---

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

              Thursday, May 25, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 105

                            Headlines

1889-CHS FOUNDATION: Haberkorn Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of PII
3M COMPANY: Tierney Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Wagner Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Webb Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Noriega Sues Over Deceptive Marketing Campaign

AGAVE & RYE: Santos Sues Over Unpaid Tipped Minimum Wages
BACUS FOODS: Holder Seeks to Conditionally Certify FLSA Collective
BECTON DICKINSON & CO: Continues to Defend Kabak Class Suit in N.J
BELLE TOFFEE: Filing of Class Status Bid in Cordero Due Oct. 10
BEYOND MEAT: Faces Retail Wholesale Securities Class Suit in Cal.

BURGERFI INTERNATIONAL: Faces Securities Class Suit in Florida
CARPENTERS OF WESTERN: Court Dismisses Johnson's Amended ERISA Suit
CB HOSPITALITY: Peralta Seeks Conditional Collective Certification
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG: Class Cert. Bid Deadline Extended to Oct. 2
CONSOLIDATED NUCLEAR: Time Extension to File Class Cert Bid Sought

DNC PARKS: Vega Parties to Meet & Confer on Witness Decl. Propriety
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Berkstresser Lawsuit
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Bross Lawsuit
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Byers Lawsuit
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Carroll Lawsuit

DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Coulter Lawsuit
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Scarbrough Lawsuit
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Wright Class Suit
ECOVACS ROBOTICS: Khatib Files Suit in N.D. California
EZRICARE LLC: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bids by June 17, 2024

FARADAY FUTURE: Continues to Defend Consolidated Delaware Suit
FARADAY FUTURE: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Cal.
FCA US: Must Oppose Bledsoe Class Certification Bid by May 29
FEDERAL BUREAU: Must File Class Cert Response by June 16
FERGUSON ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cicchetti Claims

FIRSTSUN CAPITAL: Continues to Defend Overdraft Fee Class Suit
FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Eubanks Seek More Time to File Reply Brief
FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Flowers Seek More Time to File Reply Brief
FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Reply Brief
FOLGERS COFFEE: Parties File Joint Bid for Tolling of Deadlines

FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Quinones Class Suit Dismissal Under Appeal
G.SKILL USA: Court Grants Bid to Stay Nelson Class Action
GOOGLE LLC: Collect Personal Info Without Consent, Doe Suit Says
HARPERCOLLINS PUBLISHERS: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Final Judgment Entered in Zakikhani Class Suit

IPIC THEATERS: Wolfe Discrimination Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
JERSEY FIRESTOP: Completion of Class Discovery Extended to July 14
KENTECH CONSULTING: Abrogina Loses Bid for Class Certification
LIGHTNING EMOTORS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Delman Class Suit
LONGEVERON INC: Securities Class Suit Settlement for Court Approval

MDL 2913: Brimley Area Alleges E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
MDL 2972: Blackbaud Must Oppose Allen Class Cert. Bid by June 9
MDL 2972: Blackbaud Must Oppose Bedell Class Cert. Bid by June 9
MDL 2972: Blackbaud Must Oppose Lofton Class Cert. Bid by June 9
MDL 2972: Blackbaud Must Oppose Mandel Class Cert. Bid by June 9

MDL 2972: Blackbaud Must Oppose Martin Class Cert Bid by June 9
MDL 2972: Blackbaud Must Oppose Mortensen Class Cert Bid by June 9
MICHIGAN: Sixth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Simpson-Vlach v. MDE
MODESTO, CA: Turner to Show Cause Why Action Shouldn't Be Tossed
MOMENTUS INC: Continues to Defend Jensen Securities Class Suit

NABORS COMPLETION: Final Arbitration Award in Ware Suit Confirmed
NIKOLA CORP: Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suit in Arizona
ONTRAK INC: Continues to Defend Farhar Securities Class Suit
OPEN TEXT CORP: Continues to Defend Carbonite Class Suit in Mass.
OUSTER INC: Continues to Defend Moradpour Securities Class Suit

PEABODY ENERGY: Climate Change Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
PET SUPERMARKET: Class Certification Order in Eldridge Suit Flipped
PNC BANK: Court Strikes Class Claims in 1st Amended Ratulowski Suit
POLARITYTE INC: Court Junks Amended Securities Suit
PROPHASE LABS: Faces False Advertisement Class Suit in California

RE/MAX HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Sunderland Class Suit
REDFIN CORP: Cook Seeks Initial OK of Class Settlement
REDWIRE CORP: Loses Bid to Dismiss Lemen Class Suit
RTH ENTERPRISES: Hawkins Files Bid for Conditional Certification
SHADE STORE: Crowder Sues Over Deceptive Discount Pricing Scheme

SKYE BIOSCIENCE: Continues to Defend Consumer Protection Class Suit
SPECIALIZED HOME: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Emerson Says
SPOKEO INC: Plaintiffs Allowed Leave to File 1st Amended Complaint
STAR TRIBUNE: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due June 1, 2024
STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in NY

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: $4.3-Mil. Class Deal in Saucillo Suit Upheld
TROPICOFC INC: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TTEC SERVICES: Class Action Settlement in Beasley Gets Initial Nod
UNILEVER: Loudenslager Suit Transferred to D. Connecticut
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Class Cert. Bid Hearing Continued to August 4

UNIVERSAL CREDIT: Class Cert Expert Discovery Due June 30
UTICA PUBLIC: Magistrate Judge Endorses Dismissal of Hendricks Suit
VERRA MOBILITY: Merits Discovery in Brantley Suit Underway
VIA RENEWABLES: Continues to Defend Gilkin Variable Rate Class Suit
VIAQUEST RESIDENTIAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due August 5, 2024

VOYA FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Ravarino Class Suit in Conn.
WALT DISNEY: Local 272 Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
WEBSTER FINANCIAL: Friar Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
WELLNESS RESIDENTIAL: Stevenson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
WESTLAKE SERVICES: Nguyen Sues Over ERISA Violation

WEXFORD HOME: Marin Sues Over Unlawful Biometric Scanning
WHITE ROSE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Florence Suit Alleges
WILLIAM O. BRONSON: McPherson Files FDCPA Suit in D. Montana
WISCONSIN ELECTRIC: Continues to Defend Munt Suit in Wisconsin
XTREME MANUFACTURING: Class Settlement in Gonzalez Gets Final Nod

YODLEE INC: Wesch Class Certification Bid Due April 8, 2024
YOUSICIAN OY: Matzura Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ZARA USA: Court Grants Bid to Compel Arbitration in Dike Suit

                            *********

1889-CHS FOUNDATION: Haberkorn Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of PII
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tacey Haberkorn, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. 1889-CHS Foundation, Inc., f/k/a Conemaugh Health
System, Inc., d/b/a Conemaugh Health System, Case No.
3:23-cv-00093-KRG (W.D. Pa., May 15, 2023), is brought to address
the Defendant's unlawful practice of disclosing Plaintiff's and
Class Members' confidential personally identifiable information
("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively
referred to as "Private Information") to third parties, including
Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Meta ("Facebook"), without consent.

Despite professing to value patients' privacy and vowing to protect
the confidentiality and security of their private and protected
health information, healthcare entities, like Defendant, are
collecting, in some instances, "ultra-sensitive personal data"
about patients "ranging from those seeking information about their
reproductive rights and options, those seeking information
regarding their addictions and those seeking mental health
counseling."

The Defendant owns and controls www.conemaugh.org ("Defendant's
Website" or the "Website"), which it encourages patients to use for
booking medical appointments, locating physicians and treatment
facilities, communicating medical symptoms, searching medical
conditions and treatment options, signing up for events and
classes, and more. Defendant devotes a section of its Website to
the "Conemaugh MyChart" Patient Portal ("MyChart"), which
encourages patients to sign up to access the MyChart portal so that
they can more conveniently book appointments and schedule visits,
review their health records and test results, pay bills,
communicate with service providers, request prescription refills,
and complete medical forms virtually and remotely. Between the
Website and MyChart (collectively referred to herein as the
Conemaugh "Digital Platform"), Conemaugh advertises to its
prospective and current patients that its online functionality is a
secure and private means of interacting with Conemaugh and its
health providers.

The Plaintiff and other Class Members who used Defendant's Digital
Platform understandably thought they were communicating only with
their trusted healthcare provider. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and
Class Members, however, Defendant had embedded the Facebook
Tracking Pixel (the "Pixel" or "Facebook Pixel") into its Digital
Platform, surreptitiously forcing Plaintiff and Class Members to
transmit their Private Information to Facebook. Operating as
designed and as implemented by Defendant, the Pixel allows the
Private Information that Plaintiff and Class Members submit to
Defendant to be unlawfully disclosed to Facebook alongside the
individual's unique and persistent Facebook ID ("FID").

The information sent to third parties included the Private
Information that Plaintiff and Class Members submitted to
Defendant's Digital Platform related to their past, present, or
future health conditions, including, for example, the type and date
of a medical appointment and physician. Such Private Information
would allow the third party (e.g., Facebook or Google) to know that
a specific patient was seeking confidential medical care and the
type of medical care being sought. This disclosure would also allow
a third party to reasonably infer that a specific patient was being
treated for a specific type of medical condition such as cancer,
pregnancy, or addiction.

Despite willfully and intentionally incorporating the Facebook
Pixel and CAPI into its Digital Platform and servers, Defendant has
never disclosed to Plaintiff or Class Members that it shared their
sensitive and confidential communications and Private Information
with Facebook. Plaintiff and Class Members were unaware that their
Private Information was being surreptitiously transmitted to
Facebook as they communicated with their healthcare provider via
the Digital Platform or stored on Defendant's servers to be later
transmitted to Facebook so it could be used for targeted
advertising and marketing purposes. As a result of Defendant's
conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered numerous
injuries, including: invasion of privacy; loss of benefit of the
bargain, diminution of value of the Private Information, statutory
damages, and the continued and ongoing risk to their Private
Information, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roy E. Leonard, Esq.
          LEONARD PLLC
          105 Market Street, Suite 300
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Phone: 412-448-2868
          Fax: 412.448.2860
          Email: rleonard@leonardfirm.com

               - and –

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          Glen L. Abramson, Esq.
          Alexandra M. Honeycutt, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (866) 252-0878
          Email: gklinger@milberg.com
                 gabramson@milberg.com
                 ahoneycutt@milberg.com

               - and –

          Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
          Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
          CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: (612) 339-7300
          Fax: (612) 336-2940
          Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
                 pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com

               - and –

          Terence R. Coates, Esq.
          Dylan J. Gould, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
          119 E. Court St., Ste. 530
          Cincinnati, Ohio 4502
          Phone: (513) 651-3700
          Fax: (513) 665-0219
          Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com
                 dgould@msdlegal.com

               - and –

          Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
          THE LYON LAW FIRM
          2754 Erie Ave.
          Cincinnati, Ohio 45208
          Phone: (513) 381-2333
          Fax: (513) 766-9011
          Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com


3M COMPANY: Tierney Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
---------------------------------------------------------
William Tierney, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:23-cv-02027-RMG (D.S.C., May 11,
2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a state police officer and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as
a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
          Keith Jackson, Esq.
          Jeremiah Mosley, Esq.
          RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
          3530 Independence Dr.
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Phone: 205-879-5000
          Facsimile: 205-879-5901


3M COMPANY: Wagner Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Wagner, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:23-cv-02030-RMG (D.S.C., May 11,
2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a state police officer and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as
a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
          Keith Jackson, Esq.
          Jeremiah Mosley, Esq.
          RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
          3530 Independence Dr.
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Phone: 205-879-5000
          Facsimile: 205-879-5901


3M COMPANY: Webb Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eddy Webb, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:23-cv-02031-RMG (D.S.C., May 11,
2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a state police officer and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as
a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
          Keith Jackson, Esq.
          Jeremiah Mosley, Esq.
          RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
          3530 Independence Dr.
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Phone: 205-879-5000
          Facsimile: 205-879-5901


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Noriega Sues Over Deceptive Marketing Campaign
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Joanne Noriega, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Case No. 1:23-cv-04014 (S.D.N.Y.,
May 15, 2023), is brought seeking to put an end to Abbott's
deceptive marketing campaign built upon the premise that PediaSure
is "clinically proven" to increase height and to obtain the
financial redress to which Plaintiff and her class members are
entitled.

Liquid-based Oral Nutritional Supplements ("ONS") were originally
formulated to support the enhanced needs of under- and malnourished
children in the Third World, but these supplements are now
available to the general public and have become enticing
"solutions" for parents who are acutely aware of the social and
clinical implications of small body size.

Based on Abbott's deceptive Clinically Proven Claim, Plaintiff and
consumers like her purchased PediaSure products that they believed
were clinically proven to increase height, and they purchased
PediaSure with a reasonable expectation as to their premium quality
and efficacy. Moreover, Plaintiff purchased PediaSure
notwithstanding the fact that similar meal replacement products,
which appropriately are not marketed as clinically proven to
increase height, were and are available from other manufacturers
for much less money.

Accordingly, Plaintiff and her fellow class members have been
injured because they purchased PediaSure products that they would
not have otherwise purchased and/or they paid a premium for
PediaSure ONS products that were purportedly clinically proven to
increase height but were, in actuality, not clinically proven to be
an effective means for increasing height. Simply put, Plaintiff and
members of her class were deceived by Abbott's fraudulent marketing
of PediaSure and Abbott profited from that deception at Plaintiff's
and her class members' expense, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased PediaSure Grow and Gain Vanilla and
Strawberry drinks for her eight-year-old grandson for whom
Plaintiff was the primary caregiver.

Abbott is an American multinational medical devices and health care
company with headquarters in Abbott Park, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Denlea, Esq.
          Jeffrey I. Carton
          Steven R. Schoenfeld
          Stan Sharovskiy
          DENLEA & CARTON LLP
          2 Westchester Park Drive, Suite 410
          White Plains, New York 10604
          Phone: (914) 331-0100
          Fax: (914) 331-0105
          Email: jdenlea@denleacarton.com
                 jcarton@denleacarton.com
                 sschoenfled@denleacarton.com
                 ssharovsky@denleacarton.com

               - and -

          Philip M. Smith
          KRAVIT SMITH LLP
          75 South Broadway, Suite 400
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Phone: (646) 493-8004
          Fax: (917) 858-7101
          Email: psmith@kravitsmithllp.com


AGAVE & RYE: Santos Sues Over Unpaid Tipped Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Brittney Santos, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. AGAVE & RYE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Case No.
3:23-cv-00969-JRK (N.D. Ohio, May 12, 2023), is brought challenging
policies and practices of Defendant that violate the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of unpaid tipped minimum wages.

The Defendant pays its bartenders and servers, including
Representative Plaintiff, the Putative Collective Members, and the
Ohio Class Members at an hourly rate below the statutory minimum
wage. By paying Representative Plaintiff, the Putative Collective
Members, and the Ohio Class Members less than the minimum wage per
hour, Defendant is taking advantage of a tip credit which allows
employers to count a portion of the amount bartenders and servers
receive as tips towards Defendant's obligation to pay tipped
employees a minimum wage. However, Defendant maintains a policy and
practice whereby bartenders and servers are required, during their
regular shifts, to perform non-tip producing "side work" unrelated
to the servers' tipped occupation, as well as non-tip producing
side work related to the employees' tipped occupation.

The Defendant's policy and practice of paying Representative
Plaintiff, the Putative Collective Members, the Ohio Class Members
the tipped minimum wage (or less than the allowed tipped minimum
wage) while they were performing non-tip producing work violated
the FLSA and the Ohio law. As such, Representative Plaintiff, the
Putative Collective Members, and the Ohio Class Members were not
compensated appropriately at the minimum wage mandated by the FLSA
and Ohio law. The Defendant knowingly and willfully engaged in
violations of the FLSA and Ohio law, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed as a bartender at the Defendant's
Perrysburg, Ohio Location.

The Defendant owns and operates approximately 7 restaurants in
Ohio, as well as restaurants in Tennessee, Kentucky, and
Indiana.[VB]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq.
          Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          1360 E. 9th St., Suite 808
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Phone: (216) 230-2955
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          Email: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com
                 rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com


BACUS FOODS: Holder Seeks to Conditionally Certify FLSA Collective
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael Holder, On behalf
of himself and those similarly situated, v. Bacus Foods Corp.;
BFCJJS106, LLC; Brandt Bacus; Jared Bacus; John Doe Corp. 1-10; and
John Doe 1-10, Case No. 2:23-cv-00763-JFM (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying the case
as an Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action, and to:

   (1) authorize the Plaintiff to send notice of this action to the

       delivery drivers who have worked at the Defendants'Jimmy
       John's stores dating back three years prior to the filing of

       the complaint,

   (2) approve the Plaintiff's proposed notices and methods of
       disseminating notice,

   (3) order the Defendants to provide name and contact information

       for all potential opt-in plaintiffs within 14 days of the
       court's order, and

   (4) authorize a 60-day opt-in period Pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
section
       216(b).

The Plaintiff Michael Holder hereby moves this Court for an Order
conditionally certifying this case as an FLSA collective action and
authorizing her to send notice of the pendency of this action to
her similarly situated co-workers.

Specifically, the Plaintiff seeks conditional certification of the
following employees:

    "All similarly situated current and former delivery drivers
    employed at the Bacus Jimmy John's stores owned, operated, and

    controlled by the Defendants nationwide, during the three years

    prior to the filing of this Class Action Complaint and the date
of
    final judgment in this matter, who elect to opt-in to this
    action."

This is a wage and hour lawsuit filed on behalf of delivery drivers
who work at the Defendants' Jimmy John's franchise stores. The
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' delivery drivers are all
employed according to the same terms: they receive at, close to, or
below minimum wage for the hours they worked while completing
deliveries, they drive their own cars to deliver the Defendants’
food, and they are not properly reimbursed for their delivery
related expenses. the Plaintiff claims that these employment terms
result in a violation of the FLSA.

