---

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

              Tuesday, January 14, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 10

                            Headlines

AMAZON.COM INC: Dismissed as Defendant in King, et al. Lawsuit
AMERICAN MIDSTREAM: Summary Judgment Bid Denied in Thomas Suit
BIG CITY: Pineda Collective Action Can Proceed Under FLSA, NYLL
BIOAGE LABS: Faces Securities Class Suit for Misleading Investors
BLICK ART MATERIALS: Layne Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website

BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD: Bid Strike Class Claims in Cumalander Nixed
BMW NA: Court Narrows Claims in Craft Class Action
BNY MELLON: Walden Complaint Dismissed w/o Prejudice
BRAZOS VALLEY: Fazzino Investments Sues Over Property Rights Breach
BROOGE ENERGY: Standing Order in Wite Class Action Suit Entered

CANADA: Halalt First Nation Files Class Suit Over Harm to Lands
CARE.COM INC: Licea Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CENTIMARK CORP: Lingle Seeks Initial Status of Settlement Class
CENTRAL FLORIDA: Class Action Plaintiff Not Entitled to TRO
CHARLES SCHWAB: Morris Class Suit Reopened, Stay Lifted

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Hearing Dates in Harper Class Suit Vacated
CHEGG INC: $55MM Class Settlement to be Heard on April 24
CJ LOGISTICS: Bernard Files Suit in Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas
COLBY BRAUN: Glaum Bid to Certify Class Tossed
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Must Face Class Allegations in Thomas Lawsuit

CONCEPTIONS REPRODUCTIVE: Sued Over Failure to Safeguard PII
COXCOM LLC: Has Until Feb. 3 to Respond to Fallica, et al Lawsuit
ECP OPTOMETRY: Preliminary Certification Granted in Vanorden Suit
EQUINIX INC: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Lawsuit
EQUITYEXPERTS.ORG LLC: Court Certifies Class in Lewis FDCPA Suit

ESSENTIAL UTILITIES: SRCS Has Duty to Defend Under Insurance Policy
EVO TRANSPORTATION: Soto Has Leave to File 2nd Amended Complaint
FLAGSTAR BANK: Faces Class Suit Over Deceptive Business Practices
FOCUSIT LLC: Court Tosses Quinalty, et al. Data Breach Lawsuit
FRAN REST: Can't Compel Arbitration in Whorton Wage Suit

FRANKLIN WIRELESS: Class Settlement in Ali Suit Gets Final Nod
FRED WHEELER: Pratt's Bid to Intervene OK'd
FUTONLAND INC: Martin Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
GEORGIA: Prisoner Suit to Proceed With Latimore as Sole Plaintiff
GERBER PRODUCTS: Court Narrows Claims in Howard Suit

GLOBAL EXCHANGE: Avery TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Possible Trial Over Cellphone Privacy Class Suit
GROUP US: Class Certification in Munoz, et al Suit Granted in Part
HAIN CELESTIAL: Pflaumer Sues Over Deceptive Practices in Labeling
HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Hertzberg Seus Over Unfair Debt Collection

HOME DEPOT: BC Supreme Court Greenlights Privacy Class Action Suit
HSBC BANK USA: Loja Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
HSBC BANK: Fact Discovery Completion in Ni Suit Extended to Feb. 28
JACOB SECORE: Negligence Claims v. Defendant Class Dismissed
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Newbold Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky

KEURIG DR PEPPER: Carter Files Suit in S.D. New York
L.A. PACIFIC CENTER: Meggs Files ADA Suit in D. Nevada
LI AUTO: Court Consolidates Banurs & Chaudhary Action
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Watts Amended to May 5
LIFECORE BIOMEDICAL: Continues to Defend Stockholders Class Suit

LISA WOLFE: Spero Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
LOWES HOME CENTERS: Lovell Files Suit in W.D. North Carolina
MANGANARO MIDATLANTIC: Must Respond to Torres' Interrogatory 18
MARRIOTT INT'L: Bid to Continue Class Certification Bid Date Nixed
MCMURRY UNIVERSITY: Hopper Files Suit in Tex. Dist. Ct.

MDL 3097: Plaintiffs May Discover Transactional Data in CCA MDL
MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Oaks Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
META PLATFORMS: Has Until Jan. 27 to Oppose Motion for Sanctions
METALTEK INT'L: Class Settlement in Herman Suit Gets Final Court OK
MONSANTO COMPANY: Bosse Suit Transferred to N.D. California

MONSANTO COMPANY: Sarno Suit Transferred to N.D. California
MONSANTO COMPANY: Wilkes Suit Transferred to N.D. California
MONTREAL, QC: Faces Two Class Actions Over Handling Encampments
NABFLY INC: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
NEW SCHOOL: Court Dismisses Trisvan Suit Without Prejudice

NIKOLA CORP: Court Certifies Class in Borteanu, et al. Lawsuit
NIKOLA CORP: Federal Court Certifies Class Action in Fraud Case
NORWEX USA: Field Sues Over Failure to Secure & Safeguard PII
NOVI, MI: Court Affirms Summary Disposition in Nofar Suit
OHIO STATE: Court Reverses Class Certification in Smith Suit

OMNI FAMILY: Has Until Feb. 5 to Respond to Sweeten, et al. Suit
ONTRAC LOGISTICS: Herrera Suit Removed to N.D. California
OPENDOOR TECH: Class Cert Bid Filing in Alich Extended to Feb. 21
ORDERLY WELLNESS: Fleurigene Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messaging
OUTLOOK THERAPEUTICS: Securities Class Suit Pending in NJ Court

PAPA INC: Pardo Loses Class Cert Bid
PAPAYA GAMING: Can Compel Arbitration in Kelly-Starkebaum Suit
PEOPLES BANK: Mays Suit Removed to S.D. West Virginia
PESI INC: Disclosure of Class Experts in Manza Suit Due July 2
POLITICO LLC: Khamooshi TCPA Suit Removed to N.D. California

RALEY'S SUPERMARKETS: Smith Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
RECONNAISSANCE ENERGY: Class Settlement in Owen Gets Approval
RIGETTI COMPUTING: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims
ROCKET MORTGAGE: Can Compel Arbitration in MacDonald TCPA Lawsuit
ROSE HILLS: Gonzalez Seeks to Extend Class Cert Bid Deadline

SABA UNIVERSITY: MA Court Decertifies Class Suit Over Ad Claims
SACRAMENTO LOGISTICS: Can Compel Arbitration in Tercero Wage Suit
SALEM COUNTY, NJ: Court Narrows Claims in Neimester Suit
SAN BERNARDINO, CA: Standing Order Entered in Dorado Class Suit
SELECT REHABILITATION: McLaughlin Seeks Leave to File Exhibits

SHELL CHEMICAL: Filing Class Certification Bid in Flynn Due Nov. 7
SIGNATURE PERFORMANCE: Has Until Jan. 29 to Respond to McLean Suit
SINGULARITY FUTURE: Bid to Dismiss Crivellaro Suit Denied in Part
SIX CONTINENTS: Has Until January 24 to Respond to Doe Lawsuit
SKETCHERS U.S.A.: Flores Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

SNAPPLE BEVERAGE: Fogelson Files Suit in E.D. New York
SOLIANT HEALTH: Simmons Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
SOUND APPROACH: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
SOUTHWEST ENERGY: Court Denies Bid for Protective Order in Uri Suit
SPORT SQUAD: Court Narrows Claims in Matus Suit

STAPLES THE OFFICE: Lumadue Suit Removed to C.D. California
STELLANTIS NV: BRS Appointed as Lead Plaintiff
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Expert Discovery in Weston Extended to Jan 31
SUMMIT PATHOLOGY: Kristoff Files Suit in D. Colorado
SUN COUNTRY: Court Stays Proceedings in Smith Suit

SUPERGOOP LLC: Court Tosses Dunning, et al. Sunscreen Lawsuit
TAKARA SAKE: Parties Seeks More Time for Class Cert Bid Filing
TARGET CORPORATION: Rios Sues Over False Labeling and Marketing
TEND DENTAL INC: Clement Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
TETRA TECH: Court Denies Class Certification in Pennington Suit

TSYS MERCHANT: SBCW Seeks to Continue Class Certification Deadlines
TUFTS MEDICAL: McManus Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
TURQUOISE HILL: Seeks to Maintain Certain Exhibits Under Seal
UNDER ARMOUR: Partial Motion to Dismiss Lo UTPA Lawsuit Denied
UNITED SERVICES: Must Show Cause Why Action Shouldn't be Dismissed

UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO: Vigil Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
USAA CASUALTY: Jennings Seeks More Time for Class Cert Filing
USHEALTH ADVISORS: Scheduling & Discovery Order Entered in Kramer
VISA INC: Bueno Suit Transferred to Southern District of New York
VIVENDI TICKETING: Settlement Deal in Peterson Gets Court Nod

WINSTON WEAVER: Judge Certifies 2022 Plant Fire Class Action
[*] CLASS ACTION MONEY & ETHICS CONFERENCE: Register Now!

                            *********

AMAZON.COM INC: Dismissed as Defendant in King, et al. Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kymberly K. Evanson of the United States District Court for
the Western District of Washington dismissed Amazon.com, Inc. as a
defendant in the case captioned as ALAMAZE KING, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendant, Case Np.
2:24-CV-02009-KKE (W.D. Wash.) without prejudice. The parties'
request to modify the case caption to substitute Amazon.com
Services LLC as defendant is granted.

Amazon.com Services LLC must respond to the First Amended Complaint
no later than Feb. 21, 2025.

On Dec. 5, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a putative class action complaint
against Amazon.com, Inc., and on Dec. 12, 2024, Plaintiffs filed
the FAC. Amazon.com, Inc. was served on Dec. 17, 2024.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 6, 2025, is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qFJRVs from PacerMonitor.com.



AMERICAN MIDSTREAM: Summary Judgment Bid Denied in Thomas Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vice Chancellor Morgan T. Zurn of the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware denied American Midstream GP, LLC n/k/a Third
Coast Midstream Holdings, LLC's motion for summary judgment in the
case captioned as CRAIG W. THOMAS, on Behalf of Himself and All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN MIDSTREAM GP, LLC
n/k/a THIRD COAST MIDSTREAM HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant, C.A. No.
2019-0641-MTZ (Del. Ch.).

American Midstream Partners, LP (the "Partnership") was a Delaware
master limited partnership ("MLP") that owned a portfolio of
midstream energy assets.

Defendant American Midstream GP, LLC n/k/a Third Coast Midstream
Holdings, LLC ("GP") was the Partnership's general partner. GP was
wholly owned by affiliates of ArcLight Capital Partners, LLC
("Sponsor").

The transaction at issue is a merger between the Partnership and
Sponsor in which Sponsor acquired all issued and outstanding
Partnership units that Sponsor did not already own.

Because the offer presented a conflict of interest, GP formed a
conflicts committee of independent directors to obtain "Special
Approval," which under the partnership agreement would shield the
Merger from judicial review.

GP formed the Conflicts Committee as an independent entity to
evaluate the proposed transaction.

From late 2018 to early 2019, the Conflicts Committee negotiated
the proposed merger with Sponsor. As part of that process, the
Conflicts Committee identified Evercore Group LLC as its desired
financial advisor. The Conflicts Committee and Evercore began
negotiating an engagement letter in which Evercore would agree to
provide a fairness opinion for the Conflicts Committee's use in
evaluating the Merger. During those negotiations, the Conflicts
Committee proposed language that would have allowed GP's board of
directors to rely on the Fairness Opinion for its own use in
evaluating the Merger.

Plaintiff Craig R. Thomas, a former minority Partnership
unitholder, filed this class action against GP in August 2019. The
January 2020 amended complaint pleads four counts in connection
with the Merger. GP moved to dismiss in February 2020, and
Chancellor Bouchard dismissed Counts II, III, and IV. Count I,
Thomas's only remaining claim, alleges GP breached the LPA by
approving the Merger.

Chancellor Bouchard held it was reasonably conceivable that the
Conflicts Committee did not grant Special Approval in good faith as
the LPA requires. So GP would have to demonstrate that the Merger
was either on terms no less favorable to the Partnership than those
generally being provided to or available from unrelated third
parties, or was fair and reasonable to the Partnership. Because it
was reasonably conceivable that GP could not make that showing,
Count I survived GP's motion to dismiss. After Chancellor
Bouchard's retirement, the matter was eventually reassigned to Vice
Chancellor Zurn.

On February 5, 2024, with leave, GP moved for summary judgment on
Count I. The motion is limited to "the applicability of a
presumption of good faith, and trigger of a contractual safe
harbor."

GP seeks a summary judgment based on the application of Section
7.10(b)'s conclusive presumption of good faith, either to itself or
to the Conflicts Committee. The Court finds GP's arguments fail for
a more fundamental reason: Section 7.10(b) does not apply to GP's
approval or the Conflicts Committee's Special Approval of a
conflicted transaction.

According to the Court, even if Section 7.10(b)'s conclusive
presumption of good faith applied to conflicted transactions, GP
would not be entitled to a summary judgment.

GP argues that because the Conflicts Committee relied on Evercore,
so did GP, and so GP enjoys Section 7.10(b)'s conclusive
presumption. The Court says GP cannot rely on the Conflicts
Committee's reliance on Evercore's advice to obtain a summary
judgment based on Section 7.10(b)'s conclusive presumption of good
faith for GP

GP also seeks the conclusive presumption for the Conflicts
Committee. GP contends that because the Conflicts Committee was
acting for GP, the Conflicts Committee enjoys Section 7.10(b)'s
conclusive presumption that it granted Special Approval in good
faith, not just Section 7.9(a)'s rebuttable presumption.

GP's argument relies on the flawed premise that the Conflicts
Committee was acting for GP, the Court finds. GP has not
established the Conflicts Committee is entitled to Section
7.10(b)'s conclusive presumption of good faith based on the
Conflicts Committee's reliance on Evercore's Fairness Opinion, the
Court concludes.

A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=A5PdjT


BIG CITY: Pineda Collective Action Can Proceed Under FLSA, NYLL
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as JUAN PINEDA, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated,  Plaintiff, - against - BIG CITY REALTY
MANAGEMENT, LLC, BIG CITY REALTY, LLC, CFF CONSULTING INC., 3427
BROADWAY BCR, LLC, 3440 BROADWAY BCR, LLC, 3660 BROADWAY BCR, LLC,
633 WEST 152 BCR, LLC, 605 WEST 151 BCR, LLC, 545 EDGECOMBE BCR,
LLC, 535-539 WEST 155 BCR, LLC, 408-412 PINEAPPLE, LLC, 106-108
CONVENT BCR, LLC, 510-512 YELLOW APPLE, LLC, 513 YELLOW APPLE, LLC,
145 PINEAPPLE LLC, 2363 ACP PINEAPPLE, LLC, 580 ST. NICHOLAS BCR,
LLC, 603-607 WEST 139 BCR, LLC, 559 WEST 156 BCR, LLC, 3750
BROADWAY BCR, LLC, KOBI ZAMIR, and FERNANDO ALFONSO, Defendants,
Case No. 22-cv-5428 (BMC) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Brian M. Cogan of the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
granted the plaintiff's motion for approval to proceed with a
collective action and for court-facilitated under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and motion for class certification of his NYLL
claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

Plaintiff Juan Pineda has sued several corporate entities and two
of their alleged controllers and managers, Kobi Zamir and Fernando
Alfonso, that he claims operated together as his former employer.
He contends that his employers failed to pay him and other
superintendents, porters, and handymen overtime wages in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law; failed to
pay them weekly, as required by the NYLL; and failed to provide
accurate wage statements and wage notices.  

Plaintiff worked as a superintendent for the defendants at their
3440 Broadway and 3427 Broadway buildings in Manhattan from
November 2021 through July 2022.

Kobi Zamir is one of four investors in BCR LLC, and the only one
residing locally in New York City.

Fernando Alfonso owns and controls CFF, through which he acts as a
property manager for the Big City Buildings, determining the hourly
wages of workers.

The plaintiff contends that he was not alone in being denied
overtime compensation, weekly pay, and accurate wage notices and
statements. He avers that current or former superintendents,
porters and handymen who worked at 23 buildings owned and operated
by the defendants were subject to the same illegal wage and hour
practices and policies, including the defendants' failure to pay
wages for overtime work. The plaintiff thus moves for approval of a
collective action for his FLSA overtime wage violation claim and
for class certification of his NYLL claims.

Defendants argue that the Court improperly exercised its discretion
in permitting plaintiff to bring this motion.

But the defendants point to no error of law, clearly erroneous
factual finding, or a decision that cannot be located within the
range of permissible decisions, the Court finds. Nor do the
defendants point to any prejudice they will experience from the
Court considering plaintiff's motion to approve an FLSA collective
action. The Court will only permit those potential opt-in
plaintiffs to join who are similarly situated to the plaintiff and
subject to the same alleged FLSA violations.

According to the Court, because the plaintiff has shown that he is
similarly situated to the other superintendents and porters in his
proposed collective under the FLSA, his motion for
court-facilitated notice is granted. However, the state law
janitorial exemption requires denial of the plaintiff's motion for
class certification of his overtime, wage statement, and wage
notice claims. Proceedings as to the plaintiff's weekly wage claim
are stayed.

A copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision and Order dated is
available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GyE2RM from PacerMonitor.com.


BIOAGE LABS: Faces Securities Class Suit for Misleading Investors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BioAge Labs (NASDAQ: BIOA), a biopharmaceutical company focused on
metabolic diseases, is facing a class-action lawsuit from
shareholders who allege the company misled investors about the
safety and prospects of a key drug candidate before its initial
public offering last September.

Hagens Berman urges investors who purchased BioAge shares in the
company's IPO or on the open market and suffered substantial losses
to submit your losses now.

Defined Class: Purchasers in BioAge Labs, Inc. September 2024 IPO
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Mar. 10, 2025
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/bioa
Contact the Firm Now: BIOA@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895

BioAge Labs, Inc. (BIOA) Securities Class Action:

The lawsuit, Soto v. BioAge Labs, Inc., filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, centers on the
company's STRIDES Phase 2 clinical trial for azelaprag, an
investigational drug. The suit claims that offering documents for
BioAge's IPO, which raised $227.7 million by selling 12.65 million
shares at $18 each, contained "materially false and/or misleading"
statements.

Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that BioAge presented a picture
of the STRIDES trial free of safety concerns and confidently
predicted positive top-line results and the achievement of primary
endpoint goals. However, just months after the IPO, on December 6,
2024, the company announced it was halting the trial after some
participants experienced elevated liver enzymes, a condition known
as transaminitis.

The announcement sent BioAge's stock plummeting more than 76
percent. By the time the lawsuit was filed, the stock was trading
around $5.82 a share, a significant drop from its IPO price.

The lawsuit, brought by shareholders who purchased or acquired
BioAge stock connected to the IPO, accuses the company and certain
of its executives and directors of violating the Securities Act of
1933.

The recent disclosure and precipitous stock drop have driven
shareholder rights firm Hagens Berman to open an investigation.

"The close proximity between BioAge's initial public offering and
the discontinued trial raise questions about the company's
disclosures leading up to the IPO," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens
Berman partner leading the investigation.

If you invested in BioAge and have substantial losses, or have
knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, submit your
losses now.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
BioAge should consider their options to help in the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein
at 844-916-0895 or email BIOA@hbsslaw.com.

About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation
firm focusing on corporate accountability. The firm is home to a
robust practice and represents investors as well as whistleblowers,
workers, consumers and others in cases achieving real results for
those harmed by corporate negligence and other wrongdoings. Hagens
Berman's team has secured more than $2.9 billion in this area of
law. More about the firm and its successes can be found at
hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for updates and news at
@ClassActionLaw.

Contact:
Reed Kathrein, 844-916-0895 [GN]

BLICK ART MATERIALS: Layne Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dale Layne, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. BLICK ART MATERIALS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00017 (S.D.N.Y., Jan.
2, 2025), is brought against Defendant for the failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website,
www.utrechtart.com (the "Website"), to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD: Bid Strike Class Claims in Cumalander Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM CUMALANDER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD OF TENNESSEE, INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-00176-TRM-CHS (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Travis McDonough
will deny the Defendant's motion to dismiss and strike class
allegations.

Because class-wide reprocessing is an available remedy, Defendant's
motion to strike on this basis will be denied.

Because Plaintiff seeks both individual damages and plan-wide
injunctive relief for the proposed class, Defendant's motion to
dismiss Plaintiff's breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim will be denied.

On July 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed his putative class action
complaint in the Eastern District of North Carolina. The Plaintiff
asserts two causes of action pursuant to the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act ("ERISA") for: (1) wrongful denial of benefits,
and (2) breach of fiduciary duty.

The Plaintiff seeks a variety of remedies including: (1) payment of
health benefits owed under the plan, (2) an injunction requiring
reprocessing of all wrongfully denied claims, and (3) disgorgement
of profits Defendant made as a result of wrongfully denying claims
for PBRT.

The Plaintiff further seeks to represent a class consisting of:

"All persons covered under ERISA-governed plans, administered or
insured by BCBSTN, whose pre-service or post-service requests to
BCBSTN for benefits for proton beam radiation therapy for the
treatment of prostate cancer were denied at any time within the
applicable statute of limitations, or whose requests to BCBSTN for
PBRT will be denied in the future, based upon a determination by
BCBTN that PBRT is not medically necessary or is experimental,
investigational, or unproven."

BlueCross BlueShield is a health benefit plan company in
Tennessee.

A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Dec. 16, 2024, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=B496JX
at no extra charge.[CC]

BMW NA: Court Narrows Claims in Craft Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Judge William J. Martini of the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey granted in part and denied in part BMW
of North America, LLC's motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit
captioned as TIM CRAFT, individually and on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA,
LLC, and BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AKTIENGESELLSCHARFT, Defendants,
Case No. 2:24-cv-06826 (WJM) (D.N.J.).

This is a putative class action alleging statutory and common law
fraud as well as breach of express and implied warranties due to a
latent defect on model year 2017-2023 BMW M440i, M5501, X1, X3, X4,
X5, X6, and X7, 330, 3401, and 750i vehicles ("Class Vehicles"),
Defendant BMW of North America, LLC  moves to dismiss for failure
to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and for
failure to plead with particularity and impermissible group
pleading under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and 9(b).

Plaintiff Tim Craft is a citizen and resident of California. He
purchased a certified, pre-owned 2019 X5 xDrive 40i on April 29,
2023, from BMW of San Diego, an authorized BMW dealership.

On June 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed this action against BMW NA and
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW AG"). Defendant
BMW NA, which is a Delaware company with a principal place of
business in NJ, distributes BMW vehicles and sells them through its
network of dealers. It is the U.S. sales and marketing division of
its parent corporation, BMW AG, organized and existing under German
law, with its principal place of business in Germany. Plaintiff
claims that the seams of the shark fin antenna infiltrate with
water, which causes corrosion of interior electrical components,
collection of water in body cavities, and water damage to the Class
Vehicles'interior.

The "California Class" is defined as: "All persons or entities who
are: (1) current or former owners and/or lessees of a Class
Vehicle; and (2) reside in California and purchased a Class
Vehicle: for primarily personal, family or household purposes, as
defined by California Civil Code Sec. 1791(a), in California.

The following claims are alleged against BMW NA and MBW AG:

Count 1; California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code
Sec. 1750, et seq. on behalf of Plaintiff and the California Class


Count 2: California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
Secs. 17200, et seq. on behalf of Plaintiff and the California
Class

Count 3: California False Advertising Law , Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
Secs. 17500, et seq. on behalf of Plaintiff and the California
Class

Count 4: Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Cal. Civ. Code Sec.
1791.2 & 1793.2(d), Breach of Express Warranty on behalf of
Plaintiff and the California Class

Count 5: Breach of Express Warranty on behalf of Plaintiff and the
Nationwide Class or alternatively the California Class

Count 6: Breach of Implied Warranty on behalf of Plaintiff and the
Nationwide Class or alternatively the California Class

Count 7: Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2301, et
seq., on behalf of Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class or
alternatively the California Class

Count 8: Common Law Fraud on behalf of Plaintiff and the Nationwide
Class or alternatively the California Class

Count 9: Unjust Enrichment on behalf of Plaintiff and the
Nationwide Class or alternatively the California Class

Group Pleading

BMW NA argues that Plaintiff improperly lumps it and BMW AG
together in breach of Fed. R. Civ. P. Rules 8 and 9(b). Defendant's
motion to dismiss for improper group pleading is denied, the Court
holds.

Fraud-Based Claims (Counts 1, 2, 3, 8)

Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff's common law and statutory
fraud-based claims for failure to sufficiently plead the required
elements of knowledge and reliance. BMW NA also argues that the FAL
claim cannot proceed because no affirmative misrepresentation has
been alleged. Defendant's motion to dismiss the statutory and
California common law fraud claims in Counts 1, 2, and 8 for
failure to plead knowledge or reliance is denied, according to the
Court.

Affirmative Misrepresentation (Count 3 FAL Claim)

In this case, as Plaintiff has not identified any statement
regarding shark fin antennas purportedly rendered false or
misleading due to an omission of a material fact, the FAL
claim is dismissed without prejudice, the Court concludes.

Express Warranty (Counts 4 and 5)

The "New Vehicle Limited Warranty" for 2019 BMW X1, X2, X3, X4, X5,
X6 ("NVLW") offers a 4-year/50,000-mile warranty, which states "BMW
of North America, LLC (BMW NA) warrants during the Warranty Period
the 2019 U.S.-specification BMW vehicles distributed by BMW NA or
sold through the BMW NA European Delivery Program against defects
in materials or workmanship to the first retail purchaser, and each
subsequent purchaser." Defendant asserts that the express warranty
claims (Counts 4 and 5) fail because the 4 year/50,000 mile
(whichever occurs first) NVLW on Plaintiffs pre-owned 2019 vehicle
would have expired prior to May 2024 when he took his car for
repairs.

According to the Court, because Plaintiff fails to sufficiently
plead that the NVLW mileage and temporal warranty limits are
unconscionable, the breach of express warranty claim in Count 5 is
dismissed without prejudice.

Implied Warranty (Count 6)

Not only are BMW NA's warranties publicly available online,°
it is incongruous for Plaintiff to argue that the implied warranty
limitations contained in the NVLW are not binding because he never
received them while also seeking to extend the benefits of the
warranty that he insists did not form the basis of the bargain.

As the implied warranty is limited to the duration of the express
warranty, the breach of implied warranty claim in Count 6 is
dismissed without prejudice, the Court finds.

Unjust Enrichment (Count 9)

Plaintiff claims that he conferred a benefit on Defendants because
the money he used to purchase his vehicle from the authorized
dealership flowed to Defendants. The Court finds Plaintiff's
quasi-contract claim fails. The unjust enrichment claim in Count 9
is dismissed with prejudice.

Standing to Allege Nationwide Class Claims

Plaintiff asserts breach of warranty, common law fraud, and unjust
enrichment claims on behalf of himself, the California class, and
also on behalf of a nationwide class. Defendant disputes Plaintiffs
standing to bring claims under the laws of states in which he did
not reside or suffer any alleged injury. In response, Plaintiff
insists that a standing challenge is premature and more
appropriately is a predominance issue to be decided at the class
certification stage. The Court disagrees.

The Court concludes that named Plaintiffs lack standing to assert
claims on behalf of unnamed plaintiffs in jurisdictions where
Plaintiffs have suffered no alleged injury.

The Court finds Plaintiff lacks standing to bring claims on behalf
of a nationwide class under the laws of states where he did not
reside or suffer any injury. The nationwide claims are dismissed
without prejudice. .

A copy of the Court's Opinion is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=53IsCF from PacerMonitor.com.


BNY MELLON: Walden Complaint Dismissed w/o Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN WALDEN, LESLIE
WALDEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED; v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION, BNY MELLON,
N.A., Case No. 2:20-cv-01972-CBB (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
Christopher B. Brown entered a memorandum granting BNY Mellon's
motion to dismiss without prejudice Waldens' complaint.

Should the Waldens seek to amend their complaint to plead
individual claims or otherwise, they shall seek leave to submit an
amended complaint consistent with the following Order. Further, the
pending motion for class certification will be denied as moot, as
is the deferred ruling on summary judgment on entitlement to
disgorged fees.

Despite the parties acting as though these allegations have been
adequately pleaded, and the Court having referred to these
allegations as a basis for finding sufficient evidence of
undisclosed conflicts on summary judgment, this does not change the
fact that the Waldens have not included this theory of liability in
their operative pleading.

The Waldens cannot amend their complaint through argument in a
brief opposing summary judgment and the proper procedure for a
plaintiff to assert a new claim is to amend the complaint in
accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. Nykiel v. Borough of
Sharpsburg, 778 F. Supp. 2d 573, 587 (W.D. Pa. 2011) (collecting
cases).

The Waldens allege that BNY Mellon breached the investment
management agreements and violated the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) by failing to
disclose certain conflicts of interest involved with BNY Mellon
investing the Waldens' funds in BNY Mellon-affiliated mutual
funds.

Bank of New York Mellon is an American international financial
services company.

A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Dec. 16, 2024, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=y7JifV
at no extra charge.[CC]

BRAZOS VALLEY: Fazzino Investments Sues Over Property Rights Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Fazzino Investments, LP for itself and all others similarly
situated v. BRAZOS VALLEY GROUNDWATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, Case
No. 6:25-cv-00001 (W.D. Tex., Jan. 2, 2025), is brought on behalf
of Plaintiff and all similarly situated landowners in Brazos and
Roberston Counties (the "Class Members"), against BVGCD for
unconstitutionally infringing on, and taking, their groundwater
property rights without compensation, in violation of the United
States Constitution and the Texas Constitution, by arbitrarily and
unlawfully changing its groundwater production Rules in September
2023.

