---

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

              Thursday, January 2, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 2

                            Headlines

ANNA JAQUES: Fails to Protect Patients' Personal Info, Bruneau Says
APPLIED THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Feb. 18
ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER: Settles 2020 Data Breach Class Suit for $21MM
ASML HOLDING: Faces Matar Suit Over Decline of Ordinary Shares
ASPIRE LIFESTYLES: Davis Seeks Customer Service Reps' Unpaid Wages

ASTRAZENECA PLC: Saleh Sues Over Artificially Inflated Price of ADS
ATLANTIC UNION: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Sandy Spring
CERTIFIED EMPLOYMENT: Peralta Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info
DELAWARE: Faces Class Action Suit Over "Escheatment Scheme"
DR. SQUATCH: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Crumwell Alleges

DUPONT SPECIALTY: Removes Parish Suit to W.D. New York
ENPHASE ENERGY: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action
FOOT LOCKER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Victor Suit Alleges
GIVAUDAN FLAVORS: Six Residents Join Plant Explosion Class Action
GOODRX INC: Controls Prices Paid to Pharmacies, Association Claims

GOOGLE LLC: Appeals Tribunal Approves Antitrust Class Action Suit
JACOBS ENTERTAINMENT: Retzolff Sues Over Compromised Clients' Info
MAMA MARIA'S: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Scott Alleges
MARIANI PACKING: Removes Taylor Suit to S.D. New York
NATIONAL HOCKEY: Sued Over Hockey Player Monopoly

NORDIC NATURALS: Knowles Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store
OMNOVA NORTH: Faces Moncavage Wage-and-Hour Suit in Pennsylvania
ONP-ECOM LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Wurm Suit Claims
PENNS WOODS: M&A Investigates Merger With Northwest Bancshares
PENNS WOODS: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Northwest Bancshares

PHOTOBUCKET INC: Faces Class Suit Over Unfair Online Photo Storage
REGIONAL CARE: Chisolm Suit Alleges Unprotected Personal Info
RENTOKIL INITIAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set January 27
SRP FEDERAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Whitfield Alleges
SRP FEDERAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Cummings Suit Alleges

SRP FEDERAL: Pound Sues Over Failure to Protect Customers' Info
SUMMIT PATHOLOGY: Faces Smith Suit in D. Colorado
VALUE CITY: Sends Unsolicited Marketing Messages, McGonigle Alleges
VISA INC: Restricts Debit Network Market Competition, Pantano Says
VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Sanchez Says

WORLDREMIT CORP: Faces Egahi Suit Over Online Remittance Transfers
[*] Algarvian NGOs Sue to Stop Construction of New Faro Marina

                            *********

ANNA JAQUES: Fails to Protect Patients' Personal Info, Bruneau Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CARRIE BRUNEAU, behalf of all others similarly situated v. ANNA
JAQUES HOSPITAL, Case No. 1:24-cv-13179 (D. Mass., Dec. 23, 2024)
arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its
accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that
information.

The Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members bring this class
action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant
with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") and
Protected Health Information ("PHI") that was impacted in a data
breach that Defendant publicly disclosed on Dec. 5, 2024 (the "Data
Breach").

The Defendant had numerous statutory, regulatory, contractual, and
common law duties and obligations, including those based on its
affirmative representations to Plaintiff and Class Members, to keep
their Private Information confidential, safe, secure, and protected
from unauthorized disclosure or access.

On Dec. 25, 2023, the Defendant became aware of a security incident
impacting its IT Network. The Defendant launched an investigation
with the assistance of third-party cyber security experts to
determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach. The Defendant's
subsequent investigation on Nov. 5, 2024, confirmed that an
unauthorized third-party gained access to its IT Network and
accessed or acquired individual's sensitive information impacting
316,342 individuals. The Defendant's investigation determined that
the following types of Private Information was compromised in the
Data Breach: name, data of birth, Social Security number, medical
information, insurance information, patient name, patient address,
and patient telephone numbers, says the suit.

The Defendant allegedly failed to take precautions designed to keep
its patients' and employees' Private Information secure. Thus, the
Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data
compromise on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons
whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the
Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate
data security practices.

Plaintiff Bruneau is a resident of Salisbury, Massachusetts. The
Plaintiff is a patient of Defendant.

The Defendant is a not-for-profit community hospital headquartered
in Newburyport, Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary Ishimoto, Esq.
          Mark Svensson, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor 
          New York, NY 10004 
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          E-mail: gishimoto@zlk.com
                  msvensson@zlk.com

APPLIED THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Feb. 18
------------------------------------------------------------------
Leading securities law firm Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP announces
that a lawsuit has been filed against Applied Therapeutics, Inc.
(NASDAQ: APLT) and certain of the Company's senior executives for
potential violations of the federal securities laws.

If you invested in Applied Therapeutics, you are encouraged to
obtain additional information by visiting
https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/applied-therapeutics-inc.

Investors have until February 18, 2025, to ask the Court to be
appointed to lead the case. The complaint asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on
behalf of investors in Applied Therapeutics securities. The case is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York and is captioned Alexandru v. Applied Therapeutics, Inc., et
al., No. 24-cv-09715.

What is the Lawsuit About?

Applied Therapeutics is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company
specializing in the development of novel drug candidates against
validated molecular targets in rare diseases. The Company's lead
drug candidate, govorestat, is a central nervous system penetrant
Aldose Reductase Inhibitor for the treatment of CNS rare metabolic
diseases, including Galactosemia.

During the relevant period, the Company stated that its New Drug
Applications submitted to regulators for govorestat were "supported
by rapid and sustained reduction in galactitol, which resulted in a
meaningful benefit on clinical outcomes across pediatric patients,
alongside a favorable safety profile." Applied Therapeutics also
assured investors that its tests were "performed properly" and that
the Company "felt good about the quality of the data," stating that
it "took really extensive steps" and "actually videotaped" and had
"master trainers" review all of the performances of the 10-meter
walk-run test—the primary endpoint of the Company's Phase III
INSPIRE study for govorestat.

The Stock Declines as the Truth is Revealed

On November 27, 2024, Applied Therapeutics issued a press release
stating that the FDA issued a Complete Response Letter for the NDA
for govorestat. The Complete Response Letter stated that the FDA
completed its review of the application and determined that it was
unable to approve the NDA due to "deficiencies in the clinical
application."

This news caused the price of Applied Therapeutics stock to fall
more than 80% over the course of multiple trading days, from a
closing price of $10.21 per share on November 26, 2024 to a closing
price of $1.75 per share on December 2, 2024.

Then, on December 2, 2024, Applied Therapeutics revealed that it
received a warning letter from the FDA relating to its govorestat
study discussing "issues related to electronic data capture" and "a
dosing error in the dose-escalation phase of the study resulting in
slightly lower levels than targeted in a limited number of
patients[.]"

This news caused the price of Applied Therapeutics stock to fall
more than 26% over the course of multiple trading days, from a
closing price of $1.75 per share on December 2, 2024 to a closing
price of $1.29 per share on December 5, 2024.

Click here for more information:
https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/applied-therapeutics-inc.

What Can You Do?

If you invested in Applied Therapeutics you may have legal options
and are encouraged to submit your information to the firm.

All representation is on a contingency fee basis, there is no cost
to you. Shareholders are not responsible for any court costs or
expenses of litigation. The firm will seek court approval for any
potential fees and expenses.

Submit your information by visiting:

https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/applied-therapeutics-inc

Or contact:

     Ross Shikowitz
     ross@bfalaw.com
     (212) 789-3619

Why Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP?

Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP is a leading international law firm
representing plaintiffs in securities class actions and shareholder
litigation. It was named among the Top 5 plaintiff law firms by ISS
SCAS in 2023 and its attorneys have been named Titans of the
Plaintiffs' Bar by Law360 and SuperLawyers by Thompson Reuters.
Among its recent notable successes, BFA recovered over $900 million
in value from Tesla, Inc.'s Board of Directors (pending court
approval), as well as $420 million from Teva Pharmaceutical Ind.
Ltd.

For more information about BFA and its attorneys, please visit
https://www.bfalaw.com.

https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/applied-therapeutics-inc
[GN]

ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER: Settles 2020 Data Breach Class Suit for $21MM
------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. agreed to
a $21 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it
failed to prevent a 2020 data breach that compromised sensitive
employee and client information.

The Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. settlement benefits individuals who
received a data breach notification letter informing them a Arthur
J. Gallagher & Co. data breach may have compromised their
information between June 3-Sept. 26, 2020.

Plaintiffs in the data breach class action lawsuit accused
Gallagher of failing to protect their information from the breach.
The Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. breach reportedly compromised
sensitive personal information, such as Social Security numbers,
driver's license numbers, financial account information, medical
data and more.

Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. is an insurance brokerage company that
provides risk management services to clients around the world.

Gallagher hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to the $21
million class action settlement to resolve these allegations.

