---

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

              Thursday, February 27, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 42

                            Headlines

ACCELLION INC: Brown Seeks to File Class Docs Under Seal
ACCOLADE PROPERTY: Campbell Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
ALO LLC: Escajeda Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ALTERNATE SOLUTIONS: Payne Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
AMENTUM GOVERNMENT: Seeks to Modify Phase 1 Class Cert Sched Order

ARCONIC CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Set March 31
BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks Temporary Sealing of Class Cert Opposition
BLAZESOFT LTD: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Online Gambling Traps
BLUE SHIELD: Bishop Suit Removed to C.D. California
BOGDAN DELIVERY: Mike Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

C & H MOTORS INC: Yates Sues Over Failure to Compensate Overtime
CANOPY GROWTH: Continues to Defend Asmaro Shareholder Class Suit
CANOPY GROWTH: Continues to Defend Dziedziejko Shareholder Suit
CAPITAL ONE: Poaches Content Creators' Commissions, Blotnicki Says
CAPITOL FEDERAL: Reversal of Suit Dismissal Under Review

CHARLIE HUSTLE: Randolph Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
CLEAN HARBORS: Parties in Fogg Ordered to Go Back to Mediation
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Brown Says
CONEXUS MEDSTAFF: Faces Navarrete Class Suit Over Labor Trafficking
CR1F GROUP: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls, Ownby Alleges

DATANYZE LLC: Green Files Suit in Ill. Dist. Ct.
DELUXE MEDIA: Richter Suit Seeks to Certify Class, Subclasses
GOYA FOODS: Mora Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
HEYS AMERICA: Battle Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
HIGH SPEED: Faces Cole Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website

HRSH ACQUISITIONS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Henry Says
HUMBOLDT INDEPENDENT: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Data Breach
JOHNSON AND JOHNSON: Vasseur Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
KALEIDA HEALTH: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid Response
KEITH DEVOS: Scott Seeks to Certify Class of TCF Detainees

KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Court Certifies Cottonelle Class Action Suit
LIVE VENTURES: Continues to Defend Sieggreen Class Suit in Nevada
LONG BEACH, NY: Class Cert Briefing Sched Entered in Guma
MADISON REED: Henry Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
MANTECH ADVANCED: Gonzalez Suit Seeks Proper Wages for Technicians

MASTERCARD INC: CAT Approves GBP200MM Class Action Settlement
MCKESSON MEDICAL: Morales Suit Removed to C.D. California
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL: Brown Files Suit in M.D. Georgia
MIRAMAR PLAZA: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property
NATURE'S BAKERY: Court Allows Fig Bars Class Action to Proceed

NCAA: Seeks to Continue Class Cert Hearing to March 3
NEUMORA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Chang Suit Over Share Price Decline
NICKEL & SUEDE: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, Battle Says
NUNA BABY: Sells Defective Car Seats, Khanna Suit Says
OGLETHORPE UNIVERSITY: Senior Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website

OPENDOOR TECHNOLOGIES: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Feb. 28
PAYLOCITY HOLDING: Continues to Defend Illinois BIPA-Related Suit
PENNSYLVANIA STATE: Agrees to Settle COVID Tuition Suit for $17MM
RAKUTEN USA: Converts Content Creators' Commissions, Oganesyan Says
RAWLINGS CO: Filing for Class Cert. in Zakarian Extended to June 6

SALEM HEALTH: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due August 29
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Fails to Provide Proper OT, Cervantes Says
SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Frisvold Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SEMTECH CORP: Faces Class Action Suit for Misleading Investors
SKYWEST AIRLINES: Wood Suit Removed to N.D. California

SLUNTRADES LTD: Maksumova Suit Removed to E.D. New York
SONY INTERACTIVE: Faces Class Suit Over Overcharging Digital Games
SOUNDHOUND AI: Faces Jones Suit Over Illegal Waiver Provision
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Chambers Sues Over Failure to Maintain Grid
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Texas

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Glover-Griffin Suit Removed to C.D. California
SUMMIT CREDIT: Mintz Seeks Prelim Approval of Class Settlement
TILRAY BRANDS: Hearing on Settlement Set for March
TOUS USA INC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
UNIFI AVIATION: Biddle Suit Removed to N.D. California

UPS MAIL: McGee Suit Removed to C.D. California
VAN EXEL DAIRY: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
VBC TRACY LLC: Franco Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
VECTRARX MAIL: Calidonio Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Data
VECTRARX MAIL: Lopez Files Suit in D. Arizona

VENTURE GLOBAL: Bowes Sues Over False and Misleading Information
WCAY INC: Blow Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Class Cert Deadlines in Goldstein Suit Vacated
WHOLE FOODS: Allowed Leave to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal
WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: Snipes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

YAZOO VALLEY: Sanders Sues Over Failure to Secure Customers' Info
YOTTA ACQUISITION: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With DRIVEiT
ZIDAN MANAGEMENT: Chesser Sues to Recover Overtime Wages

                            *********

ACCELLION INC: Brown Seeks to File Class Docs Under Seal
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brown v. Accellion, Inc.
(RE ACCELLION, INC. DATA BREACH LITIGATION), Case No.
5:21-cv-01155-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting the Plaintiffs' administrative motion to
seal:

The Plaintiffs move the Court, pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11
and 79-5, in response to Accellion's Administrative Motion to
Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should be Sealed, to
consider whether portions of Accellion's Opposition to Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification, Accellion's Motion to Strike
Portions of the Report of Plaintiffs' Expert Daniel Korczyk,
declarations filed in support of those motions, and certain
exhibits designated as "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential," or
that otherwise disclose potentially confidential, proprietary, or
private information, should be sealed.

Pursuant to Local Rule 79-5(c), Plaintiffs submit the Declaration
of Adam E. Polk, which identifies with particularity the sealable
portions of filed materials that reflect Plaintiffs' confidential
information, as well as a proposed order which lists in tabular
format the portions of Accellion's filings that Plaintiffs request
be sealed.

The Plaintiffs seek to seal a small subset of the material
Accellion filed in support of its Opposition to Plaintiffs’
Motion for Class Certification. The information Plaintiffs seek to
seal generally falls into three categories:

    (i) personally identifiable information ("PII") of the  
        Plaintiffs and non-parties,

   (ii) roadmaps to discover certain Plaintiffs' PII on the dark
        web, and

  (iii) irrelevant and prejudicial information concerning decades-
        old criminal activity or financial difficulty.

Accellion is a provider of on-demand secure file transfer
solutions.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 18, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=459lSW at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam E. Polk, Esq.
          Kyle P. Quackenbush, Esq.
          Samhita Collur, Esq.
          GIRARD SHARP LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: apolk@girardsharp.com
                  kquackenbush@girardsharp.com
                  scollur@girardsharp.com

                - and -

          Krysta K. Pachman, Esq.
          Michael Gervais, Esq.
          Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
          Kevin R. Downs, Esq.
          Madeline M. Yzurdiaga, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
          Telephone: (310) 789-3100
          Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
          E-mail: kpachman@susmangodfrey.com
                  mgervais@susmangodfrey.com
                  ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
                  kdowns@susmangodfrey.com
                  myzurdiaga@susmangodfrey.com

ACCOLADE PROPERTY: Campbell Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Chris Campbell, individually and for others similarly situated v.
ACCOLADE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00157 (E.D.
Tex., Feb. 17, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid minimum wages,
overtime wages, and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The Plaintiff regularly worked for Accolade Property in excess of
40 hours each week. But Accolade Property did not pay them overtime
of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Instead of paying
overtime as required by the FLSA, Accolade Property improperly
classified the Plaintiff as independent contractors ineligible for
overtime. This practice violates the overtime requirements of the
FLSA. Accolade Property's decision not to pay overtime compensation
to the Plaintiff was neither reasonable nor in good faith. Rather,
Accolade Property knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate
the Plaintiff overtime of at least one and one-half their regular
rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for Accolade Property as a Security Guard.

Accolade Property provides property management services throughout
Texas, including in Austin, Dallas, and McKinney, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
          FITZ LAW PLLC
          3730 Kirby Drive, Ste. 1200
          Houston, TX 77098
          Phone: (713) 766-4000
          Email: carl@fitz.legal

ALO LLC: Escajeda Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ALO, LLC. The case is
styled as Hayley Marlene Escajeda, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. ALO, LLC, Case No. 25STCV04367 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 18, 2025).

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

Alo Yoga -- https://www.aloyoga.com/ -- is an American premium
athletic apparel retailer headquartered in Los Angeles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638
          Phone: 310-432-0000
          Fax: 310-432-0001
          Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com

ALTERNATE SOLUTIONS: Payne Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Payne, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. ALTERNATE SOLUTIONS HEALTH NETWORK, LLC, Case No.
2:25-cv-00153-SDM-CMV (S.D. Ohio, Feb. 14, 2025), is brought
against Defendant for its failure to pay employees overtime wages,
seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 ("FLSA").

The Plaintiff and other similarly situated home health employees
have worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendant has had a
policy and/or practice or not paying its home health employees for
all time spent completing job activities. The Defendant's failure
to compensate the Plaintiff and other similarly situated home
health employees, has resulted in unpaid overtime compensation.

The Defendant's unlawful pay policies, have denied the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated home health employees compensable
overtime hours and compensation that they earned. The Defendant
knew of and acted willfully regarding its conduct. The Defendant
knew that the Plaintiff and others similarly situated worked
overtime without compensation for all overtime hours worked, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant from September 2022
through the present.

The Defendant primarily functions to provide post-acute home
health, hospice, and therapeutic care solutions primarily through
visits to clients in their homes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

AMENTUM GOVERNMENT: Seeks to Modify Phase 1 Class Cert Sched Order
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jay Middleton and George
Lawrence, individually and on behalf of the Amentum 401(k)
Retirement Plan and DynCorp International Savings Plan, and all
others similarly situated, v. Amentum Government Services Parent
Holdings LLC, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-02456-EFM-BGS (D. Kan.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to
modify the Phase 1 Class Certification Scheduling Order to extend
Defendants' current deadline to provide the Plaintiffs with a
settlement counterproposal, and to extend the parties' current
deadline to either file a joint mediation notice with the Court or
respectively submit confidential settlement reports to the Court.

The Defendants request that the Court grant them an extension of
time— up to and including March 14, 2025—to provide Plaintiffs
with a settlement counterproposal. The Defendants also request that
the Court grant the parties a corresponding extension of time—up
to and including April 11, 2025—to file their joint mediation
notice or submit their confidential settlement reports.

The proposed extension of Defendants' deadline is requested to
allow completion of this process, as shaped by the complexity of
claims at issue in this putative ERISA class action. The proposed
extension of the parties’ deadline is requested in tandem to
preserve the same 28-day window currently allotted in the Phase 1
Order for the parties to engage in an informed review of settlement
prospects and either coordinate a mediation or report back on their
efforts with the level of detail called for in the Phase 1 Order
(through submission of confidential settlement reports).

None of the parties will be prejudiced by the proposed extensions.
This Court previously granted an extension of these deadlines on
January 28, 2025, to accommodate the travel of Defendants’
in-house and general counsel.

Amentum provides commercial support services.

The Defendants include Amentum Benefits Administration Committee,
Amentum Retirement & Investment Committee, Tammy Woodman, Greg
Robinson, Bob Rudisin, Debbie Bechtel, Angie Myers, Alice McAbee,
Matt Stone, Jake Kennedy, Larry Goldman, Ann McRitchie, DynCorp
International LLC, The Retirement and Employee Benefit Plans
Committee, Barbara Walker, and John and Jane Doe Defendants 1-30.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 18, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TY0uJb at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Elaine Drodge Koch, Esq.
          Sarah R. Holdmeyer, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
          1200 Main Street, Suite 3800
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 374-3235
          Facsimile: (816) 374-3300
          E-mail: elaine.koch@bclplaw.com
                  sarah.holdmeyer@bclplaw.com

                - and -

          Cardelle B. Spangler, Esq.
          Aviva Grumet-Morris, Esq.
          Tiana Pequette, Esq.
          Heather L. Kriz, Esq.
          John Michael Gaddis, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          35 West Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 558-5600
          Facsimile: (312) 558-5700
          E-mail: cspangler@winston.com
                  agmorris@winston.com
                  tpequette@winston.com
                  hkriz@winston.com
                  mgaddis@winston.com

ARCONIC CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Set March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors of the March
31, 2025, deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal
securities class action filed on behalf of investors who acquired
Arconic Corporation ("Arconic" or the "Company") (NYSE:ARNC)
securities during the period from April 19, 2022, through May 3,
2023 ("the Class Period").

[LEARN MORE ABOUT THE CLASS ACTION]

On April 19, 2022, Apollo Global Management, Inc. ("Apollo")
approached Arconic with an offer to acquire all the Company's
outstanding stock at a price between $34 and $36 per share. This
was a significant cash premium to the then-current market price for
Arconic common stock of $27.23 per share. Arconic rebuffed Apollo's
offer because the Board concluded it undervalued Arconic. Apollo
continued to demonstrate interest in the acquisition of Arconic.
Apollo partnered with Irenic Capital Management LP ("Irenic")
concerning the potential acquisition of Arconic starting in May
2022. From May 5, 2022, through June 23, 2022, Apollo, Irenic, and
Arconic had discussions concerning a potential acquisition of
Arconic. Between June 23, 2022, and November 28, 2022, Arconic,
Apollo and Irenic kept in contact, but these contacts did not
result in the submission of any new proposals for an acquisition of
Arconic.

