---

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

              Tuesday, December 17, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 252

                            Headlines

ACE RENT A CAR: Yim Consumer Fraud Suit Removed to S.D. Indiana
AMERIPRIDE SERVICES: Settlement Reached in Pricing-Related Suit
ATLASSIAN CORP: HFPF Securities Suit Dismissed
BAE SYSTEMS: Class Settlement in Cabrales Suit Gets Initial Nod
BEIS LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Ramos Suit Says

BOSELLI INVESTMENTS: Appeals Remand Order in Rodriguez Labor Suit
BUTTERFLY NETWORK: Faces Rose Securities Suit Over SEC Disclosure
CENTRAL GARDEN: Plaintiffs Seek Renewed Bid for Class Certification
CERENCE INC: Continues to Defend Pena Securities Suit
CERENCE INC: Settlement in PORT Suit Gets Initial Approval

CHARGEPOINT HOLDINGS: Feb. 5, 2025 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Set
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Court Certifies Classes & Subclasses
COMCAST CABLE: Filing for Class Cert. in Pond Due Nov. 11, 2025
COOPERSURGICAL INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Class Suit
CVS HEALTH: Pension Funds Appointed as Lead Plaintiff in Nixon Suit

CVS HEALTH: Pension Funds Appointed as Lead Plaintiff in Tatone
DARWIN HOMES: Naasz Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
DATAMAXX APPLIED: Faces Bass Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
DELTA STAR: Wilson Must File Class Certification by June 2, 2025
DOCUSIGN INC: Continues to Defend Weston Securities Class Suit

EXPERIAN INFO: Khalil's Bid to Intervene as Lead Plaintiff Tossed
FHIA LLC: Bid to Strike Class Allegations Tossed
GITLAB INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in California
GOOGLE LLC: Clarification of Scheduling Order Entered in Curley
GOOGLE LLC: Seeks to File Class Opposition Under Seal

GREATBANC TRUST: Randall Suit Seeks Class Certification
HILTON RESORTS: Faces Rodriguez Suit Over Unfair Timeshare Loans
HOT TOPIC: Parra Sues to Remedy Harms of Data Breach
HP INC: Court Narrows Claims in Pattison Suit
HPC INDUSTRIAL: Moss Suit Transferred to E.D. California

IDRISS DERMATOLOGY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Suit Says
IMDB.COM INC: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Zumedia
KWH MERCHANDISING: Wurm Sues Over Breaches Caller ID Rules
LAMB WESTON: Fixes Frozen Potato Products Prices, Suit Alleges
LED TECHNOLOGIES: Duarte Alleges Breach of FTSA's Caller ID Rules

LGI HOMES: Court OK's McAlister Bid for Class Certification
MCGRAW HILL: Case Management Conference Order Entered in Flynn Suit
MCGRAW-HILL EDUCATION: Class Certification Order in Myers Entered
MDL 2724: DPPs' Bid to Exclude Gilbert's Opinions Partly OK'd
MDL 3098: Class Settlement in Data Security Suit Gets Initial Nod

MERRILL LYNCH: Court Certifies Class in Retirement Systems' Suit
METROHEALTH SYSTEMS: Savel Appeals Class Suit Dismissal to 6th Cir.
METROPOLIS TECHNOLOGIES: Class Cert Referred to Magistrate Judge
MONAT GLOBAL: Class Cert Filing Due August 4, 2026
NESTLE HEALTHCARE: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to March 10, 2025

NEW YORK, NY: Faces IDEA Suit Over Alleged Discrimination
NEXSTAR MEDIA: Discloses Users' Personal Info to 3rd Party Tracker
NUTRACEUTICAL WELLNESS: Wurm Alleges Breaches of Caller ID Rules
ODDITY TECH: Alex Gordon Appointed as Lead Plaintiff in Class Suit
ONEKIND.25 INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Murphy Says

ORNUA FOODS: Rodriguez Sues Over Product's Misrepresentation
PHILIP A. LINDER: Bello Files Suit in N.D. Oklahoma
PORSCHE CARS: Kukrika Sues Over Electric Vehicles' Battery Defect
POSIGEN DEVELOPER: Weingrad Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
PUZIO: Hinton Files Suit in D. Connecticut

QUEST SERVICE: Cuenca Suit Removed to E.D. California
RICK STEVES: Ramos Sues Over Website's Inaccessibility to the Blind
TRAVELPRO PRODUCTS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Ramos Says
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY: Niblock Appeals Judgment to 6th Cir.
XPO LAST: Leave to File Second Amended Complaint Sought

XPO LAST: Plaintiff Must File Class Cert Papers by June 6, 2025

                            *********

ACE RENT A CAR: Yim Consumer Fraud Suit Removed to S.D. Indiana
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BRIAN YIM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACE RENT A CAR RESERVATIONS, INC.
D/B/A ACE RENT A CAR, Defendant, Case No. 49D01-2409-PL-044171, was
removed from the Marion Superior Court to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Indiana on December 1, 2024.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Indiana assigned
Case No. 1:24-cv-02121-TWP-MJD to the proceeding.

The cases arises from Defendant's on alleged deceptive and
untruthful advertising on its website and third-party booking
websites with respect to "unlimited mileage" features and
geographic restriction fees in consumers' rental contracts. Based
on the allegations, Plaintiff asserts four counts: Count
I-violation of the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, IC
24-5-0.5, et seq.); Count II-Violation of the Colorado Consumer
Protection Act; Court III-Violation of the Virginia Consumer
Protection Act; and Count IV-Unjust Enrichment.

Headquartered in Indianapolis, IN, ACE Rent A Car Reservations, Inc
is a privately held car rental company. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

         Daniel J. Layden, Esq.
         WILLIAMS BARRETT & WILKOWSKI, LLP
         Post Office Box 405
         Greenwood, IN 46142
         Telephone: (317) 888-1121
         E-mail: dlayden@wbwlawyers.com

AMERIPRIDE SERVICES: Settlement Reached in Pricing-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vestis Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal
year ended September 27, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 22, 2024, that in the current
quarter of 2024, parties in a putative class action lawsuit against
AmeriPride Services, LLC, a subsidiary of Vestis, reached a
settlement in principle, subject to court approval. The settlement
includes, among other terms, a monetary component of $3.1 million.

On May 13, 2022, Cake Love Co. commenced a putative class action
lawsuit against AmeriPride in the United States District Court for
the District of Minnesota. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants
increased certain pricing charged to members of the purported class
without the proper notice required by service agreements between
AmeriPride and members of the class and that AmeriPride breached
the duty of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs seek damages on
behalf of a class representing the amount of the allegedly
improperly noticed price increases along with attorneys' fees,
interest and costs.

Vestis Corporation is a provider of uniform rentals and workplace
supplies across the United States and Canada.


ATLASSIAN CORP: HFPF Securities Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------
Atlassian Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report For the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2024, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2024, that on
January 22, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California issued a ruling granting the defendants' motion to
dismiss a putative securities class action was filed in said court
on February 3, 2023, captioned "City of Hollywood Firefighters'
Pension Fund v. Atlassian Corporation," Case No. 3:23-cv-00519,
naming the company and certain of its officers as defendants.
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 1, 2024 and the
defendants' filed a motion to dismiss on April 19, 2024, and on
August 13, 2024, the court issued a ruling granting the defendants'
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' second amended complaint. Plaintiffs
did not file a third amended complaint or an appeal.

The lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the
company's securities between August 5, 2022 and November 3, 2022
and alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly false and misleading
statements about the company's business and prospects during the
class period.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages. The defendants filed a
motion to dismiss on September 8, 2023, and the plaintiffs filed
their opposition on October 23, 2023.

Atlassian Corporation, a Delaware corporation, designs, develops,
licenses, and maintains software and provisions software hosting
services to help teams organize, discuss, and complete their work.
The company's primary products include "Jira Software" and "Jira
Work Management" for planning and project management, "Confluence"
for content creation and sharing, and "Jira Service Management" for
team service, management and support applications.


BAE SYSTEMS: Class Settlement in Cabrales Suit Gets Initial Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FEDERICO CABRALES and
TYCHICUS STANISLAS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. BAE SYSTEMS SAN DIEGO SHIP REPAIR, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
3:21-cv-02122-AJB-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anthony Battaglia
entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for provisional
certification and preliminary approval of class action & PAGA
settlement on behalf of:

    "(1) all current and former California based non-exempt
employees
    of BAE who worked at least one Workweek during the Class
Period,
    (2) all current and former California based non-exempt
employees  
    of Acro Service Corporation ("Acro") who were placed to work at

    BAE for at least one Workweek during the Class Period, and (3)
all  
    current and former California based non-exempt employees of NSC

    who were placed to work at BAE for at least one Workweek
between  
    Aug. 9, 2021 and June 1, 2024."

    Class Counsel: The Court approves Plaintiffs' counsel, Matern
Law
    Group, PC, as class counsel for settlement purposes;

    Class Representatives: The Court approves named plaintiffs,
    Federico Cabrales and Tychicus Stanislas, as class
representatives
    for settlement purposes;

The Court appoints Phoenix Settlement Administrators as the
Settlement Administrator to supervise and administer the notice
procedure in connection with the Settlement as well as the
processing of claims.

BAE Systems is a provider of non-nuclear ship repairs,
modernization, conversion, and overhaul for government and
commercial customers.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XpM8uf at no extra
charge.[CC]

BEIS LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Ramos Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
ESLIMERARI RAMOS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. BEIS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-12333 (N.D. Ill., November 29, 2024), arises from
Defendant’s failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate
its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.

Due to Defendant's failure to build the website in a manner that is
compatible with screen access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to
understand and properly interact with the website, and was thus
denied the benefit of purchasing a bag (The Carry-on Roller), she
wished to acquire from the website. Accordingly, Plaintiff asserts
claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Beis, LLC owns and maintains the website, www.beistravel.com, which
serves an online store that offers travel bags and accessories.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

BOSELLI INVESTMENTS: Appeals Remand Order in Rodriguez Labor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BOSELLI INVESTMENTS LLC is taking an appeal from a court order
granting plaintiff's motion to remand in the lawsuit entitled Ana
Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Boselli Investments LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:23-CV-00314-SKC-TPO, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the Adams County District Court to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado, is brought against the
Defendant for alleged failure to provide the Plaintiff and the
Class members with the required rest breaks and lunches during
their work shifts in violation of Colorado law.

On Mar. 6, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand, which
Judge Regina M. Rodriguez denied without prejudice on Nov. 27,
2023. The Court concluded the Defendant satisfied the removal
requirements. Judge Rodriguez also gave the parties 30 days to
conduct limited discovery as to whether the home state exception to
Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) applied. The case was transferred
to Judge S. Kato Crews upon his appointment to the district court
bench.