Bacus Foods is a franchisee, owner, and operator of Jimmy Johns
Gourmet Sandwich shops in multiple states.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 9, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BwWEg5 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          Joe Scherpenberg, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515
          Cincinnati, OH 45236
          Telephone: (513) 202-0710
          Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
          E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
                  akimble@billerkimble.com
                  jscherpenberg@billerkimble.com

BECTON DICKINSON & CO: Continues to Defend Kabak Class Suit in N.J
------------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Kabak class suit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

On February 27, 2020, a putative class action captioned Kabak v.
Becton, Dickinson and Company, et al., Civ. No. 2:20-cv-02155 (SRC)
(CLW), now captioned Industriens Pensionsforsikring v. Becton,
Dickinson and Company, et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain of
its officers.

The complaint, which purports to be brought on behalf of all
persons (other than defendants) who purchased or otherwise acquired
the Company's common stock from November 5, 2019 through February
5, 2020, asserts claims for purported violations of Sections 10 and
20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and seeks, among other things, damages and costs.

The complaint alleges that defendants concealed certain material
information regarding AlarisTM infusion pumps, allegedly rendering
certain public statements about the Company's business, operations
and prospects false or misleading, thereby allegedly causing
investors to purchase stock at an inflated price.

After an initial without prejudice dismissal, the plaintiff filed
amended pleadings, which the Company in turn moved to dismiss.
Ultimately, the court permitted certain aspects of the case to
proceed.

An answer with affirmative defenses was thereafter filed on October
3, 2022.

Discovery has commenced and plaintiff's motion for class
certification was filed on January 17, 2023.

The Company believes that it has strong defenses to the allegations
that were not dismissed and it intends to defend itself
vigorously.

Becton & Dickinson is an American multinational medical technology
company that manufactures and sells medical devices, instrument
systems, and reagents.

BELLE TOFFEE: Filing of Class Status Bid in Cordero Due Oct. 10
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rafael Cordero
Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
Belle Toffee, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01375-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil entered a civil case management plan and
scheduling order as follows.

  -- All fact discovery shall be completed     Sept. 7, 2023
     no later than:

  -- Initial request for production of         May 31, 2023
     Document to be served by:

  -- Interrogatories to be completed by:       Sept. 7, 2023

  -- All expert discovery shall be             Nov. 6, 2023:
     Completed no later than:

  -- Class Certification Motion due:           Oct. 10, 2023

A copy of the Court's order dated May 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Bv5haQ at no extra charge.[CC]

BEYOND MEAT: Faces Retail Wholesale Securities Class Suit in Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Beyond Meat Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2023, that the
Company faces Retail Wholesale securities class suit in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.

On May 11, 2023, Retail Wholesale Department Store Union Local 338
Retirement Fund, a purported shareholder of Beyond Meat, Inc. (the
"Company"), filed a putative securities class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
against the Company and three of its current and former executive
officers, the Company's President and CEO, Ethan Brown, the
Company's former Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, Mark
Nelson, and the Company's former Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer, Phillip Hardin.

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is premised on
allegedly false or misleading statements, and alleged
non-disclosure of material facts, related to the Company's public
disclosures regarding its ability to produce plant-based meats at
scale to the specifications of the Company's foodservice partners
during the proposed class period of May 5, 2020 to October 13,
2022.

The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend all claims asserted.

Beyond Meat, Inc. -- https://www.beyondmeat.com/ -- is a Los
Angeles-based producer of plant-based meat substitutes founded in
2009 by Ethan Brown.[BN]


BURGERFI INTERNATIONAL: Faces Securities Class Suit in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
BurgerFi International, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending April 3, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2023, that the Company faces
securities class suit in the United States District Court, Southern
District of Florida.

John Walker, Individually and On Behalf of all Other Similarly
Situated v. BurgerFi International, Inc. et al (in the United
States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No.
023-cv-60657).

On April 6, 2023, John Walker, on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated plaintiffs, filed a class action lawsuit against
the Company and certain current and former executives alleging that
the Company violated certain securities laws by making false and
misleading statements or failed to disclose that (1) the Company
had overstated the effectiveness of its acquisition and growth
strategies, and (2) the Company had misrepresented the purported
benefits of the Anthony's acquisition and the post-acquisition
business and financial prospects of the Company.

The Company believes that all claims are meritless and plan to
vigorously defend these allegations.

BurgerFi International, Inc. multi-brand restaurant company based
in Florida.



CARPENTERS OF WESTERN: Court Dismisses Johnson's Amended ERISA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TERRANCE JOHNSON, et al., Plaintiffs v. CARPENTERS OF
WESTERN WASHINGTON BOARD OF TRUSTEES, et al., Defendants, Case No.
C22-1079-JCC (W.D. Wash.), Judge John C. Coughenour of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle,
grants:

   a. Defendant Callan LLC's Motion to Dismiss; and

   b. Defendants Carpenters of Western Washington Board of
      Trustees, Gerald Auvil, Noe Castillo, Ken Ervin, Jeff
      Foushee, Kurt Hildebrand, Steve Hoffmann, Martin Holberg,
      Dan Hutchins, Ryan Hyke, Andrew Ledbetter, Ron Montoya, Tim
      O'Neill, Jim Osborne, Doug Peterson, Rick Poitras, Danny
      Robins, Evelyn Shapiro, Bob Susee, Jeff Thorson, Doug
      Tweedy, and Wilf Wainhouse's Motion to Dismiss.

The Plaintiffs filed the putative class action -- under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, 29
U.S.C. Section 1000, et seq. ("ERISA") -- on behalf of union
carpenters in Washington, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, who were
automatically enrolled in two distinct collectively bargained
retirement plans: the (1) Carpenters Individual Account Pension
Plan of Western Washington ("the Contribution Plan"), and the (2)
Carpenters Retirement Plan of Western Washington ("the Benefit
Plan"). The Board and its financial advisor, Callan, managed the
Plans. During the relevant time period, the individually named
Defendants allegedly served on the Board. Those persons, along with
the Board and Callan LLC, are collectively "the Defendants" in the
matter.

The Plaintiffs claim the Defendants mismanaged the Plans by
investing in highly speculative indexes, which incurred over $250
million in losses. These funds, in turn, were managed by non-party,
Allianz Global Investors U.S. LLC, an asset management company. The
Defendants invested nearly a fifth of the Plans' assets in two
Allianz hedge funds: AllianzGI Structured Alpha 1000 Plus LLC and
AllianzGI Structured Alpha U.S. Equity 250 LLC. During the 2020
market downturn, 1000 Plus and Equity 250 lost 92% and 54% of their
value, respectively. 1000 Plus closed by the end of March, and the
Plans liquidated their remaining assets in Equity 250 by early
April. Following the crash, the Board filed a civil suit against
Allianz and received $110,390,267 from a settlement agreement in
2022. The Plaintiffs allege this represents less than 45% of the
Plans' losses.

The Plaintiffs filed the suit alleging the Defendants breached
their duty of prudence under 29 U.S.C. Section 1104. Alternatively,
they allege that Callan breached its common law fiduciary duty.
Also, in the alternative, the Plaintiffs allege that Callan
breached its common law duty of due care. The Defendants move to
dismiss all claims.

The Plaintiffs present a "loss of opportunity" theory to allege
that the Plans "would be greater today" had the Defendants chosen
to invest in different funds.

As a threshold matter, Judge Coughenour holds that this theory
ignores the intervening causes of both the COVID-19 epidemic, and
the fraudulent conduct of Allianz, a non-party to the case.
Moreover, this theory is unsupported by any measurable measure
metric or benchmarks, and the Court will not speculate as to
possible harm. Alternatively, the Plaintiffs allege the Defendants'
conduct will cause them to delay retirement by "at least a year."
However, Judge Coughenour holds that this unsupported and
conclusory allegation is not sufficient to confer standing.

Taken together, Judge Coughenour holds that the Plaintiffs fail to
rebut the Defendants evidence that demonstrates a lack of harm.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a
sufficiently "concrete injury" to establish Article III standing.

Therefore, Judge Coughenour grants the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended complaint and dismisses the
Plaintiffs' amended complaint without leave to amend.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 10, 2023 Order is available at
https://rb.gy/w4h52 from Leagle.com.


CB HOSPITALITY: Peralta Seeks Conditional Collective Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NEPTALI PERALTA and MARIA
JOVITA TAPIA VILLANUEVA, on behalf of themselves, and those
similarly situated, v. CB HOSPITALITY AND EVENTS, LLC, CB
HOSPITALITY AND EVENTS II, LLC, CB HOSPITALITY VENTURES HOLDINGS
CORP., (DBA ST. NED PIZZA), CHRIS BARRETT, jointly and severally,
Case No. 1:22-cv-10805-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to enter an order conditionally certifying a representative class
and permitting Court-supervised notification pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
section 216(b), and for the following relief:

   1. Conditional certification of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA)
      claim as a representative collective action pursuant to 29
      U.S.C. section 216(b) on behalf of all non-managerial, hourly

      employees employed by the defendants within the last three
      years;

   2. Court-facilitated notice of this FLSA action to Covered
      Employees, including a consent form (or opt-in form) as
      authorized by the FLSA;

   3. Approval of the proposed FLSA notice of this action and the
      consent form;

   4. Production of names, last known mailing addresses, alternate

      addresses, telephone numbers, Social Security numbers, and
dates
      of employment of all Covered Employees; and

   5. Posting of the Notice, along with consent forms, in a
      conspicuous location in defendant's Restaurants.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 9, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/459eqU8 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ria Julien, Esq.
          JULIEN MIRER SINGLA & GOLDSTEIN, PLLC
          1 Whitehall St., 16th floor
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 231-2235
          E-mail: rjulien@workingpeopleslaw.com

CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG: Class Cert. Bid Deadline Extended to Oct. 2
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Williams, et al., v. The
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority, Case No. 3:20-cv-00242
(W.D.N.C., Filed April 23, 2020), the Hon. Judge Robert J. Conrad,
Jr. entered an order on motion for extension of scheduling
deadlines as follows:

  -- All dispositive and class                      Oct. 2, 2023
     certification/decertification
     motions due by:

  -- Motions oral argument:                         Dec. 4, 2023

  -- Mediation deadline set for:                    Sept. 1, 2023

  -- Jury Trial set for:                            Jan. 2, 2024

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

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority, doing business as
Atrium Health, operates as a hospital.[CC]

CONSOLIDATED NUCLEAR: Time Extension to File Class Cert Bid Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES MYERS, et al.,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
CONSOLIDATED NUCLEAR SECURITY, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00142-KAC-JEM
(E.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter extending
deadlines to file motion for class certification and to respond to
the Defendant's motion for summary judgment.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs seek a deadline of June 9, 2023, by
which to file their motion for class certification and a deadline
of June 30, 2023, by which to respond to the Defendant's motion for
summary judgment.

On April 25, 2023, this Court entered its Order Staying Action. On
May 9, 2023, the Defendant Consolidated Nuclear Security, LLC filed
its Motion for Summary Judgment.

The Order Staying Action directs the Plaintiffs to "file a status
report addressing

    (1) whether Yezbak Law Offices PLLC will represent them in this

        matter and

    (2) whether this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over
this
        action, on or before May 9, 2023.

On May 9, 2023, Yezbak Law provided Named the Plaintiffs with
copies of a motion to withdraw as counsel, and they previously
requested that Named the Plaintiffs sign consents to counsel's
withdrawal.

The Plaintiffs include James Myers, James Young, and Douglas
Messerli

Consolidated Nuclear is an American federal contractor.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 9, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OgOz71 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Melody-Fowler Green, Esq.
          N. Chase Teeples, Esq.
          YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC
          Nashville, TN 37215
          Telephone: (615) 250-2000
          Facsimile: (615) 250-2020
          E-mail: mel@yezbaklaw.com
                  teeples@yezbaklaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John C. Burgin Jr., Esq.
          John E. Winters, Esq.
          KRAMER RAYSON LLP
          Knoxville, TN 37901-0629
          Telephone: (865) 525-5134
          E-mail: jcburgin@kramer-rayson.com
                  jwinters@kramer-rayson.com

DNC PARKS: Vega Parties to Meet & Confer on Witness Decl. Propriety
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARIA SOCORRO VEGA, Plaintiff v. DNC PARKS & RESORTS
AT ASILOMAR, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00484-ADA-SAB (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Stanley A.
Boone of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California orders the parties to meet and confer to determine the
propriety of a stipulation to strike some or all of the
declarations of witnesses Kalli Southwood, Reina Oviedo, Alfredo
Marquez, and Sandra Diaz from the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

The Plaintiff initiated the putative class action on April 12,
2019. Pursuant to the amended scheduling order, the
pre-certification discovery cutoff was set for Dec. 14, 2022. The
Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class on Feb. 17, 2023. The
hearing on the motion was originally set for April 26, 2023.

On March 23, 2023, the Court continued the pre-certification
discovery deadline to June 9, 2023; granted the Defendant leave to
depose all 16 putative class witnesses who submitted declarations
in support of the Plaintiff's class certification motion; and
extended the briefing and hearing deadlines for the class
certification motion.

On May 10, 2023, the parties appeared by videoconference for an
informal discovery conference. As noted in the joint informal
discovery dispute letter brief and at the hearing, the Defendant
has been unable to depose four of the declarant-witnesses:
Southwood, Oviedo, Marquez, and Diaz. The counsel for the
Plaintiffs originally maintained that she represented these
witnesses and coordinated with defense counsel to set deposition
dates. However, these four witnesses failed to appear at their
depositions on two separate occasions; thereafter, the defense
counsel was informed the Plaintiffs' counsel had lost contact with
these witnesses and the Defendant was required to subpoena the
witnesses for deposition directly.

The Plaintiffs' counsel does not have current addresses for
Southwood or Diaz, and it is believed they now reside in another
state or country. As to these witnesses, the Defendant made three
unsuccessful attempts to serve subpoenas at their last known
addresses. Thereafter, Southwood and Diaz each failed to appear for
her third duly-noticed deposition.

The parties appear to have current addresses for Oviedo and Mr.
Marquez; however, these witnesses will no longer respond to the
Plaintiff's counsel's communications and they refuse to appear for
depositions. On the Defendant's third attempt to notice the
depositions of Oviedo and Marquez, the Defendant served subpoenas
on these witnesses. However, neither witness appeared for the
duly-noticed deposition.

The Plaintiffs' counsel cannot provide any further available
deposition dates for any of these four witnesses and indicates she
has lost contact with them. On this record, Judge Boone concludes
that issuing an order to compel attendance at a deposition would be
futile and needlessly costly for all parties, as the counsel would
encounter the same difficulties in serving a court order as she did
with serving the subpoenas, and there is no reason to conclude that
the witnesses who disregarded the legal authority of the subpoenas
would accord greater deference to a court order.

Accordingly, Judge Boone orders the parties to meet and confer to
determine the propriety of a stipulation to strike some or all of
the declarations of the aforementioned witnesses Southwood, Oviedo,
Marquez, and Diaz from the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

If the parties are unable to reach a stipulation to strike the
witnesses' declarations, Judge Boone grants the Defendant leave to
file a motion for discovery sanctions, including a request for
reasonable fees and costs, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 37 no later than May 31, 2023, with the hearing on such
motion to be set for July 19, 2023. If the Defendant files a Rule
37 motion, the Court will sua sponte continue the briefing and
hearing dates for the class certification motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 10, 2023 Order is available at
https://rb.gy/0ucs2 from Leagle.com.


DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Berkstresser Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROB BERKSTRESSER, v. DST
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-09086-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Nanette K. Laughrey entered an order denying DST motion to stay the
Court's injunction because it has failed to meet its burden of
proof.

The Court said, "Because DST has failed to show irreparable harm,
and the Judgment Creditors would be substantially harmed if the
injunction were lifted, and DST has not shown a likelihood of
success on the merits, and public interest considerations weigh
against lifting the injunction, a stay of the injunction is
inappropriate."

DST argues that because the Ferguson class includes 9,000 members,
it is in the public interest to facilitate settlement. DST
disregards the fact that several avenues for settlement remain open
to it. In any event, permitting DST to strip the Judgment Creditors
of a substantial portion of the value of judgments entered in their
favor without their express consent would undermine public
confidence in the predictability and reliability of the judicial
system.

DST Systems moves for stay of the injunction the Court entered on
April 10, 2023.

On March 31, 2023, the Court entered an order that confirmed
arbitration awards in favor of 55 plaintiffs (the "Judgment
Creditors") and entered a final judgment in each case.

On April 10, 2023, counsel for the Judgment Creditors moved on an
emergency basis, but with notice, for a temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction restraining and enjoining DST, the DST
Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Advisory Committee of
the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems, Inc., and their
respective law firms, and anyone acting on their behalf or in
concert with them, "from settling, or attempting to settle, through
any class or representative action, the Confirmation Plaintiffs'
individual arbitration awards, or any part thereof, unless such
settlement is entered into individually and voluntarily by the
Confirmation Plaintiff and the attorneys to whom any related fees
and costs were awarded."

DST Systems is an American company that was acquired by SS&C
Technologies in 2018. The company provided advisory, technology and
operations outsourcing services to the financial services and
healthcare industries.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44Z8c9p at no extra charge.[CC]


DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Bross Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VANESSA BROSS v. DST
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-09036-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Nanette K. Laughrey entered an order denying DST motion to stay the
Court's injunction because it has failed to meet its burden of
proof.

The Court said, "Because DST has failed to show irreparable harm,
and the Judgment Creditors would be substantially harmed if the
injunction were lifted, and DST has not shown a likelihood of
success on the merits, and public interest considerations weigh
against lifting the injunction, a stay of the injunction is
inappropriate."

DST argues that because the Ferguson class includes 9,000 members,
it is in the public interest to facilitate settlement. DST
disregards the fact that several avenues for settlement remain open
to it. In any event, permitting DST to strip the Judgment Creditors
of a substantial portion of the value of judgments entered in their
favor without their express consent would undermine public
confidence in the predictability and reliability of the judicial
system.

DST Systems moves for stay of the injunction the Court entered on
April 10, 2023.

On March 31, 2023, the Court entered an order that confirmed
arbitration awards in favor of 55 plaintiffs (the "Judgment
Creditors") and entered a final judgment in each case.