Under the terms of the Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. settlement, class
members can receive up to $6,000 for documented data breach losses.
This includes unreimbursed fraud, identity theft, professional
fees, credit expenses and other losses. Class members must provide
documentation of these losses to receive reimbursement.

Class members who did not experience losses as a result of the data
breach can still benefit from the settlement. All class members are
eligible for three years of financial account monitoring services.
Alternatively, class members can choose to receive a pro rata share
of the settlement fund instead of account monitoring.

In addition to the benefits listed above, California class members
can receive a payment of $100 under the terms of the settlement.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is Jan. 13, 2025.

The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Feb.
27, 2025.

To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by Feb. 10, 2025.

Who's Eligible

Individuals who received a letter from Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. or
Gallagher Bassett Services Inc. informing them their information
may have been impacted by a 2020 data breach

Potential Award
Up to $6,000

Proof of Purchase
Receipts, invoices, account statements, financial documents, tax
documents, IRS letters, police reports and more

Claim Form

NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.

Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.

Claim Form Deadline
02/10/2025

Case Name
In re: Arthur J. Gallagher Data Breach Litigation, Case No.
1:22-cv-00137, in the U.S. District Court Judge of the Northern
District of Illinois

Final Hearing
02/27/2025

Settlement Website
AJGDataSettlement.com

Claims Administrator

     AJG Settlement Administrator
     In re Arthur J. Gallagher Data Breach Litigation
     c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC
     PO Box 5324
     New York, NY 10150-5324
     (833) 739-0738

Class Counsel

     Anderson Berry
     CLAYEO C ARNOLD APC

     John A Yanchunis
     MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX BUSINESS DIVISION

     Gary M Klinger
     MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC

Defense Counsel

     Livia M Kiser
     KING & SPALDING LLP [GN]

ASML HOLDING: Faces Matar Suit Over Decline of Ordinary Shares
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANAS MATAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ASML HOLDING N.V., CHRISTOPHE FOUQUET, ROGER
DASSEN, and PETER WENNINK, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-09908
(S.D.N.Y., December 23, 2024) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding ASML's business, operations,
and prospects in order to trade ASML ordinary shares at
artificially inflated prices between January 24, 2024, and October
15, 2024. Specifically, the Defendants misrepresented and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) the issues being faced by suppliers, like
ASML, in the semiconductor industry were much more severe than the
Defendants had indicated to investors; (2) the pace of recovery of
sales in the semiconductor industry was much slower than the
Defendants had publicly acknowledged; (3) the Defendants had
created the false impression that they possessed reliable
information pertaining to customer demand and anticipated growth,
while also downplaying risk from macroeconomic and industry
fluctuations, as well as stronger regulations restricting the
export of semiconductor technology, including the products that
ASML sells; and (4) as a result, the Defendants' statements about
the company's business, operations, and prospects lacked a
reasonable basis.

When the truth emerged, the price of ASML ordinary shares plummeted
$141.84 per share, or approximately 16.3 percent, from a close of
$872.27 per share on October 14, 2024, to close at $730.43 per
share on October 15, 2024. Moreover, the price of ASML ordinary
shares fell an additional $46.91 per share, or approximately 6.4
percent, from a close of $730.43 per share on October 15, 2024, to
close at $683.52 per share on October 16, 2024. As a result of the
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the significant
decline in the market value of the company's ordinary shares, the
Plaintiff and other members of the Class have suffered significant
damages, says the suit.

ASML Holding, NV is a supplier to the semiconductor industry,
headquartered in Veldhoven, the Netherlands. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Javier Bleichmar, Esq.
       BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
       300 Park Avenue, Suite 1301
       New York, NY 10022
       Telephone: (212) 789-1340
       Facsimile: (212) 205-3960
       Email: jbleichmar@bfalaw.com

                - and -

       Ross Shikowitz, Esq.
       75 Virginia Road
       White Plains, NY 10603
       Telephone: (914) 265-2991
       Facsimile: (212) 205-3960
       Email: rshikowitz@bfalaw.com

                - and -

       Adam McCall, Esq.
       1330 Broadway, Suite 630
       Oakland, CA 94612
       Telephone: (415) 445-4003
       Facsimile: 415-445-4020
       Email: amccall@bfalaw.com

ASPIRE LIFESTYLES: Davis Seeks Customer Service Reps' Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARQUITA DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, ASPIRE LIFESTYLES (AMERICAS) INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-02343 (E.D. Va., Dec. 23, 2024) is a collective and class
action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of herself and all
similarly situated current and/or former Lifestyle Consultant,
Lifestyle Concierge, Customer Service Representative, and/or other
job titles performing the same or similar job duties ("Customer
Service Representatives" or "CSRs"), employees of the Defendant to
recover for Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and alleged contractual obligations (or unjust
enrichment if no contract is found), and other appropriate rules,
regulations, statutes, and ordinances.

The U.S. Department of Labor recognizes that call center jobs, like
the one held by the Plaintiff, are homogenous, and DOL issued
guidance to alert and condemn an employer's non-payment of an
employee’s necessary boot-up and call ready activities. The
Defendant subjected Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, to
Defendant's policy and practice of failing to compensate its call
center employees for their necessary boot-up and call ready work,
which resulted in the failure to properly compensate them as
required under applicable federal and state law, says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks a declaration that her rights, the rights of
the FLSA Collective, and the rights of the Breach of Contract Class
were violated and seeks to recover an award of unpaid wages and
overtime premiums, liquidated damages, penalties, injunctive and
declaratory relief, attorneys' fees and costs, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and any other remedies to which she and the
putative Collective and Class may be entitled.

The Plaintiff is an individual who currently resides in Illinois.
Plaintiff worked for Defendant in Georgia as a Lifestyle Consultant
from July 2022 to December 2023.

The Defendant employs Lifestyle Consultants, Lifestyle Concierges,
Customer Service Representatives, and/or other job titles
performing the same or similar job duties nationwide, including in
Pennsylvania, Nevada, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Arizona, South
Carolina, North Carolina, Kentucky, Connecticut, Virginia, and
Texas.

The Defendant provides customer and employee concierge service and
loyalty solutions on behalf of its clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael G. Phelan, Esq.
          Christopher P. Yakubisin, Esq.
          PHELAN PETTY, PLC
          3315 W. Broad Street
          Richmond, Virginia 23230
          Telephone: (804) 980-7100
          Facsimile: (804) 767-4601
          E-mail: mphelan@phelanpetty.com
                  cyakubisin@phelanpetty.com

               - and -

          Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
          Zackary S. Kaylor, Esq.
          JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
          444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
          Saint Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (612) 436-1800
          Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
          E-mail: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com
                  zkaylor@johnsonbecker.com

ASTRAZENECA PLC: Saleh Sues Over Artificially Inflated Price of ADS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JERIES SALEH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ASTRAZENECA PLC, PASCAL SORIOT, and ARADHANA
SARIN, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-11021 (C.D. Cal., December 23,
2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding AstraZeneca's business,
operations, and prospects in order to trade AstraZeneca securities
at artificially inflated prices between February 23, 2022, and
December 17, 2024. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
AstraZeneca engaged in insurance fraud in China; (2) as a result,
AstraZeneca faced heightened legal exposure in China, which
eventually resulted in the AstraZeneca China President being
detained by Chinese law enforcement authorities; (3) as a result,
AstraZeneca understated its legal risks; (4) the foregoing, once
revealed, could materially harm AstraZeneca's business activities
in China; and (5) as a result, the Defendants' statements about
their business, operations, and prospects, were materially false
and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant
times.

When the truth emerged, the price of AstraZeneca's American
Depositary Shares (ADSs) fell $2.39 per ADS, or 3.1 percent, to
close at $72.83 on October 30, 2024. The next day, AstraZeneca ADSs
fell a further $1.68 per ADS, or 2.3 percent, to close at $71.15 on
November 1, 2024. AstraZeneca ADSs continually fell $2.54 per ADS,
or 3.78 percent, to close at $64.64 on December 18, 2024. As a
result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
significant decline in the market value of the company's ordinary
shares, the Plaintiff and other members of the Class have suffered
significant damages.

AstraZeneca PLC is a pharmaceutical company headquartered in
Cambridge, England. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
       THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
       355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
       Los Angeles, CA 90071
       Telephone: (213) 785-2610
       Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
       Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

ATLANTIC UNION: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Sandy Spring
------------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating:

  -- Atlantic Union Bankshares Corp. (NYSE: AUB), relating to a
proposed merger with Sandy Spring Bancorp, Inc. Under the terms of
the agreement, all Sandy Spring shares will automatically be
converted into the right to receive 0.900 shares of AUB, and cash
in lieu of fractional shares.

ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for February 5, 2025.

Click link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/atlantic-union-bankshares-corp/. It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

  -- Cyclo Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: CYTH), relating to its
proposed merger with Rafael Holdings, Inc. Under the terms of the
agreement, Cyclo common stock will automatically be converted into
the right to receive shares of Rafael common stock.

Click link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/cyclo-therapeutics-inc/. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.