BVGCD's Rules govern, among other things, the production of
groundwater within BVGCD's jurisdiction (i.e., Brazos and Roberson
Counties) (hereafter together referred to as the "District").
BVCGD's wrongful amendment of Rule 6.1(b) on September 14,
2023—changing the spacing requirement from 1 foot of land to 2
feet of land per one GPM of average annual production rate or
capacity—has devastated (and continues to devastate) Plaintiff
and Class Members, constituting an unconstitutional taking of their
property rights without compensation. By way of example, under the
Old Rule 6.1(b) one-foot spacing requirement, for each one GPM
produced by a well, a landowner had to own or control a circle of
land around the wellbore with a radius of 1 foot. Thus, if a
landowner had a 3,000 GPM well, under Old Rule 6.1(b), the
landowner had to own or control land around the wellbore in a
circle with a radius of 3,000.

Landowners, including Plaintiff and Class Members, seeking to sell
their groundwater rights for the development of new wells have
suffered (and continue to suffer) a 75% decrease in the value of
their water rights, while their neighbors with wells drilled under
the Old Rules have suffered no diminution in value. This is a
particularly stark impact given that water rights in the Simbsoro
aquifer under Plaintiff's and Class Members' land, for example, are
currently highly sought after by companies seeking to supply water
to municipalities and industries located in other parts of Texas
where water is significantly scarcer. As a practical matter, these
companies can no longer lease groundwater rights or outright
purchase property with groundwater rights from willing landowners,
including Plaintiff and Class Members, who do not control the
required acreage to support the well capacities required to drill
economically feasible wells.

BVGCD's geometric limitations on production capacity also render it
nearly impossible to lease and/or purchase enough property around a
wellbore to support a marketable well. Whether for municipal,
industrial, or agricultural use, BVGCD's New Rules preclude the
development of Plaintiff's and Class Members' groundwater rights,
which constitutes an uncompensated and unconstitutional taking of
Plaintiff's and Class Members' groundwater property rights, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff owns real property in Robertson County, Texas, and
has been (and continues to be) injured and harmed by BVGCD's
wrongful actions.

Brazos Valley Groundwater Conservation District is a political
subdivision of the State of Texas with its principal place of
business in Hearne, Robertson County, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marvin W. Jones, Esq.
          C. Brantley Jones, Esq.
          SPROUSE SHRADER SMITH PLLC
          701 S. Taylor, Suite 500
          Amarillo, TX 79105-5008
          Phone: (806) 468-3300
          Facsimile: (806) 373-3454
          Email: marty.jones@sprouselaw.com
                 brantley.jones@sprouselaw.com

               - and -

          Richard L. Coffman, Esq.
          THE COFFMAN LAW FIRM
          3355 West Alabama, Suite 240
          Houston, TX 77098-1864
          Phone: (713) 528-6700
          Facsimile: (866) 835-8250
          Email: rcoffman@coffmanlawfirm.com


BROOGE ENERGY: Standing Order in Wite Class Action Suit Entered
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC WHITE, v. BROOGE
ENERGY LIMITED, ET AL., Case No. 2:24-cv-00959-AH-DFM (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Anne Hwang entered a standing order as follows:

-- Pro Se Litigants

The Parties appearing as pro se litigants are required to comply
with all Local Rules, including Local Rule 16.

-- Duty to Notify of Settlement

Counsel must advise the Court immediately if (1) the case or any
pending matter has been resolved or (2) a motion is pending, and
the parties are engaged in serious negotiations that appear likely
to resolve the case or the pending motion.

-- Removed Actions

Any answers filed in state court must be refiled in this Court as a
supplement to the Notice of Removal.

Brooge Energy provides oil storage and related services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 17, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HxiEMS at no extra
charge.[CC]



CANADA: Halalt First Nation Files Class Suit Over Harm to Lands
---------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Brayton, writing for Kelowna Capital News, reports that The
Halalt First Nation on Vancouver Island has filed a class-action
suit with the Supreme Court of British Columbia, asserting that
negligent forestry practices and infrastructure failures have
caused significant harm to their lands and community.

In court documents the plaintiffs -- Kristin Thomas and Halalt
First Nation -- claim the defendants are responsible for ongoing
flooding and water damage. They claim that three catastrophic
flooding events that took place along the Chemainus River between
2020 and 2022 caused significant flooding that rendered many homes
on the reserve uninhabitable.

The plaintiffs allege that these flooding events, coupled with
ongoing water damage caused by negligence and reckless actions,
have resulted in severe flooding on the Halalt reserve. This has
caused environmental damage, destruction of homes and
infrastructure, higher insurance costs, displacement of residents,
loss of cultural sites and resources and significant emotional,
cultural and economic harm to the Halalt First Nation.

Cultural losses resulting from the flooding include the impairment
of fishing rights, loss of access to sacred sites and destruction
of burial grounds.

The plaintiffs also claim that water and debris from logging
operations have trespassed onto their lands, causing physical and
environmental harm.

The financial and emotional toll was further compounded by
emergency evacuations and significant costs for temporary
accommodations due to flooding.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs outline specific accusations against
various parties.

The federal government (Canada) is accused of constructing the
Esquimalt and Nanaimo (E&N) Railway through the reserve with
inadequate drainage capacity, which disrupted natural water flow
and led to recurring and catastrophic flooding.

The provincial government (British Columbia) is accused of failing
to manage watershed impacts from forestry, construct effective
flood protection, and maintain the Trans-Canada Highway in a way
that prevents water trapping and exacerbates flooding.

The forestry defendants (Mosaic Forest Management, TimberWest,
Island Timberlands, and North Cowichan) are accused of
overharvesting, failing to manage logging debris, and conducting
forestry operations that caused increased surface runoff,
sedimentation and riverbank erosion. This negligence all
contributed to flooding.

The local government (Municipality of North Cowichan) is accused of
engaging in forestry operations within the Municipal Forest Reserve
in a manner that contributed to increased surface runoff,
sedimentation and other harmful impacts on the Chemainus River
watershed, thereby exacerbating flooding on the Halalt reserve.

The Island Corridor Foundation, which owns the E&N Railway, is
accused of failing to maintain drainage culverts adequately,
resulting in blockages and insufficient water flow which worsened
flooding on the reserve.

The Managed Forest Council (a provincial agency) is accused of
inadequately regulating forestry operations, leading to harmful
sedimentation and debris buildup in the Chemainus River watershed
which contributed to flooding.

The plaintiffs are seeking certification of the lawsuit as a class
action along with damages for negligence, nuisance, and trespass.
They also request an injunction requiring the defendants to address
inadequate drainage infrastructure and mitigate future flooding
risks. The claim calls for monetary relief for affected class
members, interest payable and any further relief deemed just by the
court.

None of the defendants have yet filed a response with the court.
[GN]

CARE.COM INC: Licea Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Care.com, Inc. The
case is styled as Jose Licea, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Care.com, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, d/b/a WWW.CARE.COM, Case No. 25CU000304C (Cal. Super.
Ct., San Diego Cty., Jan. 2, 2025).

Care.com -- https://www.care.com/ -- is an online marketplace for
families to find childcare, senior care, care for those with
special needs, care for home, tutoring support and pet care.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC
          4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Phone: (949) 706-6464
          Fax: (949) 706-6469
          Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com


CENTIMARK CORP: Lingle Seeks Initial Status of Settlement Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY LINGLE,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
employees, v. CENTIMARK CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania Corporation;
and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-01471-KJM-JDP (E.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on Jan. 23, 2025, for
entry of an Order for the following:

1. Preliminarily certifying the proposed class for purposes of
settlement;

2. Preliminarily appointing Plaintiff Anthony Lingle as class
representative for purposes of settlement;

3. Preliminarily appointing Shimoda & Rodriguez Law, PC, as Class
Counsel for purposes of settlement;

4. Preliminarily approving the proposed class action and Private
Attorneys General Act settlement, in the amount of $600,000;

5. Preliminarily approving the appointment of Apex Class Action,
LLC, as the Settlement Administrator;

6. Preliminarily approving the settlement of claims under the
Private Attorneys General Act for the total amount of $140,000,
75% of which will be paid to the Labor and Workforce Development
Agency and 25% of which will be paid to PAGA Members;

CentiMark is a national roofing contractor company.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 16, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=plOEUS at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Galen T. Shimoda, Esq.
          Justin P. Rodriguez, Esq.
          Renald Konini, Esq.
          SHIMODA & RODRIGUEZ LAW, PC
          9401 East Stockton Boulevard, Suite 120
          Elk Grove, CA 95624
          Telephone: (916) 525-0716
          Facsimile: (916) 760-3733
          E-mail: attorney@shimodalaw.com
                  jrodriguez@shimodalaw.com
                  rkonini@shimodalaw.com

CENTRAL FLORIDA: Class Action Plaintiff Not Entitled to TRO
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANSARI MOHAMAD,
Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL FLORIDA TAX AND ACCOUNTING SERVICES, INC.,
ANEES AHMAD TANOLI, LAWGICAL INSIGHT, LLC, ANDREW BAUTA, MICHAEL
RUSSO, ROTTENSTREICH FARLEY BRONSTEIN FISHER POTTER HODAS LLP,
MELIZA MILLER, and RICHARD I. SEGAL, Defendants, Case No:
6:24-cv-2354-JSS-LHP (M.D. Fla.), Judge Julie S. Sneed of the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
denied the plaintiff's emergency motion for a temporary restraining
order and preliminary injunction relating to a state court
proceeding discovery.

Defendant Central Florida Tax and Accounting Services, Inc. has
sued non-party Akbar A. Ali, who does business as A.A. Ali C.P.A.,
and other nonparties in state court alleging the breach of a
non-competition agreement and other  business-related misconduct.

Plaintiff, Ansari Mohamad, is one of Ali's former clients. He sues
on behalf of himself and others similarly situated who are present
and former clients of Ali. He alleges that Defendants violated 26
U.S.C. Sec. 6103 by inspecting and disclosing his and others' tax
return information without authorization and that Defendants are
thus liable under 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7431. He seeks monetary,
declaratory, and injunctive relief.

As part of the discovery in the state court proceeding, the state
court required a third party to conduct a forensic examination of
Ali's computer files. The parties in the proceeding agreed that
Lawgical would conduct the examination. According to the complaint,
Lawgical has already harvested and/or inspected tax return
information including over 17,000 files and 100,000 pages.

Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from inspecting,
disseminating, or transmitting any return or return information
with respect to the unlawful disclosure of his private tax
returns.

A TRO or preliminary injunction is appropriate only if the movant
demonstrates:

   (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits,
   (2) that the preliminary injunction is necessary to prevent
irreparable injury,
   (3) that the threatened injury outweighs the harm the
preliminary injunction would cause the
other litigants, and
   (4) that the preliminary injunction would not be averse to the
public interest.

Having carefully considered the record in this case, the Court
concludes that Plaintiff is not entitled to a TRO or preliminary
injunction because he has not carried his burden of persuasion as
to the third requirement. According to the Court, although issuance
of a TRO or preliminary injunction will likely impede the efforts
to obtain discovery and thus to prosecute the claims, Plaintiff
does not address this potential harm at all. Therefore, it denies
Plaintiff's motion seeking entry of a TRO or preliminary
injunction.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 6, 2025, is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BpYZ9k from PacerMonitor.com.


CHARLES SCHWAB: Morris Class Suit Reopened, Stay Lifted
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID M. MORRIS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE
CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION and CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC., Case No.
(M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Sheripolster Chappell entered an order
directing the Clerk to reopen the case and lifting the stay.  

Plaintiffs and Proposed Intervenors' Motion to Intervene and to
Transfer This Action to the Central District of California is
granted.

This case is transferred to the United States District Court for
the Central District of California for consolidation with In re
Charles Schwab Cash Sweep Litigation, No. 2:24-cv-07344-MRA-E C.D.
Cal).

The Clerk is directed to transfer this case to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California and
close the Fort Myers Division file.

Having considered the parties' arguments, the Court concludes that
transfer to the Central District of California under section 1404
is the best course.

Without question, this case could have been brought in the Central
District of California. Numerous related class actions were filed
there, as Defendants are subject to that court's jurisdiction. The
Charles Schwab Corporation has substantial business operations
there, and California is Charles Schwab & Co. Inc.'s state of
incorporation. Both Defendants regularly litigate in the Central
District of California. Moreover, transfer is in the interests of
convenience and justice.

Charles Schwab Corporation provides a full range of brokerage,
banking and financial advisory services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PU3LnN at no extra
charge.[CC]

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Hearing Dates in Harper Class Suit Vacated
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LIONEL HARPER, DANIEL
SINCLAIR, HASSAN TURNER, and LUIS VAZQUEZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated and all aggrieved
employees, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Case No.
2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Shubb
entered an order staying the case pending resolution of Defendant's
appeal.

All hearing dates in this matter are vacated and the parties shall
file a joint status report within 14 days after the ninth circuit
issues a decision in the appeal.

The issues presented by defendant's motion and application do not
require oral argument. Upon review of the papers, the court finds
that this action satisfies requirements for a stay.

Charter is an American telecommunications and mass media company
with services branded as Spectrum.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MoMVn9 at no extra
charge.[CC]

CHEGG INC: $55MM Class Settlement to be Heard on April 24
---------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN LEVENTHAL, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CHEGG, INC., DANIEL L. ROSENSWEIG,
ANDREW J. BROWN, and NATHAN
SCHULTZ,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:21-cv-09953-PCP

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, CERTIFICATION OF
SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION;
(II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF
ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO: All persons who purchased or acquired Chegg, Inc. ("Chegg" or
the "Company") common stock between May 5, 2020, and November 1,
2021, inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period"). You may be a
member of the Settlement Class. If you do not wish to be a part of
the Settlement Class, you must respond to this Notice with a
written request for exclusion. You may be eligible to share in the
proceeds of the Settlement, but you must submit a Claim Form to
participate in the Settlement.

THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A CASH AWARD. PLEASE READ THIS
NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California (the "Court"), that the
above-captioned litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a
class action for settlement purposes only on behalf of the
Settlement Class, except for certain persons and entities who are
excluded from the Settlement Class by definition as set forth in
the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action,
Certification of Settlement Class, and Proposed Settlement and Plan
of Allocation; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion
for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation
Expenses (the "Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that the Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs on
behalf of themselves and the Court-certified Settlement Class in
the Action, have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for
fifty-five million dollars ($55,000,000.00) in cash (the
"Settlement"), that, if approved by the Court, will resolve all
claims in the Action.

A hearing will be held on April 24, 2025 at 10:00 a.m., before the
Honorable P. Casey Pitts at the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, Robert F. Peckham Federal
Building & United States Courthouse, Courtroom 8, 4th Floor, 280
South First Street, San Jose, CA 95113, to determine, among other
things, whether: (i) the proposed Settlement should be approved as
fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) the Judgment as provided under
the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated November 5, 2024
(the "Stipulation") should be entered dismissing the Action with
prejudice against the Defendant Releasees; (iii) the proposed Plan
of Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair and
reasonable; (iv) Lead Plaintiffs' application for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses should be
approved. The capitalized terms herein shall have the same meaning
as they have in the Stipulation.

The Court may adjourn the Settlement Hearing or any adjournment
thereof without further written notice of any kind to the
Settlement Class. Settlement Class Members should check the Court's
PACER site (defined below) or the Settlement website,
www.CheggSecuritiesLitigation.com. Any updates regarding the
Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of
the hearing or updates regarding in-person, telephonic, or video
conference appearances at the hearing, will also be posted to the
Settlement website.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet
received the Notice or Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these
documents by visiting the Settlement website at
www.CheggSecuritiesLitigation.com or by contacting the Claims
Administrator at:

CHEGG SECURITIES LITIGATION
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 173024
Milwaukee, WI 53217
(877) 884-2550
www.CheggSecuritiesLitigation.com
info@CheggSecuritiesLitigation.com

Copies of the Notice and the Claim Form are also available by
accessing the Court docket in this case, for a fee, through the
Court's Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system at
https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov, or by visiting the Office of the
Clerk of Court, United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, Robert F. Peckham Federal Building & United
States Courthouse, 280 South First Street, San Jose, CA 95113, or
any other location of the Northern District of California between
9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Court
holidays.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or a Claim Form or
for information about the status of a claim, may be made to Lead
Counsel:

MOTLEY RICE LLC
Christopher F. Moriarty, Esq.
28 Bridgeside Blvd.
Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
infocheggsettlement@motleyrice.com

SAXENA WHITE P.A.
David R. Kaplan, Esq.
505 Lomas Santa Fe Drive, Suite 180
Solana Beach, CA 92075
settlements@saxenawhite.com

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, to potentially be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form postmarked or completed online no later
than March 31, 2025. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do
not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share
in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement, but you
will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by
the Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion that is received no later than March 27, 2025, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the
Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of litigation expenses must be in writing, signed,
and filed or postmarked to the Court no later than March 27, 2025,
in accordance with the instructions in the Notice.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, DEFENDANTS, OR
DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE, THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT,
OR THE CLAIMS PROCESS. All questions about this notice, the
proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to the Claims Administrator or Lead
Counsel.

Dated: December 19, 2024                                           
                 

By Order of the Court
                                                                   
                                 
United States District Court
                                                                   
                                    Northern District of California


1 The Stipulation can be viewed and/or obtained at
www.CheggSecuritiesLitigation.com, PACER, visiting the office of
the Clerk of the Court, or by contacting the Claims Administrator
or Lead Counsel as described herein. For the precise terms of the
Settlement, please see the Stipulation.

2 You can ask the Court to deny approval by filing an objection.
You cannot ask the Court to order a different settlement; the Court
can only approve or deny the Settlement and cannot change the
terms. If you file a timely written objection, you may, but are not
required to, appear at the Final Approval Hearing, either in person
or through your own attorney. If you appear through your own
attorney, you are responsible for hiring and paying that attorney.
All written objections and supporting papers must clearly identify
the case name and number (Leventhal v. Chegg, Inc., et al., Case
No. 5:21-cv-09953-PCP), and include all information required by the
Court as detailed in the Notice.


CJ LOGISTICS: Bernard Files Suit in Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CJ Logistics America,
LLC. The case is styled as Denise Bernard, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated v. CJ Logistics America, LLC, Case No.
250100145 (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas Cty., Jan. 2, 2025).

CJ Logistics provides integrated global supply chain services,
maximizing customer value through continuous improvement and
innovation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Phone: (215) 884-2491

COLBY BRAUN: Glaum Bid to Certify Class Tossed
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Glaum v. Braun, et al.,
Case No. 1:24-cv-00146 (N.D.N., Filed July 30, 2024), the Hon.
Judge Clare R. Hochhalter entered an order:

-- finding as moot motion for extension of time to amend;

-- denying motion to certify class;

-- denying motion to appoint Counsel as provided in Order
    Lifting Stay.

The nature of suit states Prisoner Civil Rights.[CC]

COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Must Face Class Allegations in Thomas Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as ARNOLD THOMAS, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 23 CV 1426 (VB)(S.D.N.Y.), Judge
Vincent L. Briccetti of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York denied the motion filed by Colgate to
strike plaintiff's class allegations pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Defendant is a New York corporation that manufactures numerous
consumer products, including Fabuloso. Defendant markets Fabuloso
as safe to use on an array of household surfaces.

Plaintiff purchased a Fabuloso bottle, included under defendant's
recall, allegedly containing pseudomonas. After using the product,
plaintiff asserts he suffered significant abdominal pain, diarrhea,
dehydration, sores, and symptoms and injuries commonly associated
with a Pseudomonas infection. He sought medical treatment, and his
treating medical professional allegedly informed plaintiff she
believed his injuries were caused by Pseudomonas.

Plaintiff now brings putative class action claims for products
liability and negligence against defendant. He seeks to represent a
proposed class of "all consumers who purchased any of the
contaminated Fabuloso products in the United States during the
Class Period and were physically injured after using the
products."

Defendant argues plaintiff's class action allegations must be
struck because the facts alleged in the amended complaint do not
plausibly support certification. First, defendant maintains there
are several insurmountable deficiencies in the amended complaint,
creating individualized questions of causation and injury
ill-suited to resolution in the class-action context. Second,
defendant asserts the amended complaint includes no plausible
allegation that there are any class members other than plaintiff
sufficient to support numerosity.

The Court disagrees. It finds that plaintiff's allegation that
hundreds of individuals were harmed by contaminated Fabuloso
products is plausible in light of defendant's recall of one million
bottles released for sale to the public in the United States and
the CPSC's alert regarding the dangers of Fabuloso.

Class certification is the appropriate stage for plaintiff to
demonstrate that Rule 23(a)'s numerosity requirement has been
satisfied. The Court rejects defendant's attempt to shoehorn that
requirement into the pleading stage.

The Court finds plaintiff has plausibly alleged numerosity and may
proceed to discovery to prove his claim.

A copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SB32ai from PacerMonitor.com.


CONCEPTIONS REPRODUCTIVE: Sued Over Failure to Safeguard PII
------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CONCEPTIONS REPRODUCTIVE ASSOCIATES, INC. d/b/a
CONCEPTIONS REPRODUCTIVE ASSOCIATES OF COLORADO, Case No.
1:25-cv-00009-MEH (D. Colo., Jan. 2, 2025), is brought against CRA
for its failure to secure and safeguard her and other similarly
situated individuals' personally identifiable information ("PII")
and personal health information ("PHI") (collectively "PII/PHI" or
"Private Information").

The breached information includes: names, date of birth, home
address, phone numbers, clinical data related to diagnosis and
treatment including tests ordered, test results, physical
examination findings, and diagnostic imaging. CRA states "to the
best of our current knowledge" Social Security numbers, government
identification, and banking information was not included, however,
this heavily qualified statement provides little or no assurance of
the security of the PII.

CRA owed a duty to Plaintiff and Class members to implement and
maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure,
protect, and safeguard their PII/PHI against unauthorized access
and disclosure. Defendant breached that duty by, among other
things, failing to implement and maintain reasonable security
procedures and practices to protect its patients' PII/PHI from
unauthorized access and disclosure.

As a result of CRA's inadequate security and breach of its duties
and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and Plaintiff's and
Class members' PII/PHI was accessed and disclosed. This action
seeks to remedy these failings and their consequences. Plaintiff
brings this action on behalf of herself and all natural persons
whose Private Information was potentially compromised in the
Network Incident, who were sent a notice by CRA that their PII/PHI
was or may have been compromised in the Data Breach.

CRA failed to fulfill this obligation, as unauthorized
cybercriminals breached CRA's information systems and databases and
stole vast quantities of Private Information belonging to CRA's
patients, including Plaintiff and Class members. The Data
Breach—and the successful exfiltration of Private
Information—were the direct, proximate, and foreseeable results
of multiple failings on the part of CRA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff Doe received medical services from CRA.

Conceptions Reproductive Associates of Colorado ("CRA") is a
multi-location fertility care medical practice that offers services
to families that are trying to get pregnant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
          Lisa A. White, Esq.
          MASON LLP
          5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640
          Washington, DC 20015
          Phone: (202) 429-2290
          Email: gmason@masonllp.com
                 dperry@masonllp.com
                 lwhite@masonllp.com


COXCOM LLC: Has Until Feb. 3 to Respond to Fallica, et al Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler of the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada extended the deadline for CoxCom, LLC to
answer, move or otherwise respond to the class action lawsuit
captioned as Linda Fallica; and Cheri Woods, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
CoxCom, LLC, Defendant (D. Nev.), from
December 21, 2024 to February 3, 2025.

Good cause exists for the extension, the Court finds. Defense
counsel only recently was retained in this matter and asked for
additional time to review Plaintiffs' allegations and assess the
proper response to the allegations.

A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Owjg3f from PacerMonitor.com.


ECP OPTOMETRY: Preliminary Certification Granted in Vanorden Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dominic W. Lanza of the United States District Court for the
District Court for the District of Arizona granted the plaintiffs'
motion for conditional certification of the case captioned as
Jodeci Vanorden, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ECP Optometry Services LLC,
et al., Defendants, Case No. CV-24-01060-PHX-DWL (D. Ariz.).

On May 8, 2024, Plaintiffs filed this collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act against Defendants ECP Optometry Services,
LLC and Eyecare Partners LLC.

From early 2023 until April 2024, Defendants employed Plaintiffs as
non-exempt, full-time employees of Defendants' optometrist offices.
Plaintiffs argue that Defendants instituted a company-wide practice
to deprive Plaintiffs and other similar employees of their
off-the-clock worked overtime wages.

Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and a proposed
collective:

All employees who worked for Defendants ECP Optometry Services, LLC
and/or Eyecare Partners, LLC; within the past three years; who
work[ed] over 40 hours in any given workweek as a past or present
employee; who worked on an hourly basis; who did not receive
overtime compensation for their off the clock work are known as the
"Collective Members".

On June 17, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint,
which is the operative complaint.

On July 11, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the preliminary certification
motion.

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have failed to submit objective
evidence to prove their similarity, asserting that Plaintiffs'
declarations are self-serving and rely on hearsay.

The Court finds when the specific, non-conclusory allegations in
the FAC and the non-hearsay portions of Plaintiffs' declarations
are considered together, Plaintiffs have done enough to plausibly
establish that the collective members were subjected to the same
systemic practice and thus share a similar issue of law or fact
material to the disposition of their FLSA claim.

The Court concludes that the members of the collective are
"similarly situated" for purposes of preliminary certification. The
collective, as defined in this order, is preliminarily certified.

A copy of the Court's Opinion is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SRqJyR from PacerMonitor.com.


EQUINIX INC: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Vince Chhabria of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motion to dismiss the case captioned as UNIFORMED
SANITATIONMEN'S ASSOCIATION COMPENSATION ACCRUAL FUND, Plaintiff,
v. EQUINIX, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-02656-VC (N.D.
Calif.).

The complaint puts forward two claims under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 based on independent
theories. It alleges that the defendants manipulated Equinix's AFFO
numbers by misclassifying recurring capital expenditures as
non-recurring capital expenditures. It also alleges that the
defendants made misleading statements about Equinix's power
capacity and room for growth by failing to disclose that the
company was overselling its power capacity upward of 150%.

The Court finds the complaint's allegations are sufficient to
support the first claim, but not the second.

AFFO

Throughout the class period, the defendants stated several times
that Equinix's high AFFO numbers were due to strong operating
performance. However, the complaint alleges that the defendants'
reported AFFO numbers and statements attributing the high AFFO
numbers to strong operating performance were misleading because
Equinix was in fact artificially inflating its AFFO by
misclassifying recurring capital expenditures as non-recurring. To
support that theory, the complaint relies primarily on information
from a March 20, 2024, short-seller report, the Hindenburg Report.
It also relies on a report from Barclays that was issued in
September 2022—roughly 18 months before the Hindenburg Report.
The Barclays Report expressed concern that Equinix had been
overinflating AFFO by an average of 15% each year since 2014.

The defendants argue that Equinix's AFFO numbers are matters of
opinion because the definitions of recurring and non-recurring
capital expenditures are often a matter of discretion.

Judge Chhabria says that that may be true, but the plaintiff's
theory is not that Equinix's AFFO numbers are categorically false
or misleading. The theory is that they are misleading given the
definitions of recurring and non-recurring capital expenditures
that Equinix itself articulated in its 2014 presentation rolling
out its new methodology.

Power Capacity

The plaintiff alleges a second Section 10(b) claim based on a
separate theory, which is that Equinix misled investors by failing
to disclose that it was overselling power, or in other words, that
it was selling contracts for use of its data centers that exceeded
the data centers' actual power capacity. Relatedly, the complaint
alleges that the defendants misled investors by saying they had
room to capitalize on the power-intensive AI boom when Equinix in
fact was overselling its power capacity already.

The complaint has sufficiently alleged that Equinix oversold its
power capacity and that it never disclosed that fact to its
investors. But the primary problem is that the complaint does not
allege exactly how that fact was material, the Court notes. In
other words, the complaint does not explain how disclosure of the
fact that Equinix was overselling would have significantly altered
the total mix of information made available to the reasonable
investor. Without more specific allegations as to the importance of
the power capacity allegations, the plaintiff's claim based on this
theory must be dismissed, the Court concludes.

Dismissal of the power capacity claims is with leave to amend.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 6, 2025, is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q3o4K2 from PacerMonitor.com.


EQUITYEXPERTS.ORG LLC: Court Certifies Class in Lewis FDCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Louise W. Flanagan of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of North Carolina granted in part and denied
in part the plaintiff's motion to certify class in the case
captioned as KIMBERLI LEWIS on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EQUITYEXPERTS.ORG, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 5:22-CV-302-FL (E.D.N.C.).

Plaintiff commenced this consumer protection action in Wake County
Superior Court, April 14, 2022, asserting putative class action
claims on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, based
upon allegedly improper debt collection practices by defendant in
connection with delinquent homeowners association dues payments.