Even though the Defendants were in possession of this material
nonpublic information concerning Apollo's and Irenic's interest in
acquiring Arconic at a price materially above the then-current
prices of Arconic, during the period from June 1, 2022, through
August 31, 2022, Arconic repurchased 4,357,690 shares of its common
stock on public markets, significantly below Apollo's offer of $34
to $36 per share.

By August 31, 2022, these purchases exhausted the maximum dollar
amount that Arconic could repurchase under its then-existing share
repurchase program. On November 16, 2022, Arconic announced that
its Board of Directors had approved a new two-year share repurchase
program authorizing the repurchase of up to $200 million worth of
additional shares of Arconic common stock on the public markets.

On November 28, 2022, Apollo informed Arconic that it was
considering submitting a new proposal for an acquisition of Arconic
at a meaningful premium to Arconic's stock price, which closed at
$21.65 per share on November 28, 2022.

Then, on December 12, 2022, Apollo submitted a revised proposal to
acquire Arconic in an all-cash transaction at a price of $30.00 per
share, a meaningful premium to the price of Arconic's common stock,
which closed on December 12, 2022, at $22.57 per share. However,
Arconic continued to engage in share repurchases at prices
materially below Apollo's $30 per share offer. From November 2022
to January 2023, Arconic repurchased an additional 2,107,450 shares
of Arconic common stock on the public markets for a total cost of
$47,032,891, and at an average price of $22.32 per share.

Thereafter, on February 28, 2023, the Wall Street Journal ("WSJ")
reported that Apollo had submitted a bid at an unspecific price to
acquire Arconic and that Arconic's advisors had reached out to each
potential acquirors. In response, the price of Arconic common stock
increased $4.68 per share, or 21.5%, from its price immediately
before the WSJ report of $21.76 per share to a closing price on
February 28, 2023, of $26.44 per share.

Finally, on May 4, 2023, during pre-market hours, Arconic announced
that it had entered into an agreement to be acquired by Apollo in
an all-cash transaction at $30.00 per share. In response, the price
of Arconic common stock increased $6.38 per share, or 28.3%, from a
closing price on May 3, 2023, of $22.55 per share to a closing
price on May 4, 2023, of $28.93 per share.

Arconic made no disclosure concerning Apollo's offers to purchase
Arconic at a material premium to then-current Arconic common stock
prices for approximately ten months, during which time Arconic
negotiated and communicated with Apollo and Irenic and repurchased
6,465,140 shares of its common stock on the open market for a total
cost of $169,976,795, and at an average price of $26.29 per share,
far below Apollo's offers.

The complaint alleges that defendants, throughout the Class Period,
failed to disclose that a takeover offer at a substantial premium
had been proposed by a serious bidder, artificially deflated the
price of Arconic common stock, all the while Arconic was able to
take advantage of those artificially lower prices by repurchasing
shares.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Arconic securities, have
information, or would like to learn more about this investigation,
please contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP by email at
investigations@kmllp.com, or fill out the form below, to discuss
your rights or interests with respect to these matters without any
cost to you.

Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney LLP's website.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

Contacts

     Kirby McInerney LLP
     Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
     (212) 699-1180
     https://www.kmllp.com
     investigations@kmllp.com [GN]

BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks Temporary Sealing of Class Cert Opposition
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY RAMIREZ, MYNOR
VILLATORO ALDANA, and JANET HOBSON, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No.
4:22-cv-00859-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to
enter an order granting its temporary sealing motion in connection
with its concurrently filed opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

BANA will seek to seal portions of its Opposition and certain
exhibits to the Declaration of Elizabeth McKeen in support of
BANA's Opposition, the Declaration of Margaret Helms in support of
BANA's Opposition, and the Declaration of Jennifer Haag in support
of BANA's Opposition.

BANA offers saving and current account, housing and auto loans, and
online banking services.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 18, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=21WhWg at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          Andrea R. Gold, Esq.
          Glenn E. Chappell, Esq.
          Cort T. Carlson, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Suite 1010
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
                  agold@tzlegal.com
                  gchappell@tzlegal.com
                  ccarlson@tzlegal.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Elizabeth L. McKeen, Esq.
          Ashley M. Pavel, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          610 Newport Center Dr., Suite 1700
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 823-6900
          Facsimile: (949) 823-6994
          E-mail: emckeen@omm.com
                  apavel@omm.com

BLAZESOFT LTD: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Online Gambling Traps
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit out of Illinois alleges that Sportzino and Zula
Casino are illegal online "gambling traps" disguised as harmless,
free-to-play gaming platforms.

According to the 36-page lawsuit, several states, including
Illinois, have laws prohibiting the operation of real-money online
casinos. The complaint claims Blazesoft, the company behind
Sportzino and Zula Casino, attempts to circumvent these online
gambling restrictions by deceptively marketing the platforms as
"sweepstakes" casinos—i.e., sites and apps where users can play
slots, bingo and other casino-style games without having to wager
money.

As part of their predatory scheme, Sportzino and Zula Casino offer
players two types of virtual currencies—Gold Coins, which are
used to play "free" casino games and hold no monetary value, and
Sweepstakes Coins, which can be wagered on casino-style games and
redeemed for real cash, the case says. Per the suit, Sweeps Coins
are valued at roughly a 1:1 ratio with the U.S. dollar.

Although the platforms insist that players can obtain Sweeps Coins
for free through various promotions, the only advertised way of
accumulating these tokens is to purchase bundled packs of Gold
Coins and Sweeps Coins.

"This dual-currency structure effectively converts what appears to
be an innocuous gaming platform into an unregulated online casino
where players use real money to gamble on games of chance," the
lawsuit charges.

As unlicensed casinos operating without regulatory oversight,
Sportzino and Zula Casino significantly undermine critical consumer
protections mandated by Illinois law, the case alleges. For
instance, the platforms illegally allow gambling for individuals
under the age of 21 and fail to provide meaningful resources to
address problem gambling, the suit contends.

The complaint argues that Blazesoft's misconduct creates a
"dangerously misleading environment" that's particularly harmful to
younger audiences and individuals susceptible to gambling
addiction.

"By creating an illusion of risk-free entertainment, Defendants'
platforms manipulate users into participating in activities that
carry severe financial and emotional consequences," the case
contends. "Many players are misled into believing they are engaging
in harmless gaming, only to find themselves spending significant
sums of money chasing Sweeps Coin winnings."

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States who has
lost money wagering on online casino games offered by Sportzino or
Zula Casino. [GN]

BLUE SHIELD: Bishop Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Venus Bishop, individually an on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA LIFE &
HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 24STCV32307 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on Feb. 18, 2025, and assigned Case No.
2:25-cv-01350.

The complaint in the State Court Action alleged causes of action
for violation of California Business & Professions Code Section
17200, et seq. and declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to
the Declaratory Judgment Act.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kimberly A. Klinsport, Esq.
          Kendall E. Waters, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          555 S Flower Street, Suite 3300
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2411
          Phone: 213.972.4500
          Facsimile: 213.486.0065
          Email: kklinsport@foley.com
                 kwaters@foley.com

               - and -

          Emma E. Soldon, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          555 California Street, Suite 1700
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415.434.4484
          Facsimile: 415.434.4507
          Email: esoldon@foley.com

BOGDAN DELIVERY: Mike Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jerrod Mike, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. BOGDAN DELIVERY, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00653 (S.D.
Tex., Feb. 14, 2025), is brought for the Defendant's violation the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") which requires non-exempt
employees to be compensated for all hours in excess of forty in a
workweek at one and one-half times their regular rate.

The Defendant required the Plaintiff to work more that forty hours
in a work week as a delivery driver. The Defendant misclassified
Plaintiff as an independent contractor and paid him a flat daily
rate for his regular and overtime hours. Defendant also
misclassified other delivery drivers and similar employees as
independent contractors across the country and likewise denied them
their proper overtime compensation, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a delivery driver from
October of 2023 to January of 2025.

Bogdan Delivery, LLC is a parcel delivery company that operates in
multiple states across the country, including Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Neuman, Esq.
          SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
          4151 Southwest Freeway, Suite 515
          Houston, TX 77027
          Phone: (281) 885-8844
          Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
          Email: JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com

C & H MOTORS INC: Yates Sues Over Failure to Compensate Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Karen A. Yates, Individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, v. C & H MOTORS, INC. and Unknown officers of C & H
MOTORS, INC. Does 1-10, Case: 2:25-cv-00151-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio,
Feb. 14, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 ("FLSA"); The Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("The Ohio
Wage Act"), and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act ("OPPA") (the Ohio Wage Act
and the OPPA will be collectively referred to as the "Ohio Acts")
as a result of the Defendants' failure to compensate Plaintiff all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek at one-and-one-half
times Plaintiff's regular rates of pay as required by law.

The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per week but was
not paid one and- one-half times her regular rate of pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours. The Defendant does not pay and
has not paid its employees one-and-one-half times their regular
rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek
as required by law. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees worked more than 40 hours per workweek for the Defendant,
but Defendants did not pay them any pay at the proper overtime rate
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed as an hourly, non-exempt employee by
Defendants from May, 2018 until December, 2024.

The Defendant operates an automobile repair garage providing parts
and collision remediation services to the general public.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Theodore R. Saker, Jr., Esq.
          SAKER LAW OFFICES
          2929 Kenny Rd., Suite 280
          Columbus, OH 43221-2400
          Phone: 614/488-9900
          Facsimile: 614/488-5238
          Email ted@saker-law.com


CANOPY GROWTH: Continues to Defend Asmaro Shareholder Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Canopy Growth Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2025, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Asmaro shareholder class suit
in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

On June 15, 2023, an ostensible shareholder commenced a putative
class action (Asmaro v. Canopy Growth Corporation et al., Court
File No. VLC-S-S-234351) against the Company and two of its
officers in the Supreme Court of British Columbia on behalf of a
putative class of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of the Company between August 6, 2021
and May 10, 2023.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company's disclosures contained
misrepresentations within the meaning of the Securities Act
(British Columbia), that certain officers authorized, permitted, or
acquiesced in the release of the impugned disclosures, and that all
of the defendants are liable for damages to the putative class.

The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of damages.

The Company denies any alleged misconduct and liability for each of
the claims asserted and believes that the defendants/respondents
have meritorious defenses to the claims, and expects to vigorously
defend the claims, although the Company cannot predict when or how
they will be resolved or estimate what the potential loss or range
of loss would be, if any.

Canopy Growth Corporation is a publicly traded corporation,
incorporated in Canada, with its head office located at 1 Hershey
Drive, Smiths Falls, Ontario. It is into the production,
distribution and sale of a diverse range of cannabis and
cannabinoid-based products for both adult-use and medical purposes
under a portfolio of distinct brands in Canada.

CANOPY GROWTH: Continues to Defend Dziedziejko Shareholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Canopy Growth Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2025, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Dziedziejko shareholder class
suit in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

On June 27, 2023, an ostensible shareholder commenced a putative
class action (Dziedziejko v. Canopy Growth Corporation et al.,
Court File No. CV-23-00701769-00CP) in the Ontario Superior Court
of Justice against the Company, two of its officers, and the
Company’s auditor on behalf of a putative class of all persons or
entities who acquired Canopy Growth's securities in the secondary
market between June 1, 2021 to June 22, 2023 and held some or all
of those securities until the close of trading on May 10, 2023 or
June 22, 2023.

The plaintiff alleges that the Company's disclosures contained
misrepresentations within the meaning of the Securities Act
(Ontario), that certain officers authorized, permitted, or
acquiesced in the release of the impugned disclosures, that the
Company and one of its officers acted in a manner that was
oppressive or unfairly prejudicial to the proposed class members by
failing to remedy alleged deficiencies in the Company'’s internal
controls, and that all of the defendants are liable for damages to
the putative class.

The action seeks an unspecified amount of damages, interest, legal
fees, and the costs of administering a plan of distribution of the
recovery.

CAThe Company denies any alleged misconduct and liability for each
of the claims asserted and believes that the defendants/respondents
have meritorious defenses to the claims, and expects to vigorously
defend the claims, although the Company cannot predict when or how
they will be resolved or estimate what the potential loss or range
of loss would be, if any.

Canopy Growth Corporation is a publicly traded corporation,
incorporated in Canada, with its head office located at 1 Hershey
Drive, Smiths Falls, Ontario. It is into the production,
distribution and sale of a diverse range of cannabis and
cannabinoid-based products for both adult-use and medical purposes
under a portfolio of distinct brands in Canada.

