Hobbs Act constrains its review of
the FCC's 2003 Order. At this stage, the Plaintiff's allegations
are sufficient to establish that she is a residential telephone
subscriber under the TCPA. Finally, the case is not an exceptional
case warranting certification for interlocutory appeal under
Section 1292(b).

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
September 16, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2Vklra


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Parties Seek Extension of Class Cert Deadlines
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH BLAIN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL
FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:22-cv-00970-AJB-MMP (S.D. Cal.),
the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension
of time for their respective deadlines as follows:

   1. The Plaintiff's deadline to file her reply in support of her

      Class Certification Motion and Opposition to Defendant's
Motion
      to Exclude Testimony of Allan I. Schwartz shall be extended
from
      Oct. 1, 2024 to Oct. 11, 2024.

   2. The Defendant's deadline to file its Reply in Support of its

      Motion to Exclude shall be extended from Oct. 22, 2024 to
      Nov. 1, 2024.

Counsel for Plaintiff were recently informed that Plaintiff's
expert, Allan I. Schwartz, will be out of the country and
unavailable for consultation for a significant portion of
September.

On Sept. 10, 2024, the Parties conferred and agreed to a brief
10-day extension of the briefing schedule to accommodate
Plaintiff’s expert’s
absence.

On May 30, 2024, the Plaintiff filed her Class Certification
Motion.
On Aug. 21, 2024, the Defendant filed its Motion to Exclude.

Liberty Mutual is an American diversified global insurer.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manfred Muecke, Esq.
          MANFRED, APC
          600 West Broadway, Suite 700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 550-4005
          Facsimile: (619) 550-4006
          E-mail: mmuecke@manfredapc.com

                - and -

          Matthew H. Morgan, Esq.
          Robert L. Schug, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4700 IDS Center
          80 S. 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN, 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
          E-mail: morgan@nka.com
                  schug@nka.com

                - and -

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLC
          222 West Adams Street, Suite 2020
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  tbecvar@stephanzouras.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Rachel E. K. Lowe, Esq.
          Tiffany L. Powers, Esq.
          Andrew Hatchett, Esq.
          Melissa Quintana, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP
          333 South Hope Street, 16th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1410
          Telephone: (213) 576-1000
          Facsimile: (213) 576-1100
          E-mail: rachel.lowe@alston.com
                  tiffany.powers@alston.com
                  andrew.hatchett@alston.com
                  melissa.quintana@alston.com

                - and -

          Michael K. Farrell, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
          127 Public Square, Suite 2000
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 621-0200
          E-mail: mfarrell@bakerlaw.com

LIGHTFIRE PARTNERS: Seeks Reconsideration of August 30 Order
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RHONDA ALEY, on behalf of
herself and purportedly on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
LIGHTFIRE PARTNERS, LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-00330-AMN-TWD (N.D.N.Y.),
the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order reconsidering the
Order entered on Aug. 30, 2024 granting class certification.

Lightfire submits that the Court erred by misapplying or failing to
recognize controlling precedent when it granted the Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification.

Namely, the granting of the Motion for Class Certification cannot
be reconciled with a substantial body of case law that denies
certification to nationwide "Do-Not-Call" classes because, in
nearly every such case, individualized issues of consent are found
to predominate.

LightFire is a full-service, business-to-consumer marketing,
advertising and branding firm.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Sept. 13, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cOERo1 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          John Fitzpatrick, Esq.
          CUNNINGHAM DALMAN PC
          321 Settlers Road
          Holland, MI 49423
          Telephone: (616) 392-1821
          E-mail: jfitzpatrick@cunninghamdalman.com

LOVESAC COMPANY: Proposes $615,000 Securities Class Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. announces that the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut has approved the following
announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would
benefit purchasers of common stock of The Lovesac Company (NASDAQ:
LOVE):

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

TO: All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
common stock of The Lovesac Company ("Lovesac") during the period
from June 8, 2022, through August 16, 2023, inclusive (the "Class
Period") (the "Settlement Class").

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS-ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the District of Connecticut (the "Court"), that the
above-captioned securities class action (the "Action") is pending
in the Court.

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiff in the Action, Susan
Cooke Peña, has reached a proposed settlement of the Action for
$615,000 in cash (the "Settlement"), which, if approved, will
resolve all claims in the Action.

A hearing will be held on December 9, 2024, at 9:30 a.m., before
Judge Kari A. Dooley, either in-person at the United States
Courthouse, 915 Lafayette Boulevard, Bridgeport, CT 06604, in
Courtroom 2, or by telephone or videoconference, to determine (i)
whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether, solely for purposes of the
proposed Settlement, the Action should be certified as a class
action on behalf of the Settlement Class, Lead Plaintiff should be
certified as class representative for the Settlement Class, and
Lead Counsel should be appointed as class counsel for the
Settlement Class; (iii) whether the Action should be dismissed with
prejudice against Defendants and whether the releases specified and
described in the Settlement Agreement dated as of July 30, 2024
(and in the Notice) should be granted; (iv) whether the proposed
Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and
(v) whether Lead Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses and Lead Plaintiff's motion for costs and expenses
should be approved. If the hearing is held by telephone or
videoconference, information on how to participate will be posted
at www.strategicclaims.net/lovesac.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you might be
entitled to a payment from the Settlement. If you have not yet
received the Notice and Claim Form, you may get copies of them by
contacting the Claims Administrator at Lovesac Securities
Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 North
Jackson Street, Suite 205, Media, PA 19063; 1-866-274-4004; or
info@strategicclaims.net. You also can download copies of the
Notice and Claim Form from the Settlement website,
www.strategicclaims.net/lovesac.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, you must submit a
Claim Form either electronically or by first-class mail received or
postmarked no later than November 8, 2024, to be eligible to
receive a payment from the Settlement. If you are a Settlement
Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be
eligible to receive a payment, but you will nevertheless be bound
by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion that is received no later than November 4, 2024, in
accordance with the instructions in the Notice. If you properly
exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound
by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action, and
you will not be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement.
Excluding yourself is the only option that may allow you to be part
of any other current or future lawsuit against Defendants or any of
the other released parties concerning the claims being resolved by
the Settlement, even if you have pending or later file another
lawsuit or other proceeding against the Releasees related to the
claims covered by the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
litigation expenses, or Lead Plaintiff's motion for costs and
expenses must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel
and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than
November 4, 2024, in accordance with the instructions in the
Notice.

Do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Defendants, or their
lawyers about this notice. All questions about this notice, the
proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to the Claims Administrator or Lead
Counsel.

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

     Lovesac Securities Litigation
     c/o Strategic Claims Services
     600 North Jackson Street
     Suite 205
     Media, PA 19063
     (866) 274-4004
     info@strategicclaims.net
     www.strategicclaims.net/lovesac

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

     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
     Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
     Leah Heifetz-Li, Esq.
     101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
     Jenkintown, PA 19046
     (215) 600-2817
     jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com
     lheifetz@rosenlegal.com

By Order of the Court [GN]

MADISONVILLE HEALTH: Wedding Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paulette Wedding, individually and on behalf of those
similarly-situated v. MADISONVILLE HEALTH AND REHABILITATION LLC,
SIMCHA HYMAN NAFTALI ZANZIPER, UNKNOWN INDIVIDUAL 1 and CLEARVIEW
HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT KY LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-00097-GNS (W.D. Ky.,
Sept. 16, 2024), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and Kentucky Wages and Hours Act ("KWHA"), against
Defendants as a result of failure to pay Plaintiff overtime
compensation.

Specifically, in her Complaint in the Initial Action, Plaintiff
asserted that the Initial Action Defendants violated the FLSA and
KWHA by causing Defendant Madisonville Health and Rehabilitation,
LLC to fail to pay the correct overtime rate of pay for Plaintiff's
work for Defendant Madisonville Health.

The Plaintiff alleged in the Complaint in the Initial Action that
Plaintiff worked for Defendant Madisonville Health long enough to
earn the sign-on bonus compensation and that the sign-on bonus
compensation was partially paid.

However, Plaintiff alleged in the Complaint in the Initial Action
that Defendants caused Defendant Madisonville Health and
Rehabilitation, LLC to improperly disregard the sign on bonus
compensation paid to Plaintiff in calculating Plaintiff's overtime
rate of pay and that, as a result, Defendants violated the FLSA and
KWHA by improperly failing to pay Plaintiff overtime compensation
owed to Plaintiff, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant working at a nursing home
in Madisonville, Kentucky from February 14, 2023 until February 14,
2024.

Madisonville Health is a for-profit Kentucky limited liability
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark N. Foster, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER, PLLC
          P.O. Box 869
          Madisonville, KY 42431
          Phone: (270) 213-1303
          Email: MFoster@MarkNFoster.com


MAGELLAN HEALTH: Court Grants Deakin's Bid for Summary Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Matthew L. Garcia of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Mexico grants the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in
the lawsuit styled MAUREEN DEAKIN, RACHEL CLERGE, CHERYL JOHNSON,
LESLEY MITCHELL, MAY WOJCIK, DALE KESSLER, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. MAGELLAN HEALTH, INC., and MAGELLAN HSRC,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00773-MLG-KK (D.N.M.).

Plaintiff Maureen Deakin worked as a care coordinator ("CC") for
Defendants Magellan Health, Inc., and Magellan HSRC, Inc.
(collectively "Magellan"), to provide care coordination services to
New Mexico Medicaid members. Deakin, and the class of CCs she
represents, seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages from Magellan
under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") and the New
Mexico Minimum Wage Act ("NMMWA"). The Court certified Deakin's
proposed class in a separate order.

Magellan's primary defense is that Deakin, as class representative,
was an administrative employee and, therefore, exempt from state
and federal overtime requirements. Magellan also raised the FLSA's
professional exemption as a defense to Deakin's claims. However,
Magellan now concedes that the professional exemption does not
apply. Deakin now moves for summary judgment on this specific
issue.

The New Mexico Human Services Department ("HSD") has implemented
several programs intended to increase access for care to the
state's Medicaid recipients. Among these efforts is the
implementation of a "care coordination infrastructure" whereby
managed care organizations ("MCOs") provide care coordination
services to "members." Members are individuals enrolled in New
Mexico's Centennial Care Program (i.e., Medicaid), who are entitled
to receive physical, behavioral, and long-term care services from
MCOs.

Care coordination services, as the name suggests, are how MCOs
enable members to access the full panoply of available healthcare
services. HSD contracts with several MCOs, including Presbyterian
Health Plan ("PHP"), to provide care coordination services to New
Mexico's Medicaid population pursuant to a managed care services
contract ("HSD Contract"). PHP, in turn, subcontracts with Magellan
to assist with its contractual obligations, including care
coordination services. Magellan's contract with PHP mandates strict
adherence to all care coordination requirements contained in the
HSD Contract.

Ms. Deakin and other CCs are tasked with implementing the care
coordination process, which begins with an initial health risk
assessment of a newly enrolled member or one who had a change in
health care condition to obtain basic health and demographic
information. The CC completes this initial assessment through the
administration of a survey tool, which is comprised of a series of
predetermined questions. If the member's responses to that
questionnaire indicate certain health risks, then the CC
administers a second survey tool, referred to as a Comprehensive
Needs Assessment ("CNA"). Like the initial health risk assessment,
the CNA is a standardized questionnaire.

After completing the CNA, the CC enters the member's responses into
a computer and an algorithm assigns a "Care Coordination level" of
1, 2, or 3. At levels 2 and 3, the CC generates a care plan based
on the CNA and follows up with Touchpoint evaluations. These
Touchpoints are simply phone calls or in-person visits to check on
the member's compliance and comfort with the care plan.

To ensure compliance with all contractual obligations, Magellan's
CCs are subject to close supervision and continual auditing. Chief
Operating Officer ("COO") Sarah Lopez gave a testimony detailing
the extensive audit process for Magellan's care coordination
services. Magellan utilizes a variety of audit processes to closely
track CCs' performance and work product, from the number of care
plans and CNAs performed, to production timelines and care plan
completion.

Ms. Deakin worked as a care coordinator for Magellan from September
2016 to December 2017. Her duties included personal visits with
members to complete CNAs, and following up to ensure that the
resultant care plans were effective. She spent approximately eighty
percent of her time inputting the data necessary to produce CNAs
and care plans, along with an additional unspecified amount of time
on Touchpoints.

Magellan audited Deakin to ensure that she carried out her duties
within contractually obligated timeframes. When Deakin did not meet
her required metrics, Magellan placed her on a performance
improvement plan and specifically noted her inability to adhere to
the timelines set by the HSD and PHP Contracts. Magellan ultimately
fired Deakin while she was on medical leave.

Ms. Deakin subsequently sued Magellan to recover allegedly unpaid
overtime wages for herself and her fellow CCs under the NMMWA and
the FLSA. Magellan denies liability asserting that Deakin is not
entitled to overtime wages because CCs are exempt from overtime pay
under the FLSA's administrative exemption. Deakin now seeks summary
judgment on that matter.

The parties' first dispute whether Deakin's duties are (or are not)
directly related to assisting with the running or servicing of the
business, as distinguished, for example, from working on a
manufacturing production line or selling a product in a retail or
service establishment. Deakin, arguing in the negative, frames her
position in terms of the administrative-production dichotomy.

Judge Garcia finds that Deakin was not exempt from the FLSA and
NMMWA's minimum wage requirements under Section 541.200(a)(2)'s
directly related criteria.

Magellan argues that Deakin and other CCs used discretion and
independent judgment in their day-to-day work and are, thus, exempt
administrative employees. Magellan points to evidence establishing
that in carrying out CNAs, care plans, and Touchpoints, CCs would
use different methods and employed creative solutions to accomplish
their tasks.

Judge Garcia notes that the salient inquiry is whether the employee
has authority to run the business or to make major decisions on its
behalf, citing Talbott v. Lakeview Ctr., Inc., No. 3:06cv378, 2008
WL 4525012, at *6 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2008).

Magellan proffers no compelling evidence that Deakin possessed the
requisite authority to act on matters of significance, Judge Garcia
opines. Although CCs exercised some limited discretion in carrying
out CNAs, care plans, and Touchpoints, these tasks are merely
routine duties. They have no bearing on the administrative or
managerial functions of Magellan's operations.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Deakin was not administratively
exempt from the FLSA and NMMWA's overtime requirements.

Judge Garcia concludes that the undisputed facts of this case show
that Deakin's primary duties were to provide care coordination
services to PHP members in her role as Magellan's employee. Those
duties were neither directly related to Magellan's business
operations, nor did they involve the exercise of discretion and
judgment on matters of significance.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Deakin was not an administrative
employee exempt from the FLSA and NMMWA's overtime protections. By
extension, neither are the CCs subject to this class action. The
Court grants Deakin's motion for summary judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
Aug. 28, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2fat6cs6 from
PacerMonitor.com.


MARSH & McLENNAN: Bid to Strike Bohnak's Class Allegations Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York grants the motion to strike class
allegations in the lawsuit entitled NANCY BOHNAK, on behalf of
herself and ail others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MARSH &
MCLENNAN COS., INC. and MARSH & MCLENNAN AGENCY LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-06096-AKH (S.D.N.Y.).

The Defendants move to strike the Plaintiff's class allegations,
alleging that the allegations are precluded by a waiver executed by
Ms. Bohnak in 2014. The Court agrees.

Ms. Bohnak is a former employee of Defendant Marsh & McLennan
Companies ("MMC"). Following the termination of her employment with
MMC in 2014, Bohnak executed a Waiver and Release Agreement, which
entitled her to an enhanced severance package. One of the terms of
this agreement stipulated that Bohnak acknowledged and agreed that
she waived any right to participate in any class or collective
action against the Company and Releasees, or any of them.

Judge Hellerstein notes that the agreement did not prevent Bohnak
from suing in her own right for non-released or future causes of
action. In 2021, Bohnak filed this suit, pursuing class action
relief for MMC'S data breach, alleging that Bohnak and class
members' sensitive personal identifying information was hacked.

On motion of the Defendants, the Court dismissed the Complaint for
failure to plausibly allege damages, and therefore, for lack of
standing, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Defendants then
answered, alleging, in addition to denials, the defense of waiver.

The parties also filed a case management plan and a stipulation to
regulate discovery of electronically stored information, and some
discovery followed. The Defendants moved to strike the class
allegations because of Ms. Bohnak's waiver, which the Defendants
state was recovered during discovery.

Judge Hellerstein notes that striking class allegations can be
appropriate where a contractual waiver clearly precludes the
possibility that a plaintiff's claim may be brought on a class-wide
basis. The 2014 agreement executed by Bohnak waiving class or
collective relief is precisely such a contractual waiver. Judge
Hellerstein finds it is a valid, enforceable contract for which
Bohnak received the benefit of her bargain--an enhanced severance
packagee--and thus, it limits her ability to seek class-wide
relief.

Moreover, Judge Hellerstein adds, these types of class action
waivers have been routinely held enforceable by New York courts.
Judge Hellerstein, therefore, agrees with MMC's arguments and finds
that the class allegations are barred by the parties' 2014 waiver
agreement.

The Plaintiff complains that MMC'S motion to strike came late.
However, MMC had alleged an affirmative defense of waiver in its
Answer, thus, giving notice, Judge Hellerstein notes. The present
motion to strike did not have to be made when the Defendants moved
to dismiss the Complaint. MMC represents that Bohnak's severance
agreement was found recently, just prior to the motion, and no
prejudice has been shown.

Accordingly, the Court rules that the Defendants' motion to strike
the class allegations is granted, and the case may continue with
Bohnak as an individual plaintiff. The Plaintiff may file an
amended complaint conforming to this Order on Sept. 16, 2024. The
Clerk will terminate ECF No. 61.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 29, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/26c3ty38 from PacerMonitor.com.


MARYLAND: Parties in Connor Seek More Time to File Class Cert Reply
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IRENE CONNOR, et al., v.
MARYLAND DEPT. OF HEALTH, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01423-MJM (D.
Md.), the Parties asks the Court to enter an order, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1), extending the deadlines
for each of their reply memoranda on the pending motions to dismiss
and for class certification for two weeks until Oct. 4, 2024.

Pursuant to Local Rule 105.9, each party through their counsel
consents to the other's requested brief, two-week extension due to
the number and complexity of issues to be addressed.

The case involves the alleged failure of the Maryland Department of
Health and Secretary Herrera Scott to conduct annual surveys and
timely investigation of complaints against nursing facilities in
Maryland and take appropriate corrective action and enforcement
accordingly.

The Plaintiffs filed their class action complaint seeking
injunctive and declaratory relief on May 15, 2024.

Maryland Department of Health is an agency of the government of
Maryland responsible for public health issues.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Debra Lynn Gardner, Esq.
          PUBLIC JUSTICE CENTER
          201 North Charles Street, Suite 1200
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 625-9409
          Facsimile: (410) 625-9423
          E-mail: gardnerd@publicjustice.org

                - and -

          Regan Bailey, Esq.
          Carol A. Wong, Esq.
          Liam McGivern, Esq.
          JUSTICE IN AGING
          1444 I Street, NW, Suite 1100
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 683-1990
          E-mail: RBailey@justiceinaging.org
                  LMcGivern@justiceinaging.org

                - and -

          Sheila S. Boston, Esq.
          Samuel Lonergan, Esq.
          Robert Grass, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
          250 West 55th Street
          New York, NY 10019-9710
          Telephone: (212) 836-8000
          Facsimile: (212) 836-8689
          E-mail: Sheila.Boston@arnoldporter.com
                  Samuel.Lonergan@arnoldporter.com
                  Robert.Grass@arnoldporter.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brandy J. Gray, Esq.
          David E. Wagner, Esq.
          Nicole Lugo Clark, Esq.
          MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
          300 W. Preston Street, Suite 302
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 767-1861
          Facsimile: (410) 333-7894
          E-mail: Brandy.Gray1@maryland.gov
                  david.wagner@maryland.gov
                  Nicole.LugoClark@maryland.gov

MAXLINEAR INC: Bid to Dismiss Water Island Securities Suit Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California grants the Defendants' motion to
dismiss in the lawsuit titled WATER ISLAND EVENT-DRIVEN FUND, on
Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v.
MAXLINEAR, INC., et al., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01607-CAB-VET
(S.D. Cal.).

The lawsuit is a securities class action dispute that arises out of
a failed merger. In its wake, the Plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint (or "Complaint") alleging violations of Sections (10)(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. At issue is the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the consolidated complaint for
failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.

In light of the Ninth Circuit's ruling in In re: CCIV/Lucid Motors
Sec. Litig., 110 F.4th 1181, 1187 (9th Cir. 2024) ("Lucid Motors"),
the Court grants the Motion.

MaxLinear is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located in Carlsbad, California. MaxLinear provides
microchips for the telecommunications industry. Its stock is
publicly traded on the NASDAQ under the ticker "MXL." Defendant
Kishore Seendripu is the co-founder of MaxLinear and, as relevant
to the allegations in the consolidated complaint, served as its
Chief Executive Officer.

Defendant Steven Litchfield served as Chief Financial Officer and
Chief Corporate Strategy Officer. Both individuals are alleged to
have made, approved, or adopted false statements that caused or
maintained artificial inflation in the price of Silicon Motion
Technology Corporation's ("SIMO") shares. SIMO is a Taiwan-based
chip manufacturer and was MaxLinear's target in the proposed
merger.

The Lead Plaintiffs are private investment funds, who purchased or
acquired SIMO American Depository Shares ("ADSs") from June 6,
2023, through July 26, 2023 (the alleged class period or "Class
Period"). The Plaintiffs bring these claims on behalf of a class of
investors, who purchased or acquired SIMO ADSs during the Class
Period. The Plaintiffs claim that the acquiring party, MaxLinear,
committed fraud in the course of the failed combination with SIMO.

The Court takes judicial notice of the Defendants' Exhibits 1–5
filed with the motion to dismiss: (1) the merger agreement
contained in MaxLinear's Form S-4 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC"), (2) the transcript from the June 6,
2023 Stifel Conference as published by FactSet CallStreet, LLC, (3)
MaxLinear's Form 425 as filed with the SEC containing an excerpt
from the Stifel Conference, (4) MaxLinear's Form 8-K as filed with
the SEC on June 28, 2023, and (5) MaxLinear's Form 8-K as filed
with the SEC on July 26, 2023. These exhibits contain facts that
are "accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy
cannot reasonably be questioned." The Plaintiffs incorporate each
of these items in their consolidated complaint and have not
contested the Defendants' request for notice.

As alleged, MaxLinear and SIMO announced the terms of the
"transformative" $3.8 billion acquisition on May 5, 2022. The deal
promised a 50% premium for SIMO ADS holders. According to the
Plaintiffs, upon the deal's announcement, MaxLinear claimed that
the merger would allow the combined entity to compete at the
highest level of the semiconductor supply industry and expand
MaxLinear's geographic reach. But MaxLinear would need to clear
regulatory hurdles before it could close the deal: approval by the
Department of Justice's Antitrust Division, Federal Trade
Commission, and by their Chinese corollary, the State
Administration for Market Regulation ("SAMR").

By its terms, the deal rested on clearance by antitrust authorities
on or before Aug. 7, 2023. The Plaintiffs claim that MaxLinear
could terminate the deal if regulators failed to provide their
blessing, thereby, capping its liabilities to a $160 million merger
break-up fee. MaxLinear could also allegedly terminate if SIMO was
in breach of its "representations, warranties or covenants" with
certain conditions allowing for cure of the breach. Similarly,
MaxLinear could terminate if SIMO experienced a "Material Adverse
Event" as defined in the merger agreement.

According to the Plaintiffs, SAMR antitrust review represented a
key deal risk. MaxLinear "swiftly" obtained U.S. approval, but
political risks relating to the semiconductor industry apparently
created uncertainty about whether China would allow the deal to
move forward. In support, the Plaintiffs highlight numerous
contemporaneously published news articles discussing China's
supposed use of the merger review process to retaliate against U.S.
companies as part of a larger trade dispute.

Nevertheless, third-party analysts allegedly reported MaxLinear's
optimism about the deal. The Plaintiffs' pleadings identify
MaxLinear's own regular updates about the merger. On April 26,
2023, MaxLinear issued a press release indicating that it remained
"excited" by the "pending acquisition" and that things were moving
as expected on the SAMR front. In another statement that also
preceded the Class Period, MaxLinear apparently announced on May 3,
2023, that they continued to actively work to get the merger done
by mid-year, consistent with their internal expected timeframe.

The first category of alleged misrepresentations upon which the
Plaintiffs' lawsuit rests followed. The Plaintiffs assert that on
June 6, 2023, MaxLinear and Defendant Seendripu participated in a
conference ("the Stifel Conference") involving 300 companies and
more than 1,600 investors, including institutional investors and
those representing private equity and venture capital firms. During
a so-called "fireside chat," a conference representative asked
Defendant Seendripu about the merger, one this representative
described as "one of the topics investors want to hear most
about."

Defendant Seendripu responded that MaxLinear was very, very bullish
that it can acquire the synergies that the basic rationale for the
merger had not changed at all, and that he believed that SIMO was a
very strategic asset for MaxLinear. The Defendants supplied the
next purportedly fraudulent statement on June 28, 2023. MaxLinear
filed a Form 8-K with the SEC confirming that MaxLinear and SIMO
"re-filed" for merger clearance under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act.

The Plaintiffs claim that this statement was a misrepresentation in
context. Allegedly, MaxLinear's finances had taken a downturn,
costs of financing had increased dramatically, and the merger no
longer constituted an attractive business proposition.

The Plaintiffs allege that although the Defendants went through the
regulatory motions, they had no intention of completing the merger
and instead hoped that SAMR would deny antitrust approval. Indeed,
the Plaintiffs maintain that MaxLinear was not genuinely interested
in closing the transaction with SIMO given that the Defendants had
not taken the most basic and rudimentary steps to prepare for an
integration of the two companies.

On July 26, 2023, SAMR granted regulatory approval for the merger
through an announcement on the agency's website. That same day,
apparently within ten hours of SAMR's approval of the merger,
MaxLinear issued a press release in which it announced the
termination of the merger agreement on grounds that (1) SIMO had
failed to specify certain merger conditions, (2) SIMO suffered a
continuing Materially Adverse Event, and (3) SIMO made unspecified
"breaches" of the Merger Agreement. MaxLinear claimed in its press
release that SIMO's qualifying breach had occurred months earlier,
as of May 5, 2023.

The Defendants challenge the Plaintiffs' standing to maintain a
Section 10(b) lawsuit. As they allege in their consolidated
complaint, the Plaintiffs did not purchase MaxLinear stock during
the Class Period and instead, held only the securities of the
target SIMO. According to the Defendants, to have Section (10)(b)
standing, the Plaintiffs must have purchased MaxLinear securities
during the Class Period.

At the time the parties initially briefed the motion to dismiss,
the Defendants sought to import the strict application of a
standing test from the Second Circuit, Judge Bencivengo notes,
citing Menora Mivtachim Ins. Ltd. v. Frutarom Indus. Ltd., 54 F.4th
82, 85, 88 (2d Cir. 2022).

Under this test--the "purchaser-seller" rule--the Plaintiffs must
have bought or sold the security about which a misstatement was
made. But at that earlier stage of litigation, the Defendants and
the Plaintiffs agreed that the strict satisfaction of the
"purchaser-seller" rule was not a requirement for litigants in the
Ninth Circuit.