The Plaintiff filed a renewed Motion to Remand on Jan. 10, 2024,
which she supported with expert witness affidavits and summary
evidence. In addition to its Response brief, the Defendant filed a
Motion to Strike Plaintiff's expert witnesses and evidence. The
Plaintiff filed her Reply, which was followed by yet another Motion
to Strike from the Defendant.

The Court granted the Plaintiff's Motion and remanded the case to
the Adams County District Court. The Court held that the
Plaintiff's supplemental evidence specifically addressed the
Defendant's concerns regarding the original list of matches, and
having reviewed the evidence, the Court is satisfied that the
summary evidence is competent and reliable and it satisfies Fed. R.
Evid. 1006.

Because the Court finds the evidence to be credible and because
there is no evidence to the contrary, the Court held that the
Plaintiff has met her burden to show by a preponderance of the
evidence that at least one-third of the Class members are domiciled
in Colorado.

Ultimately, the totality of the circumstances weighs in favor of
remand, ruled the Court. The Court found that the interests of
justice weigh against exercising its discretionary jurisdiction
over this class action.

The appellate case is captioned Boselli Investments LLC v.
Rodriguez, Case No. 24-706, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit, filed on November 26, 2024. [BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent ANA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Brian Gonzales, Esq.
          BRIAN D. GONZALES LAW OFFICES
          2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201
          Fort Collins, CO 80528
          Telephone: (970) 214-0562
     
                 - and -

          Alexander Hood, Esq.
          TOWARDS JUSTICE
          1580 North Logan Street, Suite 660
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (720) 239-2606

Defendant-Petitioner BOSELLI INVESTMENTS LLC is represented by:

          James Scott Bradbury, Esq.
          Micah David Dawson, Esq.
          Hillary Ross, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS
          1125 17th Street, Suite 2400
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 218-3650

BUTTERFLY NETWORK: Faces Rose Securities Suit Over SEC Disclosure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Butterfly Network, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2024, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2024, that it is
facing a putative class action lawsuit, styled "Rose v. Butterfly
Network, Inc., et al." filed in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey on February 16, 2022.

The claims are against the company and certain of its directors and
previous management as well as Longview and members of its then
board of directors, alleging that the defendants made false and
misleading statements and/or omissions about its business and
financial prospects after a merger. The alleged class consists of
all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
company's stock between January 12, 2021 and November 15, 2021
persons who exchanged company's common stock.

Butterfly Network, Inc. is a digital health company based in
Massachusetts.


CENTRAL GARDEN: Plaintiffs Seek Renewed Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON BRAND, JOHN FLODIN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
CENTRAL GARDEN & PET COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, BREEDER'S
CHOICE PET FOODS, INC., and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No.
4:21-cv-01631-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Jan. 23, 2024,
will move for leave to file a renewed motion for class
certification.

The case is a putative class action seeking to certify a class of
California and Washington consumers deceived to believe that
AvoDerm contains significantly more avocado than it does.

Central Garden manufactures and distributes branded and private
label products.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dave Fox, Esq.
          Joanna Fox, Esq.
          Courtney Vasquez, Esq.
          FOX LAW, APC
          201 Lomas Santa Fe Dr., Suite 420
          Solana Beach, CA 92075
          Telephone: (858) 256-7616
          Facsimile: (858) 256-7618
          E-mail: dave@foxlawapc.com
                  joanna@foxlawapc.com
                  courtney@foxlawapc.com

CERENCE INC: Continues to Defend Pena Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Cerence Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 25, 2024, that it is facing case captioned
"Pena v. Cerence Inc.," Case. No. 2023CH02866 (Cir. Ct., Cook
County) where on March 24, 2023, plaintiffs A.P., a minor, by and
through her guardian, Carlos Pena, and Carlos Pena, each
individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals allege
that Cerence violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
Act (BIPA), through Cerence's Drive Platform technology, which is
integrated in various automobiles. On February 27, 2024, the
Circuit Court issued an order denying Cerence's motion to dismiss.


On April 16, 2024, Cerence filed its answer and affirmative
defenses, a motion to certify the court's order on Cerence's motion
to dismiss, and a motion to stay. Thereafter, in exchange for
Cerence withdrawing its motions to certify and stay, plaintiffs
filed amended complaints in both the Circuit Court and Federal
Court. Cerence's answers in the Federal Court and Circuit Court
were due on July 15 and July 18, 2024, respectively, which the
company filed on such dates.

The named plaintiffs allegedly drove or rode in a Volkswagen with
Cerence's Drive Platform technology. Plaintiffs allege that Cerence
violated BIPA Section 15(a) by possessing biometrics without any
public written policy for their retention or destruction, BIPA
Section 15(b) by collecting, capturing, or obtaining biometrics
without written notice or consent, BIPA Section 15(c) by profiting
from biometrics obtained from Plaintiffs and putative class members
and BIPA Section 15(d) by disclosing biometrics to third party
companies without consent.

Plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages of $5,000 for each willful
and/or reckless violation of BIPA and, alternatively, damages of
$1,000 for each negligent violation of BIPA.

Cerence Inc. is a global provider of AI-powered assistants and
innovations for connected and autonomous vehicles.



CERENCE INC: Settlement in PORT Suit Gets Initial Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
Cerence Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 25, 2024, that on September 18, 2024, the
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
granted preliminary approval of a settlement with regards to a
purported shareholder class action captioned as "City of Miami Fire
Fighters' and Police Officers' Retirement Trust v. Cerence Inc. et
al." Initial case was filed on February 25, 2022, naming the
company and two of its former officers as defendants.

The plaintiff claims to be suing on behalf of anyone who purchased
the company's common stock between November 16, 2020 and February
4, 2022. The lawsuit alleges that material misrepresentations
and/or omissions of material fact regarding the company's
operations, financial performance and prospects were made in the
company's public disclosures during the period from November 16,
2020 to February 4, 2022, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary
damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and
expenses, including attorney’s fees. Following the court's
selection of a lead plaintiff and lead counsel, an amended
complaint was filed on July 26, 2022.

Cerence Inc. is a global provider of AI-powered assistants and
innovations for connected and autonomous vehicles.


CHARGEPOINT HOLDINGS: Feb. 5, 2025 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
ChargePoint Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 19, 2024, that the
hearing on the motion to dismiss the Khan class suit is set for
February 5, 2025.

A class action lawsuit alleging violations of federal securities
laws was filed on November 29, 2023 in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California against the Company and certain
of its former officers (the "Class Defendants").

A second class action lawsuit (together with the November 2023
Class Action, the "Class Actions") was filed against the Class
Defendants on January 22, 2024.

On May 16, 2024, the Court consolidated the Class Actions into one
action captioned Khan v. ChargePoint Holdings, Inc., et al., Case
No. 23-cv-06172-EKL, appointed two lead plaintiffs, and appointed
lead counsel.

On July 19, 2024, Lead Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint which purports to be on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's stock between December 7, 2021 and November 16, 2023.

This Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges that the Class
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements in
violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10(b)-5 of the Securities and
Exchange Act regarding, (1) ChargePoint's handling of supply chain
disruptions; (2) ChargePoint's revenue; and (3) the value of
ChargePoint’s inventory.

Lead Plaintiffs also allege the Class Defendants engaged in a
scheme to prematurely recognize revenue in violation of Sections
10(a) and (c) of the Securities and Exchange Act.

The Class Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated
Amended Complaint on September 17, 2024 and a hearing on the motion
is scheduled for February 5, 2025.

ChargePoint Holdings, Inc. is a designer, developer and a marketer
of networked electric vehicle charging system infrastructure based
in California.



CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Court Certifies Classes & Subclasses
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LIONEL HARPER, DANIEL
SINCLAIR, HASSAN TURNER, and LUIS VAZQUEZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated and all aggrieved
employees, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Case No.
2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Shubb
entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion pursuant to the
provisions of Rule 23(a) and (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure as follows:

The following classes and subclasses are hereby certified under
Rule 23(b)(3):

   A. Commission Wage Statements Class

      "All California-based commission-eligible employees who
received
      at least one wage statement with a monthly or quarterly
      commission or commission allowance payment between Sept. 14,

      2017, and the date of this Order."

   B. Training Weeks Class

      "All California-based Direct Sales Employees who had at least

      one week of new hire training between Nov. 19, 2014 and the
date
      of this Order," and who qualify for one or more of the
following
      subclasses:

      1. Overtime Subclass

         "All Training Weeks Class members who worked over 8 hours
in
         a day or 40 hours in a week during their training weeks."

      2. Meal Period Subclass.

         "All Training Weeks Class members who worked over 5 hours
at
         least one day during their training weeks and were not
         provided a designated off-duty meal period of at least 30

         minutes."

      3. Rest Break Subclass

         "All Training Weeks Class members who worked over 3.5
hours
         at least one day during their training weeks and were not

         provided a designated off-duty rest break of at least 10
         minutes, or who worked over 6 hours at least one day
during
         their training weeks and were not provided two designated

         off-duty rest breaks of at least 10 minutes each."

      4. Training Weeks Wage Statements Subclass.

         "All Training Weeks Class members who received at least
one
         wage statement on or after Sept. 14, 2017 that covers a
         training week and which contained incorrect information on

         account of inaccurate dates; or inaccurate accounting of
         overtime, meal periods, or rest breaks."

The court declines plaintiffs' request to certify any of the
following subclasses of Direct Sales Employees in the following
categories:

   1. The court declines to create subclasses of class members who

      Charter contends are bound by a JAMS Arbitration Agreement
      and/or a Solution Channel Mutual Arbitration Agreement.

   2. Because plaintiffs provide no reason why Training Weeks Class

      members whose employment terminated on or after Nov. 19,
2015,
      should be treated differently in this action, the request to

      certify them as a separate subclass is denied.

   3. Because plaintiffs provide no discussion of what the UCL
claims
      may encompass other than the other alleged violations already

      covered, their request to include a subclass for all Training

      Weeks Class members whose training weeks occurred between
Nov.
      19, 2014 and Nov. 18, 2015 under a separate UCL subclass will

      also be denied.

The Plaintiffs Lionel Harper, Daniel Sinclair, Hassan Turner, and
Luis Vazquez are appointed as class representatives; and Soderstrom
Law PC is appointed as class counsel.