Plaintiff asserts claims under the federal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692 et seq.; the North Carolina
Collection Agency Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 58-70 et seq.; and the
North Carolina Debt Collection Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 75-50 et
seq. She seeks certification of this action as a class action; an
award of actual, statutory, and trebled damages; and an award of
attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendant filed a notice of removal August 4, 2022, on the basis of
federal question jurisdiction. Thereafter, defendant moved to
dismiss all claims against it for failure to state a claim and to
strike plaintiff's class allegations. The Court granted in part and
denied in part defendant's motion to dismiss May 31, 2023, allowing
plaintiff's claims to proceed under the FDCPA, NCCAA, and NCDCA, as
well as class action allegations.

Plaintiff filed the instant motion to certify class August 8, 2024,
seeking certification of the following three classes pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3):

   (1) Notice of Lien Class: All North Carolina homeowners, during
the respective statute of limitations period, that received a
Notice of Lien from EquityExperts substantially identical to the
Notice of Lien delivered to Plaintiff.

   (2) Notice of Intent to Foreclose Class: All North Carolina
homeowners, during the respective statute of limitations period,
that received a Notice of Intent to Foreclose from EquityExperts
substantially identical to the Notice of Intent to Foreclose
delivered to Plaintiff.

   (3) Unconscionable Collection Fee Class: All North Carolina
homeowners that were charged more than $1,200 in collection fees by
EquityExperts during the respective statute of limitations period.


Plaintiff has met commonality and predominance requirements for the
notice of lien and notice of intent to foreclose classes. She has
demonstrated typicality for the notice of lien and notice of intent
to foreclose classes. The adequacy requirement is met, and
plaintiff has shown good cause for appointing her attorneys as
class counsel and for appointing plaintiff as class representative.
She has met the ascertainability and numerosity requirements for
the notice of lien and notice of intent to foreclose classes. The
superiority requirement for certification is also met.

In sum, the Court finds Plaintiff has met all the requirements for
class action certification.

The Court certifies only the following two classes defined as
follows, pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3):

   (1) Notice of Lien Class: All North Carolina homeowners, during
the respective statute of limitations period, that received a
Notice of Lien from EquityExperts substantially identical to the
Notice of Lien delivered to Plaintiff, and thereafter made a
payment to EquityExperts.

   (2) Notice of Intent to Foreclose Class: All North Carolina
homeowners, during the respective statute of limitations period,
that received a Notice of Intent to Foreclose from EquityExperts
substantially identical to the Notice of Intent to Foreclose
delivered to Plaintiff, and thereafter made a payment to
EquityExperts.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 6, 2025, is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CRauMP from PacerMonitor.com.


ESSENTIAL UTILITIES: SRCS Has Duty to Defend Under Insurance Policy
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as ESSENTIAL UTILITIES, INC., formerly known
as AQUA AMERICA, INC. AND AQUA ILLINOIS, INC.; AQUA ILLINOIS, INC.
v. SWISS RE CORPORATE SOLUTIONS ELITE INSURANCE CORPORATION,
formerly known as NORTH AMERICAN ELITE INSURANCE COMPANY; SR
CORPORATE SOLUTIONS AMERICA HOLDING CORPORATION; SWISS REINSURANCE
COMPANY LTD, SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO SWISS RE CORPORATE SOLUTIONS
LTD Swiss Re Corporate Solutions Elite Insurance Corporation,
Appellant, Nos. 23-1891 and 23-2279 (3rd Cir.), Judges Anthony
Joseph Scirica, Paul B. Matey and Patty Shwartz of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the decision
of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania denying SRCS Elite's motion for judgment on the
pleadings on the breach of contract and declaratory relief claims
and granting Essential Utilities partial judgment on the pleadings
on its request for declaratory relief with respect to SRCS Elite's
duty to defend.

Plaintiff Essential Utilities, formerly known as Aqua America, is a
water utility that triggered regulatory scrutiny and putative class
actions for allegedly distributing lead-contaminated water to
residents of the Village of University Park, Illinois. Essential
Utilities had a five-million-dollar primary liability insurance
policy from Chubb Insurance. That policy was exhausted -- Chubb
spent all five million dollars on indemnity payments and defense
costs related to the class action lawsuits. Essential Utilities
also purchased excess general liability insurance coverage from
defendant Swiss Re Corporate Solutions Elite Insurance under two
umbrella policies which are, in relevant part, identical.

The SRCS Elite policies' Pollution Exclusion provides that coverage
does not extend to the insured's damages, expenses, and lawsuits
related to "the effects of pollutants." Under an exception to the
Pollution Exclusion, however, an insured who obtained the proper
"retained limits" coverage for the pollution liability risks is
entitled to excess coverage for bodily injury and property damage.
Provided that Essential Utilities exhausted its retained limits
coverage, then, SRCS Elite's duty to defend would be triggered. If
the insured does not have retained limits in the form of "scheduled
underlying insurance" or "other insurance," then under a second
exception, the Named Peril Exception, the insured can obtain more
limited coverage -- but only after paying a ten-million-dollar
Self-Insured Retention. That coverage extends to "damages" in
excess of the retention and any retained limits.

Contending it satisfied the Retained Limits Exception, Essential
Utilities sought excess coverage. SRCS Elite disagreed, arguing its
duty to defend would start only at theifteen-million-dollar level
-- i.e., after Essential Utilities exhausted both its five
million-dollar Chubb policy and the ten million-dollar Self-Insured
Retention. In its complaint, Essential Utilities raised breach of
contract, breach of good faith and fair dealing,
statutory bad faith, and tortious interference claims. It also
sought a declaratory judgment that SRCS Elite's duty to defend was
triggered.

Because Essential Utilities had obtained "other insurance" in the
form of the Chubb policy, the District Court denied SRCS Elite's
motion for judgment on the pleadings on the breach of contract and
declaratory relief claims. And because the "total applicable
limits" of the Chubb policy were exhausted, the court granted
Essential Utilities partial judgment on the pleadings on its
request for declaratory relief with respect to SRCS Elite's duty to
defend. The District Court subsequently denied SRCS Elite's motion
for reconsideration. SRCS Elite timely appealed.

Construing the Retained Limits Exception "in favor of the insured,
the Circuit Judges agree with the District Court.

The Circuit Judges find that SRCS Elite claims the Named Peril
Exception would still allow pollution coverage. But that exception
would only trigger SRCS Elite's duty to pay damages—and only
after the insured pays the ten million-dollar Self-Insured
retention—not defense costs. It is apparent from the plain text
of the Pollution Exclusion that the parties intended to extend the
duty to defend to insureds who retained the applicable limits and
have since exhausted those retained limits. Accordingly, SRCS Elite
had a duty to defend once Essential Utilities exhausted the Chubb
policy.

Faced with a provision unambiguously extending excess pollution
coverage but ambiguous as to which policy's terms govern that
coverage, the District Court properly endeavored to find an
interpretation of the pollution endorsement that avoided an
ineffective result and chose Essential Utilities' interpretation,
which appeared to be the only reasonable one based on the parties'
arguments. To avoid reaching an absurd result incongruent with the
plain text of the Pollution Exclusion, the Circuit Judges agree
with the District Court's conclusions.

A copy of the Court's Opinion dated Jan. 6, 2025, is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yly7mR from PacerMonitor.com.


EVO TRANSPORTATION: Soto Has Leave to File 2nd Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California grants the Plaintiffs' motion
for leave to file second amended complaint in the lawsuit entitled
JUAN SOTO, et al., Plaintiffs v. EVO TRANSPORTATION & SERVICES,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-02415-TSH (N.D. Cal.).

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Juan Soto and Antonio
Arango's motion to file a second amended complaint pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). Defendants EVO
Transportation & Services, Inc., and EVO Services Group, LLC
(collectively, "EVO") did not file a response. The Court finds this
matter suitable for disposition without oral argument and vacates
the Jan. 16, 2025 hearing.

In August 2019, Soto was hired as a truck driver by Thunder Ridge
Transport. EVO acquired Thunder Ridge in 2020 and was Soto's
employer until his termination on May 10, 2023. Due to the time
sensitivity of his deliveries, Soto usually worked overtime to
complete them. Despite his overtime, EVO consistently paid Soto a
regular wage of $28 per hour for all his time worked. EVO also
failed to provide Soto with meal breaks and rest breaks and failed
to pay annual bonus payments to which he was entitled.

At some point, Soto was injured on the job and underwent surgeries,
which left him unable to perform his truck driving duties. He was
placed on medical leave and assigned to light work. In early 2023,
Soto's treating physicians released him to return to his regular
truck driving duties in May 2023. However, on April 23, 2023, Soto
was significantly injured in an off-the-job vehicular accident.

In late April 2023, Soto's physicians discovered that he was
suffering from a form of cancer that required immediate treatment.
When Soto phoned an EVO representative to give notice of his
accident injuries and impending cancer treatment, the
representative replied, "That's going to be a problem."

In late April 2023, EVO canceled Soto's health insurance and failed
to give him notice of his option to continue the health insurance
through COBRA. On May 10, 2023, EVO notified Soto by telephone that
his employment was terminated, stating that the trucking routes he
had routinely driven were no longer available. Soto asked for a
letter confirming his employment termination, but the EVO
representative replied that no such letter would be issued.

Mr. Soto also requested the EVO representative provide the forms
and information necessary for him to revive his health insurance
coverage through COBRA, but the EVO representative refused to do
so, stating Soto was a part-time employee and not entitled to
utilize COBRA. Because EVO canceled Soto's health insurance, his
medical treatment was significantly delayed. Before terminating
Soto, EVO failed to offer him any reasonable accommodation.

Sometime prior to Aug. 2, 2020, Arango was hired as a truck driver
by EVO, driving EVO's trucks between USPS locations. Due to the
time sensitivity of his deliveries, Arango usually worked overtime
to complete them. Despite his overtime, EVO consistently paid
Arango a regular wage of $28 per hour for all his time worked. EVO
also failed to provide Arango with meal breaks and rest breaks.

On Nov. 19, 2021, Arango sustained an on-the-job injury that
prevented him from performing his truck driving duties. He has
since been on medical leave. For a limited portion of his time on
medical leave that ended in or about June 2023, EVO assigned Arango
to light duty, although his employment contract entitled him, when
injured or disabled, to be assigned to light duty so long as
medically appropriate.

On July 6, 2024, Arango informed EVO that he had substantially
recovered from his injuries and was able to resume his truck
driving duties, except he was unable to engage in pushing, pulling,
or lifting the loads being delivered. EVO responded that it would
not allow Arango to resume truck driving until he was 100 percent
recovered, and it failed to offer him a reasonable accommodation.

Mr. Soto filed his initial complaint on April 23, 2024, and Soto
and Arango filed the operative First Amended Complaint on Aug. 7,
2024. They allege nine causes of action: (1) violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") (as to
Soto); (2) violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act
("FEHA") (as to Soto); (3) wrongful discharge in violation of
public policy (as to Soto); (4) breach of employment contract (as
to Soto); (5) FEHA disability discrimination (as to Arango); (6)
breach of employment contract (as to Arango); (7) violations of the
California Labor Code (as to Soto and Arango); (8) violations of
the Private Attorneys General Act (as to Soto, Arango, and other
current and former employees); and (9) a claim for "Class Action
Certification" (as to Soto, Arango, and all persons similarly
situated). EVO filed its Answer on Sept. 18, 2024.

On Nov. 7, 2024, the parties filed a joint case management
statement in which the Plaintiffs indicated they would seek leave
to file a second amended complaint, and EVO requested the Court not
set any deadlines pending resolution of the pleadings. As such, the
Court vacated the scheduled case management conference and ordered
the Plaintiffs to file any motion to amend by Dec. 5. The
Plaintiffs filed the present motion on Dec. 5, 2024.

The Court considers five factors in deciding a motion for leave to
amend: (1) bad faith on the part of the movant; (2) undue delay;
(3) prejudice to the opposing party; (4) futility of amendment; and
(5) whether the plaintiff has previously amended his complaint,
citing In re W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig., 715
F.3d 716, 738 (9th Cir. 2013), aff'd sub nom. Oneok, Inc. v.
Learjet, Inc., 575 U.S. 373 (2015).

As to the first two factors, the Court finds the proposed amendment
is not sought in bad faith or with a dilatory motive. There is no
indication Plaintiffs delayed in seeking leave to amend. As EVO did
not file a response, the Court finds there is no indication it will
face substantial prejudice.

Having reviewed Plaintiffs' proposed amendment, Judge Hixson says
it does not appear to be futile or legally insufficient. Further,
even if EVO were to argue the legal insufficiency of the
Plaintiffs' proposed amendment, the merits or facts of a
controversy are not properly decided in a motion for leave to amend
and should instead be attacked by a motion to dismiss for failure
to state a claim or for summary judgment.

Courts have broader discretion in denying motions for leave to
amend after leave to amend has already been granted, Judge Hixson
notes. Here, the Court has not previously granted leave to amend.

Having considered the relevant factors, the Court grants the motion
to amend. The Plaintiffs were to file the amended complaint as a
separate docket entry on Jan. 7, 2025.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5yx6unr4 from PacerMonitor.com.


FLAGSTAR BANK: Faces Class Suit Over Deceptive Business Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Firm Newswire reports that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Flagstar Bank by Lehrman Law and Scott D. Owens,
P.A., alleging deceptive practices in the handling of certificate
of deposit (CD) accounts. The complaint, filed on November 13,
2024, in a Florida federal court, accuses the bank of violating
state and federal consumer laws by rolling funds from matured CDs
into low-interest CDs without the account holder's knowledge or
consent.

The lead plaintiff, Florida resident Tunny Solomon, claims that
Flagstar, as the successor to New York Community Bank, converted
her high-interest CD into a long-term, low-interest CD without
authorization when it matured in December 2019. Solomon had
originally opened a 14-month CD in 2018 with a $50,000 deposit and
an interest rate of 2.65%. However, when the CD matured, Flagstar
allegedly moved her funds into a 300-month CD offering a mere 0.02%
interest rate—well below the original terms and far below
prevailing market rates.

According to the lawsuit, this practice resulted in substantial
financial losses for Solomon and others similarly situated. The
plaintiff has described these accounts as "zombie CDs," noting that
they were opened without customer consent, and the bank failed to
provide required quarterly statements to inform account holders of
the changes. Solomon contends that Flagstar's actions were
deceptive and intentionally concealed, depriving customers of
significant interest earnings they were entitled to receive.

The class action seeks certification on behalf of all U.S.
consumers who had funds transferred from maturing CDs into new
long-term CDs without authorization in the past four years. Claims
include breach of contract, unjust enrichment, violations of
banking regulations, and more. The lawsuit demands damages, legal
fees, costs, and injunctive relief to stop Flagstar from continuing
the alleged practices.

To learn more about the lawsuit or to learn more about Lehrman Law,
visit our website: https://lehrmanlaw.com/

CASE INFORMATION

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Tunny Solomon v. Flagstar Bank N.A
Case No. 1:24-cv-24482-XXXX

Lehrman Law is dedicated to protecting the rights of consumers and
crime victims and ensuring they receive the compensation and
resolution they deserve.

Lehrman Law
6501 Park of Commerce Blvd Suite 253 Boca Raton, FL, 33487
https://lehrmanlaw.com/

MEDIA CONTACT

Tiana Guzman
877.269.0076 x848 [GN]

FOCUSIT LLC: Court Tosses Quinalty, et al. Data Breach Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned Joshua Quinalty and Alene
Motta, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. FocusIT LLC, Defendant, Case No. CV-23-00207-PHX-KML
(D. Ariz.), the Honorable Krissa M. Lanham of the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona (i) granted FocusIT
LLC's motion to dismiss the amended complaint and (ii) denied as
moot FocusIT's motion to strike the class action allegations.

Defendant FocusIT, LLC, a software vendor, possessed the personal
data of plaintiffs Joshua Quinalty and Alene Motta when its
computer systems were compromised. Quinalty and Motta had provided
their data to non-parties (like banks and mortgage lenders) when
applying for mortgage and loan services and the non-parties in turn
provided it to FocusIT. When FocusIT's data systems were
compromised on June 1, 2022, Quinalty and Motta's personal data was
exposed.

Quinalty and Motta filed claims of negligence, unjust enrichment,
and violations of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act against FocusIT on
behalf of themselves and a putative nationwide class consisting of
all United States residents whose PII was compromised in the data
breach. FocusIT moved to dismiss the claims, arguing Quinalty and
Motta lacked standing and failed to state a claim. The court
granted the motion to dismiss in part, finding Quinalty and Motta
failed to state a claim for negligence, unjust enrichment, or a
violation of the ACFA.

Quinalty and Motta filed an amended complaint realleging only their
claims of negligence and unjust enrichment. FocusIT moved to
dismiss again, arguing Quinalty and Motta lacked standing and
failed to state a claim. FocusIT also moved to strike their class
allegations.

FocusIT argues Quinalty and Motta's negligence claim fails because
they do not adequately allege duty, breach, and proximate cause.

The Court finds Quinalty and Motta have not pleaded these elements
adequately to survive a motion to dismiss.  According to the Court,
there is no special relationship between FocusIT and plaintiffs
that would create a duty under Arizona law. Neither plaintiff has
sufficiently alleged a duty consistent with Arizona law. But if
they had, Motta's claim would nonetheless fail because she did not
sufficiently plead damages. Accordingly, Quinalty and Motta's
negligence claim is dismissed.

The Court finds because Quinalty and Motta were not directly
benefited by FocusIT and FocusIT was not enriched by possessing
their data, their claim fails.

FocusIT's motion to dismiss is granted because plaintiffs have
failed to state a claim, the Court concludes. The amended complaint
is dismissed with prejudice.

Class Allegations

The Court finds because Quinalty and Motta, the only named
plaintiffs, have not stated claims for relief and possess the same
interest and suffer the same injury shared by all members of the
class they seek to represent, their class-wide allegations are also
dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6). The portion of FocusIT's motion
seeking to strike plaintiffs' class allegations is therefore denied
as moot.

A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6WyOFT from PacerMonitor.com.


FRAN REST: Can't Compel Arbitration in Whorton Wage Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as ALEA C. WHORTON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Respondent, v. FRAN REST,
LLC DBA SUBWAY, a Washington Profit Corporation, Appellant, DOES
1-10, inclusive, Defendants, No. 85300-7-I (Wash. Ct. App.), Judge
Bill Bowman of the Court of Appeals of the State of Washington
affirmed a trial court order denying the motion filed by Fran Rest
LLC d/b/a Subway to compel arbitration of Alea Whorton's wage
claims.

In April 2021, Whorton applied for a job as a sandwich artist at a
Subway restaurant in Marysville. The restaurant is owned and
operated by Fran Rest. On April 27, 2021, Fran Rest e-mailed
Whorton a conditional offer of employment. The e-mail contained a
link to the Subway Employee Handbook and a Team Member
Acknowledgement. The e-mail conditioned employment on completion of
the necessary online paperwork and tasks and attendance on the
first day of work.

On August 6, 2022, Whorton terminated her employment with Fran
Rest. Then, on September 14, 2022, she sued the company. Her class
action complaint for unpaid and wrongfully withheld wages alleges
that Fran Rest engaged in a systematic scheme of wage and hour
violations against current and former hourly paid employees by
failing to provide statutory 10-minute rest periods and 30-minute
meal periods. She alleged an implied cause of action
under the industrial welfare act, chapter 49.12 RCW, for failure to
compensate for missed meals and rest periods and sought double
damages under RCW 49.52.050 and .070.

On February 24, 2023, Fran Rest moved to compel arbitration of
Whorton's claims and stay her lawsuit. It argued that the
arbitration clause in the TMA encompassed Whorton's statutory wage
claims. In her response, Whorton agreed that she relinquished her
right to a judicial forum for disputes arising out of or related to
the TMA. But she disagreed that the language was so broad as to
encompass terms of the Handbook.

The trial court heard the dispute on April 14, 2023. On April 25,
the court issued an order denying Defendant's motion to compel
arbitration and stay proceedings. It explained that the arbitration
clause in the TMA encompasses all claims and disputes arising under
or "relating to this Agreement," which can be reasonably
interpreted to refer to only "the Team Member Acknowledgement and
the bullet points therein." So, by its own terms, the arbitration
clause in the TMA does not encompass Whorton's wage and hour
claims.

Fran Rest appeals.

Fran Rest argues that the trial court erred by denying its motion
to compel arbitration because the arbitration clause in the TMA
encompasses all claims related to her employment. Judge Bowman
disagrees.

Judge Bowman says Whorton and Fran Rest did not agree to arbitrate
any claim arising under or related to their employment agreement,
her employment, and/or her separation from employment. Rather, the
parties agreed to arbitrate all claims arising under or related to
the TMA. And Whorton's wage claims have no logical or causal
connection to any term in the TMA.

He concludes that because Whorton's wage claims do not 'arise
under' and are not 'relating to' any provision in the TMA, he
affirms the trial court's denial of Fran Rest's motion to compel
arbitration.

A copy of the Court's Opinion dated Jan. 6, 2025, is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fGRHYX


FRANKLIN WIRELESS: Class Settlement in Ali Suit Gets Final Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOHAMMED USMAN ALI,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
FRANKLIN WIRELESS CORP., et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00687-AJB-MSB
(S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anthony Battaglia entered an order:  

1. Granting Plaintiff's motion for final approval of settlement and
plan allocation. As soon as practicable and no later than June 20,
2025, the Plaintiff must file both a Joint Motion for Dismissal of
the action and a Status Report addressing: (i)
completion of payment to Authorized Claimants; (ii) the final net
per share recovery at payment; and (iii) final itemized
settlement administration costs.

2. Granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs motion for award
of Attorneys' fees, expenses, and a service award.

On April 16, 2021, Mohammed Usman Ali filed a putative class action
complaint against Defendants for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

On Sept. 15, 2021, the Court appointed Gergely Csaba as lead
plaintiff and Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel.

On Jan. 3, 2023, after full briefing of the matter by both parties,
the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for class certification and
certified the following Class:

"All persons and entities other than defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired Franklin Wireless Corporation common stock
between Sept. 17, 2020 and April 8, 2021, inclusive."

Franklin Wireless Corporation designs and markets wireless
broadband high-speed data communications products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cChGoQ at no extra
charge.[CC]

FRED WHEELER: Pratt's Bid to Intervene OK'd
-------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v. FRED L. WHEELER, and LANDSCAPE CENTER OF MAINE, INC., Case No.
1:23-cv-00424-NT (D. Me.), the Hon. Judge Karen Frink Wolf entered
an order granting Pratt's motion to intervene:

Judge Wolf concluded that Pratt may permissively intervene to
assert her individual claims because they share questions of fact
in common with the existing Fair Housing Act claims.

Indeed, the question of whether Wheeler engaged in the unlawful
conduct alleged in Pratt’s complaint is central to resolving both
her individual claims and the Fair Housing Act claims asserted by
the United States. Pratt's intervention is therefore the most
efficient means of adjudicating all of the parties' interests.

The United States alleges that the Defendants own several
residential rental properties and that Wheeler, since at least 2010
and continuing through 2023, had on repeated occasions "subjected
multiple female tenants of [those properties] to discrimination on
the basis of sex, including severe or pervasive and unwelcome
sexual harassment."

Pratt alleges that Wheeler began harassing her shortly after she
moved into the subject property, and that he brought forceable
entry and detainer actions against her after she rebuffed his
sexual advances. See id. ¶¶ 13-36. On April 25, 2022, Pratt filed
a complaint against the Defendants with the Maine Human Rights
Commission and the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD).

Pratt occupied one of the Defendants' properties as a residential
tenant from about December 2019 through September 2021.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6ItEA8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
 


FUTONLAND INC: Martin Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
Damian Martin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. FUTONLAND, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00015 (E.D.N.Y., Jan.
2, 2025), is brought against Defendant for the failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website,
www.futonland.com (the "Website"), to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GEORGIA: Prisoner Suit to Proceed With Latimore as Sole Plaintiff
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ROY LATIMORE; KEVIN HENDERSON; DAYVON
GRANT; ANTONIO MONTREZ HAMM; CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS; LOWE SHAIQUAN;
ALEXANDER WILLIAMS; LACARIO SMITH; MODA GUEYE; JOEY G. WILLIAMS;
MICHAEL BROWN; ALFREDO SOSA; JASON WELBORN; WILLIAMS J. STEWART;
TAVARES ATWELL; JAMES LEE WILLIAMS; DONALD HEARD; MICHAEL REESE;
VERNON RHODES; ANTONIO PAYNE; KYREE BRANTLEY; LAMEGIA WILLIS; and
KEMONTE DILLINGHAM, Plaintiffs v. ANDREW MCFARLAND; RICKY WILCOX;
TONJI KEITH; MR. WOOTEN; MR. KELLOM; MS. FOSTER; C/O II GARDNER;
MS. JOHNSON; MEDICAL STAFF; CITY OF TELFAIR COUNTY; MR. SIKES; and
SGT. TUCKER, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00077-DHB-BKE (S.D. Ga.),
Judge Dudley H. Bowen, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Georgia, Dublin Division, rules that the case
will proceed with Plaintiff Latimore as the sole Plaintiff.

Plaintiff Roy Latimore, incarcerated at Telfair State Prison in
Helena, Georgia, filed this case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section
1983. On Nov. 20, 2024, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and
Recommendation ("R&R") recommending the dismissal of all the
Plaintiffs except Plaintiff Latimore because pro se prisoners are
not permitted to bring class action lawsuits under the Prison
Litigation Reform Act. Objections to the R&R were due no later than
Dec. 9, 2024.

Having received no objections to the R&R by the December 9th
deadline, the Court adopted the R&R as its opinion on Dec. 20,
2024. On Dec. 23, 2024, the Clerk of Court received Plaintiff
Latimore's objections to the R&R via mail, which were signed and
dated Dec. 7, 2024.

Although Plaintiff Latimore's objections did not reach the Court by
the objection deadline, using Plaintiff Latimore's signature date
of Dec. 7, 2024, and granting him the benefit of the "mailbox
rule," the Court accepts the objections. Thus, the Court vacates
the adoption order entered on Dec. 20, 2024.

After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with
the Magistrate Judge's R&R, to which objections have been filed.
The Court finds Plaintiff Latimore's objections unavailing.

Accordingly, the Court overrules Plaintiff Latimore's objections,
adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as its
opinion, and dismisses all Plaintiffs except Plaintiff Roy Latimore
without prejudice because the Plaintiffs may not bring a class
action under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act.

This case will proceed with Plaintiff Latimore as the sole
Plaintiff as described in the Magistrate Judge's Nov. 20, 2024
Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3uxre5cf from PacerMonitor.com.


GERBER PRODUCTS: Court Narrows Claims in Howard Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRACY HOWARD, et al., v.
GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY, Case No. 3:22-cv-04779-VC (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order granting in part and
denying in part motion to dismiss fraud claims:

The motion to dismiss is granted without leave to amend as to the
fraud claims and as to certain "made with" statements.

It is granted with leave to amend as to the Plaintiffs' claims for
injunctive relief.

It is denied in all other respects.

Because the plaintiffs did not plead an adequate theory of harm
after being given leave to amend in light of Sprout Foods, their
fraud claims are dismissed with prejudice. Because the plaintiffs
cannot state an unlawful prong claim as to lawful "made with"
statements, that dismissal is also with prejudice.

The plaintiffs will have leave to amend for the sole purpose of
alleging that they have standing to seek injunctive relief. Any
amended complaint is due within 28 days, with Gerber's response due
21 days after that.

The fraud claims (under the UCL's fraudulent prong, the FAL, and
the CLRA) are dismissed because the plaintiffs' theories of harm
rely on "hypotheticals and contingencies outside of the scope of
this case."

The plaintiffs have not established that they have standing to seek
injunctive relief. The allegation that they “would likely”
purchase the products again if they could trust the label is
sufficiently definite.

Gerber is an American purveyor of baby food and baby products.

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


GLOBAL EXCHANGE: Avery TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN AVERY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GLOBAL EXCHANGE VACATION CLUB, et al., Case No.
8:23-cv-02071-JFW-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Feb. 3, 2025,
will move to certify two classes with respect to claims under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), against Defendants and
for other relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

Using call records received from Defendants and other evidence,
Avery seeks to certify two classes of TCPA claims:

(1) based on calls to telephone numbers on the National Do-Not-Call
Registry, under 47 C.F.R. section 64.1200(c); and (

(2) based on calls to telephone numbers after the class member told
Defendants and/or their vendors to stop calling, under 47 C.F.R.
section 64.1200(d).

Global Exchange offers affordable and effortless vacation ownership
experiences.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 30, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=b5ggNi at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob U. Ginsburg, Esq.
          KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, P.C.
          30 East Butler Ave.
          Ambler, PA 19002
          Telephone: (267) 468-5374
          Facsimile: 215-540-8817
          E-mail: jginsburg@creditlaw.com
                  teamkimmel@creditlaw.com

                - and -

          Ethan Preston, Esq.
          PRESTON LAW OFFICES
          4054 McKinney Avenue, Suite 310
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (972) 564-8340
          Facsimile: (866) 509-1197
          E-mail: ep@eplaw.us

GOOGLE LLC: Faces Possible Trial Over Cellphone Privacy Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that Google failed
to persuade a federal judge to dismiss a privacy class action
claiming it collected personal data from people's cellphones after
they switched off a button to stop the tracking, paving the way for
a possible August trial.

Chief Judge Richard Seeborg of the federal court in San Francisco
rejected arguments that the search engine company adequately
disclosed how its Web & App Activity settings worked, and that
users consented to the tracking.

Google had also argued that its basic record-keeping "doesn't hurt
anyone."

Users of Android and non-Android mobile devices accused Google of
invading their privacy and violating a California law against
unauthorized fraudulent computer access by intercepting and saving
their personal browsing histories without consent.