Judge Bencivengo notes that the parties did not then have the
benefit of the Ninth Circuit's recent opinion in Lucid Motors,
which adopted the Second Circuit's reasoning from Menora. In doing
so, the Ninth Circuit explained that the "purchaser-seller" rule
represented a "bright-line rule" faithful to Supreme Court
precedent that made clear that a plaintiff has standing to sue
under Section 10(b) if the plaintiff purchased or sold the
securities about which the alleged misrepresentations were made.

Admittedly, Judge Bencivengo says, the facts of Menora differ
slightly from the ones animating the current dispute. Although
Menora decided that shareholders of an acquirer did not have
Section 10(b) standing to sue the target, it did so in the context
of the target company's alleged misstatements about "itself" prior
to the merger. Specifically, those statements were limited to the
target's own compliance with various anti-bribery laws.

Here, the Plaintiffs have alleged misrepresentations made by the
Defendants relating to their: (1) evaluation of the merger,
including SIMO's benefits to MaxLinear, and (2) commitment to
completing the merger.

Judge Bencivengo points out that the key issue for standing is
whether the misrepresentations were made about SIMO. The Court
finds they were not. The identified statements amount to
MaxLinear's evaluation of the benefits of the merger and
MaxLinear's continued commitment to the merger's success as
reflected in MaxLinear's own regulatory filing. Although there
appears be a significant connection between the shares of a target
and the merger-related statements of its acquirer, the Ninth
Circuit has set a bright-line rule that the "security" at issue
must be one about which the alleged misrepresentations were made.

The Court concludes that it is not aware of any relevant exceptions
to the "purchaser-seller" rule which is now controlling law in the
Ninth Circuit. Because the Plaintiffs did not hold MaxLinear's
stock during the Class Period and the alleged misrepresentations
were made about MaxLinear, the Court grants the Defendants' motion
to dismiss for lack of 10(b) standing pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6).

The Court dismisses this case without prejudice with consideration
to the intervening decision in Lucid Motors. The Plaintiffs may
file any amended complaint by Sept. 18, 2024.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 28, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4s9emhnu from PacerMonitor.com.


MAZDA MOTOR: Class Settlement in Vance Gets Partial OK
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOWNSEND VANCE, et al., v.
MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC., et al., Case No.
8:21-cv-01890-JLS-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine Staton
entered an order granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of a class action settlement.

The Court sets the following deadlines in association with its
preliminary approval of the Settlement.

                  EVENT                           DEADLINE

  Provision of VINs for Class Vehicles to        Sept. 11, 2024
  Settlement Administrator

  Commencement of Class Notice                   Sept. 11, 2024

  Plaintiffs' Motion, Memorandum of Law and      Nov. 12, 2024
  other materials in support of their
  requested award of attorneys’ fees, costs,
  and service awards

  Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of       Nov. 12, 2024
  Class Action Settlement

  Deadline for Class Member objections to        Dec. 16, 2024
  Settlement

  Final Fairness Hearing                         Jan. 17, 2025

On Nov. 17, 2021, Vance and Haines initiated this putative class
action complaint against Defendants Mazda Motor of America, Inc and
Denso International America, Inc.

The Plaintiffs filed their SAC on Jan. 19, 2022, refining their
allegations and their proposed Class definitions and claims. The
SAC proposed a nationwide Class defined as:

    "All current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle
that
    was purchased or leased in the fifty States, the District of
    Columbia, Puerto Rico, and all other United States territories

    and/or possessions."

The SAC further proposed two statewide Classes for Alabama and
California.

The proposed "Settlement Class" is defined as

    "all individuals or legal entities who, at any time as of the
    entry of the Preliminary Approval Order, own or owned,
purchase(d)
    or lease(d) Covered Vehicles in any of the fifty States, the
    District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and all other United States

    territories and/or possessions."

Mazda Motor offers new and used cars, vans, trucks, sport utility
vehicles, parts, and accessories, as well as financing,
maintenance, and repair services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=twQIUL at no extra
charge.[CC]

MD NOW MEDICAL: Herman Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jillian Herman, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. MD NOW MEDICAL CENTERS, INC., Case
No. CACE-24-011627 was removed from the Circuit Court of the
Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on Sept. 14, 2024, and assigned Case No.
0:24-cv-61704-XXXX.

The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff and proposed class members are
incurring and will continue to incur damages for "constant
surveillance of their financial and personal records, monitoring,
and loss of rights in addition to any fraudulent use of their PHI,"
as well as for "protective measures such as identity theft
protection and credit monitoring fees (for any credit monitoring
obtained in addition to or in lieu of the inadequate monitoring
offered by Defendant), credit report fees, credit freeze fees, and
similar costs directly or indirectly related to the Data Breach
Incident."[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Martin B. Goldberg, Esq.
          Lynnette Cortes Mhatre, Esq.
          LASH GOLDBERG FINEBERG LLP
          Miami Tower
          100 SE 2nd Street, Suite 1200
          Miami, FL 33131-2158
          Phone: (305) 347-4040
          Fax: (305) 347-3050
          Primary: mgoldberg@lashgoldberg.com
                   lmhatre@lashgoldberg.com
          Secondary: rdiaz@lashgoldberg.com
                     obencomo@lashgoldberg.com


MERCK SHARP: Court Grants Baltimore's Bid to Amend Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gerald Austin McHugh of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania grants the Defendant's motion to
amend its complaint in the lawsuit styled MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF
BALTIMORE, ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v.
MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., Case No. 2:23-cv-00828-GAM (E.D. Pa.).

The lawsuit is an antitrust class action alleging that Defendant
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation has engaged in illegal conduct that
forecloses competition in a significant portion of the rotavirus
vaccine market. Plaintiff Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
(Baltimore) is a third-party payor that paid for all or part of the
purchase price of vaccines, including Defendant Merck's RotaTeq
vaccine, pursuant to its obligations under its self-funded health
insurance plan.

Baltimore has moved to amend its Complaint, and in addition to
opposing that motion, Merck has simultaneously filed a Motion to
Strike Class Action Allegations in the Complaint pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(d)(1)(D).

Because Baltimore is correct that its suggested changes to the
class definition eliminate redundancies, and because it is too
early to rule on the ascertainability of the class, the Court
grants Baltimore's Motion to Amend and denies Merck's Motion to
Strike Class Action Allegations.

With discovery underway, Baltimore seeks to amend its Complaint to:
(1) clarify certain ambiguities that the identified by the court in
its opinion on Merck's motion to dismiss; (2) amend the class
definition; and (3) withdraw its jury demand.

Merck counters that the proposed changes to the class definition
would be futile and would not cure the Complaint of a fatal flaw:
ascertainability of the class. Merck also files a Motion to Strike
Class Action Allegations in the Complaint, arguing that there is
"no administratively feasible mechanism" to sufficiently identify
class members, and as a result, the parties should not be burdened
with continued class certification proceedings at the end of
discovery.

Baltimore defines the class as:

     [A]ll entities that (i) are third-party payors that
     (ii) have purchased, paid, and/or provided reimbursement for
     some or all of the purchase price of RotaTeq; (iii) for
     consumption by their members, employees, insureds,
     participants, or beneficiaries (iv) in one of the Repealer
     Jurisdictions (v) after March 3, 2019, and (vi) do not fall
     within any of the two exclusion categories.

The class definition originally listed four exclusion categories,
which the proposed amendment would reduce to two. The substantive
change proposed is the removal of the following exclusion category:
"(c) fully insured health plans (i.e., health plans that purchased
insurance from another third-party payor covering 100% of the
plan's reimbursement obligations to its members)."

Merck argues that removing this category would be futile in that
doing so "creates an intractable ambiguity in the class definition,
because as the Third Circuit has recognized [in Niaspan],
fully-insured health plans do not bear the risk of loss for any
over-payment for medical benefits, and as a result, such plans are
not appropriate class members."

Merck goes on to argue that regardless of the exclusion, a class
cannot be certified because there is no administratively feasible
mechanism to identify class members without individualized
fact-finding, as demonstrated by In re Niaspan Antitrust Litig., 67
F.4th 118, 122 (3d Cir. 2023).

In Niaspan, end-payors of prescription drugs alleged that
brand-name drug manufacturers entered into anticompetitive
"pay-for-delay" agreements to delay the introduction of certain
generic prescription drugs, inflating prices for consumers.

Judge McHugh opines that Niaspan differs from this case in several
important respects. Judge McHugh says Niaspan was decided at the
class certification stage, after the close of discovery, and the
data set available to the plaintiffs in Niaspan derived from
Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBM), and the Court found that "PBMs
cannot identify class members because their data does not show
whether, in any given transaction, an entity is an end-payor, a
fully insured health plan, or an administrative intermediary."

Here, Judge McHugh points out, the parties are still in a
relatively early stage of litigation before the end of fact
discovery. Moreover, the data set needed to identify fully insured
health plans would allegedly not involve the use of PBM data since
this case does not involve prescription drugs.

And even if Merck is correct that ultimately Baltimore will be
unable to meet the Third Circuit's ascertainability requirement, on
the record before the Court, Judge McHugh says it is too early to
make such a determination.

Judge McHugh is also unpersuaded by Merck's argument that removing
the exclusion creates an "intractable ambiguity." As Baltimore
explains, "neither class definition includes 'health plans' at all,
rather the class is defined to include third-party payors. And in
both the Complaint and the [proposed First Amended Complaint], the
class is defined with reference to objective criteria that do not
include the sponsors of fully-insured plans."

In short, Judge McHugh opines, removing the exclusion does not
alter the class definition in the way that Merck claims, and
sponsors of fully insured health plans would still be excluded as
class members.

For these reasons, the Court rules that the Plaintiff's Motion to
Amend will be granted, except as to withdrawal of the jury demand.
The Defendant's Motion to Strike Class Allegations will be denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated Aug. 28, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2ccj6npf from PacerMonitor.com.


MERIDIAN SERVICES: Hagen Suit Seeks Case Managers' Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------------
BRIER HAGEN and HEATHER NHAN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MERIDIAN SERVICES, INC.,
and ORION ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants, Case No.
0:24-cv-03661-PAM-DTS (D. Minn., September 16, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Minnesota Fair Labor
Standards Act, and the Minnesota Payment of Wages Act.

Plaintiffs Hagen and Nhan were employed by the Defendants as case
managers from approximately July 2022 to approximately September
2023 and from approximately July 2022 to approximately May 2024,
respectively.

Meridian Services, Inc. is a healthcare organization, with its
principal place of business at 9400 Golden Valley Road, Golden
Valley, Minnesota.

Orion Associates, Inc. is a management services company, with its
principal place of business at 9400 Golden Valley Road, Golden
Valley, Minnesota. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
       H. Clara Coleman, Esq.
       Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
       NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
       4700 IDS Center
       80 South Eighth Street
       Minneapolis, MN 55402
       Telephone: (612) 256-3200
       Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
       Email: srey@nka.com
              ccoleman@nka.com

MIGUEL GOMEZ: Judge Recommends Denial of Bryant Class Cert Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHAD ERIC BRYANT, v.
MIGUEL GOMEZ, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-12169-DPH-CI (E.D. Mich.),
the Hon. Judge Curtis Ivy, Jr. recommends that the motion to
certify the class action be denied.

If the Court adopts this ruling, pursuant to stipulation of the
parties, the dispositive motion deadline should be set for 30 days
after the date of the ruling.

If this recommendation is not adopted, the undersigned will conduct
a status conference with the parties to discuss a scheduling order.
The parties here may object to and seek review of this Report and
Recommendation but are required to file any objections within 14
days of service, as provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
72(b)(2) and Local Rule 72.1(d).

Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any
further right of appeal.

Filing objections that raise some issues but fail to raise others
with specificity will not preserve all the objections a party might
have to this Report and Recommendation.

Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(d)(2), any objections must be served on
this Magistrate Judge. Any objections must be labeled as "Objection
No. 1," "Objection No. 2," etc. Any objection must recite precisely
the provision of this Report and Recommendation to which it
pertains. Not later than 14 days after service of an objection, the
opposing party may file a concise response proportionate to the
objections in length and complexity.

The response must specifically address each issue raised in the
objections, in the same order, and labeled as "Response to
Objection No. 1," "Response to Objection No. 2," etc. If the Court
determines that any objections lack merit, it may rule without
awaiting the response.

As in Salem, the Plaintiff cannot meet the requirements for class
certification.

Thus, the undersigned recommends that the motion be denied. Given
this
conclusion on the Rule 23 factors, the undersigned will not address
the issues concerning exhaustion of administrative remedies.

This case is about a strip search conducted on the 32 male inmates
in S Pod of the Saginaw County Jail on July 24-25, 2022. According
to the Plaintiff, the strip searches were conducted in the attorney
conference rooms which are outfitted with CCTV cameras feeding the
video to several screens in the jail.

The Plaintiff defines the two putative classes this way:

   (1) 32 male inmates of S Pod of the Saginaw County Jail who, on

       July 24-25, were strip searched in attorney conference
rooms,
       Rooms 3018 and 3022, under surveillance cameras connected to

       the jail CCTV system which transmitted images of the
searches
       to video monitors that were viewed by female corrections
       officers and preserved to computer servers;

   (2) male inmates of the Jail who were strip searched in the same

       rooms (or rooms 2018 and 2022) under the same surveillance
       cameras on other dates.

A copy of the Court's report and recommendation dated Sept. 12,
2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wWpv9m at no extra charge.[CC]
 


MIGUEL PAREDES: Plan Participant Class Wins Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA ARNOLD, BRANDI TROUT,
and SANDRA GOLDEN-WOODS, on behalf of the Churchill Holdings, Inc.
Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on behalf of a class of all
other persons similarly situated, v. MIGUEL PAREDES, PRUDENT
FIDUCIARY SERVICES, LLC, LAWSON H. HARDWICK, III, MATTHEW C.
CLARKE, and CECIL O. KEMP, JR, Case No. (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon.
Judge Waverly Crenshaw, Jr. entered an order granting Plaintiffs'
Unopposed Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class
Counsel.

The Court certifies the following class:

    "All vested participants in the Churchill Holdings, Inc.
Employee
    Stock Ownership Plan and the beneficiaries of such participants
on
    May 26, 2017, or anytime thereafter."

    Excluded from the Class are the Defendants and their immediate

    families; and legal representatives, successors, and assigns of

    any such excluded persons. The Court also designates
Plaintiffs'
    law firms Bailey & Glasser LLP as lead counsel pursuant to
23(g).

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs meet the adequacy requirements
of Rule 23. There is no evidence of any conflict between Plaintiffs
and the interests of the Class.

The Plaintiffs have represented a sufficient understanding of their
claims and are committed to vigorously prosecuting this action on
behalf of their fellow participants. Plaintiffs’ counsel has
provided a factual basis weighing in favor of their adequacy.
Declaration of Gregory Y. Porter (Doc. No. 83-1). Therefore,
Plaintiffs and their Counsel have satisfied this requirement.

The Plaintiffs sue on behalf of the Churchill Holdings Inc.
Employee Stock Ownership Plan ("Plan") under Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA") section
502(a)(2), 29 U.S.C. section 1132(a)(2), and on behalf of the
proposed class of participants and beneficiaries. They allege
Prudent Fiduciary Services, LLC ("PFS") and Miguel Paredes caused
the Plan to engage in transactions prohibited by the ERISA, and
breached their fiduciary obligations to the Plan.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zmwRJ7 at no extra
charge.[CC]

MIKE BLOOMBERG: Appeals Court Order in Wood FLSA Suit to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MIKE BLOOMBERG 2020, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order in
the lawsuit entitled Donna Wood, et al., on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Mike Bloomberg
2020, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-2489, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint
is filed against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

On Aug. 27, 2024, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and denied the Defendant's motion to decertify
class through an Order entered by Judge Laura Taylor Swain.

On Sept. 5, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint
against the Defendant.

The appellate case is captioned Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc. v. Wood,
Case No. 24-2391, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, filed on September 12, 2024. [BN]

Defendant-Petitioner MIKE BLOOMBERG 2020, INC. is represented by:

          Elise M. Bloom, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          11 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036

MJ FOOTWEAR: Agnone Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------
Pasquale Agnone, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Mj Footwear and Apparel, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-06561
(E.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2024), is brought 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 is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to services
Nepenthes America provides to their non-disabled customers through
https://www.mjfootwear.com (hereinafter "Mjfootwear.com" or "the
website"). Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its
website, and therefore denial of its services offered, and in
conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the
"ADA").

Because Defendant's website, Mjfootwear.com, is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change
in Nepenthes America's policies, practices, and procedures to that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination, 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.

Mjfootwear.com provides to the public a wide array of services,
price specials and other programs offered by Mj Footwear and
Apparel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Uri Horowitz, Esq.
          14441 70th Road
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: 718.705.8706
          Fax: 718.705.8705
          Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com


NATURE'S PATH: Bid to Dismiss Miller Class Action Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IAN MILLER, v. NATURE'S
PATH FOODS, INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-05711-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Jon Tigar entered an order denying Nature's Path's motion to
dismiss and motion to strike.

Nature's Path argues that Miller's equitable claims must be
dismissed under Sonner because he fails to demonstrate that he
"lacks an adequate remedy at law." However, "this Court, together
with the majority of courts in this district, understands Sonner to
require far less at the pleading stage."

At the pleading stage it is sufficient for a "plaintiff to plead
that her legal remedies are inadequate or plead equitable claims in
the alternative because her legal remedies are inadequate." This is
what Miller has alleged here. Accordingly, the Court declines to
dismiss his equitable claims.

This Court has found that "such a detailed choice-of-law analysis
is not appropriate at this stage of the litigation" but rather,
such a fact-heavy inquiry should occur during the class
certification stage, after discovery.

Accordingly, the Court declines to strike Miller's nationwide class
allegations.

The Plaintiff Miller brought this class action against Nature's
Path for violations of: (1) California's Consumers Legal Remedies
Act ("CLRA"); (2) California's False Advertising Law ("FAL");
States District Court Northern District of California (3) common
law fraud, deceit and/or misrepresentation; (4) California's Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL"); and (5) unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff Miller on multiple occasions purchased Nature's
Path's Heritage Flakes, Flax Plus Raisin Bran, Flax Plus Multibran
Flakes, and the Heritage Original Crunch cereals from retail stores
in California.

Nature's Path is a Canadian company that manufactures, distributes,
markets, advertises, and sells a variety of breakfast and snack
products under the brand names 'Nature's Path.'

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Dl9Qak at no extra
charge.[CC]

NAVARRO HOSPITAL: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Kelly Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Merri Kelly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Navarro Hospital, L.P., Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-02285-D (N.D. Tex., Sept. 6, 2024) is a civil action
brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal
Act seeking damages for Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff proper
overtime wages.

The Plaintiff has worked for Defendant as an ER staff nurse from
June 10, 2019 through September 05, 2024. She asserts that
Defendant failed to pay her and putative Collective Action Members
one and one-half times their respective regular rates of pay for
all hours worked over 40 in each and every seven-day workweek
during the time period relevant to this lawsuit in violation of the
federal and state laws.

Navarro Hospital, L.P. provides healthcare services with its
principal place of business in Franklin, Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          WAGE AND HOUR FIRM
          5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75254
          Telephone: (214) 489-7653
          Facsimile: (469) 319-0317
          E-mail: marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com
                  rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com

NEW YORK CITY: Bid for Summary Judgment in CIDNY v. MTA Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge George B. Daniels of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York issued a Memorandum Decision and Order denying
the Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled
CENTER FOR INDEPENDENCE OF THE DISABLED, NEW YORK, a nonprofit
organization; BROOKLYN CENTER FOR INDEPENDENCE OF THE DISABLED, a
nonprofit organization; BRONX INDEPENDENT LIVING SERVICES, a
nonprofit organization; HARLEM INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER, a
nonprofit organization; DISABLED IN ACTION OF METROPOLITAN NEW
YORK, a nonprofit organization; NEW YORK STATEWIDE SENIOR ACTION
COUNCIL, a nonprofit organization; SASHA BLAIR-GOLDENSOHN, an
individual; and DUSTIN JONES, an individual, on behalf of
themselves and all others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v.
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, a public benefit
corporation; VERONIQUE HAKIM, in her official capacity as interim
executive director of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority;
NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, a public benefit corporation; and
DARRYL C. IRICK, in his official capacity as acting president of
the New York City Transit Authority, Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-02990-GBD-VF (S.D.N.Y.).

The Plaintiffs, a group of individuals and non-profit
organizations, bring this class action against the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority ("MTA"); Veronique Hakim, in her official
capacity as Interim Executive Director of the MTA; the New York
City Transit Authority ("NYCT" or "NYCTA"); and Darryl C. Irick, in
his official capacity as Acting President of the NYCTA
(collectively, "Defendants"), alleging violations of Title II of
the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. Section
12131, et seq., Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act ("RA"), 29
U.S.C. Section 794, and the New York City Human Rights Law
("NYCHRL"), N.Y.C. Code Section 8407(4).

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of a class of "all
persons who use or seek to use the New York City subway system[]
and have a disability that requires them to use an elevator to
access the subway system." They seek injunctive and declaratory
relief, along with attorneys' fees and costs.

On remand from the Second Circuit, at issue is whether the
Defendants provide the Plaintiffs with reasonable accommodations in
the event of elevator outages--with a particular focus on commuters
traveling on high-trafficked routes at peak hours and those who
require the use of multiple elevators per trip (Brooklyn Ctr. for
Indep. of the Disabled v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 11 F.4th 55, 64 (2d
Cir. 2021).

The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants' existing accommodations
are inadequate to assist them during elevator outages and fault the
Defendants for failing to implement "effective, common-sense"
accommodations. The Plaintiffs propose four accommodations. First,
they contend that the Defendants should make elevator status
announcements on board trains to alert riders to outages, noting
that the Defendants make on-board announcements for other service
disruptions and that other subway systems make such announcements.

Next, the Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants should dispatch
shuttles to stations with elevator outages to ferry riders with
disabilities to the nearest accessible station, similarly citing
the Defendants' practice of providing shuttle buses for other
station disruptions and other subway systems' use of shuttles
during elevator outages. Third, the Plaintiffs urge the Defendants
to adopt a policy promoting the installation of redundant
elevators, noting that other subway systems have such policies.
Finally, citing instances in which station personnel did not help
class members in need of assistance, the Plaintiffs seek improved
training for the Defendants' employees, so that employees can
better assist class members in the event of an elevator outage.

Following a renewed round of discovery, the Defendants move once
again for summary judgment on all claims.

Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo administratively terminated the
Defendant's motion in conjunction with a limited reopening of fact
discovery, with leave to renew upon the close of discovery.
Magistrate Judge Figueredo's order allowed the Plaintiffs to file a
sur-reply and noted that the remainder of the parties' summary
judgment briefing still stood notwithstanding the termination of
the motion.

The Defendants argue, among other things, that the Plaintiffs give
absolutely no detail as to what type of training is necessary, who
would receive training, or why the additional training they propose
is better or different than the training already provided.

For the reasons stated in this Memorandum Decision and Order, Judge
Daniels opines there is no genuine dispute of material fact as to
the reasonableness of the Defendants' alternate transportation
options, but there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to the
adequacy and accuracy of the Defendants' notification system.

While the additional training that the Plaintiffs desire is lacking
in specificity, Judge Daniels finds that the Defendants likewise do
not proffer evidence as to the current training and why additional
training would cause them "undue hardship."

As the Plaintiffs' burden of suggesting a reasonable accommodation
"is not a heavy one," the Court cannot find that the Defendants
have carried their burden at summary judgment of showing the
absence of a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the
reasonableness of their provided accommodations.

As a result, the Court denies the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment, as genuine disputes of material fact regarding the
reasonableness of their accommodations preclude the dismissal of
any of the Plaintiffs' claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision and Order dated
Aug. 29, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydkxh8ck from
PacerMonitor.com.


NEW YORK CITY: Bid to Enforce Accords in Taxis v. Comm'n Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge George B. Daniels of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York grants the Plaintiffs' motion for the Court to
enforce the Class Action Settlement Stipulations in the lawsuit
captioned THE TAXIS FOR ALL CAMPAIGN, a nonprofit organization, DR.
SIMI LINTON, an individual, UNITED SPINAL ASSOCIATION, a nonprofit
organization, 504 DEMOCRATIC CLUB, a nonprofit organization, and
DISABLED IN ACTION, a nonprofit organization, Plaintiffs v. NEW
YORK CITY TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION, a charter mandated agency,
and MEERA JOSHI, in her official capacity as chairman and
commissioner of the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission,
BILL DE BLASIO, in his official capacity as Mayor of the City of
New York, and THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendants, Case No.
1:11-cv-00237-GBD (S.D.N.Y.).

The Plaintiffs move for the Court to enforce the Class Action
Settlement Stipulation ("Original Settlement Agreement") and
Amended Class Settlement Stipulation ("Amended Settlement
Agreement") between the parties after the Defendants failed to meet
their wheelchair accessibility obligations: that at least 50% of
all Active Medallions are affixed to wheelchair accessible taxicabs
(the "Active Medallion Requirement") and that at least 50% of all
Authorized Medallions are wheelchair accessible (the "Authorized
Medallion Requirement").

The Amended Settlement Agreement defines Active Medallions as "all
issued medallions that are currently affixed to Taxicab Vehicles by
Medallion Owners and Operators and that are not currently placed
into Storage with TLC by their Medallion Owners or Operators." The
Amended Settlement Agreement defines Authorized Medallions as "all
Medallions issued by the TLC, which is the total of Active
Medallions and Inactive Medallions."

As part of their motion, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to (1)
require the Defendants to effectuate an amendment to the New York
City Taxi and Limousine Commission's ("TLC") current rule that
requires that "50% of all new [taxicabs] affiliated with an
unrestricted medallion" be wheelchair accessible, to require 100%
until the Defendants meet their Active and Authorized Medallion
obligations (a "100% Rule"); (2) award them attorneys' fees and
costs associated with bringing their motion; and (3) appoint a
Special Master to, among other things, determine what additional
steps the Defendants can and should take to accelerate the
accessibility of yellow taxis.

The Defendants cross-move for partial relief from the Amended
Settlement Agreement, seeking to avoid the Authorized Medallion
Requirement.

On May 30, 2014, the parties entered into the Original Settlement
Agreement. The Court subsequently granted preliminary approval on
June 10, 2014, and final approval on Sept. 16, 2014.

Pursuant to the Original Settlement Agreement, the Defendants were
to ensure that 50% of their taxicab fleet became wheelchair
accessible by Jan. 1, 2020. However, the Defendants could extend
this deadline to Dec. 31, 2020, if two conditions were met as of
Jan. 1, 2020: (1) 50% or more of taxicabs put into service since
the start date were wheelchair accessible and (2) inaccessible
vehicles scheduled to be replaced with wheelchair accessible
vehicles during the year 2020 were sufficient to reach the
requirement that 50% of the total fleet was wheelchair accessible.

During the period of January 2016 to late 2019, the City of New
York tendered quarterly reports reflecting its progress in
attempting to reach the 50% accessibility requirements. By January
2020, the Plaintiffs determined that the Defendants were unlikely
to timely meet the requirements, and subsequently informed the
Court, on July 1, 2020, that the Defendants were similarly unlikely
to meet the requirements by Dec. 31, 2020.

