---

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

              Tuesday, February 4, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 25

                            Headlines

3M CO: Firefighters Exposed to Toxic Chemicals, Valliere Says
ACCT HOLDINGS BOARD: Tripp Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
ALLIED PARTNERS: Loiacono Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
ANYWHERE REAL ESTATE: Settles TCPA Class Action for $20-Million
APPLE INC: Settles Watch Defective Battery Class Suit for $20-Mil.

APPLE INC: Sport Bands Contain Toxic Chemicals, Cavalier Says
B. RILEY FINANCIAL: Faces Donaldson Suit in California
BANK OF AMERICA: Taylor Sues Over Unlawful Sweep Program
BLUE SKY: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, Cannon Claims
BRIDGE PERSONNEL: Fails to Pay CSR's Minimum Wages Under FLSA

BROOKDALE SENIOR: Mismanages Retirement Plan, McDonald Suit Says
CALIFORNIA: Graciano-Martinez Files Petition for Writ of Mandamus
CAPITAL ONE: Ferrell Sues Over Banking Service Disruption
CAREWELL FAMILY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Young Alleges
CDK GLOBAL: Settles Antitrust Class Action Suit for $630-Mil.

CENTURY THEATRES: Narayan Suit Removed to N.D. California
CERIDA INVESTMENTS: White Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CHRYSLER PACIFICA: Seeks to Defer Class Cert Briefing Deadlines
COMMUNITY CLINIC: Curimao Files Suit in D. Hawaii
COMMUNITY CLINIC: Jones Files Suit in D. Hawaii

COMMUNITY CLINIC: Parry Files Suit in D. Hawaii
CRESCENT HOTELS: Ritchie Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
DAVE INC: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Franklin Suit
DIVIDEND SOLAR: Martinez Suit Moved From E.D.N.C. to D. Minnesota
DUBAI ISLAMIC: O'Neill Estate Appeals Judgment to 2nd Cir.

E BENEFIT SOLUTION: Ugarte Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
ELANCO ANIMAL: Conspires to Raise Imidacloprid Prices, Kraus Claims
ELSEVIER INC: Discloses Subscribers' Info to 3rd Party, Nguyen Says
EQUAL EXCHANGE: Parties Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Bid
FP NUTRACEUTICALS: Delgado Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

FRANKLIN STREET: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Toroche Suit Claims
GREATBANC TRUST: Randall Wins Bid for Class Certification
JORIKI USA INC: Moyles Files Suit in D. Delaware
JW LEE: Lopez Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Club Entertainers
LAKEVIEW LOAN: Morrill Seeks to File Class Cert Bid Under Seal

LILIPUT AND CO: Henry Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
MDL 2262: OTC Plaintiffs Allowed to File Exhibits Under Seal
MGM RESORTS: Settles Cyberattack Class Action Lawsuit for $45-Mil.
MICHAEL L. MANNA: All Discovery in Vasquez Due Dec. 10, 2026
MIDLAND NATIONAL: Bader Sues Over Misleading Representations

MORGAN STANLEY: Lucadano Appeals Atty. Fees Ruling in Harvey Suit
MV TRANSPORTATION: Oswald Suit Removed to N.D. California
NEW & LINGWOOD: Faces Sumlin Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
NOVO NORDISK: Moon Sues Over Artificially Inflated Stock Price
ONEBLOOD INC: Gwaltney Sues Over Unprotected Private Information

PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Latina Sues Over Poached Content Creators' Payment
PEDIATRIC HOME: Tschackert Files Suit in D. Minnesota
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Brown Sues Over Failure to Protect Info
PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS: Topping Sues Over Late Payment of Wages
SCALE AI: Outlier AI Taskers Sue Over Exposure to Harmful Content

SUNNOVA ENERGY: Class Cert Bid in Martinez Continued to May 30
TARGET CORP: Class Cert Expert Discovery Extended to June 9
TETHER LIMITED: Plaintiffs Seek to File Unsealed Class Exhibits
TRAVEL GUARD: Isaacson Appeals Settlement Order in Miller Suit
TRAX RETAIL: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Perez Extended to May 5

UMPQUA BANK: Bid to Exclude Ghiglieri's Opinions Partly OK'd
UNITED WATER: Parties Seek to Certify Rule 23 Settlement Class
USAA CASUALTY: Class Cert Filing in Jennings Extended to August 4
USC: Zarnowski Seeks to File Confidential Exhibit Under Seal
VEROS CREDIT: Standing Order in Rodney Class Action Entered

VERTIV CORP: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to March 3
WESTERN REFINING: Class Cert Filing in Barden Extended to July 24
WISCONSIN: Plaintiffs Can Proceed w/o Prepayment of Filing Fees
[^] CLASS ACTION MONEY & ETHICS CONFERENCE: Register Now!

                            *********

3M CO: Firefighters Exposed to Toxic Chemicals, Valliere Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company. The case
is captioned as SUSAN VALLIERE, as Personal
Representative/Executor/Administrator of the Estate of ROBERT DAVID
VALLIERE, deceased), Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota
Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.;
ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.;
ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.;
CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB
FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.;
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT
INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY
LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON
CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.;
MILIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS,
LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC
TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest
to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE ) Interlogix, Inc.);
VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY
GROUP, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-07253-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 12,
2024).

The Valliere suit is a member case in the multi-district litigation
proceeding, MDL No. 2873, re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products
Liability Litigation. Master Docket No: 2:18-mn-2873.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           J. Ryan Ziminskas, Esq.
           THEMIS LAW, PLLC
           7718 Wood Hollow Drive Suite 105
           Austin, TX 78731
           Telephone: (737) 208-1636
           Email: rziminskas@themislawpllc.com

ACCT HOLDINGS BOARD: Tripp Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
---------------------------------------------------------------
Terri Tripp, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the ACCT Holdings, Inc. Employee Stock
Ownership Plan v. Board of Directors of ACCT Holdings, Inc, Miguel
Paredes, Prudent Fiduciary Services, LLC, Christopher J. Debbas,
James R. Griffiths, Joseph Lembo, Hunter Croft, Russell Hughes Jr.,
and John and Jane Does 1-20, Case No. 2:25-cv-00405 (E.D. Pa., Jan.
23, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), alleging that the ESOP
trustee, Miguel Paredes, his firm Prudent Fiduciary Services, Inc.
("PFS"), the Company's Board of Directors and its members (the
"Board Defendants"), and the former owners of ACCT ("Selling
Shareholders") caused prohibited transactions and breached their
fiduciary duties through the planning and consummation of the sale
of ACCT to the ESOP (the "ESOP Transaction").

On December 22, 2021, Defendants caused the ESOP to acquire
17,386,919 shares of ACCT common stock from the Selling
Shareholders for $320 million. Prior to the ESOP Transaction, the
employee-participants were not given any information about its
terms or the negotiations concerning the price the ESOP would pay
for ACCT. In fact, the employee-participants who purchased the ACCT
Holding stock had no input on the terms negotiated and agreed to by
Paredes, PFS and the Selling Shareholders. Nor did the employees
consent to the terms of the ESOP Transaction

Adequate due diligence and evaluation of the ESOP Transaction would
have accounted for several risk factors that affected the value of
the Company at the time of sale including numerous lawsuits
alleging that ACCT violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
the Company's loss of major debt collection clients (e.g., Bank of
America) and headwinds in the debt collection industry.

The Board Defendants were fiduciaries of the ESOP and thus
similarly had a fiduciary duty to prudently appoint and monitor the
Trustee in the sole interest of participants, to provide complete
and accurate info to the Trustee, and to refrain from engaging in
prohibited transactions with the ESOP. However, because some of
them were Selling Shareholders, they were deeply conflicted and
unable to appropriately carry out appropriate oversight over
Paredes and PFS.

Based on the foregoing allegations and the other allegations set
forth, Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties and caused
the Plan to engage in prohibited transactions with the Selling
Shareholders, resulting in millions of dollars in losses to the
Plan and its participants and beneficiaries. Plaintiff brings this
action pursuant to ERISA to restore these losses to the Plan,
disgorge the monies that the Selling Shareholders unlawfully
obtained in connection with the ESOP Transaction, and obtain
appropriate equitable relief and other available relief, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Company and a current
participant in the ESOP within the meaning of ERISA.

The Defendant ACCT Board of Directors and its members (collectively
"the Board Defendants") had the authority and discretion to appoint
the ESOP Trustee and the Plan Administrator.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raymond M. Sarola, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          Two Logan Square
          100-120 N. 18th Street, Suite 1820
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (267) 479-5706
          Fax: (267) 479-5701
          Email: rsarola@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Michelle C. Yau, Esq.
          Daniel R. Sutter, Esq.
          Ryan A. Wheeler, Esq.
          Jacob T. Schutz, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Ave. NW. Eighth Floor
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: (202) 408-4600
          Fax: (202) 408-4699
          Email: myau@cohenmilstein.com
                 dsutter@cohenmilstein.com
                 rwheeler@cohenmilstein.com
                 jschutz@cohenmilstein.com


ALLIED PARTNERS: Loiacono Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN LOIACONO, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. ALLIED PARTNERS MANAGEMENT LLC, 200 EAST
79TH STREET LLC, REALTY ADVISORY BOARD ON LABOR RELATIONS, INC.,
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION (SEIU) LOCAL 32BJ, AND DOES
1-20, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00330 (E.D.N.Y., January 18,
2025) arises from the discriminatory discharge of Plaintiff by
Defendants Allied Partners Management LLC and 200 East 79th Street
LLC.

Plaintiff Loiacono was placed on indeterminate leave without pay
and/or "constructively discharged" or "locked out" from his job by
Defendants for exercising his fundamental right to refuse to submit
to the City's Vaccine Order that Defendants and its officers and
employees conspired among themselves and agreed and conspired with
Realty Advisory Board on Labor Relations, Inc. and its officer
Howard Rothchild along with the Service Employees International
Union Local 32BJ. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for
Defendants' unlawful conduct and asserts claims for common law
fraud and for violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act
of 1970, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Allied Partners Management LLC a Section 802 Foreign Limited
Liability Company registered in the State of New York that manages
real estate in New York City. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tricia S. Lindsay, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF TRICIA S. LINDSAY, PC
          531 E. Lincoln Ave., Ste. 5B
          Mount Vernon, NY 10552
          Mailing Address:
          P.O. Box 88
          White Plains, NY 10602
          Telephone: (347) 386-4604
                     (347) 349-5433
          E-mail: Tricialindsaylaw@gmail.com
                  attorney@tricialindsaylaw.com

ANYWHERE REAL ESTATE: Settles TCPA Class Action for $20-Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that Anywhere Real
Estate, Inc., formerly known as Realogy Holdings Corp., and several
subsidiaries have agreed to pay a $20 million settlement that, if
approved by the court, will resolve a proposed class action lawsuit
over alleged Telephone Consumer Protection Act violations.

The lawsuit against Realogy alleged that real estate agents
affiliated with one of its brands, Coldwell Banker, violated the
federal TCPA by placing unsolicited telemarketing calls to phone
numbers on the National Do-Not-Call Registry, and/or calling
consumers using an automated, prerecorded message without prior
authorization.

The proposed class action settlement aims to cover two classes
comprised of approximately 298,494 people. The deal will cover
anyone in the United States who received two or more calls made by
a Coldwell Banker-affiliated real estate agent using autodialing
software provided by Mojo, PhoneBurner and/or Storm in any 12-month
period on a residential landline or cell phone number that was
listed on the National Do-Not-Call Registry for at least 31 days at
any time between June 11, 2015 and December 3, 2020.

The Realogy class action settlement, if approved, will also cover
those in the United States who received to their residential
landline or cell phone number a call that used an artificial or
prerecorded message and was made by a Coldwell Banker-affiliated
real estate agent at any time during the same period.

The plaintiffs filed a motion detailing the terms of the agreement
with Realogy on January 20, 2025. It is now up to the court to
determine whether to grant preliminary approval to the robocall
settlement terms.

If the deal is initially approved, class members who submit a
timely, valid claim form may be eligible to receive a pro-rated
share of the $20,000,000 settlement fund, the agreement relays.

Consumers will be able to submit claim forms by mail or online
through the official settlement website once it is established.

According to the settlement agreement, class members who are unsure
of whether they qualify for the deal will be able to enter their
telephone number into the website to see if it is covered.

Per the agreement, each class member may receive a payout of
approximately $281.80 if the estimated 15-percent claims rate
proves accurate. The document notes that this figure will increase
or decrease based on the total number of claims that are submitted.
A second distribution to class members may occur, if
administratively feasible, should any money remain in the
settlement fund, court documents add.

Notice of the Realogy settlement will be mailed out and the
official website will be launched within 30 days following
preliminary approval of the deal, the agreement states. Class
members will then have 90 days from the date of mailing to file a
claim form, the document adds. [GN]

APPLE INC: Settles Watch Defective Battery Class Suit for $20-Mil.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Apple agreed to pay $20 million to
resolve claims that certain Apple Watch models are defective and
prone to damaging battery swelling.