In a 20-page decision on Tuesday, January 7, 2025, Seeborg said
reasonable users could view Google's conduct as "highly offensive,"
because the company collected data despite fielding concerns from
several employees and knowing its disclosures were ambiguous.

He cited internal communications suggesting that Google, a unit of
Alphabet (GOOGL.O), opens new tab, was intentionally vague in
distinguishing between data collected inside and outside Google
accounts because users might find the truth "alarming."

On the other hand, Seeborg said the Google employees might simply
have been suggesting ways to improve the Mountain View,
California-based company's products and services.

"Whether Google or plaintiffs' interpretation prevails is a triable
issue of fact," he wrote.

Google said in a statement: "Privacy controls have long been built
into our service and the allegations here are a deliberate attempt
to mischaracterize the way our products work. We will continue to
make our case in court against these patently false claims."

Lawyers for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to requests
for comment.

A jury trial is scheduled for Aug. 18. The lawsuit began in July
2020.

Last August, the federal appeals court in San Francisco revived a
lawsuit accusing Google of tracking Chrome browser users after they
chose not to synchronize their browsers with their Google
accounts.
Four months earlier, Google agreed to destroy billions of data
records to settle a lawsuit claiming it tracked people who thought
they were browsing privately, including on Chrome browsers set to
"Incognito" mode.

Law firms representing the plaintiffs in that case valued that
settlement at more than $5 billion. The same firms represent the
plaintiffs in the current case.

The case is Rodriguez et al v Google LLC, U.S. District Court,
Northern District of California, No. 20-04688. [GN]

GROUP US: Class Certification in Munoz, et al Suit Granted in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Henry J. Ricardo of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and
denied in part the plaintiffs' motion for conditional collective
certification in the case captioned as OSVALDO MUNOZ, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, -v- THE GROUP US MANAGEMENT LLC, ET AL., Defendants,
Case No. 22-CV-4038 (S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiffs brought this action on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated restaurant workers for violations of the minimum
wage, overtime, tip-pooling, wage notice, and wage statement
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law
, and their implementing regulations.

Plaintiff Osvaldo Munoz worked as a busser at La Grande Boucherie,
and Plaintiff Cristobal Ramirez worked as a food runner at Petite
Boucherie Bistro and "as-needed" at Boucherie West Village. Both
allege that Defendant Emil Stefkov owns and controls these and four
other Manhattan restaurants as a "single integrated enterprise"
through an "umbrella association" known as The Group NYC. In
addition to Stefkov, the Defendants are The Group US Management
LLC, La Grande Boucherie LLC, Olio Restaurants LLC, Boucherie Pas
LLC, Boucherie LLC, and Petite Boucherie LLC.

Now before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
collective certification and for court facilitation of notice
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b). Plaintiffs seek an order: (1)
granting conditional collective certification of plaintiffs' FLSA
claim on behalf of "all non-exempt front-of-house and back-of-house
employees who were employed by Defendants in New York City, on or
after the date six years before the filing of the Complaint,"
including "a subclass of tipped employees;" (2) directing
Defendants to provide the names, contact information, and other
personal information of all potential collective members to
Plaintiffs' counsel; (3) approving Plaintiffs' proposed Notice of
Pendency of Lawsuit Regarding Wages, authorizing Plaintiffs to mail
the Notice to potential  collective members (in English and
Spanish), and directing Defendants to post the Notice in
Defendants' restaurants; and (4) tolling the statute of limitations
"until such time that Plaintiff is able to send notice to
protentional opt-in plaintiffs."

In support of their motion, both Plaintiffs submitted declarations
attesting that they were paid a tip-credited minimum wage but were
required to engage in non-tipped activities for more than twenty
percent of their work day; that they were subject to an illegal tip
pool that improperly included non-tipped employees; and that they
were subject to time-shaving due to requirements that they complete
certain off-the-clock tasks either before or after their scheduled
shifts.

Defendants do not submit any evidence of their own in opposition to
the motion, but argue that, at best, Plaintiffs' submissions
demonstrate that Munoz and Ramirez are similarly situated to
"Tipped Front-of House Employees at the restaurant locations where
Munoz and Ramirez were actually employed." Thus, the critical
question for purposes of this motion is whether Plaintiffs have
made a sufficient showing that all employees at Defendants'
restaurants are subject to the same wage and hour policies (1)
across job categories, and (2) across job locations.

Employee Job Categories

Based on Plaintiffs' showing, it is fair to infer that other tipped
employees -- at least those who worked at La Grande Boucherie and
Petite Boucherie (the "Primary Locations")—were"paid at the
tip-credited minimum wage but were required to spend twenty percent
or more of their working time on non-tipped activities; were
subjected to unlawful tip pool arrangements that improperly
included non-tipped employees; and were subjected to time-shaving
for time worked off-the-clock before and after their scheduled
shifts.

Plaintiffs have adequately described conversations with other
employees at the Primary Locations concerning the tip-credited
minimum wage, the amount of side work required, the inclusion of
non-tipped employees in the tip-pool, and off-the-clock work before
and after shifts. Accordingly, they have satisfied their minimal
burden of showing that other tipped employees at the Primary
Locations are "similarly situated" regarding these alleged FLSA
violations. However, to the extent the proposed collective extends
to all tipped and non-tipped non-exempt employees, Plaintiffs have
not satisfied their burden, the Court finds.

According to the Court, the Plaintiffs have not made and could not
make any such showing as to non-tipped employees because the bulk
of their cognizable federal claims -- as to the tip-credit minimum
wage they were paid, the amount of side work they were required to
do, the alleged insufficiency of the notice concerning the tip
credit, and the unlawful tip pooling arrangement -- apply, by
definition, only to tipped employees.

Plaintiffs do not mention—much less provide evidence
concerning—the wage policies applicable to non-tipped employees
such as cooks, food preparers, or porters. Accordingly, they do not
provide any non-conclusory evidence that they were subject to the
same employment practices, the Court concludes.

Employee Locations

In support of their effort to include other locations in the
collective, Plaintiffs claim that Defendants operate all seven of
their restaurants as a single integrated enterprise under the
control of Stefkov. Plaintiffs submit screenshots from Defendants'
websites demonstrating that the seven New York City restaurants are
promoted as sister restaurants under the umbrella of The Group NYC.


Although Plaintiffs have shown that Defendants' restaurants are
jointly owned, jointly promoted, and jointly managed in certain
respects, they have simply not provided the Court with enough
specifics to meet even the modest burden that they face at this
juncture to show that the specific wage and hour policies of which
they complain were "uniform" across all restaurants. Consequently,
the collective will be limited to tipped employees who worked at
the Primary Locations: La Grande Boucherie and Petite Boucherie,
the Court finds.

A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Jan. 6, 2025, is
available at  https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Rq0jtR from
PacerMonitor.com.


HAIN CELESTIAL: Pflaumer Sues Over Deceptive Practices in Labeling
------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Pflaumer, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC. d/b/a EARTH'S BEST, Case No.
5:24-cv-07838 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 8, 2024), is brought against the
Defendant to seek redress for Defendant's unlawful and deceptive
practices in labeling and marketing the Earth's Best brand baby and
toddler food products.

The Defendant's products at issue are intended specifically for
children under the age of two. This intent is evinced by, among
other things, Defendant's product labels, Defendant's
representations on its website, Defendant's marketing strategies,
and the manner in which Defendant sells its Products through
retailers.

Despite the prohibition on making nutrient content claims on its
products, Defendant makes them anyway. For example, Defendant makes
the claim "4g PROTEIN per serving" on its Beef Medley puree pouch,
which is labeled as being for "Stage 3," which Defendant defines to
be children nine months and up. Defendant also makes "excellent
source" nutrient content claims on many of its products marketed
for children under two. For example, Defendant makes the claim,
"Excellent source of Iron, Zinc, & six B vitamins" on its cookie
products that, according to the product's label, are intended for
"toddlers" that can "chew solid food," i.e., those as young as one
year old.

The claims are unlawful, and consumers rely on these unlawful
claims in deciding to purchase Defendant's products. The claims are
also misleading. They deceive reasonable consumers into believing
Defendant's products are a healthful and appropriate source of
nutrients for their children under the age of two. However, a
growing body of evidence demonstrates that the products are not
healthful or recommended sources of nutrients and should not be
relied on for nutrients for children under the age of two. The
Defendant's misbranding caused Plaintiff and members of the
putative class to pay a price premium for the products, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased several Earth's Best Organic food pouches
for his child starting when his child was under two years of age.

The Defendant manufactures, distributes, markets, advertises, and
sells a variety of baby and toddler food products under the brand
name "Earth's Best."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth A. Safier, Esq.
          Marie A. McCrary, Esq.
          Hayley Reynolds, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 336-6545
          Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
          Email: seth@gutridesafier.com
                 marie@gutridesafier.com
                 hayley@gutridesafier.com


HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Hertzberg Seus Over Unfair Debt Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Hertzberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HEALTHCARE REVENUE RECOVERY GROUP, LLC, Case No.
2:24-cv-10397-SDW-JSA (D.N.J., Nov. 8, 2024), is brought under the
Fair Debt Collections Practices Act ("FDCPA") As a result of the
Defendant's illicit communication, harassment, and unfair debt
collection practices.

The Plaintiff expressly requested in his Debt Validation Request
that Defendant communicate strictly via email. Defendant ignored
Plaintiff's express request and responded via regular mail despite
the fact that Defendant had actual notice that regular mail was an
inconvenient means of communication for the Plaintiff.

Furthermore, Defendant failed to actually validate the debt, just
restated the amount he owed without any proof as to such amounts,
for which Plaintiff is still disputing the validity of this debt.
Defendant's conduct had the effect of harassment or abuse, or
oppression by communicating via regular mail after Plaintiff
expressly requested in writing for Defendant to cease communication
via regular mail and only consented to communication via email.

These violations by Defendant were unconscionable, knowing,
willful, negligent and/or intentional, and Defendant did not
maintain procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such
violations. Defendant's collection efforts with respect to the
alleged debt caused Plaintiff to suffer concrete and particularized
harm, inter alia, because the FDCPA provides Plaintiff with the
legally protected right not to be misled or treated unfairly with
respect to any action for the collection of any consumer debt, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff was a "consumer."

The Defendant is a "debt collector."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HOME DEPOT: BC Supreme Court Greenlights Privacy Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Joannou of The Canadian Press reports that a British
Columbia Supreme Court judge says a class-action lawsuit can go
ahead alleging Home Depot violated its customers' privacy when
collecting and sharing their information after emailing purchase
receipts.

The lawsuit alleges Home Depot gathered information when B.C.
customers opted for emailed receipts, including the purchase price,
brands bought, and data related to the customer's email address,
then shared it without consent with technology giant Meta.

Justice Peter Edelmann allowed the certification of the class for
the alleged breaches of privacy in a decision posted online
Wednesday, January 8, but he dismissed claims that Home Depot
violated other duties and contractual obligations.

The certification is not a finding of wrongdoing, and Home Depot
did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The decision says Meta, which operates Facebook, offered a service
to help the company understand if its advertising campaigns on the
social media platform were leading to in-store sales.

The court document says Home Depot argued customers had no
reasonable expectation of privacy because the information shared
with Meta was "high-level" and less sensitive, but Edelmann
disagreed, saying that privacy expectations "cannot be assessed on
a piecemeal basis."

The decision says the claim involves more than six million emails
and corresponding data shared with Meta over several years. The
judge said the alternative to a class-action lawsuit would be
hundreds of thousands of individual claims "which are simply not
feasible."

"The value of the individual claims would also make the costs of
litigation prohibitive as individual claimants would be unlikely to
recover the actual cost," he said.

"The pleading, as I understand it, is that Home Depot's customers
had a reasonable expectation that their purchase data would not be
compiled and shared with Meta to be used not only to generate
marketing information for Home Depot but also for Meta's own
marketing purposes, including user profiling and targeted
advertising unrelated to Home Depot."

The decision says other class-action proceedings making similar
allegations have also been launched in Quebec and Saskatchewan.
[GN]

HSBC BANK USA: Loja Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Luz Loja and Moises Quirino, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs, and the Class v. HSBC BANK USA, N.A., Case No.
1:25-cv-00038 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 2, 2025), is brought pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law
("NYLL") that they and others similarly situated are entitled to
recover from Defendants: unpaid wages, including overtime, due to
time shaving, unpaid overtime premiums due to fixed salary,
unlawfully retained gratuities due to an invalid tip pooling
policy, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and costs.

The Defendants knowingly and willingly failed to pay Plaintiffs,
FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Timeshaved Subclass regular
wages for all hours worked due Defendants' time shaving practices.
The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with
a policy of not paying Plaintiff QUIRINO, Salaried FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs, and Salaried Subclass the proper overtime rate for
hours worked in excess of 40 in each workweek due to being paid a
fixed salary.

The Defendants knowingly and willingly failed to pay Plaintiffs and
the Class members spread of hours premium for shifts worked in
excess of 10 hours in duration each workday. The Defendants
knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of
not paying Plaintiff LOJA, Tipped FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and
Tipped Subclass members the proper minimum statutory wage for all
hours worked due to invalid tip credit.

The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with
a policy of illegally retaining gratuities that Plaintiff LOJA,
Tipped FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and Tipped Subclass members are
entitled to. Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their
business with a policy of not providing employees proper wage
notices, at the beginning of employment and annually thereafter,
pursuant to the requirements of the NYLL, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant.

The Defendants collectively own and operate TABERNACLE, LLC, d/b/a
TABERNACLE STEAKHOUSE, a restaurant located in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Phone: 212-465-1188
          Fax: 212-465-1181


HSBC BANK: Fact Discovery Completion in Ni Suit Extended to Feb. 28
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ni v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A.,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00309-JAV-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katharine
Parker entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
parties' letter motion.

The parties' deadline to complete fact discovery is extended to
Feb. 28, 2025. The oral argument on class certification will
proceed on Jan. 3, 2025.

The parties shall file a joint status report on Jan. 15, 2025,
updating the Court on the status of their settlement negotiations.

HSBC offers personal banking, wealth management, loans, savings
accounts, leasing, retirement plans, investment management, and
insurance services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=a9STrG at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Lucas D. Hakkenberg, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          101 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10178-0060
          Telephone: (212) 309-6000
          Facsimile: (212) 309-6001

JACOB SECORE: Negligence Claims v. Defendant Class Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Chad F. Kenney of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted Jacob Score's motion for
judgment for pleadings in the case captioned as LEE ALEXANDER,
Plaintiff, v. JACOB SECORE, Defendant, Case No. 24-cv-00704 (E.D.
Pa.). The negligence claim against the defendant class is dismissed
for lack of standing.

Before the Court is a negligence claim arising from a motor vehicle
accident between Defendant Jacob Secore and Plaintiff Lee
Alexander. Plaintiff seeks diminution in value damages not only
from Defendant, but also the Defendant Class. Defendant moved for
judgment on the pleadings and to strike Plaintiff's class action
claim.

Alexander's complaint brought several claims, all seeking slightly
different forms of relief for failure of  Progressive Advanced
Insurance Company, Secore's insurance company, to cover diminution
in value damages, including Count I (Declaratory Judgment), Count
II (Breach of an Implied-in-Fact Contract), Count III (Breach of an
Express Contract), Count IV (Negligence), Count V (Breach of
Express Warranty), and Count VI (Violation of Magnuson-Moss
Consumer Products Warranties Act). Except for Count IV, which is
brought against Defendant Secore and the Defendant Class, all other
counts were brought solely against Progressive.

The Court dismissed all claims against Progressive such that the
only remaining claim is Count IV (Negligence) against Defendant
Secore and the Defendant Class. Progressive was terminated as a
defendant of the case.

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Plaintiff challenges the procedural vehicles Defendant employs in
the Motion, namely, that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) does
not permit the relief Defendant requests, and Rule 12(f) is
unavailable to strike the class allegations. The Court grants the
Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Plaintiff cites to assorted non-binding caselaw to support the
assertion that Rule 12(c) is an improper procedural vehicle to
challenge the class allegations. According to the Court, Rule 12(c)
is an appropriate procedural vehicle to rule that Plaintiff does
not have standing to sue the putative defendant class.

Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Class Allegations

The Court notes that the Plaintiff pursues this present action
through an exceedingly uncommon form of litigation -- the defendant
class action. The infrequency of defendant class actions leaves the
Court with scarce caselaw for guidance, particularly in the Third
Circuit.

The Defendant's Motion challenges Plaintiff's standing to bring the
class action in addition to failing to meet the certification
requirements under Rule 23. As the Court finds there is no standing
as to the class, it will not address the inadequacies alleged
pursuant to Rule 23. Because Plaintiff has failed to establish
standing in this case against defendants other than Secore, the
class certification analysis in unnecessary, the Court concludes.

Count IV (Negligence)

Count IV (Negligence) against Secore and the defendant class is the
sole remaining claim in this case after the claims against
Progressive were dismissed.

The Court finds Plaintiff has failed to establish standing on the
pleadings and no amount of discovery will demonstrate that the
named Plaintiff has standing to sue the members of the putative
class. As such, the Court grants the Rule 12(c) motion for judgment
on the pleadings. The putative defendant class is terminated as a
party in this case.

Alexander, the named Plaintiff, was involved in a car crash with
Secore, the named Defendant. Yet somehow, Alexander seeks to
maintain an action against a class of defendants who were involved
in different crashes injuring different individuals simply because
Plaintiff was not given the full amount in damages he requested.
According to the Court, a plaintiff cannot maintain an action
against a defendant that did not injure him.

Judge Kenney says Alexander has standing to sue Secore and can
litigate the damages he believes he is entitled to from Secore. But
Alexander cannot use this negligence claim against Secore to seek
damages from a party that was dismissed as a defendant or a whole
class of defendants who did not cause him any injury. Since
Plaintiff has no standing against the defendant class which is
evident on the pleadings, the class allegations in the Complaint
cannot lie.

The case will now be re-scheduled for the judicial arbitration
previously ordered.

A copy of the Court's Memorandum is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bU25jU from PacerMonitor.com.


JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Newbold Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jefferson Capital
Systems, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Anne Newbold,
individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities
similarly situated v. Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC, Progressive
Legal Support Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-00002-GNS (W.D. Ky., Jan. 2,
2025).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC -- https://www.jcap.com/ -- is a
debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq.
          PERRONG LAW LLC
          2657 Mount Carmel Avenue
          Glenside, PA 19038
          Phone: (212) 225-5529


KEURIG DR PEPPER: Carter Files Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Keurig Dr Pepper Inc.
The case is styled as Crishawna Carter, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Keurig Dr Pepper Inc., Case No.
1:25-cv-00037-RA (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 2, 2025).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Dr. Pepper Snapple Group -- https://www.keurigdrpepper.com/ -- was
an American multinational soft drink company based in Plano,
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Road, Ste. 412
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Phone: (516) 268-7080
          Fax: (516) 234-7800
          Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gabriella Marie Romanos Abihabib, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          1155 Avenue of the Americas, Ste. 22nd Floor
          New York City, NY 10036-2711
          Phone: (332) 223-3980
          Email: gromanos@perkinscoie.com


L.A. PACIFIC CENTER: Meggs Files ADA Suit in D. Nevada
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against L.A. Pacific Center,
Inc. The case is styled as John Meggs, and all other similarly
situated v. L.A. Pacific Center, Inc. doing business as: Alexis
Park Resort., Case No. 2:24-cv-02021-JAD-BNW (D. Nev., Oct. 28,
2024).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

L.A. Pacific Center, Inc. was founded in 2004. The Company's line
of business includes operating public hotels and motels.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George W. Wickhorst, III, Esq.
          ADADVOCATES LLC
          777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (305) 481-9809

               - and -

          Robert P Spretnak, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT P. SPRETNAK
          8275 S. Eastern Avenue, Suite 200
          Las Vegas, NV 89123
          Phone: (702) 454-4900
          Fax: (702) 938-1055
          Email: bob@spretnak.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jeffrey D. Winchester, Esq.
          Marcus Lee, Esq.
          O'HAGAN MEYER PLLC
          300 S. 4th Street, Suite 1250
          Las Vegas, NV 89101
          Phone: (725) 286-2812
          Email: jwinchester@ohaganmeyer.com
                 mlee@ohaganmeyer.com


LI AUTO: Court Consolidates Banurs & Chaudhary Action
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DINESH BANURS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LI
AUTO INC., XIANG LI, TIE LI, and DONGHUI MA, Case No.
1:24-cv-03470-DG-VMS (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Vera Scanlon
entered an order granting Movant Wee's motion and denies Movant
Hanna's motion.

Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to consolidate the
Banurs Action and the Chaudhary Action under the Banurs caption and
docket number; Movant Wee is appointed the lead plaintiff in the
consolidated action; and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., through counsel
Phillip Kim, is approved as lead class counsel.

The Court finds Movant Hanna's objection to Movant Wee's
appointment as the lead plaintiff unconvincing and insufficient to
rebut the presumption of Movant Wee's ability to serve as the lead
plaintiff.

Based on the current record, the Court finds that Movant Wee is a
fair and adequate representative of the class.

Movant Wee's selected counsel is qualified to represent the class
in this consolidated action, having demonstrated extensive
experience litigating securities class actions and particular skill
in litigating such actions involving Chinese issuers. Furthermore,
no party has raised any arguments in opposition to the selected
counsel's approval as class counsel. As such, the Court approves
Movant Wee's selected counsel as class counsel.

Li Auto is a Chinese electric vehicle manufacturer.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tNhkey at no extra
charge.[CC]

LIBERTY MUTUAL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Watts Amended to May 5
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANE WATTS, ANTHONY
WATTS, and ADAM PIZZITOLA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:23-cv-12845-PBS
(D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Patti Saris entered the amended
scheduling order deadlines as follows:

     Event                      Current        New Proposed
                                Deadline       Deadline

Deadline for Motion for Class   Mar. 6, 2025   May 5, 2025
Certification, and Expert
Disclosure Deadline for
Plaintiffs' expert regarding
class certification

Opposition to Motion for       May 7, 2025     Jul. 7, 2025
Class Certification, and
Expert Disclosure Deadline
for Defendants' experts
regarding class certification

Plaintiffs' Reply and         June 4, 2025    Aug. 4, 2025
disclosure of Plaintiffs'
rebuttal experts regarding
class certification

All Fact Discovery Deadline   Mar. 2, 2026    May 1, 2026

Liberty Mutual is an American diversified global insurer.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kc5qFz at no extra
charge.[CC]

LIFECORE BIOMEDICAL: Continues to Defend Stockholders Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lifecore Biomedical Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending September 24, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 2, 2025, that the
company continues to defend itself from the stockholders class suit
in the United States District Court of Minnesota.

On July 29, 2024, a putative class action complaint was filed on
behalf of stockholders of the Company in the United States District
Court of Minnesota against the Company and certain of its named
executive officers. The complaint generally alleges that statements
made to the Company's stockholders between October 7, 2020, and
March 19, 2024 regarding the Company’s financial results,
internal controls, remediation efforts, periodic reporting, and
financial prospects were false and misleading in violation of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the "Exchange Act"), and that the individual defendants are liable
for such statements because they are controlling persons under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks compensatory
damages, court costs, and attorneys' fees.

On November 15, 2024, the Court appointed purported stockholders
David Carew and Hugh Robert Homes as co-lead plaintiffs and
appointed their respective counsel. The co-lead plaintiffs must
file an amended complaint by January 24, 2025.

The Company continues to believe that the claims are without merit
and intends to vigorously defend against them. Any potential loss
arising from this claim is not currently probable or estimable.

Lifecore Biomedical, Inc. is a fully integrated contract
development and manufacturing organization that offers highly
differentiated capabilities in the development, fill and finish of
sterile injectable pharmaceutical products in syringes, vials and
cartridges, including complex formulations.

LISA WOLFE: Spero Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT PAUL WEINBERG, v.
Lisa Wolfe, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-13035-WGY (D. Mass.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending the Defendant
Stanley Spero's response to the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

Attorney Spero seeks extend the time within which he may respond to
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Action Certification up to and
including Feb. 14, 2025.

The Defendant conferred with Plaintiff via email on December 30,
2024, requesting that Plaintiff withdraw his Motion to Sever and
Remand and properly file it in the Removal Action and for an
extension of time to respond and for an extension of time to
respond to his Motion for Class Action Certification (as
undersigned counsel expects that the motion to sever and remand is
going to be withdrawn). Plaintiff agrees to the requested
extension.

On Dec. 20, 2024, the Plaintiff filed the motion for class action
certification and corresponding pleadings and a Motion to Sever and
Remand to State Court and corresponding pleadings. The deadline to
respond to these motions is, by Defendant's calculation, Jan. 3,
2025.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 31, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JXioJw at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christine A. Knipper, Esq.
          Marnix E. Weber, Esq.
          WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER
          260 Franklin St. – 14th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 422-5300
          E-mail: Christine.Knipper@wilsonelser.com
                  Marnix.Weber@wilsonelser.com

LOWES HOME CENTERS: Lovell Files Suit in W.D. North Carolina
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lowes Home Centers,
LLC. The case is styled as Prescila Lovell, for herself, as a
private attorney general, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lowes Home Centers, LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-00238-KDB-SCR
(W.D.N.C., Nov. 8, 2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Lowe's Home Centers Inc. -- https://www.lowes.com/ -- retails home
improvement, building materials, and home appliances.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Hattis, Esq.
          Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq.
          HATTIS & LUKACS
          11711 SE 8th Street, Suite 120
          Bellevue, WA 98005
          Phone: (425) 233-8650
          Fax: (425) 412-7171
          Email: dan@hattislaw.com
                 pkl@hattislaw.com

               - and -

          David B. Sherman, Jr., Esq.
          WEAVER, BENNETT & BLAND, PA
          196 N. Trade Street
          Matthews, NC 28105
          Phone: (704) 844-1400
          Email: dsherman@wbbatty.com

               - and -

          Michael David Bland, Esq.
          WEAVER, BENNETT & BLAND
          P.O. Box 2570
          Matthews, NC 28106
          Phone: (704) 844-1400
          Fax: (704) 845-1503
          Email: dbland@wbbatty.com


MANGANARO MIDATLANTIC: Must Respond to Torres' Interrogatory 18
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Roderick C. Young of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, Richmond Division, directs the Defendant to
respond to the Plaintiff's Interrogatory 18 in the lawsuit styled
CARLOS ANTONIA GUZMAN TORRES, et al., on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MANGANARO MIDATLANTIC,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00343-RCY (E.D. Va.).

The matter is before the Court on the parties' Joint Motion
Regarding Discovery Dispute filed pursuant to paragraph seven of
the Court's Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order. The parties ask for a
hearing to address the dispute. However, the Court dispenses with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the Court, and oral
argument would not aid in the decisional process.

The Plaintiffs, a putative class of physical laborers, filed the
instant class action complaint for unpaid overtime and employment
benefits on May 15, 2024. In relevant part, the Plaintiffs allege
violations of the Virginia Misclassification Law ("VML").
Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant
misclassified them as non-employees and, thereby, deprived them of
employment benefits. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs demand recompense
pursuant to the VML.

The parties dispute the permissible scope and relevance of the
Plaintiffs' Interrogatory 18, which asks the Defendant to identify
any and all fringe benefits, including benefits plans, available to
employees of the Defendant, including the Plan Documents, Plan
Administrators, and all third-party administrators of each.

The Defendant objected to the request, asserting that it was overly
broad and irrelevant. Instead, the Defendant offered to provide the
Plaintiffs with a response to the request that included generally
describing what benefits MMA offers to its acknowledged employees
that perform construction labor similar to those that would be
encompassed by the putative, Virginia class.

The Plaintiffs rejected the offer and maintained their request for
documents describing all fringe employment benefits that the
Defendant offers to any of its employees. After attempts at
informal resolution, the parties could not resolve the dispute.
Accordingly, the parties filed the instant Joint Motion.

While broad, the Court is convinced that the Plaintiffs'
Interrogatory 18 is necessary and relevant to their case. As
described, the Plaintiffs' complaint demands damages pursuant to
the VML, which provides for damages in the amount of any lost
employment benefits.

Of course, Judge Young opines, for the Plaintiffs to valuate their
lost benefits, they must discover the nature of the benefits they
might have received. The Plaintiffs' request asks only for
information necessary to valuate their purported losses--in fact,
it appears to the Court that the request is the most efficient
manner by which they may assess damages under the VML.

Accordingly, Judge Young finds the Plaintiffs' Interrogatory 18 has
more than a possible bearing on the claims and defenses of the
parties, and is relevant within the meaning of Rule 26.

Because the sought-after material is relevant, Judge Young holds
the Defendant must comply with the Plaintiffs' request unless the
burden or expense compliance poses outweighs its likely benefit.
Judge Young points out that the Defendant makes no such argument.
In fact, it appears to the Court that the Defendant is in direct
control of the relevant information and could produce it without
undue expense. Given the Plaintiffs' need to valuate damages, the
scope of their Interrogatory 18 is clearly proportionate to its
usefulness.

Because the Plaintiff's Interrogatory 18 is relevant and
proportional, the Defendant is obligated to respond to it, Judge
Young holds.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mu3t3s4m from PacerMonitor.com.