  -- Patterson Companies, Inc. (NASDAQ: PDCO), relating to the
proposed merger with Patient Square Capital. Under the terms of the
agreement, shareholders of Patterson will receive $31.35 in cash
per share.

Click link for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/patterson-companies-inc-pdco/. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

  -- SK Growth Opportunities Corporation (NASDAQ: SKGR), relating
to the proposed merger with Webull Corp. Under the terms of the
agreement, shares of SK Growth will be converted into shares of
Webull Corp.

Click link for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/sk-growth-opportunities-corporation-skgr/.
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you
should talk to a lawyer and ask:

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

About Monteverde & Associates PC

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

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

Contact:

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

Attorney Advertising. (C) 2024 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law
firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates
PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a
similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]

CERTIFIED EMPLOYMENT: Peralta Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KARLO PERALTA and RAVEN JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CERTIFIED EMPLOYMENT
SCREENING INC. d/b/a AMERICHEK and BACKCHECKED LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 8:24-cv-02779 (C.D. Cal., December 23, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence, breach of implied
contract, breach of third party beneficiary contract, unjust
enrichment, violations of the California Unfair Competition Law,
the California Consumer Privacy Act, and the California Customer
Records Act and declaratory judgment and injunctive relief.

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

Certified Employment Screening Inc., doing business as Americhek,
is a background research company based in Laguna Niguel,
California.

BackChecked LLC is an independent software company based in
Phoenix, Arizona. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
         KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
         One W. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 500
         Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
         Telephone: (954) 990-2218
         Email: cardoso@kolawyers.com

DELAWARE: Faces Class Action Suit Over "Escheatment Scheme"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Edelman, writing for Delaware News Journal, reports that a
class-action lawsuit was filed in Delaware federal court Friday,
December 20, against the leaders of the Delaware Office of
Unclaimed Property.

The memorandum supports a temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction in response to the Office of Unclaimed
Property's reported "escheatment scheme."

The action was brought on behalf of Jaime Vial and other heirs of a
Chilean man who owned stocks in companies incorporated in Delaware
such as Citigroup Inc. and Hilton Hotels Corp. The Office of
Unclaimed Property eventually seized the property without alerting
any of the man's heirs or lawyers, according to the lawsuit.

Vial contacted the Office of Unclaimed Property requesting the
money be returned, legal documents state, and only years later did
he receive checks worth over $2.5 million. However, the lawsuit
claims that this sum was "grossly inadequate" and failed to take
the current values of the stocks into account.

In response, the lawsuit demands that the state return the property
to each class action member or put them in the same monetary
position they would be if the property hadn't been seized,
including interest and compensation.

The Office of Unclaimed Property did not respond to a request for
comment.

What is unclaimed property?

Unclaimed properties are accounts, securities and other finances
being held at insurance companies, banks or other corporations that
have gone dormant for a specific period of time, according to the
Office of Unclaimed Property. This includes things like checking
and savings accounts, uncashed payroll checks and stock dividends,
unused gift cards and life insurance policies.

Once the property has been reported and remitted to the state,
Delaware will maintain custody of it "in perpetuity" until the
rightful owner comes forward and claims it. The laws come from a
consumer protection standpoint, according to the office.

However, the lawsuit claims that the Office of Unclaimed Property
failed to fulfill this fiduciary duty by not notifying and
inadequately compensating those with seized property.

Office of Unclaimed Property Director Brenda Mayrack "sought to
maximize the revenue of the program, while reducing the cost of the
program by eliminating notice to the owners," the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit

William W. Palmer, one of the attorneys involved in bringing the
lawsuit, said others living abroad have experienced similar
problems. He also said an expert declared the Office of Unclaimed
Property's website was "broken and inoperative," making it
difficult or even impossible to discover and claim one's property.

Palmer said the state has tried to negotiate with him and the
others involved in the lawsuit, but that they would be moving
forward with the legal action.

He also said he spoke with a government employee in Delaware, whose
deposition was ordered to be sealed.

"This is what government does," Palmer said. "It tries to exhaust
you. It tries to make, tries to impede you, until you finally throw
up your hands and give up. And we're not going to give up." [GN]

DR. SQUATCH: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Crumwell Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
DENISE CRUMWELL, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated v. DR. SQUATCH, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-09917
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 23, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://www.drsquatch.com/, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products
and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because the Defendant's
interactive website, including all portions thereof or accessed
thereon, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers, it violates the ADA.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website
available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader
programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired
individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services
-- all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals—thereby
increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons
that Title III was meant to redress, the Plaintiff asserts.

The Defendant operates the Dr. Squatch online interactive Website
and retail store across the United States. This online interactive
Website and retail store constitute a place of public accommodation
because it is a sales establishment. The Defendant's interactive
Website provides consumers with access to an array of goods and
services including information about Defendant's: soaps and hygiene
products, as well as other types of goods, pricing, terms of
service, refund, privacy policies and internet pricing
specials.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb (JG-7905)
          Dana L. Gottlieb (DG-6151)
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, New York 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
                  Dana@Gottlieb.legal
                  Michael@Gottlieb.legal

DUPONT SPECIALTY: Removes Parish Suit to W.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case of RYAN PARISH; JOHN STOVER; JUNIUS
HODGE; KYLE MARTIN; CHRISTOPHER OQUENDO; and EDGAR ROBINSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. DUPONT SPECIALTY PRODUCTS USA, LLC; and DUPONT DE
NEMOURS, INC., Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit
from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Erie
(Index No. 813801/2024) to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York on Oct. 25, 2024.

The clerk of court for the Western District of New York assigned
Case No. 24-cv-01040-JLS. The case is assigned to John L. Sinatra,
Jr. and referred to Magistrate Michael J. Roemer.

Dupont Specialty Products USA, LLC provides technology based
materials and solutions. The Company offers a diverse range of
products, such as construction materials, adhesives, electronic,
fabrics, fibers, home garden, medical devices, resins, printing,
and consumer products. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Richard A. Braden, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Coren, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
          SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          50 Fountain Plaza, Suite 1400
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 831-2741
          Email: richard.braden@ogletree.com
                 jeffrey.coren@ogletree.com


ENPHASE ENERGY: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP informs
investors that the firm has filed a securities fraud class action
lawsuit against Enphase Energy, Inc. (NASDAQ: ENPH) ("Enphase" or
the "Company") on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased
or otherwise acquired Enphase common stock between April 25, 2023,
and October 22, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action,
captioned The Trustees of the Welfare and Pension Funds of Local
464A - Pension Fund v. Enphase Energy, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:24-cv-09038-JST, was filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California.

Important Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Enphase common stock during the Class Period may, no later
than February 11, 2025, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
for the class.

CONTACT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP:
If you suffered Enphase losses, you may CLICK HERE or copy and
paste this link into your browser:
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/enphase-energy-inc-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=enph&mktm=r

You can also contact attorney Jonathan Naji, Esq. of Kessler Topaz
by calling (484) 270-1453 or by email at info@ktmc.com.

DEFENDANTS' MISCONDUCT

Enphase develops, manufactures, and sells solar microinverters,
which are primarily used in residential solar installations to
convert solar panel output from direct current to alternating
current (which can be transmitted to the power grid). As is
relevant here, Enphase's international revenue has been growing in
recent years as the Company expands globally, particularly in
Europe, with international revenue accounting for more than 35% of
the Company's total revenue in 2023.

Prior to the beginning of the Class Period, Chinese solar companies
were significantly disrupting the European solar inverter market by
selling or "dumping" their products at extremely low prices, a fact
highlighted by Morgan Stanley Research on April 24, 2023, when it
reported that Chinese inverter export value increased 156%
year-over-year internationally, with the Netherlands and
Germany—two of Enphase's key markets in Europe—showing
year-over-year surges of 342% and 330%, respectively.

The Class Period begins on April 25, 2023, when the Company
announced its first quarter 2023 financial results. Among other
things, Enphase reported an approximately 25% year-over-year
increase in European revenue. During the accompanying quarterly
investor earnings call held that same day, Defendant Badrinarayanan
Kothandaraman, the Company's President and Chief Executive Officer,
touted that Enphase's "European business is growing rapidly," with
"sell-through of our microinverters in Europe reach[ing] an alltime
high" in the quarter. When asked specifically about competition in
Europe from Chinese manufacturers and the risk of margin erosion
caused by price deflation from those competitors, Defendant
Raghuveer Belur, a Company co-founder and the Company's Senior Vice
President and Chief Products Officer, dismissed such concerns,
stating that "[c]ompetition is strong everywhere" and is "nothing
new [in Europe]," while Defendant Kothandaraman claimed that
Enphase does not "see any drop in [it's] pricing."

Investors began to learn the truth about Enphase's competitive
challenges in Europe after the market closed on October 26, 2023,
when the Company reported an approximately 34% quarter-over-quarter
decline in European revenue in the third quarter of 2023 due to
"softening in demand." During the accompanying quarterly investor
earnings call held that same day, Defendant Kothandaraman was
adamant that the Company would not adjust its pricing strategies,
despite countervailing competitive market forces, emphasizing that
"there's no broad-based pricing adjustment from us."