CAPITAL ONE: Poaches Content Creators' Commissions, Blotnicki Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
EDDIE BLOTNICKI, MISHA DOBBS, COURTNEY DORAN, JULES FLETCHER,
CAROLYN JOHNSTON, ANGELA KACHONIK, LAUREN LEATHERMAN, AMY MALCOLM,
TATIANA MARQUEZ, KARA MILLER, AND LEILANI SHIMODA, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CAPITAL
ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, WIKIBUY LLC, AND WIKIBUY HOLDINGS LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00221 (E.D. Va., February 6, 2025)
arises from the Defendants' ownership and use of the Capital One
Shopping browser extension to poach commissions generated by online
content creators and personalities who use affiliate links to
generate and track online sales.

Capital One Shopping is a browser extension that is marketed as a
tool to help consumers find and apply online coupons to save money.
The pitch is that when consumers are checking out to complete a
purchase at an online merchant, they click on Capital One Shopping,
and it will identify any online coupon or promotional codes that
may be applicable to the purchase and apply them to save consumers
money before they complete the purchase.

Behind the scenes, however, Capital One Shopping allegedly operates
very differently, asserts the suit. While presenting itself as a
tool designed to assist consumers, it covertly replaces existing
affiliate tracking cookies with its own to make it appear to
merchants that Capital One Shopping originated the sale. As a
result, Defendants wrongfully claim the commission -- without the
knowledge of the consumer, affiliate, or vendor -- thereby
depriving the rightful affiliate of the benefits of their marketing
efforts, the suit alleges.

The Plaintiffs are content creators promoting products on Facebook,
Instagram, and TikTok.

Capital One Financial Corporation operates as the financial
services holding company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew T. Sutter, Esq.
          SUTTER & TERPAK, PLLC
          7540 Little River Tnpk.
          Suite A, First Floor
          Annandale, VA 22003
          Telephone: (703) 256-1800
          Facsimile: (703) 991-6116
          E-mail: matt@sutterandterpak.com

               - and -

          Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
          412 H St N.E., Suite 302
          Washington, D.C. 20002
          Telephone: (202) 470-3520
          Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
          E-mail: jrathod@classlawdc.com
                  nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com

CAPITOL FEDERAL: Reversal of Suit Dismissal Under Review
--------------------------------------------------------
Capitol Federal Financial Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2025, that the
reversal of the Court's ruling on the dismissal of the Harding
class action is under review.

On November 2, 2022, the Bank was served a putative class action
lawsuit, captioned Jennifer Harding, et al. vs. Capitol Federal
Savings Bank (Case No. 2022-CV-00598), filed in the Third Judicial
District Court, Shawnee County, Kansas against the Bank, alleging
the Bank improperly charged overdraft fees on (1) debit card
transactions that were authorized for payment on sufficient funds
but later settled against a negative account balance (commonly
known as "authorize positive purportedly settle negative" or
"APPSN" transactions) and (2) merchant re-presentments of
previously rejected payment requests. The complaint asserts a
breach of contract claim (including breach of an implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing) for each practice and seeks
restitution for alleged improper fees, alleged actual damages,
costs and disbursements, and injunctive relief.

On April 5, 2023, the court granted the Bank's motion to dismiss
the complaint, with prejudice.

The plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Kansas Court of
Appeals, which issued an opinion on October 4, 2024 reversing the
district court's ruling. In response, the Bank filed a petition for
review with the Kansas Supreme Court on November 1, 2024.

The review is currently pending.

Capitol Federal Financial, Inc. is a federally chartered savings
institution based in Topeka, Kansas.


CHARLIE HUSTLE: Randolph Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
------------------------------------------------------------------
ERIKA RANDOLPH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHARLIE HUSTLE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-01545 (N.D. Ill., February 13, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act 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://charliehustle.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: changing of content without advance warning, inaccurate
focus order, unclear labels for interactive elements, the denial of
keyboard access for some interactive elements, inaccurate alt-text
on graphics, 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.

Charlie Hustle, LLC is a company that sells online goods and
services in Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Paul Camarena, Esq.
       1016 W. Jackson, No. 32
       Chicago, IL 60607
       Telephone: (630) 534-2527
       Email: northandsedgwicklaw@gmail.com

CLEAN HARBORS: Parties in Fogg Ordered to Go Back to Mediation
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FOGG v. CLEAN HARBORS
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-07626 (D.N.J., Filed
March 31, 2021), the Hon. Judge Madeline Cox Arleo entered an order
directing the parties to go back to mediation.

-- Parties are to submit a letter with      May 1, 2025
    status of mediation by:

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Clean Harbors is an American provider of environmental and
industrial services, including hazardous waste disposal for
companies, small waste generators.[CC]

COMMUNITY HEALTH: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Brown Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINE-ANN BROWN, on behalf of herself and her minor child A.B.,
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMMUNITY HEALTH
CENTER, INC., Defendant, Case No. _______ (Conn. Super., Middlesex
Jud. Cir., February 6, 2025) is a class action against CHC for its
failure to properly secure and safeguard the plaintiff's and other
similarly situated CHC patients' personally identifiable
information and protected health information.

On or about January 30, 2025, CHC filed official notice of a
hacking incident with the Maine Attorney General's Office. Under
state and federal law, organizations must report breaches involving
PHI within at least 60 days. The potential for improper disclosure
and theft of Plaintiffs' and Class Members' private information was
a known risk to CHC, and thus CHC was on notice that failing to
take necessary steps to secure the Private Information left it
vulnerable to an attack.

CHC failed to properly implement security practices with regard to
the computer network and systems that housed the Private
Information, asserts the complaint. Had CHC properly monitored its
networks, it would have discovered the Breach sooner. The
Plaintiffs' and Class Members' identities are now at risk because
of CHC's negligent conduct as the private information that CHC
collected and maintained is now in the hands of data thieves and
other unauthorized third parties, adds the complaint.

Community Health Center, Inc. based in Middletown, Connecticut, is
a nonprofit healthcare organization providing primary care, dental,
behavioral health, and specialty services to individuals and
families.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

CONEXUS MEDSTAFF: Faces Navarrete Class Suit Over Labor Trafficking
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JASON JOHN DIAZ NAVARRETE, JOYCE KRISTINA GABATON CASTILLANO,
KATRYN GRACE ASERON, and JHON GERALD RELOQUIO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CONEXUS
MEDSTAFF LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00635 (S.D. Tex.,
February 13, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization
Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged labor trafficking
scheme whereby it threatens a class of foreign healthcare workers
with serious financial harm and abuse of the legal process to
secure an artificially cheap and captive supply of labor, which it
then sells to healthcare providers at a profit. Conexus directs
healthcare workers to sign unenforceable, draconian employment
agreements (the "Sham Contracts") and uses these Sham Contracts as
a coercive mechanism to ensnare the healthcare workers in
indentured servitude. The Defendant also failed to properly pay the
Plaintiffs and similarly situated healthcare workers. The lawsuit
seeks to end Conexus's illegal practices and to compensate the
healthcare workers.

Conexus Medstaff LLC is a healthcare professional recruitment and
staffing agency, with its principal place of business in Texas.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
       Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
       BERGER MONTAGUE PC
       8241 La Mesa Blvd, Suite A
       La Mesa, CA 91942
       Telephone: (215) 875-3063
       Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
       Email: apiazza@bm.net

               - and -

       Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq.
       Michaela Wallin, Esq.
       BERGER MONTAGUE PC
       1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
       Philadelphia, PA 19103
       Telephone: (215) 875-4635
       Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
       Email: mdellangelo@bm.net
              mwallin@bm.net

               - and -

       Mariyam Hussain, Esq.
       BERGER MONTAGUE PC
       110 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2500
       Chicago, IL 60606
       Telephone: (773) 666-4316
       Email: mhussain@bm.net

               - and -

       Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
       Lauren Wands, Esq.
       KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP
       250 Park Avenue, Suite 820
       New York, NY 10177
       Telephone: (212) 371-6600
       Email: telrod@kmllp.com
              lwands@kmllp.com

CR1F GROUP: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls, Ownby Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN OWNBY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CR1F GROUP, LLC d/b/a UNITED 1st LENDING,
Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-00379 (M.D. Fla., February 13, 2025) is
a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in a practice
of sending calling the telephone numbers of consumers, including
the Plaintiff, in an attempt to promote its loan products and
services without prior express written consent. As a result of the
Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff and Class members were harmed.

Cr1f Group, LLC, doing business as United 1st Lending, is a loan
products provider, with its principal place of business in New Port
Beach, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
       HIRALDO P.A.
       401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
       Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
       Telephone: (954) 400-4713
       Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

                 - and -

       Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq.
       KUHN RASLAVICH, P.A.
       2110 West Platt Street
       Tampa, FL 33606
       Telephone: (813) 422–7782
       Facsimile: (813) 422–7783
       Email: ben@theKRfirm.com

DATANYZE LLC: Green Files Suit in Ill. Dist. Ct.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Datanyze, LLC. The
case is styled as Noel Green, Michaela Foley, Cornelius Lewis,
Robert Burgy, John Soots, James Hurd, individually and as
representatives of similarly-situated persons v. Datanyze, LLC,
Case No. 2025LA000185 (Ill. Dist. Ct., Feb. 13, 2025).

Datanyze -- https://www.datanyze.com/ -- is the leader in
technographics -- real-time insights based on a company's
technology choices and buying signals.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON & WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Ste. 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Phone: (847) 368-1500
          Email: bwanca@andersonwanca.com

DELUXE MEDIA: Richter Suit Seeks to Certify Class, Subclasses
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEFAN RICHTER,
individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees,
v. DELUXE MEDIA INC.; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No.
2:24-cv-04835-MWC-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on April 17,
2025, will move the Court for an order that this action be
maintained as a class action.

Specifically, the Plaintiff requests the Honorable Court to enter
an order:

   1. Appointing the Plaintiff as class representative.

   2. Appointing Blackstone Law, APC as class counsel.

   3. Certifying the Class and the following subclasses

      A. Meal Break Subclass

      B. Rest Break Subclass

      C. Derivative Claims Subclass

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an Audio
Mixer/Technician from Nov. 30, 2022 to May 6, 2024.

Deluxe is a "multidisciplinary service provider" servicing "premium
content creators and distributors" within the "media and
entertainment industry."

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 18, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mRdBx0 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan M. Genish, Esq.
          Miriam Schimmel, Esq.
          Joana Fang, Esq.
          Alexandra Rose, Esq.
          Jared C. Osborne, Esq.
          BLACKSTONE LAW, APC
          8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 745
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 622-4278
          Facsimile: (855) 786-6356
          E-mail: mschimmel@blackstonepc.com
                  jfang@blackstonepc.com
                  arose@blackstonepc.com
                  josborne@blackstonepc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michele J. Beilke, Esq.
          Julia Y. Trankiem, Esq.
          Galit A. Knotz, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3300
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 270-9600
          Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
          E-mail: mbeilke@seyfarth.com
                  jtrankiem@seyfarth.com
                  gknotz@seyfarth.com
                  shundley@seyfarth.com

GOYA FOODS: Mora Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Goya Foods of
California, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Salvador Mora, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Goya Foods of
California, Inc. Dependable Personnel Inc., Employer's Outsourcing
LLC, Case No. 25STCV03912 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb.
13, 2025).

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

Goya Foods, Inc. -- https://www.goya.com/en/ -- is a producer and
distributor of foods and beverages sold in the United States and
many Spanish-speaking countries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638
          Phone: 310-432-0000
          Fax: 310-432-0001
          Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com

HEYS AMERICA: Battle Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------
Andre Battle, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Heys America, Ltd., Case No. 1:25-cv-01529 (N.D. Ill.,
Feb. 13, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually impaired persons.

The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services LJC Apparel provides to their non-disabled customers
through https://us.heys.com (hereinafter "Us.heys.com" or "the
website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its
website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered,
and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the
"ADA").

Because Defendant's website, Us.heys.com, is not equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA.
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Heys
America's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's
website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination, says the complaint.

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

Heys America provides to the public a website known as Us.heys.com
which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and
services, including, the ability to view a wide selection of
luggage, travel bags, backpacks, water bottles, packing essentials,
and organizational accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Uri Horowitz, Esq.
          14441 70th Road
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: 718.705.8706
          Fax: 718.705.8705
          Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com

HIGH SPEED: Faces Cole Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
HARON COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
Plaintiff v. High Speed Productions, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-01286 (N.D. Ill., February 6, 2025) is a civil rights
action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, thrashermagazine.com, to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of a
hoodie on Thrashermagazine.com. Despite his efforts, however,
Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted
individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and
accommodations. Unless Defendant remedies the numerous access
barriers on its website, the Plaintiff and Class members will
continue to be unable to independently navigate, browse, use, and
complete a purchase on the website.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
High Speed Productions' policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.

High Speed Productions, Inc. operates the website that provides
consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including,
the ability to view a wide range of T-shirts, hoodies, hats,
stickers, posters, magazines, and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Reyes, Esq.
          ASHER COHEN LAW PLLC
          2377 56th Dr.,
          Brooklyn, NY 11234
          Telephone: (630) 478-0856
          E-mail: dreyes@ashercohenlaw.com

HRSH ACQUISITIONS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Henry Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CONSTANCE HENRY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated Plaintiff v. HRSH Acquisitions, LLC, d/b/a Alloy Apparel &
Accessories, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01281 (N.D. Ill., February
6, 2025) is a civil rights action against HRSH Acquisitions for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website,
https://alloyapparel.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers
that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using
keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive
and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure,
ambiguous link texts, unclear labels for interactive elements, the
lack of navigation links, inadequate focus order, inaccessible
drop-down menus, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive
elements, changing of content without advance warning, and the
requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
HRSH Acquisitions' policies, practices, and procedures so that its
website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.