MARRIOTT INT'L: Bid to Continue Class Certification Bid Date Nixed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA CAHILL, v. MARRIOTT
INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-05065-FLA-JC (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Aenlle-Rocha entered an order
denying the joint stipulation to continue the deadline to file the
Plaintiff's FRCP Rule 23 Motion for Class Certification:

- Any renewed request for continuance must set forth specific facts
detailing the parties' efforts to litigate this case and complete
discovery and demonstrating they could not have reasonably
completed discovery and all remaining litigation tasks within the
time allowed.

- The parties fail to establish a stay or a continuance is
warranted. The parties’ conclusory assertions that this is a
"complex" wage-and-hour class action, and that there is an
"interest" in "conserving judicial and party resources," do not
establish good cause for a stay or continuance.

On Dec. 9, 2024, the parties filed the Stipulation, requesting the
court continue the deadline to hear Plaintiff’s motion for class
certification from May 9, 2025, to a date "at least eleven (11)
months after April 22, 2025," when the parties have a scheduled
mediation hearing.

The parties contend good cause exists for a continuance because of
the "complex issues involved in this class action wage-and-hour
matter" and the "interest of conserving judicial and party
resources."

Marriott operates, franchises, and licenses lodging brands that
include hotel, residential, and timeshare properties.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bIbITA at no extra
charge.[CC]

MCMURRY UNIVERSITY: Hopper Files Suit in Tex. Dist. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against McMurry University.
The case is styled as Kylee Hopper, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. National Collection Systems, Inc.
d/b/a National Credit Management, Case No. 13479-D (Tex. Dist. Ct.,
Taylor Cty., Dec. 31, 2024).

The case type ass "All Other Civil Cases."

McMurry University -- https://mcm.edu/ -- is a vibrant
higher-education institution with outstanding academics and a
welcoming, supportive campus community.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roger L. Mandel, Esq.
          JEEVES MANDEL LAW GROUP P.C.
          2833 Crockett St. Ste 135
          Fort Worth, TX 76107
          Phone: 214-661-8884


MDL 3097: Plaintiffs May Discover Transactional Data in CCA MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lewis J. Liman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York holds that the Plaintiffs are not prohibited
from seeking discovery of transactional data in the multidistrict
litigation styled IN RE: CONCRETE AND CEMENT ADDITIVES ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, MDL No. 1:24-md-03097-LJL (S.D.N.Y.). This documents
Relates To: ALL ACTIONS.

On Dec. 20, 2024, the parties filed dueling letters concerning the
scope of discovery to be taken during the pendency of the
Defendants' motions to dismiss. The letters state that after
meeting and conferring, the Plaintiffs agreed to narrow their
priority requests for production to three categories of documents:
(1) documents produced to foreign regulators (Request Nos. 1–4);
(2) transactional data (Request Nos. 6–7, 10); and (3) pricing
information (Request Nos. 78–79).

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' pursuit of the first and
third categories of documents sought is presently barred by the
existing discovery stay and that in any event, all of the
Plaintiffs' requested discovery should be stayed pending the
Court's ruling on the motions to dismiss. The Plaintiffs argue that
the current stay does not bar production of documents responsive to
any of the three categories and that the Defendants fail to show
good cause for a stay of discovery. They, thus, move to compel
production of documents responsive to Request Nos. 1–4, 6–7,
10, and 78–79.

On Oct. 18, 2024, the United States, in its role as intervenor,
submitted a proposed joint stipulation and order regarding a
limited stay of discovery. The proposed stipulation and order was
signed by counsel for all Plaintiffs and Defendants and states that
"Plaintiffs, Defendants served as of the entry of this stipulation,
and the United States have met and conferred regarding the
parameters and scope of a limited stay of discovery."

The Court so-ordered the joint stipulation and order on Oct. 21,
2024 ("Stipulation"). The Stipulation contains five paragraphs
relevant to the question whether the Stipulation bars any of the
discovery the Plaintiffs now seek.

The parties contest whether the list of Permissible Subjects within
Paragraph 6 is exhaustive such that matters not enumerated (or
included within Paragraph 4) are barred while the Stipulation is in
effect. The Plaintiffs contend that Paragraph 6 merely provides
examples while the Defendants contend that Paragraph 6 provides the
complete list of currently discoverable subjects.

The Stipulation is not the model of clarity, but Judge Liman finds
the Defendants have the better reading of the Stipulation.

The Plaintiffs' interpretation would stay only the discovery stated
in Paragraphs 2 and 3, thereby, rendering the entirety of Paragraph
6 mere surplusage--a construction that cannot be countenanced under
New York principles of contract interpretation, Judge Liman opines.
Absent Paragraph 6, the Stipulation could be read to only stay
discovery of the materials restricted by Paragraphs 2 and 3.
However, Paragraph 6 must be given effect.

The Stipulation does not itself state that the Permissible Subjects
enumerated in Paragraph 6 are mere examples of the discovery, which
may be sought or that those subjects are listed simply for the
avoidance of doubt, Judge Liman explains. Conversely, the
Defendants' reading gives effect to every paragraph.

Judge Liman notes that pursuant to the Defendants' interpretation,
Paragraph 1 provides that the Stipulation will be in effect through
the end of 2025; Paragraph 3 identifies documents that may not be
produced prior to July 1, 2025; Paragraph 4 clarifies that certain
activities related to discovery may still proceed; and Paragraph 6
enumerates certain discovery subjects, which may proceed. Paragraph
6, thus, helps give definition to Paragraph 3.

Even if centrally maintained transactional data and jurisdictional
discovery might be read to "relate" to an alleged unlawful
understanding (for the alleged illegal agreement pertains to
transactions in cement and concrete additives and admixtures
("CCAs")), Paragraph 6 makes clear that Paragraph 3 is not to be
given its broadest reading, Judge Liman holds. Individual
transactional data is permitted to be discovered even if the
discovery of such data from each of the Defendants might provide
circumstantial evidence of the alleged conspiracy and therefore
relate to it.

At the same time, however, Judge Liman explains, because Paragraph
6 governs only subject to Paragraphs 2 and 3, discovery of the
Permissible Subjects is not permitted with respect to any specific
document that relates to the United States' investigation or that
refers overtly to an agreement or communication between competitors
relating to the sale of CCAs

The discovery the Plaintiffs seek is, therefore, stayed except to
the extent it falls within one of the Permissible Subjects and does
not refer or relate to the investigation being conducted by the
United States concerning CCAs or to any alleged understandings,
agreements, meetings, or communications between competitors
relating to the sale of CCAs, Judge Liman holds.

Judge Liman points out that discovery of documents relating to the
investigation may not be conducted until Dec. 31, 2025, and
documents relating to alleged understandings and agreements may not
be produced until July 1, 2025 (although they may be requested with
production due on or after July 1, 2025). The Defendants do not
dispute that discovery of the second category of
documents--transactional data--is not barred by the Stipulation
which includes, as a Permissible Subject, "centrally maintained
transactional and statistical data."

The Plaintiffs argue that the third category of documents--pricing
data--are also discoverable because they are "necessarily
encompassed within" that same category. But the requests themselves
belie the Plaintiffs' argument, Judge Liman notes. Request No. 78
seeks documents "[c]oncerning any price increase or shipping
surcharge [the responding Defendant] discussed, considered,
planned, adopted, implemented, or imposed for CCAs or Precursor
Chemicals." Request No. 79 seeks documents "[c]oncerning pricing
guidelines, policies, methods, procedures, practices, formulas,
factors, benchmarks, indexes floors, or limits regarding CCAs or
Precursor Chemicals."

Although the price of certain transactions may necessarily be
included within the transactional data, and therefore, presently
susceptible to discovery, Judge Liman points out that the
Plaintiffs advance no argument as to how, for example, discussions
regarding considered but unimplemented price increases or pricing
procedures would be encompassed within the transactional data. To
the extent the pricing data that the Plaintiffs seek is not
transactional data, Judge Liman holds that the Stipulation bars
production of documents responsive to those requests at this time.

The Plaintiffs next argue, among other things, that the Stipulation
does not block the first category of documents--documents produced
to foreign regulators--because "the order incorporates CMO No. 1
Paragraph 5(b) (Case Management Order No. 1) which contemplated the
production of foreign regulator documents." Paragraph 6 of the
Stipulation states that "full discovery" of the Permissible
Subjects is permitted "subject to" Paragraph 5(b)-(c) of CMO No.
1.

However, Judge Liman says, CMO No. 1 does not exempt documents
produced to foreign regulators from the later stipulated-to stay,
as Paragraph 5(b)–(c) of CMO No. 1 merely sets forth the schedule
for fact discovery. Paragraph 5(b) states that the Plaintiffs may
serve requests for production of documents, "including but not
limited to requests for production of documents produced to, or
collected by government agencies" beginning 35 days from the filing
of the Consolidated Class Action Complaints. Paragraph 5(c) states
that "[a]dditional fact discovery shall open on the day the Court
rules on any Responsive Motions, if any Responsive Motions are
denied in whole or in part."

Subjecting Paragraph 6 of the Stipulation to those subparagraphs of
CMO No. 1, therefore, permits discovery of the Permissible Subject
only on the timetable ordered by CMO No. 1 Paragraph 5(b)–(c),
Judge Liman holds. It does not tacitly create another Permissible
Subject. The Plaintiffs do not otherwise argue that the foreign
regulator documents they are seeking fall within a Permissible
Subject.

The Defendants' motions to dismiss make strong arguments for
dismissal, including that the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim
under Section 1 of the Sherman Act because they do not allege
direct evidence of a conspiracy or parallel conduct and that the
Plaintiffs engage in impermissible group pleading with respect to
certain Defendants. However, Judge Liman says, a strong motion to
dismiss does not necessarily warrant a stay of discovery where
strong arguments are also available on the other side.

The Plaintiffs have not yet filed their oppositions to the motions
to dismiss and, particularly in light of the multitudinous state
law claims at issue, the Court cannot fully ascertain whether the
strength of the motions weighs in favor of a stay.

The Defendants do not argue that the Plaintiffs' request for the
transactional data is overbroad. The Plaintiffs state that the
requested data is directly relevant to their price-fixing
allegations (and presumably also to damages). The Defendants do not
dispute that and merely state that the Court's ruling on the
motions to dismiss could narrow the Plaintiff's request in
unspecified ways.

The Plaintiffs do not identify any unfair prejudice they would face
if the transactional data was stayed, Judge Liman says. However,
lack of prejudice alone does not merit a stay.

Ultimately, the Defendants do not show good cause for a stay of
discovery with respect to the transactional data. The Plaintiffs
are not prohibited from seeking discovery of those documents, or
any other materials not stayed by the Stipulation, Judge Liman
holds.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close Dkt. No. 259.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated is
available at https://tinyurl.com/348hrtje from PacerMonitor.com.


MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Oaks Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Oaks, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. THE MEN'S WEARHOUSE, INC., Case No. ESX-L-007819-24 (N.J. Sup.
Ct., Essex Cty., Nov. 8, 2024), is brought for its violations of
the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the
Defendants blind-inaccessible website.

Upon visiting Defendant's website, https://www.menswearhouse.com/
(hereinafter referred to as "Website"), Plaintiff quickly became
aware of Defendant's failure to maintain and operate its website in
a way to make it fully accessible for himself and for other blind
or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods and
services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("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, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person.

The Defendant is and was at all relevant times a company doing
business and marketing to New Jersey customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Zemel, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW LLC
          400 Sylvan Ave, Suite 200
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          Phone: (862) 227-3106
          Email: dz@zemellawllc.com


META PLATFORMS: Has Until Jan. 27 to Oppose Motion for Sanctions
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled IN RE META PIXEL HEALTHCARE LITIGATION, Case No.
3:22-cv-03580-WHO (VKD) (N.D. Calif.), the Honorable William H.
Orrick of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California granted the parties' stipulated request to
extend the deadline for Meta Platforms, Inc. to oppose the motion
for sanctions filed by the plaintiffs to Jan. 27, 2025.

The plaintiffs' deadline to file their reply in support of the
motion is extended to Feb. 7, 2025.

The plaintiffs requested a hearing for Feb. 19, 2025, before Judge
Orrick.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 6, 2025, is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=P3Xz6A from PacerMonitor.com.



METALTEK INT'L: Class Settlement in Herman Suit Gets Final Court OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio granted final approval of the
settlement agreement in the class action lawsuit captioned as Keith
Herman, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. MetalTek International, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-1476 (N.D. Ohio.).

On August 17, 2022, Representative Plaintiff Keith Herman filed
this action on behalf of himself and others allegedly similarly
situated to him, asserting a number of unpaid wage claims against
Defendant MetalTek International, Inc. under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Secs. 201–19; the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act, O.R.C. Secs. 4111.01, 4111.03, and 4111.10; and the
Ohio Prompt Pay Act, O.R.C. Sec. 4113.15.

Specifically, Herman alleges that MetalTek violated these statutes
by failing to pay him and similarly situated
production/manufacturing employees at MetalTek's Sandusky, Ohio
facility for all hours worked because:

   (1) Herman and others performed integral and indispensable job
duties while clocked in; and, despite being clocked in; and
   (2) MetalTek's rounding policy or practice rounded compensable
hours in a non-neutral manner to MetalTek's benefit resulting in
unpaid overtime compensation during workweeks when Herman and
others worked forty or more hours in one or more workweeks.

Herman claimed that this failure resulted in unpaid wages in
violation of the FLSA and the Ohio Acts during workweeks when he
and other production/manufacturing employees worked forty or more
hours.

Notwithstanding MetalTek's denial of any wrongdoing, the parties
agreed to engage in settlement discussions to avoid the burden,
expense, risks, disruption, and uncertainty of protracted
collective action litigation. After months of negotiations, the
parties reached a final agreement on the terms of a resolution of
the action and executed the Class Action Settlement Agreement and
Release on May 8, 2023.

Under the Settlement Agreement, Herman and fifty-six other Class
Members would release any wage and hour claims that were or could
have been asserted in this action in exchange for individual
settlement payments.

Ultimately, the Total Settlement Amount of $142,900.35 would be
divided as follows:

   (1) all alleged unpaid overtime compensation to Herman and the
Class Members, in the amount of $82,738.15;
   (2) a service award of $5,000 to Herman;
   (3) Herman's counsel's attorneys' fees, which is equivalent to
one-third (1/3) of the Global Settlement Fund, or $47,633.45;
   (4) costs associated with prosecuting this matter to Herman's
Counsel in the approximate amount of $2,528.75; and
   (5) costs associated with administering the settlement to the
Claim Administrator in the amount of $5,000.

On May 12, 2023, the parties filed a joint motion for preliminary
approval of the Settlement Agreement. Judge Helmick granted the
motion on June 20, 2023. He concluded on a preliminary basis that
the Settlement is within the range of reasonableness, is
commensurate with the claims made, and could ultimately be given
final approval.

With his June 20, 2023 Order, Judge Helmick certified a 57-member
Settlement Class, defined as: All manufacturing/production
employees (1) who were employed by Defendant in its Sandusky, Ohio
facility during the time period of August 17, 2020 through May 8,
2023; (2) worked forty or more hours in one or more workweeks
during the Calculation Period; and (3) whose payroll and time clock
data was included in the Settlement.  

Judge Helmick also appointed for this Settlement Class: (1) Herman
as the Class Representative; (2) Bryant Legal, LLC and Coffman
Legal, LLC as Class Counsel; and (3) Analytics Consulting, LLC as
Claims Administrator.

Before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval of
a Class Action and Collective Action Settlement. On October 19,
2023, Judge Helmick conducted a final fairness hearing by
telephone.

Judge Helmick considered a number of factors, including:

   (1) the complexity, expense, and likely duration of the
litigation;
   (2) the reaction of the Class Members to the Settlement;
   (3) the stage of proceedings and the amount of discovery
completed;
   (4) the risks of establishing liability;
   (5) the risks of maintaining the class action through the trial;
and
   (6) the reasonableness of monetary benefits to the Class
Members.

After reviewing the parties' motion and hearing no objections,
Judge Helmick granted the Joint Motion for Final Approval. He
concludes that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate.

Judge Helmick has also considered the submissions by the parties
and all other relevant factors, including the results achieved and
the efforts of Class Counsel in prosecuting the claims on behalf of
the Class Members. Herman participated in the action, acted to
protect the Class Members, and assisted his counsel. The efforts of
Class Counsel have produced the Settlement entered into with good
faith, providing a fair, reasonable, adequate, and certain result
for the Class Members. Class Counsel has made application for an
award of $47,633.45 in attorneys' fees and $2,528.75 in expenses
incurred in the prosecution of the action on behalf of itself and
the Class Members.

The Court finds that the amounts requested for fees and expenses to
be fair, reasonable, and adequate under the circumstances. It
awards $50,162.20 in total as attorneys' fees and expenses to Class
Counsel. Analytics shall also be paid $5,000.00 for its services in
administering this Settlement. Further, Representative Plaintiff is
entitled to a fair, reasonable, and justified service award of
$5,000 pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and to be paid from the
Settlement.

This case is dismissed with prejudice.

A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated Jan. 6,
2025, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ABN3R2 from
PacerMonitor.com.


MONSANTO COMPANY: Bosse Suit Transferred to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Richard Bosse, Individually and as
Representative of the Estate of Russell Parker, deceased, and
others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No.
4:24-cv-01600 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on Jan. 3, 2025.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-09536-VC to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for
Product Liability.

The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an
American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation
founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tara K. King, Esq.
          THE WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM
          940 Lincoln Street
          Denver, CO 80203
          Phone: (303) 376-6360
          Email: tking@wagstafflawfirm.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Sarno Suit Transferred to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Janet Sarno, and others similarly situated v.
Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:24-cv-01621 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Dec.
31, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-09556-VC to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for
Product Liability.

The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an
American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation
founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tara K. King, Esq.
          THE WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM
          940 Lincoln Street
          Denver, CO 80203
          Phone: (303) 376-6360
          Email: tking@wagstafflawfirm.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Wilkes Suit Transferred to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Eddie Wilkes, and others similarly situated
v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 2:24-cv-00743 was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Jan.
2, 2025.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-09542-VC to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for
Product Liability.

The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an
American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation
founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bethany Dawn Williams, Esq.
          MORRIS BART, LLC
          601 Poydras Street, 24th Floor
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Phone: (504) 526-1128
          Email: bwilliams@morrisbart.com


MONTREAL, QC: Faces Two Class Actions Over Handling Encampments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Feith, writing for The Gazette, reports that the City of
Montreal has been targeted by two class-action lawsuits over its
handling of pro-Palestinian and homeless encampments last summer,
with lawyers arguing dismantling the camps violated people's
rights. More specifically, the requests argue the city ordering the
camps dismantled was an intentional attack on people's freedom of
expression and of peaceful assembly. The lawsuits seek thousands of
dollars in damages for those who either took part in the
encampments or were present when they were dismantled. "With the
dismantling of the camp, each member of the group saw his or her
fundamental freedoms curtailed," reads one of the requests. The two
class-action requests were filed by the same law firm in late
December. They will need to be authorized by a judge before moving
forward. The pro-Palestinian encampment in question was erected in
Victoria Square on June 22, near the Montreal offices of the Caisse
de depot et placement du Quebec. Protesters set up camp in the
park, erecting large tents, creating walkways with wooden pallets
and hanging banners from trees. Among other demands, they called on
the provincial pension fund to cut ties with Israeli institutions
they accused of being complicit in the Israel-Hamas war.

The other encampment was established in Parc des Faubourgs on July
1 in protest against the city's approach to dismantling homeless
camps. Erected by a local advocacy group, it grew to include
several unhoused people.

Both encampments were taken down by authorities on July 5. In the
case of the pro-Palestinian encampment, the lawsuit alleges the
Montreal police department used "violent and excessive" force while
dismantling the camp. The suit says about 20 police officers in
riot gear entered the camp around 5 a.m. without warning, trampling
over tents and acting in "an intentionally intimidating manner."
About 15 people remained in the camp at the time, the suit says. In
addition to protesters' rights being violated, the request also
argues they were discriminated against over their political
beliefs. As for the encampment erected in support of unhoused
people, the request says the city sent a "totally disproportionate
police response" to end what amounted to a peaceful protest. The
morning of the dismantlement, it says, about 11 people were at the
camp: two organizers, a local resident who had come to drop off
food and eight unhoused people. The suit says between 30 and 40
police officers issued warnings for people to leave before forming
a wall and marching toward the camp. Protesters created a human
chain in response, but city employees began dismantling the camp
regardless.

"(The city) used its police force to dismantle an encampment
housing several people experiencing homelessness," the request
states. "It thus exposed these vulnerable and marginalized people
to the well-known dangers of eviction from an encampment." Both
requests also speak to what happened in the aftermath of the camps
being dismantled and the difficulties people experienced in trying
to regain personal belongings collected by authorities. It's
alleged tents, chairs and sleeping bags from the pro-Palestinian
encampment were damaged. A petition with hundreds of signatures was
also found ruined in a container with waste, the suit says. At the
camp set up in support of unhoused people, the request says, more
than $2,300 in materials and belongings was either damaged or
discarded, and organizers faced a "frustrating administrative
opacity" while trying to retrieve the items. The requests seek a
combined $10,000 in damages per person for those who took part in
the camps and $20,000 for those who were present when the
dismantlements took place. The lawyer behind both lawsuits declined
to comment for this report, given that the cases are before the
courts. The City of Montreal did not respond to a request for
comment by deadline Tuesday, January 7. When the pro-Palestinian
encampment was taken down, Montreal Mayor Valerie Plante had said
it posed "major safety risks" and contravened a municipal bylaw.
[GN]

NABFLY INC: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Fernandez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. NABFLY, INC., D/B/A BESPOKE POST, Case No.
1:24-cv-10022 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 31, 2024), is brought against
Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate Defendant's website, www.bespokepost.com (the "Website"),
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEW SCHOOL: Court Dismisses Trisvan Suit Without Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mae A. D'Agostino of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of New York adopted the Magistrate Judge
Stewart's Report-Recommendation and Order in the case captioned as
JOHN TRISVAN, Plaintiff, vs. THE NEW SCHOOL CENTER FOR MEDIA,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-CV-755 (MAD/DJS) (N.D.N.Y.). The
Plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed without prejudice and
without leave to amend.

On June 7, 2024, Plaintiff John Trisvan commenced this action, pro
se, against Defendant The New School Center for Media. Plaintiff
alleged that Defendant violated his rights by removing him from a
ninth-month audio engineering course and denying him reasonable
accommodations. Plaintiff also submitted an application to proceed
in forma pauperis.

On October 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Plaintiff
again alleges that Defendant wrongly removed him from a course
which he had previously enrolled and denied him student loans and
reasonable accommodations. Plaintiff references the Americans with
Disabilities Act, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, New
York business Law and New York Education Law. In a
Report-Recommendation and Order dated November 5, 2024, Magistrate
Judge Stewart recommended dismissing Plaintiff's amended complaint
and denying leave to amend.

Class Action

As to Plaintiff's business law claim, Magistrate Judge Stewart
accurately determined that Plaintiff's allegations are too
conclusory. To allege a violation of New York's General Business
Law Sections 349 or 350, plaintiffs must plausibly allege that a
significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted
customers, acting reasonably in the circumstances, could be misled.
The operative question is whether a significant portion of the
general consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting
reasonably in the circumstances, could be misled.  The Court agrees
with Magistrate Judge Stewart that Plaintiff has failed to set
forth any such allegations.

In Plaintiff's amended complaint, he referenced New York's class
action statute, but, as Magistrate Judge Stewart concluded,
Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information to substantiate a
class action, the Court finds.

A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VqO7MW from PacerMonitor.com.


NIKOLA CORP: Court Certifies Class in Borteanu, et al. Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Steven P. Logan of the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in the case captioned as Daniel Borteanu, et
al., Plaintiffs, vs. Nikola Corporation, et al., Defendants, No.
CV-20-01797-PHX-SPL (D. Ariz.).

This is a private securities class action brought by Plaintiffs on
behalf of all investors who purchased the common stock of Nikola
during the period June 4, 2020, through February 25, 2021. This
action is against Nikola, several of the company's officers, Mark
Russell, Kim Brady, Britton Worthen, Steve Girsky, Steven Shindler,
Jeffrey Ubben, and the company's former Executive
Chairman, Trevor Milton.

Nikola is a publicly traded Delaware corporation with its
headquarters in Arizona. It designs and manufactures electric
vehicles and their components. Plaintiffs filed their initial
Complaint on September 15, 2020, and subsequently their First
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on January 24, 2022. On
February 2, 2023, the Court dismissed that complaint for failure to
state a claim. Plaintiffs then filed a Second Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint, which remains the operative document.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated Secs. 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by misrepresenting numerous aspects of Nikola's
business and operations. They allege that these misrepresentations
inflated Nikola's stock value. They contend that when the falsity
of these misrepresentations came to light, Nikola's stock value
dropped dramatically, causing significant losses and damages to
class members.

Motion for Class Certification

Plaintiffs now seek class certification of the following class: All
those who purchased or otherwise acquired Nikola Corporation
securities during the period June 4, 2020 through February 25,
2021, and were damaged upon the revelation of the alleged
corrective disclosures. Excluded from the Class are: (i)
Defendants; (ii) members of the immediate family of any Defendant
who is an individual; (iii) any person who was an officer or
director of Nikola during the Class Period; (iv) any firm, trust,
corporation, or other entity in which any Defendant has or had a
controlling interest; (v) Nikola's employee retirement and benefit
plan(s) and their participants or beneficiaries, to the extent they
made purchases through such plan(s); and (vi) the legal
representatives, affiliates, heirs, successors-in-interest, or
assigns of any such excluded person.

The Court finds Plaintiffs have satisfied the numerosity,
commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements of Rule 23(a),
as well as the predominance and superiority requirements of Rule
23(b)(3). Therefore, it orders certification of the proposed class
pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3).

The Court appoints the offices of Pomerantz LLP and Block & Leviton
LLP are appointed as class counsel. It appoints Vincent Chau and
George Mersho as class representatives.

Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Zachary Nye

Plaintiffs contend, and this Court agrees, that Nikola had over 110
market makers, which supports a finding of market efficiency.
Defendants counterargue that Dr. Zachary Nye, Plaintiffs' economics
expert, ignores evidence that arbitrage activity was significantly
constrained during the Class Period. Plaintiffs contend that these
arguments regarding constraints on short-selling are pure
speculation for various reasons explained in Dr. Nye's Reply
Report.

According to the Court, the Defendants' contention that there is an
utter lack of methodology supporting Nye's opinions is an extreme
overstatement and is itself unsupported. Judge Logan finds it clear
that Defendants disagree with Dr. Nye's opinions regarding
arbitrage opportunities, but their disagreement does not warrant
wholesale exclusion of those opinions; to the contrary, it would be
an impermissible invasion into the province of the jury to decide
whether to afford Dr. Nye's or Dr. Roper's expert opinions more
weight, so long as the Court is satisfied that the threshold
admissibility requirements of Rule 702 have been met. The Court is
so satisfied, finding no grounds on which to exclude Dr. Nye's
opinions or testimony based on Defendants' arguments.

Nothing in Defendants' Motion to Exclude renders Dr. Nye's opinions
and proposed testimony inadmissible. Accordingly, the Motion is
denied.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 6, 2025, is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NaEoLa from PacerMonitor.com.


NIKOLA CORP: Federal Court Certifies Class Action in Fraud Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Claudio Afonso, writing for EV, reports that a U.S. federal judge
has certified a class action lawsuit against Nikola, a court filing
published Monday, January 6, 2025, showed. The decision allows
shareholders who purchased shares of the EV maker between June 4,
2020, and February 25, 2021, to pursue claims of financial losses
tied to alleged false and misleading statements by the company.

In June 2020, Nikola shares were trading at approximately $2,030
when adjusted for subsequent reverse stock splits. Eight months
later, by February 2021, the adjusted share price had fallen 68.4%
to $640.

The class action argued, among others, that Nikola claimed to have
14,000 purchase orders in 2020 which would represent "2 to 3 years
of production and billions in revenue." Additionally, the company
would also have already established an assembly line for its fully
electric truck in Germany.

U.S. District Judge Steven P. Logan ruled that the plaintiffs
demonstrated common legal or factual issues and the predominance of
these issues over individual claims.

The case centers on allegations that Nikola misrepresented its
technology and operations, causing its stock price to be
artificially inflated between mid-2020 and early 2021.

The court dismissed Nikola's arguments that the alleged
misstatements did not impact the stock price. Judge Logan concluded
that the EV maker failed to provide enough evidence to challenge
the price impact of its alleged misrepresentations.

Trevor Milton, Nikola's founder and former CEO, said last week he
plans to share details about his time at the company. Milton later
posted a video denying fraud allegations and defending the
performance of Nikola's trucks.

Answering a comment, the founder of the truck maker said,
"Unfortunately I don't think it [the company] can be saved." [GN]

NORWEX USA: Field Sues Over Failure to Secure & Safeguard PII
-------------------------------------------------------------
Keshia Field, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. NORWEX USA, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00002-D (N.D. Tex.,
Jan. 2, 2025), is brought arises out of the recent data breach
("Data Breach"), against Defendant for its failure to properly
secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that
it collected and maintained as part of its regular business
practices, including Plaintiff's and Class Members' names, dates of
birth, driver's licenses, payroll information, performance reviews
and claims, tax form information, addresses, and Social Security
numbers (collectively defined herein as "PII").

Current and former Norwex employees and job applicants are required
to entrust Defendant with sensitive, non public PII, without which
Defendant could not perform its regular business activities, in
order to obtain employment or apply for employment at Defendant.
Defendant retains this information for at least many years and even
after the employee-employer relationship has ended. By obtaining,
collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the PII of Plaintiff
and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to
those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from
unauthorized access and intrusion.