This prompted the parties to engage in further negotiations,
culminating in the Amended Settlement Agreement so-ordered by the
Court on April 1, 2021. The Amended Settlement Agreement required
the Defendants to ensure that no less than 50% of all Authorized
Medallions are affixed to Accessible Taxicab Vehicles in accordance
with all applicable Accessibility Laws no later than June 30, 2023,
and that no less than 50% of all Active Medallions are attached to
Accessible Taxicab Vehicles in accordance with all applicable
Accessibility Laws no later than Jan. 1, 2023.

The Defendants did not meet either requirement by June 30, 2023,
reaching only 32% for the Authorized Medallion Requirement and 42%
for the Active Medallion Requirement. The Plaintiffs later notified
the Defendants of their breaches of the Amended Settlement
Agreement, and the patties participated in a meet and confer
conference on Aug. 23, 2023, in an attempt to reach a resolution.

During the conference, the City of New York presented a PowerPoint
slide deck discussing its view of the impact of the
for-hire-vehicie industry's growth and the COVID-19 pandemic on its
ability to meet the Authorized and Active Medallion Requirements.
The parties left the conference without a resolution.

Following another unsuccessful meet and confer on Feb. 24, 2024, in
which the parties discussed the Defendants' intention to file a
motion to be relieved from the Authorized and Active Medallion
Requirements, the parties filed the instant motions now before the
Court.

The Court held oral argument on the instant motions on May 7, 2024.
During oral argument, it was proposed that the Defendants implement
a 100% Rule to accelerate compliance with the 50% accessibility
requirement. To aid the Court in assessing the on-the-ground
viability of this proposal, the Court requested that the Defendants
submit a letter setting forth data contextualizing the Defendants'
taxicab operations--including, how many vehicles are being turned
in, how many vehicles are on the road, how many vehicles have to be
converted in order to meet the Active Medallion Requirement--and
how long it would take the Defendants to meet the Active and
Authorized Medallion Requirements under TLC's current rule versus a
100% Rule.

The Defendants submitted such a letter on May 21, 2024, explaining
that if they maintain TLC's current 50% rule, they project meeting
the Active Medallion Requirement by 2030 but had no timetable for
meeting the Authorized Medallion Requirement--conceding that they
might reach only 36.5% by 2031. The Defendants' assessment of
implementing a 100% Rule, however, produced far better
expectations: meeting the Active Medallion Requirement by the end
of 2024 and the Authorized Medallion Requirement by the end of
2028.

In their motion, the Plaintiffs seek enforcement of the Amended
Settlement Agreement. The Defendants wish to be relieved from the
Authorized Medallion Requirement through an impossibility defense.
They allege that factors outside of their control render their
performance impossible, including the growth in the
for-hire-vehicle industry (through third-party businesses, such as
Uber and Lyft), the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on taxicab
ridership, and the decrease in demand for both private owners to
purchase medallions and current private owners to operate their
medallions as medallion values have "plummeted" since the parties
entered into the Original Settlement Agreement in 2014.

In their Opening Brief, the Defendants challenge the Plaintiffs'
motion by (1) arguing--without any citation to legal
authority--that the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they
have suffered any damages or injury as a result of the Defendants'
breaches; (2) asserting an impossibility (also known as
"impracticability") defense as to the Authorized Medallion
Requirement, claiming that unanticipated changes in the taxicab
industry render their performance impracticable, which purportedly
excuses their breaches; and, relatedly, (3) moving to be relieved
from the Authorized Medallion Requirement.

None of these arguments have merit, and the Plaintiffs are entitled
to enforcement of the Amended Settlement Agreement, Judge Daniels
holds. Judge Daniels adds, among other things, that the Defendants
fail to meet the requisite standard to cloak themselves in an
impossibility defense.

Accordingly, the Defendants' attempt to invoke the impossibility
defense fails, Judge Daniels holds. Therefore, their contingent
motion for partial or full relief from the Amended Settlement
Agreement is denied. Consequently, the Plaintiffs are entitled to
enforcement of the Amended Settlement Agreement, including that the
Defendants will immediately take all steps necessary to modify
TLC'S current 50% rule to a 100% Rule until they meet the
Authorized and Active Medallion Requirements.

The Court grants the Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees and
costs. The Plaintiffs will file an application for attorneys' fees
and costs with the appropriate supporting material within 60 days.

The Plaintiffs' request to appoint a Special Master is denied
without prejudice, Judge Daniels holds. The Plaintiffs may renew
their request for a Special Master if the Defendants fail to meet
the Active Medallion Requirement by March 31, 2025, or are not on
schedule to meet the Authorized Medallion Requirement by the end of
2028.

The Court does not see any need for such an appointment after
granting the Plaintiffs the other forms of relief they seek. Judge
Daniels opines that the Plaintiffs fail to identify any further
action Defendants could take to meet their contractual obligations,
whether now or in the future, for a Special Master to oversee.
Moreover, the Plaintiffs' request for a Special Master is primarily
premised upon the Defendants' resistance to implementing a remedy
for their breach and refusal to commit to any timelines
whatsoever--both of which the Court has now sufficiently addressed
and will directly supervise.

Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce the
Class Action Settlement Stipulation and Amended Class Settlement
Stipulation. The Defendants' Cross-Motion for Partial Relief from
the Amended Stipulation is denied. The Original Settlement
Agreement and Amended Settlement Agreement remain enforceable and
the Defendants will (1) immediately take all necessary steps to
modify TLC'S current 50% rule to implement a 100% Rule (pursuant to
Section III(A)(3)) until they meet the Authorized and Active
Medallion Requirements, and (2) provide bi-annual reports to Class
Counsel and the Court beginning on Jan. 10, 2025.

The Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees and costs is granted.
The Plaintiffs will file an application for attorneys' fees and
costs with the appropriate supporting material within 60 days.

The Plaintiffs' request for appointment of a Special Master is
denied without prejudice. The Plaintiffs may renew their
application for a Special Master if the Defendants fail to meet the
Active Medallion Requirement by March 31, 2025, or are not on
schedule to meet the Authorized Medallion Requirement by the end of
2028. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the open motions
at ECF Nos. 298 and 302.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision and Order dated
Aug. 29, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3benwywx from
PacerMonitor.com.


NEW YORK LIFE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Prosser Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
CHIANTI PROSSER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-06930 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 13, 2024) is an action
against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard sensitive information of its customers.

According to the complaint, the Data Breach was a direct result of
the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect
consumers' personally identifiable information or "PII", from a
foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack.

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

New York Life Insurance Company operates as an insurance company.
The Company provides life insurance, wealth management, estate and
retirement planning, and investment services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven Sukert, Esq.
          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
          One West Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
          Email: sukert@kolawyers.com
                 ostrow@kolawyers.com

               - and -

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

NEW YORK, NY: Violates Protestors' Rights, Friedland Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLOW FRIEDLAND, STEVEN GONZALEZ, and MIRIAM SIERADZKI, Plaintiffs
v. CITY OF NEW YORK, FORMER MAYOR BILL DE BLASIO, FORMER NEW YORK
CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMISSIONER DERMOT SHEA, and FORMER NEW
YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT CHIEF OF DEPARTMENT TERENCE MONAHAN,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-07064 (S.D.N.Y., September 18, 2024)
is a class action against the Defendants for violations of rights
under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution and the New York State Law.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of
protestors' constitutional rights by using unlawful policies and
practices against them including, inter alia, corralling protestors
into spaces where they could not escape, beating protestors with
batons and fists, throwing protestors to the ground, using pepper
spray indiscriminately, and ultimately arresting many of the
protestors and observers without lawful justification and without
fair warning. As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, the
Plaintiffs suffered damages and injuries.

City of New York is a municipal government in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Jonathan C. Moore, Esq.
         David B. Rankin, Esq.
         M. Olivia Clark, Esq.
         BELDOCK LEVINE & HOFFMAN LLP
         99 Park Avenue, PH/26th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 490-0400
         Facsimile: (212) 277-5880
         Email: jmoore@blhny.com
                drankin@blhny.com
                oclark@blhny.com

                 - and -

         Wylie Stecklow, Esq.
         WYLIE STECKLOW PLLC
         Carnegie Hall Tower
         152 W. 57th Street, 8th Floor
         New York, NY 10019
         Telephone: (212) 566-8000
         Email: Ecf@wylielaw.com

                 - and –

         Gideon Orion Oliver, Esq.
         277 Broadway, Suite 1501
         New York, NY 10007
         Telephone: (718) 783-3682
         Facsimile: (646) 349-2914
         Email: Gideon@GideonLaw.com

                 - and –

         Elena L. Cohen, Esq.
         J. Remy Green, Esq.
         Jessica Massimi, Esq.
         COHEN & GREEN P.L.L.C.
         1639 Centre Street, Suite 216
         Ridgewood (Queens), NY 11385
         Telephone: (929) 888-9480
         Facsimile: (929) 888-9457
         Email: elena@femmelaw.com
                remy@femmelaw.com
                jessica@femmelaw.com

NEW YORK: Burns Files Suit in N.D. New York
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against State of New York, et
al. The case is styled as Rachel Burns, Allison German, Amber
Hawthorne Lashway, Marie Neptune, Susan Devlin-Varin, Kimberly
Wesley, on their own behalves and on behalf of all similarly
situated Nurse Practitioners employed by the State of New York v.
State of New York, Case No. 5:24-cv-01132-BKS-ML (N.D.N.Y., Sept.
17, 2024).

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael H. Sussman, Esq.
          SUSSMAN, WATKINS LAW FIRM
          1 Railroad Avenue
          P.O. Box 1005
          Goshen, NY 10924
          Phone: (845) 294-3991
          Fax: (845) 294-1623
          Email: sussman1@frontiernet.net


NEXGEN INTERIOR: Banks Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Banks, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. NEXGEN INTERIOR INC. and JOSE VEGA, Case No.
1:24-cv-07094 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2024), is brought to recover
from Defendants his unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages,
spread-of-hours pay, prevailing wages, liquidated damages,
statutory damages, pre-and post-judgment interest, and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"),
the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), the New York Wage Theft Prevention
Act, NYLL ("WTPA"), and as a third-party beneficiary to the
contract between Armand and Nexgen.

Throughout his employment, the Plaintiff worked up to 86 hours per
workweek, yet Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff any wages at
all for his hours worked. This was particularly egregious because
Nexgen was under contract with non-party Armand Corporation to pay
the Plaintiff at the applicable New York City prevailing wage and
supplemental benefits rates per hour worked. Nexgen did not furnish
the Plaintiff with a wage notice or wage statements, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff as a construction worker from May to mid-October
2022.

Nexgen Interior Inc. is a domestic corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis Pechman, Esq.
          Gianfranco J. Cuadra, Esq.
          Camille A. Sanchez, Esq.
          PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
          488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 583-9500
          Email: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
                 cuadra@pechmanlaw.com
                 sanchez@pechmanlaw.com


NORDSTROM INC: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration; McGee Suit Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Michelle McGee, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nordstrom Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-01875-JHC (W.D. Wash.), Judge John H.
Chun of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington, Seattle, grants the Defendant's motion to compel
arbitration and stays the action.

On May 29, 2018, McGee bought several items at a Nordstrom Rack
store in Reno, Nevada. While there, McGee enrolled in The
Nordstrom's Rewards Program, which provides points for purchases
and other benefits to Nordstrom shoppers. When shoppers enroll in
the program, they must provide their name, telephone number, and
email address. McGee provided her name, telephone number, and email
address when she enrolled.

When McGee enrolled, shoppers were also provided with an enrollment
confirmation screen, which asked them to confirm their name, email,
and phone number. The confirmation screen also informed shoppers
that "[b]y selecting Yes, [they] agree to Rewards Member Terms &
Conditions (ask a salesperson for Terms)." The Rewards Member Terms
& Conditions (Rewards Terms) state that "[w]hen you enroll in the
[Rewards] Program and provide us your email and mobile phone
number, you will also be enrolled to receive marketing emails and
phone calls from us."

When McGee enrolled in the Rewards Program in May 2018, her
membership was subject to the Rewards Terms. McGee agreed to
arbitrate any "Rewards Dispute" with Nordstrom. The Rewards Terms
also provide that the arbitration will be administered "by the
American Arbitration Association (AAA) under its rules, including
the AAA's Supplementary Procedures for Consumer-Related Disputes."

Nordstrom periodically updates the Rewards Terms. Nordstrom
notifies Rewards Program members via email when the Rewards Terms
are updated. The 2023 Rewards Terms, in place when McGee filed her
complaint on Dec. 6, 2023, look much like the 2018 Rewards Terms,
incorporating similar mandatory arbitration and class action waiver
provisions. The 2023 Rewards Terms, like the 2018 Rewards Terms,
also expressly delegate the issue of arbitrability to the
arbitrator.

Ms. McGee sued Nordstrom on behalf of herself and a putative class
of similarly situated individuals. She alleges that Nordstrom
violated Arizona's Telephone, Utility and Communication Service
Records Act (the Act) by embedding trackers in its emails, without
users' consent, that record when emails are opened and read by
recipients. She alleges that Nordstrom violated the Act, which
"prohibits procuring or attempting to procure the communication
service records of email recipients without their authorization."

After an unsuccessful mediation, Nordstrom now moves to compel
arbitration.

Ms. McGee requests that the Court, under LCR 7(g), strike
Paragraphs 2–9 of the Declaration of Alissa Hale because "they
contain testimony based on inadmissible hearsay." McGee contends
that (1) the enrollment confirmation screen attached as Exhibit F
to Hale's declaration is hearsay; (2) any testimony by Hale that
the enrollment confirmation screen McGee saw "looked materially the
same" as Exhibit F would be hearsay; and (3) Hale's declaration
"purports to be based in part on her 'discussions with other
Nordstrom employees' thus constituting yet another level of
hearsay."

Nordstrom responds that the documents detailing McGee's purchases
in May 2018 and the documents describing the Rewards Program and
Rewards Terms are "Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity" under
Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6); Nordstrom also says that the
paragraphs describing Nordstrom's 2018 Rewards Terms and privacy
policy are not hearsay because they are contract terms.

Nordstrom also filed the Declaration of Ryan Luckenbaugh, which
includes a template of the Rewards Program enrollment confirmation
screen Nordstrom used when McGee enrolled in the program in May
2018.

For the reasons provided by Nordstrom, Judge Chun holds that Hale's
declaration, and its exhibits, are not hearsay. Also, this Order
does not consider Hale's statement based on her conversations with
other Nordstrom employees, nor the enrollment confirmation screen
attached as Exhibit F to Hale's declaration in the analysis here.
Thus, the Court declines to strike the Hale Declaration.

In its Motion to Compel Arbitration, Nordstrom contends that the
Rewards Terms expressly delegate questions of arbitrability to the
arbitrator. McGee counters that Nordstrom mistakenly relies on
Brennan v. Opus Bank, 796 F.3d 1125, 1130 (9th Cir. 2015), saying
"Courts will not apply the Brennan holding--that incorporation of
the AAA rules is evidence that contracting parties agreed to
arbitrate arbitrability--to instances, like here, where one party
is legally unsophisticated." McGee does not challenge the validity
of the delegation provision; for example, she does not suggest that
it is unconscionable.

Beyond solely incorporating the AAA rules, Judge Chun says the
arbitration provision in the Rewards Terms specifically delegates
arbitrability issues to an arbitrator. McGee does not address the
fact that the arbitration provision delegates questions about its
scope and validity to an arbitrator. Because the arbitration
provision validly delegates arbitrability issues to an arbitrator
and because McGee does not challenge the validity of the
delegation, the Court must enforce the delegation.

Nordstrom asks the Court to stay this action pending the completion
of arbitration. Thus, the Court grants Nordstrom's request to stay
the action.

Accordingly, the Court grants Nordstrom's motion to compel
arbitration and stays this action pending arbitration. The Court
orders the parties to submit a joint status report within ten days
of the conclusion of arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 29, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5n6v57er from PacerMonitor.com.


OKLAHOMA STUDENT: Wins Bid to Modify Protective Order in Carr Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David L. Russell of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma grants the Defendant's Motion to Modify the
Protective Order in the lawsuit styled KATHLEEN CARR, KEEGAN
KILLORY, and KELSIE POWELL, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. OKLAHOMA STUDENT LOAN
AUTHORITY; and NELNET SERVICING, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
5:23-cv-00099-R (W.D. Okla.).

Before the Court are the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Depositions
and Request for Sanctions, and Defendant Oklahoma Student Loan
Authority's associated Motion to Modify the Protective Order to
Continue Depositions. After consideration of the parties'
submissions, the Court grants the Defendant's Motion and grants the
Plaintiffs' Motion in part.

The case concerns a large scale cyberattack in 2021 that targeted
Defendant Nelnet, a technology provider to servicers of student
loans. However, this case is only one of two dozen cases brought
against Nelnet by victims of the data breach. Twenty-three other
cases filed by plaintiffs and putative class members have been
consolidated in the District of Nebraska, the location of Nelnet's
headquarters (In re: Data Security Cases Against Nelnet Servicing,
LLC, Case No: 4:22-cv-3191 (D. Neb. filed Sep. 7, 2022)).

The parties to the Nebraska action have reached a settlement in
principle that must still be approved by the court there. Defendant
Oklahoma Student Loan Authority (OSLA) notified the Court of the
pending class action settlement on June 11, 2024. Subsequently, the
Defendants moved to stay this case on the grounds the settlement
would encompass the Plaintiffs' claims. The Court granted the
motion and stayed the case on July 12, 2024.

The current dispute focuses on alleged stonewalling throughout
discovery and misconduct in the month between the Notice of
Settlement and the entry of the stay. The Plaintiffs allege a
pattern of dilatory misconduct by both Defendant parties from the
outset of discovery. Foremost among the allegations is that the
Defendants deliberately failed to produce deponents for properly
noticed depositions before the Court stayed the case.

The Plaintiffs seek to compel the depositions of four OSLA
employees, who did not attend their scheduled depositions prior to
the Court's June 26, 2024 entry of a protective order pursuant to
OSLA's motion. The four deponents, in order of their scheduled
deposition dates, are: Mary Anne Evans (June 13), Tonya Latham
(June 19), Fernando Lopez (June 20), and Jim Farha (June 21).

Judge Russell notes that it does not appear that the Plaintiffs
wish to compel the depositions of any of Nelnet's representatives.
In addition to compelling the depositions, the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to award them fees and costs for the failure to produce
witnesses, the stalling of discovery, and the preparation of the
instant Motion.

The Court addresses the Plaintiffs' request for an award of
attorney's fees incurred as a result of the Defendants stalling
discovery. The Plaintiffs thoroughly recount the back and forth of
emails between counsel and accuse both the Defendants of
intentionally stringing them along to allow time for the Nebraska
action to settle.

The Defendants object to this characterization. They argue any lags
in communication were incidental and not in bad faith.
Additionally, they point out that the Plaintiffs' initially
scheduled depositions were insignificantly delayed by less than two
weeks.

After examining the parties' exhaustive recounting of their
communications throughout discovery, the Court does not find that
any party should be sanctioned for stalling discovery. Simply put,
the communication lapses are not egregious enough to rise to
sanctionable conduct, Judge Russell says.

Next, the Plaintiffs seek sanctions against both Defendants for
their alleged failure to produce witnesses for properly noticed
depositions. The Court does not sanction Nelnet because it has not
violated Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The
Plaintiffs suggest Nelnet should have sought protective orders or a
stay proactively to prevent them from pursuing dead-end efforts to
depose Nelnet witnesses. They ask the Court to order Nelnet to pay
reasonable attorney's fees for stringing the Plaintiffs along for
weeks.

The Court declines to do so. Judge Russell opines that Nelnet did
not fail to produce a single witness for a deposition. Nelnet's
Motion for a Protective Order to continue the depositions of its
representatives was granted on the eve of the first scheduled
deposition. Perhaps Nelnet's counsel could have acted with greater
professional courtesy and sought a protective order upon the Notice
of Settlement being filed. Without a violation of Rule 37, however,
it is inappropriate for the Court to sanction Nelnet.

OSLA, on the other hand, did violate Rule 37 by failing to produce
four witnesses for their scheduled depositions, Judge Russell says.
In contrast to Nelnet, OSLA did not seek a protective order for its
deponents until June 26, 2024, after four of its witnesses had
already failed to appear at their depositions. OSLA does not
dispute this fact. It admits it should have sought intervention
from this Court sooner, but OSLA states it hoped to come to an
agreement with the Plaintiffs to continue the depositions without
the Court's involvement.

Regardless of its good intentions, OSLA violated the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, Judge Russell holds. Thus, under the law, the
Defendant is in the wrong. The question is what sanction is a just
and reasonable punishment for the Defendant's failure, Judge
Russell says, citing Batt v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 438 F. Supp. 2d
1315, 1318 (N.D. Okla. 2006). Batt is instructive as to how a court
may consider the totality of a situation in determining appropriate
sanctions.

The Court finds that, although OSLA violated Rule 37 by not
producing its four scheduled deponents, Judge Russell says the
Plaintiffs are not entirely without blame in this matter. OSLA may
have been well-intentioned in trying to avoid involving the Court
in this rather simplistic discovery dispute, but the fact remains
that OSLA did not have unilateral power to stay the case or enter a
protective order for its witnesses. Only the Court can do so.

Nevertheless, Judge Russell finds that the Plaintiffs' obstinance
is unflattering. While the Plaintiffs had the legal right to
proceed with the scheduled depositions, it was unreasonable to do
so, complete with all the associated stagecraft, once they were
certain the star of each show would not be there. Thus, the Court
finds it appropriate to sanction OSLA for the expenses and
attorney's fees related to the depositions of Mary Anne Evans and
Tonya Latham, but not the depositions of Fernando Lopez and Jim
Farha.

"No party comes out of this spat with particularly clean hands.
Spite and fingerpointing seem to be the only consistent themes of
the parties' recounting of the discovery process," Judge Russell
says. Relatedly, the Court declines to award costs or fees to the
Plaintiffs for their filing of the Motion to Compel; each party
should bear its own expenses for this particular dispute.

Accordingly, the Court rules that the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel
is granted in part and denied in part. The Motion is granted with
respect to sanctioning OSLA for the failure to produce witnesses at
noticed depositions. OSLA is to reimburse the Plaintiffs for:

   * Reasonable attorney's fees for Ms. Brian attending the
     June 13, 2024 deposition of Mary Anne Evans;

   * The cost of obtaining a transcript and associated court
     reporter expenses for the June 13, 2024 deposition of
     Mary Anne Evans;

   * Reasonable attorney's fees for Ms. Wilkes attending the
     June 19, 2024 deposition of Tonya Latham; and

   * The cost of obtaining a transcript and associated court
     reporter expenses for the June 19, 2024 deposition of
     Tonya Latham.

The Court denies the Plaintiffs' Motion in all other respects.
Additionally, the Court grants OSLA's Motion to Modify the
Protective Order already in place, so the depositions of Mary Anne
Evans, Tonya Latham, Fernando Lopez, and Jim Farha are continued
until when and if the stay is lifted.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 29, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4pfee9hb from PacerMonitor.com.


OLD NATIONAL: Galindo Hits Unfair Overdraft Fee Charges
-------------------------------------------------------
VERONICA GALINDO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OLD NATIONAL BANK, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-50373 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 9, 2024) is a proposed class action
arising from Defendant's routine practices of assessing overdraft
fees on transactions that did not actually overdraw an account.

According to the complaint, the Defendant misleadingly and
deceptively misrepresents its fee practices including, in its
take-it-or-leave-it form adhesion contract. The plain language of
these contracts specifically promises that Defendant will only
charge OD Fees on items when such items cause the account to have a
negative balance. The Defendant's improper scheme to extract funds
from account holders has victimized Plaintiff and hundreds of other
similarly situated consumers, says the suit.

The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Dekalb, Illinois and had
a checking account with Defendant at all relevant times hereto.

Old National Bank is a bank headquartered in Evansville, Indiana
with 228 locations across Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky,
Michigan, Minnesota, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. The Company provides
retail banking services to its members.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.  
          14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone (305) 479-2299
          Facsimile (786) 623-0915
          E-mail: efilings@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          20900 NE 30th Ave
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 350-4783
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com

               - and -

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

ONLY WHAT YOU NEED: Fagnani Hits Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
MYKAYKLA FAGNANI, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ONLY WHAT YOU NEED, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-06820 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 9, 2024) is a
civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://liveowyn.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
August 24, 2024, in an attempt to purchase Protein Powders 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; and that denied Plaintiff the
full enjoyment of the goods, and services due to broken links,
pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on
Defendant's website, 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.

Only What You Need, Inc. operates the website that retails
nutritional supplement products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

OREGON: Foster Care Youth Testify in Class Settlement Hearing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Benavides, writing for KGW8, reports that a federal judge got
to hear directly from children in Oregon's foster care system
Thursday, September 12, who spoke about what they think needs to be
done to fix ongoing issues. Young people either testified in person
or submitted letters to Judge Ann Aiken in Eugene, who is
overseeing the settlement of a class action lawsuit filed on behalf
on Oregon's foster children.

That suit, which concluded in May, resulted in the Department of
Human Services agreeing to work with a neutral expert to straighten
out its Child Welfare Division.

Emily Cooper is the legal director of Disability Rights Oregon, the
group that filed the lawsuit in 2019. She told KGW News that
testimony is crucial for the final settlement.

"This is a real check on our power and on the court's power,"
Cooper said. "To say 'Hey wait, young people, is this really good?
Is this fair and adequate? If the state takes all the steps they
promised you in the settlement agreement, is that really going to
fix the system?'"

In the lawsuit, foster youth claimed that the system caused them
trauma by shuffling them through motels, psychiatric facilities and
mismatched foster homes. In some cases, children suffered abuse by
foster parents.

Marcia Robinson Lowry is the executive director for A Better
Childhood, which partnered with Disability Rights Oregon in the
lawsuit. She told KGW, "It's important for the youth to have
someone hear what their experiences have been, because this has
been, and continues to be, a damaging system."

The director of Oregon's Child Welfare Division, Aprille
Flint-Gerner, sent this statement to KGW:

"I want to acknowledge and honor the brave young people who shared
their experiences today. We see you and we are listening. We know
that we have a lot of work to do to improve the system for all
children and young people who experience foster care, and we are
committed to working in partnership with disability rights Oregon
and the court appointed neutral Dr. Ryan to do this."

The neutral expert, Dr. Kevin Ryan, has served as a monitor in
similar settlements in other states, including Texas and Oklahoma.
Under the current settlement plan, he'll be monitoring the
department over the next 10 years while it fixes its problems. [GN]

ORTHOFIX MEDICAL: O'Hara Alleges False Registration Statements
--------------------------------------------------------------
TOMMY O'HARA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ORTHOFIX MEDICAL INC., JON C. SERBOUSEK,
DOUGLAS C. RICE, CATHERINE M. BURZIK, WAYNE BURRIS, JASON M.
HANNON, JAMES F. HINRICHS, LILLY MARKS, MICHAEL E. PAOLUCCI, JOHN
E. SICARD, THOMAS A. WEST, KEITH C. VALENTINE, KIMBERLEY A. ELTING,
and PATRICK L. KERAN, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-01593-LL-SBC
(S.D. Cal., Sept. 6, 2024) asserts exclusively non-fraud claims
sounding in negligence and strict liability under the Securities
Act of 1933 against Orthofix and certain current and former
officers and directors of Orthofix and SeaSpine.