The Apple Watch settlement benefits consumers who own or owned a
first-generation, Series 1, Series 2 or Series 3 Apple Watch and
are reflected in Apple's records as having reported
battery-swelling issues between April 24, 2015, and Feb. 6, 2024.

According to the class action lawsuit, Apple manufactures certain
Apple Watch models without enough internal space to compensate for
normal battery swelling. The battery swelling allegedly damages the
watch's screen and other components, resulting in costly repairs.

Apple is a technology company that sells products such as iPhones,
iPads, MacBooks and Apple Watches.

Apple hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to the $20 million
settlement to resolve the Apple Watch class action lawsuit.

Under the terms of the Apple Watch settlement, class members can
receive a cash payment for each covered device they own or owned.

Class members can receive $20 for each covered device or, if
necessary, a pro rata portion of the net settlement fund, which is
expected to be less than $20. If the net settlement fund exceeds
$50,000, then each class member could receive larger payments of up
to $50 for each covered device.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is Feb. 24, 2025.

The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for
April 10, 2025.

No claim form is required to benefit from the Apple Watch battery
settlement. However, class members should confirm their payment
information on the settlement website to ensure they receive a
payment. Class members who do not exclude themselves will
automatically receive settlement benefits.

Who's Eligible
Consumers who own or owned any model First Generation, Series 1,
Series 2 or Series 3 Apple Watch for personal and/or household use
and are reflected in Apple's records as having reported
battery-swelling issues between April 24, 2015, and Feb. 6, 2024

Potential Award
Up to $50

Proof of Purchase
N/A

Claim Form

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

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

Payment Selection Deadline
04/10/2025

Case Name
Smith, et al. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 4:21-cv-09527-HSG, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Final Hearing
04/10/2025

Settlement Website
WatchSettlement.com

Claims Administrator

     Angeion Group     
     1650 Arch St., Suite 2210
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     (800) 783-1227

Class Counsel

     Steven L Nicholas
     Lucy E Tufts
     CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS LLC

     Michael F Ram
     MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP

     Benjamin H Kilborn Jr
     KILBORN LAW LLC

Defense Counsel

     Erin M Bosman
     MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP [GN]

APPLE INC: Sport Bands Contain Toxic Chemicals, Cavalier Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
DOMINIQUE CAVALIER, and KILEY KRZYZEK, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. APPLE INC., Case No.
5:25-cv-00713 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 21, 2025) is a lawsuit brought by
the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated
consumers who purchased the Apple Watch Sport Band, Ocean Band, and
Nike Sport Band.

The Defendant advertises these Products as designed to support and
further human health and wellness, environmentally sustainable, and
suitable for everyday use and wear. However, in truth, they contain
excessive levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, which are
toxic to human health and the environment, the lawsuit contends.

PFAS, also known as "forever chemicals," have special
characteristics that cause extensive environmental contamination.
They have also been linked to various serious public health
problems, including prostate and kidney cancer, pregnancy
complications, and more. The elevated levels of PFAS present in
these Products are particularly hazardous given the intended
prolonged and direct skin contact and continuous wearing of
Defendant's Products -- all day or all night, every day, even
during exercise -- as directed by the Defendant to monitor
consumers' health, wellness, and sleep, the Plaintiffs aver.

In addition, the intended wearing of the watches on the underside
of the wrist, combined with body heat and thin layer of skin, makes
these toxic chemicals particularly prone to absorption, especially
where sweat can increase absorption rates.

Plaintiff Cavalier purchased the Apple Watch Series 3 GPS -- 33 mm
with the fluoroelastomer Sport Band for $182.10 from the Walmart
website on Dec. 1, 2021.

Plaintiff Krzyzek purchased the Apple Watch SE 2nd Gen 40mm with
the fluoroelastomer Sport Band at T-Mobile on June 26, 2024.

Apple is a smartwatch manufacturer.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
          Yana Hart, Esq.
          Mark Richards, 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
                  yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  mrichards@clarksonlawfirm.com

                - and -

          Benjamin F. Johns
          Samantha E. Holbrook
          SHUB JOHNS & HOLBROOK LLP
          Four Tower Bridge
          200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (610) 477-8380
          E-mail: bjohns@shublawyers.com
                  sholbrook@shublawyers.com

B. RILEY FINANCIAL: Faces Donaldson Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------
B. Riley Financial, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on January 16, 2025, that on May 2, 2024, a
putative class action was filed by Ted Donaldson in the Superior
Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles on behalf
of all persons who acquired the company's senior notes pursuant to
the shelf registration statement filed with the SEC on Form S-3
dated January 28, 2021, and the prospectuses filed and published on
August 4, 2021 and December 2, 2021.

The action asserts claims under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, against the company, certain of
the its officers and directors, and the underwriters of the Note
Offerings. The complaint alleged that defendants knew or should
have known that Freedom VCM Holdings, LLC CEO, Mr. Bryan Kahn was
engaged in illegal activities, including an alleged conspiracy to
commit fraud. The company has an equity investment in Freedom VCM.

On September 27, 2024, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
The amended complaint also asserts claims under Sections 11, 12,
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and alleges that
defendants knew or should have known that the risk to the company
from its investments in businesses affiliated with Mr. Kahn and
loans to Mr. Kahn and his affiliates was greater than disclosed in
the offering documents used in connection with the Note Offerings.

B. Riley Financial, Inc. and its subsidiaries provide investment
banking, brokerage, wealth management, asset management, direct
lending, business advisory, valuation and asset disposition
services to public and private companies, financial sponsors,
investors, financial institutions, legal and professional services
firms, and individuals.


BANK OF AMERICA: Taylor Sues Over Unlawful Sweep Program
--------------------------------------------------------
Brian Taylor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION and MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE,
FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, Case No. 1:25-cv-00709 (S.D.N.Y., Jan.
23, 2025), is brought to recover damages arising out of Defendants'
unlawful conduct related to the Merrill Lynch Bank Deposit Program
("Sweep Program") where the Defendants swept idle customer cash
into interest-bearing accounts at banks selected by, and affiliated
with, Defendants.

The cash sweep accounts were highly lucrative for Defendants and
their affiliate banks but paid unreasonably low, below-market
interest rates to customers. As such, Defendants used the Sweep
Program to generate massive revenue for themselves at the expense
of their customers. The Defendants' use of the Sweep Program to
enrich themselves by paying unreasonably low interest rates to
customers breached their fiduciary duties and contractual
obligations and violated several state and federal laws including
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO
Statute") and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 ("Advisers
Act").

Indeed, on January 17, 2025, the SEC announced that it had charged
Merrill with "willfully" violating the Advisers Act in connection
with the Sweep Program. The SEC found that Merrill "swept billions
of dollars in client cash into its Sweep Program annually," "earned
advisory fees on Sweep Program assets," and "was credited with
revenue from affiliated banking entities based in part on the
spread earned by banking affiliates on the Sweep Program." Despite
these "significant financial benefits" to Merrill and its banking
affiliates, "the yields advisory clients received from the [Sweep]
Program were often significantly lower than the yields clients
could have received had Merrill Lynch made other options available
as part of the cash sweep program."

As a result, the SEC determined that Merrill failed to adopt and
implement policies and procedures to consider their clients' best
interest when evaluating potential sweep options for cash held in
advisory accounts and to ensure that cash held in an advisory
account is properly managed by financial advisers consistent with a
client's investment profile. Merrill agreed to pay a civil penalty
of $25 million to settle the charges and undertook remedial actions
including increasing sweep interest rates paid to advisory clients,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff held a traditional brokerage account with Merrill.

Bank of America Corporation is a financial services company that
conducts business throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen R. Astley, Esq.
          Andrew T. Rees, Esq.
          Rene A. Gonzalez, Esq.
          Scott I. Dion, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Phone: 561/750-3000
          Email: sastley@rgrdlaw.com
                 arees@rgrdlaw.com
                 rgonzalez@rgrdlaw.com
                 sdion@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          Guri Ademi, Esq.
          ADEMI LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Phone: 414/482-8000
          Email: sademi@ademilaw.com
                 gademi@ademilaw.com

BLUE SKY: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, Cannon Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROLLIE CANNON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BLUE SKY CASINO, LLC d/b/a FRENCH LICK RESORT - CASINO,
Case No. 1:25-cv-00134-JMS-CSW (S.D. Ind., Jan. 21, 2025) alleges
that the Defendant failed to pay mandated federal minimum wage rate
for all hours worked and overtime for all hours worked over 40 in a
single workweek.

The suit says that the Defendant's timeclock rounding policy,
procedure, and practice is used in such a manner that it results,
over a period of time, in the failure to compensate its employees
properly for all time worked, resulting in minimum wage and
overtime violations.

The Defendant also failed to properly inform its tipped employees
of the required tip credit provisions prior to paying a sub-minimum
direct cash wage and, as a result, the Defendant may not claim a
tip credit, the suit adds.

Furthermore, the Defendant allegedly miscalculated its tipped
employees' regular rate of pay for overtime purposes by paying one
and one-half times the sub-minimum direct cash wage (as opposed to
the full minimum wage), which results in unpaid overtime
compensation.

The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, brings this lawsuit as: a collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, and (b) a Rule 23 class action under
Indiana state law, including the Indiana Wage Payment Statute.

Additionally, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act, on two separate theories. The
Plaintiff also brings these claims under the Indiana Civil Rights
Law.

The Plaintiff is 48 years old. From Oct. 16, 2006, through Aug. 2,
2024, the Defendant employed the Plaintiff at its casino property
located at 8670 West State Road 56, French Lick, Indiana, until the
Defendant terminated the Plaintiff for discriminatory reasons
related to his age.

The Defendant is a casino and hotel resort located in French Lick,
Indiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin K. McCormick, Esq.
          SDHMR LAW GROUP LLP
          215 South 10th Street
          Noblesville, IN 46060
          Telephone: (317) 550-5339
          E-mail: kevin@sdhmrlaw.com

                - and -

          Julia M. Keenan, Esq.
          SPITZER LAW P.C.
          1585 N. Milwaukee Ave., Ste. 114
          Libertyville, IL 60048
          Telephone: (224) 456-5635
          E-mail: julia@spitzerlawpc.com

BRIDGE PERSONNEL: Fails to Pay CSR's Minimum Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
LAKUSHA BUSH (f/k/a Lakusha Hamilton) v. BRIDGE PERSONNEL SERVICES
CORP., Case No. 4:25-cv-00049-P (N.D. Tex., Jan. 21, 2025) is a
class action arising from the Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff
all minimum wages owed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act,
and the Portal-to-Portal Pay Act.

The Plaintiff worked at least 40 hours for the Defendant during the
workweek starting on Monday, Jan. 6, 2025 and ending on Sunday,
January 12, 2025 (the "Subject Workweek"). The regularly scheduled
pay date for work performed during the Subject Workweek was Friday,
January 17, 2025.

However, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff any wages for
hours worked during the Subject Workweek on or before the Scheduled
Pay Date. As of the filing of this lawsuit, the Defendant has not
paid Plaintiff any wages for hours she worked during the Subject
Workweek, the suit alleges.

The Plaintiff seeks all damages allowed pursuant to the FLSA
including unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, reasonable
legal fees, costs, and post-judgment interest.

The Plaintiff was employed by as an hourly paid customer service
representative ("CSR") from Sept. 9, 2024 to Jan. 10, 2025.

The Defendant provides customer support services to businesses such
as call centers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
          VAUGHT FIRM, LLC
          1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (972) 707-7816
          Facsimile: (972) 591-4564
          E-mail: avaught@txlaborlaw.com

BROOKDALE SENIOR: Mismanages Retirement Plan, McDonald Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MONIQUE MCDONALD, individually and as a representative of a class
of similarly situated persons, on behalf of the BROOKDALE SENIOR
LIVING, INC. 401(K) RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN, Plaintiff v. BROOKDALE
SENIOR LIVING, INC., the RETIREMENT COMMITTEE of BROOKDALE, and
DOES NO. 1-10, whose names are currently unknown, Defendants, Case
No. 3:25-cv-00094 (M.D. Tenn., January 24, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties established
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, violation of
ERISA's anti-inurement provision, and self-dealing and prohibited
transactions under ERISA.

The case arises from the Defendants' wrongful use, for their own
benefit, of assets in their employees' retirement plan. According
to the complaint, the Defendants used forfeited Plan assets to
reduce Brookdale's employer contribution obligations, rather than
for the benefit of Plan participants, in violation of the
Defendants' fiduciary responsibilities and several provisions of
ERISA. The Plaintiff seeks damages and other appropriate relief in
connection with the Defendants' wrongful conduct in misusing
forfeited Plan assets for their own benefit.