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

In breaching its duties to properly safeguard employees' PII and
give employees timely, adequate notice of the Data Breach's
occurrence, Defendant's conduct amounts to negligence and/or
recklessness and violates federal and state statutes, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former employees
and/or job applicants of Defendant.

The Defendant is a retail company that provides household, personal
care, and other products to its customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce Steckler, Esq.
          STECKLER, WAYNE, & LOVE PLLC
          12720 Hillcrest Road
          Dallas, TX 75230
          Phone: (972) 387-4040
          Email: bruce@stecklerlaw.com

               - and -

          John J. Nelson, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          402 W Broadway, Suite 1760
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (858) 209-6941
          Email: jnelson@milberg.com


NOVI, MI: Court Affirms Summary Disposition in Nofar Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as WILLIAM NOFAR, on Behalf of Himself and
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
v CITY OF NOVI, Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, No. 363356
(Mich. Ct. App.), Judges Jane Markey and Kristina Robinson Garrett
of the State of Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court'
order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant.

Plaintiff, William Nofar, on behalf of himself and the certified
class, appeals by right the trial court's order granting summary
disposition in favor of defendant, City of Novi, under MCR
2.116(C)(10). The plaintiff also appeals the trial court's ruling
denying his motion for partial summary disposition. The trial court
concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish a genuine issue of
material fact with respect to plaintiff's unjust-enrichment and
assumpsit claims that were premised on his general contention that
the city's water and sewer usage rates were unreasonable and
excessive.

The plaintiff's two causes of action were grounded on common-law,
city-charter, and statutory theories. The plaintiff's equitable
claims in relation to his statutory theory of recovery were based
on his assertion that the water and sewer rates included, in part,
a tax -- as opposed to a user fee, implicating by analogy
principles attendant to the Headlee Amendment, Const 1963, art 9,
Sec. 31.

The trial court found that the city did not impose a tax through
its water and sewer charges. The city cross appeals, maintaining
that the trial court erred by granting class certification and that
summary disposition should also have been granted to the city under
MCR 2.116(C)(7) (statute of limitations) and (8).

The Judges say conclude as a matter of law that the plaintiff
failed to overcome the presumption of reasonableness with regard to
the water and sewer rates; therefore, the trial court did not err
by summarily dismissing the plaintiff's unjust-enrichment claims
premised on common-law principles and NCC, Sec. 13.3. Furthermore,
they conclude that the plaintiff's unjust-enrichment, embedded-tax
claim that relied on MCL 141.91 was time-barred. Accordingly,
although they affirm the ruling on a different ground, the trial
court did not err by dismissing that claim. Having fully prevailed
on appeal, the city may tax costs under MCR 7.219.

A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=217eQl


OHIO STATE: Court Reverses Class Certification in Smith Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kristin Boggs of Court of Appeals of Ohio Tenth Appellate
District reversed the Court of Claims' judgment certifying Brooke
Smith v. The Ohio State University, 10th Dist. No. 22AP-125,
2022-Ohio-4101, as a class action. The matter is remanded to the
Court of Claims for dismissal.

In the spring semester of 2020, Smith was completing her final
semester of college in OSU's College of Education and Human Ecology
and was enrolled in the last two classes she needed to graduate: a
supervised student teaching internship and an in-person seminar
that corresponded with her internship. Smith alleges that she paid
$23,428 in tuition and fees to OSU for the spring 2020 semester.

On March 9, 2020, the first day of OSU's scheduled spring break and
the same day that Ohio Governor, Mike DeWine, declared a state of
emergency as a result of the developing COVID-19 outbreak, 1 OSU
President, Michael V. Drake, advised the university community by
email that he had convened a task force of senior university
leadership and subject-matter experts to focus on the university's
response to COVID-19. President Drake announced that, in service of
its dual goals of preventing illness and continuing the work of the
university, OSU would be suspending face-to-face instruction and
transitioning to virtual instruction through at least March 30,
2020.

On March 16, 2020, OSU announced that it would provide a prorated
refund of room and board fees for the spring 2020 semester,
although it continued to consider how to calculate those refunds.
On or before March 18, 2020, OSU made the decision to issue pro
rata refunds of students' recreational sports fees. On March 18,
2020, OSU's Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer,
Michael Papadakis, informed business officers at other Big Ten
universities that OSU did not plan to refund tuition or other fees,
although conversations remained ongoing regarding certain fees. OSU
did not provide any refunds of students' instructional fees,
general fees, learning technology fees, program fees, course fees,
student activity fees, COTA fees, student union facility fees, or
nonresident surcharges for the spring 2020 semester.

On May 21, 2020, Smith filed a class action complaint in the Court
of Claims against OSU and the Ohio Department of Higher Education,
alleging claims for breach of  contract, unjust enrichment, and
conversion. Smith filed an amended compliant on May 27, 2020. She
later voluntarily dismissed her claims against the Ohio Department
of Higher Education and abandoned her conversion claim.

In her amended complaint, Smith alleges that she and other students
entered into binding contracts with OSU "through the admission
agreement and payment of tuition and fees," pursuant to which OSU
promised to provide certain services, including in-person
educational services, for the entirety of the spring 2020 semester.
She alleges that OSU has not performed under the contract, as upon
the closure of its campus, OSU did not deliver the educational
services, facilities, access and/or opportunities that she and
other students contracted and paid for.

After unsuccessfully moving the Court of Claims to dismiss Smith's
complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted, OSU filed an answer, in which it asserted discretionary
immunity as one of many affirmative defenses.

Smith moved the Court of Claims to certify her case as a class
action, pursuant to Civ.R. 23. She sought certification of a class
consisting of "all undergraduate students enrolled in classes at
the Columbus campus of OSU during the Spring 2020 semester who paid
tuition and/or fees." OSU opposed Smith's motion for class
certification and filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue
of liability, which the Court of Claims did not decide. With
respect to class certification, OSU argued that Smith could not
meet her burden of demonstrating that certification was appropriate
under Civ.R. 23(B)(3). It argued, in part, that Smith failed to
establish that common issues of fact exist, let alone predominate,
since there is no common, class wide proof of a breach of contract
or injury, and because the facts and extent of injury would require
individual inquiries as to each student.

The Court of Claims rejected OSU's arguments and granted Smith's
motion, certifying a plaintiff class consisting of "all
undergraduate students enrolled in classes at the Columbus campus
of [OSU] during the Spring 2020 semester who paid tuition, the
general fee, student activity fee, learning technology fee, course
fees, program fees, and/or the COTA bus fee."

OSU appealed the Court of Claims' class certification decision to
this court, asserting eight assignments of error, most of which
challenged the court's analysis under Civ.R. 23. OSU's last
assignment of error, however, stated that the Court of Claims erred
by certifying a class because the Court of Claims lacked
subject-matter jurisdiction over this action. OSU argued that
because it was entitled to discretionary immunity for its decisions
in response to COVID19, the Court of Claims lacked jurisdiction
over Smith's claims.

Judge Boggs concludes that OSU is immune from liability on the
claims asserted in Smith's amended complaint regarding OSU's
decisions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including its
decisions to suspend in-person instruction, transition to virtual
learning, restrict access to campus facilities, and provide pro
rata refunds to students only for room and board fees and
recreational sports fees. Because OSU is entitled to discretionary
immunity, the Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction over this action
pursuant to the Supreme Court of Ohio's decision in Smith,
2024-Ohio-764. She therefore reverses the Court of Claims' decision
certifying a class action and remands this matter to that court
with instructions to dismiss this action.

A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Rzdtk6


OMNI FAMILY: Has Until Feb. 5 to Respond to Sweeten, et al. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California granted the stipulated
request of the parties in the class action lawsuit styled SHEILA
SWEETEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. OMNI FAMILY HEALTH, Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-01464-CDB (E.D. Calif.) to extend the deadline for Omni
Family Health to respond to the complaint to Feb. 5, 2025 by filing
an answer or other responsive pleading.

On Oct. 22, 2024, Plaintiffs Sheila Sweeten and Corey Sweeten
initiated this action with the filing of a complaint on behalf of
themselves and a putative class of others against Defendant Omni
Family Health  in the Superior Court of the State of California,
Kern County, Case No. BCV-24-103613. On Dec. 2, 2024, Defendant
removed the action to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California.

The parties represent the requested extension will allow time for
other federal court actions filed against Defendant to be
consolidated, which the parties  represent is being submitted by
way of a stipulation for consolidation that, among other things,
proposes to stay all deadlines in the identified federal court
actions and allow time for:

   (i) the removal of the related actions pending in state court;
  (ii) the Court to rule upon a pending motion for remand filed in
the Stevenson action, which ruling shall apply to all the actions
subject to consolidation which were removed from state court; and
(iii) the Court to rule on Defendant's forthcoming motion to
substitute the United States in this case as a defendant pursuant
to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 233, which ruling
shall apply to all the actions subject to consolidation.

The parties represent that good cause exists to grant the requested
extension in the efficiencies from allowing consolidation to occur
and ruling on the pending motions to substitute and to remand.

The scheduling conference set for March 6, 2025 is vacated to be
reset as necessary following ruling on the pending motions to
remand in Stevenson and Abraham and resolution of the issue of
consolidation.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 6, 2025, is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZOMe3a from PacerMonitor.com.


ONTRAC LOGISTICS: Herrera Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Eleazar Herrera, on behalf of all those
similarly situated to him v. ONTRAC LOGISTICS, INC., a Delaware
corporation; JESUS FERNANDO GONZALEZ, an individual; LEO [LAST NAME
UNKNOWN], an individual; and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, inclusive, Case
No. C24-02771 was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of Contra Costa, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on Jan. 2, 2025, and assigned Case No.
3:25-cv-00022.

The Complaint asserts nine causes of action under California law:
failure to pay minimum wages due; failure to pay overtime and
double time wages; failure to provide meal and rest periods;
failure to reimburse for necessary business expenditures; unpaid
wages and waiting time penalties; failure to provide itemized wage
statements; and individual liability for labor code violations;
violation of California Business and Professions Code; and (9)
violation of California Private Attorneys General Act
("PAGA").[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher C. McNatt, Jr., Esq.
          SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP
          2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 560
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Phone: 626-795-4700
          Fax: 626-795-4790
          Email: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com


OPENDOOR TECH: Class Cert Bid Filing in Alich Extended to Feb. 21
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sam Alich, v. Opendoor
Technologies Incorporated, et al. (In re Opendoor Technologies
Incorporated Securities Litigation), Case No. 2:22-cv-01717-MTL (D.
Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Michael Liburdi entered an order granting
the Stipulation for Extension of Time to File Motion for Class
Certification:

The Court further entered an order that the Court's Scheduling
Order is amended as follows:

1. Deadline for Plaintiffs to file their motion for class
certification is extended to Feb. 21, 2025.

2. Deadline for Defendants to file their opposition to Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification is extended to April 11, 2025.

3. Deadline for Plaintiffs to file their reply in support of their
motion for class certification is extended to May 12, 2025.

Opendoor is an online company that buys and sells residential real
estate.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=E3diG2 at no extra
charge.[CC]

ORDERLY WELLNESS: Fleurigene Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messaging
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wadson Fleurigene, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ORDERLY WELLNESS CORPORATION D/B/A
ORDERLYMEDS, Case No. 0:24-cv-62022-AHS (S.D. Fla., Oct. 28, 2024),
is brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the
“TCPA”) as a result of the Defendant's unsolicited text
messaging.

To promote its goods, services, and/or properties, Defendant
engages in unsolicited text messaging and continues to text message
consumers after they have opted out of Defendant’s solicitations.
Defendant also engages in telemarketing without the required
policies and procedures, and training of its personnel engaged in
telemarketing

Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
Defendant’s unlawful conduct, which has resulted in the intrusion
upon seclusion, invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and
disruption of the daily life of Plaintiff and the Class members.
Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and
members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable
remedies, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person entitled to bring this action
under the TCPA.

The Defendant is a Delaware Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Faaris K. Uddin, Esq.
          Zane C. Hedaya, Esq.
          Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: 813-340-8838
          Email: faaris@jibraellaw.com
                 zane@jibraellaw.com
                 gerald@jibraellaw.com


OUTLOOK THERAPEUTICS: Securities Class Suit Pending in NJ Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Outlook Therapeutics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
annual period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 27, 2024, that a securities
class suit vs the company is pending in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey.

On November 3, 2023, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain of its officers in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The class
action complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, in connection with
allegedly false and misleading statements made by us related to its
BLA during the period from December 29, 2022 through August 29,
2023.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that it violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 by
failing to disclose that there was an alleged lack of evidence
supporting ONS-5010/LYTENAVA as a treatment for wet AMD and that
the Company and/or its manufacturing partner had deficient CMC
controls for ONS-5010/LYTENAVA, which remained unresolved at the
time our BLA was re-submitted to the FDA and, as a result, the FDA
was unlikely to approve our BLA, and that our stock price dropped
when such information was disclosed.

The plaintiffs in the class action complaint seek damages and
interest, and an award of reasonable costs, including attorneys'
fees.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss is currently pending before the
court.
Outlook Therapeutics, Inc. is a late clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company that focuses on developing and
commercializing monoclonal antibodies for various ophthalmic
indications.[BN]

PAPA INC: Pardo Loses Class Cert Bid
------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER PARDO, EVANGELINE
MATTHEWS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. PAPA, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-06326-RS (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order denying the motion for
class certification.

The parties shall appear for a further Case Management Conference
on Jan. 30, 2025, with a joint statement filed one week in advance.


The plaintiffs have not challenged Papa's claim that over 99.9% of
the potential class members are subject to the arbitration
agreement and class waiver.

The Plaintiffs' only response on the topic is an argument that the
arbitration agreement and class waiver presents an affirmative
defense, which can and should be raised by any affected class
members after certification.

The Plaintiffs Jennifer Pardo and Evangeline Matthews contend
defendant Papa, Inc. wrongfully classified them and similarly
situated workers as independent contractors, thereby depriving them
of overtime and minimum wage compensation.

The Plaintiffs previously obtained an order "certifying" this
matter as a collective action under 216(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), thereby permitting dissemination of notice
to other workers of their right to "opt-in" to the FLSA
collective.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class consisting of: "all
individuals who performed work for Defendant in the state
of California who were classified as independent contractors from
four years prior to the filing of this action, from Aug. 18, 2018,
to the date of trial."

The Plaintiffs assert that as of Feb. 1, 2024, there were 3,750
individuals within that definition, according to records produced
by Papa.

Papa operates a mobile phone application that allows senior adults
and their families to obtain services of "Papa Pals" -- assistants
who can provide help with shopping or other household tasks, or
merely companionship.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 31, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GOAs2P at no extra
charge.[CC]

PAPAYA GAMING: Can Compel Arbitration in Kelly-Starkebaum Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as BRENNA KELLY-STARKEBAUM, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly Situated, Plaintiff, -V- PAPAYA
GAMING LTD. and PAPAYA GAMING, INC., Defendants, Case No. 24cv2310
(DLC) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Denise Cote of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York granted the defendants'
motion to compel arbitration. This action is stayed pending the
outcome of the arbitration proceedings.

On March 27, 2024, Plaintiff Brenna Kelly-Starkebaum brought this
action against Papaya Gaming Ltd. and Papaya Gaming, Inc. alleging
that they violated New York consumer protection law through their
deceptive operation of online games.

On Aug. 23, 2024, Papaya filed its motion to compel arbitration.

Papaya operates an online gaming platform that allows users to join
in various competitions using their mobile devices. Users can stake
real money on the outcomes of those games by first depositing their
money into their Papaya account.

The plaintiff is a resident of Minnesota who played two or three
different games on Papaya's platform.

According to the Court, there is no dispute that Papaya's Terms of
Use included a mandatory arbitration provision and that, if the
plaintiff agreed to it and it were enforceable, it would cover her
claims. The plaintiff first argues that she did not agree to the
arbitration provision. Second, the plaintiff argues that, even if
there was an agreement to arbitrate, it is unenforceable because it
is unconscionable and illusory, and the provision delegating
determinations of enforceability to the arbitrator is itself
unconscionable.

The plaintiff's arguments fail. A valid arbitration agreement was
formed, and its clause delegating to the arbitrator questions of
enforceability is itself enforceable, the Court finds. Accordingly,
Papaya's motion is granted.

A copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SmfI7A from PacerMonitor.com.


PEOPLES BANK: Mays Suit Removed to S.D. West Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Patrick Mays, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. PEOPLES BANK, Case No. CC-34-2022-C-51
was removed from the Nicholas County Circuit Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia on Jan.
2, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00001.

The Plaintiff alleged breach of contract including breach of the
duty of good faith and fair dealing.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Arie M. Spitz, Esq.
          Jordan "Jo" McMinn, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
          707 Virginia Street, East, Suite 1300
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Phone: (304) 347-0900
          Facsimile: (304) 357-0919
          Email: arie.spitz@dinsmore.com
                 jordan.mcminn@dinsmore.com


PESI INC: Disclosure of Class Experts in Manza Suit Due July 2
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANA MANZA, v. PESI, INC.,
Case No. 3:24-cv-00690-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Anita Marie
Boor entered a preliminary pretrial conference order:

Disclosure of class experts:               July 2, 2025

Disclosure of respondent class experts:    Aug. 6, 2025

Motions & Briefs to Certify/Decertify      Sept. 10, 2025
Classes:

Disclosure of experts

Plaintiffs/Proponents:                      Jan. 26, 2026

Defendants/Respondents:                     March 2, 2026

Deadline for filing dispositive motions:     April 6 2026

First Final Pretrial Conference:             Oct. 21, 2026

Second Final Pretrial Conference:            Oct. 28, 2026

Trial:                                       Nov. 2, 2026

PESI operates as a non-profit organization. The Organization
creates seminars, conferences, videos, and books that meet the
needs of adult learners.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5KYvrW at no extra
charge.[CC]

POLITICO LLC: Khamooshi TCPA Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case is styled as Saber Khamooshi, Ryan Wu, Brian Carolus,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals v. Politico LLC, Case No. CGC-24-618459 was removed
from the San Francisco County Superior Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on Nov. 8, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-07836-SK to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.

Politico -- https://www.politico.com/ -- known originally as The
Politico, is an American political digital newspaper company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric A. Grover, Esq.
          Rachael Ga-Yue Jung, Esq.
          KELLER GROVER LLP
          1965 Market St.
          San Francisco, CA 94103
          Phone: (415) 543-7861
          Fax: (415) 543-7861
          Email: eagrover@kellergrover.com
                 rjung@kellergrover.com

               - and -

          Scot Bernstein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SCOT D. BERNSTEIN
          101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Phone: (916) 447-0100
          Fax: (916) 933-5533
          Email: swampadero@sbernsteinlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Usama Kahf, Esq.
          David M. Shannon, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          2050 Main Street, Suite 1000
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Phone: (949) 851-2424
          Fax: (949) 851-0152
          Email: ukahf@fisherphillips.com
                 dshannon@fisherphillips.com

               - and -

          Catherine M. Contino, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          100 N. 18th Street
          Two Logan Square, 12th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (610) 230-2150
          Fax: (610) 230-2151
          Email: ccontino@fisherphillips.com

               - and -

          Danielle M. Kays, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          10 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3450
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 346-8160
          Fax: (312) 346-3179
          Email: dkays@fisherphillips.com


RALEY'S SUPERMARKETS: Smith Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Raley's Supermarkets
. The case is styled as Saundra Smith, and all others similarly
situated v. Raley's, Does 1-50, Case No. 24CV022838 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 8, 2024).

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

Raley's Supermarkets -- https://www.raleys.com/ -- is an
independent, family-owned American grocery and retail technology
company headquartered in West Sacramento, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kristen Michelle Agnew, Esq.
          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
          515 S Figueroa St., Ste. 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316
          Phone: 213-488-6555
          Fax: 213-488-6554
          Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
                 kagnew@diversitylaw.com


RECONNAISSANCE ENERGY: Class Settlement in Owen Gets Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Owen v. Reconnaissance
Energy Africa Ltd. et al. (RE RECONNAISSANCE ENERGY AFRICA LTD.
SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No. 1:21-cv-06176-NRM-RML (E.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Nina Morrison entered judgment approving class
action settlement:

The Court hereby affirms its determinations in the U.S. Preliminary
Approval Order certifying, for the purposes of the
U.S. Settlement only, the U.S. Action as a class action pursuant to
Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on
behalf of the U.S. Settlement Class consisting of:

  "All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded ReconAfrica Securities on the U.S. OTC market,
between Feb. 28, 2019 and Sept. 7, 2021, both dates inclusive, and
were damaged thereby."

Reconnaissance Energy is a junior oil and gas company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=T0pZgc at no extra
charge.[CC]

RIGETTI COMPUTING: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Rigetti Computing, Inc. (NASDAQ: RGTI) resulting
from allegations that Rigetti may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.

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

What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=33392 call Phillip Kim,
Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for
information on the class action.

What is this about: On January 8, 2025, several quantum computing
stocks, including Rigetti, fell drastically after Nvidia CEO Jensen
Huang stated that “very useful quantum computers" are likely 20
years away.

On this news, Rigetti's stock price fell $8.35 per share, or 45%,
to close at $10.04 per share on January 8, 2025.

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

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

Contacts

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

ROCKET MORTGAGE: Can Compel Arbitration in MacDonald TCPA Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Krissa M. Lanham of the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona granted Rocket Mortgage LLC's motion to
compel arbitration in the case captioned as
Darren MacDonald, Plaintiff, v. Rocket Mortgage LLC, Defendant,
Case No. CV-23-02558-PHX-KML (D. Ariz.).

Darren MacDonald filed a putative class action against Rocket
Mortgage, LLC, alleging a claim under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227. The complaint alleges Rocket
Mortgage violated the TCPA by calling and texting MacDonald despite
his number being on the National Do Not Call Registry. Rocket
Mortgage seeks to compel arbitration because MacDonald allegedly
agreed to arbitrate any TCPA claims when he used one of Rocket
Mortgage's websites.

Rocket Mortgage is a mortgage lender that provides home loan and
refinancing services. In conducting its business, Rocket Mortgage
makes telemarketing calls to solicit its mortgage services to
consumers.

On June 8, 2022, MacDonald visited www.quickenloans.com, one of
Rocket Mortgage's websites. The evidence establishes MacDonald
entered his address information and clicked on the "Click to See
your Results!" button. After clicking that button, Rocket Mortgage
called and sent a text message to MacDonald's number that was on
the DNC.

MacDonald does not contest the Rocket Mortgage arbitration
provision encompasses his TCPA claim. But MacDonald does dispute
whether an agreement to arbitrate was validly formed.

Rocket Mortgage cites to Michigan law in parts of its motion to
compel and identifies Michigan law as governing the Terms of Use to
which MacDonald agreed.

The parties do not seriously dispute that MacDonald's submission of
his address information before clicking the "Click to See Your
Results!" button satisfies the action requirement. Because Rocket
Mortgage's website explicitly advised "By submitting your contact
information you agree to our Terms of Use." MacDonald took an
action sufficient to manifest his consent.

That leaves only the question of whether MacDonald should have
understood what he was agreeing to before submitting his address,
that is, whether Rocket Mortgage's  communication consent was
"reasonably conspicuous" such that the court can fairly assume that
a reasonably prudent Internet user would have seen it.

The Court finds the communication consent on Rocket Mortgage's
webpage provided "reasonably conspicuous" notice such that a
reasonably prudent internet user would have seen it.

A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vT8Z8i from PacerMonitor.com.


ROSE HILLS: Gonzalez Seeks to Extend Class Cert Bid Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MANUEL GONZALEZ, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, and the general
public, v. ROSE HILLS COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; DIGNITY
MEMORIAL, a business entity of unknown form; SERVICE CORPORATION
INTERNATIONAL, a business entity of unknown form; SCI SHARED
SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-04632-MEMF-AS (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff moves the Court to enter an order extending the Class
Certification Motion Deadline.

Pursuant to Local Rule 7-19.1, the Plaintiff made reasonable, good
faith efforts to contact Defendant's counsel to jointly stipulation
to an extension for the class certification briefing schedule.

The Plaintiff's counsel provided notice to Defendant’s counsel
that Defendant's declination of the joint stipulation, or a failure
to respond to Plaintiff's counsel's numerous attempts to contact
Defendant's counsel, would result in Plaintiff filing the
application. Plaintiff never received a response from counsel for
Defendant.

Counsel for Plaintiff thus provided notice that Plaintiff would
make this application to counsel for Defendant as follows:

          Carrie M. Francis, Esq.
          1850 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2100
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-4584
          E-mail: Carrie.Francis@stinson.com
          Telephone: (602) 212-8535

The case is a class action wage & hour case for failure to:

  -- provide meal periods, provide rest periods, pay hourly wages
and
     overtime, pay proper sick pay, provide accurate written wage
     statements, timely pay all final wages upon separation, and
     comply with unfair competition laws.

The Plaintiff filed his Complaint on May 3, 2024, in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles.

The Defendants removed this action to this Court on June 3, 2024.

Rose Hills Company provides memorial care services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 20, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=a2UsKv at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Emil Davtyan, Esq.
          David Yeremian, Esq.
          David Keledjian, Esq.
          Kevin Burns, Esq.
          D.LAW, INC.
          450 N Brand Blvd., Ste. 840
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 962-6465
          Facsimile: (818) 962-6469
          E-mail: emil@d.law
                  d.yeremian@d.law
                  d.keledjian@d.law
                  k.burns@d.law

SABA UNIVERSITY: MA Court Decertifies Class Suit Over Ad Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Melanie A. Conroy of Pierce Atwood LLP, writing for National Law
Review, reports that the District of Massachusetts recently issued
an opinion decertifying a class of medical students formerly
enrolled at Saba University School of Medicine, a for-profit
medical school in the Dutch Caribbean that is headquartered in
Massachusetts.

The reversal followed the court's initial tentative certification
under Federal Rule 23, issued from the bench immediately after oral
argument. Judge Young explained that, while writing the
certification decision, he observed a fatal flaw that prevented the
certification of Ortiz's consumer protection claims for a
nationwide class of former medical students. The decertification
decision in Ortiz v. Saba University School of Medicine thus
followed.

Ortiz's Consumer Protection Claims Received Preliminary
Certification

Ortiz filed the claim on her own behalf and other similarly
situated students. As a former student of Saba, Ortiz pursued
consumer protection claims alleging that Saba falsely advertised to
prospective students by touting a misleading passage rate of
95-100% for its students for the first professional licensure exam
(USMLE Step 1) taken after the first five semesters of medical
school.

Ortiz contended that the admissions representation that "virtually
every Saba student passes the USMLE on their first attempt"
misleadingly omitted that Saba only permitted students with
qualifying grades to sit for the exam and, as a result, only 50% of
students at Saba ultimately sit for the exam. These numbers
contrast with the average of 89.3% of students at all American
medical schools who sit for the exam, 85.6% of whom pass. Ortiz
contended she enrolled at Saba based on the advertised 95-100%
passage rate, which she believed was indicative of the quality of
Saba's education, not of the barriers it placed on which students
could sit for the exam.

After completing her first five semesters at Saba, Ortiz failed to
qualify for testing within three attempts and was dismissed in
accordance with Saba's policies. Ortiz claims that she would not
have taken out hefty student loans and matriculated at Saba if she
had been aware that only half of Saba's students sat for the exam.

Ortiz sought damages from Saba and other relief -- including an
injunction against Saba continuing its allegedly deceptive
advertisement -- based on her claim that advertisements about its
near-100% pass rates misleadingly omitted that only 50% of students
sit for the exam. On September 17, 2024, following oral argument,
the court under Rule 23 tentatively certified a class of former
Saba medical students who did not sit for the USMLE Step 1 exam.

Claims of Former Saba Medical Students Met the Requirements of
Federal Rule 23(a)

After the court tentatively granted certification, Saba filed a
petition for interlocutory review with the First Circuit pursuant
to Rule 23(f). Generally, jurisdiction over the order on class
certification no longer rests with the federal district court once
the appeals court accepts the petition seeking interlocutory
review. Here, the First Circuit had not yet accepted jurisdiction
over Saba's appeal, so the District of Massachusetts retained
jurisdiction to decertify the class pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C).

In his written decision, Judge Young explained that Ortiz had met
the requirements of Rule 23(a) for class certification. As to
numerosity under Rule 23(a)(1), based on Saba's records, at least
500 former students met the class definition, making joinder
impracticable. For Rule 23(a)(2) commonality, there was a "common
core of salient facts" about Saba's representation of its USMLE
Step 1 pass rates. Under a Rule 23(a)(3) analysis for typicality,
because Ortiz's claims were based on the same factual and legal
premises as those of the proposed class members (including the same
alleged marketing misrepresentations and harm from the same), as
lead plaintiff Ortiz could "fairly and adequately pursue the
interests of the absent class members without being sidetracked by
her own particular concerns." And because Saba did not challenge
the adequacy of Ortiz or her counsel to represent the putative
class, the Rule 23(a)(3) adequacy requirement was deemed met.

Former Saba Medical Students Could Not Satisfy Predominance Under
Federal Rule 23(b)(3)

Despite the smooth sailing through certification analysis under
Rule 23(a), Ortiz's claims met an abrupt end at Rule 23(b)(3).
Under Rule 23(b)(3), a plaintiff must demonstrate that "the
questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over
any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class
action is superior to other available methods for fairly and
efficiently adjudicating the controversy."