In response to the decline in European revenue and Defendant
Kothandaraman's unwillingness to consider pricing adjustments,
analysts at BofA Securities reiterated their underperform rating on
the stock and criticized the Company for refusing to cut prices to
pursue market share, as "competitive risks" endured in Europe. On
this news, the price of Enphase common stock declined $14.09 per
share, or nearly 15%, from a close of $96.18 per share on October
26, 2023, to close at $82.09 per share on October 27, 2023.

Throughout the remainder of the Class Period, Defendants continued
to downplay the competitive threats in the European solar inverter
market and reassured investors that Enphase's European pricing
strategy was sound.

Investors fully learned the truth about Enphase's competitive
positioning in Europe after the market closed on October 22, 2024,
when the Company announced its third quarter 2024 financial results
and revealed an approximately 15% quarter-over-quarter decline in
European revenue due to "further softening in European demand."
During the accompanying quarterly investor earnings call held that
same day, Defendant Kothandaraman was again asked whether, in light
of the Company's weakness in Europe, Enphase would alter its
pricing strategy. While he acknowledged that the Company had
occasionally made customer-specific price concessions, Defendant
Kothandaraman reiterated that "we are not dropping pricing
anywhere," despite prevailing competitive headwinds.

In response to Enphase's continued poor performance in Europe,
Guggenheim downgraded Enphase stock to a sell rating from a neutral
rating and explained that Enphase is "losing share to Chinese
competitors who are willing to sell at less than half [Enphase]'s
level." On this news, the price of Enphase common stock declined
$13.76 per share, or nearly 15%, from a close of $92.23 per share
on October 22, 2024, to close at $78.47 per share on October 23,
2024.

WHAT CAN I DO?

Enphaseinvestors may, no later than February 11, 2025, move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff for the class, through Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member. Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP encourages Enphase investors who have suffered
significant losses to contact the firm directly to acquire more
information.

WHO CAN BE A LEAD PLAINTIFF?

A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of
all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff
is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the
largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of
the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel
to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys,
if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability
to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether
or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.

ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country and around the
world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence
and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and
other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common
goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from
fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and
fiduciaries.

For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
please visit www.ktmc.com.

CONTACT:

     Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
     Jonathan Naji, Esq.
     280 King of Prussia Road
     Radnor, PA 19087
     (484) 270-1453
     info@ktmc.com [GN]

FOOT LOCKER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Victor Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
LUIS VICTOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FOOT LOCKER RETAIL, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-09909 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 23, 2024) seeks to recover from
the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff Victor was employed by the Defendant as a staff.

Foot Locker Retail, Inc. provides apparel. The Company offers
footwear, apparel, and accessories through internet, mobile, and
catalog channels. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
          Hunter G Benharris, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 300-0375

GIVAUDAN FLAVORS: Six Residents Join Plant Explosion Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Killian Baarlaer, writing for Louisville Courier Journal, reports
that an additional six Louisville residents who claim to have been
harmed by the explosion that killed two people and injured many
others at the Givaudan Flavors Corporation plant in the Clifton
neighborhood last month have joined a lawsuit two residents filed
Nov. 26, court records show.

The lawsuit now includes eight plaintiffs who allege Givaudan was
negligent regarding the safety and maintenance of the cooking
vessel that caused the explosion. The suit also alleges that the
explosion caused damage to and interfered with their use of
personal property. A few plaintiffs also claimed the explosion
caused them emotional distress and prompted them to seek health
care.

The amended complaint was filed in the Jefferson Circuit Court
Wednesday, December 18, according to court records. The main
difference in the amended suit is it aims to sue on behalf of a
proposed class to offer relief for "similarly situated" people.

Tad Thomas, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said he plans to
formally file for class-action certification in the "near future."
Between 25 to 30 people have approached Thomas' firm with claims
that would place them in the class if it's approved, he said.

The plaintiffs allege the company was warned about issues with
cooking vessel No. 6 -- which officials announced caused the deadly
explosion -- but did not take steps to repair it.

The amended complaint lays out details about how the explosion
impacted the new plaintiffs. Most allege the explosion caused
property damage, with others claiming it caused them emotional
distress, leading them to seek medical treatment and lose income.

In the original complaint, Edward "Alex" Roberts and Ana Carolina
Gomez Bridge said they were inside their home, about a block from
the food coloring manufacturer's property, when the blast occurred.
They claim the explosion blew out windows, damaged doors and caused
issues with the home's foundation, which will require professional
repair.

Additionally, Gomez Bridge suffered severe emotional distress,
requiring her to pursue therapeutic care and treatment and shoulder
medical bills.

The lawsuit seeks punitive and compensatory damages, along with any
additional relief found to be appropriate, according to the
lawsuit.

On Dec. 11, the plaintiff of another lawsuit related to the
explosion that sought class-action status voluntarily dismissed his
case from the Jefferson Circuit Court, because his legal team and
Thomas decided to join forces since the two suits made similar
claims, he said.

In the now dismissed lawsuit, Louisville resident Charles Fowler
said he was driving in the area for DoorDash when the explosion
occurred, triggering symptoms of his post-traumatic stress disorder
that stemmed from his time serving in the Iraq War. [GN]

GOODRX INC: Controls Prices Paid to Pharmacies, Association Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
PHILADELPHIA ASSOCIATION OF RETAIL DRUGGISTS, OLD BALTIMORE PIKE
APOTHECARY, INC., T/A SOUTHERN CHESTER COUNTY PHARMACY; and SMITH'S
PHARMACY II, INC., D/B/A SMITH'S PHARMACY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GOODRX,
INC., GOODRX HOLDINGS, INC., CVS CAREMARK CORPORATION, EXPRESS
SCRIPTS INC., MEDIMPACT HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, INC., and NAVITUS
HEALTH SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-11023 (C.D.
Cal., December 23, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and
Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act.

The case arises from the Defendants' conspiracy to fix prices paid
to pharmacies for reimbursement of prescription drug claims. The
Defendants exert their market power by employing various
anticompetitive tactics to restrain competition in the prescription
drug dispensing market, forcing independent pharmacies out of
business and thereby increasing the market share of the pharmacy
benefit managers' (PBMs) affiliated pharmacies. Among these tactics
is a recent scheme devised by the Defendants to (i) share real time
pricing data with one another and access real time pricing data of
other non-Defendant PBMs using GoodRx as a clearinghouse, and (ii)
allocate transactions to be adjudicated by the PBM with the lowest
consumer discount price to avoid paying the reimbursement rates
that PBM Defendants negotiated with pharmacies on behalf of
insurers. As a result of the Defendants' conduct, pharmacies were
injured by receiving decreased reimbursement for dispensing generic
prescription drugs and paying increased fees to PBMs and GoodRx
resulting from discount card transactions, says the suit.

Philadelphia Association of Retail Druggists, also known as PARD,
is a nonprofit corporation, with its principal place of business
located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Old Baltimore Pike Apothecary, Inc., trading as Southern Chester
County Pharmacy, is a pharmacy services provider, with its
principal place of business located in West Grove, Pennsylvania.

Smith's Pharmacy II, Inc., doing business as Smith's Pharmacy, is a
pharmacy services provider, with its principal place of business
located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

GoodRx, Inc. is a prescription drug price comparison tool provider,
with its principal place of business in Santa Monica, California.

GoodRx Holdings, Inc. is a prescription drug price comparison tool
provider, with its principal place of business in Santa Monica,
California.

CVS Caremark Corporation is a pharmacy benefit manager with its
headquarters in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.

Express Scripts Inc. is a pharmacy benefit manager with its
headquarters in St. Louis, Missouri.

MedImpact Healthcare Systems, Inc. is a pharmacy benefit manager
with its headquarters in San Diego, California.

Navitus Health Solutions, LLC is a pharmacy benefit manager with
its headquarters in Wisconsin. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
       Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
       Bobby Pouya, Esq.
       Naveed Abaie, Esq.
       PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP
       15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
       Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
       Telephone: (818) 788-8300
       Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
       Email: dwarshaw@pwfirm.com
              bpouya@pwfirm.com
              nabaie@pwfirm.com

                - and -

       Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
       Geralyn J. Trujillo, Esq.
       Jonathan S. Crevier, Esq.
       John M. Shaw, Esq.
       DICELLO LEVITT LLP
       485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 101
       New York, NY 10017
       Telephone: (646) 933-1000
       Email: gasciolla@dicellolevitt.com
              gtrujillodicellolevitt.com
              jcrevier@dicellolevitt.com
              jshaw@dicellolevitt.com

                - and -

       Joshua H. Grabar, Esq.
       GRABAR LAW OFFICE
       One Liberty Place
       1650 Market Street, Suite 3600
       Philadelphia, PA 19103
       Telephone: (267) 507-6085
       Email: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com

GOOGLE LLC: Appeals Tribunal Approves Antitrust Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Competition Appeal Tribunal has confirmed that Nikki Stopford's
class action claim of over GBP7bn against Google for alleged
breaches of competition law in respect of its search services in
the UK may proceed to a full trial. Ms Stopford has been approved
to act as the class representative on behalf of consumers that she
claims have suffered loss due to Google's conduct.