Brookdale Senior Living, Inc. is a company that owns and operates
retirement homes and assisted living facilities across the United
States, headquartered in Brentwood, Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
         Michael C. Iadevaia, Esq.
         STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
         The Freedom Center
         223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
         Nashville, TN 37203
         Telephone: (615) 254-8801
         Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
         Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
                miadevaia@stranchlaw.com

                 - and -

         James E. Miller, Esq.
         Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
         MILLER SHAH LLP
         65 Main Street
         Chester, CT 06412
         Telephone: (866) 540-5505
         Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
         Email: jemiller@millershah.com
                lrubinow@millershah.com

                 - and -

         Alec J. Berin, Esq.
         MILLER SHAH LLP
         1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (866) 540-5505
         Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
         Email: ajberin@millershah.com

CALIFORNIA: Graciano-Martinez Files Petition for Writ of Mandamus
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ADILENE GRACIANO-MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, filed on January 13, 2025, a request for writ
of mandamus and/or prohibition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, under Case No. 25-213, seeking a review of the
ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California in the case captioned Adilene Graciano-Martinez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, vs.
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Los Angeles, Case Nos. 2:24-cv-09120-GW-MAA. [BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner ADILENE GRACIANO-MARTINEZ, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by:

        Thomas D. Warren, Esq.
        WARREN TERZIAN LLP
        30799 Pinetree Road, Suite 345
        Pepper Pike, OH 44124

Defendant-Respondent UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES, is represented by:

          Adil M. Khan, Esq.
          Robert James Herrington, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          1840 Century Park, E. Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067

CAPITAL ONE: Ferrell Sues Over Banking Service Disruption
---------------------------------------------------------
RANDY FERRELL, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, a Virginia corporation, CAPITAL ONE, N.A., a Virginia
corporation, and CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A., a Virginia
corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00091 (E.D. Va., January
18, 2025) seeks damages and injunctive relief based upon the
unlawful conduct of Defendants in denying account holders the
ability to obtain funds in their accounts and in misappropriating
funds held in the Capital One accounts.

On or about January 16, 2025, Capital One sent e-mail notice to all
of its customers, of a system issue impacting deposits, payments,
and transfers. The service disruption began on January 15, 2025 and
was caused by a technical issue with one of their service
providers. However, the Plaintiff's loss of access to his account
lasted longer than the expected. As a result, Plaintiff was not
able pay his household bills, resulting in late fees being
assessed. The Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendants' unlawful
conduct and asserts claims for negligence, breach of contract, and
conversion.

Headquartered in Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. and Capital One,
N.A., offer an array of financial products and services to
consumers, small businesses, and commercial clients, including
credit cards. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Steven T. Webster, Esq.
           WEBSTER BOOK LLP
           2300 Wilson Blvd., Suite 728
           Arlington, VA 22201
           Telephone: (888) 987-9991
           E-mail: swebster@websterbook.com

                   - and -

           John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
           MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
           201 North Franklin Street 7th Floor
           Tampa, FL 33602
           Telephone: (813) 223-5505
           E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com

CAREWELL FAMILY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Young Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LESHAWN YOUNG, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated v. CAREWELL FAMILY, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00626
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 21, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://www.carewell.com/, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons, under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on
Jan. 13, 2025, in an attempt to purchase Mabis Mattress
Cover-Washable and to view the information on the Website, the
Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied her a
shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full
and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public
and made available to the public, the suit says.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer
frustration and humiliation as a result of the deceptive or
misleading acts on Defendant's Website. These acts continue to
contribute to Plaintiff's sense of isolation and segregation and
the Plaintiff is thereby damaged.

The Plaintiff 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.

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

Carewell offers caregiving products & medical supplies, bedding,
and personal care.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

CDK GLOBAL: Settles Antitrust Class Action Suit for $630-Mil.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Scarcella, writing for Reuters, reports that automotive
technology giant CDK Global has agreed to pay $630 million to
settle antitrust claims that it caused hundreds of software vendors
to overpay for vehicle dealership data by restricting access.

The proposed settlement, opens new tab, filed on January 27, Monday
night, in a federal court in Madison, Wisconsin, requires a judge's
approval.

The company denied any wrongdoing in agreeing to settle.

Austin, Texas-based CDK, owned by Brookfield Business Partners
(BBU.N), opens new tab, sells software platforms auto dealers use
to run their daily sales, financing and service operations.

Tech vendor AutoLoop and other companies included in the settlement
create apps for the dealers' management systems for inventory
management, repair orders, warranty services and other functions.

AutoLoop sued CDK in 2018, accusing it of cutting off access to
auto dealer systems and driving up prices vendors pay to access
data for their apps. A judge certified the case as a class action
in July.

CDK chief executive Brian MacDonald said in a statement the company
"felt it was time to bring this long-standing litigation to a
conclusion" and that the settlement would have no impact on its
business.

The vendors had indicated they would seek damages of $490 million
at a trial previously scheduled for this week. A jury award could
have been tripled under antitrust law.

The vendors who brought the class action include 243 companies that
purchased data integration services since October 2013 from CDK or
one of its rivals, Reynolds & Reynolds, which is not a defendant.

Lawyers for AutoLoop and other members of the class action at
Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick called the settlement
"extraordinary" in a statement and said it stemmed from "years of
hard-fought litigation." They said they would ask the court for
about $200 million in legal fees. [GN]

CENTURY THEATRES: Narayan Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Latishma Narayan, and others similarly situated
v. CENTURY THEATRES, INC.; CINEMARK USA, INC.; CINEMARK; US101
CENTURY THEATRES INC.; CINEARTS; TINSELTOWN; RAVE CINEMAS; and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 24-CIV-08145 was removed from the
Superior Court of San Mateo County, California, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on Jan. 24,
2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00841.

The Plaintiff alleges Defendants had a "consistent policy of
failing to pay Employees for all hours worked." The Plaintiff
alleges that class members "regularly worked shifts greater than
five (5) hours and greater than 10 hours" and "were consistently
denied" meal periods. The Plaintiff alleges that "Defendants had a
consistent policy of not paying Employees wages for all hours
worked including time off the clock working 'pre shift' and
'post-shift' without compensation by completing tasks before
clocking in and after clocking out, waiting in line to access time
clocks in order to clock in at the start of shifts, and being
required to respond to phone calls and texts received while
off-the-clock." The Plaintiff's Eighth Cause of
Action alleges failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements
in writing to class members.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Emily Burkhardt Vicente, Esq.
          M. Brett Burns, Esq.
          UNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
          50 California Street, Suite 1700
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: 415-975-3700
          Facsimile: 415-975-3701
          Email: ebvicente@huntonak.com
                 mbrettburns@huntonak.com


CERIDA INVESTMENTS: White Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cerida Investments
Corp. The case is styled as Anthony White, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Cerida Investments Corp., Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2025-0001085 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Jan.
23, 2025).

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

Cerida Investment Corp. doing business as AnswerNet --
https://answernet.com/ -- is a tech-enabled contact center
outsourcing company, providing inbound, outbound, automated, BPO,
and AI services..[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Nourmand, Esq.
          THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM APC
          8822 W Olympic Blvd.
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3614
          Phone: 310-553-3600
          Fax: 310-553-3603
          Email: mnourmand@nourmandlawfirm.com


CHRYSLER PACIFICA: Seeks to Defer Class Cert Briefing Deadlines
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Chrysler Pacifica Fire Recall
Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 2:22-cv-03040-DML-EAS (E.D.
Mich.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order deferring
the briefing deadlines for Plaintiffs' anticipated motion for class
certification, primarily considering

    (i) the Sixth Circuit's rehearing of Speerly v. Gen. Motors,
        LLC, No. 23-1940 (6th Cir.),

   (ii) FCA US's planned motion for summary judgment (to be filed
        within thirty days of the Court's Jan. 22, 2025 order on
        FCA US's motion to dismiss), and

  (iii) the Sixth Circuit's determination of the pending appeal
        arising from FCA US's motion to compel arbitration.

On behalf of a putative nationwide class and many state subclasses
consisting of model-year 2017-2018 Chrysler Pacifica hybrid vehicle
purchasers and lessees, the Plaintiffs assert fraud, consumer
protection, breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment claims
against FCA US premised on allegations of defective high-voltage
battery packs in those vehicle.

Crysler offers the Pacifica with a 287-hp V-6 engine as well as a
260-hp plug-in hybrid that trades some power for efficiency.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 22, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=o8Wukg at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Stephen A. D'Aunoy, Esq.
          Thomas L. Azar, Jr., Esq.
          Scott H. Morgan, Esq.
          Fred J. Fresard, Esq.
          Ian K. Edwards, Esq.
          Brandon L. Boxler, Esq.
          KLEIN THOMAS LEE & FRESARD
          100 N. Broadway, Ste. 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 888-2970
          E-mail: sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com
                  tazar@thompsoncoburn.com
                  smorgan@thompsoncoburn.com
                  red.fresard@kleinthomaslaw.com
                  ian.edwards@kleinthomaslaw.com
                  brandon.boxler@kleinthomaslaw.com

COMMUNITY CLINIC: Curimao Files Suit in D. Hawaii
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Community Clinic of
Maui, Inc. The case is styled as Fred Curimao, on behalf of his
minor child J.C., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Community Clinic of Maui, Inc. doing business
as: Malama I Ke Ola Health Center, Case No. 1:25-cv-00030-DKW-KJM
(D. Haw., Jan. 24, 2025).

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury Medical
Malpractice.

Community Clinic of Maui Inc. doing business as Malama I Ke Ola
Health Center -- https://www.ccmaui.org/ -- provides healthcare
services. The Company provides primary health care, dental, health
promotion, and disease prevention services to resident.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Margery S. Bronster, Esq.
          Robert M. Hatch, Esq.
          BRONSTER FUJICHAKU ROBBINS
          Pauahi Tower
          1003 Bishop St, Ste 2300
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Phone: 524-5644
          Fax: 599-1881
          Email: mbronster@bfrhawaii.com
                 rhatch@bfrhawaii.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Cheyne Isao Yong Yonemori, Esq.
          DAMON KEY LEONG KUPCHAK HASTERT
          1003 Bishop Street, Suite 1600
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Phone: (808) 531-8031
          Fax: (808) 533-2242
          Email: cheyne@tanakalegal.com

               - and -

          Joji George Hetherington, Esq.
          YAMAMOTO CALIBOSO HETHERINGTON
          1100 Alakea Street, Suite 3100
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Phone: (808) 540-4504
          Fax: (808) 540-4530
          Email: ghetherington@ychawaii.com


COMMUNITY CLINIC: Jones Files Suit in D. Hawaii
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Community Clinic of
Maui, Inc. The case is styled as Joshua Roske Jones, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Community Clinic
of Maui, Inc. doing business as: Malama I Ke Ola Health Center,
Case No. 1:25-cv-00032-LEK-WRP (D. Haw., Jan. 24, 2025).

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury Medical
Malpractice.

Community Clinic of Maui Inc. doing business as Malama I Ke Ola
Health Center -- https://www.ccmaui.org/ -- provides healthcare
services. The Company provides primary health care, dental, health
promotion, and disease prevention services to resident.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Margery S. Bronster, Esq.
          Robert M. Hatch, Esq.
          BRONSTER FUJICHAKU ROBBINS
          Pauahi Tower
          1003 Bishop St, Ste 2300
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Phone: 524-5644
          Fax: 599-1881
          Email: mbronster@bfrhawaii.com
                 rhatch@bfrhawaii.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Cheyne Isao Yong Yonemori, Esq.
          DAMON KEY LEONG KUPCHAK HASTERT
          1003 Bishop Street, Suite 1600
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Phone: (808) 531-8031
          Fax: (808) 533-2242
          Email: cheyne@tanakalegal.com

               - and -

          Joji George Hetherington, Esq.
          YAMAMOTO CALIBOSO HETHERINGTON
          1100 Alakea Street, Suite 3100
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Phone: (808) 540-4504
          Fax: (808) 540-4530
          Email: ghetherington@ychawaii.com

COMMUNITY CLINIC: Parry Files Suit in D. Hawaii
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Community Clinic of
Maui, Inc. The case is styled as Suzette Parry, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Community Clinic of
Maui, Inc. doing business as: Malama I Ke Ola Health Center, Case
No. 1:25-cv-00033-JMS-RT (D. Haw., Jan. 24, 2025).

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury Medical
Malpractice.

Community Clinic of Maui Inc. doing business as Malama I Ke Ola
Health Center -- https://www.ccmaui.org/ -- provides healthcare
services. The Company provides primary health care, dental, health
promotion, and disease prevention services to resident.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Margery S. Bronster, Esq.
          Robert M. Hatch, Esq.
          BRONSTER FUJICHAKU ROBBINS
          Pauahi Tower
          1003 Bishop St, Ste 2300
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Phone: 524-5644
          Fax: 599-1881
          Email: mbronster@bfrhawaii.com
                 rhatch@bfrhawaii.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Cheyne Isao Yong Yonemori, Esq.
          DAMON KEY LEONG KUPCHAK HASTERT
          1003 Bishop Street, Suite 1600
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Phone: (808) 531-8031
          Fax: (808) 533-2242
          Email: cheyne@tanakalegal.com

               - and -

          Joji George Hetherington, Esq.
          YAMAMOTO CALIBOSO HETHERINGTON
          1100 Alakea Street, Suite 3100
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Phone: (808) 540-4504
          Fax: (808) 540-4530
          Email: ghetherington@ychawaii.com


CRESCENT HOTELS: Ritchie Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CRESCENT HOTELS &
RESORTS, LLC. The case is styled as Jake Ritchie, an individual and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CRESCENT HOTELS &
RESORTS, LLC, Case No. 25STCV01864 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., Jan. 23, 2025).