Charter is an American telecommunications and mass media company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fnLFtC at no extra
charge.[CC]

COMCAST CABLE: Filing for Class Cert. in Pond Due Nov. 11, 2025
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRAVIS POND, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. COMCAST CABLE
COMMUNICATIONS LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-03553-JPB (N.D. Ga.), the Hon.
Judge J.P. Boulee entered a scheduling order as follows:

-- The Court orders that the time limits for adding parties,
amending
    the pleadings, filing motions, completing discovery and
discussing
    settlement are as set out in the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure
    and the Local Rules of this Court, except as herein modified.

-- The dates proposed by the parties in the Joint Preliminary
Report
    and Discovery Plan are approved and fully incorporated herein.

    Thus, the close of fact and expert discovery is Oct. 14, 2025.

-- The motion for class certification shall be filed no later than

    Nov. 11, 2025.

Comcast Cable offers visual and textual television programs on a
subscription or fee basis.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qJKoqq at no extra
charge.[CC]

COOPERSURGICAL INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as F.G., et al., v.
COOPERSURGICAL, INC., et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-01261-JST (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order denying
Defendants' motion to strike and CooperSurgical's motion to dismiss
as directed to Plaintiffs T.U. and V.W.

The Court finds that emotional distress damages are available and
that T.U. and V.W. have sufficiently alleged damages to support
their claims.

This is not an exceptional case that warrants the class claims
being stricken at this stage. As this Court has done in prior
cases, it "declines to strike the class allegations here where
discovery has not yet commenced and the issues raised by
[Defendants] are ones to be addressed at the class certification,
not the motion to dismiss, stage."

In November 2023, F.G. and H.I.'s fertility clinic "fertilized four
of F.G.'s eggs with H.I.'s sperm and placed them in Defendants'
culture media."

The Plaintiffs F.G. and H.I. are "a married couple that sought
fertility treatment at a fertility clinic in New York, undergoing
the invasive, expensive, and emotionally taxing process of IVF in
the hopes of having biological children."

CooperSurgical manufactures, markets, and sells products to
fertility clinics, including a culture media product designed to
support the growth and development of embryos created through in
vitro fertilization.

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

CVS HEALTH: Pension Funds Appointed as Lead Plaintiff in Nixon Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IVY NIXON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CVS HEALTH
CORP., et al., Case No.  1:24-cv-05303-MMG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Margaret Garnett entered an order:

-- granting the Pension Funds' motion to appoint lead plaintiff
and
    lead counsel, such that the Pension Funds are appointed as lead

    plaintiff and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP and
    Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP are appointed as lead counsel; and

-- denying Lancaster Partner's motion to appoint lead plaintiff
and
    lead counsel.

Within 14 days of the date of this Opinion and Order, the parties
shall jointly submit a proposed schedule for filing any amended
complaint, Defendants' answer, opposition, or response thereto,
and, if necessary, deadlines for oppositions and replies for any
contemplated motions to dismiss.

The Pension Funds timely filed their motion for appointment as lead
plaintiff, have shown that they have the largest financial interest
in the outcome of this litigation among the movants for lead
plaintiff status, and have shown that they satisfy the typicality
and adequacy elements of Rule 23. As no party has rebutted the
Pension Funds' status as the presumptive lead plaintiff, the
Pension Funds are appointed lead plaintiff in the instant action.

Lancaster Partner agrees that it does not have the largest
financial interest in this action. Therefore, the Pension Funds are
the movant with the largest financial interest in the outcome of
this litigation.

The Plaintiffs Ivy Nixon and Orlando Tatone consolidated cases
assert securities fraud claims against Defendant CVS Health
Corporation and individual Defendants Karen S. Lynch, Shawn M.
Guertin, and Thomas F. Cowhey, all of whom are or were executives
at CVS, based on allegedly false and misleading statements and
omissions made about CVS's Health Care Benefits segment. Both
actions were brought pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act ("PSLRA").

CVS Health is a healthcare company with three main divisions:
Health Care Benefits, Health Services, and Pharmacy and Consumer
Wellness.

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

CVS HEALTH: Pension Funds Appointed as Lead Plaintiff in Tatone
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ORLANDO TATONE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CVS
HEALTH CORP., Case No. 1:24-cv-06771-MMG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Margaret Garnett entered an order:

-- granting the Pension Funds' motion to appoint lead plaintiff
and
    lead counsel, such that the Pension Funds are appointed as lead

    plaintiff and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP and
    Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP are appointed as lead counsel; and

-- denying Lancaster Partner's motion to appoint lead plaintiff
and
    lead counsel.

Within 14 days of the date of this Opinion and Order, the parties
shall jointly submit a proposed schedule for filing any amended
complaint, Defendants' answer, opposition, or response thereto,
and, if necessary, deadlines for oppositions and replies for any
contemplated motions to dismiss.

The Pension Funds timely filed their motion for appointment as lead
plaintiff, have shown that they have the largest financial interest
in the outcome of this litigation among the movants for lead
plaintiff status, and have shown that they satisfy the typicality
and adequacy elements of Rule 23. As no party has rebutted the
Pension Funds' status as the presumptive lead plaintiff, the
Pension Funds are appointed lead plaintiff in the instant action.

Lancaster Partner agrees that it does not have the largest
financial interest in this action. Therefore, the Pension Funds are
the movant with the largest financial interest in the outcome of
this litigation.

The Plaintiffs Ivy Nixon and Orlando Tatone consolidated cases
assert securities fraud claims against Defendant CVS Health
Corporation and individual Defendants Karen S. Lynch, Shawn M.
Guertin, and Thomas F. Cowhey, all of whom are or were executives
at CVS, based on allegedly false and misleading statements and
omissions made about CVS's Health Care Benefits segment. Both
actions were brought pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act ("PSLRA").

CVS Health is a healthcare company with three main divisions:
Health Care Benefits, Health Services, and Pharmacy and Consumer
Wellness.

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

DARWIN HOMES: Naasz Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB NAASZ, STEPHANEA WHITE, and TIANA CUNNINGHAM, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DARWIN HOMES,
INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-03037 (N.D. Tex., Dec. 4, 2024) is a
collective action to recover overtime compensation, minimum wages,
other unpaid wages, liquidated damages, penalties, attorney's fees,
litigation expenses, costs of court, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest and injunctive relief under the provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The suit alleges that the Defendant's policy and/or practice was to
not pay the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 in a week as required by
the FLSA.

The Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated regularly worked
over 40 hours in a week while employed by the Defendant but were
not paid time and one half their regular rate of pay for all hours
worked over 40 in a workweek, the suit asserts.

The collective action includes any individual with the job title of
leasing agent, leasing associate, leasing administrator, regional
leasing administrator, leasing specialist, or any similar title who
performed similar duties of the named Plaintiffs and was not paid
minimum wages and/or overtime compensation.

Mr. Naasz was employed by the Defendant as a leasing agent from
August 2023 through December 2023.

Ms. Cunningham has been employed by the Defendant as a leasing
agent from October 2023 through the present.

Darwin engages in managing, leasing, renovating, and administering
residential rental properties.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rhonda H. Wills, Esq.
          Patrick J. Raspino, Esq.
          WILLS LAW FIRM, PLLC
          1776 Yorktown, Suite 570
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 528-4455
          E-mail: rwills@rwillslawfirm.com

                - and -

          Kobby T. Warren, Esq.
          WARREN HEALY, PLLC
          1910 Pacific Avenue, Suite 9500
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 999-9499

DATAMAXX APPLIED: Faces Bass Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE BASS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DATAMAXX APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-00482-AW-MJF (N.D. Fla., December 1,
2024) arises out of the data breach wherein an unauthorized actor
accessed Datamaxx's computer systems from December 1 to December
17, 2023, which Datamaxx discovered on or about December 17, 2023.

According to the letter that Defendant sent to Class Members, the
Defendant admits an unauthorized actor unlawfully accessed certain
personal information from its network. The data breach was a direct
result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect
individuals' private information. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now
seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims
for negligence, unjust enrichment, and for declaratory relief.

Headquartered in Tallahassee, FL, Datamaxx provides communications,
data access, and intelligence services to law enforcement agencies
and private security companies. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

DELTA STAR: Wilson Must File Class Certification by June 2, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Max Wilson, individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated, v. Delta Star, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-07326-LB (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Laurel Beeler entered an order approving joint
stipulation and it is ordered that:

   1. Plaintiff's time to file his motion for class certification
is
      continued until June 2, 2025.

   2. Defendant's opposition to the motion for class certification

      shall be filed on or before July 2, 2025.

   3. Plaintiff's reply in support of his motion for class
      certification shall be filed on or before Aug. 1, 2025.

                  Case Event                   Filing
Date/Disclosure
                                               Deadline/Hearing
Date

  Updated joint case-management-conference        Jan. 27, 2025
  statement

  Hearing on class-certification motion           Sept. 4, 2025
  (motion filed Dec. 6, 2024, opposition
  filed Jan. 6, 2025, reply filed Feb. 6, 2025)
  or further case-management conference

  Non-expert discovery completion date            Oct. 1, 2025

  Expert disclosures required by Federal          Oct. 31, 2025
  Rules of Civil Procedure

  Rebuttal expert disclosures                     Dec. 1, 2025

  Expert discovery completion date                Jan. 1, 2026

  Meet and confer re pretrial filings             Mar. 2, 2026

  Pretrial filings due                            Mar. 16, 2026

  Final pretrial conference                       Apr. 30, 2026

  Trial                                           May 11, 2026

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
          Talia Lux, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Telephone: (818) 230-7502
          Facsimile: (818) 230-7259
          E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com
                  statavos@justicelawcorp.com
                  tlux@justicelawcorp.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Tyler M. Paetkau, Esq.
          Kathy Huynh, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
          1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1300
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (650) 645-9000
          Facsimile: (650) 235-0398
          E-mail: Tyler.Paetkau@huschblackwell.com
                  Kathy.huynh@huschblackwell.com

DOCUSIGN INC: Continues to Defend Weston Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Docusign Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 19, 2024, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Weston securities class suit in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

On February 8, 2022, a putative securities class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
captioned Weston v. Docusign, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00824,
naming Docusign and certain of itsw then-current and former
officers as defendants ("Weston Action").

An amended complaint was filed on July 8, 2022. As amended, the
suit purports to allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, based on allegedly false and misleading
statements about the Company's business and prospects during the
course of the COVID-19 pandemic.

As amended, the suit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers
of its securities between June 4, 2020 and June 9, 2022.

The Company's motion to dismiss was denied by the U.S. District
Court on April 18, 2023 and it has continued to defend the case
since that time.

DocuSign is the global leader in the eSignature category offering
products that address broader agreement workflows, and digital
transformation, including electronic signature products, enabling
agreements to be signed electronically on a wide variety of
devices, from virtually anywhere in the world, securely.