A notice, issued by Ms Stopford at the direction of the Tribunal,
confirms that if you, or any person whose estate you represent,
were living in the UK on 22 November 2024, and you made a relevant
purchase from businesses selling goods and/or services in the UK
which used search advertising services provided by Google in the
period from 1 January 2011 to 7 September 2023, you are
automatically included in Ms Stopford's claim unless you "opt-out"
by 18 March 2025.

By opting out you keep the right to bring your own separate claim
against Google. However, if you opt-out you will not be able to get
any money from this claim (if money becomes available).

For more information on how to opt-out, visit
www.searchclaim.co.uk. Class members are encouraged to check the
website for updates about the claim, including access to Tribunal
orders and further guidance.

Further information on the claim

Ms Stopford alleges that Google has breached European and UK
competition law by abusing its dominant position in the search
advertising market.

In particular, Ms Stopford alleges that Google acted
anti-competitively by (i) tying Google Search with mobile apps and
services on Android devices, which in practice forced handset
manufacturers to pre-install Google search and browser apps on
devices using its Android operating system; and (ii) paying Apple
billions to ensure that Google Search was the default search engine
on iPhones and other devices that used Apple's iOS operating
system.

As a result of Google Search being the default search engine for
the large majority of mobile devices, Ms Stopford alleges that it
has been possible for Google to raise the prices paid by
advertisers for prominence on the Google Search page. Therefore,
you may have paid higher prices for goods and services bought from
advertisers as they passed their increased costs on to you, the
consumer.

Ms Stopford alleges that if you are UK-domiciled, aged 16 and over
and, between 1 January 2011 and 7 September 2023 (inclusive), you
have bought goods or services from businesses selling in the UK
which used search advertising services provided by Google, you are
entitled to compensation.

Ms Stopford is represented by Hausfeld & Co. LLP.

Notes for Editors

About Hausfeld & Co. LLP

Hausfeld is a leading international law firm specialising in
competition law, with significant expertise in all aspects of
collective redress and group claims.

Contacts
Palatine Communications - Conal Walsh / Richard Seed / Joshua
Wolff
searchclaim@palatine-media.com [GN]

JACOBS ENTERTAINMENT: Retzolff Sues Over Compromised Clients' Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE RETZOLFF, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JACOBS ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-03538-KAS (D. Colo., December 23, 2024)
is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of
implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff
and similarly situated customers stored within its network systems
following a data breach that began on or around September 23, 2024.
The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and
similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result,
the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was
compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown
and unauthorized third parties, says the suit.

Jacobs Entertainment, Inc. is a gaming, hospitality, and
entertainment company, headquartered in Golden, Colorado. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         William B. Federman, Esq.
         Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq.
         FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
         10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
         Oklahoma City, OK 73120
         Telephone: (405) 235-1560
         Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com
                jaw@federmanlaw.com

MAMA MARIA'S: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Scott Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
SEAN SCOTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAMA MARIA'S PIZZERIA & RESTAURANT, INC.;
ANTHONY BASILE; FRANK BASILE; and CROCE BASILE, Defendants, Case
No. 1:24-cv-01564-AMN-CFH (N.D.N.Y., Dec. 23, 2024) is an action
against the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.

Plaintiff Scott was employed by the Defendant as a restaurant
worker.

Mama Maria's Pizzeria & Restaurant, Inc. operates a restaurant
Stamford, NY. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Madeline Howard, Esq.
          SACCO & FILLAS, LLP
          3119 Newtown Ave, Seventh Floor
          Astoria, NY 11102
          Telephone: (718) 269-2251
          Facsimile: (718) 559-6517
          Email: mhoward@saccofillas.com

MARIANI PACKING: Removes Taylor Suit to S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of TIFFANY TAYLOR, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARIANI
PACKING CO. INC., Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit
from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Queens
(Index Number 717567/2024) to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on Oct. 25, 2024, 2024.

The clerk of court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:24-cv-08134-AT. The case is assigned to Analisa Torres.

Mariani Packing Co., Inc. provides food products. The Company
specializes in growing, drying, processing, and packaging dried
fruit snacks and ingredient products. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Daniel DiMuro, Esq.
          GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
          One Battery Park, 28th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 269-5500
          Facsimile: (212) 269-5505
          Email: ddimuro@grsm.com

NATIONAL HOCKEY: Sued Over Hockey Player Monopoly
-------------------------------------------------
WORLD ASSOCIATION OF ICEHOCKEY PLAYERS UNIONS NORTH AMERICA
DIVISION; and WORLD ASSOCIATION OF ICEHOCKEY PLAYERS UNIONS USA
CORPORATION, on behalf of their members, and Tanner Gould and
Isaiah DiLaura, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE; CANADIAN HOCKEY
LEAGUE; WESTERN HOCKEY LEAGUE; ONTARIO MAJOR JUNIOR HOCKEY LEAGUE;
QUEBEC MARITIMES JUNIOR HOCKEY LEAGUE; GOLDRUSH SPORTS CORP.;
CALGARY FLAMES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; EDMONTON MAJOR JUNIOR HOCKEY
CORPORATION, EHT, INC.; KAMLOOPS BLAZERS HOCKEY CLUB, INC.; KELOWNA
ROCKETS HOCKEY ENTERPRISES LTD.; SHOOT THE PUCK FOUNDATION INC.;
LETHBRIDGE HURRICANES HOCKEY CLUB LTD.; MEDICINE HAT TIGERS HOCKEY
CLUB LTD.; MOOSE JAW WARRIORS TIER 1 HOCKEY INC.; WINTERHAWKS
HOCKEY LLC; PRINCE ALBERT RAIDERS HOCKEY CLUB LTD.; EDGEPRO SPORTS
& ENTERTAINMENT LTD.; REBELS SPORTS LTD.; QUEEN CITY SPORTS &
ENTERTAINMENT GROUP LTD.; SASKATOON BLADES HOCKEY CLUB LTD.;
THUNDERBIRD HOCKEY ENTERPRISES, LLC; HAT TRICK, INC.; SWIFT CURRENT
BRONCO HOCKEY CLUB INC.; TOP SHELF ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; VANCOUVER
JUNIOR HOCKEY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; WEST COAST HOCKEY LLP; WINDSOR
SPITFIRES, INC.; LONDON KNIGHTS HOCKEY INC.; BARRIE COLTS JUNIOR
HOCKEY LTD.; BULLDOG HOCKEY INC.; JAW HOCKEY ENTERPRISES LP; GUELPH
STORM HOCKEY CLUB LTD.; KINGSTON FRONTENACS HOCKEY CLUB LTD.;
MISSISSAUGA STEELHEADS HOCKEY CLUB INC.; NIAGARA ICEDOGS HOCKEY
CLUB INC.; NORTH BAY BATTALION HOCKEY CLUB LTD.; GENERALS HOCKEY,
INC.; OTTAWA 67'S LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; THE OWEN SOUND ATTACK INC.;
PETERBOROUGH PETES LIMITED; IMS HOCKEY, CORP; SAGINAW HOCKEY CLUB,
L.L.C.; 211 SSHC CANADA ULC; SOO GREYHOUNDS INC.; KITCHENER RANGERS
JR. A HOCKEY CLUB; SUDBURY WOLVES HOCKEY CLUB LTD.; LE TITAN ACADIE
BATHURST (2013) INC. / THE ACADIE BATHURST TITAN (2013) INC.;
HOCKEY JUNIOR BAIE- COMEAU INC.; LE CLUB DE HOCKEY DRUMMOND INC.;
CAPE BRETON MAJOR JUNIOR HOCKEY CLUB LIMITED; LES OLYMPIQUES DE
GATINEAU INC.; HALIFAX MOOSEHEADS HOCKEY CLUB INC.; CLUB DE HOCKEY
LES REMPARTS DE QUEBEC (2014) INC.; LE CLUB DE HOCKEY JUNIOR ARMADA
INC.; MONCTON WILDCATS HOCKEY CLUB LIMITED; LE CLUB DE HOCKEY
L'OCEANIC DE RIMOUSKI INC.; LES HUSKIES DE ROUYN-NORANDA INC.;
8515182 CANADA INC.; LES TIGRES DE VICTORIAVILLE (1991) INC.; SAINT
JOHN MAJOR JUNIOR HOCKEY CLUB LIMITED; CLUB DE HOCKEY SHAWINIGAN
INC.; LES FOREURS DE VAL-D'OR (2012) INC.; LES SAGUENEENS JUNIOR
MAJEUR DE CHICOUTIMI; AND 7759983 CANADA INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-02135 (W.D. Wash., Dec. 23, 2024) alleges violation of the
Sherman Act.