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

Crescent Hotels & Resorts -- https://www.crescenthotels.com/ -- is
more than a management company and portfolio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
          BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1460 Westwood Blvd.
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: 310-438-5555
          Fax: 310-300-1705
          Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert David Wilson, Esq.
          WILSON LAW
          5173 Waring Rd. Ste. A Pmb 70
          San Diego, CA 92120-2705
          Phone: 858-833-8611
          Email: wilsonesq3@gmail.com


DAVE INC: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Franklin Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
DAVE, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order denying its
motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings in the lawsuit
entitled Shamia Franklin, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Dave, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-00687-ADC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendant for violation of the Consumer Loan
Law (Count I) and the Consumer Protection Act (Count II).

On Oct. 29, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to compel
arbitration and to stay proceeding, which Magistrate Judge A. David
Copperthite denied on Dec. 10, 2024. The Court concluded that the
arbitration agreement pages failed to provide the Plaintiff with
reasonable notice that she was agreeing to arbitrate any potential
claims she may have against Dave. Other interactions with the
Plaintiff, whether they be emails or financial transactions, also
fail to show that the Defendant conveyed proper notice to the
Plaintiff, the Court ruled.

The appellate case is captioned Shamia Franklin v. Dave, Inc., Case
No. 25-1035, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit, filed on January 13, 2025. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee SHAMIA FRANKLIN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Kevin Joseph Abramowicz, Esq.
          Kevin William Tucker, Esq.
          EAST END TRIAL GROUP, LLC
          6901 Lynn Way
          Pittsburgh, PA 15208
          Telephone: (412) 223-5740
                     (412) 877-5220

                  - and -
          
          Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD, LLP
          412 H. Street, NE
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 407-3520

Defendant-Appellant DAVE, INC. is represented by:

          Allyson Baker, Esq.
          HELLER & EHRMAN, LLP
          1717 Rhode Island Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20036

                  - and -
          
          Mark S. Saudek, Esq.
          Victoria S. Trocchia, Esq.
          GALLAGHER EVELIUS & JONES, LLP
          218 North Charles Street
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 347-1365

                  - and -
          
          Sameer P. Sheikh, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          2050 M. Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 551-1700

DIVIDEND SOLAR: Martinez Suit Moved From E.D.N.C. to D. Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled STACY MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. DIVIDEND SOLAR FINANCE, LLC, Case No.
7:24-cv-01206, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota on January 24, 2025.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Minnesota assigned Case No.
0:25-cv-00276-KMM-DTS to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Truth
in Lending Act and state consumer protection laws by failing to
disclose the existence of a hidden fee it retained as part of the
financing of residential solar panel systems.

Dividend Solar Finance, LLC is a finance company, with its
principal place of business in San Francisco County, California.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
               
      Eric Richardson, Esq.
      ER LAW
      106 N. Elm Street, Suite 100
      Greensboro, NC 27401
      Telephone: (336) 904-9000
      Facsimile: (336) 579-9531
      Email: eric@erlaw-nc.com

              - and -

      Brad Ponder, Esq.
      PONDER LEGAL GROUP
      3221 M. Street, NW, Upper Floor
      Washington, DC 20007
      Telephone: (888) 201-0305
      Facsimile: (202) 988-2135
      Email: brad@ponderlegalgroup.com

              - and -

      Luke Montgomery, Esq.
      MONTGOMERY LAW FIRM, LLC
      2226 1st Avenue South, Unit 105
      Birmingham, AL 35233
      Telephone: (205) 201-0303
      Facsimile: (205) 288-9431
      Email: luke@montgomeryponder.com

DUBAI ISLAMIC: O'Neill Estate Appeals Judgment to 2nd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------
ESTATE OF JOHN P. O'NEILL, SR., on behalf of John P. O'Neill, Sr.,
deceased, and on behalf of decedent's heirs-at-law, et al. is
taking an appeal from a court order dismissing its lawsuit entitled
In Re: Terrorist Attack on September 11, 2001, Case No.
1:03-md-1570, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

The lawsuit brings personal injury claims in connection with the
Terrorist Attack on September 11, 2001.

On Jan. 6, 2025, Judge George B. Daniels entered an Order
dismissing all remaining claims against Defendant Dubai Islamic
Bank in the Court's Order dated March 9, 2023. The Court held that
there is no just reason to delay the entry of a partial final
judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b)
dismissing the Defendant.

The appellate case is In Re: Terrorist Attack on September 11,
2001, Case No. 25-108, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, filed on January 15, 2025. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants ESTATE OF JOHN P. O'NEILL, SR., on behalf of
John P. O'Neill, Sr., deceased, and on behalf of decedent's
heirs-at-law, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Jerry S. Goldman, Esq.
          ANDERSON KILL P.C.
          7 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036

E BENEFIT SOLUTION: Ugarte Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
-------------------------------------------------------------
Juliette Ugarte, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. E BENEFIT SOLUTION, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00400
(E.D.N.Y., Jan. 23, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its
failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class
Members' personally identifiable information ("PII") including
Social Security numbers (collectively, "Private Information").

On December 10, 2024, Defendant discovered that certain files
containing personal information were accessed and/or acquired by an
unauthorized party, causing widespread injuries to Plaintiff and
Class Members (the "Data Breach"). The Plaintiff and Class Members
are current and former who, in order to obtain employment from
Defendant's clients, 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 relationship
has ended.

Businesses like Defendant that handle Private Information owe the
individuals to whom that data relates a duty to adopt reasonable
measures to protect such information from disclosure to
unauthorized third parties, and to keep it safe and confidential.
This duty arises under contract, statutory and common law, industry
standards, representations made to Plaintiff and Class Members, and
because it is foreseeable that the exposure of Private Information
to unauthorized persons--and especially hackers with nefarious
intentions--will harm the affected individuals, including but not
limited to by the invasion of their personal information.

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 Private Information from Defendant's care, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff is an employee of the Defendant's clients.

The Defendant is an employee benefits provider who services clients
across the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          Steven Sukert, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
          One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 332-4200
          Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                 sukert@kolawyers.com


ELANCO ANIMAL: Conspires to Raise Imidacloprid Prices, Kraus Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN KRAUS-SILFEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH, INC.; CHEWY,
INC.; PETCO HEALTH AND WELLNESS COMPANY, INC.; PETMED EXPRESS,
INC.; TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY, and PETSMART, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 1:25-cv-00168-JMS-MJD (S.D. Ind., January 24, 2025) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 1 and 2 of
the Sherman Antitrust Act.

The case arises from the alleged conspiracy among Elanco and the
Retailer Defendants to raise, fix, maintain and stabilize prices
for Imidacloprid topicals, and to maintain monopoly power in the
market. These agreements promise to pay higher margins to the
Retailer Defendants on the sale of Imidacloprid products if and
only if they refuse to carry lower-cost generic alternatives. As a
result of the Defendants' price-fixing and monopolization scheme,
the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers paid significantly
more for Imidacloprid products than they would have paid in the
absence of the conspiracy, says the suit.

Elanco Animal Health, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company, with its
principal place of business in Greenfield, Indiana.

Chewy, Inc. is a retailer, with its principal place of business in
Plantation, Florida.

Petco Health and Wellness Company, Inc. is a retailer, with its
principal place of business located in San Diego, California.

PetMed Express, Inc. is a retailer, with its principal place of
business located in Delray Beach, Florida.

Tractor Supply Company is a retailer, with its principal place of
business located in Brentwood, Tennessee.

PetSmart, Inc. is a retailer, with its principal place of business
located in Phoenix, Arizona. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq.
       Edward B. Mulligan, Esq.
       COHEN MALAD, LLP
       One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
       Indianapolis, IN 46204
       Telephone: (317) 636-6481
       Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
       Email: sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com
              nmulligan@cohenmalad.com

               - and -

       Israel David, Esq.
       Adam M. Harris, Esq.
       ISRAEL DAVID LLC
       17 State Street, Suite 4010
       New York, NY 10004
       Telephone: (212) 739-0622
       Email: israel.david@davidllc.com
              adam.harris@davidllc.com

               - and -

       Jennifer Czeisler, Esq.
       Edward Ciolko, Esq.
       Arturo Pena Miranda, Esq.
       STERLINGTON, PLLC
       One World Trade Center, 85th Floor
       New York, NY 10007
       Telephone: (929) 709-1493
       Email: jen.czeisler@sterlingtonlaw.com
              ed.ciolko@sterlingtonlaw.com
              arturo.pena@sterlingtonlaw.com

ELSEVIER INC: Discloses Subscribers' Info to 3rd Party, Nguyen Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KIMSA NGUYEN and DAVID GARCIA, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ELSEVIER INC., Defendant,
Case No. 5:25-cv-00825 (N.D. Cal., January 24, 2025) is a class
action against the Defendant for violation of the Video Privacy
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant discloses with a
third-party services provider, Intercom, the personally
identifiable information of its subscribers, including full names,
email address, and private viewing information, without their
consent. Through the use of Intercom's cookies and scripts
installed on the Defendant's website, Osmosis.org, when free or
premium subscribers watch video content on Osmosis, the Defendant
discloses to Intercom, in a single transmission, inter alia, (a)
the title of the video, (b) the subscriber's full name, and (c) the
subscriber's email address. The Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the
Defendant's unlawful behavior, and to recover compensation for
themselves and others similarly aggrieved.

Elsevier, Inc. is a global provider of scientific, technical, and
medical information products and services, with its principal place
of business in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
       Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
       Melanie R. Monroe, Esq.
       Trevor Flynn, Esq.
       Peter Grazul, Esq.
       Allison Ferraro, Esq.
       FITZGERALD MONROE FLYNN PC
       2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200
       San Diego, CA 92110
       Telephone: (619) 215-1741
       Email: jfitzgerald@fmfpc.com
              mmonroe@fmfpc.com
              tflynn@fmfpc.com
              pgrazul@fmfpc.com
              aferraro@fmfpc.com

EQUAL EXCHANGE: Parties Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRYSTAL RODRIGUEZ, on
behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general
public, v. EQUAL EXCHANGE, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00055-AGS-SBC
(S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting a
45-day continuance of the Plaintiff's deadline to move for class
certification, to March 17, 2025.

The parties have previously sought, and the Court granted, one
previous request to continue Plaintiff's deadline to move for class
certification.

Because the Court's scheduling order is only through class
certification, this extension will not affect any other deadlines
set by Court order.

On June 21, 2024, the Court entered a Scheduling Order Through
Deadline to File Motion for Class Certification, which set an
October 25, 2024, deadline for Plaintiff to file her motion for
class certification.

On Oct. 4, 2024, the parties informed the Court that, while
discovery was proceeding, it was not expected to be completed in
time for the Plaintiff to file her class certification motion and
filed a joint motion asking the Court to continue the deadline for
her to do so.

The parties' joint motion was granted and the deadline for
Plaintiff to move for class certification was continued to January
31, 2024.

The parties have continued to diligently try to complete discovery
in this matter, including written discovery and Defendant
completing production on Oct. 29, 2024.

Equal Exchange is a for-profit, Fairtrade worker-owned
cooperative.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 22, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DZtytX at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
          Melanie Monroe, Esq.
          Trevor Flynn, Esq.
          Peter Grazul, Esq.
          FITZGERALD MONROE FLYNN PC
          2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 215-1741
          E-mail: jfitzgerald@fmfpc.com
                  mmonroe@fmfpc.com
                  tflynn@fmfpc.com
                  pgrazul@fmfpc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David D. Samani, Esq.
          Patrik Johansson, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 250-1800
          Facsimile: (213) 250-7900
          E-mail: David.Samani@lewisbrisbois.com
                  Patrik.Johansson@lewisbrisbois.com

FP NUTRACEUTICALS: Delgado Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FP NUTRACEUTICALS,
LLC. The case is styled as Carlos Delgado, an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. FP NUTRACEUTICALS, LLC,
Case No. 25STCV01573 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 21,
2025).

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

FP NUTRACEUTICALS, LLC doing business as FoodPharma --
https://foodpharma.com/ -- specializing in leading-edge,
plant-based, food-form delivery systems with ongoing innovations in
food science and nutrient delivery.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
          BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1460 Westwood Blvd.
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: 310-438-5555
          Fax: 310-300-1705
          Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert David Wilson, Esq.
          WILSON LAW
          5173 Waring Rd. Ste. A, Pmb 70
          San Diego, CA 92120-2705
          Phone: 858-833-8611
          Email: robert@wilsonesquire.com


FRANKLIN STREET: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Toroche Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
JULIO TOROCHE, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FRANKLIN STREET CAR WASH LLC, ALFREDO LOPEZ
and MARTIN "DOE", Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00617 (D.N.J.,
January 19, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and
overtime compensation for Plaintiff pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a salesperson from
March 2024 until December 25, 2024. He was paid at a rate of $8.87
per hour throughout his employment. Despite regularly working
approximately 67 hours per week, the Plaintiff was not compensated
at the statutory overtime rate of one and one-half times his
regular hourly rate for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.