This is a securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and
former SeaSpine shareholders who acquired newly issued Orthofix
common stock pursuant to the S-4 registration statement, the
related 424B3 prospectus, and related oral communications
(collectively, the "Offering Materials") issued in connection with
the January 2023 stock-for-stock transaction by which Orthofix
acquired and merged with SeaSpine.

The Offering Materials and related oral communications contained
untrue statements of material fact and omitted material facts both
required by governing regulations and necessary to make the
statements made not misleading. Foremost, the Defendants made a
series of representations touting Orthofix's purportedly robust and
effective disclosure controls and procedures and internal controls
over financial reporting and ethical compliance. In truth, contrary
to Defendants' claims, at the time of the Merger, Orthofix lacked
adequate internal controls and its purported compliance and
training programs and protocols were grossly deficient, all of
which resulted in: lax vetting of incoming executive hires; senior
management and directors engaging in rampant harassment and other
inappropriate misconduct in violation of the Company's purported
ethical and professional standards; prioritization of personal and
financial incentives over ensuring that Orthofix and its management
complied with applicable laws, regulations, and contracts; and the
Company's failure to ensure that its SEC filings and public
disclosures were free of material misstatements, says the suit.

By the commencement of this action, Orthofix shares have traded
below $10 per share, an over 50% decline from the amount paid per
share in the Merger exchange. The Plaintiff and similarly situated
former SeaSpine investors suffered severe losses as a result, the
suit contends.

Orthofix Medical Inc. operates as a spine and orthopedics company
in the United States, Italy, Germany, the United Kingdom, France,
Brazil, and internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam E. Polk, Esq.
          IRARD SHARP LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: apolk@girardsharp.com

               - and -

          David W. Hall, Esq.
          THE HALL FIRM, LTD.
          Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 766-3534
          Facsimile: (415) 402-0058
          E-mail: dhall@hallfirmltd.com

OS RESTAURANT: Wins Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Guerra Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California grants the Defendant's motion for
judgment on the pleadings in the lawsuit entitled SONIA CASTANEDA
GUERRA, Plaintiff v. OS RESTAURANT SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 4:23-cv-05845-HSG (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Sonia Castaneda Guerra initially filed this putative
class action in Contra Costa Superior Court against Defendant OS
Restaurant Services, LLC and 50 unidentified "Doe" Defendants.
Defendant OS Restaurant removed the action to federal court based
on the Class Action Fairness Act.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of "all current and former
non-exempt employees of Defendants in the State of California at
any time within the period beginning four (4) years prior to the
filing of this action and ending at the time this action settles or
the class is certified."

The Defendant now moves for judgment on the pleadings and to
dismiss or strike the class allegations as insufficiently pled.

At bottom, Judge Gilliam says, the parties disagree on the level of
detail required to plead plausible wage-and-hour claims. The
Plaintiff urges that "[a] plaintiff alleging unpaid wages in
violation of the Labor Code need only plead that she was employed
by the defendant and worked compensable time for which she was not
paid for."

The Court agrees with the Defendant that such bare assertions are
insufficient. As this Court has previously explained, courts
considering claims under the California Labor Code regularly apply
the standard set forth in Landers v. Quality Commc'ns, Inc., 771
F.3d 638, 646 (9th Cir. 2014), as amended (Jan. 26, 2015).

In Landers, the Ninth Circuit explained that although "detailed
factual allegations" are not necessary to state a plausible
wage-and-hour claim, "conclusory allegations that merely recite the
statutory language" are insufficient. The Ninth Circuit held that
to state plausible claims for unpaid overtime and minimum wages, a
plaintiff must at minimum allege at least one workweek when she
worked in excess of forty hours and was not paid for the excess
hours in that workweek, or was not paid minimum wages.

The Plaintiff's complaint currently only contains conclusory
allegations that do not satisfy Landers, Judge Gilliam points out.
In short, the Plaintiff's threadbare complaint does not state a
claim that is plausible on its face.

Accordingly, the Court grants the motion for judgment on the
pleadings and dismisses the class allegations.

Despite the obvious deficiencies, the Plaintiff nevertheless
asserts that if given the opportunity she could allege additional
facts to support her claims. As with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss, a court granting judgment on the pleadings under Rule
12(c) should grant leave to amend even if no request for leave to
amend has been made, unless it is clear that amendment would be
futile.

At this stage in the litigation, the Court cannot say that
amendment would be futile. The Plaintiff may, therefore, file an
amended complaint within 21 days of the date of this order.

The Court further sets case a case management conference on Oct. 8,
2024, at 2:00 p.m. The hearing will be held by Public Zoom Webinar.
All counsel, members of the public, and media may access the
webinar information at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/hsg. All
attorneys and pro se litigants appearing for the case management
conference are required to join at least 15 minutes before the
hearing to check in with the courtroom deputy and test internet,
video, and audio capabilities. The parties are further directed to
file a joint case management statement by Oct. 1, 2024.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 28, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/56c7sr4w from PacerMonitor.com.


PAC HOUSING: Hills Seeks to Expedite Resolution of Extension Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALVIN HILLS, Individually
and on Behalf of All others Similarly Situated, v. PAC HOUSING
GROUP, LLC; MOF PARC-FONTAINE, LLC (F/K/A GMF-PARC FONTAINE, LLC);
MOF-PRESERVATION OF AFFORDABILITY CORP. (F/K/A GMF- PRESERVATION OF
AFFORDABILITY CORP.); MINISTRY OUTREACH FOUNDATION (F/K/A GLOBAL
MINISTRIES FOUNDATION); and RICHARD HAMLET, Case No.
2:23-cv-05740-BWA-KWR (E.D. La.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order expediting resolution of the contemporaneously filed
motion for extension for Plaintiffs to conduct written class
certification discovery.

This court set a written discovery completion deadline of Sept. 13,
2024.

The Plaintiffs' timely propounded discovery requests at the end of
June 2024, timely filed a motion to compel related to the requested
interrogatories and requests for production on Aug. 13, 2024, and
timely noticed the motion for submission on Aug. 28, 2024.

To date, that motion is still pending before the Court, which means
current discovery disputes may not be resolved by the Sept. 13,
2024 discovery cut-off.

Additionally, Plaintiffs' currently pending motion is the second
motion to compel they have filed; they also filed a motion to
compel Defendants' initial disclosures requesting that the
disclosures be produced within three days of the order.

The Court compelled defendants to produce their disclosures, but
denied the request for production within three days, instead
granting defendants 14 days to produce their disclosures.

As such, even if this Court issues an order on the motion to
compel, it is likely that the compliance period for the order would
fall outside the discovery cut-off date.

Plaintiffs originally attempted to file a motion for extension in
the frenzied leadup to Hurricane Francine's landfall. They filed a
motion requesting a discovery extension on Monday, Sept. 9, 2024.

PAC Housing is a real estate company, specializing in providing
quality housing solutions.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Casey C. DeReus, Esq.
          BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C
          810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 620
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 308-5858
          Facsimile: (212) 486-0462
          E-mail: dereus@bespc.com

                - and -

          DeVonn Jarrett, Esq.
          JARRETT LAW GROUP, LLC
          643 Magazine Street, Suite 301A
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (833) 554-6653
          E-mail: djarrett@jarrettlawgroup.com

PARKER PLASTICS: Underpays Quality Control Staff, Generose Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
MOLLY GENEROSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PARKER PLASTICS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-01188-BHL (E.D. Wis., September 18, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for failure to pay regular and overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin's Wage
Payment and Collection Laws.

The Plaintiff worked as a quality control technician at the
Defendant's Kenosha, Wisconsin office location from approximately
November 2019 until approximately August 2024.

Parker Plastics, Inc. is a plastics company based in Wisconsin.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         James A. Walcheske, Esq.
         Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
         David M. Potteiger, Esq.
         WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
         235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
         Brookfield, WI 53005
         Telephone: (262) 780-1953
         Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
         Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com

PENNEY OPCO: Must Oppose Arguelles Class Cert Bid by Oct. 22
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NOELLE ARGUELLES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
PENNEY OPCO, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00981-BAS-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Cynthia Bashant entered an order granting joint motion
re: briefing schedule on plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

Accordingly, the Court issues the following briefing schedule for
the class certification motion:

   (1) Defendant's opposition shall be filed no later than Oct. 22,

       2024; and

   (2) Plaintiff's reply shall be filed no later than Nov. 12,
2024.

Further, in accordance with this Court's Standing Order for Civil
Cases, there shall be no oral argument on the motion unless
requested by the Court. If the Court decides to hear oral argument,
it will issue an order, normally two weeks in advance, setting the
matter for oral argument.

Penney is an American department store chain.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TUI38w at no extra
charge.[CC]

PETCO ANIMAL: Frost Sues Over Disabled's Equal Access to Website
----------------------------------------------------------------
CLARENCE and TAMMY FROST, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES STORES,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-03669 (D. Minn., September 16,
2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of
Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota
Human Rights Act.

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 Plaintiffs and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.petco.com,
contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiffs and Class
members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and
services offered to the public through the website. By failing to
provide its website's content and services in a manner that is
compatible with auxiliary aids, the Defendant has engaged,
directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements,
in illegal disability discrimination.

The Plaintiffs 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.

Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc. is a company that sells online
goods and services, headquartered in California. [BN]

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

PIEDMONT HEALTHCARE: Wins Bid to Dismiss Amended T.D. Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, grants the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint in the lawsuit
captioned T.D., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, et al., Plaintiffs v. PIEDMONT HEALTHCARE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-05416-TWT (N.D. Ga.).

The lawsuit is a putative class action case. It is before the Court
on the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Appoint Interim Co-Lead
Class Counsel, Defendant Piedmont Healthcare, Inc.'s Motion to
Dismiss the Original Complaint, and Defendant Piedmont's Motion to
Dismiss the Amended Complaint.

The case arises from the Defendant Piedmont Healthcare, Inc.'s
alleged wrongful disclosure of the Plaintiffs' confidential health
information to Facebook through the installation of several data
collection and tracking tools on Piedmont's website and its MyChart
patient portal. The Plaintiffs claim that a tracking tool called
the Meta Pixel collected their personally identifiable information
(PII) and protected health information (PHI) without their consent
and then disclosed that information to Facebook in violation of
federal and state laws.

The Plaintiffs contend that Piedmont installed the Meta Pixel to
optimize its advertising and marketing at the expense of their
privacy rights as patients. They bring claims of (1) invasion of
privacy; (2) breach of fiduciary duty; (3) negligence; (4) breach
of implied contract; (5) breach of contract; (6) unjust enrichment;
and (7) violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

Piedmont now moves to dismiss all seven of the Plaintiffs' claims
for failure to state a claim. It contends that the Plaintiffs
either fail to sufficiently plead one or more elements of the
respective claims or plead allegations that bar the claims.

Piedmont contends that the Plaintiffs' intrusion upon seclusion
claim (Count I) should be dismissed because they fail to plausibly
plead an intrusion or actionable intent, or that any intrusion was
reasonably offensive or objectionable.

Judge Thrash says cases like this have sprouted like weeds in
recent years. In the Court's view, it seems that the weight of
authority in similar pixel tracking cases is now solidly in favor
of Piedmont's argument. There is no intrusion upon privacy when a
patient voluntarily provides personally identifiable information
and protected health information to his or her healthcare provider.
Thus, the motion to dismiss should be granted as to the intrusion
upon seclusion claim.

Piedmont next contends, among other things, that the Plaintiffs'
breach of fiduciary duty claim should be dismissed because they
fail to plausibly plead a breach of any fiduciary duty, causation,
or damages.

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a
plausible claim for breach of fiduciary duty against Piedmont.
Although this Court in Purvis v. Aveanna Healthcare, LLC, 563 F.
Supp. 3d 1360, 1383 (N.D. Ga. 2021), noted that a defendant's
provision of medical care to a plaintiff could support a claim for
breach of fiduciary duty, the Plaintiffs here fail to plausibly
plead damages to support their claim, Judge Thrash opines.

Judge Thrash points out that no facts are alleged that would
explain how receiving targeted advertisements from Facebook and
Piedmont would plausibly cause any of the Plaintiffs to suffer
these damages. This is not a case where the Plaintiffs' personal
information was stolen by criminal hackers with malicious intent.
The Plaintiffs received targeted advertisements because they are
Facebook users and have Facebook IDs.

The Court finds the Plaintiffs' damages theories untenable.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' claim for breach of fiduciary duty
should be dismissed without prejudice.

Piedmont also moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims for
negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach
of express contract, and unjust enrichment. For the same reasons as
discussed, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs fail to state a
claim for negligence, breach of contract, or unjust enrichment
because they fail to plead actionable damages or unjust enrichment
of Piedmont. Accordingly, their negligence, breach of
implied/express contract, and unjust enrichment claims should be
dismissed without prejudice.

Finally, Piedmont moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim for
violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, arguing
that they fail to plausibly allege an interception or a purpose to
commit a crime or tort. It argues that Piedmont could not have
intercepted the same transmission it received on its website, nor
could it have acted with a tortious or criminal purpose in seeking
to drive marketing and revenue.

As was the case in the invasion of privacy context, Judge Thrash
holds that the weight of persuasive authority in similar pixel
tracking cases supports Piedmont's position. Accordingly, the ECPA
claim should be dismissed.

For these reasons, the Court rules that the Plaintiffs' Unopposed
Motion to Appoint Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel is granted;
Piedmont's Motion to Dismiss the Original Complaint is denied as
moot; and Piedmont's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint is
granted.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Aug. 28,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4v36x4rz from
PacerMonitor.com.


PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Thurston Seeks OK of Amended Class Cert Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW THURSTON, v.
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No.
1:22-cv-00375-NT (D. Me.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an
order granting the Plaintiffs' amended motion for class
certification:

   "All persons who were insured by the Defendant[s] in the State
of
   Maine, for personal or family use of a vehicle, in the six years

   preceding the filing of the original Complaint, and Defendant[s]

   determined that the vehicle was a total loss and based its claim

   payment offer on a Valuation Report obtained by Defendant[s]
from
   Mitchell International, Inc. where the projected sold adjustment

   was applied to at least one comparable vehicle."

In violation of two Maine statutes (the Unfair Settlement Practices
Act and the Unfair Trade Practices Act), the Defendants deducted a
software-generated "projected sold adjustment" (PSA) from the
total-loss payments due to Plaintiffs and the class members under
their policies.

The case involves Defendants' standardized conduct and practice of
using a computer created PSA to reduce the ACV which harms
Defendants' insureds who may not be able to bring their own claims.
Moreover, per the Progressive Cases and the State Farm cases, the
overwhelming weight of authority favors granting class
certification here.

Mr. Thurston was in a motor vehicle collision that resulted in the
"total loss" of his vehicle. Mr. Thurston purchased an auto
insurance policy from the Defendants, wherein the Defendants
promised to pay him the ACV of his vehicle in the event of a such
loss.

Progressive Casualty provides personal, automobile, homeowner,
boat, renters, business, life, and health insurance services.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 13, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3pKFsi at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Z. Steed, Esq.
          ISLAND JUSTICE
          40 School Street
          Stonington, ME 04681
          Telephone: (207) 200-7077
          E-mail: john@islandjusticelaw.com

                - and -

          Scott C. Borison, Esq.
          BORISON FIRM LLC
          1400 S. Charles St.
          Baltimore MD 21230
          Telephone: (301) 620-1016
          E-mail: scott@borisonfirm.com

                - and -

          Ronald I. Frederick, Esq.
          Brian E. Roof, Esq.
          FREDERICK & BERLER LLC
          767 E. 185th Street
          Cleveland, OH 44119
          Telephone: (216) 502-1055
          Facsimile: (216) 609-0750
          E-mail: ronf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
                  brianr@clevelandconsumerlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Thomas S. Marjerison, Esq.
          NORMAN, HANSON & DETROY, LLC
          Two Canal Plaza P.O. Box 4600
          Portland, ME 04112
          Telephone: (207) 774-7000
          E-mail: tmarjerison@nhdlaw.com

                - and -

          Allison Hill White, Esq.
          James Matthew Brigman, Esq.
          Jeffrey S. Cashdan, Esq.
          Zachary A, McEntyre, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1180 Peachtree Street, NE, Ste. 1600
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 572-2440
          Facsimile: (404) 572-5140
          E-mail: awhite@kslw.com
                  mbrigman@kslaw.com
                  jcashdan@kslaw.com
                  zmcentyre@kslaw.com

                - and -

          Julia Barrett, Esq.
          King & Spalding LLP
          500 W. 2nd St., Ste. 1800 Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 457-2000
          Facsimile: (512) 457-2100
          E-mail: jbarrett@kslaw.com

R&L CARRIERS: Removes Vazquez Suit to C.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of JOSE VAZQUEZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. R&L CARRIERS
SHARED SERVICES, LLC; OSCAR MIRANDA; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from
the Superior Court of the State of Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Bernardino (Case No. CIVSB2423766) to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Sept.
12, 2024.

The clerk of court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:24-cv-01947. The case is assigned to Judge Jesus G.
Bernal and referred to Magistrate David T. Bristow.

R&L Carriers Shared Services, LLC is a freight shipping company.
[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:


          Cheryl L. Schreck, Esq.
          Joel Moon, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 330-4500
          Facsimile: (213) 330-4501
          Email: cschreck@fisherphillips.com
                 jmoon@fisherphillips.com

               - and -

          Anthony C. White, Esq.
          J. Timothy Mcdonald, Esq.
          THOMPSON HINE LLP
          41 South High Street, Suite 1700
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 469-3200
          Facsimile: (614) 469-3361
          Email: Tony.White@ThompsonHine.com
                 Tim.McDonald@ThompsonHine.com

R.C. BIGELOW: Newton Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Newton, et al., v. R.C.
Bigelow, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-05660 (E.D.N.Y., Filed
Sept. 22, 2022), the Hon. Judge Lashann Dearcy Hall entered an
order that the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is
referred to Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke for a report and
recommendation.

The nature of suit states torts -- personal property -- other
fraud.

R.C. Bigelow is an American manufacturer of dried teas based in
Fairfield, Connecticut.[CC]

RBS CITIZENS: Plaintiffs Can Send Notice to PMWA Subclasses Members
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REINIG, et al., v. RBS
CITIZENS, N.A., Case No. 2:15-cv-01541 (W.D. Pa., Filed Nov. 23,
2015), the Hon. Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand entered an order
granting the Pennsylvania Plaintiffs' motion pursuant to Federal
Rule 23(C)(2) for directing notice be sent to members of the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA) Subclasses.

RBS opposes the motion, arguing that sending notice to the PMWA
subclasses will be unnecessary if the Court grants its motion to
alter or amend the Court's PMWA Regular Rate Class Certification
Order.

However, the Court denied Citizens' motion, and Citizens does not
otherwise provide a basis to oppose sending notice. Instead, it
merely advocates for certain changes to the notice proposed by the
Pennsylvania Named Plaintiffs.

The Federal Rules provide that "for any class certified under Rule
23(b)(3)the court must direct to class members the best notice that
is practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice
to all members who can be identified through reasonable effort."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B).

Accordingly, the Court will direct that the PMWA Subclasses receive
notice. However, it is not clear to the Court that the parties have
conferred on the form of the notice and the manner in which it is
to be provided. Thus, the parties will be ordered to confer and
file a joint agreed upon notice.

The nature of suit alleges Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).[CC]

REDFIN CORP: Court Extends Stay in Jutla, et. al Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kymberly K. Evanson of the United States District Court for
the Western District of Washington granted Redfin Corporation's
motion to extend stay in the case captioned as RAJNINDER RAVEN
JUTLA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. REDFIN CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants (W.D. Wash.). The matter is stayed until determination
of the pending motion for final approval of the settlement in the
class action Gibson et al. v. National Association of Realtors, et
al., No. 23-cv-788-SRB.

Plaintiffs sued Redfin and John Does 1–10, alleging
anti-competitive and fraudulent conduct stemming from commissions
Plaintiffs paid to realtors for the sale of their Washington
property and purchase of a California property.

The Court concludes that the balance of the equities and the
orderly course of justice warrants an extension of the stay.

According to the Court, Gibson settlement's progress warrants
extension of the stay.

In considering whether to continue a stay, the Court weighs three
competing interests:

   [1] the possible damage that may result from the granting of the
stay,

   [2] the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being
required to go forward, and  

   [3] the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the
simplification or complication of issues, proof, and questions of
law that could be expected to result from a stay.

All three interests favor extending the operative stay, the Court
finds.

First, Plaintiffs will not be harmed from a continuance because
once again, Plaintiffs only allege damages arising from past
transactions, not ongoing harm.

Second, as the Court previously concluded, there is potential
overlap between the Gibson settlement and this case, such that the
Gibson decision could substantively impact the proceedings.

Third, a continued stay will conserve judicial resources as the
Court may avoid unnecessarily addressing claims potentially covered
by the Gibson settlement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated September 16, 2024, is
available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JU6yFG


RETAIL DATA LLC: Pyatte Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Retail Data, LLC. The
case is styled as Janell Pyatte, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Retail Data, LLC doing business as:
RetailData, Case No. 3:24-cv-00655-JAG (E.D. Va., Sept. 16, 2024).

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

RetailData -- https://retaildatallc.com/ -- is a leading provider
of observational intelligence and auditing solutions for businesses
of all sizes and industries.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Hilton Wise, Esq.
          WISE LAW FIRM, PLC
          10640 Page Avenue, Suite 320
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Phone: (703) 934-6377
          Fax: (703) 934-6379
          Email: dwise@wiselaw.pro


ROYAL GUARDS: Aghatise Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IGHODARO AGHATISE,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ROYAL GUARDS SOLUTION LLC (RGS), Case No. 4:24-cv-00102-ALM (E.D.
Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying
the following collective action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) consisting of:

   "All current and former security officers who worked for Royal
   Guards Solution LLC, anywhere in the state of Texas, at any time

   from Sept. 12, 2021, through the final disposition of this
matter."

On Feb. 6, 2024, the Plaintiff commenced this collective action
against RGS, alleging the company failed to pay its Security
Officers overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
single workweek.

RGS provides security services to clients in the Dallas area.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Mg72iY at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
          Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq.
          Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          101 N. Shoreline Blvd. Suite 610
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  austin@a2xlaw.com
                  lauren@a2xlaw.com
                  cgordon@a2xlaw.com
                  carter@a2xlaw.com

RSCR CALIFORNIA: Delgado Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Desiray Delgado, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. RSCR CALIFORNIA, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
24STCV18229 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 Sept. 18,
2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-07988.

The Complaint, which is the pleading that sets forth the claims for
relief upon which this action may be removed, alleges the following
purported causes of action against Defendant: failure to pay
overtime wages; failure to pay minimum wage; failure to pay sick
leave; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest
periods; failure to pay all wages upon termination; failure to
provide accurate wage statements; and unfair competition.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Alex M. Barfield, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          515 Flower Street
          Forty-Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2223
          Phone: 216.430.3400
          Facsimile: 216.430.3409
          Email: alex.barfield@tuckerellis.com


RUSSELL INVESTMENTS: Court Approves New Deadlines in Wanek Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada signed the parties' stipulation extending
deadlines for summary judgment motions in the lawsuit titled Danny
Wanek, Juan Duarte, and Rick Ruberton, as representatives of a
class of similarly situated persons, on behalf of the Caesars
Entertainment Corporation Savings & Retirement Plan, Plaintiffs v.
Russell Investments Trust Company, Caesars Holding, Inc., the Plan
Investment Committee, and the 401(k) Plan Committee, Defendants,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00961-CDS-BNW (D. Nev.).

The Court issued the original Scheduling Order in this case on Oct.
12, 2021, which listed placeholder dates to be adjusted based on
the timing of the Court's decision on the Defendants' then-pending
Motions to Dismiss. The Court issued an Amended Scheduling Order on
April 20, 2023, listing specific dates for each deadline.

On Dec. 29, 2023, the parties jointly requested that the Court
extend the deadlines due to voluminous document productions and to
allow additional time to coordinate the schedules of the multiple
parties required to conduct numerous fact witness depositions. The
Court granted the parties' request on Jan. 2, 2024, and entered an
Amended Scheduling Order.

On Aug. 16, 2024, the parties filed a stipulated request to extend
the deadline for expert discovery from Sept. 6, 2024, to Sept. 27,
2024, to allow additional time to coordinate the schedules of the
multiple parties required to conduct the depositions of six expert
witnesses. The Court granted the parties' stipulation to extend the
expert discovery deadline on Aug. 20, 2024.

The current deadline for any party to file a motion for summary
judgment was Sept. 16, 2024, which falls approximately two weeks
before the deadline for expert discovery. The parties timely
request an extension on the deadline to file motions for summary
judgment to allow adequate time to prepare such motions upon
concluding expert discovery and to conduct such matters as
obtaining the transcripts of all expert depositions, analyzing
those transcripts, and adequately preparing their statement(s) of
genuinely undisputed materials facts and accompanying motion(s)
with the benefit of expert discovery.

Although the current scheduling order does not set deadlines for a
party's response or reply to a motion for summary judgment, the
parties also request an extension on the deadlines to file
responses and replies to any motion for summary judgment beyond
those established by Local Rule 7-2(b) to account for the
substantial amount of fact and expert discovery that will affect
such responses and replies.

The parties assert there is good cause to reasonably extend the
deadline to file motions for summary judgment and the deadlines to
file responses and replies to any motion for summary judgment and
this request is not the result of unnecessary delay or a lack of
diligence by any party. This is the second request for an extension
of time affecting the deadline for motions for summary judgment and
the first request for an extension of time affecting the deadlines
for responses and replies to motions for summary judgment.

Accordingly, the parties stipulated and agreed, pursuant to Local
Rules IA 6-1 and 26-3, that the briefing schedule for summary
judgment be extended as follows:

   Event                        Existing Date    Proposed Date
   -----                        -------------    -------------
   Deadline to file motions     Sept. 16, 2024   Nov. 22, 2024
   for summary judgment

   Deadline to file responses   Oct. 7, 2024   Dec. 20, 2024
   to motions for summary
   judgment

   Deadline to file replies     Oct. 21, 2024   Jan. 17, 2025
   to motions for summary
   judgment

A full-text copy of the Court's Stipulation and Order dated Aug.
29, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3uvbw42f from
PacerMonitor.com.

Paul J. Lukas -- lukas@nka.com -- Brock J. Specht --
bspecht@nka.com -- Benjamin J. Bauer -- bbauer@nka.com -- NICHOLS
KASTER, PLLP, in Minneapolis, MN 55402; Paul S. Padda --
info@paulpaddalaw.com -- PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC, in Las Vegas, NV
89103, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs.