On April 10, 2023, counsel for the Judgment Creditors moved on an
emergency basis, but with notice, for a temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction restraining and enjoining DST, the DST
Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Advisory Committee of
the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems, Inc., and their
respective law firms, and anyone acting on their behalf or in
concert with them, "from settling, or attempting to settle, through
any class or representative action, the Confirmation Plaintiffs'
individual arbitration awards, or any part thereof, unless such
settlement is entered into individually and voluntarily by the
Confirmation Plaintiff and the attorneys to whom any related fees
and costs were awarded."

DST Systems is an American company that was acquired by SS&C
Technologies in 2018. The company provided advisory, technology and
operations outsourcing services to the financial services and
healthcare industries.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IaEcxH at no extra charge.[CC]

DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Byers Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THERESA BYERS, v. DST
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-09141-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Nanette K. Laughrey entered an order denying DST motion to stay the
Court's injunction because it has failed to meet its burden of
proof.

The Court said, "Because DST has failed to show irreparable harm,
and the Judgment Creditors would be substantially harmed if the
injunction were lifted, and DST has not shown a likelihood of
success on the merits, and public interest considerations weigh
against lifting the injunction, a stay of the injunction is
inappropriate."

DST argues that because the Ferguson class includes 9,000 members,
it is in the public interest to facilitate settlement. DST
disregards the fact that several avenues for settlement remain open
to it. In any event, permitting DST to strip the Judgment Creditors
of a substantial portion of the value of judgments entered in their
favor without their express consent would undermine public
confidence in the predictability and reliability of the judicial
system.

DST Systems moves for stay of the injunction the Court entered on
April 10, 2023.

On March 31, 2023, the Court entered an order that confirmed
arbitration awards in favor of 55 plaintiffs (the "Judgment
Creditors") and entered a final judgment in each case.

On April 10, 2023, counsel for the Judgment Creditors moved on an
emergency basis, but with notice, for a temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction restraining and enjoining DST, the DST
Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Advisory Committee of
the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems, Inc., and their
respective law firms, and anyone acting on their behalf or in
concert with them, "from settling, or attempting to settle, through
any class or representative action, the Confirmation Plaintiffs'
individual arbitration awards, or any part thereof, unless such
settlement is entered into individually and voluntarily by the
Confirmation Plaintiff and the attorneys to whom any related fees
and costs were awarded."

DST Systems is an American company that was acquired by SS&C
Technologies in 2018. The company provided advisory, technology and
operations outsourcing services to the financial services and
healthcare industries.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42Q1HE4 at no extra charge.[CC]

DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Carroll Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFF CARROLL, v. DST
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-09090-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Nanette K. Laughrey entered an order denying DST motion to stay the
Court's injunction because it has failed to meet its burden of
proof.

The Court said, "Because DST has failed to show irreparable harm,
and the Judgment Creditors would be substantially harmed if the
injunction were lifted, and DST has not shown a likelihood of
success on the merits, and public interest considerations weigh
against lifting the injunction, a stay of the injunction is
inappropriate."

DST argues that because the Ferguson class includes 9,000 members,
it is in the public interest to facilitate settlement. DST
disregards the fact that several avenues for settlement remain open
to it. In any event, permitting DST to strip the Judgment Creditors
of a substantial portion of the value of judgments entered in their
favor without their express consent would undermine public
confidence in the predictability and reliability of the judicial
system.

DST Systems moves for stay of the injunction the Court entered on
April 10, 2023.

On March 31, 2023, the Court entered an order that confirmed
arbitration awards in favor of 55 plaintiffs (the "Judgment
Creditors") and entered a final judgment in each case.

On April 10, 2023, counsel for the Judgment Creditors moved on an
emergency basis, but with notice, for a temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction restraining and enjoining DST, the DST
Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Advisory Committee of
the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems, Inc., and their
respective law firms, and anyone acting on their behalf or in
concert with them, "from settling, or attempting to settle, through
any class or representative action, the Confirmation Plaintiffs'
individual arbitration awards, or any part thereof, unless such
settlement is entered into individually and voluntarily by the
Confirmation Plaintiff and the attorneys to whom any related fees
and costs were awarded."

DST Systems is an American company that was acquired by SS&C
Technologies in 2018. The company provided advisory, technology and
operations outsourcing services to the financial services and
healthcare industries.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/450i6I0 at no extra charge.[CC]

DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Coulter Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOM COULTER v. DST
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-09106-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Nanette K. Laughrey entered an order denying DST motion to stay the
Court's injunction because it has failed to meet its burden of
proof.

The Court said, "Because DST has failed to show irreparable harm,
and the Judgment Creditors would be substantially harmed if the
injunction were lifted, and DST has not shown a likelihood of
success on the merits, and public interest considerations weigh
against lifting the injunction, a stay of the injunction is
inappropriate."

DST argues that because the Ferguson class includes 9,000 members,
it is in the public interest to facilitate settlement. DST
disregards the fact that several avenues for settlement remain open
to it. In any event, permitting DST to strip the Judgment Creditors
of a substantial portion of the value of judgments entered in their
favor without their express consent would undermine public
confidence in the predictability and reliability of the judicial
system.

DST Systems moves for stay of the injunction the Court entered on
April 10, 2023.

On March 31, 2023, the Court entered an order that confirmed
arbitration awards in favor of 55 plaintiffs (the "Judgment
Creditors") and entered a final judgment in each case.

On April 10, 2023, counsel for the Judgment Creditors moved on an
emergency basis, but with notice, for a temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction restraining and enjoining DST, the DST
Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Advisory Committee of
the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems, Inc., and their
respective law firms, and anyone acting on their behalf or in
concert with them, "from settling, or attempting to settle, through
any class or representative action, the Confirmation Plaintiffs'
individual arbitration awards, or any part thereof, unless such
settlement is entered into individually and voluntarily by the
Confirmation Plaintiff and the attorneys to whom any related fees
and costs were awarded."

DST Systems is an American company that was acquired by SS&C
Technologies in 2018. The company provided advisory, technology and
operations outsourcing services to the financial services and
healthcare industries.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pFOvn2 at no extra charge.[CC]


DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Scarbrough Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KOLE SCARBROUGH, v. DST
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-09047-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Nanette K. Laughrey entered an order denying DST motion to stay the
Court's injunction because it has failed to meet its burden of
proof.

The Court said, "Because DST has failed to show irreparable harm,
and the Judgment Creditors would be substantially harmed if the
injunction were lifted, and DST has not shown a likelihood of
success on the merits, and public interest considerations weigh
against lifting the injunction, a stay of the injunction is
inappropriate."

DST argues that because the Ferguson class includes 9,000 members,
it is in the public interest to facilitate settlement. DST
disregards the fact that several avenues for settlement remain open
to it. In any event, permitting DST to strip the Judgment Creditors
of a substantial portion of the value of judgments entered in their
favor without their express consent would undermine public
confidence in the predictability and reliability of the judicial
system.

DST Systems moves for stay of the injunction the Court entered on
April 10, 2023.

On March 31, 2023, the Court entered an order that confirmed
arbitration awards in favor of 55 plaintiffs (the "Judgment
Creditors") and entered a final judgment in each case.

On April 10, 2023, counsel for the Judgment Creditors moved on an
emergency basis, but with notice, for a temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction restraining and enjoining DST, the DST
Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Advisory Committee of
the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems, Inc., and their
respective law firms, and anyone acting on their behalf or in
concert with them, "from settling, or attempting to settle, through
any class or representative action, the Confirmation Plaintiffs'
individual arbitration awards, or any part thereof, unless such
settlement is entered into individually and voluntarily by the
Confirmation Plaintiff and the attorneys to whom any related fees
and costs were awarded."

DST Systems is an American company that was acquired by SS&C
Technologies in 2018. The company provided advisory, technology and
operations outsourcing services to the financial services and
healthcare industries.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O4Ofb9 at no extra charge.[CC]

DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Wright Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALICE WRIGHT, v. DST
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-09164-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Nanette K. Laughrey entered an order denying DST motion to stay the
Court's injunction because it has failed to meet its burden of
proof.

The Court said, "Because DST has failed to show irreparable harm,
and the Judgment Creditors would be substantially harmed if the
injunction were lifted, and DST has not shown a likelihood of
success on the merits, and public interest considerations weigh
against lifting the injunction, a stay of the injunction is
inappropriate."

DST argues that because the Ferguson class includes 9,000 members,
it is in the public interest to facilitate settlement. DST
disregards the fact that several avenues for settlement remain open
to it. In any event, permitting DST to strip the Judgment Creditors
of a substantial portion of the value of judgments entered in their
favor without their express consent would undermine public
confidence in the predictability and reliability of the judicial
system.

DST Systems moves for stay of the injunction the Court entered on
April 10, 2023.

On March 31, 2023, the Court entered an order that confirmed
arbitration awards in favor of 55 plaintiffs (the "Judgment
Creditors") and entered a final judgment in each case.

On April 10, 2023, counsel for the Judgment Creditors moved on an
emergency basis, but with notice, for a temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction restraining and enjoining DST, the DST
Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Advisory Committee of
the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems, Inc., and their
respective law firms, and anyone acting on their behalf or in
concert with them, "from settling, or attempting to settle, through
any class or representative action, the Confirmation Plaintiffs'
individual arbitration awards, or any part thereof, unless such
settlement is entered into individually and voluntarily by the
Confirmation Plaintiff and the attorneys to whom any related fees
and costs were awarded."

DST Systems is an American company that was acquired by SS&C
Technologies in 2018. The company provided advisory, technology and
operations outsourcing services to the financial services and
healthcare industries.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41BExQH at no extra charge.[CC]

ECOVACS ROBOTICS: Khatib Files Suit in N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ecovacs Robotics,
Inc. The case is styled as Ayman Khatib, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Ecovacs Robotics, Inc., Case
No. 4:23-cv-02319-KAW (N.D. Cal., May 11, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Ecovacs Robotics Co. Ltd. (ECOVACS) -- https://www.ecovacs.com/us
-- is a designer, manufacturer and seller of home service
robots.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander Elliot Wolf, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
          401 West Broadway, Suite 1760
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (858) 209-6941
          Fax: (865) 522-0049
          Email: awolf@milberg.com


EZRICARE LLC: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bids by June 17, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD MOSLEY, v.
EZRICARE, LLC, et al., Case No. 6:23-cv-00020-REW-HAI (E.D. Ky.),
the Hon. Judge Hanly A. Ingram entered a scheduling order as
follows:

   1. The parties shall exchange Rule 26(a)(1)      May 26, 2023
      disclosures by:

   2. The parties shall file any motion to          July 31, 2023.

      amend pleadings by:

   3. The parties shall complete class              March 4, 2024
      certification fact discovery by:

   4. The parties shall complete class              June 7, 2024.
      certification expert discovery by:

   5. The Plaintiffs shall disclose the             April 4, 2024,

      identity of expert witnesses no later
      than:

   6. The Plaintiffs shall file any motion          June 17, 2024,
      for class  certification no later than:

   7. The Defendants shall file any response        July 29, 2024,
      in opposition to class certification
      no later than:

   8. The Plaintiffs shall file their reply         Aug. 16, 2024
      in support of class certification, no
      later than:

A copy of the Court's order dated May 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42BLOkL at no extra charge.[CC]

FARADAY FUTURE: Continues to Defend Consolidated Delaware Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Faraday Future Intelligent Electric Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the consolidated class suit
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

On June 14, 2022, a verified stockholder class action complaint was
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against,
among others, the Company, its former Global CEO and CFO, and its
current Chief Product and User Ecosystem Officer alleging breaches
of fiduciary duties (the "Yun Class Action,").

On September 21, 2022, another verified stockholder class action
complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware against, among others, FFIE, the Co-CEOs and independent
directors of PSAC, and certain third-party advisors to PSAC,
alleging breaches of contract and fiduciary duties, and aiding and
abetting alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, in connection with
disclosures and stockholder voting leading up to the Business
Combination (the "Cleveland Class Action").

The Yun and Cleveland Class Action were subsequently consolidated
action (the "Consolidated Delaware Class Action").

On April 4, 2023, Defendants filed opening briefs in support of
their respective motions to dismiss the complaint. Given the early
stages of the legal proceedings, it is not possible to predict the
outcome of the claims.

Faraday Future claims it designs and engineers next-generation
smart electric connected vehicles.[BN]


FARADAY FUTURE: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Faraday Future Intelligent Electric Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from securities class suit in
the United States District court, Central District of California.

On December 23, 2021, a putative class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 was filed in the
United States District Court, Central District of California,
against the Company and its former Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer, its current Chief Product and User
Ecosystem Officer, as well as the CFO of Legacy FF, three
independent directors of PSAC, and the Co-CEOs of PSAC (the
"Putative Class Action").

On March 7, 2022, the following individuals were appointed as Lead
Plaintiffs: Byambadorj Nomin, Hao Guojun, Peihao Wang and Shentao
Ye.

On the same date, Wolf Haldenstein and Pomerantz LLP were appointed
as Co-Lead Counsel. Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
May 6, 2022.

On July 5, 2022, the Company and all other Defendants filed a joint
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

In their opposition, Plaintiffs withdrew their claim under Section
11 of the 1933 Securities Act.

After complete briefing and a hearing on the motion, on October 20,
2022, the District Court issued its decision, denying in part and
granting in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The court
found, among other things, that Plaintiffs had sufficiently pled a
claim for violation of Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with respect to certain statements
made in 2021 concerning Legacy FF's receipt of 14,000 reservations
for the FF 91 vehicle.

The District Court also found, however, that Plaintiffs had failed
to sufficiently plead a claim with respect to forward-looking
statements made concerning the expected schedule for the production
and delivery of the FF 91 vehicle.

The District Court's dismissal was without prejudice and leave to
amend the complaint was granted.

Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of court's ruling
sustaining the claim under Section 14(a) of the 1933 Securities
Act, which was denied on December 12, 2022.

On January 6, 2023, the plaintiffs declined to again amend their
complaint to attempt to reallege the claims dismissed by the
District Court.

As a result, the amended complaint filed on May 6, 2022 is the
operative complaint with the exception of the voluntarily withdrawn
and judicially dismissed claims, which include all claims against
the Company's former Chief Financial Officer and the three
independent PSAC directors.

The Company and other Defendants filed answers on February 10,
2023.

The Company has asserted that the suit is without merit and stated
its intention to vigorously defend the suit.

Faraday Future claims it designs and engineers next-generation
smart electric connected vehicles.[BN]


FCA US: Must Oppose Bledsoe Class Certification Bid by May 29
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES BLEDSOE, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. FCA US
LLC, a Delaware corporation, and CUMMINS INC., an Indiana
corporation, Case No. 4:16-cv-14024-TGB-RSW (E.D. Mich.), the Hon.
Judge Terrence G. Berg entered an order that the Defendants shall
have until May 29, 2023 within which to file their respective
oppositions to the Plaintiffs' second amended motion for class
certification and appointment of class representatives and class
counsel

FCA US designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. The
Company offers passenger cars, utility vehicles, mini-vans, trucks
and commercial vans.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42yWy3j at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Jerrod C. Patterson
          Garth Wojtanowicz
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  jerrodp@hbsslaw.com
                  garthw@hbsslaw.com

                - and -

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
          Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM PC
          950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
                  ssa@millerlawpc.com
                  dal@millerlawpc.com

                - and -

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          77 Water Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 584-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 584-0799
          Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com

                - and -

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Zachary Jacobs, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN,
          BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
          Email: JCecchi@carellabyrne.com
                  ZJacobs@carellabyrne.com

                - and -

          Paul J. Geller, Esq.
          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          Mark J. Dearman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
          & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
          E-mail: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com
                  sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
                  mdearman@rgrdlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Stephen A. D'Aunoy, Esq.
          Carl. L. Rowley, Esq.
          Thomas L. Azar, Jr., Esq.
          THOMPSON COBURN LLP
          One US Bank Plaza
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 552-6000
          E-mail: sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com
                  crowley@thompsoncoburn.com
                  tazar@thompsoncoburn.com

                - and -

          Jeffrey A. Soble, Esq.
          Jonathan W. Garlough, Esq.
          Leah R. Imbrogno, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          321 North Clark Street, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 832-4500
          Facsimile: (312) 832-4700
          E-mail: jsoble@foley.com
                  jgarlough@foley.com
                  limbrogno@foley.com

FEDERAL BUREAU: Must File Class Cert Response by June 16
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN v. FEDERAL BUREAU
OF INVESTIGATION, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00618 (D.D.C.), the Hon.
Judge Amit P. Mehta entered an order on motion for extension of
time as follows:

  -- The Defendants shall answer or otherwise plead to the
Complaint
     on or before June 9, 2023.

  -- The Defendants shall file their response to the Plaintiff's
     motion for class certification on or before June 16, 2023.

The suit alleges violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is the domestic intelligence
and security service of the United States and its principal federal
law enforcement agency.[CC]



FERGUSON ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cicchetti Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VINCENT CICCHETTI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-03581 (E.D.N.Y., May 12, 2023) seeks to
recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.

Plaintiff Cicchetti was employed by Defendant as a delivery
driver.

FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, LLC is a limited liability company organized
and existing under the laws of the State of Virginia, where it
maintains its principal place of business. Defendant's sole member
is Ferguson US Holdings, Inc., a Virginia corporation whose
principal place of business is in Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis M. Leon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO
          108 West 39th Street, Suite 602
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 583-7400
          Facsimile: lleon@cafaroesq.com

FIRSTSUN CAPITAL: Continues to Defend Overdraft Fee Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
FirstSun Capital Bankcorp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from overdraft fee class suit in
the United States Court for the District of Colorado.

On September 13, 2021, Samantha Besser filed a putative class
action amended complaint against the Bank in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado. The amended complaint
alleges that the Bank improperly charged multiple insufficient
funds or overdraft fees when a merchant resubmits a rejected
payment request.

The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, which
incorporates the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing.
Plaintiff seeks to represent a proposed class of all the Bank's
checking account customers who were charged multiple insufficient
funds or overdraft fees on resubmitted payment requests.

Plaintiff seeks unspecified restitution, actual and statutory
damages, costs, attorneys' fees, pre-judgment interest, and other
relief as the Court deems proper for herself and the purported
class.