EXPERIAN INFO: Khalil's Bid to Intervene as Lead Plaintiff Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MANUEL ALVAREZ, SR., on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. EXPERIAN
INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-03343-JS-JMW
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge James Wicks entered an order denying
Prospective Plaintiff Ahmad Khalil's motion to intervene as Lead
Plaintiff.

The in-person Oral Argument on the Motion before the undersigned
previously set for Dec. 10, 2024 at 12:00 p.m. is cancelled.

The Court finds the delay resulting from Khalil's intervention
"would constitute substantial prejudice to [Experian], who ha[s] a
legitimate interest in the expeditious resolution of claims that
have been pending against it for [over five years]."

By contrast, the Court finds denying intervention would not
prejudice Prospective Plaintiff Khalil or any other prospective
class member. In fact, "Khalil and other putative class members can
likely attain a speedier resolution by bringing individual suits
rather than awaiting the class-certification process."

The Plaintiff Manuel Alvarez commenced this consumer class action
on June 5, 2019 alleging that Defendant violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act ("FCRA"), and the New York Fair Credit Reporting Act
("NYFCRA") by improperly associating customers with terrorists,
narcotics traffickers, money launderers, arms dealers, and other
like-minded criminals.

Experian operates as an information services company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jmrAh1 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Zemel, Esq.
          Elizabeth Easley Apostola, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW LLC
          660 Broadway
          Paterson, NJ 07514

                - and -

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          John Soumilas, Esq.
          Lauren Kw Brennan, Esq.
          Edward Skipton, Esq.
          Jordan M. Sartell, Esq.
          FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS P.C.
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
          Philadelphia, PA 19103

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kerianne Tobitsch, Esq.
          Kerry Cordill Fowler, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          250 Vesey Street
          New York, NY 10281

FHIA LLC: Bid to Strike Class Allegations Tossed
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROL KENNEDY, v. FHIA,
LLC, Case No. 6:24-cv-00246-JSS-EJK (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge
Julie Sneed entered an order that:

   1. Defendant's motion to strike is denied.

   2. Defendant shall answer the amended complaint on or before
Dec.
      11, 2024.

Given Cordoba, the reference to telemarketing phone calls in
Plaintiff's class definition does not warrant the striking of the
class allegations.

This outcome is particularly appropriate because the Plaintiff has
not moved for class certification and motions to strike class
allegations are especially disfavored prior to class
certification.

The Plaintiff asserts one count against Defendant for violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). She defines the class
as:

    "all persons within the United States who did not have an
    established business relationship with Defendant before
receiving
    calls and received two telemarketing phone calls within a
    [twelve]-month period from Defendant to said person's
residential
    telephone number, and said person had previously included their

    name on the National Do Not Call Registry at least [thirty-one]

    days prior to receiving Defendant's first call, within the four

    years prior to the filing of this complaint."

FHIA operates as a home remodeling company.

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

GITLAB INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gitlab Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 19, 2024, that the Company
continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

On September 4, 2024, a putative class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company and certain of its current officers
and directors.

The complaint purports to assert claims under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act,
SEC Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, on behalf of
persons and entities who acquired its Class A common stock between
June 6, 2023 and March 4, 2024, or the Class Period. Plaintiff
alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants made material
misrepresentations or omissions regarding our use of AI features
and ability to monetize its AI capabilities that artificially
inflated our stock price.

Plaintiff seeks, among other things, damages in an unspecified
amount, as well as fees and costs.

The action is in the preliminary stage and a lead plaintiff has not
yet been appointed.

The time for defendants to respond to the complaint has not yet
passed and the Company intends to move to dismiss the complaint at
the appropriate time.

Based on the preliminary nature of the proceedings in this action,
the outcome remains uncertain and it cannot estimate the potential
impact, if any, on its business or financial statements at this
time.

GitLab Inc. is a global software company that designs and develops
software solutions.[BN]

GOOGLE LLC: Clarification of Scheduling Order Entered in Curley
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Curley v. Google LLC, Case
No. 3:22-cv-01735 (N.D. Cal., Filed March 18, 2022), Hon. Judge
Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered an order on joint administrative
motion for clarification of scheduling order:

-- The existing fact discovery cut-off is the date by which all
    discovery (class and merits) is to be completed.

-- The Court will set deadlines for dispositive motions and trial

    after ruling on class certification.

The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Job Discrimination
(Race).

Google is an American-based multinational corporation and
technology company focusing on online advertising, and search
engine technology.[CC]

GOOGLE LLC: Seeks to File Class Opposition Under Seal
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK CALHOUN, et al.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-05146-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant
asks the Court to enter an order granting administrative motion to
file under seal portions of Google LLC's opposition to the
plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification.

   Dkt. No.    Document Sought           Sealed        Party
                to be Sealed             /Redacted     Claiming
                                         /Not Under   
Confidentiality
                                         Seal

   1072-1    Google LLC's Opposition      Sealed         Google
             to Plaintiffs' Renewed
             Motion for Class
             Certification

   1072-2    Google LLC's Opposition      Redacted        Google
             to Plaintiffs' Renewed
             Motion for Class
             Certification

   1073      Declaration of Stephen A.    Not Under        N/A
             Broome ISO Google LLC's       Seal
             Opposition to Plaintiffs'
             Renewed Motion for Class
             Certification

   1073-1    Broome Decl. Ex. 1 –         Not Under Seal   N/A
             Yiling Chen Expert Report

   1073-2    Broome Decl. Ex. 2 – Tulin   Sealed          
Google
             Erdem Expert Report

Google operates as a global technology company specializing in
internet related services and products.

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Andrew H. Schapiro, Esq.
          Teuta Fani, Esq.
          Joseph H. Margolies, Esq.
          Stephen A. Broome, Esq.
          Viola Trebicka, Esq.
          Crystal Nix-Hines, Esq.
          Alyssa G. Olson, Esq.
          Xi ("Tracy") Gao, Esq.
          Carl Spilly, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
          SULLIVAN, LLP
          191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 705-7400
          Facsimile: (312) 705-7401
          E-mail: andrewschapiro@quinnemanuel.com
                  teutafani@quinnemanuel.com
                  josephmargolies@quinnemanuel.com
                  stephenbroome@quinnemanuel.com
                  violatrebicka@quinnemanuel.com
                  crystalnixhines@quinnemanuel.com
                  alyolson@quinnemanuel.com
                  tracygao@quinnemanuel.com
                  carlspilly@quinnemanuel.com

GREATBANC TRUST: Randall Suit Seeks Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Aryne Randall, Peter
Morrissey, and Scott Kuhn on behalf of the Wells Fargo & Company
401(k) Plan and a class of similarly situated participants of the
Plan, v. GreatBanc Trust Company, Wells Fargo & Co., and Timothy J.
Sloan, Case No. 0:22-cv-02354-LMP-SGE (D. Minn.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order granting class certification and
appointing class counsel.

GreatBanc is a full-service trust company and independent ERISA
fiduciary specializing in ESOPs (Employee Stock Ownership Plans).

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 6, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4BXC4U at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
          Steven Andrew Smith, Esq.
          Brock J. Specht, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          80 South 8th St., Suite 4700
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
          E-mail: lukas@nka.com
                  smith@nka.com
                  bspecht@nka.com

                - and -

          Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
          Mark G. Boyko, Esq.
          Laura Babiak, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 463-2101
          Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
          E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com
                  mboyko@baileyglasser.com
                  lbabiak@baileyglasser.com

                - and -

          Nina Wasow, Esq.
          Daniel Feinberg, Esq.
          Todd Jackson, Esq.
          Mary Bortscheller, Esq.
          FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN &
          WASOW LLP
          2030 Addison St., Suite 500
          Berkeley, CA 94704
          Telephone: (510) 269-7998
          Facsimile: (510) 269-7994
          E-mail: nina@feinbergjackson.com
                  dan@feinbergjackson.com
                  todd@feinbergjackson.com
                  mary@feinbergjackson.com

HILTON RESORTS: Faces Rodriguez Suit Over Unfair Timeshare Loans
----------------------------------------------------------------
CRISTINA AYALA RODRIGUEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HILTON RESORTS CORPORATION d/b/a
HILTON GRAND VACATIONS, Defendant, Case No. 6:24-cv-02182 (M.D.
Fla., November 29, 2024) seeks to void Defendant's timeshare loans
that violate the Military Lending Act (MLA).

According to the complaint, the Defendant's standard form timeshare
loan agreements contain terms which violate the MLA. The
Defendant's Vacation Ownership Interest Purchase Agreement and
corresponding documents requires covered members to pay interest on
timeshare loans which contain two provisions that are prohibited by
the MLA: (1) class action waiver; and (2) jury trial waiver.
Additionally, the Defendant also fails to provide the required MLA
disclosures to any covered members, which is a separate violation
of the MLA, says the suit.

Headquartered in Orlando, FL, Hilton Resorts Corporation manages
and operates the Hilton Worldwide timeshare and vacation ownership
brands under an exclusive licensing agreements with Hilton
Worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
         Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
         Christopher J. Brochu, Esq.
         Jeffrey L. Newsome, Esq.
         Pamela G. Levinson, Esq.
         VARNELL & WARWICK P.A.
         400 N. Ashley Drive, Suite 1900
         Tampa, FL 33602
         Telephone: (352) 753-8600
         Facsimile: (352-504-3301
         E-mail: jvarnell@vandwlaw.com
                 bwarwick@vandwlaw.com
                 cbrochu@vandwlaw.com
                 jnewsome@vandwlaw.com
                 plevinson@vandwlaw.com
                 ckoerner@vandwlaw.com

HOT TOPIC: Parra Sues to Remedy Harms of Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------
Candace Parra, Chassie Schultz, and Danielle Shelley, on behalf of
themselves and a class of similarly situated persons v. HOT TOPIC,
INC. d/b/a/ HOT TOPIC and BOXLUNCH, TORRID LLC, Case No.
2:24-cv-10488 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 5, 2024), is brought against
Defendant seeking to remedy these harms on behalf of themselves and
all similarly situated individuals whose PII was accessed during
the Data Breach.

On October 23, 2024, Israeli security firm Hudson Rock announced
that it was investigating an alleged data breach two days after
hacker "Satanic" posted a thread seeking to sell databases related
to Hot Topic, Box Lunch, and Torrid Calling it the "largest retail
data breach in history," Hudson Rock noted that the hacker claimed
to have access to 350 million customers' personal identifying
information (PII) which included names, emails, addresses, phone
numbers, and birthdates. Additionally, "Satanic" offered to sell
"billions of payment details."