HRSH Acquisitions, LLC, d/b/a Alloy Apparel & Accessories, operates
the website that offers a variety of clothing items for tall women,
including jeans, pants, dresses, jumpsuits, jackets, blazers,
T-shirts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Reyes, Esq.
          ASHER COHEN LAW PLLC
          2377 56th Dr.,
          Brooklyn, NY 11234
          Telephone: (630) 478-0856
          E-mail: dreyes@ashercohenlaw.com

HUMBOLDT INDEPENDENT: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Burns, writing for Lost Coast Output, reports that a Florida
attorney this week filed a class action lawsuit against the
Humboldt Independent Practice Association, alleging that the
organization's lax security measures allowed "an unauthorized
actor" to access patients private health information.

Humboldt IPA, an organization that partners with local health care
providers to process claims and provide other administrative
services, issued a letter to patients earlier this month alerting
them to a "data security incident," according to the complaint.

Plaintiff Susan Fraser represents the proposed class of more than
100 current and former patients affected by the alleged breach,
which resulted in the theft of names, contact information, emails,
telephone numbers, dates of birth, driver's licenses, medical
diagnoses or conditions and health insurance information, the
lawsuit alleges.

"Defendant's woefully inadequate data security measures made the
Data Breach a foreseeable, and even likely, consequence of its
negligence," reads a summary of the case, which was filed by
attorney Kristen Lake Cardoso with the firm of Kopelowitz Ostrow
Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert (KO), based in South Florida.

According to the suit, Humboldt IPA did not encrypt patients'
private information or delete it when it was no longer needed, and
the breach puts those patients at risk of further "identity theft
crimes, fraud, scams, and other misuses of their Private
Information."

Much of the complaint's 27-page length is filled with general
information about regulatory requirements, standard industry
practices and the importance of keeping private information
private.

The class action suit accuses Humboldt IPA of negligence, breach of
contract and unjust enrichment, and it seeks injunctive relief, a
yet-to-be-determined amount of financial relief plus interest,
attorneys' fees, costs and expenses to be determined at trial.

You can read a copy of the complaint via the link below. A voice
message seeking comment from Humboldt IPA was not immediately
returned. We'll update this post if the organization provides a
statement or any further information. [GN]

JOHNSON AND JOHNSON: Vasseur Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Paige Vasseur, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Johnson and Johnson Consumer Inc.,
Kenvue Brands LLC, Kenvue Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-07487 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey on Jan. 13, 2025.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01221 to the
proceeding.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (714) 651-8845
          Fax: (919) 600-6035
          Email: tkashima@milberg.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          SHUB & JOHNS LLC
          200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Phone: (610) 477-8380
          Email: ecf@shublawyers.com

               - and -

          Angela Christine Agrusa, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP US
          North Tower
          2000 Avenue of the Stars Suite 400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-4704
          Phone: (310) 595-3000
          Fax: (310) 595-3300

KALEIDA HEALTH: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid Response
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cleary et al., v. Kaleida
Health et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00026-LJV-JJM (W.D.N.Y.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their request
that their response to the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification be due April 11 (subject to the Defendants' right to
seek additional reasonable extensions), and that the Plaintiffs'
reply be due May 12.

Presently, the Defendants' response to the Motion is due on March
11, and reply papers are due on April 7.

The Plaintiffs' counsel has advised that they do not oppose this
request for a one-month extension but reserve their right to oppose
requests for additional changes to the briefing schedule on the
Motion.

Kaleida is a not-for-profit healthcare network that manages five
hospitals in the Buffalo–Niagara Falls metropolitan area.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 18, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wIJR5t at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Myron D. Rumeld, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          Eleven Times Square
          New York, NY 10036-8299
          MEMBER OF THE FIRM
          Telephone: (212) 969-3021
          Facsimile: (212) 969-2900
          E-mail: mrumeld@proskauer.com

KEITH DEVOS: Scott Seeks to Certify Class of TCF Detainees
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Richard Scott v. Devos, et
al., Case No. 3:25-cv-05026-TMC-MLP (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class of:

   "All former and present Total Confinement Facility (TCF)
    residents or detainees."

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 18, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8eakyO at no extra
charge.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC]

KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Court Certifies Cottonelle Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo Finance reports that Slater Vecchio LLP announces that the
Supreme Court of British Columbia has certified a class action
against Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Kimberly-Clark Inc, and
Kimberly-Clark Canada Inc. ("Kimberly-Clark"). The Class Action
relates to Cottonelle Flushable Wipes® or Cottonelle Gentle Plus
Flushable Wipes® manufactured between February 7, 2020 and
September 14, 2020 which were subject to recall (the "Recalled
Lots").

The lawsuit alleges that some of the Recalled Lots contained a
bacterium known as pluralibacter gergoviae. The Representative
plaintiff alleges that she and other Class Members suffered
personal injury as a result of using contaminated Recalled Lots,
including infection; irritation, abrasion, and scarring to the
skin; and psychological injury.

The Defendants deny the allegations, which have not been proven.
The Court has not decided who is right.

If you claim to have suffered personal injury as a result of using
the Recalled Lots, please visit
https://www.slatervecchio.com/class-action/kimberly-clark-wipes/.
[GN]

LIVE VENTURES: Continues to Defend Sieggreen Class Suit in Nevada
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Live Ventures Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterlyI period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2025, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Sieggreen class suit in
the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.

On August 13, 2021, Daniel E. Sieggreen, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated claimants (the "Plaintiff"), filed
a class action Complaint for violation of federal securities laws
in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada,
naming the Company, Jon Isaac, the Company's current President and
Chief Executive Officer, and Virland Johnson, the Company's former
Chief Financial Officer, as defendants (collectively, the "Company
Defendants").

The allegations asserted are similar to those in the SEC Complaint.
Among other sought relief, the complaint seeks damages in
connection with the purchases and sales of the Company's securities
between December 28, 2016 and August 3, 2021.

As of December 17, 2021, the judge granted a stipulation to stay
proceedings pending the resolutions of the Motions to Dismiss in
the SEC Complaint.

On February 1, 2023, the final Motion to Dismiss relating to the
SEC Complaint was denied, which was subsequently noticed in the
Sieggreen action on February 2, 2023.

Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on March 6, 2023.

On May 5, 2023, the Company Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss
the Amended Complaint.

The Motion to Dismiss was heard on September 30, 2024.

The Court granted the Motion with Leave to Amend.

The Second Amended Complaint was recently filed.

The Company is currently evaluating its response thereto which may
result in another Motion to Dismiss being filed.

Live Ventures Incorporated is a diversified holding company with a
strategic focus on value-oriented acquisitions of domestic
middle-market companies.

LONG BEACH, NY: Class Cert Briefing Sched Entered in Guma
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Guma, et al., v. The City
of Long Beach, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-04529 (E.D.N.Y., Filed June
20, 2023), the Hon. Judge Gary R. Brown entered an order adopting
the parties' proposed briefing schedule on the Plaintiff's
anticipated motion for class certification as follows:

-- moving papers to be served on or before March 21, 2025,

-- opposition papers to be served on or before April 25, 2025,
    and

-- reply papers to be served on or before May 7, 2025.

The parties are directed to submit courtesy copies of the moving
papers to Chambers as they are served upon one another. The parties
are further directed to comply with the undersigned's Individual
Rules with respect to filing the fully briefed motion by May 7,
2025.

The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.[CC]

MADISON REED: Henry Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
------------------------------------------------------------
CONSTANCE HENRY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated Plaintiff v. Madison Reed, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-01280 (N.D. Ill., February 6, 2025) is a civil rights
action against Madison Reed for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, https://www.madison-reed.com, to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers
that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using
keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive
and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure,
inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content
without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements,
inaccurate alt-text on graphics, inaccurate drop-down menus, and
the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a
mouse.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Madison Reed's policies, practices, and procedures so that its
website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.

Madison Reed, Inc. operates the website which provides consumers
with access to an array of goods and services, including, the
ability to view hair color, hair masks, shampoos, conditioners,
root touch-up kits, powders, and other related accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Reyes, Esq.
          ASHER COHEN LAW PLLC
          2377 56th Dr.,
          Brooklyn, NY 11234
          Telephone: (630)-478-0856
          E-mail: dreyes@ashercohenlaw.com

MANTECH ADVANCED: Gonzalez Suit Seeks Proper Wages for Technicians
------------------------------------------------------------------
ARTURO GONZALEZ, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. MANTECH ADVANCED SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC., a
Virginia limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
2:25-cv-01035 (C.D. Cal., February 6, 2025) is a class and
collective action to recover unpaid wages and other damages from
the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California
Labor Code, and the California Business and Professions Code.

The complaint alleges the Defendant's failure to pay overtime,
failure to pay for all hours worked, failure to authorize and
permit and/or make available meal and rest periods, failure to
provide timely and accurate itemized wage statements, waiting time
penalties, failure to provide employee records, and unlawful
business practices.

Plaintiff Gonzalez was employed by the Defendant as a mobility
field technician in California from approximately July 2022 until
June 2024.

ManTech Advanced Systems International, Inc. is a defense
contracting firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William M. Hogg, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: whogg@mybackwages.com

MASTERCARD INC: CAT Approves GBP200MM Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Rigby, writing for Global Legal Post, reports that Mastercard's
proposed GBP200m settlement with Walter Merricks, the lead claimant
in a class action representing approximately 46 million UK
consumers, has been approved by the Competition Appeal Tribunal
(CAT).

The CAT endorsed the settlement on February 21, 2025, rejecting a
challenge by the claim's funder, Innsworth Capital, which argued
that the value of the settlement was too low and did not meet the
statutory test of being 'just and reasonable'.

The settlement resolves the long-standing litigation over credit
card fees, which was at one stage valued at GBP17bn.

Merricks said: "I am very pleased that after more than eight years,
where I have given my all to get the best result possible for UK
consumers, that the tribunal has today confirmed that the
settlement I agreed with Mastercard is just and reasonable -- in
fact, the tribunal went as far as to say it had no doubt about
that.

"I had clearly hoped to have recovered more, but the case and facts
developed in a way that meant I could recover less than I initially
planned, but I recovered the best amount possible."

Agreement between the two sides was announced in December. However,
Innsworth was quick to challenge it.

During the two-day hearing Mark Brealey KC of Monckton Chambers,
representing Merricks, emphasised that the proposed settlement
brought certainty and mitigated the risk of consumers receiving
nothing if the litigation persisted, according to the Law Society
Gazette.

Sonia Tolaney KC, joint head of One Essex Court, representing
Mastercard, said the GBP200m offer was the maximum amount
Mastercard was willing to pay.

However, Innsworth's counsel Charles Béar KC of Fountain Court
Chambers, said "the class does not get a fair return on this
settlement on any view of distribution", the Gazette reported.

According to a report by Law 360, the tribunal -- which will
deliver reasons for the decision at a later date -- expressed "some
concerns as to how the matter was dealt with" in the run-up to the
agreement.

Commenting on today's ruling, Merricks' lead adviser, Willkie Farr
& Gallagher partner Boris Bronfentrinker, said: "These proceedings
started off as a landmark case in setting the foundation for
collective actions in the UK and it will end being as equally
groundbreaking in a settlement achieved under heavy attack and
challenge by the litigation funder."

The case -- one of the most significant to come before the CAT --
was originally filed in 2016 by Merricks, the former financial
services ombudsman, making it the first collective action
proceeding initiated after the 2015 Consumer Rights Act gave the
green light to 'opt out' competition group claims.

The action was only finally approved by the CAT in May 2022 after
it rejected the application in 2017 only for the Supreme Court to
back it in December 2020 after a series of appeals.

The case stemmed from a European Commission decision -- backed by
the European Court of Justice in 2014 -- that Mastercard had
infringed competition law through its use of charges known as
interchange fees on cross-border transactions. It was alleged that
UK consumers using Mastercard had paid too much for goods between
1992 and 2008.

Mastercard was advised by Freshfields partner Mark Sansom while
Akin Gump partner Richard Hornshaw advised Innsworth. [GN]

MCKESSON MEDICAL: Morales Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Bertha Gabriela Guzman Morales, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MCKESSON MEDICAL
SURGICAL, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
CIVRS2403049 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 14,
2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-00450-MWC-SP.

On December 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed an unverified Class Action
Complaint which sets forth the following 8 causes of action:
failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime compensation;
failure to provide meal periods; failure to authorize and permit
rest breaks; failure to indemnify necessary business expenses;
failure to timely pay final wages at termination; failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements; and unfair
competition.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mia Farber, Esq.
          Nicky Jatana, Esq.
          Buck Haddix, Esq.
          Kishaniah Dhamodaran, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
          Phone: (213) 689-0404
          Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
          Email: Mia.Farber@jacksonlewis.com
                 Nicky.Jatana@jacksonlewis.com
                 Buck.Haddix@jacksonlewis.com
                 Kishaniah.dhamo@jacksonlewis.com

MEMORIAL HOSPITAL: Brown Files Suit in M.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Memorial Hospital and
Manor Auxiliary Inc. The case is styled as Cherrylon Brown, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Memorial
Hospital and Manor Auxiliary Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-00027-LAG (M.D.
Ga.., Feb. 13, 2025).