On September 27, 2021, the Bank filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

The motion to dismiss has been fully pled and is before the Court
for decision.

The Bank believes that the lawsuit is without merit, and it intends
to vigorously defend against all claims asserted. At this time, the
Bank is unable to reasonably estimate the outcome of this
litigation.

FirstSun Capital Bancorp, headquartered in Denver, Colorado, is the
financial holding company for Sunflower Bank, National Association,
which operates as Sunflower Bank, First National 1870 and Guardian
Mortgage.



FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Eubanks Seek More Time to File Reply Brief
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARRY W. EUBANKS AND
CAROLYN D. EUBANKS, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. FLYWHEEL ENERGY PRODUCTION, LLC; XTO ENERGY,
INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-00329-LPR (E.D. Ark.), the Plaintiffs ask
the Court to enter an order granting their motion for extension of
time to file reply brief:

The deadline for filing the Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of its
Motion for Class Certification is currently Monday, May 22, 2023.

The Plaintiffs' counsel respectfully requests a two-week extension
of time to file the Plaintiffs' Reply Brief. The new deadline under
this requested extension would be Monday, June 5, 2023.

The Plaintiffs request that the Court grant this Unopposed Motion,
extend the Plaintiffs' deadline for filing their Reply Brief to
Monday, June 5, 2023, and for all other proper relief.

Flywheel is a private exploration and production company formed to
acquire and operate large, producing onshore U.S. oil and gas
assets.

Flywheel Energy is a private exploration and production company
formed to acquire and operate large, producing onshore U.S. oil and
gas assets.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 9, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MvIDpo at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          M. Edward Morgan, Esq.
          Nathan S. Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          244 Highway 65 North, Suite 5
          Clinton, AR 72031-7085
          Telephone: (501) 745-4044
          Facsimile: (501) 745-5358
          E-mail: eddie@medwardmorgan.com
                  nathan@morganlawfirmpa.com

                - and -

          Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
          Will T. Crowder, Esq.
          THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
          1101 Garland Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201-1214
          Telephone: (501) 374-1058
          Facsimile: (501) 374-2222
          E-mail: tomthrash@thrashlawfirmpa.com
                  willcrowder@thrashlawfirmpa.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          G. Alan Perkins, esq.
          M. Christine Dillard, esq
          Samuel S. McLelland, esq.
          Julie DeWoody Greathouse, esq.
          PPGMR LAW, PLLC
          P.O. Box 3446
          Little Rock, AR 72203-3446
          Telephone: (501) 603-9000
          Facsimile: (501) 603-0556
          E-mail: Alan@ppgmrlaw.com
          Christine@ppgmrlaw.com
          Sam@ppgmrlaw.com
          Julie@ppgmrlaw.com

               - and -

          Will Crowder, Esq.
          THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
          1101 Garland Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201-1214
          Telephone: (501) 374-1058
          Facsimile: (501) 374-2222
          E-mail: willcrowder@thrashlawfirmpa.com

FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Flowers Seek More Time to File Reply Brief
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARY FLOWERS AND DEBBIE
FLOWERS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
Situated, v. FLYWHEEL ENERGY PRODUCTION, LLC; MERIT ENERGY COMPANY,
LLC; and RIVERBEND OIL & GAS VII, LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-00330-LPR
(E.D. Ark.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
granting their motion for extension of time to file reply brief:

The deadline for filing the Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of its
Motion for Class Certification is currently Monday, May 22, 2023.

The Plaintiffs' counsel respectfully requests a two-week extension
of time to file the Plaintiffs' Reply Brief. The new deadline under
this requested extension would be Monday, June 5, 2023.

The Plaintiffs request that the Court grant this Unopposed Motion,
extend the Plaintiffs' deadline for filing their Reply Brief to
Monday, June 5, 2023, and for all other proper relief.

Flywheel is a private exploration and production company formed to
acquire and operate large, producing onshore U.S. oil and gas
assets.

Flywheel Energy is a private exploration and production company
formed to acquire and operate large, producing onshore U.S. oil and
gas assets.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 9, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MtV5Wx at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          M. Edward Morgan, Esq.
          Nathan S. Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          244 Highway 65 North, Suite 5
          Clinton, AR 72031-7085
          Telephone: (501) 745-4044
          Facsimile: (501) 745-5358
          E-mail: eddie@medwardmorgan.com
                  nathan@morganlawfirmpa.com

                - and -

          Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
          Will T. Crowder, Esq.
          THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
          1101 Garland Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201-1214
          Telephone: (501) 374-1058
          Facsimile: (501) 374-2222
          E-mail: tomthrash@thrashlawfirmpa.com
                  willcrowder@thrashlawfirmpa.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          G. Alan Perkins, esq.
          M. Christine Dillard, esq
          Samuel S. McLelland, esq.
          Julie DeWoody Greathouse, esq.
          PPGMR LAW, PLLC
          P.O. Box 3446
          Little Rock, AR 72203-3446
          Telephone: (501) 603-9000
          Facsimile: (501) 603-0556
          E-mail: Alan@ppgmrlaw.com
          Christine@ppgmrlaw.com
          Sam@ppgmrlaw.com
          Julie@ppgmrlaw.com

               - and -

          Will Crowder, Esq.
          THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
          1101 Garland Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201-1214
          Telephone: (501) 374-1058
          Facsimile: (501) 374-2222
          E-mail: willcrowder@thrashlawfirmpa.com

FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Reply Brief
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARRELL OLIGER AND CAROL
OLIGER, COTRUSTEES OF THE DARRELL AND CAROL OLIGER REVOCABLE TRUST
DATED JUNE 19, 2007, PULOMA PROPERTIES, LLC, LGTD INVESTMENTS, LLC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
FLYWHEEL ENERGY PRODUCTION, LLC Case No. 4:20-cv-01146-LPR (E.D.
Ark.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting
their motion for extension of deadlines and issuance of Revised
Scheduling Order, as follows:

The deadline for filing the Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of its
Motion for Class Certification is currently Monday, May 22, 2023.

The Plaintiffs' counsel respectfully requests a two-week extension
of time to file the Plaintiffs' Reply Brief. The new deadline under
this requested extension would be Monday, June 5, 2023.

The Plaintiffs request that the Court grant this Unopposed Motion,
extend the Plaintiffs' deadline for filing their Reply Brief to
Monday, June 5, 2023, and for all other proper relief.

Flywheel is a private exploration and production company formed to
acquire and operate large, producing onshore U.S. oil and gas
assets.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WcgSW2 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          M. Edward Morgan, Esq.
          Nathan S. Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          244 Highway 65 North, Suite 5
          Clinton, AR 72031-7085
          Telephone: (501) 745-4044
          Facsimile: (501) 745-5358
          E-mail: eddie@medwardmorgan.com
                  nathan@morganlawfirmpa.com

                - and -

          Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
          Will T. Crowder, Esq.
          THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
          1101 Garland Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201-1214
          Telephone: (501) 374-1058
          Facsimile: (501) 374-2222
          E-mail: tomthrash@thrashlawfirmpa.com
                  willcrowder@thrashlawfirmpa.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          G. Alan Perkins, esq.
          M. Christine Dillard, esq
          Samuel S. McLelland, esq.
          Julie DeWoody Greathouse, esq.
          PPGMR LAW, PLLC
          P.O. Box 3446
          Little Rock, AR 72203-3446
          Telephone: (501) 603-9000
          Facsimile: (501) 603-0556
          E-mail: Alan@ppgmrlaw.com
          Christine@ppgmrlaw.com
          Sam@ppgmrlaw.com
          Julie@ppgmrlaw.com

               - and -

          Will Crowder, Esq.
          THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
          1101 Garland Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201-1214
          Telephone: (501) 374-1058
          Facsimile: (501) 374-2222
          E-mail: willcrowder@thrashlawfirmpa.com

FOLGERS COFFEE: Parties File Joint Bid for Tolling of Deadlines
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as In re: Folgers Coffee
Marketing Litigation, Case No. 4:21-md-02984-BP (W.D. Mo.), the
Parties submit to the Court a joint motion for a tolling of their
responsive pleading deadlines to the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and motion to amend scheduling order and for leave to
file fourth amended complaint substituting the Plaintiff Trina
Green, as follows:

On February 27, 2023, this Court granted the Plaintiffs’ Motion
to Amend Scheduling Order and for Leave to File Third Amended
Complaint Substituting then-the Plaintiff Bosso for the Plaintiff
Green, over the Defendants' Opposition.

The Parties completed briefing on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
the Third Amended Complaint on April 28, 2023, and a decision is
pending.

The Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification on March
22, 2023, and the Defendants' responsive pleading deadline is May
22, 2023.

The Plaintiffs' deadline to file a reply is June 21, 2023. On May
3, 2023, the Plaintiffs' counsel informed the Defendants' counsel
that it is unlikely that Ms. Green will be available to sit for her
deposition and asked that the Defendants consent to a substitution.


On May 4, 2023, the Defendants' counsel responded to the
Plaintiffs’ proposal via email stating that the Defendants oppose
substitution. the Defendants oppose substitution because they argue
it is improper and severely prejudicial at this late stage of the
litigation. the Plaintiffs disagree substitution is improper and
argue that whatever prejudice, if any, caused by the substitution
has been ameliorated by the Plaintiffs' production of discovery as
part of their Motion to Amend.

J.M. Smucker is an American manufacturer of food and beverage
products.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3o4MOix at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Tim E. Dollar, Esq.
          DOLLAR, BURNS, BECKER &
          HERSHEWE, L.C.
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 876-2600
          Facsimile: (816) 221-8763
          E-mail: timd@dollar-law.com

                - and -

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          Scott G. Braden, Esq.
          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
          1350 Columbia St., Ste. 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 762-1900
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: tcarpenter@lcllp.com
                  sbraden@lcllp.com
                  kcarroll@lcllp.com

                - and -

          Lubna M. Faruqi, Esq.
          Timothy J. Peter, Esq.
          Lisa T. Omoto, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone:(212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: lfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                  tpeter@faruqilaw.com
                  lomoto@faruqilaw.com

                - and -

          Bonner C. Walsh, Esq.
          WALSH PLLC
          1561 Long Haul Road
          Grangeville, ID 83530
          Telephone: (541) 359-2827
          Facsimile: (866) 503-8206
          E-mail: bonner@walshpllc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ronald Y. Rothstein, Esq.
          Sean H. Suber, Esq.
          Nathan R. Gilbert, Esq.
          Jeffrey S. Wilkerson, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          35 West Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 558-5600
          Facsimile: (312) 558-5700
          E-mail: RRothste@winston.com
                  SSuber@winston.com
                  NRGilbert@winston.com
                  JWilkerson@winston.com

                - and -

          Andrew Ryan, Esq.
          SANDBERG PHOENIX
          & VON GONTARD P.C.
          600 Washington Avenue, 15th Floor
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 234-3332
          E-mail: ARyan@sandbergphoenix.com

FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Quinones Class Suit Dismissal Under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency Therapeutics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2023, that the
plaintiff filed notice of appeal to the United States of Appeals
for the First Circuit for the dismissal of the Quinones class
suit.

On June 3, 2021 and June 22, 2021, purported stockholders of the
Company filed putative class action lawsuits in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company and the
Company's Chief Executive Officer, President, and Director, David
Lucchino.

On March 21, 2022, the two lawsuits were consolidated into a single
lawsuit, Quinones et al. v. Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. et al. and
on May 16, 2022, the Company’s Chief Development Officer, Dr.
Carl LeBel, was added as a defendant.

The plaintiffs alleged violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and Rule
10b5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
Exchange Act), due to allegedly false and misleading statements and
omissions about the Company's Phase 2a clinical trial (FX-322-202)
for its product candidate FX-322 in the Company's public
disclosures between October 29, 2020 and March 22, 2021.

The lawsuit sought, among other things, damages in connection with
the Company's allegedly artificially inflated stock price between
October 29, 2020 and March 22, 2021 as a result of those allegedly
false and misleading statements and omissions, as well as interest,
attorneys’ fees and costs.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on July
15, 2022.

This matter is at the very early stages of the legal process, and
as a result, the Company is not able to estimate a range of
possible loss.

On March 29, 2023, the Company's motion to dismiss was granted and
the lawsuit was dismissed in its entirety.

On April 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit from the order
dismissing the lawsuit.

Since an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss cannot be
made at this time, no accruals have been recorded as of March 31,
2023.

Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. is a biotechnology company based in
Massachusetts.


G.SKILL USA: Court Grants Bid to Stay Nelson Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NOAH NELSON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. G.SKILL USA,
INC., Case No. 6:22-cv-06175-FPG (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Frank
P. Geraci, Jr. entered an order granting G.Skill's motion to stay
the Nelson action.

The parties shall file a joint status report within 30 days of the
class certification decision in Tristan Hurd v. G. Skill
International Enterprise Co., LTD. et al., Case No. 22-CV-00685
(C.D. Cal.) and every 90 days thereafter.

Finally, G.Skill argues that, because a stay would further the
interests of judicial economy, it would also serve the public
interest. Nelson has not addressed the public interest factor.

On January 31, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action
complaint in the Central District of California against G.Skill,
G.Skill International Enterprise Co., LTD, Racerspeed, Inc., and
Neuteck, Inc. (the "Hurd the Defendants").

The Hurd the Plaintiffs allege that G.Skill advertises that its
high-speed computer memory products, including its Trident, Aegis,
and Ripjaws lines, will run at the advertised speeds, measured in
megahertz (MHz), "out-of-thebox."

On April 17, 2022, almost three months after the Hurd the
Plaintiffs filed their complaint, Nelson filed this putative class
action in this Court against G.Skill on behalf of a "New York
Class" and a "Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class" who purchased
G.Skill's computer memory products.

G.Skill argues that a stay is warranted because the Hurd action was
filed before the Nelson action and the two actions involve
substantially the same issues. It further asserts that a stay will
will serve its interests, as well as those of the courts,
non-parties, and the public, while not prejudicing Nelson. Nelson
responds by arguing that the Hurd court may not be able to exercise
personal jurisdiction over G.Skill for the New York plaintiffs'
claims, that G.Skill has not shown a clear case of hardship, and
that the Hurd action is not more advanced than the Nelson action.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 8, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44RPCQu at no extra charge.[CC]

GOOGLE LLC: Collect Personal Info Without Consent, Doe Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant, Case No.
5:23-cv-02343 (N.D. Cal., May 12, 2023) arises from the Defendant's
alleged violations of the California Confidentiality of Medical
Information Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, as users navigate a healthcare provider
websites, Google's Tracking Technology collects their sensitive
information, including health information relating to sensitive
medical appointments, medical conditions, specific treatments,
messages to healthcare providers, and personally identifiable
information ("PII").

The Plaintiff used the healthcare provider websites, which
incorporated Google's Tracking Technology, to search for an
appointment for an abortion, selecting a facility in Burbank,
California. Plaintiff, like other Class members, expected their
private, personal sensitive information conveyed through healthcare
provider websites to remain confidential. However, unbeknownst to
the Plaintiff and Class members, Google intercepted and collected
their sensitive information, including their searches, inputs,
health information relating to private, personal, sensitive medical
appointments, medical conditions, specific treatments, messages to
healthcare providers, and PII without consent, the Plaintiff
alleges.

GOOGLE LLC operates as a global technology company specializes in
internet related services and products. The Company focuses on
web-based search and display advertising tools, search engine,
cloud computing, software, and hardware. Google serves customers
worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hal D. Cunningham, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 223-4565
          Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
          Email: hcunningham@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Christian Levis, Esq.
          Amanda Fiorilla, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
          Email: clevis@lowey.com
          afiorilla@lowey.com

               - and -

          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          Carey Alexander, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          230 Park Ave., 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
                 calexander@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Erin Green Comite, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          156 South Main Street
          P.O. Box 192
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Telephone: (860) 537-5537
          Email:ecomite@scott-scott.com

HARPERCOLLINS PUBLISHERS: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
News Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 12, 2023, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the antitrust class suit filed in New York.

Beginning in February 2021, a number of purported class action
complaints have been filed in the N.Y. District Court against
Amazon.com, Inc. and certain publishers, including the Company's
subsidiary, HarperCollins Publishers, L.L.C. ("HarperCollins" and
together with the other publishers, the "Publishers"), alleging
violations of antitrust and competition laws.

The complaints seek treble damages, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees and costs. In September 2022, the N.Y. District
Court granted Amazon and the Publishers' motions to dismiss the
complaints but gave the plaintiffs leave to amend.

The plaintiffs filed amended complaints in both cases in November
2022, and in January 2023, Amazon and the Publishers filed motions
to dismiss the amended complaints.

While it is not possible at this time to predict with any degree of
certainty the ultimate outcome of these actions, HarperCollins
believes it has been compliant with applicable laws and intends to
defend itself vigorously.

News Corporation is a global diversified media and information
services company.


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Final Judgment Entered in Zakikhani Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California enters Final Judgment in the case,
RAMTIN ZAKIKHANI, et al., Plaintiffs v. HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 8:20-cv-01584-SB-JDE (C.D. Cal.).

Class Representatives Ramtin Zakikhani, Kimberly Elzinga, Patti
Talley, Theodore Maddox, Jacqueline Washington, Ana Olaciregui,
Elaine Peacock, Melody Irish, Donna Tinsley, Brenda Evans, Anthony
Vacchio, Minda Briaddy, Lucille Jacob, Carla Ward, Pepper Miller,
Adam Pluskowski, Ricky Barber, and Cindy Brady, individually and as
representatives of the Class, entered into a Settlement Agreement
with Defendants Hyundai Motor Co., Hyundai Motor America, Kia
Corp., and Kia America, Inc. Together, they moved the Court for an
order granting final approval of the Settlement.

Judge Blumenfeld considered the Amended Settlement Agreement, the
Plaintiffs' motions for final approval and attorneys' fees, costs,
and service awards, all supporting papers, the arguments of the
counsel, and all objections to the Settlement, and granted final
approval of the Settlement on May 5, 2023.