Without any announcements from Hot Topic, privacy company Atlas
Privacy was able to confirm the data breach in early November by
obtaining a copy of the stolen database from "Satanic." Atlas
Privacy announced the stolen data contained 54 million unique email
addresses and details for 25 million credit card numbers. The
credit card accounts had only been "lightly encrypted," which would
make it easily possible for hackers to decrypt and fraudulently use
the account information. Atlas Privacy estimated it would "decrypt
the whole thing in the next few days." In light of Atlas Privacy's
estimation, PC Mag stated that the lack of secure encryption
suggested Hot Topic was storing the account details using "outdated
security protocols."

Despite knowing how valuable customer information is, Defendants
failed to adequately protect Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII.
This PII was compromised due to Defendants' negligent and/or
careless acts and omissions and their utter failure to protect
customers' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained
Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII because of its value in
exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiffs and Class
Members. The present and continuing risk to victims of the Data
Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes.

As a result of the Data Breach, through which their Personally
Identifiable Information ("PII") was compromised, disclosed, and
obtained by unauthorized third parties, Plaintiffs and Class
Members have suffered concrete damages and are now exposed to a
heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft for a
period of years, if not decades, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs made several purchases at Hot Topic and Torrid.

City of Industry, California-based Hot Topic and affiliated brands
BoxLunch and Torrid are merchants of countercultural "fast fashion"
apparel, gifts and music.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
          1809 7th Avenue, Suite 1610
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206)-802-1272
          Fax: (206)-299-4184
          Email: tloeser@cpmlegal.com


HP INC: Court Narrows Claims in Pattison Suit
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY PATTISON, v. HP INC.,
Case No. 3:24-cv-02752-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maxine
Chesney entered an order granting in part and denying in part HP's
motion, as follows:

   1. To the extent the fraud claim is based on a failure to
perform
      contractual obligations, the motion is granted, and said
claim
      is dismissed.

   2. To the extent HP seeks dismissal of the CLRA claim, the
motion
      is granted.

   3. In all other respects, the motion is denied.

   4. If Pattison wishes to amend for the limited purpose of
amending
      her CLRA claim, Pattison shall file any Third Amended
Complaint
      no later than Dec. 30, 2024. Pattison may not otherwise amend

      without first seeking leave of court or obtaining a
stipulation
      from HP.

   5. A Case Management Conference is set for Feb. 21, 2025, at
10:30
      a.m. A Joint Case Management Statement shall be filed no
later
      than Feb. 14, 2025.

Although it remains to be seen whether Pattison will be able to
establish her allegation that all putative class members were,
prior to entry into their respective contracts, exposed to HP's
alleged promise to provide a rebate at the conclusion of the
three-year contractual period, HP's argument that the class
definition is overbroad is, at this stage, premature.
The fraud claim will be dismissed only to the extent it is based on
a theory that HP did not intend to perform a contractual promise.

Ms. Pattison alleges she and HP entered into a contract titled "HP
Care Pack Support Terms," and that she did so in reliance on
"false" statements on HP's website that a customer who does not use
the services set forth in the Terms is entitled to a full refund at
the end of the three-year contractual period.

HP Inc. is an American multinational information technology
company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Lq6ds0 at no extra
charge.[CC]

HPC INDUSTRIAL: Moss Suit Transferred to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Derek Moss, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. HPC Industrial Services, LLC, Clean
Harbors, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-03760 was transferred from the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California on Dec. 4, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-01479-KES-SKO to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor for Labor/Mgmnt.
Relations.

HPC Industrial -- https://www.hpc-industrial.com/ -- a Clean
Harbors business, is the leading provider of specialty maintenance
services and technology solutions to the critical energy
infrastructure in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Nourmand, Esq.
          James A. De Sario, Esq.
          THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
          8822 W. Olympic Blvd.
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Phone: (310) 553-3600
          Fax: (310) 553-3603
          Email: mnourmand@nourmandlawfirm.com
                 jdesario@nourmandlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alexander M. Chemers, Esq.
          Austin Freeman, Esq.
          Isabella B. Urrea, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          400 S. Hope Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 239-9800
          Fax: (213) 239-9045
          Email: alexander.chemers@ogletreedeakins.com
                 austin.freeman@ogletreedeakins.com
                 isabella.urrea@ogletreedeakins.com


IDRISS DERMATOLOGY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. IDRISS DERMATOLOGY, P.C., Case No. 1:24-cv-09255
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 4, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://dridriss.com/, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
persons pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.

During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on
Nov. 23, 2024, in an attempt to purchase a Major Fade Hyper Serum
and to view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff
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 suit alleges.

The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and
humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on
the Defendant's Website. These discriminatory conditions continue
to contribute to Plaintiff's sense of isolation and segregation,
the suit asserts.

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

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

The Defendant offers skincare solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

IMDB.COM INC: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Zumedia
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZUMEDIA INC., v. IMDB.COM,
INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-08472-VSB-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Sarah Cave entered an order on general pretrial management:

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

    must be made to Magistrate Judge Cave and must comply with her

    Individual Practices, available on the Court's website at
    https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-sarah-l-cave.

-- Although the parties previously filed a Proposed Case
Management
    Plan.

-- On or before Dec. 18, 2024, the parties shall jointly file an
    amended Report of Rule 26(f) Meeting and Proposed Case
Management
    Plan, via ECF, signed by counsel for each party, setting forth

    precise dates for their proposed case schedule. A template is
    available at https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-sarah-l-cave.

IMDb.com provides information about films.

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

KWH MERCHANDISING: Wurm Sues Over Breaches Caller ID Rules
----------------------------------------------------------
CHARMING WURM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KWH MERCHANDISING, INC., Defendant, Case No.
CACE-24-017172 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., December 1,
2024) seeks for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for
violations of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act.

The Defendant transmitted a telephone number to the Caller Service
of Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class that was not capable of
receiving telephone calls, as explicitly required by the FTSA's
Caller ID Rules.

KWH Merchandising, Inc. is an online clothing store. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

LAMB WESTON: Fixes Frozen Potato Products Prices, Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Frozen Foods, Inc., d/b/a Northern Haserot v. Lamb Weston
Holdings, Inc.; Lamb Weston, Inc.; Lamb Weston BSW, LLC; Lamb
Weston/Midwest, Inc.; Lamb Weston Sales, Inc.; McCain Foods
Limited; McCain Foods USA, Inc.; J.R. Simplot Co.; Cavendish Farms
Ltd; Cavendish Farms, Inc.; and Circana, LLC., Case No.
1:24-cv-12477 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 4, 2024) is a class action lawsuit
arising from Defendants' unlawful agreement to fix and artificially
inflate the prices of frozen french fries, hash browns, tater tots,
and other frozen potato products  in violation of Sections 1 and 3
of the Sherman Act.

Beginning at least as early as January 2021, Producer Defendants
conspired with defendant Circana LLC to fix and artificially
inflate the prices of Frozen Potato Products sold in the United
States through exchanging detailed, competitively sensitive,
non-pubic information using Circana's "PotatoTrac" market analytics
service. Because Producer Defendants collectively control nearly
98% of the Frozen Potato Product market, their price changes
effectively dictate industry-wide prices, the suit says.

The prices of Producer Defendants' Frozen Potato Products rose in
2021 before surging dramatically in 2022. The prices remained
elevated through at least the end of July 2024. These inexplicable
and dramatic price increases yielded unprecedented profit margins
for Producer Defendants, asserts the suit.

In February 2022, Producer Defendants each hiked the prices of
their Frozen Potato Products by 12 cents per pound during a
five-day period. And between July 2022 and July 2024, Producer
Defendants increased Frozen Potato Products by 47% despite the fact
that input costs plummeted significantly during that period.

The Plaintiff purchased Frozen Potato Products from one or more
Defendants at artificially inflated prices and was thereby injured.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of itself and a Class
that directly purchased Frozen Potato Products from Producer
Defendants between January 1, 2021 and the present (the "Class
Period").

Northern Frozen Foods is a full line foodservice distributor and
has been family owned since 1878.

Lamb Weston manufactures, sells, and distributes Frozen Potato
Products, and is traded as "LW" on the New York Stock
Exchange.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
          Karen Halbert, Esq.
          Erich P. Schork, Esq.
          Sarah DeLoach, Esq.
          Christopher Sanchez, Esq.
          Joshua Zuckerman, Esq.
          ROBERTS LAW FIRM US, PC
          1920 McKinney Ave, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (501) 821-5575
          Facsimile: (501) 821-4474
          E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us
                  karenhalbert@robertslawfirm.us
                  erichschork@robertslawfirm.us
                  sarahdeloach@robertslawfirm.us
                  chrissanchez@robertslawfirm.us
                  joshzuckerman@robertslawfirm.us

                - and -

          Arthur N. Bailey, Esq.
          RUPP PFALZGRAF, LLC
          111 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1100
          Jamestown, NY 14701
          E-mail: bailey@RuppPfalzgraf.com

LED TECHNOLOGIES: Duarte Alleges Breach of FTSA's Caller ID Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANAMARIA DUARTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LED TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED, Defendant,
Case No. 24-005234-CI (Fla. Cir., 6th Judicial, Pinnelas Cty.,
November 30, 2024), seeks for for injunctive and declaratory
relief, and damages for violations of the Caller ID Rules of the
Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

The Plaintiff's cellular phone has received Defendant's text
message sales calls since July 1, 2021. However, the Defendant
violated the FTSA's Caller ID Rules by transmitting a phone number
that was not capable of receiving phone calls when it made
telephonic sales calls by text message, says the suit.

LED Technologies Incorporated sells its light therapy and UV
sanitation products throughout the country through its online
store. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

LGI HOMES: Court OK's McAlister Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RIKKI MCALISTER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LGI
HOMES CORPORATE, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03088-NYW-TPO (D. Colo.),
the Hon. Judge Nina Wang entered an order granting the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification:

  --  Plaintiff is appointed class representative, and Plaintiff's

      counsel is appointed class counsel under Rule 23(g) for the
      following class:

      "All individuals who worked for the Defendant as Sales
      Representatives in Colorado from May 23, 2017 to the
present,
      including two Subclasses:

      CWA Subclass:

      Class Members who worked in Colorado between May 23, 2020 and

      the present, who may therefore seek damages under the CWA;
and

      CMWA Subclass:

      "Class Members who worked in Colorado from May 23, 2017 to
the
      present, and may therefore seek damages under the CMWA.

The Court concludes that a class action is the superior vehicle for
resolving this case. As the Court found above, Plaintiff’s claims
raise important common questions that make concentration of this
litigation desirable.

Moreover, there is no indication that other Proposed Class Members
have commenced their own litigation over the same claims.

Regardless, Defendant fails to explain—and the Court does not
discern—how the individualized issues in this case would prevent
an economical adjudication of the predominant, common questions.
Because Plaintiff has fulfilled the requirements of Rule 23(a) and
Rule 23(b)(3), Plaintiff's motion is granted.