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

Memorial Hospital and Manor in Bainbridge, Georgia --
https://www.mh-m.org/ -- has served the healthcare needs of Decatur
County and surrounding communities for over 50 years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          N. Nickolas Jackson, Esq.
          200 13th Street
          Columbus, GA 31901
          Phone: (706) 322-6226
          Email: njackson@thefinleyfirm.com

MIRAMAR PLAZA: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property
------------------------------------------------------
Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated v. MIRAMAR PLAZA, INC., Case No.
1:25-cv-20712-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 14, 2025), is brought for
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result
of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff
by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or
accommodations of the commercial property and restaurant and bar
business within the commercial property.

Although over 30 years have passed since the effective date of
Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities
accessible to individuals with disabilities. The Plaintiff found
the Commercial Property and the business located within the
commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff
encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property and
the business located within the commercial property and wishes to
continue his patronage and use of the premises.

The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in
violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and
businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to
access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each
denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial
Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA.
The barriers to access have likewise posed a risk of injury(ies),
embarrassment, and discomfort to Plaintiff and others similarly
situated.

The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff
by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or
accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located
therein, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate.

MIRAMAR PLAZA, INC., owns, operates, and oversees the Commercial
Property, its general parking lot and parking spots specific to the
businesses therein, located in Miami Dade County, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beverly Virues, Esq.
          Armando Mejias, Esq.
          GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L.
          350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
          Coral Gables, Fl 33134
          Phone: (305) 553-3464
          Primary Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com
          Secondary Emails: amejias@lawgmp.com
                            jacosta@lawgmp.com

               - and -

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

NATURE'S BAKERY: Court Allows Fig Bars Class Action to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Yurow of Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge on Friday, February 20, allowed a class action against snack
bar company Nature's Bakery to proceed, finding consumers could
plausibly be misled by the company's claims that its fig bars are
"wholesome" when they contain high levels of added sugar.

U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar largely denied Nature's Bakery's
motion to dismiss a class action by lead plaintiff Andrew Levit,
who claims in a May 2024 lawsuit the company deceptively markets
its fig bars as healthy snacks despite containing 19 grams of total
sugar per serving, with 14 grams being added sugars —
representing 28% of the product's total calories.

Levit challenges statements on Nature's Bakery's packaging
proclaiming the snack bar has "Wholesome Baked In," and is "equal
parts wholesome and delicious," and "the best fuel for active
lives," alongside a heart vignette and "Whole Grains Council"
stamp. According to Levit, these elements combine to create
misleading health and wellness representations.

While Tigar found some of the challenged statements constitute
non-actionable puffery — including phrases like "what we bake in
is as important as what we leave out" and "simple snacks made with
real ingredients" — he determined the use of "wholesome" could
potentially deceive reasonable consumers.

"Unlike words such as 'unbelievably' and 'positively,' the
additional language is not 'exaggerated advertising, blustering
[or] boasting,'" Tigar wrote. "Rather, the language merely conveys
or emphasizes the 'wholesome' quality of defendant's products in
different ways."

The judge rejected Nature's Bakery's argument that no deception
occurred because the products' sugar content is clearly disclosed
on the nutrition facts panel.

Tigar noted that, "the Ninth Circuit rejected defendants’
contention that no reasonable consumer could have been misled by
the product because the ingredients were specifically identified on
the FDA-mandated panel."

Levit's claims for breach of warranty, negligent and intentional
misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment also survived Nature
Bakery's motion to dismiss.

Tigar also found Levit had adequately established economic injury
and standing to seek injunctive relief, noting Levit's position
that he "would not have purchased the products if he knew that the
challenged labeling claims were false and misleading in that the
products are detrimental rather than beneficial to health."

However, the judge dismissed Levit's fraudulent omission claims,
finding he failed to plausibly show that eating Nature's Bakery's
fig bars in customary amounts would cause death or serious injury,
or identify any other basis for a duty to disclose by the company.

Levit, who filed suit in federal court in Oakland, seeks to
represent a class of California consumers who purchased Nature's
Bakery products, which include fig bars in flavors like raspberry,
blueberry, original fig, apple cinnamon, strawberry, peach apricot
and pumpkin spice, along with the company's gluten-free varieties.

Levit was granted 21 days to file an amended complaint addressing
the deficiencies in his dismissed claims. [GN]

NCAA: Seeks to Continue Class Cert Hearing to March 3
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANNON RAY, KATHERINE
SEBBANE, KHALA TAYLOR, PETER ROBINSON, AND RUDY BARAJAS,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, an unincorporated
association, Case No. 1:23-cv-00425-WBS-CSK (E.D. Cal.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order continuing the hearing
on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification from March 3, 2025,
at 1:30 p.m. to Aug. 4, 2025, or a date thereafter that is
convenient for the Court.

The NCAA further requests that the Court permit the parties to file
supplemental briefs addressing the impact of LabCorp on Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification within 14 days of the Supreme Court
issuing a decision on the merits in LabCorp.

The Plaintiffs have indicated that they oppose the NCAA's request
to continue the hearing date and plan to file a brief in
opposition.

Moving the hearing date for class certification would not prejudice
the Plaintiffs or delay this case because it would not have any
impact on the parties' requested remaining case schedule or trial
date, as submitted by the parties in a joint request on February
14, 2025.

On Jan. 24, 2025, after Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class
Certification and the NCAA filed its Opposition, the U.S. Supreme
Court granted certiorari in Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings v.
Davis, Docket No. 24-304 ("LabCorp"). LabCorp is an appeal from an
unpublished memorandum disposition of the Ninth Circuit affirming
an order granting class certification.

National Collegiate is a nonprofit organization that regulates
student athletics among about 1,100 schools in the United States,
and 1 in Canada.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 18, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6gnPMk at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke, Esq.
          Justin P. Raphael, Esq.
          Megan Mccreadie, Esq.
          Christopher Cruz, Esq.
          MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          560 Mission Street, 27th Flr
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2907
          Telephone: (415) 512-4000
          Facsimile: (415) 512-4077
          E-mail: carolyn.luedtke@mto.com
                  justin.raphael@mto.com
                  megan.mccreadie@mto.com
                  christopher.cruz@mto.com

NEUMORA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Chang Suit Over Share Price Decline
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANNIE CHANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEUMORA THERAPEUTICS, INC., HENRY O.
GOSEBRUCH, JOSHUA PINTO, MICHAEL MILLIGAN, PAUL L. BERNS, KRISTINA
BUROW, MATTHEW FUST, ALAA HALAWA, MAYKIN HO, DAVID PIACQUAD, J.P.
MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, BOFA SECURITIES, INC., STIFEL, NICOLAUS &
COMPANY, INCORPORATED, GUGGENHEIM SECURITIES, LLC, RBC CAPITAL
MARKETS, LLC, and WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C., Defendants, Case
No. 1:25-cv-01072 (S.D.N.Y., February 6, 2025) is a federal
securities class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and a
class of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Neumora common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the
offering documents issued in connection with the initial public
offering, and who were damaged thereby under the Securities Act of
1933.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' offering documents
contained materially false and misleading statements of material
fact when made because they failed to disclose and misrepresented
these significant, then-existing material events, trends, and
uncertainties regarding the prospects of Navacaprant, a once-daily
oral kappa opioid receptor antagonist aimed at treating major
depressive disorder, as a monotherapy, including: (1) in order for
Neumora to justify conducting its Phase Three Program, Neumora was
forced to amend BlackThorn's original Phase Two Trial inclusion
criteria to include a patient population with moderate to severe
MDD to show that Navacaprant offered a statistically significant
improvement in treating MDD; (2) and to that same end, the Company
also added a prespecified analysis to the Phase Two statistical
analysis plan, focusing on patients suffering from moderate to
severe MDD; and (3) the Phase Two Trials lacked adequate data,
particularly in regards to the patient population size and the
ratio of male to female patients within the patient population, to
be able to accurately predict the results of the KOASTAL-1 study.

Since the IPO, the value of Neumora common stock shares has
declined substantially from the IPO price of $17 per share to a
closing price of $1.91 per share on February 5, 2025 (a 88.7%
decline from the IPO price). As a result of Defendants' wrongful
acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value
of the Company's common stock, Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the suit.

Neumora Therapeutics, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical
company that was founded in 2019 by Arch Venture Partners,
L.P.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Phillip Kim, Esq.
           Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
           THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
           275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
           New York, NY 10016
           Telephone: (212) 686-1060
           Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
           E-mail: philkim@rosenlegal.com
                   lrosen@rosenlegal.com

NICKEL & SUEDE: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, Battle Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRE BATTLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NICKEL & SUEDE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-01530 (N.D. Ill., February 13, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act 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://nickelandsuede.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, ambiguous link texts,
changing of content without advance warning, 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.

Nickel & Suede, LLC is a company that sells online goods and
services in Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Uri Horowitz, Esq.
       14441 70th Road
       Flushing, NY 11367
       Telephone: (718) 705-8706
       Facsimile: (718) 705-8705
       Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com

NUNA BABY: Sells Defective Car Seats, Khanna Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------
PRASHMI KHANNA, FABIOLA CHAPMAN, TINA MARIE BARRALES, TIFFANY
LARRY, and ALYNA SMITH, and on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NUNA BABY ESSENTIALS, INC.
Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01284 (N.D. Cal., February 6, 2025)
alleges that the Defendant designs, manufactures, and sells
defective car seats—the Nuna "Rava" product line of convertible
car seats -- that it knows are unsafe for the children who use
them.

The Products are marketed as "convertible" car seats that are
designed to hold, secure, and protect children of all ages and
sizes. As the child grows, the Product can be converted to ensure
that it can still seat and safely secure the child. The harness
system is intended to (and marketed as) remain secure throughout
the ride, and especially during a crash. This, however, is not the
case, making the Products unsafe and unsuitable for their marketed
and intended purpose of providing safe transport for children, says
the suit.

By design, the Products' front harness adjuster button is
uncovered, and is prone to being covered with debris. Should debris
come into contact with the front harness adjuster button, it can
impede the mechanism from properly clamping on the harness strap,
or the "Defect". This Defect causes the harness not to properly and
securely tighten (or remain tight) or to loosen altogether, which
in turn cannot properly restrain the occupant, increasing the risk
of injury in a crash, the suit asserts.

Nuna Baby Essentials, Inc. designs, manufactures, distributes,
markets, advertises, labels, and sells products for babies to
consumers throughout the United States, including in
California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam A. Edwards, Esq.
          William A. Ladnier, Esq.
          Virginia Ann Whitener, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
           GROSSMAN PLLC
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
          E-mail: aedwards@milberg.com
                  wladnier@milberg.com
                  gwhitener@milberg.com

               - and -

          Alex R. Straus, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
           GROSSMAN PLLC
          280 S. Beverly Drive, PH Suite
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (866) 252-0878
          Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
          E-mail: astraus@milberg.com

               - and -

          Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
          Daniel Tomascik, Esq.
          LAUKAITIS LAW LLC
          954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518
          San Juan, PR 00907
          Telephone: (215) 789-4462  
          E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com
                  dtomascik@laukaitislaw.com

OGLETHORPE UNIVERSITY: Senior Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------------
MILAGROS SENIOR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OGLETHORPE UNIVERSITY, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:25-cv-01303 (S.D.N.Y., February 13, 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 City Human Rights Law, the New York General Business Law, and
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

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://oglethorpe.edu/, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: lack of alternative text, empty links that contain no
text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text.

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

Oglethorpe University, Inc. is a private college that sells online
goods and services in New York. [BN]

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

OPENDOOR TECHNOLOGIES: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Feb. 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sam Alich, v. Opendoor
Technologies Incorporated, et al. (re Opendoor Technologies
Incorporated Securities Litigation), Case No. 2:22-cv-01717-MTL (D.
Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Michael Liburdi entered an order amending
Scheduling Order as follows:

   1. Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their motion for class
      certification is extended to Feb. 28, 2025.

   2. Deadline for the Defendants to file their opposition to
      The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is extended
      to April 18, 2025.

   3. Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their reply in support
      of their motion for class certification is extended to May
      19, 2025.

Opendoor provides digital platform for residential real estates.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 14, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=US1ncv at no extra
charge.[CC]

PAYLOCITY HOLDING: Continues to Defend Illinois BIPA-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paylocity Holding Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2025, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Illinois BIPA class suit in the
Circuit Court of Cook County.

On November 16, 2020, a potential class action complaint was filed
against the Company with the Circuit Court of Cook County alleging
that the Company violated the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act.

The complaint seeks statutory damages, attorney's fees and other
costs. On September 11, 2023, a second potential class action
complaint was filed against the Company with the Circuit Court of
Cook County that alleges violations of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act that overlap with claims in the first
action.