The Plaintiffs alleges that the Defendants are engaged in unlawful
conspiracy to restrain competition for the provision of hockey
services in North America by players aged 16-20. Defendants'
conspiracy eliminates all freedom of movement for Major Junior
Players, which results in their systematic exploitation and abuse

National Hockey League Inc. provides entertainment services. The
Company promotes a professional ice hockey league, franchises, and
minor league teams with a profit motive. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael C. Submit, Esq.
          FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS LLP
          705 2nd Avenue, Suite 1200
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 682-6711
          Email: msubit@frankfreed.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey I. Shinder, Esq.
          Ethan E. Litwin, Esq.
          David Scupp, Esq.
          SHINDER CANTOR LERNER LLP
          14 Penn Plaza, 19th Floor
          New York, NY 10122
          Telephone: (646) 960-8600
          Email: jeffrey@scl-llp.com
                 ethan@scl-llp.com
                 david@scl-llp.com

               - and -

          J. Wyatt Fore, Esq.
          SHINDER CANTOR LERNER LLP
          600 14th St. NW, 5th Floor
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (646) 960-8612
          Email: wyatt@scl-llp.com

               - and -

          Judith A. Zahid, Esq.
          Sarah Van Culin, Esq.
          ZELLE LLP
          555 12th Street, Suite 1230
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (415) 693-0700
          Email: jzahid@zellelaw.com
                 svanculin@zellelaw.com

               - and -

          James R. Martin, Esq.
          ZELLE LLP
          1774 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 375
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 899-4101
          Email: jmartin@zellelaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Rubin, Esq.
          Stacey Leyton, Esq.
          Bronwen O’Herin, Esq.
          ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
          177 Post Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 421-7151
          Email: mrubin@altber.com
                 sleyton@altber.com
                 boherin@altber.com

               - and -

          Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
          Alexander E. Barnett, Esq.
          Geralyn J. Trujillo, Esq.
          Noah L. Cozad, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT LLP
          485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 933-1000
          Email: gasciolla@dicellolevitt.com
                 abarnett@dicellolevitt.com
                 gtrujillo@dicellolevitt.com
                 ncozad@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Steve D. Shadowen, Esq.
          Richard Brunell, Esq.
          Tina Miranda, Esq.
          HILLIARD SHADOWEN LLP
          1135 6th Street, Suite 125
          Austin, TX 78703
          Telephone: (717) 903-1177
          Email: steve@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
                 rbrunell@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
                 tmiranda@hilliardshadowenlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul E. Slater, Esq.
          Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
          Matthew H. Rice, Esq.
          Matthew T. Slater, Esq.
          Trevor K. Scheetz, Esq.
          SPERLING KENNY NACHWALTER, LLC
          321 North Clark Street, 25th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 641-3200
          Email: pes@sperlingkenny.com
                 jvanek@sperlingkenny.com
                 mslater@sperlingkenny.com
                 mrice@sperlingkenny.com
                 tscheetz@sperlingkenny.com

               - and -

          Philip F. Cramer, Esq.
          SPERLING KENNY NACHWALTER, LLC
          1221 Broadway, Suite 2140
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (312) 224-1512
          Email: pcramer@sperlingkenny.com

               - and -

          James Almon, Esq.
          SPERLING KENNY NACHWALTER, LLC
          2707 Killarney Way, Suite 202
          Tallahassee, FL 32309
          Telephone: (850) 354-5300
          Email: jalmon@sperlingkenny.com

NORDIC NATURALS: Knowles Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store
------------------------------------------------------------------
CARLTON KNOWLES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NORDIC NATURALS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-09916 (S.D.N.Y., December 23, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the
New York City Human Rights Law.

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

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

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

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

OMNOVA NORTH: Faces Moncavage Wage-and-Hour Suit in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN MONCAVAGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OMNOVA NORTH AMERICA INC. and OMNOVA
SOLUTIONS INC., Defendants, Case No. 241202831 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl.,
Philadelphia Cty., December 23, 2024) is a class action against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants at a manufacturing
facility in Auburn, Pennsylvania from approximately 2017 until
approximately October 2024.

Omnova North America Inc. is a manufacturer of surface solutions,
headquartered in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.

Omnova Solutions Inc. is a manufacturer of surface solutions,
headquartered in Beachwood, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Peter Winebrake, Esq.
         Michelle Tolodziecki, Esq.
         WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
         715 Twining Road, Suite 211
         Dresher, PA 19025
         Telephone: (215) 884-2491

ONP-ECOM LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Wurm Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
SANDRA WURM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ONP-ECOM LLC, Defendant, Case No.
24-CA-007106 (Fla. Cir., Lee Cty., Oct. 25, 2024) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. The case is
assigned to Judge Michael T. McHugh.

Onp Ecom LLC is a Boulder-based company that specializes in
providing natural and holistic pet products for dogs and cats.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Glickman
          SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
          6709 W. 119th St., #198
          Overland Park, KS 66209
          Tel: (913) 213-3064



PENNS WOODS: M&A Investigates Merger With Northwest Bancshares
--------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating:

  -- Penns Woods Bancorp, Inc. (NASDAQ: PWOD), relating to the
proposed merger with Northwest Bancshares, Inc. Under the terms of
the agreement, Penns Woods shareholders will be entitled to receive
2.385 shares of Northwest common stock for each share of Penns
Woods common stock they own.

Click link for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/penns-woods-bancorp-inc-pwod/. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

  -- Cara Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: CARA), relating to the
proposed merger with Tvardi Therapeutics, Inc. Under the terms of
the agreement, Cara Therapeutics stockholders are expected to own
approximately 17.0% of the combined company.

Click link for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/cara-therapeutics-inc-cara/. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

  -- NeuroMetrix, Inc. (NASDAQ: NURO), relating to the proposed
merger with electroCore, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement,
shareholders of NeuroMetrix will be entitled to receive the
equivalent of the balance of NeuroMetrix's net cash at the closing
of the transaction, estimated to be $9 million in the aggregate.

Click link for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/neurometrix-inc-nuro/. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.

  -- VOXX International Corporation (NASDAQ: VOXX), relating to the
proposed merger with Gentex Corporation. Under the terms of the
agreement, Gentex will acquire all issued and outstanding shares of
VOXX common stock not already owned by Gentex for a purchase price
of $7.50 per share.

Click link for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/voxx-international-corporation-voxx/.
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you
should talk to a lawyer and ask:

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

About Monteverde & Associates PC

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

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

Contact:

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

Attorney Advertising. (C) 2024 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law
firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates
PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a
similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]

PENNS WOODS: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Northwest Bancshares
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating:

-- Penns Woods Bancorp, Inc. (NASDAQ: PWOD), relating to the
proposed merger with Northwest Bancshares, Inc. Under the terms of
the agreement, Penns Woods shareholders will be entitled to receive
2.385 shares of Northwest common stock for each share of Penns
Woods common stock they own.

Click link for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/penns-woods-bancorp-inc-pwod/. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

  -- Cara Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: CARA), relating to the
proposed merger with Tvardi Therapeutics, Inc. Under the terms of
the agreement, Cara Therapeutics stockholders are expected to own
approximately 17.0% of the combined company.

Click link for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/cara-therapeutics-inc-cara/. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

  -- NeuroMetrix, Inc. (NASDAQ: NURO), relating to the proposed
merger with electroCore, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement,
shareholders of NeuroMetrix will be entitled to receive the
equivalent of the balance of NeuroMetrix's net cash at the closing
of the transaction, estimated to be $9 million in the aggregate.

Click link for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/neurometrix-inc-nuro/. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.

  -- VOXX International Corporation (NASDAQ: VOXX), relating to the
proposed merger with Gentex Corporation. Under the terms of the
agreement, Gentex will acquire all issued and outstanding shares of
VOXX common stock not already owned by Gentex for a purchase price
of $7.50 per share.

Click link for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/voxx-international-corporation-voxx/.
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you
should talk to a lawyer and ask:

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

About Monteverde & Associates PC

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

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

Contact:

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

Attorney Advertising. (C) 2024 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law
firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates
PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a
similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]

PHOTOBUCKET INC: Faces Class Suit Over Unfair Online Photo Storage
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN DOE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
PHOTOBUCKET, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-03557 (D. Colo., Dec. 23, 2024)
is data privacy class action complaint against Photobucket for
violations of federal and state law seeking actual damages,
restitution, disgorgement of profit into a constructive trust,
statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable
costs and attorneys' fees, and all other relief and for claims
pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, applicable
statutes that forbid biometric collection, consumer protection
statutes, as well as under the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

Initially, it was free to use and was heavily advertised to users,
like Plaintiff Doe and Class members. Upon creating an account,
users could upload photos and then seamlessly share them on other
platforms that were linked via Photobucket's integrations,
including social media platforms. Photobucket's integrations worked
with third parties like Etsy, eBay, MySpace and Twitter/X, and
Plaintiff Doe used this feature to share his photos on social media
platforms, says the suit.