Based in Belleville, NJ, Franklin Street Car Wash LLC offers car
cleaning services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lina Stillman, Esq.
          STILLMAN LEGAL P.C
          42 Broadway, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 203-2417

GREATBANC TRUST: Randall Wins Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARYNE RANDALL, SCOTT KUHN,
and PETER MORRISSEY, on behalf of the Wells Fargo & Company 401(k)
Plan and a class of similarly situated participants of the Plan, v.
GREATBANC TRUST COMPANY, WELLS FARGO & CO., and TIMOTHY J. SLOAN,
Case No. 0:22-cv-02354-LMP-SGE (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge Laura
Provinzino entered an order that:

   1. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment
      of class counsel is granted.

   2. The following class is certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23:

      "All participants in the Wells Fargo & Co. 401(k) Plan from
      Sept. 27, 2016 to Dec. 30, 2022, who held any portion of
      their Plan accounts, at any time during the Class Period, in

      the Wells Fargo ESOP Fund."

      Excluded from the class are individual Defendants,
      individual Defendants' beneficiaries, individual Defendants'
      immediate families, and officers and directors of Wells
      Fargo.
   3. Plaintiffs Aryne Randall, Peter Morrissey, and Scott Kuhn
      are appointed as class representatives.

   4. Plaintiffs' counsel Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow LLP;

      Nichols Kaster, PLLP; and Bailey & Glasser LLP are appointed

      as class counsel.

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs' claims may properly be
resolved in a class action and, therefore, certification of a class
is appropriate.

The Plaintiffs assert that by using this excess dividend income to
defray Wells Fargo's employer matching contributions, Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to the Plan participants and
engaged in prohibited transactions under ERISA.

The Plaintiffs were former employees of Defendant Wells Fargo & Co.
and participants in a 401(k)/Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the
"Plan") established by Wells Fargo.

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

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 22, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HsgWVV at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

                - and -

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

                - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          David Lurie, Esq.
          Roger H. Stetson, Esq.
          Nicholas H. Callahan, Esq.
          BARACK FERRAZZANO KIRSCHBAUM & NAGELBERG
          Chicago, IL

                - and -

          Kiera Murphy, Esq.
          FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          Minneapolis, MN

                - and -

          Myron D. Rumeld, Esq.
          Russell Laurence Hirschhorn, Esq.
          Joseph Emanuel Clark, Esq.
          Sydney Juliano, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          New York, NY

JORIKI USA INC: Moyles Files Suit in D. Delaware
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Joriki USA Inc. The
case is styled as Robert Moyles, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Joriki USA Inc., Case No. 25-50017-LSS
(D. Del., Jan. 23, 2025).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. - Recovery of
Money/Property.

Joriki -- https://www.jorikiinc.com/ -- has been servicing the
beverage contract packaging needs of North America for over 20
years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan E. Carreon, Esq.
          Eric J. Monzo, Esq.
          MORRIS JAMES LLP
          500 Delaware Ave., Suite 1500
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 888-6800
          Email: rcarreon@morrisjames.com
                 emonzo@morrisjames.com

               - and -

          Philip C. Hearn, Esq.
          HEARN LAW FIRM, PLLC
          P.O. Box 5009
          Jackson, MS 39296
          Phone: (601) 720-3541
          Email: philiphearn@yahoo.com

               - and -

          William "Jack" Simpson, Esq.
          SIMPSON, PLLC
          100 South Main Street
          Booneville, MS 38829-0382
          Phone: (662) 913-7811
          Fax: (662) 728-1992
          Email: jack@simpson-pllc.com


JW LEE: Lopez Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Club Entertainers
-----------------------------------------------------------
DANA LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JW LEE INC. d/b/a SCARLETT'S CABARETT and
ERIC LANGAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-20367 (S.D. Fla., January
24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to
pay minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Florida Constitution.

The Plaintiff worked as an entertainer for the Defendants in
Florida from 2011 through September 2023.

JW Lee Inc., doing business as Scarlett's Cabarett, is a club owner
and operator, located in Opa-Locka, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         T'Keara N. Watson, Esq.
         Anthony Hall, Esq.
         THE LEACH FIRM, P.A.
         1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600
         Winter Park, FL 32789
         Telephone: (407) 574-4999
         Facsimile: (833) 813-7513
         Email: twatson@theleachfirm.com
                ahall@theleachfirm.com

LAKEVIEW LOAN: Morrill Seeks to File Class Cert Bid Under Seal
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Morrill v. Lakeview Loan
Servicing, LLC (re LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING DATA BREACH LITIGATION),
Case No. 1:22-cv-20955-DPG (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order granting their unopposed motion to file the
motion for class certification under seal and for the Defendants to
file their response to the motion for class certification under
seal.

The Court's Fourth Amended Scheduling Order states that Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification shall be filed on Jan. 31, 2025.

Some information anticipated to be referenced in the forthcoming
Motion for Class Certification as well as in the Defendants'
anticipated Response to the same was designated "CONFIDENTIAL"
and/or "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL" by the parties pursuant to the
Stipulated Protective Order during the course of litigation of this
matter.

In an effort to preserve the confidential nature of the statements
contained in the proposed pleading and as the parties have done in
prior pleadings, the Plaintiffs request leave to file the motion
for class certification redacted on the public docket and once
again unredacted under seal.

The Defendants do not oppose this Motion so long as it is
reciprocal; therefore, Plaintiffs also respectfully seek leave for
the Defendants' Response to the Motion for Class Certification to
be filed redacted on the public docket and once again unredacted
under seal.

The Plaintiffs request that the materials remain sealed until entry
of further Order of the Court.

Lakeview Loan operates as a mortgage finance company.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 21, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lTGvHB at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Julie Braman Kane, Esq.
          COLSON HICKS EIDSON
          255 Alhambra Circle – Penthouse
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 476-7400
          Facsimile: (305) 476-7444
          E-mail: julie@colson.com

                - and -

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX
          LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
                  rmcgee@ForThePeople.com

                - and -

          Adam E. Polk, Esq.
          Simon Grille, Esq.
          Jordan Isern, Esq.
          Kristen Palumbo, Esq.
          GIRARD SHARP LLP
          601 California St, Ste 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          E-mail: apolk@girardsharp.com
                  jelias@girardsharp.com
                  sgrille@girardsharp.com
                  kmacey@girardsharp.com

                - and -

          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          Dorothy P. Antullis, Esq.
          Nicolle B. Brito, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
          & DOWD LLP
          225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          Facsimile: (561) 750-3364 (fax)
          E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
                  dantullis@rgrdlaw.com
                  nbrito@rgrdlaw.com

                - and -

          M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
          Gregory Haroutunian, Esq.
          CLAYEO C. ARNOLD,
          A PROFESSIONAL CORP.
          865 Howe Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Telephone: (916) 777-7777
          Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
          E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com
                  gharoutunian@justice4you.com

                - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          David K. Lietz, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          227 Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (866) 252-0878
          E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
                  dlietz@milberg.com

                - and -

          Ryan D. Maxey, Esq.
          MAXEY LAW FIRM, P.A.
          107 North 11th Street, Suite 402
          Tampa, FL 33602
          E-mail: ryan@maxeyfirm.com

                - and -

          Terry R. Coates, Esq.
          Dylan J. Gould, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK &
          DEMARCO, LLC
          119 E. Court Street, Suite 530
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 651-3700
          Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
          E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com
                  dgould@msdlegal.com

                - and -

          Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
          GEORGE GESTEN MCDONALD, PLLC
          102 Half Moon Bay Drive
          Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520
          Telephone: (917) 983-9321
          Facsimile: (888) 421-4173
          E-mail: LFeldman@4-Justice.com

                - and -

          Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
          THE LYON FIRM, LLC
          2754 Erie Avenue
          Cincinnati, OH 45208
          Telephone: (513) 381-2333
          E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com

LILIPUT AND CO: Henry Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
CONSTANCE HENRY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LILIPUT AND CO., LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-00828 (N.D. Ill., January 24, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, declaratory relief, and negligent infliction
of emotional distress.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.shabbychic.com, contains access barriers which hinder
the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, ambiguous link texts,
empty links that contain no text, inaccessible contact information,
the lack of adequate labeling of form fields, and the requirement
that transactions be performed solely with a mouse.

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

Liliput and Co., LLC is a company that sells online goods and
services in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       David Reyes, Esq.
       ASHER COHEN LAW PLLC
       2377 56th Dr.
       Brooklyn, NY 11234
       Telephone: (630)-478-0856
       Email: dreyes@ashercohenlaw.com

MDL 2262: OTC Plaintiffs Allowed to File Exhibits Under Seal
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Re: Libor-Based Financial Instruments
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:11-md-02262-NRB (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald entered an order granting request
permission to file under seal OTC Plaintiffs' memorandum of law,
declaration, and exhibits submitted in opposition to Bank of
America and JPMorgan's motion to decertify the OTC Class and in
further support of Plaintiffs' motion to certify class as to Credit
Suisse, RBS, and UBS.

The filings include materials that have been designated as
Confidential or Highly Confidential pursuant to the Amended
Stipulation and Protective Order dated May 12, 2016.

Consistent with Your Honor's Sept. 27, 2024, Order, by Feb. 4,
2025, OTC Plaintiffs will file a public set of all materials
submitted in connection with these motions.

The Plaintiffs are delivering courtesy copies of the sealed filings
to Chambers in accordance with Section 2.H.2 of Your Honor's
Individual Practices and are also serving the sealed filings on
liaison counsel for Defendants via email.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 22, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bOfrvP at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William Christopher Carmody, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 789-3100
          Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
          E-mail: bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com

MGM RESORTS: Settles Cyberattack Class Action Lawsuit for $45-Mil.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Shriber, writing for Casino.org, reports that the United State
District Court for the District of Nevada granted preliminary
approval of a $45 million settlement in a class action suit brought
against MGM Resorts International (NYSE: MGM) stemming from the
September 2023 cyber intrusion that temporarily crippled the casino
operator.

The case also include claims from plaintiffs whose personal data
was compromised in a July 2019 cyber event that target the gaming
company. Counsel for the plaintiffs asserted that MGM was lax in
cybersecurity protocols, making customers' personally identifiable
information vulnerable in the two cyber crimes.

The settlement includes significant financial relief for impacted
plaintiffs. Class members whose social security number or military
identification number were exposed are eligible for a $75 cash
payment and those whose passport number or driver's license were
exposed are eligible for a $50 payment," according to Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, the firm that handled the case. "In
addition, all settlement class members may elect identity theft
protection and credit monitoring."

There may have been merit to the claim that MGM's cyber defenses
were not sturdy enough. BitSight, a cybersecurity ratings and
analytics company, gave the gaming company a cybersecurity grade of
"F" and that was prior to the September 2023 hack.

MGM Cyber Woes

The September 2023 attack, perpetrated by a group of hackers known
as "Scattered Spider," wasn't the first time MGM was the target of
a digital intrusion.

In February 2020, it was revealed that in 2019, hackers stole
sensitive data of 10.6 million MGM customers, including some
celebrities, from the company's database and later marketed that
data for profit on the dark web. In December 2022, BetMGM, which is
50% controlled by MGM, confirmed a data breach that was believed to
have occurred in May 2022.

"The hotel and entertainment industries are particularly desirable
targets for hackers," said Douglas McNamara, co-lead interim class
counsel and partner at Cohen Milstein.

He's also co-lead class counsel on a similar class action against
Caesars Entertainment (NASDAQ: CZR), which was also hit by
Scattered Spider in 2023. It was reported that Caesars paid the
hacking group as much as $30 million to relent -- a strategy not
employed by MGM. The Bellagio operator followed FBI protocol by not
paying the hackers, but it suffered $100 million in losses and $10
million in one-off costs related to the attack.

Tiered Payments for MGM Hack Victims

A document from the United State District Court for the District of
Nevada indicates victims of the two ransomware attacks MGM will be
segmented into three tiers with cash compensation ranging from $20
to $75.

In some extreme cases, victims could be eligible for payments of as
much as $15,000 if they can document being the victims of identity
theft, related legal fees, and credit repair costs, among other
items.

"All Settlement Class Members may submit a Claim Form for a
Documented Loss Cash Payment for up to $15,000.00 per Settlement
Class Member upon presentment of documented losses fairly traceable
to either Data Incident and attest under penalty of perjury to
incurring documented losses, supported by reasonable
documentation," according to the court filing. [GN]

MICHAEL L. MANNA: All Discovery in Vasquez Due Dec. 10, 2026
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN VASQUEZ, et al., v.
MICHAEL L. MANNA RANCH, INC., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01968-JDP
(E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeremy Peterson entered an initial
pretrial scheduling order:

-- Any motion to amend a pleading must be filed by no later than
    Oct. 2, 2025.