D. Matthew Moscon -- mmoscon@mayerbrown.com -- Malori McGill Fery
-- mmcgillfery@mayerbrown.com -- MAYER BROWN LLP, in Salt Lake
City, UT 84111; Nancy G. Ross -- nross@mayerbrown.com -- MAYER
BROWN LLP, in Chicago, IL 60606; Alex C. Lakatos --
alakatos@mayerbrown.com -- MAYER BROWN LLP, in Washington, DC
20006-1101; Patrick H. Hicks -- phicks@littler.com -- Diana G.
Dickinson -- ddickinson@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON P.C., in
Las Vegas, NV 89169-5937, Attorneys for Defendants Caesars
Holdings, Inc., the Plan Investment Committee, and the 401(k) Plan
Committee.

Sean M. Murphy -- smurphy@milbank.com -- Robert C. Hora --
rhora@milbank.com -- MILBANK LLP, in New York, NY 10001-2163; Rew
R. Goodenow -- rgoodenow@parsonsbehle.com -- Michael R. Kealy --
mkealy@parsonsbehle.com -- PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER, in Reno, NV
89501, Attorneys for Defendant Russell Investments Trust Company.


SAINT ELIZABETH: Faces Laws Suit Over Inflated Hospital Bills
-------------------------------------------------------------
SAMANTHA LAWS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SAINT ELIZABETH MEDICAL CENTER, INC., dba
SAINT ELIZABETH MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-00486-JPH (S.D. Ohio, Sept. 6, 2024) arises from
Defendant's deceptive practice and policy of inflating bills of
Ohio residents, when such patients are admitted to its facilities
for routine medical matters, in order to subsidize procedures of
patients that have complications, in violation of the Ohio Consumer
Sales Practices Act.

In doing so, the Defendant's revenues increase as many of the
patients with extremely high medical bills (aka outliers) do not
pay their bills. The Plaintiff is one of what is believed to be
thousands of patients residing in Ohio who received a bill from St.
Elizabeth at their Ohio address that was inflated over the correct
amount determined by longstanding practically universal practice
among American Hospitals, and, until recently, by Defendant itself,
says the suit.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant's scheme has been
purposeful and intended to result in its unjust enrichment. St.
Elizabeth has perpetuated this scheme with the intent to deceive
patients, benefit financially and be unjustly enriched, the suit
added.

Saint Elizabeth Medical Center, Inc. provides medical services and
operates hospitals in Kentucky.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert F. Croskery, Esq.
          CROSKERY LAW OFFICES
          The Highland Towers, No. 2200
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 232-5297
          E-mail: rcroskery@croskerylaw.com

               - and -

          Alan Statman, Esq.
          STATMAN HARRIS, LLC
          35 E. 7th Street, Suite 315
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 621-2666
          Facsimile: (513) 621-4896
          E-mail: sderrien@statmanharris.com
                  ajstatman@statmanharris.com

SALEM HEALTH: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss M.R. Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ann Aiken of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon, Eugene Division, grants in part and denies in part the
Defendant's motion to dismiss in the lawsuit titled M.R., Plaintiff
v. SALEM HEALTH HOSPITALS AND CLINICS, Defendant, Case No.
6:23-cv-01691-AA (D. Or.).

The Plaintiff is a patient of Defendant Salem Health Hospitals and
Clinics and brings this putative class action arising out of the
Defendant's alleged disclosure of the Plaintiff's confidential
personally identifiable information. She brings this lawsuit
anonymously out of a desire to protect her personal health
information under the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996 and Oregon law.

The Defendant is a healthcare entity and is subject to applicable
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPPA") and
Oregon law regulations on disclosing personally identifiable
protected health information. The Defendant owns and controls
https://www.salemhealth.org ("Defendant's Website" or the
"Website"), which it encourages patients to use for booking medical
appointments, locating physicians and treatment facilities,
communicating medical symptoms, searching medical conditions and
treatment options, signing up for events and classes, and more.

The Plaintiff alleges that using hidden tracking tools embedded on
its website, the Defendant intercepted her and Class Members'
communications and forced their web browsers to send confidential
and highly sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII")
and personal health information ("PHI") (collectively, "Private
Information") to undisclosed third parties such as Meta Platforms,
Inc. ("Facebook") or Google, Inc., without her or Class Members'
knowledge or consent.

According to the Plaintiff, the information the Defendant
intercepted and impermissibly disclosed to those third parties
included booking of appointments, searches for specific medical
treatment, particular health conditions, and other sensitive
information. She asserts that the Defendant used "Tracking
Tools"--technology including Facebook Tracking Pixel ("Pixel"),
Google Analytics, or Conversions API to boost its marketing efforts
and profits by sharing Private Information despite protections
offered to its patients through state and federal law and industry
standards.

The Plaintiff states that she used the Website to research medical
symptoms, search for doctors, make appointments, and check medical
records. She maintains that her unique IP address is also PII under
HIPPA. She asserts that Salem Health was compensated for this data
and the data was used by Facebook and Google to optimize
advertisements targeted to their users.

In its motion to dismiss, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff
consented to the disclosure of information via the Website's Terms
of Service, and by creating Facebook and Google accounts, which
requires agreeing to Facebook and Google's Terms of Service.

The Plaintiff alleges that she had no knowledge of the Defendant's
Tracking Tools and would not have consented to the disclosure of
their information to third parties. The Plaintiff brings claims for
(1) breach of confidence; (2) unauthorized interception, use and
disclosure in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act ("ECPA"); (3) intrusion upon seclusion; (4) breach of implied
contract; (5) unjust enrichment; and (6) negligence.

The Defendant argues that the second claim under the ECPA should be
dismissed because the Plaintiff has not pled an unauthorized
interception and, regardless, as a party, the Defendant could
consent to any interception. The Defendant contends that the third
claim for intrusion upon seclusion should be dismissed because no
intentional intrusion occurred, and no intrusion occurred that
would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

The Defendant also argues that the (i) fourth claim for breach of
implied contract should be dismissed because the Plaintiff cannot
show the existence of mutual assent or consideration; (ii) fifth
claim for unjust enrichment fails because it is not a cause of
action in Oregon and Plaintiff has another remedy available, and
(iii) sixth claim for negligence is barred by the economic loss
rule and the Plaintiff did not properly allege damages.

Judge Aiken finds that the Plaintiff has plausibly pled violations
of HIPAA privacy requirements. As noted in the Complaint, HHS has
expressly stated that entities like the Defendant that implement
the Facebook Pixel and Google Analytics and disclose patient
information have violated HIPAA Rules unless those entities obtain
a HIPAA-complaint authorization.

No such authorization was obtained, Judge Aiken points out. Thus,
the Plaintiff's claim that the Defendant has violated HIPAA's
confidentiality requirements is at least plausible at this stage of
litigation. The Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied as to this
issue.

The Court finds that the Plaintiff has plausibly pled the
crime/tort exception and, thus, the Defendant cannot defeat the
Plaintiff's claim by consenting to the interception of the PHI. At
this stage in the litigation, Judge Aiken says the Plaintiff's
claim sufficiently alleges a violation under the ECPA.

The Defendant contends that the Plaintiff has failed to allege an
intentional intrusion and any alleged intrusion was not highly
offensive. Judge Aiken finds that the Plaintiff has pled a valid
claim for intrusion upon seclusion.

Although the parties undoubtedly agreed to enter into a contract
for medical services, Judge Aiken points out that the Plaintiff has
failed to show that patients could plausibly believe that an
implied contract existed to keep information entered on the
Defendant's website confidential. Thus, the Defendant's motion is
granted as to this claim.

The Complaint alleges that the benefit conferred was medical
information of patients; that the Defendant took affirmative steps
to collect it; and that it would be unjust for the Defendant to
retain the benefit from selling this information to advertisers.
Judge Aiken holds that this amounts to a plausible claim for unjust
enrichment. Hence, the Defendant's motion is denied on this issue.

The Defendant alleges that the (1) Plaintiff's negligence claim is
barred by the economic loss doctrine, and (2) Plaintiff fails to
allege recoverable damages.  At this stage of litigation, Judge
Aiken finds that the Plaintiff has plausibly alleged damages under
their negligence claim. The Defendant's motion is denied as to this
claim.

Alternatively, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's negligence
claim is barred by the Economic Loss Doctrine. The Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendant had a duty to keep its patients' Private
Information confidential under ORS Section 192.553. The Defendant
contends that the economic loss rule prohibits the Plaintiff from
raising a negligence claim on the basis that her loss is purely
economic.

However, Judge Aiken opines, the economic loss doctrine only bars a
party that has suffered a purely economic loss from bringing a
negligence action, and regardless, does not apply if there is a
special relationship between the parties. Hence, the Defendant's
motion to dismiss is denied as to this issue.

For these reasons, the Court rules that the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss is denied in part and granted in part. Count IV of the
Complaint is dismissed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order dated Aug. 28,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ypwfacfu from
PacerMonitor.com.


SAVOYA LLC: Class Action Discovery Stayed Pending Bid to Dismiss
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HENRY HUSEYIN CUHADAR,
GURHAN ERGEER, and MAUREEN FREDERIQUE, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, v. SAVOYA LLC, and DOES 1 THROUGH 50,
inclusive, Case No. 1:24-cv-03615-JAM (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Joseph Marutollo entered an order staying class action discovery
pending the resolution of Defendant's motion to dismiss.

Correspondingly, the statute of limitations for Opt-in Plaintiffs
will be tolled for a period between Sept. 11, 2024, and the date of
the resolution of Defendant's motion to dismiss.

As to the risk of unfair prejudice and the burden of responding to
discovery, the second and third factors also favor a stay of
discovery. If Defendant is successful in dismissing Plaintiffs'
FLSA claims, it is unlikely that the Court would have supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' remaining NYLL claims. Both of these
factors therefore weigh in favor of a stay of discovery pending the
outcome of the jurisdictional motion.

Additionally, the Court finds that it would be unduly burdensome
for Defendant to respond to discovery requests until the Court
resolves the potentially dispositive motion.

Therefore, in the interest of fairness, the Court holds that the
statute of limitations will be tolled for a period between
September 11, 2024, and the date of the resolution of Defendant’s
motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiffs commenced this action on May 17, 2024 alleging that
the Defendant misclassified the Plaintiffs as independent
contractors and, as a result, have failed to remit minimum wage,
overtime wage, and spread-of-hours pay in contravention of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL").

The Plaintiffs are current and former drivers affiliated with the
Defendant who purport to have been intentionally misclassified as
independent contractors.

Savoya operates a nationwide "chauffeured limousine and luxury car
transportation business" providing ground transportation services
to high-end clients in New York City.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=stDvNL at no extra
charge.[CC]

SCIENCE 37: Masserman Sues Over Mandatory Vaccination Policy
------------------------------------------------------------
CINDY MASSERMAN, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SCIENCE 37, INC., PLANET PHARMA GROUP, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-12331-DPH-CI (E.D. Mich., Sept. 6,
2024) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Michigan's Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act and Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964.

According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the laws when
it recruited Plaintiff for a contract position with Science 37 only
to immediately reject her application upon notifying recruiter
Melanie Tecktiel that she was not vaccinated against COVID-19 due
to her sincerely held religious beliefs.

The Defendant failed and refused to hire Plaintiff due to its
unlawful vaccine mandate that did not permit for accommodation. The
Plaintiff's religious beliefs and protected activity were the
causes of Defendant's retaliation and adverse employment action,
says the suit.

Science 37, Inc. is a clinical trial recruitment agency
headquartered in Durham, North Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noah S. Hurwitz, Esq.
          HURWITZ LAW PLLC
          340 Beakes St., Ste. 125
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (844) 487-9489
          E-mail: noah@hurwitzlaw.com

SELECTQUOTE INC: Opposition Reply on Bid to Dismiss Due Nov. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
SelectQuote Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on September 13, 2024, that the
plaintiff's opposition reply to the Company's motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities class suit is on November 1, 2024.

On August 16, 2021, a putative securities class action lawsuit
captioned Hartel v. SelectQuote, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-06903 ("the Hartel Action") was filed against the Company
and two of its executive officers in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

The complaint asserts securities fraud claims on behalf of a
putative class of plaintiffs who purchased or otherwise acquired
shares of the Company's common stock between February 8, 2021 and
May 11, 2021 (the "Hartel Relevant Period").

Specifically, the complaint alleges the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act by
making materially false and misleading statements and failing to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects, allegedly causing the Company's common
stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the Hartel
Relevant Period.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and reimbursement of
attorneys' fees and certain other costs.

On October 7, 2021, a putative securities class action lawsuit
captioned West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund v. SelectQuote, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-08279 ("the WPBPPF Action"), was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company, two of its executive officers, and six current
or former members of the Company's Board of Directors, along with
the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering of common
stock (the "Offering").

The complaint asserts claims for securities law violations on
behalf of a putative class of plaintiffs who purchased shares of
the Company's common stock (i) in or traceable to the Offering or
(ii) between May 20, 2020 and August 25, 2021 (the "WPB Relevant
Period").

Specifically, the complaint alleges the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act by
making materially false and misleading statements and failing to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's financial
well-being and prospects, allegedly causing the Company's common
stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the WPB
Relevant Period.

The complaint also alleges the defendants violated Sections 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act by making misstatements and
omissions of material facts in connection with the Offering,
allegedly causing a decline in the value of the Company's common
stock.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, rescission, and
reimbursement of attorneys' fees and certain other costs.

On October 15, 2021, a motion to consolidate the Hartel Action and
the WPBPPF Action was filed.

On September 2, 2022, the court entered an order consolidating the
Hartel and WPBPPF Actions under the caption In re SelectQuote, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:21-cv-06903 (the "Securities
Class Action") and appointing the West Palm Beach Police Pension
Fund and City of Fort Lauderdale Police & Fire Retirement System as
lead plaintiffs.

On November 19, 2022, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
asserting similar allegations to those alleged in the Hartel and
WPBPPF Actions in addition to new allegations regarding certain
defendants' purported violation of Section 20A of the Exchange Act.


The amended complaint also added Brookside Equity Partners LLC, one
of the Company's principal stockholders, as a defendant.

On January 27, 2023, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on behalf of itself and certain of its current
and former officers and directors.

Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on April 5,
2023, and the Company filed its reply to plaintiffs' opposition on
May 10, 2023.

On March 28, 2024, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss, with leave to amend.

Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on May 31, 2024,
and the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint on July 31, 2024.

The deadlines for Plaintiffs' opposition to the Company's motion to
dismiss and the Company's reply to Plaintiffs' opposition are
October 2, 2024 and November 1, 2024, respectively.

SelectQuote, Inc. is a technology-enabled, direct-to-consumer
distribution and engagement platform for insurance products and
healthcare services.

SNOWFLAKE INC: NYC Funds Named as Lead Plaintiff in Flannery Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SUZANNE L. FLANNERY, Plaintiff v. SNOWFLAKE
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-01234-PCP (N.D. Cal.),
Judge P. Casey Pitts of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California appoints NYC Funds as lead plaintiff and
Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. as lead counsel.

The lawsuit is a putative securities class action against
Snowflake, Inc., Snowflake's CEO and Chairman of the Board Frank
Slootman, and Snowflake's CFO Michael P. Scarpelli. Seven movants
filed motions to appoint lead plaintiff and lead counsel, only two
of which remain before the Court for consideration.

Movant NYC Funds refers collectively to Teachers' Retirement System
of the City of New York ("TRS"), New York City Employees'
Retirement System ("NYCERS"), New York City Police Pension Fund
("Police"), New York City Fire Department Pension Fund ("Fire"),
Board of Education Retirement System of the City of New York
("BOE"), Police Officers' Variable Supplements Fund ("POVSF"),
Police Superior Officers' Variable Supplements Fund ("PSOVSF"), New
York City Firefighters' Variable Supplements Fund ("FFVSF"), New
York City Fire Officers' Variable Supplements Fund ("FOVSF"), New
York Fire Department Life Insurance Fund ("FDLIF"), and Teachers'
Retirement System of the City of New York Variable Annuity Program
("TRS Var A").

Movant NYSCRF refers to Thomas P. DiNapoli, Comptroller of the
State of New York, as Administrative Head of the New York State and
Local Retirement System, and as Trustee of the New York State
Common Retirement Fund.

NYC Funds moves for appointment as the presumptive lead plaintiff
with the largest financial interest. NYC Funds proposes that its
counsel at Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. serve as lead counsel. New York
State Common Retirement Fund ("NYSCRF") also moves for appointment
as lead plaintiff, arguing that NYC Funds constitutes an
impermissibly large group and that as the individual movant with
the largest financial interest, NYSCRF is the presumptive lead
plaintiff. NYSCRF proposes that its counsel at Saxena White P.A.
serve as lead counsel.

Plaintiff Suzanne L. Flannery commenced this putative securities
class action against the Defendants alleging that they made false
and misleading statements and omissions to investors, who purchased
Snowflake Class A common stock in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Flannery's complaint asserts a class period
from Sept. 16, 2020, to March 2, 2022.

Snowflake is a cloud data platform that enables customers to
consolidate data into a single source build data-driven
applications and share data. Snowflake's common stock, "SNOW,"
trades on the New York Stock Exchange.

The Plaintiff alleges that Slootman and Scarpelli made a series of
misleading statements touting strong consumption, performance
obligation results, product revenue, and projected growth that
failed to disclose that Snowflake's purported growth had been built
on deceptive and unsustainable business tactics, including the
knowing and systematic oversale of consumption credits and
discounts offered to clients.

As a result, the complaint alleges, Snowflake reported
disappointing disclosures after market hours on March 2, 2022,
leading to a 15% decline in stock prices by the next day and 15%
decline by March 8, 2022. The complaint alleges that Flannery and
other class members suffered significant economic losses and
damages as a result.

On April 29, 2024, seven motions to appoint lead plaintiff and lead
counsel were filed. Movants Ron Zitman and the Institutional
Investor Group have each since withdrawn their motions. Movants
Ronald Augustyn, Kimberly A. Cross Spears, and Chuck Pruna have
each filed non-opposition notices. That leaves two competing
motions by movants NYC Funds and NYSCRF for the Court's
consideration.

The Court appoints NYC Funds as Lead Plaintiff because NYC Funds
has the largest financial interest and is entitled to a presumption
of being the most adequate plaintiff. The Court also finds that NYC
Funds can fairly and adequately represent the class.

Because NYC Funds has made a facially reasonable choice of counsel
and no other party has suggested that choice is unreasonable, the
Court will defer to NYC Funds' selection of counsel and appoint
Grant & Eisenhofer as lead counsel.

For these reasons, the Court appoints NYC Funds as Lead Plaintiff
and Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. as lead counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 29, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2s9v6864 from PacerMonitor.com.


SOLID WASTE: Herrington Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Drivers
--------------------------------------------------------------
QURAN HERRINGTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOLID WASTE SERVICES, INC. d/b/a
JP MASCARO & SONS, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-04902 (E.D. Pa.,
September 16, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Pennsylvania Wage
Payment and Collection Law, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a driver from
approximately October 2021 to June 2024.

Solid Waste Services, Inc., doing business as JP Mascaro & Sons, is
a waste management company based in Audubon, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       James B. Zouras, Esq.
       STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLC
       222 W. Adams St, Suite 2020
       Chicago, IL 60606
       Telephone: (312) 233-1550
       Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
       Email: jzouras@stephanzouras.com

               - and -

       David J. Cohen, Esq.
       STEPHAN ZOURAS LLC
       604 Spruce Street
       Philadelphia, PA 19106
       Telephone: (215) 873-4836
       Email: dcohen@stephanzouras.com

               - and -

       Brook S. Lane, Esq.
       FAIR WORK, P.C.
       192 South Street, Suite 450
       Boston, MA 02111
       Telephone: (617) 607-3260
       Facsimile: (617) 488-2261
       Email: brook@fairworklaw.com

STEEL DYNAMICS: N.D. Indiana OK's Bid to Dismiss Baird ERISA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Cristal C. Brisco of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, grants the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the lawsuit titled MATTHEW BAIRD, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. STEEL DYNAMICS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-00356-CCB-SLC (N.D. Ind.).

Plaintiffs Matthew Baird, Michael Sanderson, and Brandon Thompson
filed this putative class action against Steel Dynamics, Inc.
("SDI"), its Board of Directors, the members of the Board, the
Investment Committee, and the members of the Investment Committee
(collectively "Defendants"), pursuant to Sections 409 and 502 of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29
U.S.C. Sections 1109, 1132(a)(2) for breach of fiduciary duty and
failure to monitor.

The Plaintiffs were employees of SDI, who participated in the SDI
Profit Sharing and Retirement Savings Plan offered by the company.
The Plan is a defined-contribution plan with employer matching
contributions. As a defined-contribution plan, the Plan allows
participants to create individual accounts and provides a menu of
funds where participants can direct their contributions along with
half of the employer matching contributions.

The Plaintiffs allege that a series of target date funds and an
international growth fund offered in the Plan (the "Challenged
Funds") underperformed and that this underperformance reveals the
Defendants' deficient fiduciary process in violation of their duty
of care under ERISA. As Plan participants, the Plaintiffs further
allege that they suffered injury to their individual accounts based
on their own contributions or the Plan-wide effect of SDI's
contributions to the Challenged Funds.

The Defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The Defendants contend
that the Plaintiffs' complaint should be dismissed because they do
not have standing to bring their lawsuit, they failed to exhaust
their administrative remedies before suing, and they failed to
state claims for breach of fiduciary duty and failure to monitor.

In this case, Plaintiffs Baird and Sanderson each directed personal
contributions to one of the challenged target date funds even
though Plaintiff Thompson's investments in the target date funds
are only implied and the complaint does not allege that any
Plaintiff invested in the challenged international growth fund. Yet
the complaint alleges that each Plaintiff suffered injury to his
Plan account from the underperformance of the Challenged Funds.

With allegations of at least one Plaintiff being personally
invested in a Challenged Fund and all Plaintiffs pursuing Planwide
relief, Judge Brisco says the complaint sufficiently alleges
standing for their claims to proceed in the Court.

While the Plaintiffs did not attach the SDI Plan Agreement to their
complaint, Judge Brisco notes they did cite the Plan in their
complaint and based their claims on the Plan, especially Section
9.2 Claims Procedure and Section 14.20 Class Action Limitation. And
the Defendants attached relevant excerpts from the Plan document to
their motion to dismiss without any objection from the Plaintiffs.
Therefore, Judge Brisco holds that the Plan document provided by
the Defendants can be considered in addressing the pending motion
to dismiss.

In their motion, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' claims
are barred for failure to exhaust the administrative remedies
available through Section 9.2 of the Plan before bringing lawsuit.

The issue of exhaustion appears plainly in the Plaintiffs'
complaint, Judge Brisco opines. The Plaintiffs allege that pursuing
their claims through the Plan's Claims Procedure in Section 9.2
would be futile, as neither the Plan document nor the Summary Plan
Description include any provision to allow a Plan participant to
advance a breach of fiduciary duty claim through the administrative
process. Therefore, Judge Brisco finds the exhaustion was properly
raised in the Defendants' instant motion to dismiss.

In this case, Judge Brisco says it is not apparent that SDI had the
power to hear the Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claims under
the Plan. Section 9.2 of the Plan outlines the administrative
review process available to Plan participants or beneficiaries.
Furthermore, language in the latter half of Section 9.2 repeatedly
references legal action regarding the recovery of benefits without
any mention of legal action regarding plan-wide relief.

According to the Plaintiffs, this language limits the claims review
process to "claims for benefits," which does not include breach of
fiduciary duty claims or claims for Plan-wide relief. As such, the
Plaintiffs argue that their claims could not be raised via the
Section 9.2 claims review process.

From that language, the Defendants argue that the claims review
process of Section 9.2 must be exhausted before a Plan participant
can take legal action to enforce any statutory right. Based on this
interpretation of the language of Section 9.2, the Defendants
reject Plaintiffs' futility argument.

Judge Brisco opines that the parties' contradictory interpretations
of Section 9.2 are both plausible but cannot both be true. Thus,
Judge Brisco finds the Plaintiffs have stated a plausible claim
that their breach of fiduciary duty and failure to monitor claims
would be denied, and therefore futile, if submitted to the Plan's
Claims Procedure. Hence, the Plaintiffs' claims cannot be dismissed
for failure to exhaust their administrative remedies.

Judge Brisco notes that the Plaintiffs allege facts that are
"merely consistent" with a breach of fiduciary duty, for there
could be cogent reasons why Steel Dynamics might have selected the
Challenged Funds for inclusion in the Plan. Without more, the
Plaintiffs have not adequately pleaded persistent and material
underperformance necessary for a breach of fiduciary duty claim.
Without a showing of material underperformance, all Plaintiffs show
is that certain investments, in hindsight, performed better than
the Challenged Funds, which does not speak to fiduciary process.

By failing to allege a deficient fiduciary process, the Complaint,
as written, fails to state a plausible claim for breach of
fiduciary duty, Judge Brisco holds. Judge Brisco notes that failure
to monitor claims under ERISA are entirely derivative of breach of
fiduciary duty claims. The Plaintiffs' failure to state a claim for
breach of fiduciary duty renders their failure to monitor claim
moot.

Having found that the Plaintiffs have not stated a claim for breach
of fiduciary duty or failure to monitor, Judge Brisco points out
that the Defendants' arguments regarding the class action waiver
provision at Section 14.20 of the Plan need not be addressed.

For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to
dismiss. The Defendants' motion for oral argument is denied. The
Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint that complies with the
federal rules, if filed by Sept. 20, 2024.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Aug. 29,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2s7cnw2n from
PacerMonitor.com.


SUNDT CONSTRUCTION: Underpays Construction Workers, Enriquez Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN ENRIQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUNDT CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01569-JR (D. Ore., September 16, 2024)
is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum
wages and late final pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and Oregon Revised Statutes.

Mr. Enriquez worked for the Defendant as a laborer and carpenter
from approximately June 2023 until July 2024 in and around
Sherwood, Washington County, Oregon

Sundt Construction, Inc. is a construction company headquartered in
Tempe, Arizona. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Dana L. Sullivan, Esq.
       BUCHANAN ANGELI ALTSCHUL & SULLIVAN LLP
       921 SW Washington Street, Suite 516
       Portland, OR 97205
       Telephone: (503) 974-5015
       Facsimile: (971) 230-0337
       Email: dana@baaslaw.com

              - and -

       Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
       Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
       JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
       11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
       Houston, TX 77046
       Telephone: (713) 352-1100
       Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
       Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
              adunlap@mybackwages.com

SWEET BASIL: Fails to Pay Chefs' Proper Wages, Liu Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
WEN LIN LIU, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. SWEET BASIL FAIRFIELD LLC d/b/a Sweet Basil Sushi &
Pan Asian Cuisine, CHUN YIU KWOK a/k/a Skye Kwok, VINCENT WENG,
SHENGLIANG WENG, and MEI WENG a/k/a A Mei Weng, Defendants, Case
No. 24-cv-01436 (D. Conn., Sept. 8, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act arising from Defendants' willful,
malicious, and unlawful employment policies and practices.

Plaintiff Liu was employed by the Defendants from November 27, 2023
through June 16, 2024 to work as a sushi chef at Defendants' Sweet
Basil restaurant. He alleges pursuant to the federal and state laws
that he is entitled to recover from the Defendants: (1) unpaid
overtime wages, (2) liquidated damages or prejudgment interest, (3)
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and (4) post-judgment
interest.