In opposing class certification, Saba highlighted material
differences between Massachusetts' Chapter 93A consumer protection
statute and other states' consumer protection laws. The court
warned that "divergent state laws can swamp any common issues and
defeat predominance" and that a "rigorous analysis of the relevant
laws of the states at issue" must follow when claims "involve
plaintiffs from multiple jurisdictions" because "the predominance
requirement cannot be met when the various laws have not been
identified and compared."

Plaintiffs seeking class certification bear that burden and here,
the court observed that -- although the parties did not dispute
that a material conflict exists between Massachusetts law and the
laws of the class members' home states--Ortiz did not conduct any
analysis of state law variation.

The court concluded that Massachusetts choice-of-law principles
consistently favor applying the consumer's home state laws to
consumer fraud claims and applying Massachusetts' Chapter 93A
across all states would undermine each state's ability to enforce
its own standard. Because the differences in state and national
laws would predominate over common issues, the court determined the
predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) was not satisfied and a
nationwide class could not be certified.

The Saba decision highlights just one of the many challenges that
plaintiffs face when pursuing nationwide consumer class actions in
state and federal Massachusetts courts. As Judge Young observed,
the decision also "illustrates the power of oral argument" and the
critical importance for defense counsel to identify, preserve, and
pursue Rule 23 issues on federal district court reconsideration and
appellate review. [GN]

SACRAMENTO LOGISTICS: Can Compel Arbitration in Tercero Wage Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as TENIAH TERCERO, Plaintiff, v. SACRAMENTO
LOGISTICS LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00953 (E.D.
Calif.), Judge Dena Coggins of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of California granted the motion filed by the
defendants to compel arbitration of plaintiff's individual claims.
This action is stayed in its entirety pending the completion of
arbitration.

On February 16, 2024, Plaintiff Teniah Tercero filed a
wage-and-hour class action complaint against Defendants Sacramento
Logistics LLC and C&S Wholesale Grocers, LLC in Sacramento County
Superior Court. Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated provisions of
the California Labor Code by failing to pay minimum wages, pay
overtime wages, provide meal periods or compensation in lieu
thereof, provide rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof, pay
all wages due upon separation, and reimburse business expenses. She
further alleges Defendants violated California's Unfair Competition
Law, California Business & Professions Code Secs. 17200, et seq.

In her complaint, Plaintiff alleges she worked for Defendants from
approximately July 2021 through August 2022 in Sacramento,
California. She seeks to represent a proposed class of all current
and former non-exempt employees who worked for any of the
Defendants at any location in California within the four years
prior to the filing of the complaint.

On March 27, 2024, Defendants removed this action to this federal
district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1446, alleging diversity
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (28 U.S.C. Sec.
1332(d)), traditional diversity jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. Sec.
1332(a)), and federal question jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331).


Motion to Compel Arbitration

On May 31, 2024, Defendants filed the pending motion to compel
arbitration of Plaintiff's individual claims and to stay all
proceedings pending completion of arbitration. They contend that
when applying for employment with Defendant Sacramento Logistics,
Plaintiff electronically signed a mutual arbitration agreement that
covered wage and hour claims. Defendants further contend Plaintiff
is bound to arbitrate her claims on an individual basis pursuant to
the Arbitration Agreement.

On June 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed her opposition to Defendants'
motion to compel arbitration, challenging the validity of the
Arbitration Agreement.

Plaintiff argues that:

   (1) Defendants have failed to show she electronically signed the
Arbitration Agreement, and
   (2) the Arbitration Agreement is procedurally and substantively
unconscionable.

The Court finds Defendants have met their initial burden to show an
agreement to arbitrate by submitting the Arbitration Agreement
purportedly bearing Plaintiff's electronic signature with their
motion to compel arbitration. It also finds Defendants have
provided sufficient information to authenticate Plaintiff's
electronic signature on the Arbitration Agreement.

Plaintiff argues that the Arbitration Agreement is procedurally
unconscionable because it is a contract of adhesion.

The Court concludes Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden of
demonstrating the Arbitration Agreement is unconscionable. Having
concluded that Defendants have met their burden of establishing
Plaintiff signed the Arbitration Agreement, and the Arbitration
Agreement is not unconscionable, the Court finds that it must
"enforce the arbitration agreement in accordance with its terms."
The terms of the Arbitration Agreement clearly state that Plaintiff
must "individually arbitrate" her wage and
hour claims. Consequently, the Court will grant Defendants' motion
to compel Plaintiff to arbitrate her individual claims.

Class Action Waiver

Defendants argue the Court should dismiss Plaintiff's class claims
because pursuant to the Arbitration Agreement, she agreed to
arbitrate her claims on an individual basis only. According to the
Court, in this case, the terms of the Arbitration Agreement require
that all covered claims be submitted and arbitrated on an
individual basis. Plaintiff expressly waived the right to initiate
or participate in any class action.  Apart from arguing that the
Arbitration Agreement as a whole is unconscionable, Plaintiff does
not contend that the class action waiver is inapplicable or
unenforceable. Therefore, the Court will give effect to the
Arbitration Agreement's class action waiver and dismiss all of
Plaintiff's putative class claims.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 6, 2025, is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Dkwrzu from PacerMonitor.com.


SALEM COUNTY, NJ: Court Narrows Claims in Neimester Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL NEIMEISTER,
MATTHEW BRANGAN, KENNETH ROMALINO, On behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, v. THE COUNTY OF SALEM, JOHN S. CUZZUPE, JOHN
DOES 1–50, Case No. 3:24-cv-00411-ZNQ-JBD (D.N.J.), the Hon.
Judge Zahid Quraishi will grant in part and deny in part
Defendants' motion to dismiss and grant Plaintiffs leave to file a
third amended complaint, within 30 days, to cure deficiencies in
the claims that will be dismissed without prejudice. An appropriate
order follows.

The Plaintiff's bare allegation of Salem County's failure to train
employees "to address known medical problems" does not sufficiently
identify how Salem County's training program caused the alleged
constitutional violation, particularly in light of Plaintiffs'
allegation that he was transported to Salem Hospital twice for
seizures. Therefore, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as to Count Six
of the SAC will be granted. Dismissal of Count Six will be without
prejudice, with leave granted for Plaintiffs to file a Third
Amended Complaint to cure the deficiencies in this claim by
pleading additional facts.

The Plaintiffs brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.
section 1983, the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, N.J. Stat. section
10:6-2, as a class action on behalf of all similarly situated
pretrial detainees in the Salem County Correctional Facility
("SCCF") who were classified as "at-risk"” pursuant to SCCF's
suicide identification and prevention policy.

Salem County is the westernmost county in the U.S. state of New
Jersey.

A copy of the Court's opinion dated Dec. 30, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nLyTKi at no extra
charge.[CC]

SAN BERNARDINO, CA: Standing Order Entered in Dorado Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUCY DORADO, v. SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFF CENTRAL CENTER, et al., Case No.
5:24-cv-02684-HDV-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Hernan Vera
entered a civil standing order as follows:

-- Service of the Complaint

The Plaintiff shall promptly serve the Complaint in accordance with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and shall comply with
Local Rule 5-3 with respect to all proofs of service.

-- Removed Actions

Any answers filed in state court must be refiled in this Court as a
supplement to the Notice of Removal.

-- Alternative Dispute Resolution

As stated in Local Rule 16-15, the parties in every case must
participate in a Settlement Conference or Alternative Dispute
Resolution ("ADR") procedure.

-- Discovery

All discovery matters are referred to the assigned Magistrate
Judge.

-- Motions for Class Certification

Counsel in putative class actions shall commence litigation
promptly and begin discovery immediately so that the motion for
class certification can be filed expeditiously.

-- Motions for Summary Judgment

No party may file more than one motion pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 56, regardless of whether such motion is
denominated a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication.


San Bernardino County Sheriff provides law enforcement services to
the unincorporated areas of the county and contract law enforcement
services to 14 of the county's cities.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 27, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OnZ6xz at no extra
charge.[CC]

SELECT REHABILITATION: McLaughlin Seeks Leave to File Exhibits
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINE MCLAUGHLIN,
CRYSTAL VANDERVEEN, and JUSTIN LEMBKE, and SCOTT HARDT Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SELECT
REHABILITATION LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00059-HES-MCR (M.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting unopposed
motion for leave to file newly discovered evidence and exhibits to
motion for class certification.

The Plaintiffs seek Leave of Court to file newly discovered
evidence in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification filed June 11, 2024, notifying the Court of record
proof of similarly situated Illinois class members obtained from
Defendants during the deposition of its CIO Gallagher demonstrating
they too were working off the clock.

Pursuant to Rule 23, the Plaintiffs in this case have sought an
Order of This Court Certifying the claim for violation of the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law overtime wage sections for a class of
Illinois therapists comprised of Physical Therapists and physical
therapy assistants, Occupation Therapists and Occupational therapy
assistants, and Speech Language Pathologist working in the state of
Illinois for the 3 year period preceding the filing of the Amended
Complaint Feb. 10, 2022, and to the present.

Because of confidentiality issues and the protective order,
Plaintiffs filed these exhibits under seal and provided them on a
flash drive to this Court.

The Plaintiffs seek to include these same records in support of
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class certification as Exhibits No. 41
through 46 and ask the court to accept and approve the same and
incorporate the records from Flash drive hand delivered to the
court.

Select Rehabilitation provides comprehensive therapy services.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 27, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3x4grI at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Benjamin L. Williams, Esq.
          WILLIAMS LAW P.A.
          123 18th Avenue N. Unit A
          Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250
          Telephone: (904) 580-6060
          E-mail: bwilliams@williamslawjax.com

                - and -

          Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
          FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
          12610 Race Track Road #225
          Tampa, FL 33626
          Telephone: (813) 639-9366
          E-mail: mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com

SHELL CHEMICAL: Filing Class Certification Bid in Flynn Due Nov. 7
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN FLYNN, ON BEHALF OF
HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; v. SHELL CHEMICAL
APPALACHIA, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00193-MJH (W.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge Marilyn Horan entered an initial case management order.

Initial Scheduling:                         Jan. 17, 2025

Stipulation regarding Additional            Jan. 31, 2025
parties and Amended Pleadings shall
be filed on or before:

Class certification discovery shall be      June 30, 2025
completed on or before:

Date by which plaintiffs' expert reports     Aug. 1, 2025
as to class certification shall be filed
on or before:

Date by which defendants' expert reports     Sept. 5, 2025
as to class certification shall be filed
on or before:

Date by which depositions of class           Oct. 10, 2025.
certification experts must be completed
on or before:

Plaintiffs' Motion for Class                 Nov. 7, 2025
Certification, Memorandum in Support,
and all supporting evidence shall be
filed by:

Defendants' Memorandum in Opposition to      Dec. 12, 2025.
Class Certification and all supporting
evidence shall be filed by:

Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in support      Dec. 31, 2025
of class certification, if any, shall
be filed by:

Shell is an integrated oil and gas company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GwsumV at no extra
charge.[CC]

SIGNATURE PERFORMANCE: Has Until Jan. 29 to Respond to McLean Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Ryan C. Carson of the United States District Court
for the District of Nebraska granted Signature Performance, Inc.'s
request to extend the deadline to respond to the consolidated class
action complaint captioned as CURTIS MCLEAN, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated; Plaintiff, vs. SIGNATURE
PERFORMANCE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-00230 (D. Neb.).

The deadline for Signature to file an answer or other responsive
pleading to the consolidated class action complaint is extended to
Jan. 29, 2025.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 6, 2025, is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gRGeMp from PacerMonitor.com.



SINGULARITY FUTURE: Bid to Dismiss Crivellaro Suit Denied in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Brian M. Cogan of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York denied in part the motions filed by
Singularity Future Technology Ltd. and its CEO, Yang Jie, to
dismiss the case captioned as PIERO CRIVELLARO, et al., Plaintiffs,
- against - SINGULARITY FUTURE TECHNOLOGY LTD., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 22-cv-07499 (BMC) (E.D.N.Y.). The rest of the motions to
dismiss are granted.

For two decades, Singularity operated as a shipping and logistics
company under the name "Sino-Global Shipping America, Ltd." Its
business model was two-pronged: it offered domestic shipping
services through its U.S. subsidiaries, and it offered freight
logistics services through its Chinese subsidiaries. By 2021,
however, business had long been in decline under the leadership of
then-CEO defendant Lei Cao. This downturn prompted the alleged
conduct and correlative disclosures that form the basis of
plaintiffs' suit.

Singularity undertook two joint ventures. First, it partnered with
HighSharp (Shenzhen Gaorui) Electronic Technology Co., Ltd., a
Chinese semiconductor manufacturer, to build and sell
"high-quality, reliable digital mining machines" through a newly
created entity -- Thor Miner, Inc. Specifically, three months after
the venture's formation, Singularity announced that Thor had agreed
to sell "certain cryptocurrency mining hardware and other
equipment" to a buyer, SOS Information Technology New York Inc.,
for an aggregate $200 million. Second, a few months after
disclosing the SOS contract, Singularity undertook a separate joint
venture with an American electricity provider, Golden Mainland Inc.
Quite distinct from the Thor venture, in which the partners sought
to sell mining machines, the Golden Mainland venture involved
constructing and operating a mining facility –- and a massive one
at that.

Singularity also made efforts to reverse its declining business
that were unrelated to Bitcoin mining. It invested over $3 million
in Rich Trading Co., Ltd. USA in late 2021. The trading company
held itself out as an international importer and dealer of
high-tech computer parts.

After reaching its peak in the beginning of April, Singularity's
stock price plummeted to around $6 per share by the month's end.
Then, in May 2022, two short sellers -- Peabody Street Research and
Hindenburg Research -- published reports expressing doubts that
Singularity's stock was worth even its then-deflated value.
Further, the short sellers questioned the veracity of Singularity's
crypto mining operations.

The Hindenburg report raised questions as to whether the Rich
Trading investment was merely meant to siphon cash to Singularity's
managers and directors.

In November, Singularity announced that the DOJ, the SEC, and FINRA
had launched investigations based on the information raised in the
short-seller reports, and that the company had been served with
subpoenas. In January 2023, it announced that SOS was suing
Singularity and HighSharp for breaching the Thor contract. By the
end of the class period, Singularity's stock price had fallen to a
mere $0.60 per share.

Plaintiffs, Singularity shareholders, brought this putative class
action against Singularity, ten current and former Singularity
directors and officers, Golden Mainland, and Thor Miner, Inc. The
suit asserts two counts: a Section 10(b) claim against all
defendants, and a Section 20(a) claim against the individual
defendants. Both seek to hold defendants liable for various
misstatements and misleading omissions made throughout the duration
of the class period.

In their unwieldy amended complaint, which at some points borders
on shotgun pleading, plaintiffs cull heaps of alleged misstatements
and omissions from Singularity's public communications during the
class period. The alleged fraudulent conduct can be sorted into
seven groups:

   (1) omissions related to Jie's background,
   (2) omissions related to Singularity's internal controls,
   (3) statements and omissions related to Singularity's
announcement of its pivot  into crypto,
   (4) statements and omissions related to Singularity's private
offerings,
   (5) statements and omissions related to the Thor joint venture,

   (6) statements related to the Golden Mainland joint venture, and

   (7) statements related to the Rich Trading investment.

Only the latter two give rise to an actionable Section 10(b) claim,
and only against Jie and Singularity. The Section 20(a) claim is
wholly without merit.

Amid all this unactionable conduct, the amended complaint does
properly plead two bases for a securities fraud claim. First,
Singularity made various plausibly false statements about its
Golden Mainland joint venture. Second, it is equally plausible that
Singularity made false assertions concerning the Rich Trading
transaction. The amended complaint contains plenty of facts
suggesting that Rich Trading, which Singularity stated was a
computer-equipment trading company, was another entity formed to
siphon assets from Singularity.

Judge Cogan finds only two types that give rise to a securities
fraud claim: the statements representing that Golden Mainland was a
large-scale energy provider, and the statements representing that
Rich Trading traded computer equipment. He also concludes that, of
the defendants who moved to dismiss, only Singularity and Jie can
be held liable for those statements.

The amended complaint also states a claim for secondary,
control-person liability.

The Court cannot conclude that the amended complaint establishes
control-person liability.

Singularity and Jie's motions are denied as to the statements about
Golden Mainland and Rich Trading but are otherwise granted. The
remaining motions to dismiss are granted in full.

A copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision and Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jkXR1p from PacerMonitor.com.


SIX CONTINENTS: Has Until January 24 to Respond to Doe Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John H. Chun of the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington extended the deadline for Six
Continents Hotels, Inc. and Holiday Hospitality Franchising, LLC to
to answer, move or otherwise respond to the case captioned as JANE
DOE (S.B.C.), Plaintiff, v. SIX CONTINENTS HOTELS, INC. et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01985-JHC (W.D. Wash.) from January 3,
2025 to
January 24, 2025.

Plaintiff filed her Complaint on December 2, 2024.

Plaintiff served Defendants with the Summons and Complaint on
December 13, 2024.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(1)(A)(i), Defendants' deadline
for responding to Plaintiff's Complaint was
January 3, 2025.

The Court finds good cause exists to grant the extension because
Defendants need additional time to review the allegations,
investigate the underlying facts, and develop defenses to
Plaintiff's claims before preparing their response.

A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GwK975 from PacerMonitor.com.


SKETCHERS U.S.A.: Flores Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SKETCHERS U.S.A. The
case is styled as David Cartagena Flores, an individual, on behalf
of himself and all similarly situated v. SKETCHERS U.S.A, Case No.
24STCV34739 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 31, 2024).

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

Sketchers U.S.A. -- https://www.skechers.com/ -- is a lifestyle and
athletic footwear and apparel for men, women, and kids filled with
innovative comfort technologies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Orion S robinson, Esq.
          ROBINSON DI LANDO
          801 S Grand Ave., Ste. 500
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-4633
          Phone: 213-229-0100
          Fax: 213-229-0114
          Email: orobinson@rdwlaw.com


SNAPPLE BEVERAGE: Fogelson Files Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Snapple Beverage
Corp. The case is styled as Stuart Fogelson, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Snapple Beverage Corp.,
Case No. 1:25-cv-00033-RER-TAM (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 2, 2025).

The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending.

Snapple Beverage Corporation -- https://www.snapple.com/ --
manufactures and markets fruit juices and carbonated
beverages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Road, Ste. 412
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Phone: (516) 268-7080
          Fax: (516) 234-7800
          Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gabriella Marie Romanos Abihabib, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          1155 Avenue of the Americas, Ste. 22nd Floor
          New York City, NY 10036-2711
          Phone: (332) 223-3980
          Email: gromanos@perkinscoie.com


SOLIANT HEALTH: Simmons Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
----------------------------------------------------------
Katie Simmons, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SOLIANT HEALTH, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-05153-SEG (N.D.
Ga., Nov. 8, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its failure to
properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and at least 13,800 Class
Members' sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII"),
which, as a result, is now in criminal cyberthieves' possession.

The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former customers of
Defendant who, in order to obtain services from Defendant, were and
are required to entrust Defendant with their sensitive, non-public
Private Information. Defendant could not perform its operations or
provide its services without collecting Plaintiff's and Class
Members' Private Information and retains it for many years, at
least, even after the customer relationship has ended.

The Defendant breached these duties owed to Plaintiff and Class
Members by failing to safeguard their Private Information it
collected and maintained, including by failing to implement
industry standards for data security to protect against, detect,
and stop cyberattacks, which failures allowed criminal hackers to
access and steal approximately 13,818 consumers' Private
Information from Defendant's care.

Although the Data Breach took place, at latest, prior to June 25,
2024, Defendant failed to notify affected individuals that their
Private Information was compromised until approximately October 29,
2024--diminishing Plaintiff's and Class Members' ability to timely
and thoroughly mitigate and address the increased, imminent risk of
identity theft and other harms the Data Breach caused.

The  Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class
Members' Private Information––and failed to even encrypt or
redact this highly sensitive data. This unencrypted, unredacted
Private Information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent
and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect
its customers' sensitive data, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was a customer of the Defendant.

The Defendant is a recruiter and staffing services provider for
school districts and hospital organizations across the
country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq.
          GIBSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
          4279 Roswell Road, Suite 208-108
          Atlanta, GA 30342
          Phone: (678) 642-2503
          Email: marybeth@gibsonconsumerlawgroup.com

               - and -

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


SOUND APPROACH: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Fernandez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SOUND APPROACH, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00015 (S.D.N.Y.,
Jan. 2, 2025), is brought against Defendant for the failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website,
www.soundapproach.com (the "Website"), to be fully accessible to
and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SOUTHWEST ENERGY: Court Denies Bid for Protective Order in Uri Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Angel D. Mitchell of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas issued a Memorandum and Order denying the
Defendants' motion for protective order in the lawsuit titled IN RE
WINTER STORM URI NATURAL GAS LITIGATION, Case No.
6:24-cv-01073-DDC-ADM (D. Kansas). This Document Only Relates to
Case No. 24-1005-DDC-ADM.

The action consists of five separate cases that the Court
consolidated for discovery and pretrial case-management purposes.
It is before the Court on a motion arising out of one of the cases,
Rice v. Southwest Energy, L.P., Case No. 24-1005. Two Defendants in
Rice, Concord Energy LLC and Spotlight Energy LLC (together,
"Defendants") have filed a motion for a protective order permitting
them to produce redacted copies of billing statements identified in
their Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A) initial
disclosures.

For the reasons discussed in the Memorandum and Order, the Court
denies the motion. Judge Mitchell finds that the billing statements
are relevant, and the Defendants have not demonstrated that their
proposed redactions are narrowly tailored or that they would suffer
specific, significant competitive harm if unredacted copies are
produced under the Attorneys Eyes Only provision of the blanket
protective order entered in this action.

The Plaintiffs are Kansas purchasers of natural gas, who bring this
purported class action against natural gas producers and suppliers.
They allege that the Defendants violated the Kansas Consumer
Protection Act ("KCPA") by unconscionably raising the price of
natural gas sold to the Plaintiffs though distributors, including
Symmetry Energy Solutions ("Symmetry"), during Winter Storm Uri in
February 2021.

On June 10, 2024, the Defendants served their Rule 26(a)(1)(A)
initial disclosures. The only specific document Concord identified
as one it might use to support its defenses was its "Net Out
Statement to Symmetry Energy Solutions, LLC for purchases made by
Concord during February 2021." Spotlight similarly identified the
"Physical Natural Gas Invoice[s] . . . covering February 2021"
between it and Symmetry and between it and Shell Energy North
America (US), LP ("Shell"), an intermediary company that ultimately
sold the natural gas to Symmetry.

On July 31, the Plaintiffs served each Defendant a single document
request, seeking production of "all documents falling within the
scope of your Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) disclosure." In response,
Concord produced a heavily redacted copy of its Net Out Statement,
designating it Attorneys Eyes Only pursuant to the blanket
protective order entered in this action. Likewise, Spotlight
produced heavily redacted copies of its Physical Natural Gas
Invoices with Symmetry and Shell, also designating them Attorneys
Eyes Only. The redactions in the produced documents ("the
Documents") involve the Defendants' sales of natural gas (including
prices, delivery locations, and volume) that was delivered outside
of Kansas.

The Plaintiffs challenged the Defendants' redactions, and the
parties requested a discovery conference with the Court. The Court
convened a conference on October 16. After hearing the parties'
positions, the court set the matter for motion briefing.

On Nov. 6, 2024, the Defendants filed the instant motion for a
protective order, asserting that the redacted information is
irrelevant and contains trade secrets, confidential commercial
information, and/or proprietary pricing information, which if
disclosed would cause them significant harm.

The Defendants argue, among other things, that a protective order
denying the Plaintiffs discovery of the unredacted version of the
Documents is appropriate because the redacted information is "not
relevant to Plaintiffs' claims at issue in this dispute."

Judge Mitchell notes that there is no question that the Documents
themselves are relevant. The Plaintiffs bring claims against the
Defendants for violations of the KCPA in February 2021, alleging
the Defendants both (1) used unconscionable acts and practices and
(2) profited from a disaster.

Judge Mitchell points out that the Documents bear on these matters
because they show the source and cost of the natural gas the
Defendants were buying at the time, as well as the price at which
the Defendants then sold the gas, allowing a calculation of the
cost-price disparity at issue in the Plaintiffs' unconscionability
claims.

The Court has reviewed the unredacted versions of the Documents in
camera. The unredacted versions show the price of gas the
Defendants sold elsewhere and the cost they paid to acquire it,
which then permits the Plaintiffs to compare the information with
the same information for gas sold in Kansas. This bears on the
Plaintiffs' claims that the Defendants' transactions in Kansas were
unconscionable. Ultimately, Judge Mitchell says the redactions are
by no means narrowly tailored redactions of limited information
that clearly is not relevant.

Judge Mitchell also finds that the Defendants have not demonstrated
that they would suffer a concrete, specific competitive harm if
unredacted copies of the Documents were produced under the
Attorneys Eyes Only provision of the blanket protective order.
Accordingly, the Court holds that the Defendants have not
demonstrated good cause for a protective order to allow them to
maintain the redactions.

Therefore, the Court denies the Defendants' motion for a protective
order. The Defendants are ordered to produce the Documents without
redactions by Jan. 10, 2025.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3ub6hj8e from PacerMonitor.com.


SPORT SQUAD: Court Narrows Claims in Matus Suit
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREG MATUS, v. SPORT SQUAD
d/b/a JOOLA, Case No. 0:24-cv-60954-DSL (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge
David Leibowitz entered an order granting in part and denying in
part Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's amended class action
complaint.

  -- Counts I (Unjust Enrichment) and IV (FDUTPA) survive and
Counts II (Breach of Express Warranty) and III (Breach of Implied
Warranty) are dismissed with prejudice.

Because the Court finds that Matus cannot bring claims of breach of
express and implied warranty for failure to notify defendant within
a reasonable time after discovery of the breach, it need not
address Joola's substantive argument that Matus's allegations fail
to state claims of breach of express or implied warranty.

Accordingly, Matus's claims of breach of express warranty (Count
II) and implied warranty (Count III) fail as a matter of law and
must be dismissed with prejudice.

The Plaintiff Matus claims Joola's actions were a "deceptive and
fraudulent scheme." He purchased two of the Subject Paddles on
April 17, 2024, but has stated that he would not have had he known
they were not approved by USAP.

Joola designs, develops, manufactures, and distributes pickleball
paddles and accessories.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 17, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AOJpRm at no extra
charge.[CC]

STAPLES THE OFFICE: Lumadue Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Maraya Lumadue, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated‚ and on behalf of the general public v.
STAPLES THE OFFICE SUPERSTORE‚ LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company‚ and DOES 1 through 10‚ inclusive, Case No. 24STCV27299
was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on Jan. 2, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00028.

The Complaint contains eleven causes of action against Defendant
alleging failure to provide meal periods in violation of Cal. Lab.
Code; failure to provide rest periods in violation of Cal. Lab.
Code; failure to pay all wages in violation of Cal. Lab. Code;
knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized employee
wage statement provisions; failure to timely pay wages due at
termination; failure to timely pay employees; failure to reimburse
for business expenses; failure to provide suitable seating; failure
to pay for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked;
violation of California Business and Professions Code; and
penalties pursuant to California Labor Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Tritia M. Murata, Esq.
          David P. Zins, Esq.
          Nancy R. Thomas, Esq.
          Natalie E. Fox, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue‚ Suite 2700
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 633-6800
          Fax: (213) 633-6899
          Email: TritiaMurata@dwt.com
                 DavidZins@dwt.com
                 NancyThomas@dwt.com
                 NatalieFox@dwt.com


STELLANTIS NV: BRS Appointed as Lead Plaintiff
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN LONG, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. STELLANTIS N.V.,
CARLOS TAVARES, and NATALIE M. KNIGHT, Case No.
1:24-cv-06196-JHR-GS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gary Stein entered
an order:

-- granting BRS's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff,

-- denying Trapp's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff,

-- appointing BRS as lead plaintiff and Bernstein Litowitz
    as lead counsel.

The complaint alleges that earlier in 2024, Stellantis and
Defendants Carlos Tavares, its Chief Executive Officer, and Natalie
M. Knight, its Chief Financial Officer, made false and misleading
statements to the market, causing the company’s stock price to be
artificially inflated.

Stellantis designs, manufactures, and distributes vehicles under
several well-known brand names, including Maserati, Alfa Romeo,
Jeep, Dodge, Ram, Chrysler, Citroen, Fiat, Peugeot, and others.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OKEADk at no extra
charge.[CC]

SUBARU OF AMERICA: Expert Discovery in Weston Extended to Jan 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANNY WESTON, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED et al., v. SUBARU OF
AMERICA, INC. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-05876-CPO-SAK (D.N.J.), the
Hon. Judge Sharon King entered an order extending Case Management
Deadlines, in accordance with the Court's Nov. 22, 2024:

-- Expert Discovery:                         Jan. 31, 2025

-- The Defendants' sur-rebuttal expert       Feb. 10, 2025
   reports by existing expert and expert
   disclosures pursuant to FED. R. CIV.
   P. 26(a)(2) shall be served upon
   counsel for Plaintiffs no later than:

-- Deposition of Defendants' existing        Feb. 28, 2025
   sur-rebuttal expert witness shall be
   concluded by:

-- Class Certification Motions:              Dec. 11, 2024

    Any opposition shall be filed by:        May 21, 2025

    Any reply brief in further support of    June 20, 2025
    class certification shall be filed
    by shall be filed by:

-- Defendants' Summary Judgment Motion:      March 31, 2025

   Any opposition shall be filed by:         May 30, 2025

   Any reply brief in further support        June 30, 2025
   of summary judgment shall be filed by:

Subaru of America is the United States–based distributor of
Subaru's brand vehicles.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 31, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v9lmCK at no extra
charge.[CC]

SUMMIT PATHOLOGY: Kristoff Files Suit in D. Colorado
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Summit Pathology
Laboratories, Inc. The case is styled as Jordan Kristoff,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Summit Pathology Laboratories, Inc. doing business as: Summit
Pathology, Case No. 1:24-cv-03009-GPG-MEH (D. Colo., Oct. 28,
2024).