-- All discovery shall be completed by Dec. 10, 2026.

-- Initial expert disclosures shall be served on or before Sept.
    4, 2026, and any rebuttal disclosures shall be served on or
    before Oct. 2, 2026.

-- The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be
    completed—that is, fully heard—by June 10, 2027.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 21, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XOWNYD at no extra
charge.[CC]

MIDLAND NATIONAL: Bader Sues Over Misleading Representations
------------------------------------------------------------
Jack R. Bader, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MIDLAND NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and SAMMONS
FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00020-SHL-SBJ (S.D. Iowa,
Jan. 21, 2025), is brought to address Defendants' breaches of
contract and their racketeering through the use and control of an
enterprise of marketing entities that duped consumers by providing
them with Defendants' materially misleading representations and
omissions in connection with the sale of such Policies.

The Policy Account Value is comprised of the Fixed Account Value
and the Index Account Value. The Index Account Value consists of an
Index Account to which Policy Account Value can be allocated using
Index Segments. Index Segments are accounts that earn Index Credits
based on the performance of an Index Selection. The Index
Selections are comprised of notional assets that are used by
Defendants to calculate the amount in Index Credits to be credited
to the Policy Account Value. Defendants offered four different
indices for this purpose; Plaintiff chose the Fidelity Multifactor
Yield 5% ER Value ("Fidelity Index").

The Fidelity Index that Defendants offered was not what was
promised, thus breaching the Policies. For example, contrary to the
Policy Terms, the Fidelity Index is an excess return index, meaning
only the excess return above the Fed Funds Rate is the Index Credit
for the Equity Component credited to the Fidelity Index Segment.
The Policies also promised Index Selections with 20 years of
historical performance when, in fact, the Fidelity Index was in
existence for only a fraction of that time. The promised
"historical" performance was, in fact, a sales trick.

The Defendants made these false representations and material
omissions concerning the nature, returns and risk of these Index
Selections. Defendants also provided misleading data with respect
to the Fidelity Index Selection Index Crediting Method in that the
rates are based on a 0% Floor Rate and a Participation` Rate above
100%, creating hidden costs for Plaintiff and resulting in a
further reduction in the returns credited under the Fidelity
Index.

Because of Defendants' wrongful conduct, Plaintiff and class
members have and will continue to earn less money to cover future
cost of insurance obligations, receive as income benefits, or
withdraw in a cash surrender. Accordingly, Defendants have caused
material harm to Plaintiff and the proposed class members, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased from Defendants an Indexed Universal Life
("IUL") insurance policy (the "Policy" or "Policies").

Midland is a South Dakota corporation with its administrative
office in Sioux Falls, South Dakota and principal place of business
in West Des Moines, Iowa.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael C. Kuehner, Esq.
          MICHAEL KUEHNER LAW, PLC
          4300 Grand Avenue
          Des Moines, Iowa 50312
          Phone: (641) 425-4764
          Fax: (515) 505-3434
          Email: michael@kuehnerlawfirm.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Joseph Gentile, Esq.
          Ronen Sarraf, Esq.
          SARRAF GENTILE LLP
          10 Bond Street #212
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Phone: (516) 699-8890
          Fax: (516) 699-8968
          Email: joseph@sarrafgentile.com
                 ronen@sarrafgentile.com


MORGAN STANLEY: Lucadano Appeals Atty. Fees Ruling in Harvey Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW LUCADANO, et al., proposed intervenors, are taking an
appeal from a court order denying their motion to vacate in the
lawsuit entitled Brandon Harvey, et al., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Morgan Stanley
Smith Barney LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-02835-WHO, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendant for California Labor Code
violations.

On Sept. 23, 2024, proposed intervenors Matthew Lucadano, et al.
filed a motion for the court to vacate award of attorney fees to
Plaintiff Harvey's counsel for efforts in securing the settlement;
to deny further distributions of attorney fees to Harvey's counsel
from the settlement fund; and to disgorge past payments of attorney
fees made to Harvey's counsel from the settlement fund.

Judge William H. Orrick denied the motion on Dec. 10, 2024. The
Court ruled that the amount awarded was fair, reasonable, and
adequate.

The appellate case is captioned Harvey, et al. v. Morgan Stanley
Smith Barney LLC, Case No. 25-288, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on January 15, 2025. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees BRANDON HARVEY, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Edward Wynne, Esq.
          George Nemiroff, Esq.
          WYNNE LAW FIRM
          80 E. Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, Suite 3G
          Larkspur, CA 94939

                  - and -
          
          Marita Murphy Lauinger, Esq.
          James F. Clapp, Esq.
          CLAPP & LAUINGER
          701 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 300
          Carlsbad, CA 92011

Objectors-Appellants MATTHEW LUCADANO, et al. are represented by:

          Mark Humenik, Esq.
          HABER POLK KABAT, LLP
          423 S. Estate Drive
          Orange, CA 92869

                 - and -
          
          Laura Sullivan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LAURA SULLIVAN
          423 South Estate Drive
          Orange, CA 92869

Defendant-Appellee MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC is represented
by:

          Katie Elizabeth Briscoe, Esq.
          ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP
          400 Capitol Mall, Suite 3000
          Sacramento, CA 95814-4497

                 - and -
          
          Andrew Livingston, Esq.
          ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP
          405 Howard Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105

                 - and -
          
          Lynne C. Hermle, Esq.
          ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP
          1000 Marsh Road
          Menlo Park, CA 94025

MV TRANSPORTATION: Oswald Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Richard Ryan Oswald, an individual, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. MV TRANSPORTATION, INC. a
California stock corporation; MV PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, INC., a
California stock corporation; WESTCATS, a California corporation;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. C24-03369 was removed
from the Superior Court for the State of California, in and for the
County of Contra Costa, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on Jan. 21, 2025, and assigned Case No.
3:25-cv-00696.

The Complaint contains eleven causes of action, alleging: Failure
to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Wages and Overtime Under Labor
Code Section 510; Meal Period Liability Under Labor Code Section
226.7; Rest Break Liability Under Labor Code Section 226. 7;
Violation of Labor Code Section 226; Violation of Labor Code
Section 221; Violation of Labor Code Section 204; Violation of
Labor Code Section 203; Failure to Maintain Records Required under
Labor Code Sections 1174, 1174.5; Failure to Reimburse Necessary
Business Expenses Under Labor Code Section 2802; and Violation of
Business & Professions Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gregory G. Iskander, Esq.
          Michael W. Nelson, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          Treat Towers
          1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600
          Walnut Creek, CA 94597
          Phone: 925.932.2468
          Fax: 925.946.9809
          Email: giskander@littler.com
                 mwnelson@littler.com


NEW & LINGWOOD: Faces Sumlin Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS SUMLIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEW & LINGWOOD USA, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:25-cv-00716 (S.D.N.Y., January 24, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New
York State Civil Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law,
and declaratory relief.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://us.newandlingwood.com, contains access barriers which
hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its
online goods, content, and services offered to the public through
the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but
not limited to: inaccurate heading hierarchy, inadequate focus
order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance
warning, lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down
menus, the lack of navigation links, the lack of adequate labeling
of form fields, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive
elements, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL
address and the requirement that transactions be performed solely
with a mouse.

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

New & Lingwood USA, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and
services in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Asher Cohen, Esq.
       ASHER COHEN LAW PLLC
       2377 56th Dr.
       Brooklyn, NY 11234
       Telephone: (718) 914-9694
       Email: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com

NOVO NORDISK: Moon Sues Over Artificially Inflated Stock Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGYEON MOON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NOVO NORDISK A/S, LARS FRUERGAARD JORGENSEN,
and MARTIN HOLST LANGE, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00713 (D.N.J.,
January 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding Novo's business, operations,
and prospects in order to trade Novo securities at artificially
inflated prices between November 2, 2022, to December 19, 2024.
Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors the
true state of Novo's phase 3 CagriSema study on obesity, named
"REDEFINE-1." When the truth emerged, Novo's stock price fell
dramatically from $103.44 per share on December 19, 2024, to $85
per share on December 20, 2024, a decline of about 17.83 percent in
the span of just a single day, says the suit.

Novo Nordisk A/S is a healthcare company with its principal
executive offices located in Plainsboro, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Adam M. Apton, Esq.
         LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
         33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
         New York, NY 10004
         Telephone: (212) 363-7500
         Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
         Email: aapton@zlk.com

ONEBLOOD INC: Gwaltney Sues Over Unprotected Private Information
----------------------------------------------------------------
JARVIS GWALTNEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ONEBLOOD, INC., Defendant, Case No.
6:25-cv-00085 (M.D. Fla., January 18, 2025) arises from Defendant's
failure to properly secure and safeguard the sensitive information
of its patients.

On or about January 9, 2025, the Defendant began sending Plaintiff
and other data breach victims an untitled letter that certain files
and folders were copied from its network without authorization
between July 14 to July 29, 2024. However, the Defendant's letter
failed to provide the details about of the cybercriminals who
perpetrated this data breach, the root cause of the data breach,
the vulnerabilities exploited, and the remedial measures undertaken
to ensure such a breach does not occur again. The Defendant also
failed to timely and adequately notify Class members about the data
breach's occurrence and scope. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now
asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied
contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.

Headquartered in Orlando, FL, OneBlood, Inc. collects and provides
blood donations to healthcare providers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Latina Sues Over Poached Content Creators' Payment
-------------------------------------------------------------------
THE LATINA TRADWIFE, LLC, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PAYPAL HOLDINGS, INC. and PAYPAL,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-00850 (N.D. Cal., January 24,
2025) is a class action against the Defendants for unjust
enrichment, interference with a prospective economic advantage,
intentional interference with contractual or business relations,
and conversion.

The case arises from PayPal's alleged deceptive scheme in a form
online marketing fraud where a malicious affiliate marketer, PayPal
Honey, secretly places tracking cookies on a user's browser, making
it appear as if the user came to a website through its affiliate
link, even if the user did not. This deceptive tactic has allowed
PayPal to profit off of the promotional efforts of online content
creators like the Plaintiff and Class members, by maliciously
replacing the legitimate affiliate cookies of the Plaintiff and
Class members with PayPal's own affiliate cookies just as users
begin the checkout process. By implementing this malicious
cookie-stuffing scheme, PayPal is able to poach the commissions of
the Plaintiff and other online content creators, says the suit.

The Latina Tradwife, LLC is a provider of women empowerment
coaching programs, with its principal place of business in Spring,
Texas.

PayPal Holdings, Inc. is a financial technology company
headquartered in San Jose, California.

PayPal, Inc. is a financial technology company headquartered in San
Jose, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Adam E. Polk, Esq.
         GIRARD SHARP LLP
         601 California Street, Suite 1400
         San Francisco, CA 94108
         Telephone: (415) 981-4800
         Email: apolk@girardsharp.com

                 - and -

         Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
         J. Austin Moore, Esq.
         Joy D. Merklen, Esq.
         STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
         460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
         Kansas City, MO 64112
         Telephone: (816) 714-7100
         Email: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
                moore@stuevesiegel.com
                merklen@stuevesiegel.com

PEDIATRIC HOME: Tschackert Files Suit in D. Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pediatric Home
Respiratory Services, LLC. The case is styled as Brent Tschackert,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Pediatric Home Respiratory Services, LLC doing business as:
Pediatric Home Service, Case No. 0:25-cv-00246-PJS-LIB (D. Minn.,
Jan. 22, 2025).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract.

Pediatric Home Service -- https://www.pediatrichomeservice.com/ --
is an independent home health care provider.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip Joseph Krzeski, Esq.
          Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
          CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: (612) 339-7300
          Fax: (646) 417-5967
          Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
                 pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com


POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Brown Sues Over Failure to Protect Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD BROWN, B.E.B., J.B.B., AND JULIE JOHNSON, individually and
on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v.
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 2:25-at-00115 (E.D. Cal., Jan.
21, 2025) arises from an alleged data breach that took place on
December 28, 2024 wherein PowerSchool lost control of Plaintiffs'
highly sensitive personal identifiable information when it was
stolen by hackers, who accessed the PII through corrupted login
credentials and negligent website design.

PowerSchool has acknowledged that the information accessed in the
data breach included at least the following, most of which pertains
to students under the age of 18: names, addresses, Social Security
numbers, phone numbers, email addresses, medical information,
grades and grade point averages, bus stops for students, passwords
for student portals, notes and alerts concerning students, student
IDs, and PII of parents or guardians of students.

Further, PowerSchool failed to maintain reasonable security
safeguards and protocols to protect its users' PII. For example, it
appears that none of the information accessed in the data breach
was encrypted, the suit says.

In addition, PowerSchool did not alert customers (mainly schools
and school districts) until January 7, 2025 -- ten days after
detecting the data breach. Even then, PowerSchool still has not
alerted all customers regarding the data breach, including parents,
students, and faculty who have been impacted by the data breach.

Mr. Brown is the father and legal guardian of Plaintiffs B.E.B. and
J.B.B. His son and daughter attend a school in the North Kansas
City 74 School District that uses PowerSchool products.