Sweet Basil Fairfield LLC, d/b/a Sweet Basil Sushi & Pan Asian
Cuisine, is an Asian fusion restaurant located in Fairfield,
Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          Aaron B. Schweitzer, Esq.
          Tiffany Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 110
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324
          E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com

TEACHERS INSURANCE: Spohnheimer Sues Over Failure to Secure PII
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Spohnheimer, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TEACHERS INSURANCE AND ANNUITY ASSOCIATION OF
AMERICA and TIAA-CREF LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
1:24-cv-06963 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 15, 2024), is brought arises from
TIAA's failure to secure the personally identifiable information
("PII") of Plaintiff and the members of the proposed Class, where
Plaintiffs are current and former clients of TIAA.

On May 2023, TIAA experienced a cybersecurity incident, where an
unauthorized third-party accessed certain files off its system,
which contained the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members (the "Data
Breach") The PII intruders accessed and infiltrated from TIAA's
systems included, names, phone numbers, email addresses, Social
Security numbers, job titles, geographic locations and social media
profiles. As a result of the Data Breach, which TIAA failed to
prevent, the PII of its clients, including Plaintiff and the
proposed Class Members, was stolen.

Instead, TIAA disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members
by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failing
to implement reasonable measures to safeguard its current and
former clients' PII and by failing to take necessary steps to
prevent unauthorized disclosure of that information. TIAA's
woefully inadequate data security measures made the Data Breach a
foreseeable, and even likely, consequence of its negligence.

The Plaintiff and Class Members would not have provided their
valuable PII had they known that TIAA would make their PII
Internet-accessible, not encrypt personal and sensitive data
elements and not delete the PII it no longer had reason to
maintain.

Through this lawsuit, Plaintiff seek to hold TIAA responsible for
the injuries they inflicted on Plaintiff and Class Members due to
their impermissibly inadequate data security measures, and to seek
injunctive relief to ensure the implementation of security measures
to protect the PII that remains in TIAA's possession, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff provided her PII, including her Social Security
number, to TIAA.

TIAA is a financial organization that offers retirement, insurance,
and investment services primarily for teachers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven Sukert, Esq.
          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
          One West Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 525-4100
          Fax: (954) 525-4300
          Email: sukert@kolawyers.com
                 ostrow@kolawyers.com


TECHNICAL RESPONSE: Laboy Balks at Mass Layoff Without Notice
-------------------------------------------------------------
HARLEY LABOY, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TECHNICAL RESPONSE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:24-cv-00368 (E.D. Tenn., Sept. 6, 2024) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant under the Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act.

The Plaintiff brings this action individually and other similarly
situated former employees who worked for Defendant and were
terminated as part of the foreseeable result of a mass lay off or
plant closing ordered by Defendant on August 8, 2024 and within 90
days of that date and who were not provided 60 days' advance
written notice of their terminations by Defendant, as required by
the WARN Act.  

Over the last 90 days, upon information and belief, the Defendant
abruptly terminated several groups of employees, unilaterally and
without proper notice to employees or staff, terminating over 50
employees and at least 33% of active full-time employees, including
Plaintiff, at the Defendant's facility, says the suit.

Technical Response, Inc. operates a manufacturing plant located in
Knoxville, Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          Michael C. Iadevaia, Esq.
          STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC
          223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
          E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
                  miadevaia@stranchlaw.com

               - and -

          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
          STRAUSS BORRELLI, LLP
          613 Williamson St., Suite 201
          Madison, WI 53703  
          Telephone: (608) 237-1775
          Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
          E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com
                  raina@straussborrelli.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

TECO ENERGY: M.D. Florida Grants Bid to Dismiss Roche ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ALEJANDRO ROCHE, Plaintiff v. TECO ENERGY,
INC. and TECO ENERGY GROUP RETIREMENT PLAN, Defendants, Case No.
8:23-cv-01571-CEH-CPT (M.D. Fla.), Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell
of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Tampa Division, grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss.

In this putative class action, the Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendants violated section 102 of the Employment Retirement Income
Security Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 1132 ("ERISA"), and breached their
fiduciary duty under ERISA Section 404, by failing to disclose
material information in their pension plan's Summary Plan
Description ("SPD").

The Defendants request dismissal with prejudice, arguing that ERISA
does not require SPDs to disclose the information the Plaintiff
alleges was missing. Upon review and full consideration, the Court
will grant the motion to dismiss because there was no legal duty
for the SPD to disclose the plan's method of calculating lump sum
benefits.

As an employee of Defendant TECO Energy, Inc. ("TECO") for
approximately 33 years, Plaintiff Alejandro Roche participated in
the TECO Energy Group Retirement Plan. Under the plan, participants
like the Plaintiff, who are "grandfathered" into a prior version
are entitled to receive a pension in the form of a life annuity or
a lump sum.

On Sept. 22, 2022, the Plaintiff completed a retirement application
indicating his last day of work would be Dec. 2, 2022. In response
to his request for estimated pension benefits, TECO informed him
that the amount of his lump sum benefit would depend on the date it
was paid to him. The estimated amounts were as follows: Dec. 1,
2022: $482,970.55; Jan. 1, 2023: $396, 600.67; Feb. 1, 2023:
$395,997.89

The Plaintiff requested that his retirement date be set to Dec. 1,
2022, so that he would receive the largest lump sum. However, TECO
notified him that employees must complete the retirement
application 90 days before the start of retirement benefits, which
made a December 1 retirement date impossible. As a result, the
Plaintiff received the significantly lower lump sum amount for
January 2023.

As TECO explained in subsequent communications with the Plaintiff,
the lump sum amount is calculated using an interest rate that is
taken from an interest rate and mortality table published by the
IRS. To select the interest rate that will be used, TECO "looks
back" to the rate from August of the previous calendar year. There
is an inverse relationship between interest rates and the amount of
the lump sum benefit, such that a higher interest rate results in a
smaller lump sum. The lump sum benefits the Plaintiff could receive
in 2023 were lower than the lump sum benefits he could have
received in 2022, because the August 2022 interest rate that was
used to calculate the 2023 benefit was higher than the August 2021
interest rate that was used to calculate the 2022 amount.

The Plaintiff contends that he would have submitted his retirement
application in time for his lump sum to be calculated as payable in
2022 if he had known about the Plan's calculations methods. He
alleges that the Summary Plan Description failed to adequately
inform him and other similarly situated individuals about the
calculation methods and the consequence of rising interest rates,
resulting in a substantial loss of benefits.

The Plaintiff filed a putative class action on July 14, 2023. He
alleges that the Defendants violated ERISA Section 102, which
requires an SPD to reasonably apprise participants of their rights
and obligations under a retirement plan, including circumstances
that may result in a loss of benefits. He also alleges that TECO
breached its fiduciary duty under ERISA Section 404 by providing
participants with a materially defective SPD that caused a
substantial loss of benefits.

The Plaintiff argues that the SPD should have explained: (i) that
TECO would calculate pension lump sums by looking back to the
section 417(e) segment rates for August of the previous year, and
(ii) that a lump sum would be significantly reduced if interest
rates were increasing the year before it was paid.

The Defendants now move to dismiss the complaint with prejudice for
failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing
that neither ERISA Section 102 nor Section 404 imposes the
disclosure requirements the Plaintiff requests. They contend that
an SPD is a mere summary of the Plan's terms that courts have held
is not required to include information on every detail that might
affect benefit calculations. Rather, it is meant to provide
generalized information that is relevant to a wide range of
situations. The absence from the detailed Department of Labor
("DOL") regulations of the information the Plaintiff identifies
implies it is not required.

Moreover, the Defendants argue, the Plaintiff's interpretation
would necessitate updating an SPD every time the IRS publishes the
new applicable interest rate, even though ERISA only requires plans
to be updated every five years. The Defendants also argue that
ERISA's fiduciary duties do not include duty to disclose
information beyond what ERISA requires.

Responding in opposition, the Plaintiff contends that the
information he identified as missing--the inverse relationship
between the lump sum and the interest rate used to calculate it,
and the lookback methodology of calculation--are "circumstances"
that may result in a "loss of benefits," which ERISA Section 102
requires an SPD to disclose.

The Defendants point out that lump sum benefits have been inversely
tied to interest rates for years, including periods of volatility,
but DOL regulations have never compelled disclosure of the
information the Plaintiff identifies.

Judge Honeywell finds that the Defendants' SPD was not deficient
under ERISA Section 102, which does not require the SPD to contain
the details of the plan's method of calculating lump sum benefits.
Accordingly, the claim under ERISA Section 102 is due to be
dismissed. Because amendment would be futile, the dismissal is with
prejudice, Judge Honeywell points out.

Judge Honeywell also finds that the Defendants' SPD did not breach
their fiduciary duty. Absent any allegations of misrepresentations
or misleading communications by the Defendants, or communications
between the Plaintiff and the Defendants that put the Defendants on
notice that the Plaintiff misunderstood the terms of his benefits,
Judge Honeywell says the Plaintiff does not state a claim for
breach of fiduciary duty based on the failure to disclose the
plan's method of calculating lump sum benefits in the SPD. The
claim under ERISA Section 404 is due to be dismissed, as well.

For this claim, however, the Court cannot conclude that the defect
is incurable. The dismissal of the breach of fiduciary duty claim
will, therefore, be without prejudice.

Accordingly, the Court rules as follows. Defendants TECO Energy,
Inc., and TECO Energy Group Retirement Plan's Motion to Dismiss is
granted. The claim under ERISA Section 102 is dismissed with
prejudice. The claim of breach of fiduciary duty is dismissed
without prejudice; and

To the extent the Plaintiff intends to file an Amended Complaint
asserting an amended breach of fiduciary duty claim, he may do so
within fourteen (14) DAYS of the date of this Order. The failure to
file an Amended Complaint that corrects the defects identified in
this Order within the time provided will result in dismissal of
this action, with prejudice, without further notice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 28, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/u6ku6asr from PacerMonitor.com.


TELEPERFORMANCE SE: Court Refuses to Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida denies the Defendants' motion
to dismiss the lawsuit entitled CITY OF WARREN GENERAL EMPLOYEES'
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, et al., Plaintiffs v. TELEPERFORMANCE SE, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-24580-CMA (S.D. Fla.).

The cause came before the Court on Defendants Teleperformance SE,
Daniel Julien, Olivier Rigaudy, and Akash Pugalia's Motion to
Dismiss, filed on June 17, 2024. Plaintiffs City of Warren General
Employees' Retirement System and City of Westland Police and Fire
Retirement System filed a Response, to which the Defendants filed a
Reply.

The lawsuit is a putative securities fraud class action arising
from alleged misstatements and omissions made by the Defendants
between Feb. 20, 2020, and Nov. 9, 2022 (the "Class Period"). The
Court previously dismissed the Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint
without prejudice. The Plaintiffs have now filed a Second Amended
Class Action Complaint ("SAC").

Teleperformance is a French company headquartered in Paris, France.
Its shares trade on the Paris Stock Exchange, while its American
Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") are traded over the counter in the
United States under the ticker symbol "TLPFY." ADRs represent
one-half of one share of Teleperformance's common stock.

Teleperformance provides outsourced omnichannel customer experience
management services and related digital services; these include the
operation of customer service call centers, handling the
recruitment of employees, payment collection services, or content
moderation for social media companies. During the Class Period,
Julien, Teleperformance's founder, was its Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer; Rigaudy was its Deputy Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer; and Pugalia was its Global President
of Trust & Safety.

The Plaintiffs purchased Teleperformance ADRs during the Class
Period. Teleperformance entered the content moderation business and
began conducting moderation services for TikTok in July 2018.
Content moderation for social media refers to the act of checking
user-generated content against applicable laws and regulations and
community guidelines and is intended to protect the public from bad
actors in the digital world.

Content moderation can involve the removal of material that, while
impermissible, is not necessarily offensive to the platform's users
-- for example, the illegal streaming of copyrighted material. It
can also involve the removal of offensive or disturbing material --
typically referred to as "egregious" content -- such as visual
depictions of cannibalism or child sexual abuse material ("CSAM").

Teleperformance's content moderators are tasked with (1) reviewing
profile pictures, feeds, and videos; and (2) filtering, flagging,
reviewing, and escalating content that violates the social media
platform's policies. Teleperformance's content moderation business
accounts for about 7 percent of its total revenue, and according to
the Plaintiffs, was inextricably linked to the moderation of
egregious material.

During the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly made materially
false and misleading statements and omissions related to
Teleperformance's content moderation business, and articles
addressing the subject. According to the Plaintiffs, two
investigative exposes published by two preeminent business and news
publications in the United States eventually revealed the truth
about Teleperformance: it subjected its content moderation
employees to extremely inappropriate -- and potentially criminal --
working conditions, which directly contradicted the Defendants'
representations during the Class Period.

Specifically, on Aug. 4, 2022, an article was published in Forbes
with the title: TikTok Moderators Are Being Trained Using Graphic
Images of Child Sexual Abuse. The article revealed that moderators
were shown sexually exploitative images of children as part of
their training, and their training materials included a "widely
accessible" document containing hundreds of images of naked or
abused children. The article suggested Teleperformance's practices
had serious negative effects on its moderators and raised concerns
about whether Teleperformance was complying with applicable laws
and regulations. The Forbes article "sparked intense scrutiny" by
the United States Senate.

Teleperformance responded to the Forbes article, stating through a
spokesperson that it took the "allegations very seriously" and had
conducted an internal audit, which found no evidence of the use of
or access to CSAM images in training. Yet, the information
contained in the Forbes article was corroborated by a confidential
witness, who worked at Teleperformance as a content moderator from
June 2020 to February 2021.

On Oct. 20, 2022, another article was published in Time, titled:
Behind TikTok's Boom: A Legion of Traumatized, $10-A-Day Content
Moderators. Like the Forbes article, the Time article revealed that
Teleperformance content moderators were exposed to egregious
content that had an adverse effect on their wellbeing. It also
discussed the inadequacy of Teleperformance's mental health
support, employee monitoring, and alleged union-busting tactics.

On Nov. 7, 2022, Teleperformance published a letter explaining that
the results of an external audit were consistent with its internal
audit and reiterating that no CSAM could be found in its training
materials. On Nov. 8, 2022, the Colombian minister of labor
relations announced a governmental investigation into
Teleperformance. The next day, a second Time article was published
under the title, "Colombia's Ministry of Labor has launched an
investigation into TikTok subcontractor Teleperformance, relating
to alleged union-busting, traumatic working conditions and low
pay." The article explained that the Colombian government had
opened an investigation into Teleperformance because of the earlier
Time article.

After the truth was revealed, the price of Teleperformance ADRs was
hammered by massive sales, causing significant financial losses and
economic damage to the Plaintiffs and other members of the Class.
The trading price dropped from $168.69 per ADR on Aug. 4, 2022, to
$160.94 on Aug. 5, the day after the Forbes article was published.
Similarly, the ADR trading price dropped from $132.32 to $107.77 on
Nov. 10, the day after the Time article was released.

On Nov. 17, 2022, Teleperformance announced it was exiting the
"highly egregious" content moderation business. During a conference
call with analysts regarding the exit, an analyst asked about the
share of growth coming from content moderation in 2022 compared to
2021. Teleperformance's President of Transformation responded that
content moderation represented "a lot" of Teleperformance's growth
that year. Ultimately, the Defendants were unable to extricate
egregious and "nonegregious" content moderation from each other,
despite posturing otherwise. Thus, Teleperformance eventually
reentered the highly egregious content moderation business in March
2023.

The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against the
Defendants on behalf of all investors, who purchased
Teleperformance ADRs during the Class Period. In Count I, they
allege the Defendants made material misrepresentations and
omissions during the Class Period, in violation of Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C.
section 78j(b), and SEC Rule 10b–5, 17 C.F.R. section
240.10b–5. In Count II, they allege the individual Defendants --
Julien, Rigaudy, and Pugalia -- were controlling persons of the
company whose conduct also violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, 15 U.S.C. section 78t(a).

As the basis for their present claims, and following the May 22,
2024 Order's conclusions, the Plaintiffs now identify only eight
misstatements. The Plaintiffs' allegations center on the
Defendants' statements regarding the hiring, training, and
treatment of their content moderators.

The Defendants seek dismissal of the Second Amended Class Action
Complaint, with prejudice, for failure to state claims upon which
relief can be granted. The Defendants argue the Plaintiffs (1) do
not plead an actionable misrepresentation or omission; (2) fail to
show scienter; and (3) do not sufficiently allege loss causation.
The Defendants argue that because the Plaintiffs fail to
sufficiently allege a Section 10(b) violation, Count II also fails
to state a claim.

Judge Altonaga finds, among other things, that the (i) Plaintiffs'
allegations are supported by concrete portions of misstatements,
and not the puffery or opinions that the Defendants identify (and
that the Court already rejected); (ii) Plaintiffs adequately plead
falsity. Their allegations do not focus on puffery and otherwise
satisfy the relevant pleading standards; and (iii) Plaintiffs'
allegations that the Defendants omitted information about how
content moderators were needlessly shown CSAM and endured terrible
working conditions could render the Defendants' assurances false --
or, at the very least, misleading -- by omission. The Court
concludes that the Plaintiffs adequately plead actionable
misstatements and omissions made with scienter.

The commencement of the Colombian government's investigation does
not serve as a corrective disclosure because the Plaintiffs do not
allege a later finding of wrongdoing, Judge Altonaga says. This
means, Judge Altonaga explains, misstatements 7 and 8 cannot serve
as support for Count I. Those misstatements occurred after the
Forbes article; thus, that article cannot serve as a corrective
disclosure for purposes of showing loss causation. Otherwise, the
Court is satisfied the Plaintiffs meet the requirements for
pleading falsity, scienter, and loss causation regarding
misstatements 1-6 and state a securities fraud claim based on those
misstatements.

The Defendants also seek dismissal of the Count II Section 20(a)
claim, arguing in conclusory fashion that the claim is dependent on
sufficiently pleading an underlying securities violation by the
company. The Defendants offer no other argument for dismissal.

Because the Plaintiffs' first claim survives, the Section 20(a)
claim is not dismissed, Judge Altonaga opines.

For these reasons, the Court denies the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss. The parties are directed to prepare and file a joint
scheduling report, as required by Local Rule 16.1.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 28, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mryr6e4u from PacerMonitor.com.


TEMECULA VALLEY: L.R. Sues Over Failure to Provide Equal Access
---------------------------------------------------------------
L.R., a minor, by and through his parent and natural guardian Katie
Jacquet, and other similarly situated persons v. Temecula Valley
Hospital, Inc. and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 5:24-cv-01993
(C.D. Cal., Sept. 17, 2024), is brought against the Defendants in
violation of the American's With Disabilities Act ("ADA"), the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("Section 504") the Affordable Care Act
("Section 1557"), the California's Unruh Civil Rights Act ("Unruh
Act"), and California's Disabled Persons Act ("CDPA") by failing to
provide "full and equal" access to Defendants' public facilities as
required by law.

The Defendants have failed to ensure that individuals with
disabilities who use service dogs have full and equal access to the
goods, facilities, programs, services and activities offered to
members of the public at Temecula Valley Hospital (hereinafter
"Hospital").

As a result of Defendants' discriminatory acts and omissions,
Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, damages, and
has been, and will continue to be, prevented and deterred from
accessing the goods, facilities, programs, services, and activities
offered at the Hospital free from discrimination and in a manner
equal to individuals without disabilities, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff L.R. is an individual with autism.

Temecula Valley Hospital, Inc. is a stock corporation formed in
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michelle Uzeta, Esq., SBN 164402
          DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION AND DEFENSE FUND
          3075 Adeline Street, Suite 210
          Berkeley, CA 94703
          Phone: (510) 644-2555
          Email: muzeta@dredf.org


TEN OAKS: Layoffs Employees Without Advance Notice, Munro Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT MUNRO and CHARLES MILLER, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TEN OAKS MANAGEMENT, LLC
and TOG FAS HOLDINGS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01041 (D.
Del., September 17, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants
for failure to provide the Plaintiffs and similarly situated
employees advanced written notice of their layoffs in violation of
the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and Class members who
were employed by the Defendants were terminated as a result of the
Defendants' executing plant shutdowns or mass layoffs on or about
June 20, 2024. The Defendants failed to give at least 60 days prior
notice of the layoff in violation of the WARN Act.

Ten Oaks Management, LLC is a limited liability company based in
Delaware.

TOG FAS Holdings LLC is a limited liability company based in
Delaware. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
       
       James E. Huggett, Esq.
       MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
       300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 800
       Wilmington, DE 19801
       Telephone: (302) 888-1112
       Facsimile: (302) 888-1119

               - and -

       Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
       Johnathan Miller, Esq.
       LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
       100 Church Street, 8th FL
       New York, NY 10007
       Telephone: (212) 581-5005
       Facsimile: (212) 581-2122

               - and -

       Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
       M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
       THE GARDNER FIRM, P.C.
       182 St. Francis Street, Suite 103
       Mobile, AL 36602
       Telephone: (251) 433-8100
       Facsimile: (251) 433-8181

TEQUESTA MALL LLC: Feltzin Sues Over Denial of Access to Property
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Feltzin, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. TEQUESTA MALL LLC, Case No. 9:24-cv-81127-XXXX (S.D.
Fla., Sept. 16, 2024), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys'
fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's
discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him
access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services,
facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the
Commercial Property and businesses located therein.

The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability and
requires landlords and tenants to be liable for compliance. The
subject Commercial Property is open to the public. The individual
Plaintiff visits the Commercial Property and businesses located
within the commercial property, to include a visit to the
Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial
Property in September 3, 2024, and encountered multiple violations
of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the
Commercial Property. He often visits the Commercial Property in
order to avail himself of the goods and services offered there, and
because it is approximately 37 miles from his residence and is near
other businesses and restaurants he frequents as a patron. He plans
to return to the Commercial Property within 2 months of the filing
of this Complaint, in order to avail himself of the goods and
services offered at the place of public accommodation and check if
it has been remediated of the ADA violations he encountered.

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

The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate.

TEQUESTA MALL LLC, owned and operated the commercial buildings
located at 150 North US Highway 1, Tequesta, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Seek OK of Settlement
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARRY KUSHELOWITZ and
KERRI BALDWIN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, USA, INC. and TEVA SALES AND
MARKETING, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-07599-SDW-JRA (D.N.J.), the
Plaintiffs will move the Court on Oct. 21, 2024, for an order
approving the Parties' settlement of collective action and
authorizing notice of settlement and dismissal with prejudice.

Teva is an Israeli multinational pharmaceutical company,
specializing primarily in generic drugs.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 13, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Qd9CEM at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paolo Meireles, Esq.
          Tamra Givens, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael G. Greenfield, Esq.
          Larry J. Rappoport, Esq.
          STEVENS & LEE, P.C.
          1500 Market Street
          East Tower, Suite 1800
          Philadelphia, PA 19102

THERAPYMATCH INC: Court Narrows Claims in M.G. Data Privacy Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as, M.G., Plaintiff, v.
THERAPYMATCH, INC., v. Defendant, Case No. 23-cv-04422-AMO (N.D.
Calif.), Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California granted in
part and denied in part Therapymatch's motion to dismiss the data
privacy case.

Defendant Therapymatch, Inc. d/b/a Headway is a private company
that has an online platform to provide users with access to mental
health providers. First Amended Complaint. The website allows users
to search Headway's clinician database based on specified
preferences regarding language, race, ethnicity, gender, and more.
Headway embeds Google Analytics code on its website, which allows
Google to intercept and collect Headway website users' protected
mental health information. Headway does not disclose that medical
information is being shared with Google to improve Google's
analytics services, software, and algorithms.

Plaintiff M.G. began using Headway's online platform to search for
a mental health professional in May 2023. M.G. provided personal
information on the website, including his name, address, cellular
phone number, health insurance provider, group identification
number, and employer. He also specified that he was looking for
therapy related to two specific, unidentified, mental health
conditions. Google intercepted M.G.'s communications with Headway,
including the mental health conditions he searched, the treatment
he was seeking, provider preferences, and appointment details.
Google used M.G. and other class member's information to provide
analytics services to Headway and to improve its own software and
algorithms, as well as provide marketing services and offerings.

M.G. filed a putative class action complaint on July 6, 2023, in
the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda. Headway timely
removed the action to federal court on August 25, 2023, under the
Class Action Fairness Act. M.G. filed the First Amended Complaint,
the operative complaint, on October 3, 2023, alleging six causes of
action:

   (1) violation of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act,
Cal. Civ. Code Secs. 56.06, 56.101, 56.10;
   (2) aiding and abetting violation of the CMIA, Cal. Civ. Code
Sec. 56.36;
   (3) aiding and abetting unlawful interception under the
California Invasion of Privacy Act Cal. Pen. Code Sec. 631,
   (4) unlawful recording of and eavesdropping upon confidential
information under CIPA, Cal. Pen. Code Sec. 632,
   (5) invasion of privacy, Cal. Const. Art. 1 Sec. 1, and (6)
violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civ. Code
Secs. 1798.100(e), 1798.81.5(b).

On November 2, 2023, Headway filed the instant motion seeking to
dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.  

Because the Court cannot determine whether M.G.'s substantive
medical information was disclosed, the Court grants the motion to
dismiss the CMIA claim with leave to amend. Because the Court
dismisses the underlying CMIA cause of action, it also grants the
motion to dismiss the claim for aiding and abetting a violation of
the CMIA.

The Court denies the motion to dismiss the remaining claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated September 16, 2024, is
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CJxh8J


THOMSON REUTERS: Jackson Suit Removed to N.D. West Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michael Jackson, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. THOMSON REUTERS AMERICA CORPORATION,
Case No. CC-04-2024-C-42 was removed from the Circuit Court of
Braxton County, West Virginia, to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of West Virginia on Sept. 17, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00088-TSK.

The Complaint alleges that Defendant violated Daniel's Law by
"disclosing, redisclosing, or otherwise making available the home
addresses and unpublished home or personal telephone numbers of
thousands of West Virginia's active, formerly active, or retired
judicial officers, prosecutors, federal or state public defenders,
federal or state assistant public defenders, and law-enforcement
officers, whom Defendant knows to reside in West Virginia,"
including Plaintiff's "home address and/or unpublished home or
personal telephone number(s)."[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Luke T. Schmitt, Esq.
          FLAHERTY SENSABAUGH BONASSO, PLLC
          1225 Market Street
          P.O. Box 6545
          Wheeling, WV 26003
          Phone: (304) 230-6600
          Facsimile: (304) 230-6610
          Email: lschmitt@flahertylegal.com


TJAR GROUP: Pacheco Seeks Unpaid Wages for Construction Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
DARGUIN JOEL LOPEZ PACHECO, YUGERIS ALEXI LOPEZ PACHECO, YIMER JOEL
PACHECO, SELVIN MATEO LOPEZ DURON, MILTON DANERY LOPEZ DURON, MATEO
LOPEZ BUSTILLO, JOSE ANIVAL AREVALO RIVERA, and ISIDRO DE JESUS
BUSTILLO HERRERA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. TJAR GROUP CORP. and WANG LAM, Defendants,
Case No. 1:24-cv-06522 (E.D.N.Y., September 17, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide
wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as construction workers at
any time between 2018 and 2024.