LGI Homes builds high-quality, move-in ready home.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Pvc6Jj at no extra
charge.[CC]

MCGRAW HILL: Case Management Conference Order Entered in Flynn Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEAN FLYNN, et al., v.
MCGRAW HILL LLC, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00614-LGS-BCM (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order a case management
conference order:

-- The parties should be prepared to discuss what Phase I fact
    discovery remains to be done other than "refreshed discovery
    responses." Additionally, with respect to both (a) plaintiffs'

    contemplated motion for class certification and (b) defendants'

    contemplated motion for summary judgment, they should be
prepared
    to discuss:

McGraw Hill is an American publishing company for educational
content, software, and services for pre-K through postgraduate
education.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WhbE8K at no extra
charge.[CC]

MCGRAW-HILL EDUCATION: Class Certification Order in Myers Entered
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Myers et al v. McGraw-Hill
Education, Inc. Case No. 21-cv-614-LGS [Consolidated with No.
21-cv-1141- LGS], the Hon. Judge Lorna Schofield entered an order
that the case remains referred to MJ Moses for the completion of
discovery.

-- When and if Plaintiffs are prepared to move for class
    certification, or when and if Defendant is prepared to move for

    summary judgment, the moving party shall file a pre-motion
letter
    and the adverse party shall respond, all as provided in the
    Court's Individual Rules.

-- The Court will convene a conference to discuss the motion(s)
and a
    briefing schedule.

-- Any letter concerning class certification shall clarify under
what
    subsection of Rule 23(b) Plaintiffs seek to proceed, and how
any
    notice and opting out of the class would affect Plaintiffs'
    proposed schedule for Defendants' summary judgment motion;
i.e.,
    Plaintiffs' letter shall explain whether they seek for class
    members to be bound by the summary judgment decision.

McGraw-Hill Education publishes educational materials.

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


MDL 2724: DPPs' Bid to Exclude Gilbert's Opinions Partly OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: GENERIC PHARMACEUTICALS PRICING
ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 2:16-md-02724-CMR (E.D. Pa.), the
Court entered an order as follows:

-- DPPs' motion to exclude the opinions of Dr. Gilbert is denied
in
    part and granted in part as it relates to testimony by Dr.
Gilbert
    that economic evidence has no bearing on determining the
    difference between legal and illegal interdependent conduct.

-- Defendants' motion to exclude the opinions of Dr. McGuire is
    denied in part and granted in part to the extent that Dr.
McGuire
    opines that his conditional probability test demonstrates the
    existence of a "super" plus factor.

-- Defendants' motion to exclude the opinions of Dr. Leitzinger is

    denied in part and granted in part as his opinions relate to
his
    alternative overcharge calculations.

This MDL antitrust litigation concerns alleged price-fixing schemes
involving numerous generic drugs and generic drug manufacturers.
The Court has selected as initial bellwether cases proposed class
actions brought by End-Payer Plaintiffs ("EPPs") and Direct
Purchaser Plaintiffs ("DPPs") as to two generic drugs, clomipramine
and clobetasol.

DPPs seek to certify the following classes for each bellwether drug
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) with regard
to their claims under federal antitrust laws:

For the Clobetasol Class:

    "All persons or entities that directly purchased Clobetasol
    (generic clobetasol propionate topical ointment .05% (15, 30,
45,
    or 60 gm), topical solution .05% (15 or 50 ml), topical gel
.05%
    (15, 30, or 60 gm), topical cream .05% (15, 30, 45, or 60 gm),
or
    topical emollient cream .05% (15, 30, or 60 gm)) from one or
more
    of the Defendants in the United States and its territories and

    possessions at any time during the period from June 2014
through
    the present (the "Class Period")."

    Excluded from the Class are Defendants and their officers,
    directors, management, employees, subsidiaries, or affiliates,

    judicial officers and their personnel, and all governmental
    entities.

For the Clomipramine Class:

    "All persons or entities that directly purchased Clomipramine
    (generic clomipramine hydrochloride 25, 50, or 75 mg capsules)

    from one or more of the Defendants in the United States and its

    territories and possessions at any time during the period from
May
    2013 through the present (the "Class Period")."

    Excluded from the Class are Defendants and their officers,
    directors, management, employees, subsidiaries, or affiliates,

    judicial officers and their personnel, and all governmental
    entities.

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

MDL 3098: Class Settlement in Data Security Suit Gets Initial Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: 23ANDME, Inc., Customer Data
Security Breach Litigation, Case No. 3:24-md-03098-EMC (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Edward Chen entered an order conditionally granting
preliminary approval to the proposed class action settlement.

The Settling Parties shall report back within two weeks of the date
of this order to confirm whether modifications have been made
consistent with the Court's rulings.

The Court also orders the Settling Parties and the Arbitrating
Objectors to report back within two weeks on the language of a
notice to be issued to those individuals seeking arbitration who
have been excluded from the class definition. This order disposes
of Docket Nos. 103 and 152.

Both Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) have been satisfied, and
therefore, certification of a settlement class is appropriate.

The Court conditionally finds that the proposed settlement meets
the threshold.

The settlement agreement defines the settlement class as:

   "all natural persons who were residents of the United States on

   Aug. 11, 2023 and whose Personal Information was compromised in
the
   Security Incident."

In addition, there is the subclass consisting of "Settlement Class
Members who were residents of Alaska, Oregon, California or
Illinois as of Aug. 11, 2023."

The case at bar is a multi-district litigation comprised of
approximately forty federal lawsuits.

The Plaintiffs are customers of Defendant 23andMe, Inc. They have
filed a class action against the company based on a data breach.

23andMe, Inc. is a genetic testing company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 4, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1yRsDI at no extra
charge.[CC]

MERRILL LYNCH: Court Certifies Class in Retirement Systems' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IOWA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES'
RETIREMENT SYSTEM; LOS ANGELES COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT
ASSOCIATION; ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM; SONOMA
COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION; and TORUS CAPITAL, LLC,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC.; MERRILL LYNCH L.P.
HOLDINGS, INC.; and MERRILL LYNCH PROFESSIONAL CLEARING CORP., Case
No. 1:17-cv-06221-KPF-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katherine Polk
Failla entered an order overruling the Defendants' objections to
the Report and granting in part and denying in part:

-- The Plaintiffs' objection to the Report regarding the Class
Period
    is overruled in part.

-- The Court certifies the Class, in the form recommended by Judge

    Cave, except that the Class Period shall be Jan. 1, 2012,
through
    Nov. 17, 2017.

-- The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending
at
    docket entry 468.

On June 30, 2022, Judge Cave issued the Report, recommending that
the Court grant Plaintiffs’ Motion in part and deny the Motion in
part. After a comprehensive, well-reasoned analysis of the parties'
arguments and evidence, Judge Cave recommended that the following
class be certified:

    "All persons and entities who, directly or through an agent,
    entered into at least 100 U.S. Stock Loan Transactions as a
    borrower from the prime brokerage businesses of the U.S.-based

    entities of the Prime Broker Defendants, or at least 100 U.S.
    Stock Loan Transactions as a lender of Hard-to-Borrow stock to
the
    U.S.-based entities of the Prime Broker Defendants, from Jan.
1,
    2012 until Aug. 16, 2017."

    Excluded from the Class are: Defendants, as well as Citadel
LLC,
    Two Sigma Investments, PDT Partners, Renaissance Technologies
LLC,
    TGS Management, Voloridge Investment Management, and the D.E.
Shaw
    Group and their corporate parents, subsidiaries, and wholly
owned
    affiliates, as well as any federal governmental entity, any
    judicial officer presiding over this action, and any juror
    assigned to this action.

Judge Cave further recommended that the following management
subclasses be utilized (collectively, the “Subclasses”):


    The "End-User Subclass":

    "All persons and entities within the class who, directly or
    through an agent, entered into at least 100 U.S. Stock Loan
    Transactions as a borrower from the prime brokerage businesses
of
    the U.S.-based entities of the Prime Broker Defendants during
the
    Class Period"; and

    The "Beneficial Owner Subclass":

    "All persons and entities within the class who, directly or
    through an agent, entered into at least 100 U.S. Stock Loan
    Transactions as a lender of Hard-to-Borrow stock to the
U.S-based
    entities of the Prime Broker Defendants during the Class
Period."

Merrill Lynch operates as an investment advisory firm.

A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Dec. 6, 2024, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Z2x4gF
at no extra charge.[CC]

METROHEALTH SYSTEMS: Savel Appeals Class Suit Dismissal to 6th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
FRANK SAVEL, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Frank Savel, et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
MetroHealth Systems, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-02154, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, on November
30, 2022, Frank Savel and 45 named Co-Plaintiffs sued The
MetroHealth System in a putative class action for religious
discrimination. The Plaintiffs work or formerly worked as
MetroHealth employees. They argue that during Fall 2021 and Spring
2022, MetroHealth adopted mandatory workplace COVID-19 vaccination
policies that discriminated against the Plaintiffs' religious
beliefs and created hostile working environments.

On July 29, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion for summary
judgement.

On Aug. 30, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to exclude Dr. Stan
V. Smith's Expert Reports and to preclude Dr. Smith from providing
expert testimony in this matter.

On Sept. 9, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to quash the
Plaintiffs' Subpoena Duces Tecum to Akram Boutros, MD.

On Sept. 16, 2024, Plaintiff Savel filed a motion to compel
discovery and opposition to third supplemental declaration of
Amanda Calabrese.

On Oct. 25, 2024, Judge Donald C. Nugent granted the Defendant's
motion for summary judgment. The case was dismissed in its
entirety. The Defendant's motion to exclude Dr. Stan v. Smith's
Expert Reports and to preclude Dr. Smith from providing expert
testimony and its motion to quash the Plaintiffs' Subpoena Duces
Tecum to Akram Boutros, MD, and the Plaintiff's motion to compel
and objection to the supplemental declaration of Amanda Calabrese
were also denied as moot.