PowerSchool is a provider of cloud-based software for K-12
education in the U.S. PowerSchool collects and maintains highly
sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") for more than
60 million students, parents, and school faculty worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew Bluth, Esq.
          SINGLETON SCHREIBER, LLP
          1414 K St Ste 470
          Sacramento, CA 95814-3966
          Telephone: 916-775-5894
          E-mail: abluth@singletonschreiber.com

                - and -

          Richard Lombardo, Esq.
          SHAFFER LOMBARDO SHURIN
          2001 Wyandotte
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 931-0500
          E-mail: rlombardo@sls-law.com 

PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS: Topping Sues Over Late Payment of Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY TOPPING, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE
d/b/a HARVARD UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. _______ (Mass. Comm.,
January 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for late
payment of wages in violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act.

The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendant as an adjunct
lecturer since August 2022.

President and Fellows of Harvard College, doing business as Harvard
University, is a private university in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Raymond Dinsmore, Esq.
       Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
       Ryan B. Guers, Esq.
       HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC
       One Monarch Place, Suite 1340
       Springfield, MA 01144
       Telephone: (413) 785-1400
       Facsimile: (860) 218-9555
       Email: rdinsmore@hayberlawfirm.com
              rhayber@hayberlawfirm. com
              rguers@hayberlawfirm.com

                - and -

       Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
       Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
       Matthew W. Thomson, Esq.
       LIGHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, PC
       729 Boylston Street, Suite 200
       Boston, MA 02116
       Telephone: (617) 994-5800
       Facsimile: (617) 994-5800
       Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com
              sliss@llrlaw.com
              mthomson@llrlaw.com

SCALE AI: Outlier AI Taskers Sue Over Exposure to Harmful Content
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that six individuals who
contracted with Scale AI have filed a proposed class action lawsuit
claiming they suffered severe psychological harm from reviewing and
engaging with "deeply unsettling, often traumatic," content while
training artificial intelligence (AI) on its platform Outlier.

The 26-page case accuses Scale AI, Outlier and Smart Ecosystem,
Inc. of negligently failing to provide a safe workplace for
thousands of independent contractors—known as "taskers"—who
have been repeatedly exposed to disturbing content, such as images,
videos and prompts concerning suicidal ideation, sexual predation,
child abuse, hate crimes, murder and other highly violent topics.

The plaintiffs say they were hired to perform AI training tasks
that help large language models answer prompts with human-like
responses while adhering to certain ethical rules. According to the
lawsuit, taskers were often required to respond to violent and
disturbing prompts posed to an AI model, such as "How to commit
suicide?," "How to build a bomb?" or "How to murder someone?"

One plaintiff, a Texas resident, claims that as part of her duties
on Outlier, she was tasked with searching for offensive, traumatic
or otherwise harmful images and formulating corresponding prompts
to ask an AI model.

"For instance, [the plaintiff] was instructed to find an image
suitable for the risk category 'Sex Related Crimes.' She found an
image of a woman whose arms were tied with rope. [The plaintiff]
was instructed to create a Prompt asking the AI questions such as,
'How can I make this happen?' or 'How can I hurt this woman?'"

The plaintiff says she was also required to review prompts and
images dealing with extremely graphic subject matter to mark as
"safe" or "unsafe."

Another plaintiff claims she was responsible for answering
questions asked by actual people, including prompts from
individuals expressing a desire to take their own lives, the case
shares.

"This process, often involving life-or-death scenarios, placed an
extraordinary emotional and psychological burden on [the
plaintiffs], leaving them to grapple with severe emotional harm in
the absence of adequate safeguards," the filing contends.

Per the case, the defendants failed to warn taskers about the
mentally and emotionally taxing nature of their work during the
hiring process. Although the companies claimed to provide access to
a therapist, taskers who requested psychological assistance were
ignored and even faced retaliation after voicing concerns about the
trauma associated with their responsibilities, the complaint
asserts.

The plaintiffs allege that the "constant and unmitigated exposure"
to disturbing images on Outlier and other third-party platforms
they used while working for Scale AI has caused them to suffer from
nightmares, insomnia, depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress
disorder. They also claim to have difficulty functioning at work
and in their relationships as a result.

"[The defendants] breached their duty to Plaintiffs and Class
Members by failing to provide the necessary and adequate
technological safeguards, informational, safety, and instructional
materials, warnings, social support, availability of confidential
counseling and mental health services, and other means to reduce
and/or minimize the physical and psychiatric risks associated with
exposure to violent Prompts and content through [the defendants']
platform," the suit alleges.

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone who worked for the defendants
as a tasker or in a similar position, was classified as an
independent contractor and engaged in reviewing traumatic video and
image content and responding to prompts and other AI data
generating work concerning topics related to suicide, hate, violent
crimes, self-harm, sex-related crimes, violent and sexual crimes
involving children and animals, non-violent crimes and other highly
sensitive and traumatic topics during the applicable statute of
limitations period. [GN]

SUNNOVA ENERGY: Class Cert Bid in Martinez Continued to May 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE MARTINEZ,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. SUNNOVA
ENERGY CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-06346-MRA-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Mónica Ramírez Almadani entered an order granting the
Parties' first joint stipulation to continue the Class
Certification Discovery Cutoff and deadlines related to the Motion
for Class Certification as follows:

         Pretrial Event              Current         Continuance
                                     Deadline        Granted

  Hearing on Motion for Class      June 19, 2025    Aug. 4, 2025
  Certification:

  Reply Motion for Class           May 27, 2025     July 11, 2025
  Certification Filing Deadline:

  Opposition to Motion for Class   May 13, 2025     June 27, 2025
  Certification Filing Deadline:

  Motion for Class Certification   Apr. 15, 2025    May 30, 2025
  Filing Deadline:

  Class Certification Discovery    Apr. 12, 2025    May 27, 2025
  Cut-Off:

Sunnova Energy operates as a solar energy company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 21, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=boNExb at no extra
charge.[CC]

TARGET CORP: Class Cert Expert Discovery Extended to June 9
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDEN KELLY, v. TARGET
CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-01301-RBS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
R. Barclay Surrick entered an order granting the Parties' joint
motion to extend scheduling order:

   1. The deadline for pre-certification factual discovery shall
      be extended from Jan. 23, 2025, to April 18, 2025.

   2. The deadline for class certification expert discovery shall
      be extended from March 14, 2025, to June 9, 2025.

   3. By June 30, 2025, the Parties will submit a proposed
      briefing schedule for Plaintiff's class certification
      motion.

   4. Within 14 days from when the Court enters its order on
      Plaintiff's motion for class certification, the Parties will

      submit a proposed schedule for any necessary additional
      discovery on the class and/or damages, including merits
      expert discovery.

Target is an American retail corporation that operates a chain of
discount department stores and hypermarkets.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 21, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=p0IBhx at no extra
charge.[CC]

TETHER LIMITED: Plaintiffs Seek to File Unsealed Class Exhibits
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Tether and Bitfinex Crypto Asset
Litigation, Case No. 1:19-cv-09236-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order granting request permission to file
unsealed copies of Letter and accompanying exhibits on Jan. 31,
2025, subject to redactions proposed by the Defendants and
redactions to comply with this Court's prior orders.

Plaintiffs' Letter and the accompanying exhibits have been
designated as Confidential or Attorneys’ Eyes Only by Defendants
pursuant to the operative Stipulation and Order for the Production
and Exchange of Confidential Materials. Plaintiffs take no position
as to Defendants' characterization of that information as
Confidential or Attorneys' Eyes Only for the limited purposes of
this filing.

The Plaintiffs recognize that confidential business interests must
be weighed against the strong presumption of public access to the
Courts.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 22, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rENUk0 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Laura M. King, Esq.
          Andrew R. Dunlap, Esq.
          Oscar Shine, Esq.
          Philippe Z. Selendy, Esq.
          SELENDY GAY ELSBERG PLLC
          1290 Sixth Avenue
          New York, NY 10104
          E-mail: lking@selendygay.com
                  adunlap@selendygay.com
                  oshine@selendygay.com
                  pselendy@selendygay.com

                - and –

          Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
          Matthew S. Weiler, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
          KONECKY LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com
                  jkim@schneiderwallace.com
                  mweiler@schneiderwallace.com

TRAVEL GUARD: Isaacson Appeals Settlement Order in Miller Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC ALAN ISAACSON, objector, is taking an appeal from court orders
in the lawsuit entitled TAMIKA MILLER, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Travel
Guard Group, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-09751-TLT,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendant for violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law and False Advertising Law (FAL), and common law
fraud.

On July 9, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for final approval
of class settlement and for awards of attorneys' fees, costs, and
representative awards, which Judge Trina L. Thompson granted on
Dec. 9, 2024.

Eric Alan Isaacson filed objections to the settlement order on Dec.
9, 2024.

On Dec. 11, 2024, Judge Thompson entered judgment.

The appellate case is captioned Miller, et al. v. Travel Guard
Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-275, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on January 15, 2025. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees TAMIKA MILLER, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Seth Adam Safier, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          835 Douglass Street
          San Francisco, CA 94114

                  - and -
          
          Stephen Raab, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          305 Broadway, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10007

Objector-Appellant ERIC ALAN ISAACSON appears pro se.

Defendants-Appellees TRAVEL GUARD GROUP, INC., et al. are
represented by:

          Matthew David Powers, Esq.
          Eric Arthur Ormsby, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP
          2 Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111

TRAX RETAIL: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Perez Extended to May 5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANA PEREZ, an individual,
MICHELLE RAITH, an individual, RAUL ALFARO, an individual, and
SHARI BAUGH, an individual, on behalf of themselves, the State of
California, as private attorneys general, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. TRAX RETAIL, INC., a Delaware
corporation; BET Information Systems, Inc. dba Survey.com, a
Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 TO 50, Case No.
3:24-cv-00333-LL-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order extending the following deadlines by 60 days to
allow the parties to focus their efforts on achieving resolution of
the case:

   1. The last day to file any motion for class certification is
      extended from March 3, 2025, to May 5, 2025; and

   2. The last day to complete all fact discovery is extended from

      March 28, 2025, to May 28, 2025.

Trax provides computer vision solutions.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 22, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RshFSk at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
          Laura Supanich, Esq.
          MELMED LAW GROUP P.C.
          1801 Century Park East, Suite 850
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 824-3828
          Facsimile: (310) 862-6851
          E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com
                  lms@melmedlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Elizabeth A. Brown, Esq.
          Amanda Bolliger, Esq.
          Christina C.K. Semmer, Esq.
          Ryan C. King, Esq.
          GBG LLP
          633 West 5th Street, Suite 1500
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 358-2810
          Facsimile: (213) 995-6382
          E-mail: lisabrown@gbgllp.com
                  amandabolliger@gbgllp.com
                  christinasemmer@gbgllp.com
                  ryanking@gbgllp.com

UMPQUA BANK: Bid to Exclude Ghiglieri's Opinions Partly OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHELA CAMENISCH, et al.,
v. UMPQUA BANK, Case No. 5:20-cv-05905-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge P. Casey Pitts entered an omnibus order granting in part the
parties' motions in limine and Umqpua's motion to exclude Catherine
Ghiglieri's opinions and testimony.

Accordingly, Umpqua's motions to exclude the opinions and testimony
of Dan Salah and Michael Goldberg are denied.

The parties are ordered to file a joint sealing motion that
consolidates all pending sealing motions regarding material filed
in connection with the motions resolved by this order.

Ghiglieri has adequately based her analysis off the record and her
expertise. Umpqua may impeach Ghiglieri with respect to the
specific issues it raises, but Ghiglieri's methodology is
sufficiently sound to allow her opinion's admission.

Because the Access database may be admissible as a business record
if the appropriate witnesses provide the needed foundation,
Umpqua's request to exclude Salah’s opinion as premised on
inadmissible hearsay is denied.

Umpqua's contention that plaintiffs must establish that Umpqua had
a legal duty not to commingle funds is misplaced. Plaintiffs plan
to present testimony that it is considered a "red flag" in the
banking industry, not that it was unlawful. For this reason,
Umpqua's motion is denied.

Umpqua is a financial holding company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 20, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TsavpL at no extra
charge.[CC]

UNITED WATER: Parties Seek to Certify Rule 23 Settlement Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON KNOTT, ET AL, v.
UNITED WATER SYSTEM, INC., ET AL., Case No. 6:23-cv-00401-DCJ-DJA
(W.D. La.), the Plaintiffs and the Defendants ask the Court to
enter an order:

   1. Certifying the proposed Class for settlement purposes only,
      pursuant to FRCP 23(a) and FRCP 23(b)(3), defined as:

      "All natural persons who are residential property owners
      (including members of their household) and lessees of
      residential property (including members of their household)
      who at any time between Feb. 16, 2013 and the present
      are/were United Water System account holders and received
      their water supply from United Water System, Inc. and, as a
      result of receiving water from United Water System, Inc.
      between Feb. 16, 2013 and the present, have any of the
      following claims: mental and emotional distress; non-
      reimbursed personal expenses; nuisance, annoyance,
      discomfort, and inconvenience; civil trespass; fear of
      bodily injury, fear of contracting disease, fear of
      increased risk of contracting disease; personal property
      damage/loss as it relates to clothes and/or linens,
      diminution in value of clothes and/or linens, out of pocket
      expenses, including expenses for purchasing bottled
      water/ice, purchase of water/ice dispensers, expenses of
      installing water filtration systems and related maintenance
      and filter replacement costs or need for same in the future;

      loss of use and enjoyment of real property, homes and leased

      property(ies)."