TJAR Group Corp. is a construction company based in Whitestone, New
York. [BN]

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

TRANSCORE LP: Court Grants in Part Bids to Dismiss Thomas Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JULIE E. THOMAS (ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND
THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED), Plaintiffs v. TRANSCORE, LP. and
PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE COMMISSION, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-01040-SHR (M.D. Pa.), Judge Sylvia H. Rambo of the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania grants in
part and denies in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss.

In this civil case involving the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission's
E-ZPass program, the Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint
for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. For the
reasons set forth in this Memorandum, the motions will be granted
in part and denied in part.

The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission is a transportation agency of
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that operates and maintains the
Turnpike and other roadways within Pennsylvania. The Commission is
charged with operating the Turnpike's E-ZPass program, which is an
electronic tolling system instituted in 2002 to allow vehicles
equipped with E-ZPass transponders to bypass traffic and congestion
at toll booths by using the electronic toll-collection lanes of
toll roads without having to stop to pay tolls with cash.

The Commission is a member of E-ZPass Group, which facilitates the
use of the E-ZPass system across multiple states. Customers, who
obtain E-ZPass transponders from a participating state agency, may
use them to travel on roadways operated by other states' agencies.
They are assessed a fee equal to the toll charged by the Commission
or other E-ZPass agencies each time the E-ZPass transponder is read
at a toll plaza. The E-ZPass program has been advertised as
providing users with a discounted toll rate compared to the rate
paid by drivers using the default toll-by-plate system.

To activate an E-ZPass account, a customer must provide the
Commission with their driver's license and the license plate number
that will be associated with the transponder. They are also
required to agree to either automatically or manually replenish
their account. If they choose to have their account automatically
replenished, they must agree to secure the account with a credit or
ACH bank card, which will be charged a minimum of $35 per E-ZPass
transponder when the associated account dips below $10.

The Commission provides customers with a pre-printed E-ZPass
Agreement (the "Agreement"). The Agreement explains, in pertinent
part, that the transponder remains property of the Commission and
that the customer agrees to correctly mount, display, and use the
transponder in accordance with the instructions provided by the
E-ZPass Customer Service Center. In addition, it outlines
assessment of fees. It further states that failure to mount the
E-ZPass transponder correctly may hinder toll collection and may
subject customers to a fine. The Agreement explains that the
customer accepts the terms of the Agreement upon first use of the
E-ZPass transponder.

The Commission has entrusted all aspects of the implementation,
maintenance, and toll collection of the E-ZPass system to its
agent, TransCore. Defendant TransCore is a Delaware limited
corporation with a principal place of business in Tennessee and
holds contracts with the Commission to implement and maintain its
tolling and E-ZPass systems.

Plaintiff Julie Thomas has routinely driven on the Pennsylvania
Turnpike using an E-ZPass transponder. According to the amended
complaint, the Plaintiff opened an E-ZPass account with the
Commission in 2012, and regularly used her transponder while
driving on the Turnpike and other toll roads in and around
Pennsylvania.

In June 2019, Thomas noticed that her E-ZPass account was being
replenished more frequently due to an increase in charges, and
after looking into it, she discovered that the additional
assessments did not coincide with the rates she should have been
charged for her corresponding travel. For example, she noticed that
her account had multiple $10 charges for short trips that should
have cost her a fraction of that amount based on where she entered
and exited the roadway. Each of these transactions were listed as
"V-Toll" transactions ("V-Tolls"), which are fines the Commission
assesses whenever a transponder fails to be electronically
recognized.

Upon discovering the excess charges and fines, the Plaintiff
contacted TransCore's Customer Service Center to inquire about the
debits. The representative, who took the call responded by accusing
the Plaintiff, without basis, of incorrectly mounting the
transponder to her windshield, yet also advised her that her
transponder needed to be replaced.

E-ZPass, thereafter, provided the Plaintiff with a partial refund
and sent her a replacement transponder. Despite the replacement
transponder and with it again being properly mounted, the Plaintiff
continued to be sporadically assessed V-Tolls against her account.

In November 2019, the Plaintiff again contacted the Customer
Service Center, which refunded additional money to her E-ZPass
Account, and again claimed that the debits were caused by an
incorrectly mounted transponder. A few days later, the Plaintiff's
E-ZPass account was assessed even more V-Tolls, but since the
account was so inflated from prior refunds, she never received any
replenishment notifications. The Plaintiff has yet to receive a
full refund for the unauthorized and excess charges, and the
Commission and TransCore continue to earn interest on the funds
that were refunded to her E-ZPass account.

On April 28, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action
complaint in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin
County. On June 14, 2021, TransCore removed the action to this
court. After preliminary motion practice, the Plaintiff filed an
amended complaint on May 19, 2023.

According to the amended complaint, the Defendants unlawfully
charged the Plaintiff and others with E-ZPass transponders that
were properly affixed excessive fines without any meaningful
warning or notice. The amended complaint alleges that, in many
cases, the unlawful charges reported to the Defendants were caused
by incompatible E-ZPass technology, and attempts by consumers to
appeal the fines ran head long into a complicated dispute process
and customer service representatives, who provided incorrect and
misleading information.

Even when a refund was secured, the automatic replenishment feature
of E-ZPass, resulted in funds being transferred from the consumer's
bank account to their pre-paid E-ZPass account, on which the
Defendants earned interest. The amended complaint also alleges that
TransCore intentionally and wrongfully assessed V-Tolls, as well as
V-Tolls that the Plaintiff was unable to dispute.

The Plaintiff seeks judgment against the Defendants for monetary
and declaratory relief on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated.

Against TransCore, the Plaintiff claims: (1) a violation of
Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law
("UTPCPL") (Count I); (2) fraudulent concealment (Count II); (3)
fraudulent misrepresentation (Count III); (4) breach of contract
(Count IV); (5) conversion (Count V); and (6) unjust enrichment
(Count VI). Against the Commission, the Plaintiff claims: (1)
unjust enrichment (Count VI) and (2) negligent conversion (Count
VII). Additionally, Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment (Count
VIII) against both Defendants as to whether TransCore, as agent of
the Commission, may assess penalties and fines, such as V-Tolls.

The Defendants have moved to dismiss the amended complaint for lack
of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. TransCore argues that
the Plaintiff fails to state a claim for breach of contract against
it.

According to Judge Rambo, the Plaintiff does not plead privity of
contract between herself and TransCore, but rather between herself
and the Commission by way of the Agreement. As such, Judge Rambo
holds that the Plaintiff's claim for breach of contract against
TransCore fails as a matter of law.

Judge Rambo finds, among other things, that the Plaintiff has
failed to plausibly plead that TransCore committed any unlawful
method, act, or practice. Rather than identifying TransCore's
alleged wrongful conduct with any specificity, the amended
complaint provides only a verbatim recitation of various categories
of acts defined as "unfair or deceptive acts or practices" in the
UTPCPL. The Plaintiff's vague allegations, thus, are insufficient
to state a claim under Section 201-2(4)(xxi).

Judge Rambo also finds, among other things, that the Plaintiff's
fraud claims, fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent
concealment, are insufficiently plead. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's
claims for fraud will be dismissed.

The Plaintiff's claim for conversion is based on the notion that
the Defendants overcharged her for tolls and fines when her
transponder did not register properly, Judge Rambo notes. However,
the Plaintiff affirmatively consented to tolls and fines being
charged in these circumstances. Because an owner's consent defeats
a claim for conversion, Judge Rambo points out that the Plaintiff
has failed to state a plausible claim.

Judge Rambo finds that the Plaintiff also fails to plausibly allege
a claim for unjust enrichment against TransCore. Thus, the
Plaintiff has not plausibly pled that TransCore was unjustly
enriched by its collection of fees on behalf of the Commission.
Further, the Plaintiff made payments through her E-ZPass account
due to a contractual duty to do so. The notion that TransCore may
have somehow incidentally benefitted from the Plaintiff fulfilling
her duties is not sufficient to sustain an unjust enrichment claim.
Thus, Judge Rambo holds this count will also be dismissed.

The Plaintiff also brings an unjust enrichment claim against the
Commission, which is necessarily different than that against
Transcore, given the contractual relationship between the Plaintiff
and the Commission. As noted previously, Judge Rambo says a claim
of unjust enrichment will not lie where a valid contact or written
agreement exists between the parties.

Here, neither the Plaintiff nor the Commission question the
existence or validity of the Agreement and the Plaintiff has not
alleged conduct that is outside the bounds of the Agreement. The
unjust enrichment claim against the Commission will, therefore, be
dismissed with prejudice.

Next, the Plaintiff brings a claim of negligent conversion against
the Commission. Whether this claim exists at all under Pennsylvania
law is unclear, but even accepting that a claim for negligent
conversion exists, Judge Rambo opines that it would need to
overcome the Commission's sovereign immunity. Judge Rambo also
dismisses the Plaintiff's negligent conversion claim against the
Commission.

The final issue is whether the Plaintiff should be granted leave to
amend her amended complaint. Due to the applicable liberal pleading
standard, Judge Rambo explains that a plaintiff should generally be
granted leave to amend before a court dismisses a claim that is
merely deficient.

In accordance with this standard, the Court concludes that it would
be futile to grant the Plaintiff leave to refile with respect to
Counts IV, V, VI, and VII. The other claims will be dismissed
without prejudice to the Plaintiff's right to file an amended
complaint within thirty days of this order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated Aug. 29, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yapz85z8 from PacerMonitor.com.


TRIDENT RESTORATION: Ortega Seeks to Certify Class of Workers
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGEL ORTEGA and JORGE
NAVARRO, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated
individuals, v. TRIDENT RESTORATION, INC., TRI CONTRACTING, INC.,
UKROP, INC., FINE RESTORATION, INC., REVIVE RESTORATION, INC.,
SWIFT ASSIST, INC., PG1 CONSTRUCTION, INC., CROWN RESTORATION,
INC., RSO MANAGEMENT, INC., 558 MAIN STREET, LLC, 115 ABEEL STREET,
LLC, 2165 23RD STREET LLC, TRI BUILDERS, INC., TRITON RENOVATION
CORP., TRIDENT RENOVATION & ASSOCIATES, INC., TRIDENT MGMT RE LLC,
64- 66 CATHERINE STREET CORP., BROOKLYN BUILDING SUPPLY, INC., TRI
CONTRACTING, INC., CVP CONSTRUCTION CORP., JMS MICH LLC, STEFAN
BOHDANOWYCZ, PETER GOIAN, and VLADIMER DOBRONRAVOV, Case No.
1:23-cv-01927-JGLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for and
order:

   (1) Certifying a Class defined as:

       "all construction workers (including but not limited to
       helpers, carpenters, masons, painters, and laborers) who (a)

       worked at jobsites managed by Defendants Trident
Restoration,
       Inc. or Tri Contracting, Inc. at any time on or after March
6,
       2017 and (b) were paid an hourly rate of pay or a flat daily

       rate of pay;

   (2) Appointing Angel Ortega and Jorge Navarro as Class
       Representatives;

   (3) Appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel as Class Counsel;

   (4) Directing the Defendants to produce to the Plaintiffs a
       Microsoft Excel list, in electronic format, of all Class
       Members' names, last known address, all known telephone
       numbers, dates of employment, and job titles; and

   (5) Authorizing the mailing of the proposed Notice to all Class

       Members.
Trident provides home and commercial damage restoration services.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
          Josef Nussbaum, Esq.
          Lucas C. Buzzard, Esq.
          JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
          32 Broadway, Suite 601
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 688-5640
          Facsimile: (212) 688-2548


TRTCLE CORP: Discloses Video Buying Habits to Meta, Comarow Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID COMAROW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRTCLE, CORP., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-07096 (S.D.N.Y., August 18, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has disclosed to Meta
Platforms, Inc. (Facebook) information regarding the prerecorded
video viewing and buying habits of the visitors on its website
without consent. The Defendant embedded within the website a "Meta
Pixel" that was provided by Facebook. That pixel tracked the
Plaintiff's and the Class members' video viewing history while on
the website and reported their viewing history to Facebook. As a
result, the Defendant violated the Plaintiff's and the Class
members' statutorily protected privacy rights, says the suit.

TRTCLE, Corp. is a company that operates an online digital library
of pre-recorded video materials, headquartered in New York, New
York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Arun Ravindran, Esq.
         Julie E. Holt, Esq.
         HEDIN LLP
         1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 610
         Miami, FL 33131
         Telephone: (305) 357-2107
         Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
         Email: aravindran@hedinllp.com
                jholt@hedinllp.com

TWITTER INC: Seeks to Maintain Portions of Exhibits Under Seal
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK SCHOBINGER, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. TWITTER, INC. and
X CORP., Case No. 3:23-cv-03007-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask
the Court to enter an order to maintain under seal the portions of
Exhibits 2, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, and 17 to the Berry Declaration
identified in this motion and the Gilbert Declaration.

With the Court's permission, X will file more narrowly redacted
copies of Exhibits 2, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, and 17 that redact only
the sensitive financial information and personal information
identified in this motion to seal and the supporting Gilbert
Declaration.

The Defendant has both good cause and compelling reasons to seal
the portions of Exhibits 2, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, and 17 to the
Berry Declaration that contain confidential financial information
related to X's labor costs as well as information regarding
sensitive and non-public business information related to X's
financial and strategic planning, and certain private personal
information.

These documents contain precisely the type of sensitive information
that, if published, could cause "unfair advantage and irreparably
harm [d]efendant" because it could be used by a competitor to gain
competitive advantage.

Twitter provides online social networking and microblogging
service.

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Eric Meckley, Esq.
          Brian D. Berry, Esq.
          Ashlee N. Cherry, Esq.
          Kassia Stephenson, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One Market, Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
          Telephone: (415) 442-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
          E-mail: eric.meckley@morganlewis.com
                  brian.berry@morganlewis.com
                  ashlee.cherry@morganlewis.com
                  kassia.stephenson@morganlewis.com


TWITTER INC: Zeman Suit Seeks to Conditionally Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN ZEMAN, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. TWITTER, INC. and X
CORP., Case No. 3:23-cv-01786-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying and
authorizing the issuance of notice to the proposed collective,
which is defined as:

    "all employees across the United States age 50 or older who
lost
    their jobs at Twitter following Elon Musk's acquisition of the

    company."

This Court should grant Zeman's motion for conditional
certification and allow putative collective action members to
receive notice of their right to opt in and pursue this claim.
Although discovery has only recently begun, courts allow early
issuance of notice in order to help the Court efficiently manage
such cases by allowing it to "ascertain the contours of the action
at the outset," Zeman alleges.

The Plaintiff brought this suit on behalf of himself and similarly
situated older employees at Twitter who were laid off as part of a
massive reduction-in-force ("RIF") following billionaire Elon
Musk's purchase of the company in 2022.

Zeman filed this collective and class action lawsuit on April 13,
2023, asserting collective claims for age discrimination in
violation of the ADEA, and class claims under the New York State
Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), for employees who worked in New York.

On Feb. 21, 2024, Twitter filed a Motion to Dismiss the First
Amended Complaint. The Court denied this motion on April 19, 2024,
concluding that Zeman "has plausibly pled a claim of disparate
treatment."

Twitter provides online social networking and microblogging
service.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ckP75o at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Thomas Fowler, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
                  tfowler@llrlaw.com

TYSON FOODS: Seeks More Time to Respond to Pearson Class Cert Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH PEARSON, for herself
and all other similarly situated individuals, v. TYSON FOODS, INC.,
Case No. 4:23-cv-01080-BSM (E.D. Ark.), the Defendant asks the
Court to enter an order extending its time to respond to the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification until Oct. 1, 2024.

The Plaintiff filed her motion for class certification on sept. 3,
2024.

The class certification deadline was originally Aug. 12, 2024. On
the day of the deadline, the Plaintiff sought a two-week extension
of the deadline.

The Defendant's counsel anticipated competing obligations posed by
the extension's impact on the Defendant's response deadline. It
therefore agreed to not oppose Plaintiff's requested extension in
exchange for Plaintiff not opposing it having 28 days to respond to
the motion.

The Plaintiff's counsel agreed. Among other competing obligations,
Defendant's counsel are diligently working to meet a client's
September 24 grand jury subpoena deadline. They were also due to be
in trial this week, with the trial being taken off docket just a
few days ago.

The Plaintiff's counsel does not object to the requested extension
of time.

Tyson is an American multinational corporation based in Springdale,
Arkansas that operates in the food industry.

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Eva C. Madison, Esq.
          Kyle D. Kennedy, Esq.
          Curtis R. Summers, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          217 E. Dickson Street, Suite 204
          Fayetteville, AR 72701
          Telephone: (479) 582-6100
          E-mail: emadison@littler.com
                  kkennedy@littler.com
                  csummers@littler.com

UNITED 1ST: Sends Unsolicited Telephone Sales Calls, Ownby Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN OWNBY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED 1ST LENDING, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
8:24-cv-02190 (M.D. Fla., September 17, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending
unsolicited text messages to consumers' cellular telephone numbers,
including the Plaintiff's number, in an attempt to promote its loan
products and services. The Plaintiff and similarly situated
consumers never signed any type of authorization permitting or
allowing the placement of prerecorded sales or marketing calls. The
Defendant's telephonic sales calls caused the Plaintiff and the
Class members harm, including liquidated actual damages,
inconvenience, invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, and
violation of their statutory privacy rights, the suit says.

United 1st Lending, LLC is a provider of loan products and
services, with its principal place of business in Miami Beach,
Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
         HIRALDO P.A.
         401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
         Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
         Telephone: (954) 400-4713
         Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com        

                 - and -

         Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq.
         KUHN RASLAVICH, P.A.
         2110 West Platt Street
         Tampa, FL 33606
         Telephone: (813) 422-7782
         Facsimile: (813) 422-7783
         Email: ben@theKRfirm.com

UNITED HEALTHCARE: Non-Dispositive Bids Referred to Mag. Judge
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jay Kripalani M.D. P.C. v.
United HealthCare Group, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-05671 (E.D.N.Y.,
Filed Aug. 14, 2024), the Hon. Judge Nusrat Jahan Choudhury entered
an order on motion for extension of time to answer Choudhury's
individual rules, unless the Court directs otherwise, all
non-dispositive motions -- except class certification petitions and
motions related or attached to dispositive motions -- are referred
to the assigned Magistrate Judge, including motions to extend time
to serve, answer, or file amended pleadings.

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

UnitedHealth is an American multinational health insurance and
services company based in Minnetonka, Minnesota.[CC]




UNITED MORTGAGE: Bid to Deny Class Cert Should Be OK'd, Court Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIK MATTSON, v. UNITED
MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Case No. 3:18-cv-00996-YY (D. Or.), the Hon.
Judge Youlee Yim You entered an order recommending that the
Defendant's motion to deny class certification should be granted.

-- The Findings and Recommendations will be referred to a
district
    judge. Objections, if any, are due Monday, September 30, 2024.
If
    no objections are filed, then the Findings and Recommendations

    will go under advisement on that date. If objections are filed,

    then a response is due within 14 days after being served with a

    copy of the objections. When the response is due or filed,
    whichever date is earlier, the Findings and Recommendations
will
    go under advisement.

-- The Plaintiff still bears the burden of establishing that he
meets
    the adequacy, typicality, and commonality requirements under
Rule
    23. And as in the New Penn case, plaintiff cannot meet the
    typicality or commonality requirements of Rule 23(a) because
    individual questions concerning whether he is a residential
    subscriber subject to the TCPA's protections still risk
becoming a
    focus of this litigation and thus class certification is
    inappropriate.

This case is one of three similar cases that plaintiff Erik Mattson
has brought against the defendants United Mortgage Corporation
(this case), New Penn Financial, LLC (No. 3:18-cv-00990-YY), and
Quicken Loans Inc. (No. 3:18-cv-00989-YY).

In each case, the plaintiff brought a purported class action claim
alleging that defendant made telephone solicitations in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA").

United Mortgage is a Melville, NY-based mortgage lender with a rich
history of assisting clients with their home financing needs.

A copy of the Court's findings and recommendations dated July 1,
2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hEt0cL at no extra charge.[CC]

UNITED ROAD: Class Action Settlement in Sales Suit Gets Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENSON M. SALES, et al.,
v. UNITED ROAD SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-08404-JST
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the class action
settlement.

-- The Court also grants Plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees,
    litigation costs, and settlement administrator award. Class
    Counsel is entitled to $1,875,000 in attorney's fees and
    $27,320.60 in litigation costs. The settlement administrator is

    entitled to $11,000. The parties and settlement administrator
are
    directed to implement this order and the Joint Stipulation in
    accordance with their terms.

-- Class counsel shall file a post-distribution accounting within
21
    days after the distribution of settlement funds. In addition to

    the information contained in the Northern District of
California's
    Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements, available at

    https://cand.uscourts.gov/forms/procedural-guidance-for-class-
    action-settlements, the postdistribution accounting shall
discuss
    any significant or recurring concerns communicated by class
    members to the settlement administrator or counsel since final

    approval, any other issues in settlement administration since
    final approval, and how any concerns or issues were resolved.

-- The Court will withhold 10% of the attorney's fees granted in
this
    order until the post-distribution accounting has been filed.
Class
    counsel shall file a proposed order releasing the remainder of
the
    fees when they file their post-distribution accounting.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action against Defendant alleging
violations of California's labor code and unfair competition law.

They represent a class of

   "all individuals who signed Independent Contractor Service
   Agreements with URS, who were assigned to a business unit in
   California, and who drove in California at any time from
November
   18, 2015 to [March 29, 2022]."

The Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release of Class Action
Claims

United Road Services is a leading national provider of a broad
array of motor vehicle transport, towing and recovery services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2BTFzJ at no extra
charge.[CC]

UNITED STATES: Burton Seeks to Certify Class of Vietnam Veterans
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN BURTON, a/k/a Jamaal
Ali Bilal, and all other unnamed defendants, v. UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, DENNIS RICHARD MCDONOUGH and DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS, et al., Case No. 8:23-cv-01372-CEH-SPF (M.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order appointing class counsel
to represent the proposed class:

   "All Honorably Discharged Vietnam veterans (or Vietnam-era
veterans
   or older World War veterans), who were because of the age
   requirement outlined in the Veterans Rapid Retraining Assistance

   Program (VRRAP), are ineligible to participate in VRRAP due to
the
   sixty-six (66) age limit."

USA is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North
America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=P8nqzM at no extra
charge.[CC]

UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO: Bid for Class Cert Due Nov. 21
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE 1, et al., v.
UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al. Case No. 3:22-cv-01559-LB (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Laurel Beeler entered a case scheduling order
as follows:

                   Case Event                Filing Date/Disclosure

                                              Deadline/Hearing
Date

  Updated joint case-management-conference       Oct. 3, 2024
  Statement:

  Further case-management conference:            Oct. 10, 2024

  Plaintiffs' motion for class certification,    Nov. 21, 2024
  including class expert reports:

  Defendants' opposition to class                Dec. 19, 2024
  certification, including class expert
  reports:

  Plaintiffs' reply ISO class certification,     Jan. 1, 2026
  including rebuttal reports

  Hearing on class-certification                 Jan. 30, 2025
  motion/further case-management
  conference/further case-management
  conference:

University of San Francisco is a private Jesuit university in San
Francisco, California.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4pS0ur at no extra
charge.[CC]

UNIVERSITY OF SCRANTON: Nouri Seeks Initial Approval of Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL NOURI, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. UNIVERSITY OF
SCRANTON, Case No. 3:23-cv-01362-KM (M.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23:

   (1) Preliminarily approving the proposed Settlement on behalf of

       the Settlement Class Members according to the terms of the
       Stipulation of Settlement;

   (2) Provisionally certifying, for purposes of the Settlement
only,
       the following Settlement Class:

       "All enrolled students at Scranton during the Spring 2020
       semester who paid any Tuition and/or Fees, or who were
credited
       with having paid the same and who were registered for at
least
       one in-person class during the Spring 2020 semester";

   (3) Preliminarily appointing Named Plaintiff Michael Nouri as
       Settlement Class Representative;

   (4) Preliminarily appointing Nicholas A. Colella of Lynch
       Carpenter, LLP, and Anthony M. Alesandro of Leeds Brown Law,

       P.C. as Class Counsel to act on behalf of the Settlement
Class
       and the Settlement Class Representative with respect to the

       Settlement;

   (5) Approving the Parties' proposed settlement procedure,
including
       approving the Parties' selection of A.B. Data, Ltd. as
       Settlement Administrator and approving the Parties' proposed

       schedule;

   (6) Entering the proposed Order Preliminarily Approving the
       Proposed Settlement and Provisionally Certifying the
Proposed
       Settlement Class, attached as Exhibit A to the Settlement
       Agreement, which is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration
of
       Nicholas A. Colella; and

   (7) Granting such other and further relief as may be just and
       appropriate.
Oral argument is requested to the extent desired by the Court.

University of Scranton is a Catholic and Jesuit institution.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          E-mail: NickC@lcllp.com

                - and -

          Anthony M. Alesandro, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550
          E-mail: aalesandro@leedsbrownlaw.com

UPPER ECHELON: Ortiz Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH ORTIZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UPPER ECHELON PRODUCTS LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-00880 (W.D.N.Y., September 17, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act and the New York State 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://upperechelonproducts.com, contains access barriers which
hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its
online goods, content, and services offered to the public through
the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but
not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text) or a text
equivalent, empty links that contain no text, 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.

Upper Echelon Products 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: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
              Dana@Gottlieb.legal
              Michael@Gottlieb.legal

USAA FEDERAL: Solana Sues Over Failure to Protect Customers' Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GERARDO SOLANA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. USAA FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, Defendant, Case
No. 525020/2024 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., September 16, 2024) is
a class action against the Defendant for negligence.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff
and similarly situated individuals following a data breach on its
network systems between December 20, 2022, and May 18, 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, says the suit.

USAA Federal Savings Bank is a financial services firm based in San
Antonio, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Rachel Dapeer, Esq.
         DAPEER LAW, P.A.
         3331 Sunset Avenue
         Ocean, NJ 07712
         Telephone: (917) 456-9603
         Email: rachel@dapeer.com

                 - and -

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

VALVE CORP: Time to Respond to Elliott Complaint Moved to Oct. 15
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JOHN ELLIOTT, RICARDO CAMARGO, JAVIER ROVIRA,
and BRADLY SMITH, Plaintiffs v. VALVE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 2:24-cv-01218-JCC (W.D. Wash.), Judge John C. Coughenour of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Seattle, approves the parties' stipulation to move the Defendant's
deadline to respond to the Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint to
Oct. 15, 2024.

On Aug. 9, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Class Action Complaint.
Defendant Valve Corporation was served via process on Aug. 23,
2024. The Defendant's deadline to respond to the Class Action
Complaint was Sept. 13, 2024.

The parties met and conferred on Aug. 27, 2024, and stipulate to
moving the Defendant's deadline to respond to the Class Action
Complaint to Oct. 15, 2024.

A full-text copy of the Court's Stipulation and Order dated Aug.
29, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc6nnp3k from
PacerMonitor.com.

Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Xiaoyi Fan --
kellyf@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, in Seattle,
WA 98101; Ben M. Harrington -- benh@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN
SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, in Berkeley, CA 94710; William Ward Bucher IV --
will@bucherlawfirm.com -- BUCHER LAW PLLC, in Albany, NY
12204-1000, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs.