Photobucket is a photo storage service that lets users save their
digitized photographs by using Photobucket's internet-powered
platform. Currently, there are over 13 billion images of both
consenting and non-consenting persons on the Photobucket -- many of
which originated from Twitter/X and the now defunct social media
platform MySpace.

Photobucket advertised itself as a place where consumers could
access their photographs while also promising to protect the data
privacy and intellectual property rights of the persons in the
photographs stored on its platform. Recently, however, that all has
changed. According to the complaint, Photobucket is now putting a
figurative gun to the heads of the persons photographed in the
images stored on their website: either remove your photos through a
cumbersome opt out process or have your likeness monetized by
Photobucket, the suit alleges.

Specifically, Photobucket has rebranded itself as technology
platform that allows artificial intelligence ("AI") and facial
recognition ("biometrics") to be collected from the faces found in
those images. At this point, Photobucket presents a Hobson's choice
between losing the memories that users chose to store on
Photobucket's platform or to serve Photobucket as a cog in its AI
generation and biometrics collection machine, the suit further
asserts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
          Scott E. Silberfein, Esq.
          SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC
          85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
          Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
          E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                  silberfeins@thesultzerlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com
          byagman@leedsbrownlaw.com

               - and -

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

REGIONAL CARE: Chisolm Suit Alleges Unprotected Personal Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
AISHA CHISOLM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. REGIONAL CARE, INC., Case No. 7:24-cv-05009-JFB-RCC (D.
Neb., Dec. 23, 2024) is a class action suit arising from the
Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data.

On Sept. 16, 2024, the Defendant discovered it had lost control
over its computer network and the highly sensitive personal
information stored on its computer network in a data breach
perpetrated by cybercriminals. Accordingly, the Data Breach has
impacted at least 225,728 of Defendant’s current and former
clients (and their employees).

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant had no effective means to
prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems --
thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to at least
225,728 of its current and former clients' (and their current and
former employees') Private Information, including but not limited
to their full names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers,
medical information, and health insurance information.

On Dec.16, 2024 -- approximately three months after the Data Breach
was discovered–RCI finally began notifying Class Members about
the Data Breach.

The Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal
identifiable information and protected health information about its
current and former clients (and their current and former
employees). But Defendant lost control over that data when
cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer
systems in a breach, says the suit.

The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim. She brings this class action
on behalf of herself, and all others harmed by the Defendant's
misconduct.

The Defendant is an independent third-party health plan
administrator that serves approximately 300 clients across 48
states.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

RENTOKIL INITIAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set January 27
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHI News reports that Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF
partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti,
Jr., remind investors that they have until January 27, 2025 to file
lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit
against Rentokil Initial plc (the "Company") (NYSE: RTO), if they
purchased the Company's American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") between
December 1, 2023 and September 10, 2024, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). This action is pending in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Tennessee.

What You May Do

If you purchased ADSs of Rentokil and would like to discuss your
legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to
recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost
to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at
1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-rto/ to learn more. If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court by January 27, 2025.

About the Lawsuit

Rentokil and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

On September 11, 2024, pre-market, the Company provided an
unscheduled "Trading Update," announcing that it now expected only
1% organic revenue growth in North America for the second half of
2024—well below the Company's prior guidance, also disclosing
that "While we saw some positive momentum in North America sales
activity at the end of the second quarter, the trading performance
in July and August was lower than anticipated. There has also been
some modest disruption to organic growth from branch integration."

On this news, the price of Rentokil ADSs fell by over 21%, from a
closing price of $31.60 per ADS on September 10, 2024, to a closing
price of $24.95 per ADS on September 11, 2024.

The case is Laborers Local #235 Pension Fund v. Rentokil Initial
plc, et al., No. 24-cv-2932.

About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients
– including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors – in seeking recoveries for
investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by
publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, Delaware,
California, Louisiana, Chicago and New Jersey.

To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.

Contact:

     Lewis Kahn, Esq.
     Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
     1100 Poydras St., Suite 960
     New Orleans, LA 70163
     Tel: (877) 515-1850
     lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN]

SRP FEDERAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Whitfield Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
GE-QUOIA WHITFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SRP FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07537-CMC (D.S.C., Dec. 23, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly
secure and safeguard personally identifiable information ("PII")
including, but not limited to, the Plaintiff and Class Members'
names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and financial
account numbers.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant breached
these duties by failing to implement adequate data security
measures and protocols to properly safeguard and protect
Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII from a foreseeable cyberattack
on its systems that resulted in the unauthorized access and theft
of Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII.

As a result, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was compromised
through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized criminal third
party, says the suit.

SRP Federal Credit Union operates as a financial cooperative. The
Union provides financial solutions such as loans, investment,
savings, credit and debit cards, online banking, and other related
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Paul Doolittle, Esq.
           POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC
           32 Ann Street
           Charleston, SC 29403
           Telephone: (803) 222-2222
           Facsimile: (843) 494-5536
           Email: pauld@akimlawfirm.com

                - and -

           N. Nickolas Jackson, Esq.
           THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.
           3355 Lenox Road, N.E., Suite 750
           Atlanta, GA 30326
           Telephone: (706) 928-9920
           Email: njackson@thefinleyfirm.com

SRP FEDERAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Cummings Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER CUMMINGS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SRP FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 1:24-cv-07586-CMC
(D.S.C., Dec. 23, 2024) is a class action lawsuit against SRP for
its failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and
other similarly situated SRP customers' names, Social Security
numbers, driver's license numbers, dates of birth and financial
information, including account numbers and credit or debit card
numbers (the "Private Information") from hackers.

On Dec. 12, 2024, SRP filed official notice of a hacking incident
with the Office of the Maine Attorney General. On or around the
same time, SRP also sent out data breach letters (Notice) to
individuals whose information was compromised as a result of the
hacking incident. Based on the Notice, SRP detected unusual
activity on some of its computer systems on or around December
2024. In response, the company conducted an investigation which
revealed that an unauthorized party had access to certain company
files between Sept. 5, 2024, and Nov. 4, 2024 (the "Data Breach").


The Plaintiff and "Class Members" were, and continue to be, at
significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of
personal, social, and financial harm. The risk will remain for
their respective lifetimes. The Private Information compromised in
the Data Breach included highly sensitive data that represents a
gold mine for data thieves, including but not limited to, Social
Security numbers, driver’s license numbers, and financial account
numbers that SRP collected and maintained.

Therefore, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and are at an
imminent, immediate, and continuing increased risk of suffering
ascertainable losses in the form of harm from identity theft and
other fraudulent misuse of their Private Information, the loss of
the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses incurred to
remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach, and the value of
their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of
the Data Breach, says the suit.

The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit to address SRP's
inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that
it collected and maintained. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, on behalf
of himself and the Class, asserts claims for negligence, negligence
per se, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, unjust
enrichment, breach of confidentiality, and violation of the South
Carolina Data Breach Security Act.

SRP based in North Augusta, SC is a financial services company that
serves more than 195,000 customers in South Carolina and other
states.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          B. Tyler Brooks, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF B. TYLER BROOKS, PLLC
          Greensboro, NC 27404
          Telephone: (336) 707-8855
          Facsimile: (336) 900-6535
          E-mail: btb@btylerbrookslawyer.com

               - and -

          Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
          SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
          745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
          New York, NY 10151
          Telephone: (212) 532-1091
          E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com

SRP FEDERAL: Pound Sues Over Failure to Protect Customers' Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
LUCIUS POUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SRP FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-07581-CMC (D.S.C., December 23, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract,
unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment/injunctive relief.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff
and similarly situated customers stored within its information
systems following a data breach between September 5, 2024, through
November 4, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach.
As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class
members was compromised and damaged through access by and
disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the
suit.

SRP Federal Credit Union is a financial institution headquartered
in Augusta, South Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         B. Tyler Brooks, Esq.
         LAW OFFICE OF B. TYLER BROOKS, PLLC
         P.O. Box 10767
         Greensboro, NC 27404
         Telephone: (336) 707-8855
         Facsimile: (336) 900-6535
         Email: btb@btylerbrookslawyer.com

                 - and -

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

SUMMIT PATHOLOGY: Faces Smith Suit in D. Colorado
-------------------------------------------------
A class has been filed against Summit Pathology Laboratories, Inc.,
captioned as KENNETH SMITH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUMMIT PATHOLOGY
LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-02939-GPG-MEH (D.
Colo., Oct. 5, 2024).

The case is assigned to Judge Gordon P Gallagher, and referred to
Magistrate Michael E. Hegarty.