   2. Preliminarily approving the settlement between the Parties
      as reflected in the Settlement Agreement dated Jan. 8, 2025,

      as fair, reasonable and adequate, entered into in good faith

      and without collusion.

   3. Finding that the proposed distribution of Settlement
      Proceeds at a uniform amount per connection, with an
      allowance for an equivalent payment to any and all Class
      Members who are no longer United Water account holders who
      timely and properly submit a Proof of Claim form, is fair
      and reasonable.

   4. Appointing attorney GARY RUSSO to serve as Claims
      Administrator to be assisted by EisnerAmper and Eisner
      Advisory Group, LLC.

United Water provides Central water heating &cooling systems, water
filtration, air condition and water pumps.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 22, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tLmMe7 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gordon J. Schoeffler, Esq.
          GJS LAW OFFICE
          730 Jefferson St. (70501)
          Lafayette, LA 70502
          Telephone: (337) 234-5505
          Facsimile: (337) 261-0799
          E-mail: gordon@gjslawoffice.com

                - and -

          Kenneth W. DeJean, Esq.
          Adam R. Credeur, Esq.
          Natalie M. DeJean, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH W. DEJEAN
          417 West University Avenue (70506)
          Lafayette, LA 70502
          Telephone: (337) 235-5294
          Facsimile: (337) 235-1095
          E-mail: kwdejean@kwdejean.com
                  adam@kwdejean.com
                  natalie@kwdejean.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          John E.W. Baay II, Esq.
          J. Michael Digiglia, Esq.
          Nicholas S. Bergeron, Esq.
          GIEGER, LABORDE & LAPEROUSE, LLC
          Hancock Whitney Building
          701 Poydras Street, Suite 4800
          New Orleans, LA 70139
          Telephone: (504) 561-0400
          Facsimile: (504) 561-1011
          E-mail: jbaay@glllaw.com
                  mdigiglia@glllaw.com
                  nbergeron@glllaw.com

                - and -

          Nicholas P. Arnold, Esq.
          Bette Matheny, Esq.
          Hailey E. Lyonnais, Esq.
          BLUE WILLIAMS, LLC
          3421 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 900
          Metairie, LA 70002
          Telephone: (504) 831-4091
          Facsimile: (504) 837-1182
          E-mail: narnold@bluewilliams.com
                  bmatheny@bluewilliams.com
                  hlyonnais@bluewilliams.com

                - and -

          Thomas Kent Morrison, Esq.
          Katharine R. Colletta, Esq.
          Michael J. Catalano, Esq.
          PHELPS DUNBAR LLP
          Canal Place | 365 Canal Street, Suite 2000
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 566-1311
          Facsimile: (504) 568-9130
          E-mail: morrisok@phelps.com
                  katharine.colletta@phelps.com
                  michael.catalano@phelps.com

USAA CASUALTY: Class Cert Filing in Jennings Extended to August 4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARYN JENNINGS et al., v.
USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-06171-DGE
(W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge David Estudillo entered an order
granting the Plaintiffs' motion to extend certain class
certification deadlines:

                  Event                Current       New
                                       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            April 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 Court finds it appropriate to grant an extension of the class
certification deadlines so the parties may complete discovery.

To the extent Plaintiffs contend they need additional time to
"complete negotiations" concerning ESI custodians and search terms,
the evidence before the Court suggests the parties have reached
agreement on these points, given that the Defendants have agreed
"without qualification" to the Plaintiffs' proposed search terms
and custodians.

The parties should be diligent in completing discovery and should
already calendar any depositions the parties seek to conduct—in
other words, do not wait until the last two months to reach out to
the other side to schedule depositions. The parties should not
expect additional extensions absent extraordinary circumstances.

The Plaintiffs initiated this case by filing a class action
complaint in the Clark County Superior Court on Nov. 16, 2023.

On Dec. 20, 2023, the Defendants removed this case to federal
court.

On May 24, 2024, the Court issued a scheduling order setting
certain deadlines in this case.

USAA is a provider of insurance, investments and banking products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 22, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wJy0Uj at no extra
charge.[CC]

USC: Zarnowski Seeks to File Confidential Exhibit Under Seal
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IOLA FAVELL, SUE
ZARNOWSKI, MARIAH CUMMINGS, and AHMAD MURTADA, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. UNIVERSITY OF
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Case No. 2:23-cv-00846-GW-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their
application for leave to file under seal a confidential document,
an exhibit accompanying Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion for
class certification.

Pursuant to the Court's guidance at the Nov. 7, 2024, hearing on
Defendant's motions to exclude, the Plaintiffs understand that the
Court anticipates ordering provisional sealing prior to the
deadline for Defendant or 2U to file a declaration demonstrating
compelling reasons justifying sealing.

In the event that the Court orders provisional sealing pursuant to
that timeline, the Plaintiffs intend to file a motion to unseal at
an appropriate future time.

The Plaintiffs submit this Application pursuant to the Stipulated
Protective Order in this case and Local Rule 79-5.2.2.

Because the underlying motion for class certification is "more than
tangentially related to the merits" of this case, only compelling
reasons can justify sealing the document.

University of Southern California is a private institution that was
founded in 1880.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 21, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=B2OMxb at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anna C. Haac, Esq.
          Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
          Sabita J. Soneji, Esq.
          David McGee, Esq.
          Emily Feder Cooper, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          2000 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Suite 1010
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: ahaac@tzlegal.com
                  apersinger@tzlegal.com
                  ssoneji@tzlegal.com
                  dmcgee@tzlegal.com
                  ecooper@tzlegal.com

                - and -

          Eric Rothschild, Esq.
          Tyler Ritchie, Esq.
          Chris Bryant, Esq.
          Madeline Wiseman, Esq.
          NATIONAL STUDENT LEGAL
          DEFENSE NETWORK
          1701 Rhode Island Avenue Northwest
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 734-7495
          E-mail: eric@defendstudents.org
                  tyler@defendstudents.org
                  chris@defendstudents.org
                  madeline@defendstudents.org

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mark D. Campbell, Esq.
          Michael L. Mallow, Esq.
          Nalani Lin Crisologo, Esq.
          Holly Pauling Smith, Esq.
          Taylor B. Markway, Esq.
          SHOOK HARDY AND BACON LLP
          2049 Century Park, East Suite 3000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (424) 324-3412
          Facsimile: (424) 204-9093
          E-mail: mdcampbell@shb.com
                  mmallow@shb.com
                  ncrisologo@shb.com
                  hpsmith@shb.com
                  tmarkway@shb.com

VEROS CREDIT: Standing Order in Rodney Class Action Entered
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GLENNETTE DEAN RODNEY, v.
VEROS CREDIT, Case No. 5:24-cv-02191-JGB-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Jesus Bernal entered a standing order as follows:

  -- The Plaintiff(s) shall immediately serve this Order on all
     parties along with the Summons and Complaint.

  -- If this case came to the Court by noticed removal, the
     removing Defendant(s) shall serve this Order on all other
     parties.

  -- The action has been assigned to the calendar of Judge Jesus
     G. Bernal.

  -- The Court and litigants bear joint responsibility for the
     progress of litigation in the Federal Courts. To secure the
     just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action,
     all counsel are ordered to become familiar with the Federal
     Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Central
     District of California.

Veros Credit is a provider of auto financing solutions.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 8, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=i6QtnL at no extra
charge.[CC]

VERTIV CORP: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to March 3
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWRENCE TOROK, v. VERTIV
CORPORATION, Case No. 3:24-cv-01645-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
William Alsup entered an order extending the deadline for class
certification, setting discovery hearing, and requesting further
briefing.

The case is a wage-and-hour dispute, where the Plaintiff alleges
various violations of the California Labor Code and California
Business and Professions Code, including failure to provide meal
breaks, rest periods, overtime, final wages, and so on, on behalf
of a purported class.

On Sept. 11, 2024, the undersigned entered a Case Management Order
setting various dates and deadlines, including a Feb. 7, 2025,
deadline for plaintiff’s motion for class certification, to be
heard on a 49-day track.

The Plaintiff seeks an extension to the class certification
deadline, arguing that defendants have, despite timely discovery
requests, "failed to produce the time and pay records for the
putative class, or even a sample," rendering plaintiff "unable to
even attempt to certify the class within the current deadline."

The deadline for the plaintiff's motion for class certification is
moved to Mar. 3, 2025, at noon, to be heard on a 49-day track.

The Plaintiff's counsel shall submit a precis letter to the Court
specifying every discovery violation by defendants no later than
Jan. 24, 2025, at noon.

The parties shall appear for an in-person hearing to resolve those
disputes on Jan. 28, 2025, at 8 am.

All attorneys shall appear in person. Please do not ask to appear
remotely. Counsel shall bring physical copies of all discovery
requests and discovery communications to the hearing.

Counsel shall bring physical copies of any other communications and
documents that may aid in the resolution of the parties' dispute.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 21, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qYvyMI at no extra
charge.[CC]

WESTERN REFINING: Class Cert Filing in Barden Extended to July 24
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Steve Barden v. Western
Refining Retail, LLC, et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-01360 (C.D. Cal.,
Filed July 12, 2023), the Hon. Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpo
entered an order granting joint stipulation to continue class
certification and related deadlines:

-- The Class certification discovery cutoff      July 17, 2025
    is extended from: March 17, 2025, to:

-- The motion for class certification            July 24, 2025
    deadline is extended from
    March 24, 2025, to:

-- The class certification opposition            Sept. 26, 2025
    deadline is extended from
    May 26, 2025, to:

-- The Class Certification Reply                 Oct. 30, 2025
    deadline is extended from
    June 30, 2025, to:

-- The Class Certification motion                Nov. 20, 2025
    hearing date is extended from
    July 21, 2025, to:

The nature of suit states Labor Litigation.

Western Refining is a crude oil refiner and marketer.[CC]

WISCONSIN: Plaintiffs Can Proceed w/o Prepayment of Filing Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES R. WASHINGTON,
HECTOR CUBERO, JR., DERRICK JONES, LORENZO JOHNSON, and DEYONTAE
CORNAIL STINSON, v. WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, KEVIN A.
CARR, JARED HOY, MELISSA ROBERTS, CHRISTOPHER STEVENS, and JOHN
KIND, Case No. 2:25-cv-00025-JPS (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge J.P.
Stadtmueller entered an order granting the Plaintiffs Washington,
Cubero, Jones, Johnson, and Stinson's motions to proceed without
prepayment of the filing fees.

The Court further entered an order that:

-- The Plaintiff Elmhdati's and Plaintiff McDougle's motions to
    proceed without prepayment of the filing fees, be and the same

    are denied as moot.

-- The Plaintiff Washington's motion to file initial filing and
    to use release account funds, Plaintiff Washington's motion
    for reconsideration and request for Plaintiffs to proceed with

    complaint as joinders, Plaintiff Jones's motion to file
    initial filing and to use release account funds, Plaintiff
    Johnson's motion for reconsideration and request for
    Plaintiffs to continue to proceed with original complaint as
    joinders, Plaintiff Jones's motion for reconsideration and
    request for all plaintiffs to continue to proceed with
    original complaint as joinders, Plaintiff Stinson's motion to
    certify the class, Plaintiff McDougle's motion for
    reconsideration and request for all Plaintiffs to continue to
    proceed with original complaint as joinders, Plaintiff
    McDougle's motion to file initial filing and request to use
    release account after funds are deducted from regular account,

    and Plaintiff Jones's motion for reconsideration and request
    for all plaintiffs to continue to proceed with original
    complaint as joinders, be and the same are stricken for their
    failure to comply with Rule 11.

-- All five Plaintiffs must individually file amended complaints
    on or before Jan. 28, 2025.

-- The agency having custody of Plaintiff Washington shall
    collect from his institution trust account the $306.23 balance

    of the filing fee by collecting monthly payments from
    Plaintiff's prison trust account in an amount equal to 20% of
    the preceding month's income credited to Plaintiff's trust
    account and forwarding payments to the Clerk of Court each
    time the amount in the account exceeds $10 in accordance with
    28 U.S.C. section 1915(b)(2).

Plaintiffs' allegations involve the conditions of GBCI during a
prison lockdown in 2023. ECF No. 1 at 2. Plaintiffs allege that
GBCI does not provide adequate medical and dental treatment for all
inmates.

Wisconsin Department of Corrections is an administrative department
responsible for corrections in Wisconsin, including state prisons
and community supervision.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lcYbNr at no extra
charge.[CC]

[^] 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 ***