Blake Marks-Dias -- bmarksdias@corrcronin.com -- Todd T. Williams
-- twilliams@corrcronin.com -- Eric A. Lindberg --
elindberg@corrcronin.com -- CORR CRONIN LLP, in Seattle, WA 98104,
Attorneys for Defendant Valve Corporation.

Richard M. Simins -- rsimins@mmwr.com -- Robert E. Day --
rday@mmwr.com -- Jessica Rizzo -- jrizzo@mmwr.com -- MONTGOMERY
McCRACKEN WALKER & RHOADS LLP, in Philadelphia, PA 19103, Attorneys
for Defendant Valve Corporation.


VERISOURCE SERVICES: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Fay Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM FAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VERISOURCE SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 4:24-cv-03492 (S.D. Tex., September 18, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, breach of third-party
beneficiary contract, 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 clients stored within its network
systems following a data breach on or about February 27, 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, says the suit.

VeriSource Services, Inc. is a company that provides employee
benefit administrative and enrollment solutions based in Houston,
Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Joe Kendall, Esq.
         KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
         3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
         Dallas, TX 75219
         Telephone: (214) 744-3000
         Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
         Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com

                 - and -

         John J. Nelson, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
         280 S. Beverly Drive
         Beverly Hills, CA 90212
         Telephone: (858) 209-6941
         Email: jnelson@milberg.com

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Parker Sues Over BIPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
THELTON GEORGE PARKER, JR.; and STEVEN DOYLE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VERIZON
COMMUNICATIONS INC.; and CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-08436 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 13, 2024)
alleges violation of the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants failed
to obtain the informed, written consent of their customers prior to
collecting and using their voiceprints. The Defendants never
informed Voice ID users that their biometric identifiers and
biometric information were being collected or stored—during the
initial enrollment process or during subsequent phone calls while
Voice ID was active and being used.

The Defendants also failed to inform customers of any specific
purpose for the collection or storage of their biometric
identifiers or biometric information, and failed to provide
customers a schedule setting out the length of time during which
those biometric identifiers or biometric information would be
collected, stored, used, or destroyed, says the suit.

Verizon Communications Inc. operates as a telecommunications
company. The Company provides wire line voice, data services,
wireless, and internet services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jon Loevy, Esq.
          Michael Kanovitz, Esq.
          Thomas M. Hanson, Esq.
          LOEVY & LOEVY
          311 North Aberdeen, 3rd Floor
          Chicago, IL 60607
          Telephone: (312) 243-5900
          Email: jon@loevy.com
                 mike@loevy.com
                 hanson@loevy.com

               - and -

          Brian Levin, Esq.
          Brandon T. Grzandziel, Esq.
          LEVIN LAW, P.A.
          2665 South Bayshore Drive, PH2
          Miami, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 402-9050
          Facsimile: (305) 676-4443
          Email: brian@levinlawpa.com
                 brandon@levinlawpa.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey B. Kaplan, Esq.
          Alexander M. Peraza, Esq.
          DIMOND KAPLAN & ROTHSTEIN, P.A.
          2665 South Bayshore Drive, PH-2B
          Miami, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 374-1920
          Facsimile: (305) 374-1961
          Email: jkaplan@dkrpa.com
                 aperaza@dkrpa.com

VERTIV CORP: Class Settlement Order Entered in Torok Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWRENCE TOROK, v. VERTIV
CORPORATION, Case No. 3:24-cv-01645-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
William Alsup entered an order re putative class actions and
factors to be evaluated for any proposed class settlement and
protocol for interviewing putative class members:

-- Adequacy of Representation

    Anyone seeking to represent a class, including a settlement
class,
    must affirmatively meet the Rule 23 standards, including
adequacy.

-- Cost-Benefit for Absent Class Members

    If the settlement will provide a full recovery, then much less

    will be required to justify the settlement than for a partial
    recovery, in which case the discount will have to be justified.


-- Claim Procedure

    A settlement that imposes a claim procedure rather than simply

    cutting checks to class members for the appropriate amount may

    impose too much of a burden on class members, especially if the

    claim procedure is onerous, or the period for submitting is too

    short, United States District Court Northern District of
    California or there is a likelihood of class members treating
the
    notice envelope as junk mail.

-- A Right to Opt Out is Not a Cure-All

    A borderline settlement proposal cannot be justified merely
    because absent class members may opt out if they wish. The
Court
    has (and counsel have) an independent, stand-alone duty to
assess
    whether the proposed class settlement is reasonable and
adequate.

-- Notice to Class Members

    The proposed class settlement contemplate that claims of absent

    class members will be released even for those whose class
notice
    is returned as undeliverable? Usually, the Court will not
    extinguish claims of individuals known to have received no
notice
    or who received no benefit (and/or for whom there is no way to

    send them a settlement check).

Vertiv manufactures electrical power equipment.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=w73yQw at no extra
charge.[CC]

VERTIV CORP: Initial Disclosures in Torok Due Sept. 25
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lawrence Torok, v. Vertiv
Corporation, Case No. 3:24-cv-01645-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
William Alsup entered a case management conference order pursuant
to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") and
Civil Local Rule 16-10:

   1. All initial disclosures under FRCP 26 must be completed by
Sept.  
      25, 2024, on pain of preclusion under FRCP 37(c), including
full
      and faithful compliance with FRCP 26(a)(1)(A)(iii).

   2. Leave to add any new parties or to amend pleadings must be
      sought by Nov. 7, 2024.

   3. Motion for Class Certification just be filed by Feb. 7, 2025
to
      be heard on a 49- day track.

   4. The non-expert discovery cut-off date shall be June 30, 2025.


   5. The last date for designation of expert testimony and
disclosure
      of full expert reports under FRCP 26(a)(2) as to any issue
      on which a party has the burden of proof ("opening reports")

      shall be June 30, 2025.

   6. The last date to file dispositive motions shall be Aug. 7,
2025.
      No dispositive motions shall be heard more than 35 days after

      this deadline, i.e., if any party waits until the last day to

      file, then the parties must adhere to the 35-day track in
order
      to avoid pressure on the trial date.

   7. The final pretrial conference shall be held on Nov. 5, 2025,
at
      2:00 p.m. Although the Court encourages argument and
      participation by younger attorneys, lead trial counsel must
      attend the final pretrial conference. For the form of
      submissions for the final pretrial conference and trial.

Vertiv manufactures electrical power equipment.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=23Bdju at no extra
charge.[CC]

W6LS INC: Faces Nash Suit Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
DOUGLAS NASH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. W6LS, INC. d/b/a WITHU LOANS, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-08506 (N.D. Ill., September 17, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending
unsolicited prerecorded calls to consumers' cellular telephone
numbers, including the Plaintiff's number, in an attempt to promote
its loan products and services. The Plaintiff and similarly
situated consumers never signed any type of authorization
permitting or allowing the placement of prerecorded sales or
marketing calls. The Defendant's telephonic sales calls caused the
Plaintiff and the Class members harm, including invasion of
privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of daily life,
says the suit.

W6LS, Inc., doing business as WithU Loans, is a provider of loan
products and services, located in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
         HIRALDO P.A.
         401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
         Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
         Telephone: (954) 400-4713
         Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com        

                 - and -

         Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq.
         KUHN RASLAVICH, P.A.
         2110 West Platt Street
         Tampa, FL 33606
         Telephone: (813) 422-7782
         Facsimile: (813) 422-7783
         Email: ben@theKRfirm.com

WALMART INC: Artistic Industries Sues Over Organized Retail Crime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Artistic Industries, LLC, Knight Distributing CO., d/b/a Regency
Cosmetics, Longstem Organizers Inc. and EZ-STEP Mobility, Inc.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
WALMART, INC., WAL-MART.COM USA, LLC, and THE PARTNERSHIPS AND
UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE "1", Case No.
1:24-cv-01044-UNA (D. Del., Sept. 17, 2024), is brought against the
Defendants Walmart, Inc. and Wal-Mart.com USA, LLC (collectively
"Walmart"), and the Fraudulent Sellers as a result of organized
retail crime.

Walmart and a network of third-party fraudulent sellers and their
co-conspirators ("Fraudulent Sellers") are engaging in an organized
retail crime ("ORC") on and using Walmart Marketplace (i.e.
Walmart's third-party U.S. eCommerce platform on Walmart.com and in
the Walmart App). In addition, Walmart has knowingly or recklessly
enabled, profited from, and not taken steps to prevent and stop the
ORC that is occurring on Walmart Marketplace.

The victims of Walmart's and the Fraudulent Sellers' deceptive,
fraudulent, anti-competitive, and unfair business practices are
Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Class who are legitimate
Amazon merchants, who sell their products on Amazon and control the
fulfillment of the orders that are placed with them on Amazon.com,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is an insurance company organized and existing under
the laws of the State of Illinois with its principal place of
business in Chicago, Illinois.

Holdings is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the State of Virginia with its principal place of business in
Boston, Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert J. Kriner, Esq.
          Scott M. Tucker, Esq.
          CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
          2711 Centerville Rd., Suite 201
          Wilmington, DE 19808
          Phone: 302-656-2500
          Fax: 302-656-9053
          Email: smt@chimicles.com

               - and -

          Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq.
          Kimberly M. Donaldson-Smith, Esq.
          Beena M. McDonald, Esq.
          Mariah Heinzerling, Esq.
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Phone: 610-642-8500
          Fax: 610-649-3633
          Email: nec@chimicles.com
                 kds@chimicles.com
                 bmm@chimicles.com
                 mh@chimicles.com


WALMART INC: Imposes Unlawful Tobacco Surcharges, Cunningham Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANNETTE M. CUNNINGHAM and SAMANTHA M. DENNIS, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
WALMART, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-01177 (E.D. Wis.,
September 16, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act and breach of
fiduciary duty.

The case arises from the Defendant's practice of charging a tobacco
surcharge that unjustly forces certain employees to pay higher
premiums for their health insurance. The Defendant does not provide
the required reasonable alternative standard, and even if it did,
it has failed to adequately notify employees about the availability
of such an alternative in all its plan communications.
Consequently, the Defendant's tobacco surcharge violates ERISA's
anti-discrimination provisions by imposing additional costs on
employees who use tobacco products without meeting the legal
requirements for a bona fide wellness program. As a result of the
imposition of the unlawful and discriminatory tobacco surcharge,
the Defendant enriched itself at the expense of the plan, resulting
in it receiving a windfall, says the suit.

Walmart, Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation
headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Oren Faircloth, Esq.
         David J. DiSabato, Esq.
         SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
         745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
         New York, NY 10151
         Telephone: (212) 532-1091
         Email: ofaircloth@sirillp.com
                ddisabato@sirillp.com

WALMART INC: McLean Sues Over Unsafe Apple Juice Products
---------------------------------------------------------
GARY MCLEAN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WALMART, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:24-cv-05189-TLB (W.D. Ark., September 11, 2024) arises from
Defendant's marketing and sale of apple juice products: Great Value
8oz Apple Juice in a 6 pack and Great Value 100% Apple Juice 64
oz.

Plaintiff McLean alleges that the said products are unfit for their
intended use because they contain inorganic arsenic above action
level set in industry guidance. The products recalled by Walmart
exceeded this standard (13.2 parts per billion), and the FDA gave
the recall a more urgent classification, saying the affected
product may temporarily cause adverse health consequences.
Moreover, Defendant failed to disclose to him that these products
were unsafe due to high levels of inorganic arsenic that exceed
industry standards, says the Plaintiff.

Headquartered Bentonville, AR, Walmart, Inc. operates discount
stores, supercenters, and neighborhood markets where it sells apple
juice products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob Dylan White, Esq.
          Russell Winburn, Esq.
          TAYLOR KING LAW
          410 N. Thompson St., Suite B
          Springdale, AR 72764
          Telephone: (479) 935-1761
          Facsimile: (479) 334-5069
          E-mail: jacobwhite@taylorkinglaw.com
                  russellwinburn@taylorkinglaw.com

                  - and -

          Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
          POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC
          32 Ann Street
          Charleston, SC 29403
          Telephone: (803) 222-2222
          E-mail: pauldoolittle@poulinwilley.com
                  cmad@poulinwilley.com

WARNER BROS: Visually Impaired Can't Access Website, Herrera Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EDERY HERRERA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WARNER BROS. DISCOVERY, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-07075 (S.D.N.Y., September 18, 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://hgtv.com/shopping, contains access barriers which hinder
the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text) or a text
equivalent, empty links that contain no text, 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.

Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. 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: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
              Dana@Gottlieb.legal
              Michael@Gottlieb.legal

WATSON CLINIC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Viviani Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES VIVIANI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WATSON CLINIC LLP, Defendant, Case No.
8:24-cv-02157 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 12, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard
personal identifiable information of Defendant's current and former
patients.

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, by obtaining,
collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the PII of the
Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable
duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that
information from unauthorized access and intrusion. Defendant
admits that the exfiltrated information included name, address,
birthdate, Social Security number or similar government identifier,
driver's license number, financial account information, and/or
medical information, which may include details such as diagnoses,
treatments, or medical record numbers.

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

As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff's PII was exfiltrated by
an unauthorized actor. The confidentiality of Plaintiff's PII has
been irreparably harmed. For the rest of his life, the Plaintiff
will have to worry about when and how his PII may be shared or used
to his detriment, says the suit.

Watson Clinic LLP provides comprehensive medical services to
customers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Faces Class Suit Over Foreclosure Sale Profits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gino Vicci of CBS News reports that a class-action lawsuit against
the Wayne County Treasurer's Office alleges the county is not
properly refunding some residents who lost their homes because of
unpaid taxes.

"Wayne County needs to be transparent. Wayne County knows every
single victim who they took this money from," said David Shea of
the Shea Law Group.

Shea is representing a client in a class action lawsuit against the
county for failing to refund some homeowners.

"You have the counties that are going in and looking at unpaid
taxes and foreclosing on properties, selling off those properties
and making a massive windfall," Shea said.

Shea said this legal fight began in 2014 when his firm represented
a client who lost his investment property in Oakland County for
less than $10 in unpaid taxes.

"$8.41 deficiency, and Oakland County foreclosed on a $60,000
property and sold it for $25,000 and pocketed all the money. The
only thing they were entitled to was their $8.41, but they took all
the rest of Mr. Rafaeli's money," Shea said. "Our team took that
all the way up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said that
the government can't take your money, that that is government
theft."

Shea said Oakland County changed its course and refunded money to
tax-foreclosed homeowners after it faced a lawsuit from Rafaeli.
The case that made it all the way to the State Supreme Court is
referred to as Rafaeli v. Oakland County.

Meanwhile, Shea said Wayne County has refused to comply with the
same decision even after a federal lawsuit as well as a civil class
action suit.

"We've done a FOIA request; others have attempted; they will not
produce the information," Shea said.

A spokesperson for Wayne County Executive Warren Evans responded
with this statement:

"Unfortunately, many rightful claimants remain stuck in drawn-out
litigation, caught in the middle of these lawyers' pursuit of
profit.

Shortly after the Michigan Supreme Court's decision in Rafaeli v.
Oakland County, class action attorneys targeted Wayne County and
other Michigan counties seeking to profit off former tax-foreclosed
property owners. These attorneys settled with Oakland County in
2022, taking over $13 million of a $38 million settlement while
property owners received only $12 million. Some of these lawyers
have since been sanctioned for ethical violations and dishonesty.

Meanwhile, the Michigan Legislature passed Public Acts 255 and 256
in 2020, offering a fairer process for property owners to claim
surplus proceeds. Currently, the United States Sixth Circuit is
considering Wayne County's appeal of class certification in the
Bowlers v. Wayne County case, which is set to be argued on October
30th. The class is represented by the same class action counsel who
have been sanctioned and reprimanded. Wayne County has requested an
expedited decision, so interest holders have time to make claims
for proceeds before the March 31, 2025 deadline.

Upon the Rafaeli v. Oakland County ruling, the Wayne County
Treasurer's Office set aside millions of non-general fund dollars
to pay for the claims. In the weeks to come, Wayne County and the
Wayne County Treasurer will provide additional outreach to the
public to make sure that people are aware of the claims process to
claim what they may be rightfully entitled, which will be through
the Wayne County Circuit Court." [GN]

WEATHERMAN INC: Ortiz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Ortiz, for himself and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, v. WEATHERMAN INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00878
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 16, 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://weathermanumbrella.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 the
computer.

WEATHERMAN INC., operates the Weatherman Umbrella online retail
store, as well as the Weatherman Umbrella interactive Website and
advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and
throughout the United S.[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
                 dana@gottlieb.legal


WELLPATH LLC: Faling-Davis Suit Set for Scheduling Conference
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Faling-Davis v. WellPath
LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03017 (E.D. Wash., Filed Feb. 7, 2023), the
Hon. Judge Mary K. Dimke entered an order notifying the parties
that this matter will be set for a scheduling conference for
further proceedings in a forthcoming notice.

To date, the Plaintiff has not filed a motion for class
certification. Accordingly, the Court construes Plaintiff to have
decided not to file a motion for class certification in this
matter.

On July 2, 2024, the Court granted the Plaintiff's second motion to
extend the deadline for Plaintiff to move for class certification
and reset that deadline for Aug. 30, 2024.

The nature of suit states Labor Litigation.[CC]

WELLS FARGO: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Perez Due April 30, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SABRINA PEREZ, TANNER TOM,
ARIC VICKREY, and ANDREJ SIMUNAC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., and WELLS
FARGO & COMPANY, Case No. 2:24-cv-04077-ODW-AS (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright II entered an order granting stipulation
to continue class certification deadline as follows:

   1. The Parties shall disclose experts for class certification,
if
      any, by Feb. 28, 2025;

   2. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be due on
April
      30, 2025;

   3. Defendants' opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class
      certification shall be due June 16, 2025;

   4. Plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion for class
      certification shall be due July 7, 2025.

Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services
company.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2hmWFD at no extra
charge.[CC]

WESTERN REFINING: Parties Must Confer Class Action Worksheet
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Steve Barden v. Western
Refining Retail, LLC, et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-01360-MEMF-SK (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting Plaintiff's Ex
Parte Application.

-- However, the Court will allow the parties to further meet and
    confer about the specific deadlines related to the class
    certification motion in addition to all further deadlines in
the
    case.

-- The Court orders that the parties meet and confer and submit
the
    Class Action Worksheet, found on the Court's website, no later

    than 14 days from the date of this Order.

-- The Court finds that both prongs have been met—first,
Plaintiff's
    deadline to file his class certification motion is in six
weeks'
    time, and to the extent that Plaintiff does not have sufficient

    time to conduct discovery and prepare his motion, he would be
    irreparably harmed by either missing the deadline or filing a
    less-than fulsome motion.

-- Moreover, although the Court understands that Plaintiff
previously
    stipulated and knowingly agreed to the current deadline of
October
    11 as the deadline to file the motion, the Court does not find

    Plaintiff to be solely at fault to the state of affairs
requiring
    the relief requested.

-- The Court notes that Defendant has identified no harm from the

    requested continuance. Given that, and that the parties are
still
    in the process of meeting and conferring about further pretrial

    deadlines and the trial date of this case, the Court does not
find
    that the Defendant will be prejudiced in any way by a
continuance.

-- On May 24, 2024, the parties in this matter filed a joint
    stipulation to continue the deadlines set by the Civil Trial
Order
    related to the motion for class certification, due to a
mediation
    scheduled for Aug. 28, 2024.

-- On Sept. 4, 2024, the Plaintiff filed the instant Ex Parte
    Application to continue the deadlines related to the class
    certification motion.

Western Refining engages in the business of refining and marketing
crude oil and refined products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OFEA7d at no extra
charge.[CC]

WORLDPAC INC: Application to Briefly Continue Deadlines Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLOS ANAYA, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. WORLDPAC, INC.; ADVANCED
AUTO PARTS; and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No.
8:23-cv-02184-DOC-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge David Carter
entered an order denying the Parties' joint ex parte application to
briefly continue class certification and trial related-deadlines.

Worldpac operates as an automotive parts wholesaler and distributor
company.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CJOfd5 at no extra
charge.[CC]

WORLDPAC INC: Parties Seek to Continue Class Cert Deadlines
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLOS ANAYA, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. WORLDPAC, INC.;
ADVANCED AUTO PARTS; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No.
8:23-cv-02184-DOC-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff and the Defendants
will jointly apply for an order briefly continuing class
certification and trial-related deadlines.

This Application is made pursuant to this Court's Standing Order
section V, and Central District of California Local Rules 7-19 and
7-19.1, on the grounds that there is good cause to continue the
class certification and trial-related deadlines in this Action.

The Parties bring this ex parte application in lieu of a Joint
Motion because a noticed motion could not reasonably be heard prior
to the Plaintiff's upcoming October 7, 2024 deadline to file his
motion for class certification.

Worldpac distributes motor vehicle equipment and aftermarket
replacement automotive parts.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=To6OKP at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
          Cassandra A. Castro, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
          E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                  vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
                  ccastro@lelawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Adam Y. Siegel, Esq.
          Orlando J. Arellano, Esq.
          Robert Yang, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
          Telephone: (213) 689-0404
          Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
          E-mail: Adam.Siegel@jacksonlewis.com
                  Orlando.Arellano@jacksonlewis.com
                  Rob.Yang@jacksonlewis.com

WYETH INC: Class Action Settlement in PDCI Gets Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PROFESSIONAL DRUG COMPANY,
INC. v. WYETH, INC. (EFFEXOR XR ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No.
3:11-cv-05479-ZNQ-JBD (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Zahid Quraishi
entered an order granting final approval of class action
settlement:

-- Appointed Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs as class
representatives.

-- Appointed Carella, Byren, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnell, P.C.
as
    Lead Counsel.

-- Appointed Wexler Boley & Elgersman LLP, et al as Settlement
Class
    Counsel.

-- Appointed Citibank, NA as Escrow Agent.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=i4jG8H at no extra
charge.[CC]


WYNDHAM VACATION: Kirchner Suit Loses Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN ERJC KIRCHNER,
ELIZABETH LEE KIRCHNER, and ROBERT GRANT WESTON, individually and
on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, V. WYNDHAM
VACATION RESORTS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00436-RGA-LDH (D. Del.),
the Court entered an order denying Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and motion for an evidentiary hearing and for leave
to file a trial plan.

The Court concludes that the proposed class members' claims require
independent consideration of each plaintiff's experience to
determine what kinds of purported misrepresentations were made. The
Plaintiffs have not established typicality by a preponderance of
the evidence.

I agree with the Defendant that Plaintiffs have not satisfied the
requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) for the Injunctive Relief Class. The
record before me does not show that all members of the Injunctive
Relief Class would be entitled to the same injunction or
declaratory judgment.

Because the record does not support Plaintiffs' assertions, I
conclude that Plaintiffs have failed to establish predominance for
the Cancellation Class and Tennessee Subclass. I do not need to
reach the parties' arguments about superiority, as Plaintiffs
cannot satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) without showing
predominance.

Lastly, I do not think that Plaintiffs' briefing sufficiently
addresses what kind of information an evidentiary hearing could
reveal in support of the class certification motion.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class and subclass
under Rule 23 (b )(3):

   a. All persons who signed Wyndham timeshare agreements (without

      arbitration clauses and without prior Wyndham timeshare
      agreements) within three years prior to the filing of this
suit
      after attending Wyndham sales presentations who requested
      cancellation of their contracts, were unsuccessful in
obtaining
      rescission, and complained about sales misrepresentations.

   b. All persons who signed Wyndham timeshare agreements (without

      arbitration clauses and without prior Wyndham timeshare
      agreements) in Tennessee within three years prior to the
filing
      of this suit after attending Wyndham sales presentations who

      requested cancellation of their contracts, were unsuccessful
in
      obtaining rescission, and complained about sales
      misrepresentations.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class under Rule
23(b)(2):

   "All persons who signed Wyndham timeshare agreements (without
   arbitration clauses and without prior Wyndham timeshare
agreements)
   within three years prior to the filing of this suit after
attending
   Wyndham sales presentations."

Wyndham provides lifetime vacations within the CLUB WYNDHAMSM Plus
portfolio of more than 70 resorts.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 13, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jNF6Ne at no extra
charge.[CC]

YOUNG ADULT: Bose Class Suit Stayed Pending Mediation
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bose v. Young Adult
Institute, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00496-VSB-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Sarah Cave entered an order granting the parties'
requested relief.  

  -- The case is stayed pending mediation, and the Court takes note
of
     the parties' tolling agreement.  

  -- The pending motions will be administratively closed and may be

     reopened by further order of the Court.

  -- By Dec. 2, 2024, the parties shall file a joint letter
concerning
     the outcome of mediation.  

Young Adult is an organization serving people with Intellectual and
developmental disabilities.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yvcMrH at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
 


ZULILY LLC: Smith Sues Over WARN Act Violation
----------------------------------------------
Jittania Smith, an individual, and Kathryn Costello, an individual,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. ZULILY,
LLC, a limited liability company, and REGENT, L.P., a limited
partnership, Case No. 2:24-cv-01480 (W.D. Wash., Sept. 16, 2024),
is brought for systemic violations of the federal Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (the "WARN Act"), and for
related state law claims of failure to timely pay wages.

When Defendant Regent, L.P. ordered these layoffs, neither it nor
Defendant Zulily, LLC provided sixty-day WARN Act notices or pay to
all affected employees. Instead, they provided it only to affected
employees who worked in-person. Defendant Regent, L.P. decided it
could save money in the liquidation process if it did not provide
sixty-day WARN Act notices or pay to any employees who worked
remotely. Specifically, management disclosed to some of the
laid-off employees that Defendant Regent, L.P.'s lawyers had
supposedly found a "loophole" in the WARN Act for remote workers
under which the statute allegedly did not apply to them. This was
not accurate, however, and the WARN Act does in fact cover remote
workers who are affected by a "plant closing" or "mass layoff" as
defined by the statute.

The Plaintiffs are some of those affected remote workers from the
State of Washington. They worked remotely for Defendant Zulily,
LLC, were laid off, and did not receive sixty days of notice or pay
under the WARN Act. They are entitled to those wages, plus the
applicable penalties under state law for failure to timely pay
those wages. Plaintiffs intend to represent, in this class action,
all of Defendant Zulily, LLC's remote workers in the State of
Washington and the State of Nevada who were wrongfully denied their
rights under the WARN Act and related state law, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs worked for Defendant.

Zulily, LLC is an e-commerce company that sells various merchandise
out of its fulfillment centers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason A. Rittereiser, Esq.
          Claire E. Hunter, Esq.
          HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
          600 Stewart Street, Suite 901
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 838-2504
          Facsimile: (206) 260-3055
          Email: jrittereiser@hkm.com
                 chunter@hkm.com

               - and -

          Jason E. Starling, Esq.
          WILLIS SPANGLER STARLING
          4635 Trueman Boulevard, Suite 200
          Hilliard, OH 43026
          Phone: (614) 586-7915
          Facsimile: (614) 586-7901
          Email: jstarling@willisattorneys.com

               - and -

          John C. Camillus, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOHN C. CAMILLUS, LLC
          P.O. Box 141410
          Columbus, OH 43214
          Phone: (614) 992-1000
          Facsimile: (614) 559-6731
          Email: jcamillus@camilluslaw.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 ***