The Company is unable to estimate any reasonably possible loss, or
range of loss, with respect to these matters at this time. The

Company intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits.

Paylocity Holding Corporation is a cloud-based provider of human
capital management and payroll software solutions.

PENNSYLVANIA STATE: Agrees to Settle COVID Tuition Suit for $17MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that a $17 million
settlement has been reached between The Pennsylvania State
University and students who claimed in a proposed class action
lawsuit that they were owed refunds for the Spring 2020 semester
after the school transitioned to online learning during the
COVID-19 pandemic.

An official website for the deal can be found at
PennStateTuitionRefundSettlement.com.

The Penn State class action settlement will compensate more than
72,000 students who paid tuition and/or fees to enroll in at least
one in-person class during the Spring 2020 semester at the
university, including all commonwealth campuses and branch
locations.

Class members do not need to do anything to receive a Penn State
settlement payout. Checks will be automatically sent to their last
known permanent postal address on file with Penn State within the
next 60 days or so.

Head to this page to update your address or select your preferred
payment method. You'll be asked to provide the unique ID and PIN
found in the settlement notice you should have received via email
or mail. Contact the settlement administrator via email if you have
not received or lost your notice.

According to the settlement site, covered individuals who withdrew
for medical reasons from Penn State after March 16, 2020, but
before the conclusion of the Spring 2020 semester, and received a
refund of tuition will get $50.

The remainder of the settlement fund, after certain administrative
expenses, attorneys' fees and awards are paid, will be distributed
equally to all other class members.

The $17 million settlement -- which was granted final approval by
the court on February 18, 2025 -- marks the largest COVID-19
tuition recovery to date, the plaintiffs' attorneys say. The Penn
State lawsuit was just one in a slew of class actions filed against
colleges and universities by students seeking refunds over
COVID-19-related closures.

According to the plaintiffs' second amended complaint, Penn State
students paid for an in-person educational experience with access
to campus activities, services and facilities. Instead, they
received an "insufficient alternative" when classes went remote,
the case alleged. The plaintiffs claimed that the university's
failure to provide the services that tuition and fees were intended
to cover constituted a breach of contract. [GN]

RAKUTEN USA: Converts Content Creators' Commissions, Oganesyan Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
EDGAR OGANESYAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RAKUTEN USA, INC.; EBATES PERFORMANCE
MARKETING, INC. d/b/a RAKUTEN REWARDS, Defendants, Case No.
5:25-cv-01534 (N.D. Cal., February 13, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, and the California
Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, restitution and
unjust enrichment, intentional interference with contractual
relations, interference with prospective economic advantage, and
conversion.

The case arises from the Defendants' 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, the Defendants are able to poach
the commissions of the Plaintiff and other online content
creators.

Rakuten USA, Inc. is an e-commerce marketplace operator, with its
principal place of business in San Mateo, California.

Ebates Performance Marketing, Inc., doing business as Rakuten
Rewards, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Rakuten USA, Inc.,
headquartered in San Mateo, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       William Jhaveri-Weeks, Esq.
       Sarah Abraham, Esq.
       Ally N. Girouard, Esq.
       THE JHAVERI-WEEKS FIRM, P.C.
       351 California Street, Suite 700
       San Francisco, CA 94104
       Telephone: (415) 463-8097
       Facsimile: (415) 367-1439
       Email: wjw@jhaveriweeks.com
              sa@jhaveriweeks.com
              ag@jhaveriweeks.com

               - and -

       Julian Hammond, Esq.
       Polina Brandler, Esq.
       Ari Cherniak, Esq.
       HAMMONDLAW, P.C.
       1201 Pacific Ave, 6th Floor
       Tacoma, WA 98402
       Telephone: (310) 601-6766
       Facsimile: (310) 295-2385
       Email: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com
              pbrandler@hammondlawpc.com
              acherniak@hammondlawpc.com

RAWLINGS CO: Filing for Class Cert. in Zakarian Extended to June 6
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zakarian, et al., v. The
Rawlings Company, et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-00229 (W.D. Mo., Filed
March 29, 2024), the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough entered an order
granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for extension of time:

-- The Plaintiffs' expert designations:         March 14, 2025

-- The Defendants' expert designations:         May 2, 2025

-- Class-based discovery:                       May 2, 2025

-- Class Certification Motion:                  June 6, 2025

-- Merits-based discovery:                      Sept. 12, 2025

-- Dispositive/Daubert Motion Deadline:         Oct. 17, 2025

The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract.

Rawlings provides payment integrity services.[CC]



SALEM HEALTH: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due August 29
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as M.R. v. Salem Health
Hospitals and Clinics, Case No. 6:23-cv-01691 (D. Or., Filed Nov.
15, 2023), the Hon. Judge Ann L. Aiken entered an order granting
joint motion for extension of time.

-- Motion for Class Certification          Aug. 29, 2025
    to be filed by:

-- Response is due by:                     Oct. 28, 2025

-- Reply is due by:                         Dec. 19, 2025

The nature of suit states Breach of Contract.

Salem Hospital is a non-profit, regional medical center located in
Salem, Oregon.[CC]

SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Fails to Provide Proper OT, Cervantes Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MERCEDES CERVANTES, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, and DOES 1- 40,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00275-H-JLB (S.D. Cal.,
February 6, 2025) arises from the Defendants' failure to pay
overtime Plaintiff and Class Members one and a half times the
regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week in direct violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Cervantes began working for the County as a non-exempt
Residential Care Worker Supervisor on January 26, 2024.

San Diego County is a county in the southwest corner of the U.S.
state of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jenny D. Baysinger, Esq.
          Robert J. Wassermann, Esq.
          MAYALL HURLEY, P.C.  
          112 S. Church Street
          Lodi, CA 95240
          Telephone: (209) 477-3833

SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Frisvold Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Schneider National
Carriers, Inc., et al. The case is styled as James Frisvold, and
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Schneider National Carriers, Inc., Dave Bennett, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2025-0002442 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Feb.
18, 2025).

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

Schneider National, Inc. -- https://schneider.com/ -- is a provider
of truckload, intermodal and logistics services.[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
          Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com

SEMTECH CORP: Faces Class Action Suit for Misleading Investors
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Semtech Corporation
(NASDAQ: SMTC), a semiconductor, Internet of Things systems and
cloud connectivity service provider, alleging that the company
misled investors about the suitability of -- and the ramp-up
schedule for -- its CopperEdge product portfolio. The suit,
captioned Kleovoulos v. Semtech Corporation, et al., No.
2:25-cv-01474 (C.D. Cal.), represents investors who purchased or
acquired Semtech securities between August 27, 2024 and February 7,
2025.

Hagens Berman is investigating the alleged claims and urges
investors who purchased Semtech securities and suffered substantial
losses to submit your losses now.

  Class Period: Aug. 27, 2024-Feb. 7, 2025
  Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Apr. 22, 2025
  Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/smtc
  Contact the Firm Now: SMTC@hbsslaw.com
                        (844) 916-0895

Semtech Corporation (SMTC) Securities Class Action:

During the Class Period, Semtech has touted its CopperEdge products
which are intended for use in next generation 400G and 800G data
center interconnects using copper cable and backplane
interconnects. The company has said "the new CopperEdge portfolio
continues to offer valuable solutions that our customers need to
meet current and future market demands[.]"

The complaint alleges that Semtech made false and misleading
statements, while failing to disclose crucial information.
Specifically, the suit contends that its CopperEdge products did
not meet the needs of its server rack customer or end users.
Furthermore, it contends that the CopperEdge products required
certain rack architecture changes and that, as a result, CopperEdge
product sales would not (as previously represented) ramp-up during
fiscal 2026.

Investors learned the truth on February 7, 2025, when Semtech
revealed that CopperEdge sales would not "ramp-up over the course
of fiscal year 2026." The company blamed this adverse development
on "feedback from a server rack customer," "discussions with end
users of the server rack platform," and the need for "certain rack
architecture changes." As a result, the company expects CopperEdge
sales to be "lower than the Company's previously disclosed floor
case estimate of $50 million."

The market reacted swiftly. On February 10, 2025, Semtech's stock
price plummeted by over 30%, erasing over $1.4 billion in market
capitalization in a single trading day.

"We are concerned that Semtech may have known about- but did not
disclose that- there were problems with its CopperEdge products,
including Nvidia's reported plan to come out with a new processing
unit to address heating issues that may be linked to Semtech's
products," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman Partner leading
the firm's probe.

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

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

About Hagens Berman

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

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

SKYWEST AIRLINES: Wood Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Harmony A. Wood, on behalf of herself, and
others similarly situated v. SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC., and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25-CIV-00331 was removed from the
California Superior Court for the County of San Mateo, to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on Feb. 14, 2025, and assigned Case No.
3:25-cv-00340-H-JLB.

In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims for: failure to pay
minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide
meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to provide
accurate wage statements; failure to timely pay wages at time of
separation; and unfair competition.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Amanda C. Sommerfeld, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          555 South Flower Street, Fiftieth Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071.2452
          Phone: +1.213.489.3939
          Facsimile: +1.213.243.2539
          Email: asommerfeld@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Patricia T. Stambelos, Esq.
          STAMBELOS LAW OFFICE
          543 Country Club Drive, Suite B209
          Simi Valley, CA 93065
          Phone: +1.805.578.3474
          Email: patricia@patriciastambelos.com

SLUNTRADES LTD: Maksumova Suit Removed to E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Stella Maksumova, and all others similarly
situated v. SLUNTRADES LTD. d/b/a SLUNTRADES; HANNAH PIPPINS; TD
BANK, N.A.; WEBSTER BANK, N.A.; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; J.P. MORGAN
CHASE & CO.; NICOLE ODAL and RICHARD GEORGE IV, Case No.
700406/2025 was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, Queens County, to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on Feb. 17, 2025, and assigned Case
No. 1:25-cv-00909.

The Plaintiff's Complaint seeks damages against Chase and BoA,
among others, alleging she was a victim of a fraudulent
cryptocurrency investment scheme where she admits to wiring funds
in approximately $652,000 from her bank account at a third-party
bank to certain bank accounts at various banks, including Chase and
BoA.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Leah N. Jacob, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          One Vanderbilt Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 801-9200
          Email: leah.jacob@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Shan P. Massand, Esq.
          McGUIREWOODS, LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10020-1104
          Phone: (212) 548-2100
          Email: smassand@mcguirewoods.com

SONY INTERACTIVE: Faces Class Suit Over Overcharging Digital Games
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge A. Aguilar, writing for How-To-Geek, reports that The Dutch
consumer group Massaschade & Consument is suing Sony Interactive
Entertainment, and Dutch gamers can sign up to join the lawsuit.
The lawsuit alleges Sony is taking advantage of its strong market
position by selling PlayStation games online.

Massasche & Consument claims that digital games are, on average,
47% more expensive than physical copies, even though Sony likely
has lower costs for distributing digital games. The group argues
that this price difference is due to how the PlayStation Store
operates and Sony's control over the gaming market. The reason the
group can sue is that there are no other options for buying
PlayStation games. This is unlike other platforms like the
Microsoft Store or Epic Games Store, which is a key part of the
company's case. This is also why this case could likely be brought
to the US.

Google and Apple both lost lawsuits because of their respective
stores. It is a monopoly when another business cannot compete with
yours, and if Sony is blocking game purchases outside the
PlayStation store, it can be sued for trying to monopolize. It
could be seen as an unfair business practice.

This legal case is similar to those in Portugal and the UK. The
UK's Competition Appeal Court recently approved a related lawsuit,
setting a legal example for going after big companies that dominate
the market under European competition laws. These laws require
companies with a large market share to promote fair competition.

Massasche & Consument is letting PlayStation users in the
Netherlands join the claim for free on the website. A court hearing
is set for later this year. If the lawsuit is successful, it could
force Sony to allow other sellers to sell their products in its
digital store, changing how the PlayStation system works.

The cost of digital distribution is so much lower than physical. So
it looks like Sony is able to raise the prices of digital for no
other reason than to make money. If another company were able to
compete with those price rises, it wouldn't be an issue. Sony has a
strong position in the market, and by limiting users' choices, it
can seem like the PlayStation Store can raise prices unfairly.

The claims that there is not much competition in the PlayStation
digital marketplace seem valid, especially when you compare it to
the options available for buying games on Xbox and Nintendo. Anyone
can buy games for those platforms on other services, so they must
compete and keep a fair price. PlayStation seems to be the only
platform selling its game keys strictly on its official store.

There are already concerns about big tech companies acting
monopolistically, which has led to legal challenges that have
failed in the past. However, if this lawsuit is successful, it
could have effects beyond just the Netherlands. It might encourage
people in other places, especially in the United States, to file
similar class-action lawsuits.

This situation brings up a bigger conversation about why digital
products cost what they do compared to physical ones. People often
argue that distributing digital goods is cheaper than making and
shipping physical products. However, the price differences with
PlayStation games make us question whether digital game pricing is
fair and clear. The lawsuit suggests that since digital
distribution can save a lot of money, consumers should see lower
prices.