Now, in consideration of the entire record therein, Judge
Blumenfeld enters Final Judgment. The Final Judgment incorporates
the Settlement Agreement, the Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, and the Final
Approval Order. C

The two Settlement Classes, as defined in Final Approval Order,
were certified for settlement purposes only pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and are defined as follows:

     a. HYUNDAI SETTLEMENT CLASS: All owners and lessees of a
Hyundai Class Vehicle who purchased or leased the Hyundai Class
Vehicle in the United States and including those purchased while
the owner was abroad on active U.S. military duty. Hyundai Class
Vehicles refers to Hyundai Tucson vehicles (model years 2014, 2015,
2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021), Hyundai Santa Fe vehicles
(model years 2007, 2016, 2017, and 2018), Hyundai Santa Fe Sport
vehicles (model years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017, and 2018), Santa Fe
XL vehicles (model year 2019), Hyundai Azera vehicles (model years
2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011), Genesis G80 vehicles
(model years 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020), Genesis G70 vehicles
(model years 2019, 2020, and 2021), Hyundai Genesis vehicles (model
years 2015 and 2016), Hyundai Elantra vehicles (model years 2007,
2008, 2009, and 2010), Hyundai Elantra Touring vehicles (model
years 2009, 2010, and 2011), Hyundai Sonata vehicles (model year
2006), and Hyundai Entourage vehicles (model years 2007 and 2008),
which were the subject of NHTSA Recalls.

     b. KIA SETTLEMENT CLASS: All owners or lessees of a Kia Class
Vehicle who purchased or leased the Kia Class Vehicle in the United
States, including those purchased while the owner was abroad on
active U.S. military duty. Kia Class Vehicles refers to Kia
Sportage vehicles (model years 2008, 2009, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017,
2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021), Kia Sorento vehicles (model years
2007, 2008, 2009, 2014, and 2015), Kia Optima vehicles (model years
2013, 2014, and 2015), Kia Stinger vehicles (model years 2018,
2019, 2020, and 2021), Kia Sedona vehicles (model years 2006, 2007,
2008, 2009, and 2010), Kia Cadenza vehicles (model years 2017,
2018, and 2019), and Kia K900 vehicles (model years 2016, 2017, and
2018), which were the subject of NHTSA Recalls.

Judge Blumenfeld held the Fairness Hearing on April 21, 2023. He
carefully considered and overruled the objections to the Settlement
that had been filed. He concluded that the Settlement is a fair,
reasonable, and adequate compromise of the claims asserted in the
action for the reasons set forth in the Final Approval Order.

Judge Blumenfeld further considered the Plaintiffs' request for (1)
$5,934,078.10 in attorneys' fees to the Class Counsel and the
Plaintiffs' Counsel; (2) $248,421.90 in costs to the Class Counsel
and the Plaintiffs' Counsel for reimbursement of litigation
expenses; and (3) $67,500 in service awards to the Plaintiffs in
connection with the action. He concluded that the Plaintiffs'
request for $6,182,500 in attorneys' fees and costs, and their
requested service awards, are reasonable under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23, and awarded them to the Plaintiffs, the Class
Counsel, and the Plaintiffs' Counsel.

If the Final Approval Order is set aside, materially modified, or
overturned by the Court or on appeal, and is not fully reinstated
on further appeal, the Court's certification of the Settlement
Classes will be vacated nunc pro tunc. All Parties are bound by the
Final Approval Order, the Final Judgment, and the Settlement
Agreement. All Class Members, except those who timely requested
exclusion from the Settlement Classes, are bound by the Final
Approval Order, the instant Order and Final Judgment, and the
Settlement Agreement.

Judge Blumenfeld dismisses, on the merits and with prejudice, the
action and all claims currently pending before the Court belonging
to the Class Members who did not request exclusion from the
Settlement Classes in the time and manner provided for in the Class
notice. As of the Effective Date of the Settlement Agreement, each
Releasor irrevocably releases, waives, and forever discharges and
holds harmless the Released Persons of and from any and all
Released Claims which the Releasor has or may hereafter have.

Upon issuance of the Final Approval Order and the Final Judgment:
(i) the Settlement will be the exclusive remedy for Class Members;
(ii) the Released Persons will not be subject to liability or
expense of any kind to any Class Member(s) for reasons related to
the action except as set forth herein; and (iii) Class Members will
be permanently barred from initiating, asserting, or prosecuting
any and all Released Claims against the Released Persons.

If the Final Judgment is set aside, materially modified, or
overturned by the Court or on appeal, and is not fully reinstated
on further appeal, the Final Judgment will be deemed vacated and
will have no force or effect whatsoever.

Without affecting the finality of the Final Approval Order or the
Final Judgment in any way, the Court reserves continuing
jurisdiction over matters relating to the Settlement.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 10, 2023 Final Judgment is
available at https://rb.gy/03k3t from Leagle.com.


IPIC THEATERS: Wolfe Discrimination Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DAEVY WOLFE, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IPIC THEATERS, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company; IPIC ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, A
Florida Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV05796, was removed from the
Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on May 12, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:23-cv-03665 to the proceeding.

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges four causes of action for: (1)
racial and age discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment
and Housing Act; (2) failure to investigate and prevent
discrimination in violation of the FEHA; (3) intentional infliction
of emotional distress; and (4) negligent infliction of emotional
distress.

IPIC Theaters, LLC engages in theater and restaurant business.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          David G. Hoiles, Jr., Esq.
          Lauren R. Presser, Esq.
          Raina Sharma, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          225 Broadway, Suite 1800  
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 573-4900
          Facsimile: (619) 573-4901
          E-mail: David.Hoiles@jacksonlewis.com
                  Lauren.Presser@jacksonlewis.com
                  Raina.Sharma@jacksonlewis.com

JERSEY FIRESTOP: Completion of Class Discovery Extended to July 14
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as COVACHUELA v. JERSEY
FIRESTOP LLC, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-08806 (D.N.J.), the Hon.
Judge Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni entered an order
extending the deadline for the parties to complete discovery
relating to the class certification issues until and including July
14, 2023, in light of the parties' update submitted on May 8,
2023.

The Court shall conduct a status telephone conference on July 11,
2023. The Court shall circulate dial-in information for the
conference at a later date. During the conference, the remaining
schedule shall be addressed. So Ordered by on 5/09/2023. (jem)

The nature of suit states Fair Labor Standards Act.

Jersey Firestop is a full-service mechanical insulation
company.[CC]

KENTECH CONSULTING: Abrogina Loses Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VIRGINIA ABROGINA, as an
individual, and on behalf of the putative class, v. KENTECH
CONSULTING, INC., a foreign corporation doing business in
California; BACKGROUNDCHECKS.COM, a limited liability company doing
business in California; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No.
3:16-cv-00662-DMS-WVG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dana M. Sabraw
entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification and approval of class counsel.

Specifically, the motion is denied as to the first and second
proposed classes for failure to meet the numerosity, typicality,
and adequacy requirements, and denied as to the third proposed
class for failure to satisfy the numerosity requirement, the Court
said.

On January 6, 2009, the Plaintiff was convicted of grand theft
under California Penal Code section 487(d)(1). On September 13,
2013, after having satisfactorily completed her sentence and terms
of probation, the Plaintiff's conviction was dismissed and
"expunged" pursuant to California Penal Code section 1203.4.

The Plaintiff seeks to certify the following class against Kentech
based on its dissemination of "incomplete" consumer reports under
section 1681k(a)(2):

   "All natural persons within the United States with respect to
whom,
   during February 5, 2014 - August 25, 2015, Kentech furnished a
   consumer report to a non-police and [non] government entity for

   employment purposes, and whose report contained any criminal
record
   information, and whose report omits one or more of the following

   information: "case number", "arrest/file/offense date",
"offense",
   "severity", "final disposition", "disposition date" in violation
of
   15 USC section 1681k(a)(2)."

Kentech is a global background technology screening company.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pvDuEA at no extra charge.[CC]


LIGHTNING EMOTORS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Delman Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Lightning eMotors Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2023, that the Delaware Chancery
Court denied the motion of defendant to dismiss the Delman class
suit on January 4, 2023.

On August 4, 2021, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action complaint in the Delaware Chancery Court,
captioned Delman v. GigCapitalAcquisitions3, LLC, et al. (Case No.
2021-0679) on behalf of a purported class of stockholders.

The lawsuit names GigCapitalAcquisitions3, LLC and the Company's
former directors Dr. Katz, Dr. Dinu, and Messrs. Betti-Berutto,
Mikulsky, Miotto and Wang, as defendants.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duty stemming from Gig's merger with Lightning Systems and unjust
enrichment of certain of the defendants.

The lawsuit seeks, among other relief, unspecified damages,
redemption rights, and attorneys' fees.

Neither the Company nor any of its current officers or directors
are parties to the lawsuit.

The Company's former directors are subject to certain
indemnification obligations of the Company.

On January 4, 2023, the Delaware Chancery Court denied the
defendant's motion to dismiss.

Lightning eMotors, Inc. is a newly organized Private-to-Public
Equity (PPE) company, also known as a blank check company or
special purpose acquisition vehicle, incorporated in the State of
Delaware and formed for the purpose of acquiring, engaging in a
share exchange, share reconstruction and amalgamation with,
purchasing all or substantially all of the assets of, or engaging
in any other similar business combination with one or more
businesses or entities. The company is based in Loveland,
Colorado.


LONGEVERON INC: Securities Class Suit Settlement for Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Longeveron Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 12, 2023, that the securities class suit
settlement documentation process and its full release are subject
to the approval of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.

On November 12, 2021, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
on September 13, 2021, against the Company and certain of our
directors and officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.

On April 26, 2022, plaintiff filed an amended complaint with
related allegations. The complaint, as amended, alleges that there
were materially false and misleading statements made (or omissions
of material information) in the Company's initial public offering
documents and in other disclosures during the period from our
initial public offering on February 12, 2021, through August 12,
2021, in violation of federal securities laws.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of our common stock during said period.

On July 12, 2022, all parties preliminarily agreed to settle the
action for approximately $1.4 million, which amount was accrued as
of March 31, 2023, and included in accrued expenses on the
accompanying unaudited March 31, 2023 condensed balance sheet.

The parties are in the process of documenting the settlement and
full release, which will be subject to Court approval.

Longeveron Inc. a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing
cellular therapies for aging-related and life-threatening
conditions. The company is based in Miami, Florida.


MDL 2913: Brimley Area Alleges E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRIMLEY AREA SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; and
JOHN DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-02254
(N.D. Cal., May 9, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants
for public nuisance, negligence, gross negligence, strict product
liability, punitive damages, and violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, Juul Labs, Inc., the maker of the JUUL
e-cigarette, and Altria, one of the world's largest producers and
marketers of tobacco products, worked together to implement their
shared goal of growing a youth market in the image of the
combustible cigarette market through a multi-pronged strategy to:
(1) create an highly addictive product that users would not
associate with cigarettes and that would appeal to the lucrative
youth market, (2) deceive the public into thinking the product was
a fun and safe alternative to cigarettes that would also help
smokers quit, (3) actively attract young users through targeted
marketing, and (4) use a variety of tools, including false and
deceptive statements to the public and regulators, to delay
regulation of e-cigarettes.

By working to preserve and expand the market of underage JUUL
customers, fraudulently denying JLI's youth-focused marketing, and
deceiving regulators and the public in order to allow JUUL products
and mint-flavored JUULpods to remain on the market, the JLI
Enterprise caused the expansion of an illicit e-cigarette market
for youth in Plaintiff's schools and caused a large number of youth
in Plaintiff's schools to become addicted to nicotine, thus forcing
Plaintiff to expend time, money, and resources to address the
epidemic Defendants created through their conduct, the suit
asserts.

The Plaintiff, and similarly situated school districts in the State
of Michigan, have redirected significant resources to combat
Defendants' alleged deceptive marketing scheme, to educate its
students on the true dangers of Defendants' e-cigarette products
and to prevent the possession and use of Defendants' e-cigarette
products on Plaintiffs' property.

The Brimley Area Schools case has been consolidated in MDL No.
2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.

Brimley Area Schools is a public school district organized and
existing in accordance with the laws of the State of Michigan with
its geographic boundaries located in Chippewa County.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
         
          James Frantz, Esq.
          William B. Shinoff, Esq.
          Jade S. Koller, Esq.
          Kristina Aghazaryan, Esq.
          FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
          402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-5945
          Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
          E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                  wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
                  jkoller@frantzlawgroup.com
                  kaghazaryan@frantzlawgroup.com

MDL 2972: Blackbaud Must Oppose Allen Class Cert. Bid by June 9
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Allen, et al., v.
Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-02461-JFA (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., entered an amended scheduling order as
follows:

                    Event                        Deadline

  -- Blackbaud's opposition to class            June 9, 2023
     Certification:

  -- Blackbaud's rebuttal class                 June 9, 2023
     certification expert disclosure:

  -- Blackbaud's Daubert Motion on              June 9, 2023
     Plaintiffs' class certification
     Experts:

  -- Plaintiffs' deadline to file a             Aug. 3, 2023
     motion seeking leave to submit
     rebuttal expert information with
     reply brief:

  -- Plaintiffs' response in opposition         Sept. 11, 2023
     to Blackbaud's Daubert Motions on
     Plaintiffs' class certification
     Experts:

  -- Blackbaud's reply in support of its        Oct. 20, 2023
     Daubert motion on Plaintiffs’ class
     certification experts:

  -- Plaintiffs' reply in support of their      Oct. 20, 2023
     motion for class certification:

  -- Plaintiffs' Daubert Motions on             Oct. 20, 2023
     Blackbaud rebuttal class
     certification experts:

  -- Plaintiffs' reply in support on            Jan. 22, 2024
     their Daubert Motions on
     Blackbaud's rebuttal class
     certification experts:

  -- Hearing on class certification:            TBD
     and Daubert Motions:

The Allen case is consolidated in the Blackbaud, Inc., Customer
Data Breach. The Lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972.

The Plaintiffs in the actions allegedly received data breach
notices from the following organizations: Atrium Health; Bread for
the World; Crystal Stairs; Episcopal High School; Light of Life
Rescue Mission; Planned Parenthood; St. David's Center for Child
and Family Development; University of Wisconsin -- Eau Claire;
WakeMed Foundation; and Manhattan School of Music

The Plaintiffs in the potential tag-along actions allegedly
received notices from Allina Health; Bank Street College of
Education; Childrens' Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota; Harvard
College; Inova Health System; KidsQuest Children's Museum; Lower
East Side Tenement Museum; Mt. Sinai Health System; Northwest
Memorial Healthcare; Nuvance Health; Planned Parenthood; Stetson
University; Stony Brook University Hospital; and UMass Memorial
Medical Center.

The actions allege that numerous other schools, universities,
healthcare institutions, and non-profit organizations were affected
by the data breach.

The Plaintiffs allege that the personal information compromised by
the breach includes user names, email addresses, dates of birth,
phone numbers, social security numbers, credit card numbers, bank
account numbers, financial profiles, passwords, and health
information.

The common factual questions include:

    (1) Blackbaud's data security practices and whether the
practices
        met industry standards;

    (2) how the unauthorized access occurred;

    (3) the extent of personal information affected by the breach;

    (4) when Blackbaud knew or should have known of the breach;

    (5) the investigation into the breach; and

    (6) the alleged delay in disclosure of the breach to Blackbaud
        clients and affected consumers.

Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good
community—nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education
institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations,
and individual change agents.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WpRNHr at no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 2972: Blackbaud Must Oppose Bedell Class Cert. Bid by June 9
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Silverman Bedell v.
Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04514 (D.S.C. Filed Dec. 30,
2020), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., entered an amended
scheduling order as follows:

                    Event                         Deadline

  -- Blackbaud's opposition to class            June 9, 2023
     Certification:

  -- Blackbaud's rebuttal class                 June 9, 2023
     certification expert disclosure:

  -- Blackbaud's Daubert Motion on              June 9, 2023
     Plaintiffs' class certification
     Experts:

  -- Plaintiffs' deadline to file a             Aug. 3, 2023
     motion seeking leave to submit
     rebuttal expert information with
     reply brief:

  -- Plaintiffs' response in opposition         Sept. 11, 2023
     to Blackbaud's Daubert Motions on
     Plaintiffs' class certification
     Experts:

  -- Blackbaud's reply in support of its        Oct. 20, 2023
     Daubert motion on Plaintiffs’ class
     certification experts:

  -- Plaintiffs' reply in support of their      Oct. 20, 2023
     motion for class certification:

  -- Plaintiffs' Daubert Motions on             Oct. 20, 2023
     Blackbaud rebuttal class
     certification experts:

  -- Plaintiffs' reply in support on            Jan. 22, 2024
     their Daubert Motions on
     Blackbaud's rebuttal class
     certification experts:

  -- Hearing on class certification:            TBD
     and Daubert Motions:

The Bedell case is consolidated in the Blackbaud, Inc., Customer
Data Breach. The Lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972.

The Plaintiffs in the actions allegedly received data breach
notices from the following organizations: Atrium Health; Bread for
the World; Crystal Stairs; Episcopal High School; Light of Life
Rescue Mission; Planned Parenthood; St. David's Center for Child
and Family Development; University of Wisconsin -- Eau Claire;
WakeMed Foundation; and Manhattan School of Music

The Plaintiffs in the potential tag-along actions allegedly
received notices from Allina Health; Bank Street College of
Education; Childrens' Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota; Harvard
College; Inova Health System; KidsQuest Children's Museum; Lower
East Side Tenement Museum; Mt. Sinai Health System; Northwest
Memorial Healthcare; Nuvance Health; Planned Parenthood; Stetson
University; Stony Brook University Hospital; and UMass Memorial
Medical Center.

The actions allege that numerous other schools, universities,
healthcare institutions, and non-profit organizations were affected
by the data breach.

The Plaintiffs allege that the personal information compromised by
the breach includes user names, email addresses, dates of birth,
phone numbers, social security numbers, credit card numbers, bank
account numbers, financial profiles, passwords, and health
information.

The common factual questions include:

    (1) Blackbaud's data security practices and whether the
practices
        met industry standards;

    (2) how the unauthorized access occurred;

    (3) the extent of personal information affected by the breach;

    (4) when Blackbaud knew or should have known of the breach;

    (5) the investigation into the breach; and

    (6) the alleged delay in disclosure of the breach to Blackbaud
        clients and affected consumers.

Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good
community—nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education
institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations,
and individual change agents.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Mbvqk0 at no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 2972: Blackbaud Must Oppose Lofton Class Cert. Bid by June 9
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lofton v. Blackbaud Inc.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-04510 (D.S.C. Filed Dec. 29, 2020), the Hon. Judge
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., entered an amended scheduling order as
follows:

                    Event                         Deadline

  -- Blackbaud's opposition to class            June 9, 2023
     Certification:

  -- Blackbaud's rebuttal class                 June 9, 2023
     certification expert disclosure:

  -- Blackbaud's Daubert Motion on              June 9, 2023
     Plaintiffs' class certification
     Experts:

  -- Plaintiffs' deadline to file a             Aug. 3, 2023
     motion seeking leave to submit
     rebuttal expert information with
     reply brief:

  -- Plaintiffs' response in opposition         Sept. 11, 2023
     to Blackbaud's Daubert Motions on
     Plaintiffs' class certification
     Experts:

  -- Blackbaud's reply in support of its        Oct. 20, 2023
     Daubert motion on Plaintiffs’ class
     certification experts:

  -- Plaintiffs' reply in support of their      Oct. 20, 2023
     motion for class certification:

  -- Plaintiffs' Daubert Motions on             Oct. 20, 2023
     Blackbaud rebuttal class
     certification experts:

  -- Plaintiffs' reply in support on            Jan. 22, 2024
     their Daubert Motions on
     Blackbaud's rebuttal class
     certification experts:

  -- Hearing on class certification:            TBD
     and Daubert Motions:

The Lofton case is consolidated in the Blackbaud, Inc., Customer
Data Breach. The Lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972.

The Plaintiffs in the actions allegedly received data breach
notices from the following organizations: Atrium Health; Bread for
the World; Crystal Stairs; Episcopal High School; Light of Life
Rescue Mission; Planned Parenthood; St. David's Center for Child
and Family Development; University of Wisconsin -- Eau Claire;
WakeMed Foundation; and Manhattan School of Music

The Plaintiffs in the potential tag-along actions allegedly
received notices from Allina Health; Bank Street College of
Education; Childrens' Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota; Harvard
College; Inova Health System; KidsQuest Children's Museum; Lower
East Side Tenement Museum; Mt. Sinai Health System; Northwest
Memorial Healthcare; Nuvance Health; Planned Parenthood; Stetson
University; Stony Brook University Hospital; and UMass Memorial
Medical Center.

The actions allege that numerous other schools, universities,
healthcare institutions, and non-profit organizations were affected
by the data breach. The Plaintiffs allege that the personal
information compromised by the breach includes user names, email
addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, social security numbers,
credit card numbers, bank account numbers, financial profiles,
passwords, and health information.

The common factual questions include:

    (1) Blackbaud's data security practices and whether the
practices
        met industry standards;

    (2) how the unauthorized access occurred;

    (3) the extent of personal information affected by the breach;

    (4) when Blackbaud knew or should have known of the breach;

    (5) the investigation into the breach; and

    (6) the alleged delay in disclosure of the breach to Blackbaud
        clients and affected consumers.

Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good
community—nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education
institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations,
and individual change agents.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3M4UHfT at no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 2972: Blackbaud Must Oppose Mandel Class Cert. Bid by June 9
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mandel, et al., v.
Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-03534 (D.S.C. Filed Oct. 7, 2020),
the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., entered an amended
scheduling order as follows:

                    Event                         Deadline

  -- Blackbaud's opposition to class            June 9, 2023
     Certification:

  -- Blackbaud's rebuttal class                 June 9, 2023
     certification expert disclosure:

  -- Blackbaud's Daubert Motion on              June 9, 2023
     Plaintiffs' class certification
     Experts:

  -- Plaintiffs' deadline to file a             Aug. 3, 2023
     motion seeking leave to submit
     rebuttal expert information with
     reply brief:

  -- Plaintiffs' response in opposition         Sept. 11, 2023
     to Blackbaud's Daubert Motions on
     Plaintiffs' class certification
     Experts:

  -- Blackbaud's reply in support of its        Oct. 20, 2023
     Daubert motion on Plaintiffs’ class
     certification experts:

  -- Plaintiffs' reply in support of their      Oct. 20, 2023
     motion for class certification:

  -- Plaintiffs' Daubert Motions on             Oct. 20, 2023
     Blackbaud rebuttal class
     certification experts:

  -- Plaintiffs' reply in support on            Jan. 22, 2024
     their Daubert Motions on
     Blackbaud's rebuttal class
     certification experts:

  -- Hearing on class certification:            TBD
     and Daubert Motions:

The Mandel case is consolidated in the Blackbaud, Inc., Customer
Data Breach. The Lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972.

The Plaintiffs in the actions allegedly received data breach
notices from the following organizations: Atrium Health; Bread for
the World; Crystal Stairs; Episcopal High School; Light of Life
Rescue Mission; Planned Parenthood; St. David's Center for Child
and Family Development; University of Wisconsin -- Eau Claire;
WakeMed Foundation; and Manhattan School of Music

The Plaintiffs in the potential tag-along actions allegedly
received notices from Allina Health; Bank Street College of
Education; Childrens' Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota; Harvard
College; Inova Health System; KidsQuest Children's Museum; Lower
East Side Tenement Museum; Mt. Sinai Health System; Northwest
Memorial Healthcare; Nuvance Health; Planned Parenthood; Stetson
University; Stony Brook University Hospital; and UMass Memorial
Medical Center.

The actions allege that numerous other schools, universities,
healthcare institutions, and non-profit organizations were affected
by the data breach. The Plaintiffs allege that the personal
information compromised by the breach includes user names, email
addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, social security numbers,
credit card numbers, bank account numbers, financial profiles,
passwords, and health information.

The common factual questions include:

    (1) Blackbaud's data security practices and whether the
practices
        met industry standards;

    (2) how the unauthorized access occurred;

    (3) the extent of personal information affected by the breach;

    (4) when Blackbaud knew or should have known of the breach;

    (5) the investigation into the breach; and

    (6) the alleged delay in disclosure of the breach to Blackbaud
        clients and affected consumers.

Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good
community—nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education
institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations,
and individual change agents.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MvApxi at no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 2972: Blackbaud Must Oppose Martin Class Cert Bid by June 9
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Martin v. Blackbaud Inc.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-03286 (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson,
Jr., entered an amended scheduling order as follows:

                    Event                         Deadline

  -- Blackbaud's opposition to class            June 9, 2023
     Certification:

  -- Blackbaud's rebuttal class                 June 9, 2023
     certification expert disclosure:

  -- Blackbaud's Daubert Motion on              June 9, 2023
     Plaintiffs' class certification
     Experts:

  -- Plaintiffs' deadline to file a             Aug. 3, 2023
     motion seeking leave to submit
     rebuttal expert information with
     reply brief:

  -- Plaintiffs' response in opposition         Sept. 11, 2023
     to Blackbaud's Daubert Motions on
     Plaintiffs' class certification
     Experts:

  -- Blackbaud's reply in support of its        Oct. 20, 2023
     Daubert motion on Plaintiffs’ class
     certification experts:

  -- Plaintiffs' reply in support of their      Oct. 20, 2023
     motion for class certification:

  -- Plaintiffs' Daubert Motions on             Oct. 20, 2023
     Blackbaud rebuttal class
     certification experts:

  -- Plaintiffs' reply in support on            Jan. 22, 2024
     their Daubert Motions on
     Blackbaud's rebuttal class
     certification experts:

  -- Hearing on class certification:            TBD
     and Daubert Motions:

The Martin case is consolidated in the Blackbaud, Inc., Customer
Data Breach. The Lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972.

The Plaintiffs in the actions allegedly received data breach
notices from the following organizations: Atrium Health; Bread for
the World; Crystal Stairs; Episcopal High School; Light of Life
Rescue Mission; Planned Parenthood; St. David's Center for Child
and Family Development; University of Wisconsin -- Eau Claire;
WakeMed Foundation; and Manhattan School of Music

The Plaintiffs in the potential tag-along actions allegedly
received notices from Allina Health; Bank Street College of
Education; Childrens' Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota; Harvard
College; Inova Health System; KidsQuest Children's Museum; Lower
East Side Tenement Museum; Mt. Sinai Health System; Northwest
Memorial Healthcare; Nuvance Health; Planned Parenthood; Stetson
University; Stony Brook University Hospital; and UMass Memorial
Medical Center.

The actions allege that numerous other schools, universities,
healthcare institutions, and non-profit organizations were affected
by the data breach.

The Plaintiffs allege that the personal information compromised by
the breach includes user names, email addresses, dates of birth,
phone numbers, social security numbers, credit card numbers, bank
account numbers, financial profiles, passwords, and health
information.

The common factual questions include:

    (1) Blackbaud's data security practices and whether the
practices
        met industry standards;

    (2) how the unauthorized access occurred;

    (3) the extent of personal information affected by the breach;

    (4) when Blackbaud knew or should have known of the breach;

    (5) the investigation into the breach; and

    (6) the alleged delay in disclosure of the breach to Blackbaud
        clients and affected consumers.

Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good
community—nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education
institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations,
and individual change agents.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/431BliG at no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 2972: Blackbaud Must Oppose Mortensen Class Cert Bid by June 9
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mortensen v. Blackbaud
Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04042 (D.S.C. Filed Nov. 20, 2020), the Hon.
Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., entered an amended scheduling order
as follows:

                    Event                         Deadline

  -- Blackbaud's opposition to class            June 9, 2023
     Certification:

  -- Blackbaud's rebuttal class                 June 9, 2023
     certification expert disclosure:

  -- Blackbaud's Daubert Motion on              June 9, 2023
     Plaintiffs' class certification
     Experts:

  -- Plaintiffs' deadline to file a             Aug. 3, 2023
     motion seeking leave to submit
     rebuttal expert information with
     reply brief:

  -- Plaintiffs' response in opposition         Sept. 11, 2023
     to Blackbaud's Daubert Motions on
     Plaintiffs' class certification
     Experts:

  -- Blackbaud's reply in support of its        Oct. 20, 2023
     Daubert motion on Plaintiffs’ class
     certification experts:

  -- Plaintiffs' reply in support of their      Oct. 20, 2023
     motion for class certification:

  -- Plaintiffs' Daubert Motions on             Oct. 20, 2023
     Blackbaud rebuttal class
     certification experts:

  -- Plaintiffs' reply in support on            Jan. 22, 2024
     their Daubert Motions on
     Blackbaud's rebuttal class
     certification experts:

  -- Hearing on class certification:            TBD
     and Daubert Motions:

The Mortensen case is consolidated in the Blackbaud, Inc., Customer
Data Breach. The Lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972.

The Plaintiffs in the actions allegedly received data breach
notices from the following organizations: Atrium Health; Bread for
the World; Crystal Stairs; Episcopal High School; Light of Life
Rescue Mission; Planned Parenthood; St. David's Center for Child
and Family Development; University of Wisconsin -- Eau Claire;
WakeMed Foundation; and Manhattan School of Music

The Plaintiffs in the potential tag-along actions allegedly
received notices from Allina Health; Bank Street College of
Education; Childrens' Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota; Harvard
College; Inova Health System; KidsQuest Children's Museum; Lower
East Side Tenement Museum; Mt. Sinai Health System; Northwest
Memorial Healthcare; Nuvance Health; Planned Parenthood; Stetson
University; Stony Brook University Hospital; and UMass Memorial
Medical Center.

The actions allege that numerous other schools, universities,
healthcare institutions, and non-profit organizations were affected
by the data breach.

The Plaintiffs allege that the personal information compromised by
the breach includes user names, email addresses, dates of birth,
phone numbers, social security numbers, credit card numbers, bank
account numbers, financial profiles, passwords, and health
information.

The common factual questions include:

    (1) Blackbaud's data security practices and whether the
practices
        met industry standards;

    (2) how the unauthorized access occurred;

    (3) the extent of personal information affected by the breach;

    (4) when Blackbaud knew or should have known of the breach;

    (5) the investigation into the breach; and

    (6) the alleged delay in disclosure of the breach to Blackbaud
        clients and affected consumers.

Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good
community—nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education
institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations,
and individual change agents.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WfuLmj at no extra charge.[CC]

MICHIGAN: Sixth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Simpson-Vlach v. MDE
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RITA C. SIMPSON-VLACH and ALAN SIMPSON-VLACH, on
behalf of A.S. and M.S.; KATHY BISHOP and CHRISTOPHER PLACE, on
behalf of C.P. and H.P., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; ANN ARBOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS; WASHTENAW
INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT; DR. JEANICE KERR SWIFT; DR. MARIANNE
FIDISHIN; SCOTT A. MENZEL; NAOMI NORMAN; MICHAEL F. RICE,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 22-1724 (6th Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirms the district court's
dismissal of the case without prejudice.

Plaintiffs Rita Simpson-Vlach, Alan Simpson-Vlach, Kathy Bishop,
and Christopher Place are parents of children A.S., M.S., C.P., and
H.P, all of whom qualify as students with disabilities under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"). The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants, local and state education
agencies and individuals employed by them, violated the IDEA, the
Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and several related state
laws when schools switched to remote instruction in March 2020 due
to the COVID-19 pandemic. They also allege that the individual
defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO") due to their allegedly false assurances
made to ensure receipt of IDEA funds that were then misspent.

In March 2020, Ann Arbor Public Schools closed their doors and
transitioned students to remote learning due to COVID-19. At the
time of this transition, Ann Arbor Public Schools students A.S.,
M.S., C.P., and H.P. each had an individualized education program
("IEP") that outlined the student-specific goals and services
necessary to ensure that each student received a free appropriate
public education ("FAPE") as mandated by the IDEA. Notably, none of
the students' IEPs in place at the time of the transition to remote
learning specified whether the required services needed to be
provided in-person. As with all other students in the district,
A.S., M.S., and C.P. received remote instruction through May 2021,
when schools re-opened for hybrid learning.

H.P. participated in remote learning until January 2021 when her
mother placed her in a private school. The 2021-2022 school year
proceeded primarily in-person, though Ann Arbor Public Schools
delayed the return to in-person learning after winter break for one
week in January 2022. Since then, there has been no indication that
another temporary or extended closure or period of remote
instruction has occurred or will occur.

In June 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action
complaint against the Michigan Department of Education ("MDE"),
Washtenaw Intermediate School District ("WISD"), Ann Arbor Public
Schools ("AAPS"), AAPS's superintendent Dr. Jeanice Swift, AAPS's
Executive Director of Student Intervention and Support Services Dr.
Marianne Fidishin, WISD's former interim superintendent Scott
Menzel, WISD's current interim superintendent Naomi Norman, and
MDE's state superintendent Dr. Michael F. Rice. AAPS, Swift, and
Fidishin are collectively referred to as the "AAPS Defendants";
WISD, Menzel, and Norman are collectively referred to as the "WISD
Defendants"; and the MDE and Rice are collectively referred to as
the "MDE Defendants."

The Plaintiffs claim that the transition to remote learning in
March 2020 effected a change in placement for students with IEPs,
therefore triggering several of the IDEA's procedural protections.
From this premise, their original complaint asserted eight separate
claims.

The remaining claims on appeal include:

     a. Count 1: MDE, WISD, and AAPS engaged in systemic violations
of the IDEA when they transitioned to remote learning in March 2020
by failing to (1) provide parents with prior written notice of the
change in educational placement, (2) provide parents with
meaningful participation in decisions regarding changes to their
child's IEP, (3) reconvene IEP meetings prior to or shortly
following the change in placement, and (4) ensure that students
with IEPs could access a FAPE on the same level as their peers
without disabilities.

     b. Count 2: AAPS (and possibly WISD) violated the Michigan
Administrative Rules for Special Education (MARSE).

     c. Count 4: AAPS and MDE violated Title II of the ADA.

     d. Count 5: AAPS violated the Michigan Persons with
Disabilities Civil Rights Act.

     e. Count 7: Swift, Fidishin, Menzel, Norman, and Rice violated
RICO.

The Plaintiffs assert that they meet the requirements for a
declaratory and injunctive relief class under Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2). But while they sought preliminary
class certification in their motion for a preliminary injunction
that was then held in abeyance, no separate motion for class
certification has been filed. So no class was ever certified.

The Plaintiffs request various forms of relief, including that the
Court (1) asserts jurisdiction; (2) certifies a class action; (3)
issues several declaratory judgments, including one indicating that
the "class members' pendency placement is in-person instruction and
services"; and (4) appoints two Special Monitors: (i) one to
"oversee the completion of Independent Education Evaluations" for
all class members and to "make expert recommendations to the Court
regarding compensatory education or pendency payments for the class
members to address any regressions and/or loss of competencies,"
and (ii) another to "oversee the completion of an independent audit
of the Defendants' expenditures of their IDEA Part B Funds from
March of 2020 to the present" and ensure that any improperly spent
funds "are reimbursed to a monitored account to be spent only upon
review and approval by the RICO Special Monitor."

While the federal litigation was pending, the Plaintiffs filed four
due process complaints with the State of Michigan Office of
Administrative Hearings and Rules against AAPS, one for each
student named in the complaint. These administrative due process
complaints similarly asserted that the transition to remote
learning in March 2020 led to procedural violations of the IDEA and
caused harm to students. In November 2021, the Plaintiffs reached
settlement agreements in the administrative proceedings that
acknowledged "(1) that the disputes which gave rise to the Due
Process Complaints have been resolved; and (2) that the Due Process
Complaints should be dismissed with prejudice.

Regarding additional claims, all settlement agreements state that
they do not set forth any understanding or settlement of any of the
Student's allegations. The Plaintiffs' attorneys acknowledged that
these agreements achieved a full and complete settlement of all the
IDEA issues, and all of the FAPE issues faced by the named
Plaintiffs but argued that the putative class members were owed the
same relief.