Summit Pathology was founded in 2000. The company's line of
business includes the practice of general or specialized medicine
and surgery for various licensed practitioners. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
          One West Las Olas Boulevard Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
          Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com


VALUE CITY: Sends Unsolicited Marketing Messages, McGonigle Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW JAMES MCGONIGLE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VALUE CITY FURNITURE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-04293-JLG-CMV (S.D. Ohio, December 23,
2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant transmitted marketing
text messages to residential telephone numbers registered with the
National Do-Not-Call Registry (DNC Registry) without prior express
invitation or permission. The Plaintiff and similarly situated
consumers suffered actual harm as a result of the Defendant's
misconduct including invasion of their privacy, intrusion into
their lives, and private nuisance.

Value City Furniture, Inc. is a department store chain doing
business in Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Brian T. Giles, Esq.
         GILES & HARPER, LLC
         7247 Beechmont Ave.
         Cincinnati, OH 45230
         Telephone: (513) 379-2715
         Email: bgiles@gilesharper.com

VISA INC: Restricts Debit Network Market Competition, Pantano Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD PANTANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VISA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 24-cv-7365
(N.D. Cal., December 23, 2024) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act
and Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged partnership agreements
with potential entrants in the debit network market to prevent
competition. The agreements reduce the risk that powerful would-be
competitors, like Apple, develop innovative new technologies that
could benefit consumers but would threaten Visa's monopoly profits
in the debit network market. Should a potential competitor who has
entered into an agreement with Visa develop a competing product,
Visa has threatened to impose additional fees on these competitors.
It uses this threat of fees as a stick to dissuade its potential
competitors' innovation. As a result of the Defendant's
anticompetitive conduct, the Plaintiff and the Class paid
supracompetitive prices, says the suit.

Visa, Inc. is a multinational payment card services firm,
headquartered in Foster City, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Yavar Bathaee, Esq.
       Andrew C. Wolinsky, Esq.
       BATHAEE DUNNE LLP
       445 Park Avenue, 9th Floor
       New York, NY 10022
       Telephone: (332) 322-8835
       Email: yavar@bathaeedunne.com
              awolinsky@bathaeedunne.com

                - and -

       Brian J. Dunne, Esq.
       Edward M. Grauman, Esq.
       901 South MoPac Expressway
       Barton Oaks Plaza I, Suite 300
       Austin, TX 78746
       Telephone: (213) 462-2772
       Email: bdunne@bathaeedunne.com
              egrauman@bathaeedunne.com

                - and -

       Allison Watson, Esq.
       3420 Bristol Street, Suite 600
       Costa Mesa, CA 92626
       Email: awatson@bathaeedunne.com

VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Sanchez Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH ANNE SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-01465 (W.D. Tex., Dec. 23, 2024) is an
action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard sensitive information of its customers.

According to the complaint, on or around October 10, 2024, an
unknown actor gained access to Defendant's inadequately protected
computer systems. As a result, approximately 39,825 individuals,
including Plaintiff and the Class Members (as further defined
below), have had their personal identifiable information ("PII")
and private health information ("PHI") (collectively, "Private
Information") exposed (the "Data Breach").

Due to the Defendant's negligence, cybercriminals obtained
everything they needed to commit identity theft and wreak havoc on
the financial and personal lives of thousands of individuals.
Plaintiff and Class Members will have to spend time responding to
the breach and are at an immediate, imminent, and heightened risk
of all manners of identity theft as a direct and proximate result
of the data breach, says the suit.

Visionworks of America, Inc. provides eye care products and
services. The Company retails private label and non-branded
eyeglasses, frames, lenses, contact lenses, sunglasses, and
accessories, as well as offers in-house lens processing and manages
retail stores. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          212 W. Spring Valley Road
          Richardson, TX 75081
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com
                 jaw@federmanlaw.com

WORLDREMIT CORP: Faces Egahi Suit Over Online Remittance Transfers
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUNDAY EGAHI, Individually, and on behalf of similarly-situated
persons v. WORLDREMIT CORP., d/b/a "SENDWAVE," Case No.
1:24-cv-03728-JKB (D. Md., Dec. 23, 2024) is a class-action suit
for damages under Electronic Fund Transfer Act, seeking legal
remedy for the Defendant's breaches of EFTA and falsely advertising
the speed and fees associated with online remittance transfers.

The Plaintiff, as an American of Nigerian ancestry, frequently uses
online remittance transfers to send money to friends and relatives
in Nigeria. Sendwave aggressively targets its services to the
Nigerian disapora in the United States, stating in its marketing
that its online remittance transfer service offers nearly instant
transfers with no fees. That marketing is persistent and constant,
and is seen by nearly all persons who engage in international
remittance transfers originating in the United States, specially
those being made to Africa, says the suit.

One example of that marketing occurred in 2023, when Sendware
marketed, through a sponsored review, that there were no fees for
remittance transfers to certain African and Asian countries, which
was not true. Sendwave knew of the content of these advertisements,
knew of the falsity of the same, and nevertheless worked with those
content creators or "influencers" to target Plaintiff and the Class
Members with these false marketing statements. However, the
marketing statements by Defendant and its proxies were false, and
Defendant both charged Plaintiff and the Class Members fees during
the Relevant Time Period, but also misrepresented the speed of
those same remittance transfers, the suit further asserts.

WorldRemit Corp. is a licensed money transmitter by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Banking. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua G. Whitaker, Esq.
          Edward N. Griffin, Esq.
          ADELPHI LAW
          2306 Wineberry Terrace
          Baltimore, MD 21209
          Tel./Fax: (888) 367-0383
          E-mail: whitaker@adelphilaw.com
                  griffin@adelphilaw.com

[*] Algarvian NGOs Sue to Stop Construction of New Faro Marina
--------------------------------------------------------------
Natasha Donn, writing for Portugal Resident, reports that Algarvian
NGOs have filed a class action lawsuit to stop the construction of
the new Faro marina (Porto de Recreio), citing "severe procedural
irregularities" in the "more than 19-year-old environmental impact
assessment process".

At stake, say the regional environmental defence associations, are
"irreparable losses to the environmental values of the Ria Formosa
Natural Park", which have "long been alerted to by the scientific
community" but to which authorities, up until now, have turned a
deaf ear.

The class action entered Loule's Administrative and Fiscal Court --
and according to one regional news report, Faro City Council has no
knowledge of it. This is almost certainly because the council must
first be 'formally notified by the court', which will then give it
10 days in which to present counter-arguments.

The council has told reporters that the project "safeguards the
balance between natural values and the proposed intervention" which
it sees as "vital" for the sustainable development of the
municipality and the preservation of 'one of its greatest natural
assets', Ria Formosa", which it describes as, "one of the 7 Natural
Wonders of Portugal".

Work was due to start by December 16 -- the deadline "imposed by
the CCDR (commission for coordination and regional development)",
says a press statement issued by the NGOs.

Their 'providencia cautelar' (precautionary measure) in case no.
896/24.0BELLE, is described as a preliminary administrative
measure, evoking "a wide range of irregularities", and ensuring
that nothing for the time being can move forwards.

"It has long been recognised that this project, at the service of
tourist and real estate interests, is a hecatomb (a great public
sacrifice) of the ecology of the Ria Formosa", says the statement.


"The Environmental Impact Assessment, carried out 20 years ago, is
silent on the assessment of relevant environmental impacts (. . .)
namely on the services that Blue Carbon ecosystems provide to Man
(in particular seagrass meadows), a concept that was unknown at the
time, along with much scientific knowledge that has only been
unveiled in the last two decades.

"These impacts are irreversible and the loss of ecosystem services
has not been properly measured. This includes the loss of
biodiversity, which is essential for maintaining fishing resources.


"The implications of the release of hundreds of tonnes of carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere, equivalent to 200 ha of burnt forest,
as well as the loss of the capacity to sequester 37 tonnes of
carbon dioxide per year, have also not been considered.

"The dredging of 7 hectares is an action that runs completely
counter to global and European policies on reducing carbon dioxide
emissions and the ecological restoration of blue carbon ecosystems
to help mitigate climate change -- a term that is not even
mentioned in the initial Environmental Impact Assessment.

"These omissions also have obvious repercussions on the mitigation
measures proposed for the project, which do not include, for
example, the ecological restoration of underlying areas.

"This is yet another attempt to subtract from the Ria Formosa
Natural Park Protected Area, which completely disregards the
cumulative effects of human action, which over the last 130 years
has led to the loss of 2000 ha of blue carbon ecosystems in Ria
Formosa.

"Unfortunately, large-scale projects such as this never come up
against the wisdom of public organisations, and we passively watch
the gradual degradation of the Algarve coast.

"Alert to this case was given previously by a wide range of
environmental protection associations who signed a petition 'for
the defence of the Ria Formosa marine prairies', whose first
signatory was Sciaena, a marine conservation NGO based in Faro,
which denounces the environmental crime in question.
"An online petition is now active and can be joined by following
the link above", the statement concludes.

This project, now 'on hold' until the court makes a decision, is
destined for the area south of the railway line, 'in the middle of
Ria Formosa'. It involves the construction of an earth-based
platform and the creation of a water plane that will have floating
berthing capacity for around 277 boats of up to 12 meters in
length. [GN]


                            *********

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 2025. 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 ***