The appellate case is captioned Frank Savel, et al. v. Metro Health
Systems, Case No. 24-4025, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit, filed on November 26, 2024. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants FRANK SAVEL, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Jon A. Troyer, Esq.
          ARNOLD GRUBER
          4580 Stephen Circle, N.W., Suite 100
          Canton, OH 44718
          Telephone: (330) 563-4949

Defendant-Appellee METROHEALTH SYSTEMS is represented by:

          Stephen S. Zashin, Esq.
          Ami J. Patel, Esq.
          Natalie Michele Stevens, Esq.
          ZASHIN & RICH
          950 Main Avenue, Fourth Floor
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 696-4441

METROPOLIS TECHNOLOGIES: Class Cert Referred to Magistrate Judge
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TODD FRANKFORT; CURTIS
GOODBAN; and SARINA GUTIERREZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. METROPOLIS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case
No. 3:24-cv-02283-L (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Sam Lindsay entered
an order of reference:

-- Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636(b), the Plaintiffs' motion
for
    class certification, filed Dec. 5, 2024, is referred to United

    States Magistrate Judge Brian McKay for hearing, if necessary,
and
    for the United States Magistrate Judge to submit to the court
    proposed findings and recommendations for disposition of the
    Motion.

-- The order of reference also prospectively refers all procedural

    motions that are related to the referred Motion to the United
    States Magistrate Judge for resolution.

-- All future filings regarding the referred Motion shall be
    addressed "To the Honorable United States Magistrate
Judge"—not to
    the district judge or court— so that filings will reach him
    without delay.

Metropolis Technologies provides tracking and reporting software.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AL6Aft at no extra
charge.[CC]

MONAT GLOBAL: Class Cert Filing Due August 4, 2026
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: MONAT HAIR CARE PRODUCTS MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, Case No.
1:18-md-02841-DPG (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Darrin Gayles entered
an eighth amended scheduling order as follows:

                Action Item                       Date/Deadline

  Plaintiffs Johnston, Whitmire and Colvin       Dec. 23, 2024
  responses to Monat Second Set of Requests
  for Admission Due

  Depositions of named Plaintiffs must be        Aug. 21, 2025
  completed

  Plaintiff's reports from retained experts      Nov. 21, 2025
  on class certification issues:

  Depositions of Plaintiff's Retained Experts    Feb. 4, 2026
  submitting a report on class certification
  issues must be taken:

  Defendants' reports from retained experts      March 6, 2026
  on class certification issues:

  Depositions of Defendants' Retained            May 5, 2026
  Experts submitting a report on class
  certification issues must be taken:

  Plaintiffs' motion for class                   Aug. 4, 2026
  Certification:

  Defendants' opposition to class                Sept. 4, 2026
  Certification:

  Plaintiff's reply in support of class          Oct. 5, 2026
  Certification:

Monat is a privately-held American multi-level marketing company
headquartered in Doral, Florida, which sells haircare, skincare,
and wellness products.

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

NESTLE HEALTHCARE: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to March 10, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Horti et al v. Nestle
Healthcare Nutrition, Inc. (re: Nestle Boost Nutritional Drink
Litigation), Case No. 3:21-cv-09812-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order extending the class
certification schedule by 60 days.

The class certification schedule is as follows:

                  Deadline For                      Date

  Motion for Class Certification:               March 10, 2025

  Opposition to Motion for Class                April 21, 2025
  Certification:

  Reply in Support of Class Certification:      May 12, 2025

  Hearing on Motion for Class Certification:    April 5. 2025
                                                at 10:00 a.m.

Nestle provides a wide range of vitamins, minerals and
supplements.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 4, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=s9xgVT at no extra
charge.[CC]

NEW YORK, NY: Faces IDEA Suit Over Alleged Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------
E.O., on behalf of herself and her minor child, N.I., Plaintiffs v.
The New York City Department of Education, The Board of Education
of the City School District of  the City of New York, Chancellor
Melissa Aviles-Ramos, in his Official Capacity, and The City of New
York, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-09152 (S.D.N.Y., November 29,
2024) is a class action alleging that the Defendants violated
Plaintiffs' rights under the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Improvement Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973.

Allegedly, the Defendants violated the IDEA by failing to implement
Plaintiff N.I.'s stay-put rights and by denying Plaintiffs a Free
Appropriate Public Education during the school years at issue.
Moreover, the Defendants discriminated against N.I. under Section
504 by, among other things, (a) denying him reasonable
accommodations, (b) adopting systemic policies, procedures and
practices that violate their rights under the IDEA, New York State
law and (b) engaging in repeated and pervasive violations of the
IDEA for a period of several years.

New York City Department of Education administers and operates the
public schools in the City of New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Elisa Hyman, Esq.
         THE LAW OFFICE OF ELISA HYMAN, P.C.
         1115 Broadway, 12th Floor
         New York, NY 10010
         Telephone: (646) 572-9064
         Facsimile: (646) 572-9055
         E-mail: elisahyman@gmail.com

NEXSTAR MEDIA: Discloses Users' Personal Info to 3rd Party Tracker
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN DEDDEH, individually and on behalf of class of similarly
situated individuals v. NEXSTAR MEDIA INC., Case No.
3:24-cv-08744-TSH (N.D. Cal., Dec. 4, 2024) is a class action
lawsuit arising out of Defendant's policy and practice of embedding
and using various trackers on its website, www.thehill.com, to

   (1) install and store third-party tracker cookies on website
       user' browsers and

   (2) collect website users' browser and device data as well as
       personally identifying information, such as IP addresses.

The applicable limitations period preceding the filing of the
Complaint in this matter and through and including June 26, 2024.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant surreptitiously shared
identifying data, including addressing information such as IP
addresses, with the third-party trackers for advertising and
analytics-related purposes, without obtaining The Hill website's
users' authorization or consent and without a court order.

The Defendant's actions violated multiple laws, including the
California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act ("CDAFA"); the
California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"); and the right to
privacy under Article 1, section 1, of the California Constitution,
which includes privacy as one of six fundamental rights of all
Californians.

While physically present in California, the Plaintiff used an
internet browser on his computer and on his cellular phone to
access Defendant's The Hill website on several occasions during the
last three years to browse news headlines and to read articles.

Nexstar provides news, sports and entertainment programming and
management, sales and other services to television stations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy D. Cohelan, Esq.
          Isam C. Khoury, Esq.
          COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
          605 C Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 595-3001
          Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
          E-mail: tcohelan@ckslaw.com
                  ikhoury@ckslaw.com

                - and -

          Patrick N. Keegan, Esq.
          KEEGAN & BAKER, LLP
          2292 Faraday Avenue, Suite 100
          Carlsbad, CA 92008
          Telephone: (760) 929-9303
          Facsimile: (760) 929-9260
          E-mail: pkeegan@keeganbaker.com

NUTRACEUTICAL WELLNESS: Wurm Alleges Breaches of Caller ID Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARMING WURM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NUTRACEUTICAL WELLNESS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. CACE-24-017173 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty.,
December 1, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Caller ID
Rules of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

The complaint asserts that the Defendant made text message sales
calls that promoted Nutrafol and violated the Caller ID Rules when
it transmitted to the recipients' caller identification services a
telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone calls.


Nutraceutical Wellness, Inc. offers nutraceutical supplements for
whole-body wellness and hair health. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ODDITY TECH: Alex Gordon Appointed as Lead Plaintiff in Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN HOARE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ODDITY TECH
LTD., et al. Case No. 1:24-cv-06571-MMG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Margaret Garnett entered an order:

-- granting Alex Gordon's motion to appoint lead plaintiff and
lead
    counsel, such that Alex Gordon is appointed as lead plaintiff
and
    Levi Korsinsky, LLP is appointed as lead counsel; and

-- denying Brian Hoare's motion to appoint lead plaintiff and lead

    counsel.

Gordon timely filed his motion for appointment as lead plaintiff,
has shown that he has the largest financial interest in the outcome
of this litigation among the movants for lead plaintiff status, and
has shown that he satisfies the typicality and adequacy elements of
Rule 23. As no party has rebutted Gordon's status as the
presumptive lead plaintiff, Gordon is appointed lead plaintiff in
the instant action.

Hoare, on the other hand, alleges that he spent $3,500 on the
purchase of 78.79 Class A ordinary shares of Oddity, he has
retained 49.832 of his shares, and he has "incurred losses of
approximately $280 in connection with his Class Period transactions
in Oddity securities." Thus, Gordon alleges a significantly greater
financial interest in the relief sought by the class.

The Plaintiff Hoare asserts securities fraud claims against the
Defendant Oddity and individual Defendants Oran Holtzman, Lindsay
Drucker Mann, Shiran Holtzman-Erel, Michael Farello, and Lilach
Payorski, all of whom are or were executives at Oddity, based on
allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions made about
Oddity's business, operations, and compliance policies. This action
was brought pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act ("PSLRA").

Oddity is a "consumer tech platform that is built to transform the
global beauty and wellness market" and uses data science,
artificial intelligence, and machine learning to "identify consumer
needs, as well as develop solutions in the form of beauty and
wellness products."

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

ONEKIND.25 INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Murphy Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. ONEKIND.25, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-09256 (S.D.N.Y.,
Dec. 4, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://www.cocokind.com/, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on
Nov. 23, 2024, in an attempt to purchase a Ceramide Barrier Serum |
Hydrating Serum and to view the information on the Website, the
Plaintiff 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 suit alleges.

The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and
humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on
the Defendant's Website. These discriminatory conditions continue
to contribute to Plaintiff's sense of isolation and segregation,
the suit asserts.

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

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

Onekind.25 offers skincare products, moisturizers, and serums.[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

ORNUA FOODS: Rodriguez Sues Over Product's Misrepresentation
------------------------------------------------------------
EMMANUEL RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ORNUA FOODS NORTH AMERICA INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 532412/2024 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., November
28, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the New York General
Business Law in connection with its false and misleading
representations and omissions on the sale of its Pure Irish
Butter.

Allegedly, the Defendant's product packaging contained
perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) was confirmed by their
abrupt removal from commerce in New York.

Headquartered in Illinois, Ornua Foods North America Inc.
manufactures, labels, markets, packages, distributes, and/or sells
sticks of Pure Irish Butter. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

PHILIP A. LINDER: Bello Files Suit in N.D. Oklahoma
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Philip A. Linder, et
al. The case is styled as Olamide Olatayo Bello, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Philip A. Linder;
Mark L. Watson; Sean Jefferey Taylor; Bradley Elliot Visosky; Jason
Renee; Kimberly C Priest; Amos L. Mazzani, III; Fannin County Jail;
Fannin County Jail Medical; Fannin County Sheriff; Hopkins County
Jail; Hopkins County Jail Sheriff; Hopkins County Jail Medical;
Fannin County; City of Bonham; City of Sulphur Spring; City of
Oklahoma; Correction Corporation of America; Eastern District of
Texas; Lasalle Corections; Federal Bureu of Investigation; United
States Marshals; Eastern District of Texas Pretrial Detention
Services; United States of America; Collins County Jail; Collins
County; City of McKinney; Hopkins County; Case No.
4:24-cv-00593-SEH-SH (N.D. Okla., Dec. 5, 2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.