The AAPS, WISD and MDE Defendants each filed separate motions to
dismiss the complaint. Following the hearing, the district court
requested supplemental briefing on standing and mootness. The
district court then dismissed the case without prejudice,
determining that the Plaintiffs failed to allege harm sufficient to
warrant prospective relief for Counts 1, 2, 4, and 5 and failed to
allege causation and redressability with respect to the RICO claim.
The Plaintiffs appeal.

First, the Sixth Circuit affirms the district court's dismissal of
Counts 1, 2, 4, and 5. It opines that the Plaintiffs fail to allege
in Counts 1, 2, 4, or 5 continuing harm stemming from the switch to
remote instruction in March 2020. The Plaintiffs' argument also
that their form of declaratory relief is not contingent upon future
closures is neither persuasive nor sufficient to establish standing
to proceed. Further, it is not clear that the initial March 2020
closure would have implicated the stay-put provision. Last, the
Plaintiffs fail to explain how their requested relief differs from
what they already received, or, proceeding on the assumption that
this is a putative class action, how the case can proceed based on
a hypothetical class of which the named representatives are no
longer a part and about which the district court has made no
findings as to class certification.

Next, because the Plaintiffs fail to plead the necessary elements
to establish standing, the Sixth Circuit affirms the district
court's dismissal of the RICO claim. It says while it is true that
the claim is brought against the individuals in their official
capacities, the complaint fails to explain how the defendants'
roles are tied to or how the defendants are responsible for
decisions related to the alleged procedural violations under the
IDEA. Even assuming causation, the Plaintiffs cannot show that
their injury is redressable by the relief sought. Further, even if
the Plaintiffs could establish constitutional standing, RICO
demands that plaintiffs establish a direct injury from the
predicate acts, rather than a derivative injury.

Finally, setting standing aside, the Sixth Circuit says the case is
also moot with respect to requests for prospective relief. It
opines that it is just as unlikely that another school closure --
particularly one substantially like that which began in March 2020
-- is going to occur, let alone lead to the same alleged IDEA
violations. The fact that AAPS closed its schools briefly in
January 2022 does not change this outcome. A week-long delay before
returning to in-person instruction is different in kind from the
unprecedented closures that began in March 2020. So even if the
Plaintiffs alleged an injury permitting declaratory or injunctive
relief, the case is now moot given that a similar school closure is
not reasonably likely to recur.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 10, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://rb.gy/hvuiq from Leagle.com.


MODESTO, CA: Turner to Show Cause Why Action Shouldn't Be Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEPHEN TURNER, Plaintiff v. MODESTO POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00210-ADA-SAB
(E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California orders the Plaintiff
to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for lack of
diversity jurisdiction.

Turner is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Currently before
the Court is the Plaintiff's complaint, filed on Feb. 15, 2023.

The Plaintiff names the following Defendants: (1) the Modesto
Police Department; (2) the City of Modesto; (3) Galen Carroll, in
his individual and official capacities, as Chief of Police of
Modesto Police Department; (4) Best Western Palm Court Inn; (5)
Best Western International, Inc.; (6) Rita Garcia, general manager
of Best Western Palm Court Inn; and (6) Metro One Loss Prevention
Services Group (West Coast) Inc.

The Plaintiff alleges he checked in and registered at the Best
Western Palm Court Inn on Oct. 20, 2022, and a friend also
registered as an accompanying guest. Best Western requested the
Plaintiff's vehicle make and model information and license plate
information, and the Plaintiff listed his 1989 Ford E-150 van with
a Nevada license plate number. That night, as to not disturb his
friend, the Plaintiff chose to work on his phone in his van. A
police officer in a vehicle followed another vehicle into the Best
Western parking lot, and a police officer stepped out of the
vehicle, quickly spotted the Plaintiff, and eyed him suspiciously
from about 25 yards away. The Plaintiff became uncomfortable,
exited the vehicle, and sat at a patio area. About 15 minutes
later, he saw the police officer go to the front desk.

The Plaintiff returned to his van to work, after the police were
gone. To cool down on the warm night, he removed his shirt, and
went to the back of the van to recline on a mattress and fell
asleep. About an hour and a half later, he believes the Metro One
security guard called the Modesto Police Department to report
someone sleeping in a van. The Plaintiff was awoken by Modesto
police officers. He was extremely frightened, and claims the police
lacked reasonable and articulable suspicion to conduct the
investigation. The police shined lights and said "We know you're in
there, Mr. Turner. Get Out!"

A short while later, the police stated they would break into the
vehicle if necessary. The Plaintiff prayed they would stop yelling
and would go away, but upon the threat, put on a shirt and exited
the vehicle. He explained he was working on his phone and fell
asleep. The officers told him he could not sleep in his van. The
Plaintiff explained he was a registered guest. The officers never
checked identification, never searched the van, and did not search
him. However, the Plaintiff claims he feared violence if he did not
get out of the van. He states the encounter lasted about five
minutes and that the officers said he could not go back to his
van.

The Plaintiff told the officers he was going to return to his room.
However, he states instead, he was so upset he decided to go the
fitness center thinking exercise would calm him down and relieve
stress, but after 10 minutes, decided to leave to look for a
restaurant. He then drove to a local truck stop and due to the
severe stress and fatigue, he quickly fell asleep. The next
morning, the Plaintiff returned to the hotel to explain the details
surrounding the tragic event that transpired the previous night
requested to speak to the General Manager Rita Garcia but
unfortunately, to his dismay, Garcia never exercised the civility
or courtesy to communicate with him.

The Plaintiff brings claims only pursuant to California state law.
His first cause of action is brought against the Modesto police
officers for violation of the Bane Act, California Civil Code
Section 52.1. His second cause of action is for intentional
infliction of emotional distress against the Modesto police
officers. His third cause of action is for negligence or gross
negligence against Defendants Best Western, Metro One, Doe 3, and
Garcia. His fourth cause of action is for negligent hiring,
supervision, or retention of an employee against Defendants Best
Western and Metro One. His fifth cause of action is for violation
of the California Unfair Competition Law against Defendants Best
Western, and Metro One. The Plaintiff seeks in excess of $200,000
as well as punitive damages and attorneys' fees.

Judge Boone requires the Plaintiff to address the claim of
diversity jurisdiction before proceeding to screening the merits of
the Plaintiff's Complaint. He says a person's State of residence is
not necessarily her State of citizenship. Because domicile, not
residence, determines citizenship, allegations of residence are
insufficient to establish citizenship or diversity jurisdiction.
The party seeking to invoke the district court's diversity
jurisdiction always bears the burden of both pleading and proving
diversity jurisdiction.

Judge Boone also holds that the Plaintiff's Complaint, current
mailing address, and other court filings prompt the Court to
require the Plaintiff to address his claim of Nevada citizenship
before proceeding into further screening. He finds it necessary to
require the Plaintiff to address his citizenship before the Court
proceeds any further in screening the merits of the Plaintiff's
complaint, as the Court may lack any power to act in the case.

The Plaintiff will specifically address his claimed citizenship in
relation to his domicile and addressing the following standards and
factors: For diversity purposes, a natural person is a citizen of a
state if they are: (1) a citizen of the United States and (2)
domiciled in that state. A person's domicile is their permanent
home where they reside with the intention to remain or to which
they intend to return. Domicile is determined based on objective
facts, with no single controlling factor, and statements of intent
are entitled to little weight when in conflict with facts. The
Ninth Circuit adheres to a presumption of continuing domicile,
under which once established, a person's state of domicile
continues unless rebutted with sufficient evidence of change.

The Plaintiff's response to Judge Boone's Order, including any
description or submission of exhibits, will be by declaration or
affidavit signed under the penalty of perjury. In this regard,
Judge Boone reminds the Plaintiff that he submitted his original
complaint under the penalty of perjury, and that under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 11, any unrepresented party certifies that to
the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief the
factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so
identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable
opportunity for further investigation of discovery.

Accordingly, Judge Boone orders that within 21 days of service of
his Order, the Plaintiff will show cause in a written declaration
signed under the penalty of perjury, why the action should not be
dismissed for lack of diversity jurisdiction, given the Plaintiff's
current California mailing address in relation to conflicting
representations before federal courts regarding his residency and
citizenship, and specifically addressing the facts and legal
authorities discussed throughout Order, including those pertaining
to establishing domicile for purposes of citizenship.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 10, 2023 Order is available at
https://rb.gy/c005q from Leagle.com.


MOMENTUS INC: Continues to Defend Jensen Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Momentus Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 11, 2023, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the Jensen class suit in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California.

On July 15, 2021, a purported stockholder of SRAC filed a putative
class action complaint against SRAC, SRC-NI Holdings, LLC
("Sponsor"), Brian Kabot (SRAC CEO), James Norris (SRAC CFO),
Momentus, and the Company's co-founder and former CEO, Mikhail
Kokorich, in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, in a case captioned Jensen v. Stable Road
Acquisition Corp., et al., No. 2:21-cv-05744 (the "Jensen class
action").

The complaint alleges that the defendants omitted certain material
information in their public statements and disclosures regarding
the Business Combination, in violation of the securities laws, and
seeks damages on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who
purchased SRAC stock between October 7, 2020 and July 13, 2021.
Subsequent complaints captioned Hall v. Stable Road Acquisition
Corp., et al., No. 2:21-cv-05943 and Depoy v. Stable Road
Acquisition Corp., et al., No. 2:21-cv-06287 were consolidated in
the first filed matter (collectively, referred to as the
"Securities Class Actions").

An amended complaint was filed on November 12, 2021. The Company
disputes the allegations in the Securities Class Actions.

On February 10, 2023, the lead plaintiff in the Securities Class
Actions and the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle
the Securities Class Actions.

Under the terms of the agreement in principle, the lead plaintiff,
on behalf of a class of all persons that purchased or otherwise
acquired Company stock between October 7, 2020 and July 13, 2021,
inclusive, would release the Company from all claims asserted or
that could have been asserted in the Securities Class Actions and
dismiss such claims with prejudice, in exchange for payment of $8.5
million by the Company (at least $4.0 million of which is expected
to be funded by insurance proceeds).

The agreement in principle remains subject to the satisfaction of
various conditions, including negotiation and execution of a
memorandum of understanding, final stipulation of settlement,
notice to the proposed class, and approval by the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.

If these conditions are satisfied, the proposed settlement will
resolve all claims in the Securities Class Actions against the
Company (except as to any shareholders that may elect to opt-out of
the class).

The Company and the other defendants have denied and continue to
deny each and all of the claims alleged in the Securities Class
Actions, and the proposed settlement contains no admission of
liability, wrongdoing or responsibility by any of the defendants.
In the event that the Company is unable to execute a final
stipulation of settlement and obtain Court approval, the Company
will continue to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in
the Securities Class Actions.

Momentus is a U.S. commercial space company that offers in-space
infrastructure services, including in-space transportation, hosted
payloads and in-orbit services. Momentus believes it can make new
ways of operating in space possible with its in-space transfer and
service vehicles that will be powered by an innovative water
plasma-based propulsion system that is under development.[GN]



NABORS COMPLETION: Final Arbitration Award in Ware Suit Confirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DEVAUGHN WARE, Petitioner v. NABORS COMPLETION &
PRODUCTION SERVICES CO., n/k/a C&J WELL SERVICES, INC., a Delaware
corporation Respondent, Case No. 2:22-cv-7149-DDP-JPRx (C.D. Cal.),
Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California grants Ware's Petition to Confirm Final
Arbitration Award and for Further Attorneys' Fees and Costs, and to
Enter Judgment Against Respondent Nabors Completion and Production
Services Co.

Ware performed oil well plug and abandonment work for Nabors in the
Port of Long Beach, as part of a larger project to replace the
Gerald Desmond Bridge. On April 2, 2015, former Nabors employees
who performed similar work on the project filed a putative class
action in state court against Nabors for violations under the
California Labor Code, on behalf of themselves and similarly
situated employees, including Ware.

Nabors removed the action to this Court, and thereafter filed a
motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the parties' arbitration
agreement. The Court denied the motion to compel arbitration.
Nabors appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit reversed
and remanded the court's denial of the motion to compel
arbitration.

On March 30, 2018, Ware submitted a Demand for Arbitration to JAMS,
asserting the following wage and, hour, violations: (1) failure to
pay prevailing wages (Cal. Lab. Code Sections 1194, 1771, 1772,
1774 et seq.); (2) waiting time penalties (Cal. Lab. Code Section
203); (3) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements
(Cal. Lab. Code Section 226(a)); and (4) unfair competition (Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200). Thereafter, the Hon. Rosalyn M.
Chapman (Ret.) was appointed as arbitrator.

Ware filed a motion for summary adjudication pursuant to JAMS
Employment Rule 18. On Dec. 16, 2021, the Arbitrator granted Ware's
motion, ruling on the issues pertaining to Nabors' liability. On
March 8, 2022, the matter proceeded to a virtual arbitration
hearing on damages. On May 31, 2022, the Arbitrator issued an
Interim Arbitration Award.

On Aug. 9, 2022, Ware filed a motion to set the amount of
attorney's fees and costs with the Arbitrator. On Sept. 26, 2022,
the Arbitrator issued a Final Arbitration Award awarding
$185,750.13 in attorney's fees (including a 1.5 multiplier) and
$4,001.50 in costs. Through the Final Arbitration Award, the
Arbitrator awarded Ware unpaid wages in the total amount of
$45,559.45 (including offsetting credits in the amount of $3,594
for fringe benefits, paid by Nabors), interest through March 8,
2022 in the amount of $40,222.67, continuing interest at the daily
rate of $12.45 (10% per annum) until paid in full, and statutory
penalties in the amount of $25,506.

Ware now moves to confirm the Final Arbitration Award and seeks
$8,790.50 in post award, attorneys' fees and $402 in costs for
filing of the initial complaint in this confirmation action.

Nabors contends that the Arbitrator exhibited a manifest disregard
of the law through several alleged errors with respect to Nabors'
liability and damages. Nabors, however, fails to identify any
instances in the record where the Arbitrator recognized the
applicable law and then ignored it, Judge Pregerson finds. He says
the alleged errors are based on misinterpretation or misapplication
of the law—such legal errors are insufficient to vacate an
Arbitration Award.

Finding no manifest disregard of the law exhibited in the
Arbitration Award, Judge Pregerson declines to vacate the
Arbitration Award. He therefore grants Ware's Petition to confirm
the Arbitration Award.

As the prevailing party, Ware is entitled to reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs, including fees incurred in connection with the
confirmation action.  Thus, the only issue before the court is
whether the requested fees and costs are reasonable.

Ware seeks $8,790.50 in attorneys' fees. Judge Pregerson finds, and
Nabors does not dispute, that the rates set forth by Ware's counsel
are within the range of reasonable rates for attorneys in the local
community, taking into consideration the experience, skill, and
reputation of the attorney. Applying the approved rates to the
adjusted hours, the lodestar method yields the following result:
Richard E. Donahoo: $700 (9.2hours) - $6,440; Kelsey Ung: $295 (0.7
hour) - $206.50; Sarah Kokonas: $495 (1.3 hours) - $643.50. The
total is $7,290.

With these adjustments, the total reflects the reasonable number of
hours expended by the counsel in relation to the confirmation
action and request for post award, fees. Thus, Ware is entitled to
$7,290 in fees and $402 for the cost of filing the complaint.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Pregerson grants Ware's Petition
to Confirm the Arbitration Award. The Final JAMS Arbitration Award
issued by Hon. Rosalyn M. Chapman (Ret.) on Sept. 6, 2022, in the
Arbitration JAMS Case No. 1220058933, is confirmed.

The Court will enter judgment in favor of Ware and against Nabors
in the amount of $45,449.35 in unpaid wages (including offsetting
credits in the amount of $3,594 for fringe benefits, paid by
Nabors), interest through March 8, 2022 in the amount of
$40,222.67, continuing interest at the daily rate of $12.45 (10%
per annum) until paid in full, statutory penalties in the amount of
$25,506, attorney's fees in the amount of $185,750.13, and costs in
the amount of $4,001.50.

Judge Pregerson further grants Ware's request for post award,
attorneys' fees in the amount of $7,290 and for costs in the amount
of $402.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 10, 2023 Amended Order is
available at https://rb.gy/jrm0k from Leagle.com.


NIKOLA CORP: Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suit in Arizona
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nikola Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the shareholder securities class suit in the
United States District Court of the District of Arizona.

The Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors are defendants in a consolidated securities class action
lawsuit pending in the United States District Court of the District
of Arizona (the "Shareholder Securities Litigation").

On December 15, 2020, the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona consolidated the actions under lead case
Borteanu v. Nikola Corporation, et al., No. CV-20-01797-PXL-SPL,
and appointed Angelo Baio as the "Lead Plaintiff".

On December 23, 2020, a motion for reconsideration of the Court's
order appointing the Lead Plaintiff was filed.

On December 30, 2020, a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to
vacate the District Court's Lead Plaintiff order and directing the
court to appoint another Lead Plaintiff was filed before the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Case No. 20-73819.


The motion for reconsideration was denied on February 18, 2021.

On July 23, 2021, the Ninth Circuit granted in part the mandamus
petition, vacated the district court's December 15, 2020 order, and
remanded the case to the District Court to reevaluate the
appointment of a Lead Plaintiff.

On November 18, 2021, the Court appointed Nikola Investor Group II
as Lead Plaintiff and appointed Pomerantz LLP and Block & Leviton
LLP as co-lead counsel.

On January 24, 2022, Lead Plaintiffs filed the Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint which asserts claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on allegedly false and/or
misleading statements and omissions in press releases, public
filings, and in social media regarding the Company's business plan
and prospects.

In accordance with the Court's scheduling order, Defendants filed
their motions to dismiss on April 8, 2022.

On May 9, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their opposition to Defendants'
motions to dismiss, and on June 8, 2022, Defendants filed their
reply briefs. On February 2, 2023, the court issued a ruling
granting the Defendants' motions to dismiss, without prejudice.

As a result, Plaintiffs' complaint was dismissed in its entirety,
with leave to amend by April 3, 2023.

Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount in damages, attorneys' fees,
and other relief. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself.
The Company is unable to estimate the potential loss or range of
loss, if any, associated with these lawsuits, which could be
material.