The lawsuit could lead to more transparency and fair pricing in the
digital gaming market. This might also encourage the growth of more
open digital marketplaces, increasing competition and giving
consumers more choices at lower prices. On the other hand, if the
case is dismissed, it could maintain the current situation,
exposing consumers to unfair practices. The results of this case
could significantly change the digital games market for years to
come. [GN]

SOUNDHOUND AI: Faces Jones Suit Over Illegal Waiver Provision
-------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOUNDHOUND AI, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
Dr. KEVYAN MOHAJER, Dr. ERIC R. BALL, JAMES HOM, LARRY MARCUS, and
DIANA SROKA, Defendants, Case No. 2025-0130 (Del. Ch., February 6,
2025) is a verified class action complaint against SoundHound and
the members of the Company's board of directors for declaratory
relief relating to the Company's violation of Delaware General
Corporation Law and Delaware common law and public policy.

According to the complaint, the Company's charter, adopted and
maintained by Defendants, has a provision in which the Company
grants a blanket waiver of the corporate opportunity doctrine
contrary to Delaware law. Under Delaware law, fiduciary duties may
be modified or eliminated and corporations have the power to
renounce in advance any interest of the corporation in an
opportunity to participate in specified business opportunities.
Such a waiver of corporate opportunities must be specific and a
company's officers and directors may not be issued carte blanche to
pursue opportunity belonging to the Company. Likewise, the duty of
loyalty cannot be eliminated or limited. Defendants' Waiver
Provision violates both rules.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other
stockholders of SoundHound against the Company and the members of
its Board, seeking a declaratory judgment that the provision
violates Delaware law and public policy and is invalid.

SoundHound AI, Inc. is a technology company based in Santa Clara,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
          COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
          1000 N. West Street, Suite 1500
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 984-3800

               - and -

          Brian P. Murray, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Ave., Suite 358
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com  

               - and -

          Werner R. Kranenburg, Esq.
          KRANENBURG
          80-83 Long Lane London EC1A 9ET
          United Kingdom
          Telephone: (44) 20-3174-0365
          E-mail: werner@kranenburgesq.com

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Chambers Sues Over Failure to Maintain Grid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Chambers, Kathryn Chambers, Dagoberto Hernandez, Sergio
Hernandez, Jacqueline Hernandez, Teresa Lollie, Lindsey Lollie,
Shelby Edson, and Loretta Peng, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY and
JOHN DOES NO. 1-100, Case No. 25STCV04246 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., Feb. 18, 2025), is brought to redress injuries caused
to the Plaintiffs for damages arising out of the Eaton Fire caused
by SCE's failure to adequately maintain its electrical grid and
de-energize its power lines during known fire weather conditions.

SCE operated high voltage transmission and distribution lines in
Eaton Canyon on circuits that traversed the Origin Area-9 Despite
these Red Flag Warnings and Eaton Canyon's location in the
mountains of Los Angeles County, SCE chose to keep many parts of
its distribution circuit in and near Eaton Canyon energized.

On January 7, 2025, at approximately 6: 18 p.m., an electrical
failure occurred on energized overhead power lines owned, operated,
and controlled by SCE, causing an arc and/or electrical sparks that
ignited susceptible ground vegetation below resulting in the
ignition Of the Eaton Fire. At the time the Eaton Fue first
ignited, numerous residents in the area surrounding the Origin Area
reported seeing power lines sparking and a fire igniting in the
area underneath two transmission towers owned and operated by SCE.

SCE has a duty to properly construct, maintain, and operate its
electrical infrastructure and manage surrounding vegetation to
ensure its electrical distribution system does not cause wildfires,
SCE violated these duties by knowingly operating aging and
improperly maintained electrical infrastructure. Moreover, SCE knew
of the risks of negligently operating its electrical infrastructure
because, according to the California Department of Forestry and
Fire Protection and local firefighting authorities, SCE's overhead
electrical equipment caused the 2017 Thomas Fire, the 2018 Woolsey
Fire, the 2019 Easy Fire, and the 2022 Coastal Fire, among others,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were owners of a residence located in Altadena,
California that was destroyed as a result of the Eaton Fire.

SCE is a privately-owned public utility organized and existing
under the laws of the State of California that provides electricity
to the real property located in or around Los Angeles County,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven M. Jodlowski, Esq.
          Kelsey Anderson, Esq.
          DiCELLO LEVITT LLP
          4747 Executive Drive, Suite 240
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Phone: (619) 923-9393
          Email: stevej@dicellolevitt.com
                 kanderson@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          DiCELLO LEVITT LLP
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 303-0111
          Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
annual period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2025, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Retirement Savings Plan class
suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Texas.

On January 28, 2025, two participants in the Company's retirement
plans commenced a putative class action in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas against the
Company, the Board, and certain of the Company's officers.
Plaintiffs purport to represent a class consisting of participants
and beneficiaries in the Southwest Airlines Co. Retirement Savings
Plan, the Southwest Airlines Co. 401(k) Plan, and the Southwest
Airlines Co. ProfitSharing Plan (collectively, the "Plan") who
invested in the Harbor Capital Appreciation Fund from January 28,
2019 "through the date of judgment."

The complaint asserts that defendants mismanaged Plan assets and
failed to monitor the Plan in violation of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act by, among other things, failing to remove the
Harbor Fund as an investment option.

The complaint seeks various forms of declaratory and monetary
relief as well as attorneys' fees, interest and other costs.

The defendants deny all allegations of wrongdoing, believe the
plaintiffs' claims are without merit, and intend to vigorously
defend against these claims.

Southwest Airlines Co. is a domestic airline that provides
primarily short-haul, high-frequency, and point-to-point services.
The Company offers flights throughout the United States. [BN]


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Glover-Griffin Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Breanna Glover-Griffin, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, CO.,
a Texas Corporation; MOHAMAD NAJJAR, an individual; DONALD MILLER,
an individual; CLIFTON BUFORD, an individual; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV34167 was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on Feb. 14, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01315.

The Complaint alleges fourteen causes of action: failure to pay
minimum wages against all Defendants; improper wage statements
against all Defendants; waiting time penalties against all
Defendants; failure to pay business expenses against all
Defendants; improper deductions from wages against all Defendants;
unfair competition against all Defendants; failure to provide
records against SWA only; retaliation against all Defendants;
hostile work environment against all Defendants; failure to prevent
discrimination against all Defendants; breach of contract against
all Defendants; wrongful termination against all Defendants;
negligent hiring, training, and retention against all Defendants;
and employment discrimination against all Defendants.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian D. Berry, Esq.
          Ryan S. Malhan, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One Market, Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
          Phone: +1.415.442.1000
          Fax: +1.415.442.1001
          Email: brian.berry@morganlewis.com
                 ryan.malhan@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Andrew P. Frederick, Esq.
          Nicole L. Antonopoulos, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1400 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Phone: +1.650.843.4000
          Fax: +1.650.843.4001
          Email: andrew.frederick@morganlewis.com
                 nicole.antonopoulos@morganlewis.com

SUMMIT CREDIT: Mintz Seeks Prelim Approval of Class Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXIS MINTZ, Individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. SUMMIT CREDIT
UNION, Case No. 1:23-cv-01070-TDS-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order granting her unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement and preliminary
certification of class for settlement purposes.

Summit is a member-owned financial cooperative.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 18, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xThm3N at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
          Jersey City, NJ 07310
          Telephone: (877) 561-0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
          E-mail: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com

                - and -

          Brian L. Kinsley, Esq.
          COX, STANSBERRY & KINSLEY
          2024 Main Street, SW Suite B
          Cullman, AL 35056
          Telephone: (205) 870-1205
          Facsimile: (205) 870-1252
          E-mail: blkinsley@cskattorneys.com

TILRAY BRANDS: Hearing on Settlement Set for March
--------------------------------------------------
Tilray Brands Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report for February 5,
2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February
7, 2025, that the Aphria Canadian securities class suit settlement
hearing is set for March 2025.

In February 2019, a putative securities class action was commenced
in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against Tilray Brands'
wholly-owned subsidiary, Aphria, Inc. ("Aphria"), and certain of
its former officers and directors (the "Aphria Canadian Class
Action"). The Aphria Canadian Class Action was subsequently amended
in September 2022 to proceed only against Aphria and two of its
former officers and directors as named defendants.

The class plaintiff sought damages in the amount of CAD $875
million pursuant to Ontario securities legislation on behalf of all
class members who acquired Aphria's common shares between January
29, 2018 and December 3, 2018. The Aphria Canadian Class Action
stemmed from Aphria's acquisition of Nuuvera Inc. and LATAM
Holdings Inc. in March and September 2018, respectively, alleging
that the value of the acquired assets was misrepresented as being
significantly higher than their actual worth, and that insiders at
Aphria personally benefitted from the acquisitions at the expense
of investors. Aphria and the individual defendants denied the
allegations made in the Aphria Canadian Class Action and vigorously
defended against them. Trial was scheduled to begin in January
2025.

On February 5, 2025, Aphria and the individual defendants
successfully reached an agreement with the class plaintiff to
settle the Aphria Canadian Class Action.  The settlement agreement
provides for the complete dismissal of the Aphria Canadian Class
Action, with prejudice, in exchange for an aggregate payment from
all defendants equal to CAD $30 million, or approximately US $21
million (the "Settlement Amount"). The settlement agreement also
provides for the dismissal, with prejudice, of the four individual
Canadian lawsuits pursuing the same allegations of wrongdoing
against Aphria and former and current officers and directors. The
settlement does not constitute an admission of liability or
wrongdoing by Aphria or the other defendants.

The Settlement Amount will be primarily funded by the outstanding
balance under Aphria's D&O Insurance Policy and by the individual
defendants.

Aphria will fund the remaining unpaid portion of the Settlement
Amount, currently estimated to equal approximately CAD $8.5 million
(or approximately US $5.9 million).

Aphria's portion of the Settlement Amount is fully accrued on its
balance sheet and the Settlement Amount will not result in a
negative impact to earnings.

The settlement is contingent upon Court approval, and a hearing for
that purpose is scheduled for March 2025.

Tilray Brands, Inc. is a global cannabis-lifestyle and consumer
packaged goods company based in Ontario.

Aphria Inc. produces and sells medical cannabis in Canada and
internationally. The company offers pharmaceutical-grade medical
cannabis; and adult-use cannabis under the Solei, RIFF, Good
Supply, and Broken Coast brands. It serves patients and consumers
through distributors and online. The company is headquartered in
Leamington, Canada.


TOUS USA INC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Tous USA, Inc., Case No. 0:25-cv-00589 (D. Minn., Feb.
14, 2025), is brought arising because Website (www.tous.com) (the
"Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally
accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in
violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the
effective communication and auxiliary aids and services
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and
its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the
ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the
Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA).

The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is
responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning
the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her
experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past
year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff
found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that
deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to
important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its
sighted Website users.

Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to
access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or
shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant
offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and
operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully
accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with
vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class
have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to
be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to
provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is
compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind.

The Defendant offers jewelry and accessories for sale including,
but not limited to necklaces, bracelets, earrings, watches,
pendants, rings, handbags, wallets and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Gustafson, Esq.
          Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
          Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
          THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
          Jason Gustafson (#0403297)
          222 South Ninth Street, Suite 1600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (763) 515-6110
          Email: jason@throndsetlaw.com
                 pat@throndsetlaw.com
                 chad@throndsetlaw.com

UNIFI AVIATION: Biddle Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Ronnie Biddle, III, an individual, on behalf
of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. UNIFI
AVIATION, LLC, a Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. CGC-25-621380 was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on Feb. 14, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01612.

The Complaint alleges ten causes of action: failure to pay minimum
wages for all hours worked in violation of Labor Code; failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of Labor Code; failure to provide
meal periods in violation of Labor Code; failure to provide rest
periods in violation of Labor Code; failure to reimburse employees
for required expenses in violation of Labor Code; failure to
provide complete and accurate wage statements in violation of Labor
Code; failure to provide paid sick leave in violation of Labor
Code; failure to timely pay wages upon separation of employment in
violation of Labor Code; failure to timely pay wages during
employment in violation of Labor Code; and unfair and unlawful
business practices in violation of Business & Professions
Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Andrew P. Frederick, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1400 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Phone: +1.650.843.4000
          Fax: +1.650.843.4001
          Email: andrew.frederick@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Joseph R. Lewis, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One Market, Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
          Phone: +1.415.442.1000
          Fax: +1.415.442.1001
          Email: joseph.lewis@morganlewis.com

UPS MAIL: McGee Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Amitra Raquel McGee, an individual, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated v. UPS MAIL INNOVATIONS,
INC. a Delaware corporation; STAFFMARK INVESTMENT LLC; a Delaware
limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case
No. CIVSB2437266 was removed from the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of San Bernardino, to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
Feb. 14, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-00432.