Phillip Linder -- https://www.thelinderfirm.com/ -- is one of the
top rated White Collar Crimes attorneys in Dallas, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


PORSCHE CARS: Kukrika Sues Over Electric Vehicles' Battery Defect
------------------------------------------------------------------
MIODRAG KUKRIKA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Porsche Cars N.A., Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-05492-ELR (N.D. Ga., November 29, 2024) arises from
Defendant's failure to disclose or adequately repair a dangerous
and widespread defect in the 800V lithium-ion batteries equipped in
Porsche's Taycan electric vehicles, model years 2020-2024.

According to the complaint, the defect causes the batteries to lose
power and worse, short circuit, thereby creating the risk of a
fire. Accordingly, Plaintiff Kukrika, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, brings claims against Porsche for
fraudulent omission/concealment, negligent omission/concealment,
and breach of implied warranty, and seeks all available monetary
relief, including damages and all appropriate equitable relief.

Headquartered in Atlanta, GA, Porsche Cars N.A. is an automobile
manufacturer that markets and sells the Taycan, its first fully
electric sports car. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
         David Stein, Esq.
         Rosanne L. Mah, Esq.
         GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
         1111 Broadway, Suite 2100
         Oakland, CA 94607
         Telephone: (510) 350-9700
         Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
         E-mail: rmr@classlawgroup.com
                 ds@classlawgroup.com
                 rlm@classlawgroup.com

                 - and -
         
         Michael A. Caplan, Esq.
         T. Brandon Waddell, Esq.
         Ashley C. Brown, Esq.
         CAPLAN COBB LLC
         75 Fourteenth Street NE, Suite 2700
         Atlanta, GA 30309
         Telephone: (404) 596-5600
         Facsimile: (404) 596-5604
         E-mail: mcaplan@caplancobb.com
                 bwaddell@caplancobb.com
                 abrown@caplancobb.com

POSIGEN DEVELOPER: Weingrad Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against POSIGEN DEVELOPER,
LLC. The case is styled as Leon Weingrad, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. POSIGEN DEVELOPER, LLC
doing business as: POSIGEN SOLAR, Case No. 2:24-cv-06503-GJP (E.D.
Pa., Dec. 5, 2024).

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

Posigen, LLC -- https://www.posigen.com/ -- sells and leases solar
power systems. The Company offers solar hot water systems and
provides installation services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PUZIO: Hinton Files Suit in D. Connecticut
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Puzio, et al. The
case is styled as Nah-Fee Hinton, Dario George, Keyenn Rodgers,
Marnell Johnson, Dartre Booker, Rasheed Mingues, Juan Lasanta,
Jonathan King, Gary Davis, Dominique Butler, Ibn Ross, Timothy
Armstrong, Deshawn Baugh, Jose Matos, Derick Coulanges, Rickey
Lynch, Tyrome Brehon, Akeem Monsalavatge, Michael Morris, Tavares
White, Pritkumar Patel, Da'Jahn Howard, Andrew McLeod, Jaquon
Benejan, Kenneth Burghardt, Brian Lockett, Garrett Martin, Jr.,
Sheldon Berry, Christopher Keeser, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Puzio, Warden, individually and
officially' Robert Greene, Jr., individually and officially; Case
No. 3:24-cv-01944 (D. Conn., Dec. 5, 2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Petitions - Prison
Conditions for Prisoner Civil Rights.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

QUEST SERVICE: Cuenca Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Nicholas Cuenca, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, and the general public v. QUEST SERVICE
GROUP, LLC, a New York limited liability company; and DOES 1—50,
inclusive, Case No. CVCS24-0001408 was removed from the Superior
Court of the State Of California, County Of Sutter, to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of California on
Dec. 5, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-03404-SCR.

On June 14, 2024, the Plaintiff alleges PAGA and class action
causes of action for: failure to provide all earned minimum and
overtime wages; Violation of California Labor Code section 2802;
failure to provide meal break; failure to provide rest breaks;
failure to provide lawful wage statements; failure to pay wages
upon ending employment; violation of California's Unfair
Competition statute B&P Section; wrongful constructive termination;
and Recovery of Civil Penalties Under PAGA (the "State Court
Complaint").[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ryan D. Jones, Esq.
          Allyson K. Thompson, Esq.
          HART KIENLE PENTECOST
          A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          4 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 900
          Santa Ana, California 92707
          Phone: (714) 432-8700
          Facsimile: (714) 546-7457
          Email: riones@hkplawfirm.com
                 athompson@hkplawfirm.com


RICK STEVES: Ramos Sues Over Website's Inaccessibility to the Blind
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ESLIMERARI RAMOS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. RICK STEVES’ EUROPE, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-12334 (N.D. Ill., November 29, 2024), alleges
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act in connection
with Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.

The Plaintiff was injured when she attempted multiple times, most
recently on June 18, 2024 to access Defendant's website from her
home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered
barriers that denied her full and equal access to Defendant's
online goods, content and services, says the suit.

Rick Steves' Europe, Inc. owns and operates the website,
store.ricksteves.com, which serves an online store that offers a
variety of travel gear and accessories, guidebooks, maps, and
travel-related DVDs created by travel expert Rick Steves. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

TRAVELPRO PRODUCTS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Ramos Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ESLIMERARI RAMOS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRAVELPRO PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-12335 (N.D. Ill., November 29, 2024) arises from
Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.

The Plaintiff wanted to purchase a bag (Maxlite 5 Rolling Underseat
Carry-On). However, she was unable to complete this purchase due to
the inaccessibility of Defendant's website. Due to Defendant's
failure to build the Website in a manner that is compatible with
screen access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and
properly interact with the website. Accordingly, the Plaintiff
seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims
for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

TravelPro Products, Inc. owns and operates the website,
www.travelpro.com, which sells luggage and travel bags. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY: Niblock Appeals Judgment to 6th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH NIBLOCK, et al. are taking an appeal from a court
judgment in their lawsuit entitled Elizabeth Niblock, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. University of Kentucky, et al., Defendants, Case No.
5:19-cv-00394, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Kentucky.

The Plaintiffs bring this complaint against the Defendants for
alleged violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

On Oct. 28, 2024, Judge Karen K. Caldwell entered judgment in favor
of the Defendants. The Court ruled that the Plaintiffs have failed
to prove that the selection of sports and levels of competition at
University of Kentucky do not effectively accommodate the interests
and abilities of its female students. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs'
Equal Protection claim against Defendants Mitch Barnhart and Eli
Capilouto in their official capacities is dismissed with
prejudice.

The appellate case is captioned Elizabeth Niblock, et al. v.
University of Kentucky, et al., Case No. 24-6060, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on November
26, 2024. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants ELIZABETH NIBLOCK, et al., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Lori Bullock, Esq.
          BAILEY GLASSER
          309 E. Fifth Street, Suite 202 B
          Ankeny, IA 50023

Defendants-Appellees MITCHELL S. BARNHART, et al. are represented
by:

          William Eugene Thro, Esq.
          UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
          301 Main Building
          Lexington, KY 40506
          Telephone: (859) 257-3725

XPO LAST: Leave to File Second Amended Complaint Sought
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAYNOR MEJIA LOPEZ, an
individual; individually and on Behalf of All Similarly Situated
Individuals, v. XPO LAST MILE, INC., A Georgia Corporation, and
DOES 1 through 25, Inclusive, Case No. 3:22-cv-08976-SI (N.D.
Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting the
Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint and revising the
briefing schedule for Plaintiff's motion for class certification as
follows:

  Second Amended Complaint Due by:               Feb. 7, 2025

  Motion for Class Certification Due by:         June 6, 2025

  Opposition Due by:                             Aug. 8, 2025

  Reply Due by:                                  Sept. 19, 2025

  Hearing:                                       Oct. 17, 2025

Because the Parties have not yet completed their exchange of
documents and written information, the Parties have not yet been
able to take key depositions in this matter, i.e., a Rule 30(b)(6)
deposition of Defendant's corporate representative and Plaintiff's
deposition.
As a result of the complexity of the suit and the sheer number of
documents involved, the Parties do not anticipate completing
written discovery for at least a few more months as they are
working through issues regarding the scope of the putative class.

As a result of the pending written discovery and document exchange
that remains, along with a needed refinement of the putative class
definition, Plaintiff requires additional time to prepare his
Motion for Class Certification and for Defendant's to ultimately
prepare their opposition

XPO provides third-party logistics and last mile delivery
services.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael H. Boyamian, Esq.
          Armand R. Kizirian, Esq.
          BOYAMIAN LAW, INC.
          550 North Brand Blvd., Suite 1500
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 547-5300
          Facsimile: (818) 547-5678
          E-mail: michael@boyamianlaw.com
                  armand@boyamianlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Benjamin J. Schnayerson, Esq.
          Julie Y. Zong, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          50 California Street, 9th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4615
          Telephone: (415) 394-9400
          Facsimile: (415) 394-9401
          E-mail: Ben.Schnayerson@jacksonlewis.com
                  Julie.Zong@jacksonlewis.com

XPO LAST: Plaintiff Must File Class Cert Papers by June 6, 2025
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAYNOR MEJIA LOPEZ, an
individual; individually and on Behalf of All Similarly Situated
Individuals, v. XPO LAST MILE, INC., A Georgia Corporation, and
DOES 1 through 25, Inclusive, Case No. 3:22-cv-08976-SI (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Susan Illston entered an order on the Joint
Stipulation to File Second Amended Complaint and Revise the Motion
for Class Certification Briefing Schedule as follows:

   (1) Plaintiff is given leave to file a Second Amended Complaint.

       This amended complaint must be filed by no later than Feb.
7,
       2025.

   (2) The briefing schedule on Plaintiff's forthcoming Motion for
       Class Certification is reset as follows:

       a. Plaintiff shall file his moving papers by June 6, 2025.

       b. Defendant shall file their opposition by Aug. 8, 2025.

       c. Plaintiff shall file his reply by Sept. 19, 2025.

       d. The hearing shall be set for Friday, Oct. 17, 2025 at
10:00
          a.m.

XPO provides third-party logistics and last mile delivery
services.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael H. Boyamian, Esq.
          Armand R. Kizirian, Esq.
          BOYAMIAN LAW, INC.
          550 North Brand Blvd., Suite 1500
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 547-5300
          Facsimile: (818) 547-5678
          E-mail: michael@boyamianlaw.com
                  armand@boyamianlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Benjamin J. Schnayerson, Esq.
          Julie Y. Zong, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          50 California Street, 9th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4615
          Telephone: (415) 394-9400
          Facsimile: (415) 394-9401
          E-mail: Ben.Schnayerson@jacksonlewis.com
                  Julie.Zong@jacksonlewis.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 ***