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

Summit Pathology -- https://www.summitpathology.com/ -- is an
independent pathology laboratory, owned by a practice of twenty-two
board certified pathologists.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
          ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES PLLC
          1105 Milford Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-2377
          Fax: (888) 276-3455
          Email: jarrett@ellzeylaw.com


SUN COUNTRY: Court Stays Proceedings in Smith Suit
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nicholas Smith and Derik
George, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Sun Country, Inc. et al., Case No.
0:24-cv-00619-KMM-JFD (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge John Docherty
entered an order granting parties' joint motion to stay proceedings
to facilitate settlement discussions.

   1. All proceedings are stayed through March 30, 2025 (90 days
from  the entry of this order).

   2. No earlier than 30 days after the order's entry date, any
party may terminate the stay by giving seven days' written notice
to the other party and the Court without filing a motion.

   3. Notwithstanding the stay, if there are any disputes about the
data, documents, or information to be provided for purposes of
settlement, the parties may contact the Magistrate Judge assigned
to the case to assist with resolution of any such issues, and the
Magistrate Judge will have the power to resolve those disputes to
facilitate settlement as if this case was not stayed.

   4. If the stay expires or is terminated by either party, (a)
Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint
within 21 days from the date the stay expires or is terminated, (b)
the parties shall file a scheduling proposal within 30 days of the
expiration or termination of the stay, and (c) Plaintiffs shall
file an opposition within 30 days of the date the motion is filed
if Defendants file a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12.

Sun Country, an air carrier company, operates scheduled passenger,
air cargo, charter air transportation, and related services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=98utvT at no extra
charge.[CC]


SUPERGOOP LLC: Court Tosses Dunning, et al. Sunscreen Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John P. Cronan of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted Supergoop, LLC's motion to
dismiss the amended complaint in the case captioned as MARCEANN
DUNNING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and AMBER LATIF, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, -v- SUPERGOOP, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 23-cv-11242 (S.D.N.Y.). The amended complaint is dismissed
without prejudice.

Plaintiffs MarceAnn Dunning and Amber Latif bring this putative
class action against Defendant Supergoop, LLC, alleging that two of
Supergoop's sunscreen products contain a lower Sun Protection
Factor level than indicated on the products' labels.

Plaintiffs allege that they conducted an SPF test of Unseen Face
Sunscreen and Unseen Body Sunscreen in accordance with the
regulations of the Food and Drug Administration for determination
of SPF Label Value. This testing determined that the tested
Supergoop Unseen Face Sunscreen had an SPF Label Value of 23, while
the tested Supergoop Unseen Body Sunscreen had an SPF Label Value
of 20. Plaintiffs allege that Supergoop knew or should have known
that the Products contain a materially lower SPF protection than
the advertised SPF 40, because they were required to perform
testing to determine the Products' SPF Label Values in accordance
with the FDA's regulations.

Plaintiffs bought the Purchased Products believing that they
provided SPF 40 sun protection as indicated on those items' PDPs,
and contend that they would purchase the Products again if they had
a true SPF Label Value of SPF 40. They further allege that they
would not have purchased the Purchased Products if they had known
they in fact had an SPF Label Value of 23 and 20, nor would they
have paid such a high price for the items. They allege that as a
result of these alleged false and misleading statements, they did
not receive the benefit of the advertised SPF 40 and were deprived
of the benefit of the bargain they were promised by Supergoop.

Plaintiffs commenced this action against Supergoop on December 28,
2023, and filed the operative Amended Complaint on March 14, 2024,
The Amended Complaint brings the lawsuit as a putative class action
under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d)(2),
identifying three classes:

   (1) a nationwide class of "all persons in the United States who
purchased the Products between 2018 and the Present,"
   (2) a subclass of "all persons in New York who purchased the
Products during the Class Period," and
   (3) a second subclass of "all persons in California who
purchased the Products during the Class Period."

The Amended Complaint pleads seven claims:

   (1) violations of New York General Business Law Sec. 349,
   (2) violations of New York General Business Law Sec. 350,
   (3) breach of express warranty,
   (4) violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act,
Cal. Civ. Code Secs. 1750 et seq.
   (5) violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus.
& Prof. Code Secs. 17200 et seq., and
   (6) violations of California's False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus.
& Prof. Code Secs. 17500 et seq.

Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint pleads several forms of relief,
including injunctive relief.

On May 9, 2024, Supergoop filed a motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6). Supergoop also moved to stay discovery pending resolution
of its motion to dismiss, which the Court granted on May 22, 2024.

Supergoop moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims under Rule 12(b)(1)
for lack of standing, and thus lack of subject matter jurisdiction.


Supergoop's motion is predicated on Plaintiffs' failure to
adequately allege an injury-in-fact. It argues that Plaintiffs have
failed to allege sufficient facts to permit an inference that the
Purchased products—i.e., the sunscreens that Plaintiffs actually
bought—were misleadingly labeled. Specifically, Supergoop
contends that Plaintiffs do not allege that they tested the
products they purchased or otherwise link their purchased Products
to their testing, and thus plead insufficient facts to allow for an
inference that their purchased Products, in fact, contained a lower
SPF than indicated on the Products' labels.

The Court finds the Amended Complaint is plainly deficient in its
pleading of an injury-in-fact. It emphasizes that while the Amended
Complaint alleges that Dunning and Latif purchased the Products in
March and April 2023, it contains no allegations of the purchase
dates of the samples that were tested. The Amended Complaint does
not even allege whether the Tested Products were purchased before
or after Plaintiffs made their purchases.

Because the Amended Complaint lacks sufficient allegations to
support the existence of an injury-in-fact for either Plaintiff,
Supergoop's motion to dismiss is granted. This dismissal is without
prejudice and Plaintiffs are granted leave to further amend if they
believe they can sufficiently allege standing.

Supergoop also argues that Plaintiffs lack standing to seek an
injunction. Plaintiffs maintain that they have standing to sue for
injunctive relief based on their allegation that they would
purchase the Products again if they had a true SPF Label Value of
SPF 40, as advertised. The Court finds Plaintiffs lack standing to
pursue injunctive relief.

A copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Jan. 6, 2025, is
available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ffvUW3 from PacerMonitor.com.


TAKARA SAKE: Parties Seeks More Time for Class Cert Bid Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as COLBY TUNICK, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TAKARA SAKE USA
INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00572-TSH (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the
Court to enter an order extending Plaintiff's deadline to file his
reply in support of class certification from Jan. 17, 2025, to Jan.
31, 2025.

On Nov. 20, 2024, the Court granted the Parties' joint stipulation
to extend Defendant's deadline to oppose Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification to Dec. 20, 2024, and to extend the Plaintiff's
deadline for filing his Reply in Support of Class Certification to
Jan. 17, 2025.

On Dec. 20, 2024, the Defendant filed its opposition to the
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.

The Plaintiff requested that Defendant agree to extend Plaintiff's
deadline for Plaintiff to file his Reply in Support of Class
Certification from Jan. 17, 2025, to Jan. 31, 2025.

Takara Sake makes sake, the popular Japanese-style wine.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 26, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=07bgJf at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and -

          Joshua Nassir, Esq.
          Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
          Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq.
          Katherine Phillips, Esq.
          TREEHOUSE LAW, LLP
          3130 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 555
          Santa Monica, CA 90403
          Telephone: (310) 751-5948
          E-mail: jnassir@treehouselaw.com
                  bheikali@treehouselaw.com
                  rglezakos@treehouselaw.com
                  kphillips@treehouselaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joseph A. Meckes, Esq.
          SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS, LLP
          555 South Flower St., 31st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071

TARGET CORPORATION: Rios Sues Over False Labeling and Marketing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gloria Rios, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TARGET CORPORATION, Case No. 160493/2024 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., New York Cty., Nov. 9, 2024), is brought against the
Defendants false labeling, marketing, manufacturing, representing
and/or selling the Product.

Seeking to capitalize on growing consumer awareness of the harm
caused to these "rainforests of the sea," by exploiting "extrinsic
cues such as visual information on labels and packaging," Target
Corporation manufactures, distributes, packages, sells, and/or
markets, "sport sunscreen lotion," with an SPF of 50, which is,
among other things, "water resistant (80 minutes)," and "fragrance
free," based on a "reef-conscious formula," in 10.4 ounce bottles,
under its up&up brand ("Product").

The Product is "misbranded," and misleads consumers, because
despite its description as a "reef-conscious formula," its active
and inactive ingredients, including avobenzone, homosalate, and
octocrylene, are harmful to coral reefs. The Product is
"misbranded" and misleads consumers, because "reef formula"
conscious "fails to reveal facts material in the light of such
representations or material with respect to its consequences," with
respect to reefs, because it contains ingredients which are
inconsistent with protecting coral reefs, and/or have detrimental
effects on coral reefs.

As a result of the false and misleading representations and
omissions, the Product is sold at a premium price, approximately
$5.99 for 10.4 ounces (307.5 mL), higher than similar products,
represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than it would be
sold for absent the misleading representations and omissions, when
these factors are taken together, and/or utilized for the purpose
of conjoint analysis, choice
analysis, choice-based ranking, hedonic pricing, and/or other
similar methods, to evaluate a product's attributes and/or
features, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a consumer, not a merchant or re-seller.

Target Corporation sells leading national brands.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
          Great Neck NY 11021
          Phone: (516) 268-7080
          Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com


TEND DENTAL INC: Clement Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vincent Clement, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. TEND DENTAL, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-08926 (E.D.N.Y.,
Dec. 31, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired people.

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

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

The Defendant is a company that owns and operates www.hellotend.com
(its "Website"), offering features which should allow all consumers
to access the services Defendant offers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TETRA TECH: Court Denies Class Certification in Pennington Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as LINDA PARKER PENNINGTON, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. TETRA TECH, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-05330-JD (N.D. Calif.), Judge James Donato of the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The related
motion of Tetra Tech to exclude the declaration of plaintiffs'
expert Brett Reynolds is also denied.

Motion to Exclude Opinions of Brett Reynolds

In support of certification, plaintiffs submitted a nine-page
declaration of Reynolds. Reynolds is a licensed appraiser with 18
years of experience in the real estate industry. He opined on the
two primary sources of economic damages incurred by Class Members
in this case. These are said to be: (1) appreciation
impairment/diminution in value of the Parcel A homes owned by the
putative class members, and (2) excess tax charges/Mello-Roos
damages.

Defendants ask to exclude the opinions in Reynolds' declaration
under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. They say that Reynolds lacks
the expertise to give the opinions in his declaration, and the
methodology underlying his opinions is fundamentally flawed.

Exclusion is denied. The Court finds overall, plaintiffs have
carried their burden under Rule 702 of establishing that it is more
likely than not that Reynolds' opinion is the product of reliable
principles and methods, and reflects a reliable application of the
principles and methods to the facts of the case. Defendants have
not shown otherwise.

Motion for Class Certification

Plaintiffs propose to certify under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure a class defined as: "All
individuals or entities who held title to one or more market-rate
units on Parcel A at the Shipyard in San Francisco on August 2,
2018." They seek certification for their first, second, fifth,
sixth, and seventh causes of action, which are: permanent public
and private nuisance; negligence; and negligent and intentional
misrepresentation.

For the nuisance claims, plaintiffs allege that Tetra Tech created
a permanent public and private nuisance which has, among other
things, resulted in the diminution of value of, and future harm to,
their property.

For the negligence claim, plaintiffs allege that Tetra Tech
withheld material information about the contamination of the
Shipyard and that it breached their duty to warn home buyers about
the contamination and to properly remediate HPNS.

For the misrepresentation claims, plaintiffs allege that Tetra Tech
committed fraud by omission in its failure to properly remediate
HPNS. Plaintiffs also allege that Tetra Tech engaged in negligent
and intentional misrepresentations on chain of custody forms and
other documents related to testing.

Certification of a class under Rule 23(b)(3) is denied. The Court
finds Plaintiffs did not demonstrate that the proposed class
satisfies each requirement of Rule 23 including the predominance
requirement of Rule 23(b)(3).

Judge Donato says the plaintiffs have not identified any common
evidence that might warrant certification. This shortfall is
particularly problematic for causation, which is a necessary
element of each of the claims for which they are seeking
certification. Plaintiffs rely solely on the Reynolds declaration
as the ostensible common proof of causation.

The Court finds overall, plaintiffs have offered almost no evidence
to meet their burden for any of their claims, and their motion is
bereft of any class-wide evidence they propose to use to prove the
common questions "in one stroke."

Plaintiffs' Alternative Request for Certification of Issues Under
Rule 23(c)(4)

Plaintiffs make an abbreviated request for certification of issues
under Rule 23(c)(4) if a Rule 23(b)(3) class is denied.

According to the Court, while predominance is not required for
certifying an issues class under Rule 23(c)(4), the individualized
questions of proof already discussed make a Rule 23(c)(4) class
inefficient. An issues class must have proper representatives and
otherwise comply with Rule 23's
requirements.

In addition, plaintiffs did not demonstrate that certifying an
issue class would materially advance the disposition of the
litigation as a whole, the Court concludes.

Certification under Rule 23(c)(4) is denied.

A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=txUoIQ from PacerMonitor.com.


TSYS MERCHANT: SBCW Seeks to Continue Class Certification Deadlines
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as S.B.C.W. CONSULTING, INC.
dba 76 FORD EXIT, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. TSYS MERCHANT SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; TSYS ADVISORS, INC., a Georgia corporation; TSYS
ACQUIRING SOLUTIONS, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company;
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-03193-SB-AGR
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
granting unopposed ex parte application to continue deadline to
file motion for class certification and hearing:

-- Motion for Class Certification:   April 21, 2025

-- Motion Filing Date:               March 3, 2025.

-- Opposition Brief To Motion for    March 17, 2025.
    Class Certification:

-- Reply Brief:                      March 31, 2025

TSYS offers financial solutions. The Company offers credit card
processing and other related services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 30, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qMDnKC at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Heather Davis, Esq.
          Amir Nayebdadash, Esq.
          Brendan J. Burton, Esq.
          Shadi Sahebghalam, Esq.
          PROTECTION LAW GROUP, LLP
          149 Sheldon Street
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 290-3095
          Facsimile: (424) 768-7880
          E-mail: heather@protectionlawgroup.com
                  amir@protectionlawgroup.com
                  susan@protectionlawgroup.com
                  brendan@protectionlawgroup.com
                  shadi@protectionlawgroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alexandra Peurach, Esq.
          Kaylan Meaza, Esq.
          Kathy Huang, Esq.
          Gillian Clow, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP
          1201 West Peachtree Street, Suite 4900
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
          Telephone: (404) 881-7000
          Facsimile: (404) 881-7777
          E-mail: alex.peurach@alston.com
                  kaylan.meaza@alston.com
                  kathy.huang@alston.com
                  gillian.clow@alston.com

TUFTS MEDICAL: McManus Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Karen McManus, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. TUFTS MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Case No.
2384CV00930 was removed from The Superior Court, Suffolk County, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Jan.
2, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-10008.

The Plaintiff's Amended Complaint includes a federal claim against
Tufts Medical Center, Inc. ("Tufts MC") for violations of the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"). The Plaintiff's
Complaint challenged Tufts MC's routine on-line practices as
illegal wiretapping under the Massachusetts Wiretap Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward F. Haber, Esq.
          Michelle H. Blauner, Esq.
          Patrick J. Valley, Esq.
          SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
          One Boston Place, Suite 2600
          Boston, MA 02108
          Email: ehaber@shulaw.com
                 mblauner@shulaw.com
                 pvalley@shulaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          James H. Rollinson, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          127 Public Street, Suite 2000
          Cleveland, OH 44116
          Phone: (216) 621-0200
          Fax: (216) 626-0740
          Email: jrollinson@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          1801 California Street, Suite 4400
          Denver, CO 80202-2662
          Phone: (303) 764-4013
          Fax: (303) 861-7805
          Email: pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth A. Scully, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          Washington Square, Suite 1100
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20036-5304
          Phone: (202) 861-1500
          Fax: (202) 861-1783
          Email: escully@bakerlaw.com


TURQUOISE HILL: Seeks to Maintain Certain Exhibits Under Seal
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:20-cv-08585-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to
maintain under seal Exhibits L, M, N, and O to the Declaration of
Salvatore Graziano in support of Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

The Defendants do not seek to seal any portion of the Motion
discussing these exhibits, nor do Defendants seek any additional
redactions to the other previously filed exhibits to the
Declaration which Plaintiffs have filed in accordance with the
directives in the Court's prior sealing order. But Exhibits L-O
themselves contain confidential and competitively sensitive
information and should be maintained under seal.

Exhibits L and O contain sensitive internal communications among
Rio Tinto and Oyu Tolgoi employees, as well as innocent third
parties, regarding development strategy for the Oyu Tolgoi
Underground Project ("OTUP"). They also contain and/or reflect
sensitive and confidential internal analyses by Rio Tinto's
Technical Evaluation Group.

Exhibits M and N contain confidential sensitive internal
communications regarding consideration and management of proposals
and performance of innocent third parties and should remain under
seal.

The disclosure of this information would be injurious to
Defendants. The Oyu Tolgoi mine is an active operating mine, and if
the information identified above were to be made public, it could
harm Rio Tinto in its negotiations with contractors and other
entities and individuals involved in those construction and
production efforts.

The Defendants contend that if the Court denies the Defendants'
request to maintain Exhibits L, M, N, and O under seal, then the
Defendants request that the Court permit Defendants to submit a
further letter specifically proposing redactions to confidential
business information and PII contained in these exhibits.

Turquoise Hill explores for and develops mineral and metal
properties in Asia and Australia.

The Defendants include Rio Tinto plc, Rio Tinto Limited,
JeanSebastien Jacques, and Arnaud Soirat.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 30, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=95TKgZ at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Sarah Heaton Concannon, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          295 Fifth Avenue,
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 849-7000
          Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
          E-mail: sarahconcannon@quinnemanuel.com

UNDER ARMOUR: Partial Motion to Dismiss Lo UTPA Lawsuit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Karin J. Immergut of the United States District Court for the
District of Oregon denied Under Armour, Inc.'s partial motion to
dismiss the case captioned as JONATHAN LO, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated,  Plaintiff,  v. UNDER ARMOUR, INC.,
a Maryland corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 3:24-cv-01258-IM (D. Ore.).

Plaintiff Jonathan Lo filed this putative class action on his own
behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated Oregonians
against Defendant Under Armour, Inc. He alleges that Under Armour
advertised false price discounts for merchandise sold in its
factory outlet stores and on the outlet section of its website, a
violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act.

Defendant moves to dismiss a portion of Plaintiff's complaint under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6). Defendant argues
that Plaintiff lacks standing to assert claims based on Defendant's
online conduct, whether individually or on behalf of the class,
because the Complaint does not allege that Plaintiff viewed or
purchased products from Defendant's online store.

The Court finds Plaintiff has standing to bring his claims
individually. It explains that the Plaintiff alleges that he
purchased six items from Defendant's outlet store after observing
the original prices of the items and the accompanying sale prices,
and that he would not have made the purchase were it not for the
bargain he believed he was receiving. Thus, he has Article III
standing to assert these claims. He has also sufficiently alleged
an 'ascertainable loss of money' as a result of Defendant's alleged
misrepresentations to establish standing under the UTPA.

According to the Court, although Plaintiff's individual claims do
not directly arise out of Defendant's online pricing practices, he
also has standing to bring claims on behalf of class members who
made Under Armour factory purchases from Defendant's online store.

Plaintiff argues that the unnamed class members, like Plaintiff,
purchased products from Defendant in reliance on representations
that the items were discounted in price. He further alleges that
the alleged in-store pricing scheme is "the online equivalent of
its brick-and mortar practice," and the products sold in-person and
online are the same. In short, Plaintiff alleges the same wrongful
conduct as to the same products by the same defendant, and thus has
standing to pursue both the web-based and brick-and-mortar claims
on behalf of a class, the Court finds.

At this stage of the proceedings, the Court concludes that
Plaintiff has standing on behalf of others who purchased Under
Armour factory products who were similarly misled by Defendant's
pricing scheme, whether in-store or online. Accordingly,
Defendant's partial motion to dismiss is denied.

A copy of the Court's Opinion Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=l6Rwej from PacerMonitor.com.


UNITED SERVICES: Must Show Cause Why Action Shouldn't be Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as John Horlieca, et al., v.
United Services Automobile Association, et al., Case No.
5:23-cv-00278-KK-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Kenly Kiya Kato
entered an order directing the parties to show cause why the action
should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.

-- With respect to the amount in controversy, it appears the
damages alleged do not exceed $75,000 for each Plaintiff.

-- Based on the evidence presented in support of and in opposition
to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, it appears plaintiff
Warner's total damages based on an emergency room visit and
chiropractic care was less than $3,000.

On Feb. 20, 2023, the plaintiff John Horlieca and Darryl Warner
filed a putative class action Complaint against defendant United
Services Automobile Association and USAA Casualty Insurance Company
asserting breach of contract and related claims arising from
Defendants’ alleged practice of "systematically, wrongfully, and
arbitrarily" denying first-party medical payments coverage
benefits.

United Services provides financial services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=716xRt at no extra
charge.[CC]

UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO: Vigil Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against University of San
Francisco, et al. The case is styled as Michael Vigil, an
individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. University of San Francisco, Does 1 through
50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC25621129 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco
Cty., Jan. 2, 2025).

The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."

The University of San Francisco (USF) -- https://www.usfca.edu/ --
is a private Jesuit university in San Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas James De Blouw, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037-3107
          Phone: 858-551-1223
          Fax: 858-551-1232
          Email: norm@bamlawca.com


USAA CASUALTY: Jennings Seeks More Time for Class Cert Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARYN JENNINGS and TRICIA
HARDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and USAA GENERAL
INDEMNITY COMPANY, Case No. 3:23-cv-06171-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to
modify the case schedule to extend the class certification
deadlines as follows:

              Event                 Current        Proposed
                                    Deadline       Deadline

Complete Discovery Relevant to     Jan. 15, 2025   July 14, 2025
Class Certification (excluding
discovery regarding identity of
putative class members):

Last day to file Motion for        Feb. 3, 2025    Aug. 4, 2025
Class Certification, with expert
reports, if any:

Defendants to complete            Apr. 3, 2025    Sept. 30, 2025
depositions of Plaintiffs'
experts:

  Last day to file Opposition       May 5, 2025     Nov. 3, 2025
  to Motion for Class
  Certification, with expert
  reports, if any:

  Plaintiffs to complete            July 3, 2025    Dec. 30, 2025
  depositions of Defendants'
  experts, if any:

  Last day to file Reply to         Aug. 4, 2025    Feb. 2, 2026
  Motion for Class Certification:

The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action case against
Defendants USAA Casualty Insurance Company and USAA General
Indemnity Company on Nov. 16, 2023, in Washington State Superior
Court.

On Dec. 20, 2023, the Defendants removed the case to federal
court.

USAA is an American financial services company providing insurance
and banking products.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 24, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=A0zgSv at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason T. Dennett, Esq.
          Cecily C. Jordan, Esq.
          TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
          1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 682-5600
          Facsimile: (206) 682-2992
          E-mail: jdennett@tousley.com
                  cjordan@tousley.com

                - and -

          Franklin D. Azar, Esq.
          Kevin J. Dolley, Esq.
          Michael D. Murphy, Esq.
          Timothy L. Foster, Esq.
          Dezarae LaCrue, Esq.
          Brian Hanlin, Esq.
          FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          14426 East Evans Avenue
          Aurora, CO 80014
          Telephone: (303) 757-3300
          Facsimile: (720) 213-5131
          E-mail: azarf@fdazar.com
                  dolleyk@fdazar.com
                  murphym@fdazar.com
                  fostert@fdazar.com
                  lacrued@fdazar.com
                  hanlinb@fdazar.com

USHEALTH ADVISORS: Scheduling & Discovery Order Entered in Kramer
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID KRAEMER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
USHEALTH ADVISORS, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00275-DWD (S.D. Ill.), the
Hon. Judge David Dugan entered an order adopting joint report and
proposed scheduling and discovery order:

-- Depositions upon oral examination, interrogatories, requests
for documents, and answers and responses thereto shall not be filed
unless on order of the Court. Disclosures or discovery under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) are to be filed with the
Court only to the extent required by the final pretrial order,
other Court order, or if a dispute arises over the disclosure or
discovery and the matter has been set for briefing.

-- The parties should note that they may, pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 29, modify discovery dates set in the Joint
Report by written stipulation, except that they may not modify a
date if such modification would impact.

    (1) the date of any court appearance,

    (2) the deadline for completing the mandatory mediation session
or the mandatory mediation process (if applicable),

    (3) the deadline for completing all discovery, or

    (4) the deadline for filing dispositive motions.

USHEALTH Advisors sells individual health insurance plans.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dRZP2H at no extra
charge.[CC]

VISA INC: Bueno Suit Transferred to Southern District of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California transferred the case
captioned as SPENCER BUENO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. VISA, INC., Defendant, Case
No.: 4:24-cv-08968-HSG (N.D. Calif.) to the  United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York for further
proceedings.

On December 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed its complaint against Visa in
the Northern District of California.

The parties have reached an agreement to extend the time within
which Visa must move, answer, or otherwise respond to the
Plaintiff's complaint.

Visa filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1404(a) to transfer
this action to the Southern District of New York, where the
Department of Justice filed a related complaint on September 24,
2024, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-7214, six other related putative
Class Action Complaints are also pending under a consolidated
caption.

28 U.S.C. Sec. 1404(a) permits transfer of a case to any district
to which the parties have agreed by contract or stipulation.

The deadline for the Defendant to move, answer, or otherwise
respond to the Plaintiff's complaint is adjourned until such time
set by the transferee court.

All other deadlines set by the District Court are vacated.

A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gMflo6 from PacerMonitor.com.


VIVENDI TICKETING: Settlement Deal in Peterson Gets Court Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mandi Peterson, v. Vivendi
Ticketing US LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-07498-MWF-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Michael Fitzgerald entered a class ruling as follows:

-- The Settlement Motion is granted.

-- The Settlement Agreement is approved.

-- The Class is certified for purposes of settlement only.

-- Counsel are appointed as Class Counsel.

-- The Fees Motion is granted.

Vivendi is a digital media company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7tsCrn at no extra
charge.[CC]

WINSTON WEAVER: Judge Certifies 2022 Plant Fire Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
April Laissle, writing for WFDD, reports that a judge ruled
Wednesday, January 9, 2025, that a lawsuit related to a 2022 fire
at the Winston Weaver fertilizer plant can move forward as a class
action. Should the plaintiffs win the suit, approximately 6,500
residents who evacuated during the incident could become eligible
for compensation.

The plaintiffs allege the Winston Weaver Company was negligent in
failing to prevent the fire, which prompted the evacuation of
everyone living within one mile of the plant.

The site contained 600 tons of ammonium nitrate, which officials
worried would cause a massive explosion.

During the hearing, Weaver Company attorney Mason Freeman argued
that all of those residents weren’t equally affected by the
incident, and therefore shouldn’t be lumped together into a class
for the case. At one point, Judge Ed Wilson interrupted him.

Freeman: "So again, did the individuals evacuate because of the
fire or for some unrelated reason? Did they actually suffer
damages? What steps did they take to mitigate their losses? Your
Honor, these questions . . . "

Judge Wilson: "They wouldn't have evacuated if there wasn't a fire
though, would they have?"

Freeman: "We presume that, but we don't know. Presumably, many of
them did."

Plaintiffs argued all the residents had common claims that stemmed
from a single incident — the fire. Wilson ultimately sided with
them, officially certifying the class. Gary Jackson, who represents
the plaintiffs, said the move could expedite the case.

"There's always opportunity for settlement," he said. "Frequently,
class certification makes it easier for the case to be resolved."

If the two parties don’t settle, the trial will move forward in
late summer. [GN]

[*] CLASS ACTION MONEY & ETHICS CONFERENCE: Register Now!
---------------------------------------------------------
Registration is now open for the 9TH ANNUAL CLASS ACTION MONEY &
ETHICS CONFERENCE, to be held in-person Thurs., May 8, 2025, at The
Harmonie Club, New York City.

Once a year, the top industry experts gather together to discuss
the latest topics and trends in class action. This value-packed
event features special presentations from keynote speakers and live
panel discussions with industry experts, and provides networking
opportunities with other professionals.

Register at https://www.classactionconference.com   Breakfast and
lunch included.

Videos of last year's conference are available on-demand at
https://www.classactionconference.com/2024-video-replays.html

For sponsorship opportunities, contact:

     Will Etchison
     Tel: 305-707-7493
     E-mail: will@beardgroup.com



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 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 ***