In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges 11 purported causes of action
for: failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay wages and
overtime under the California Labor Code; meal period liability
under the California Labor Code; rest break liability under the
California Labor Code; violation of California Labor Code;
violation of California Labor Code; violation of California Labor
Code; violation of California Labor Code; failure to maintain
temperatures in violation of California Wage Orders; failure to pay
wages due, negotiable, and payable in cash on demand in violation
of the California Labor Code; and unfair competition under the
California Business & Professions Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Elizabeth A. Brown, Esq.
          GBG LLP
          633 West 5th Street, Suite 1500
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 358-2810
          Facsimile: (213) 995-6382
          Email: lisabrown@gbgllp.com

VAN EXEL DAIRY: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Van Exel Dairy, et
al. The case is styled as Alfredo Guzman Rodriguez, individually
and on behalf of all individuals similarly situated v. Van Exel
Dairy, a Partnership, Henry P. Van Exel, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2025-0002466 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Feb.
18, 2025).

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

Van Exel Dairy in Lodi, California is renowned for its exceptional
Holstein cattle genetics, exemplifying excellence in dairy
farming.[BN]

VBC TRACY LLC: Franco Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against VBC Tracy LLC. The
case is styled as Enrique Franco Jr., an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. VBC Tracy LLC, Case
No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0002322 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty.,
Feb. 14, 2025).

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

VBC -- https://www.vbc.co/ -- is a global leader in modular
construction.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sam Kim, Esq.
          SAM KIM AND ASSOCIATES, APC
          5661 Beach Blvd., Ste. 201
          Buena Park, CA 90621-1969
          Phone: 714-736-5501
          Fax: 714-736-9901
          Email: samkim@sklaw.org

VECTRARX MAIL: Calidonio Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Data
------------------------------------------------------------
Norma Calidonio and Michele Porras, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. VectraRx Mail Pharmacy Services,
L.L.C., Case No. 4:25-cv-00077-SHR (D. Ariz., Feb. 17, 2025), is
brought arises out of Defendant's failures to implement reasonable
and industry standard data security practices to properly secure,
safeguard, and adequately destroy Plaintiffs' and Class Members'
sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired
and stored for its business purposes.

The Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted
cyberattack to compromise Defendant's network (the "Data Breach")
that, upon information and belief, contained personally
identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information
("PHI") (collectively, "Private Information") of Plaintiffs and
other individuals ("the Class"). The Data Breach occurred on
December 13, 2024, and Defendant began sending notice letters to
Class members on February 6, 2025.

According to the Notice of Data Breach that Defendant sent to
Plaintiffs and Class Members (the "Notice Letter"), Defendant
admits it experiences unusual activity inP its server. The Private
Information compromised in the Data Breach included certain
personal or protected health information of individuals whose
Private Information was maintained by Defendant, including
Plaintiffs. A wide variety of PII and PHI was implicated in the
breach, including potentially: names, mailing addresses, email
addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, Social Security numbers,
payment and account information, health insurance, and other
medical information.

The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to
implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and
protocols necessary to protect individuals' Private Information
with which it was hired to protect. The mechanism of the Data
Breach and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiffs' and
Class Members' Private Information was a known risk to Defendant,
and thus Defendant was on notice that failing to take steps
necessary to secure Private Information from those risks left that
property in a dangerous condition.

The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiffs and Class
Members by, inter alia, intentionally, willfully, recklessly,
and/or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures
to ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized
intrusions; failing to disclose that it did not have adequately
robust computer systems and security practices to safeguard
Plaintiffs' and Class Members' Private Information; failing to take
standard and reasonably available steps to prevent the Data Breach;
and failing to provide Plaintiffs(s) and Class Members with prompt
and full notice of the Data Breach, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff received the Notice Letter, by U.S. mail, directly
from Defendant, dated February 6, 2025, informing her that her
Private Information was improperly accessed and obtained.

The Defendant "provides fast and convenient home delivery of
medications for on-the job and personal injury claims. We work with
physicians and payors to ensure you receive the medications your
doctor has prescribed, hassle-free and expense-free."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: 305.479.2299
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

VECTRARX MAIL: Lopez Files Suit in D. Arizona
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vectrarx Mail
Pharmacy Services LLC. The case is styled as Cory Lopez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Vectrarx Mail Pharmacy Services LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00068-RCC (D.
Ariz., Feb. 14, 2025).

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

VectraRx -- https://www.vectrapharmacy.com/ -- provides fast and
convenient home delivery of medications for on-the-job and personal
injury claims.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

VENTURE GLOBAL: Bowes Sues Over False and Misleading Information
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald Bowes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. VENTURE GLOBAL, INC., MICHAEL SABEL, JONATHAN THAYER,
ROBERT PENDER, SARAH BLAKE, SARI GRANAT, ANDREW OREKAR, THOMAS J.
REID, JIMMY STATON, and RODERICK CHRISTI, Case No. 1:25-cv-01364
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2025), is brought pursuant to Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"), on behalf
of himself and all other shareholders that purchased stock pursuant
and/or traceable to Venture's registration statement for the
initial public offering held On January 24, 2025 as a result of the
Defendants' false and/or materially misleading information.

In their initial public offering documents, Defendants discussed
the commissioning, constructing, and developing of five natural gas
liquefaction and export projects near the Gulf of Mexico in
Louisiana, utilizing the Company's unique "design one, build many"
approach. Venture further described each project as designed or
being developed to include an LNG facility and associated pipeline
systems that interconnect with several interstate and intrastate
pipelines to enable the delivery of natural gas into the LNG
facility.

Venture completed its initial public offering on January 27, 2025,
selling 70 million shares at $24.00 per share. On February 5, 2025,
TotalEnergies, an energy company that was a target customer of
Venture, rejected opportunities to become a long-term customer of
Venture, citing lack of trust. In particular, TotalEnergies CEO,
Patrick Pouyanne, stated that he was approached by Venture to see
if the company would be interested in a long-term supply contract
for liquefied natural gas from the Calcasieu Pass terminal in
Louisiana, but he rejected the offer "because of what they are
doing." In response to the news, Venture's stock price declined
from $19.68 per share on February 5, 2025 to $17.48 per share on
February 6, 2025.

The Plaintiff and other similarly situated investors bought Venture
stock in the initial public offering based on false and/or
materially misleading information concerning its repeated
confidence in the Company's ability to utilize its approach to
deliver LNG to the world. These investors sustained damages as a
result thereof. This action seeks to compensate those investors and
recover the damages they sustained because of Defendants' actions
and statements, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased Venture stock pursuant and/or traceable to
Venture's registration statement for the initial public offering
and was damaged as a result thereof.

Venture introduced itself to investors during its initial public
offering as having "reshaped the development and construction of
liquefied natural gas production," establishing itself as "a
rapidly growing company delivering critical LNG to the world."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam M. Apton, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 363-7500
          Fax: (212) 363-7171
          Email: aapton@zlk.com

WCAY INC: Blow Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WCAY INC. The case is
styled as Marcus Blow, an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. WCAY INC, Case No. 25STCV04340 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 18, 2025).

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

WCAY, Inc. -- https://www.wcay.org/ -- provides a secure,
comfortable living environment that promotes a healthy,
goal-oriented, and upbeat lifestyle.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jasmin Kaur Gill, Esq.
          J. GILL LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 S Flower St., Ste. 1800
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2231
          Phone: 213-459-6023
          Email: jasmin@jkgilllaw.com

WHIRLPOOL CORP: Class Cert Deadlines in Goldstein Suit Vacated
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBRA GOLDSTEIN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:23-cv-04752-JWH-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John Holcomb
entered an order as follows:

   1. The current deadlines for the Plaintiff to move for class
      Certification, and for the Defendant to oppose class
      certification, are vacated.

   2. In the event that the Court denies Whirlpool's pending
      motion to dismiss and allows any claims to proceed, the
      Parties are directed to meet and confer within 14 days of
      the Court's forthcoming order on that motion to discuss the
      status of the matter.

   3. The Parties are further directed to submit a joint status
      report to the Court within 14 days after their conference.

Whirlpool is an American multinational manufacturer and marketer of
home appliances.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pFxJQC at no extra
charge.[CC]

WHOLE FOODS: Allowed Leave to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARA SAFARI, PEYMON
KHAGHANI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, and FARM FORWARD, on behalf of the general public, v.
WHOLE FOODS MARKET SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation, WHOLE
FOODS MARKET CALIFORNIA, INC., a California corporation, MRS.
GOOCH’S NATURAL FOOD MARKETS, INC., doing business as Whole Foods
Market, a California Corporation, Case No. 8:22-cv-01562-JWH-KES
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John Holcomb entered an order granting
the Defendants' application for leave to file under seal documents
in connection with the Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiffs'
motion to certify class, appoint class representative, and appoint
class counsel.

The following document or portions of documents shall be maintained
under seal:

             Document                       Portion to be Filed
                                            Under Seal

  Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs'      Page – 3:13-14,
  Motion to Certify Class, Appoint           10:16-17
  Class Representative, and Appoint
  Class Counsel

  Declaration of Wes Rose in Support of      Page 2:8, 2:10-19,
  Defendants' Opposition. Designated         3:9-10, 4:8
  CONFIDENTIAL by Defendants.

  Rose Opposition Decl., Ex. 100,            Entire Document
  Defendants' Contract with Country
  Natural Beef. Designated CONFIDENTIAL
  by Defendants.

Whole Foods is an American multinational supermarket chain.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VKg50h at no extra
charge.[CC]

WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: Snipes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Worldwide Flight
Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Terry Snipes, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Worldwide Flight Services, Inc., WFS Express, Inc., Does 1 to
50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC25622515 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., Feb. 18, 2025).

The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."

Worldwide Flight Services (WFS) -- https://www.wfs.aero/ -- are a
global, world-leading air cargo, passenger & ground handling
organisation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Walter Lewis Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
          8605 Santa Monica Blvd., # 63354
          West Hollywood, CA 90069-4109
          Phone: 562-256-1047
          Fax: 562-256-1006
          Email: walter@uelglaw.com

               - and -

          David R. Markham, Esq.
          The Markham Law Firm
          888 Prospect St., Ste. 200
          La Jolla, CA 92037-4261
          Phone: 619-399-3995
          Fax: 619-323-1684
          Email: dmarkham@markham-law.com

YAZOO VALLEY: Sanders Sues Over Failure to Secure Customers' Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN SANDERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. YAZOO VALLEY ELECTRIC POWER ASSOCIATION,
Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00112-DPJ-ASH (S.D. Miss., February 13,
2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence,
breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, and unjust
enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff
and similarly situated individuals stored within its system
following a data breach on or about August 26, 2024. The Defendant
also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private
information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and
damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and
unauthorized third parties.

Yazoo Valley Electric Power Association is a Mississippi electric
power association with its principal place of business located in
Yazoo City, Mississippi. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         John F. Hawkins, Esq.
         HAWKINS LAW, P.C.
         226 North President Street
         Post Office Box 24627
         Jackson, MS 39225
         Telephone: (601) 969-9692
         Facsimile: (601) 914-3580
         Email: john@hgattorneys.com

                 - and -

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

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

  -- Yotta Acquisition Corporation (Nasdaq: YOTA), relating to its
proposed merger with DRIVEiT Financial Auto Group, Inc. Under the
terms of the agreement, DRIVEiT securityholders are expected to own
approximately 78.4% of the combined company.

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

  -- Southport Acquisition Corporation (OTC: PORT), relating to its
proposed merger with Angel Studios, Inc. Under the terms of the
agreement, Angel Studios shares will automatically be converted
into the right to receive Southport shares.

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

  -- Accolade, Inc. (Nasdaq: ACCD), relating to the proposed merger
with Transcarent. Under the terms of the agreement, Transcarent
will acquire Accolade for $7.03 per share in cash.

ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for March 27, 2025.

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

  -- ESSA Bancorp, Inc. (Nasdaq: ESSA), relating to the proposed
merger with CNB Financial Corporation. Under the terms of the
agreement, ESSA shareholders will receive 0.8547 shares of CNB
common stock for each outstanding share of ESSA common stock.

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

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

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

About Monteverde & Associates PC

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

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

Contact:

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

ZIDAN MANAGEMENT: Chesser Sues to Recover Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Shane Chesser, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ZIDAN MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. Case No. 1:25-cv-00096-DRC
(S.D. Ohio, Feb. 17, 2025), is brought under the Federal Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover overtime compensation from the
Defendant.

To avoid paying the mandatory overtime, Defendant has modified
Plaintiff's time sheets to reflect that he has taken a lunch break
when, in fact, he has not. When Plaintiff, in particular,
complained about this policy to his manager, Allison Lane, she
stated that this policy was mandated from the corporate office.

The Defendant manipulates timecards to falsely reflect the working
hours of other employees and compensates those employees based on
these manipulated time sheets, causing them to not be paid for
their full hours worked.

The Defendant suffered and permitted Plaintiff and the putative
collective/class members to work more than 40 hours in a week
without paying them their full, legally mandated overtime. The
Defendant was aware, or should have been aware, that Plaintiff and
the putative collective/class members performed non-exempt work
that required payment of full overtime wages, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has been employed as a maintenance manager since
October 2023.

The Defendant is a builder, owner, and operator of apartment
buildings in Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, and Kentucky.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew S. Okiishi, Esq.
          FINNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
          4270 Ivy Pointe Boulevard, Suite 225
          Cincinnati, OH 45245
          Phone: (513) 943-6659
          Fax: (513) 943-6669
          Email: matt@finneylawfirm.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 ***