Nikola Corporation operates as a zero-emissions transportation and
infrastructure solution provider. The Company is a designer and
manufacturer of battery-electric and hydrogen-electric vehicles,
electric vehicle drivetrains, vehicle components, energy storage
systems, and hydrogen fueling station infrastructure.[BN]


ONTRAK INC: Continues to Defend Farhar Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ontrak Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 12, 2023, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the Farhar securities class suit in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.

On March 3, 2021, a purported securities class action was filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, entitled Farhar v. Ontrak, Inc., Case No.
2:21-cv-01987.

On March 19, 2021, another similar lawsuit was filed in the same
court, entitled Yildrim v. Ontrak, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-02460.

On July 14, 2021, the Court consolidated the two actions under the
Farhar case ("Consolidated Class Action"), appointed Ibinabo Dick
as lead plaintiff, and the Rosen Law Firm as lead counsel.

On August 13, 2021, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint. In the Consolidated Amended Complaint, lead plaintiff,
purportedly on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Ontrak
securities from August 5, 2020 through February 26, 2021, alleges
that the Company and Terren S. Peizer, Brandon H. LaVerne and
Curtis Medeiros, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b), 78t(a), and
Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder, by
intentionally or recklessly making false and misleading statements
and omissions in various press releases, SEC filings and conference
calls with investors on August 5, 2020 and November 5, 2020.

Specifically, the Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges that the
Company was inappropriately billing its largest customer, Aetna,
causing Aetna to, in May 2020, shut off its data feed to Ontrak,
and, in July 2020, require Ontrak to complete a Corrective Action
Plan ("CAP}).

Lead plaintiff alleges that defendants: (1) misrepresented to
investors that the data feed was shut off in July 2020, and that it
was part of Aetna's standard compliance review of all of its
vendors; (2) failed to disclose to investors that Aetna had issued
the CAP; and (3) failed to disclose to investors that Ontrak was
engaging in inappropriate billing practices.

Lead plaintiff seeks certification of a class and monetary damages
in an indeterminate amount.

On September 13, 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b) and the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78u-4, et
seq.

The motion was taken under submission, with no oral argument.

Prior to any ruling being issued on the motion to dismiss, on March
29, 2023, lead plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint.

The Second Amended Complaint (1) adds Jonathan Mayhew as a
defendant; (2) expands the purported class period to August 5, 2020
through August 19, 2021; and (3) now includes allegations that the
defendants additionally intentionally or recklessly made false and
misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's
relationship with its then-second largest customer, Cigna, in
various press releases, SEC filings and conference calls with
investors on May 6, 2021 and August 5, 2021.

Pursuant to the Court' scheduling order, the Company's response to
the Second Amended Complaint is due on or before May 15, 2023.

The Company believes that the allegations lack merit and intends to
defend against the action vigorously.

Ontrak Inc. is an AI-powered and telehealth-enabled, virtualized
healthcare company with a technology-enabled platform that
provides claim based analytics and predictive modeling to provide
analytic insights throughout the delivery of personalized treatment
programs.



OPEN TEXT CORP: Continues to Defend Carbonite Class Suit in Mass.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Open Text Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 4, 2023, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the Carbonite class suit in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.

On August 1, 2019, prior to our acquisition of Carbonite, a
purported stockholder of Carbonite filed a putative class action
complaint against Carbonite, its former Chief Executive Officer,
Mohamad S. Ali, and its former Chief Financial Officer, Anthony
Folger, in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts captioned Ruben A. Luna, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. Carbonite, Inc., Mohamad S.
Ali, and Anthony Folger (No. 1:19-cv-11662-LTS) (the Luna
Complaint). The complaint alleges violations of the federal
securities laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The complaint generally alleges that the defendants made materially
false and misleading statements in connection with Carbonite’s
Server Backup VM Edition, and seeks, among other things, the
designation of the action as a class action, an award of
unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses, including
counsel fees and expert fees, and other relief as the court deems
appropriate.

On August 23, 2019, a nearly identical complaint was filed in the
same court captioned William Feng, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Carbonite, Inc., Mohamad S. Ali,
and Anthony Folger (No. 1:19- cv-11808-LTS) (together with the Luna
Complaint, the Securities Actions).

On November 21, 2019, the district court consolidated the
Securities Actions, appointed a lead plaintiff, and designated a
lead counsel.

On January 15, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended complaint generally making the same allegations and seeking
the same relief as the complaint filed on August 1, 2019.

The defendants moved to dismiss the Securities Actions on March 10,
2020.

On October 22, 2020, the district court granted with prejudice the
defendants' motion to dismiss the Securities Actions.

On November 20, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal
to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

On December 21, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit issued a decision reversing and remanding the
Securities Actions to the district court for further proceedings.

The parties are engaged in discovery.

The defendants remain confident in their position, believe the
Securities Actions are without merit, and will continue to
vigorously defend the matter.

Open Text Corporation provides a suite of software products and
services that assist organizations in finding, utilizing, and
sharing business information from various devices. The Company was
founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Waterloo, Canada.


OUSTER INC: Continues to Defend Moradpour Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ouster Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 11, 2023, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the Moradpour securities class suit in the United
States District Court, Northern District of California.

On March 3, 2021, a purported shareholder of Velodyne filed a
complaint for a putative class action against Velodyne, Anand
Gopalan and Andrew Hamer in the United States District Court,
Northern District of California, entitled Moradpour v. Velodyne
Lidar, Inc., et al., No. 3:21-cv01486-SI.

The complaint alleged purported violations of the federal
securities laws and that, among other things, the defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to
disclose material facts about the Company's business, operations
and prospects, including with respect to David Hall's role with
Velodyne and removal as Chairman of Velodyne's Board of Directors.


The complaint alleged that purported class members have suffered
losses and sought, among other things, an award of compensatory
damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired Velodyne's securities between November 9, 2020
and February 19, 2021.

On March 12, 2021, a putative class action entitled Reese v.
Velodyne Lidar, Inc., et al., No. 3:21-cv-01736-VC, was filed
against Velodyne, Mr. Gopalan and Mr. Hamer in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, based on
allegations similar to those in the earlier class action and
seeking recovery on behalf of the same putative class.

On March 19, 2021, another putative class action entitled Nick v.
Velodyne Lidar, Inc., et al., No. 4:21-cv-01950-JST, was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, against Velodyne, Mr. Gopalan, Mr. Hamer, two current
or former directors, and three other entities.

The complaint was based on allegations similar to those in the
earlier class actions and sought, among other things, an award of
compensatory damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Velodyne's securities between July
2, 2020 and March 17, 2021.

The class actions have been consolidated, lead plaintiffs have been
appointed and an amended consolidated complaint was filed on
September 1, 2021, based on allegations similar to those in the
earlier class actions. Velodyne filed a motion to dismiss the
amended and consolidated complaint on November 1, 2021.

The plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on February 11,
2022.

Velodyne filed a motion to dismiss on March 4, 2022.

On July 1, 2022, the court denied the motion to dismiss as it
relates to the claims related to David Hall's role with Velodyne,
but granted the motion to dismiss as to all other claims.

The case is proceeding with discovery.

The Company does not believe the claims are meritorious and intends
to defend the actions vigorously.

Ouster, Inc. operates as a lidar technology company. The Company
builds high-resolution 3D lidar sensors for use in autonomous
vehicles, robotics, drones, mapping, defense, and security systems.
Ouster serves customers worldwide.
Ouster merged with Velodyne in November 2022 and the merger was
completed in February 2023 and both companies agreed to retain the
Ouster name.


PEABODY ENERGY: Climate Change Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
Peabody Energy Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2023, that the plaintiffs in the
Puerto Rico climate change class suit filed notice of voluntary
dismissal in all claims against the Company on April 21, 2023.

On November 22, 2022, the Municipalities of Puerto Rico filed a
class action complaint for damages against several major energy
fuel producers, including Peabody Energy.

This lawsuit represents the latest in a series of lawsuits that
have been brought in both state and federal court around the United
States, generally seeking to impose liability on the energy fuel
producers for the effects allegedly caused by climate change.

Many of these lawsuits have been brought on behalf of governmental
entities (counties, cities, and towns) by plaintiff law firms on a
contingent fee arrangement.

The causes of action in the Puerto Rico lawsuit include public and
private nuisance, liability for failure to warn, consumer fraud,
antitrust and claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.

On April 21, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal dismissing all claims against the Company without
prejudice.

Peabody Energy is a coal mining and energy company headquartered in
St. Louis, Missouri. Its primary business consists of the mining,
sale, and distribution of coal, which is purchased for use in
electricity generation and steelmaking.

PET SUPERMARKET: Class Certification Order in Eldridge Suit Flipped
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Pet Supermarket, Inc., Appellant v. Troy Eldridge,
Appellee, Case No. 3D21-1174 (Fla. Dist. App.), the District Court
of Appeal of Florida for the Third District reverses the trial
court's nonfinal class certification order and directs dismissal of
the case.

Pet Supermarket seeks review of the trial court's nonfinal class
certification order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure
9.130(a)(3)(C)(vi). It primarily contends that the Plaintiff and
putative class representative, Troy Eldridge, lacks standing to
pursue the suit.

Eldridge visited a Pet Supermarket store in December 2017 in Miami,
Florida. During the visit, he learned about the store's promotion
in which customers could text the word "PETS" to the short code
"65047" and be entered into a contest to win free dog food for a
year. Eldridge gave his phone to one of Pet Supermarket's
employees, who texted "PETS" from Eldridge's phone to the short
code.

Eldridge immediately received two text messages. He received text
messages again on February 24, 2018, April 20, 2018, May 11, 2018,
May 25, 2018, and June 8, 2018. All of the texts contained the
message "Reply STOP to end," and concerned promotional or
advertisement information.

After receiving the texts, Eldridge filed a putative class action
against Pet Supermarket in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida alleging a violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b). He alleged that
Pet Supermarket violated the TCPA by sending him seven unauthorized
text messages.

The federal district court dismissed Eldridge's complaint for lack
of standing, finding that under binding authority from the U.S.
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Salcedo, Eldridge's
allegations of loss of privacy, wasted time, and intrusion upon
seclusion did not constitute a concrete injury in fact for Article
III standing purposes.

In rejecting Eldridge's claim of an injury based on loss of
privacy, the district court found that like the plaintiff in
Salcedo, the Plaintiff has not alleged that he was in his home when
he received the messages or anything like enjoying dinner at home
with his family and having the domestic peace shattered by the
ringing of the telephone, or any similar scenarios. Concerning
Eldridge's claim that the text messages depleted his cell phone
battery or consumed his data plan, the district court found that
Eldridge's allegations did not survive a factual attack for lack of
standing because he has not provided any evidentiary support to
show that the texts at issue consumed his phone's battery or data
and messaging plan or caused him to incur any specific charges.

Based on the same text messages, Eldridge then brought a TCPA suit
against Pet Supermarket in state court, asserting a claim on behalf
of himself and a putative class. He alleged that the quantity and
quality of messages constituted a barrage of messages that caused
him to incur repeated aggravation by annoying him, costing him
resources, and interfering with his daily activities such as
driving safely or peacefully putting his children to bed.

Eldridge moved for class certification, which Pet Supermarket
opposed. Pet Supermarket also moved for summary judgment, arguing
that Eldridge lacked standing to sue under the TCPA because he had
not suffered a concrete injury. Eldridge responded that because
Florida's standing requirements are "more relaxed" than the federal
standing requirements under Article III of the United States
Constitution, he need not show any actual injury and may proceed
based on Pet Supermarket's violation of the TCPA alone. Eldridge
also argued that he had standing even under a more rigid,
federal-style concrete injury standard, because he had sufficiently
alleged both tangible and intangible harms.

The trial court heard Pet Supermarket's summary judgment motion and
Eldridge's class certification motion. Thereafter, the trial court
denied Pet Supermarket's summary judgment motion and ruled that
Eldridge had standing to pursue his TCPA claim. It found that
Eldridge had standing because he need only allege a violation of
his statutory rights under the TCPA to have standing. He need not
allege or demonstrate an actual injury. The trial court also
granted Eldridge's motion for class certification. The appeal
followed.

Eldridge first asserts that because the doctrine of standing does
not exist in Florida in the rigid sense employed in the federal
system, he need not allege or demonstrate an actual injury to have
standing in a Florida state court.

The District Court of Appeal finds no merit to Eldridge's
contention that his allegation of a statutory violation of the TCPA
alone establishes his standing to bring suit. Although outside the
constraints of Article III, Eldridge must still demonstrate a
concrete harm or injury from the TCPA violation to demonstrate his
standing in a Florida state court.

Next, Eldridge contends that even under an injury in fact standing
requirement, he sufficiently alleged a concrete injury in the form
of an invasion of his privacy. Indeed, as the United States Supreme
Court guides, concreteness for standing purposes may be shown where
a plaintiff suffers an intangible harm with a "close relationship"
to the harm associated with a common law analogue.

The District Court of Appeal finds that Eldridge's receipt of one
text message while at home, during the weekend, simply does not
rise to the level of outrageousness required for an invasion of
privacy, i.e., that it is "so outrageous in character, and so
extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency,"
and therefore, Eldridge's alleged statutory injury is not akin to
Florida's common law harm of intrusion upon seclusion. Thus,
Eldridge has not alleged a concrete injury, and does not have
standing on this basis either.

In short, Eldridge has failed to establish any harm from Pet
Supermarket's alleged violation of the TCPA, either in the form of
a pure procedural violation or an intrusion into his privacy.
Therefore, the District Court of Appeal concludes that the trial
court erred in finding Eldridge had standing and subsequently
certifying the class. Accordingly, it reverses and remands with
directions to dismiss the complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 10, 2023 Order is available at
https://rb.gy/o5ab4 from Leagle.com.

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP and Becca J. Wahlquist --
bwahlquist@kelleydrye.com -- (Los Angeles, CA); Shutts & Bowen LLP
and Frank A. Zacherl -- FZacherl@shutts.com -- and Daniel E. Nordby
-- DNordby@shutts.com -- (Tallahassee), for the Appellant.

Carey Rodriguez Milian, LLP and David P. Milian --
dmilian@careyrodriguez.com -- and Juan J. Rodriguez --
jrodriguez@careyrodriguez.com -- and Jennifer M. Hernandez, for the
Appellee.


PNC BANK: Court Strikes Class Claims in 1st Amended Ratulowski Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VINCENT I. RATULOWSKI, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PNC BANK, N.A., d/b/a PNC
AUTO FINANCE, Defendant, Cause No. 2:22-CV-004-PPS-APR (N.D. Ind.),
Judge Philip P. Simon of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Indiana, Hammond Division:

   a. grants in part and denies in part PNC's Motion to Dismiss
      Plaintiff's First Amended Multi-State Class Action
      Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
      12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); and

   b. grants PNC's Motion to Strike Class Allegations from
      Plaintiff's First Amended Multi-State Class Action
      Complaint.

Ratulowski claims that PNC knowingly collects and unlawfully
retains unearned insurance fees that are sold as an add-on to
automobile finance agreements. He brings three claims: one for
breach of contract; a second under an obscure equitable concept
known as "money had and received"; and finally, he seeks a
declaratory judgment relating to the parties' rights and
obligations under contracts of insurance. Ratulowski also brings
class claims on behalf of both a Multi-State Class and Indiana
Subclass consisting of similarly aggrieved auto finance customers.
PNC has moved to dismiss Ratulowski's FAC and to strike the class
allegations from the complaint.

The lawsuit is a case about "GAP fees" -- shorthand for "Guaranteed
Asset Protection" fees -- and a creditor's legal obligation to
remit any such fees paid by a customer but "unearned" by the
creditor. The basic idea behind GAP insurance is premised on the
idea that most new cars rapidly depreciate as soon as they are
driven off the lot. GAP insurance is an add-on coverage offered at
the time of the sale that, as the name suggests, bridges the gap
between what a car is worth and what one still owes on it if the
car gets totaled or stolen.

Ratulowski claims that he and members of a putative class and
subclass were injured when they paid off their car loans early,
resulting in PNC obtaining "unearned GAP fees" that PNC did not
refund. This practice allegedly violates "Automatic Refund Laws" in
six states, which require automatic refunds for unearned GAP fees
after an early payoff even when a customer does not request a
refund. The so-called "Automatic Refund States" include Alabama,
Colorado, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Texas.

As noted at the outset, the complaint asserts claims for breach of
contract, "money had and received," and declaratory relief. It also
seeks certification of a putative class consisting of persons who
entered into finance agreements with GAP addendums in the six
Automatic Refund States that were assigned to PNC, as well as
certification of a putative subclass of persons who entered such
agreements in the State of Indiana that were assigned to PNC.

In December 2015, Ratulowski was looking for a new car and decided
to purchase a 2016 Chevrolet Cruze from a dealership in Highland.
He financed the purchase. The terms of the financing were set out
in a Retail Installment Contract and Security Agreement expressly
"governed by the law of Indiana" and applicable federal laws and
regulations. The finance agreement obligated Ratulowski to repay
the full amount financed in 75 monthly installments, starting Jan.
10, 2016, and gave him the option to prepay the Contract in full or
in part at any time.

At the same time he financed the purchase of his Chevy Cruze,
Ratulowski elected to buy GAP coverage. To that end, the finance
agreement listed $506 for "GAP Protection" under insurance premiums
paid to insurance companies and included this amount in the "amount
financed" by Ratulowski at the time of purchase. The GAP Addendum
contains two express terms concerning Ratulowski's rights in the
event of a "termination" or "cancellation" of his GAP coverage. The
parties fiercely dispute the effect of these provisions on
Ratulowski's right to an automatic refund of any "unearned" GAP
fees he paid PNC.

PNC now seeks dismissal of the complaint on two grounds. First, PNC
seeks dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, asserting that because
Gateway Motors and not Ratulowski directly sent PNC the check for
the early payoff owed on Ratulowski's car, Ratulowski lacks a
financial injury-in-fact required for Article III standing. It also
argues that the complaint must be dismissed in its entirely for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

In this regard, PNC asserts that the breach of contract claim fails
because Ratulowski hasn't alleged that it breached any contract
provision (express or implied) by not refunding unearned GAP fees;
Ratulowski cannot proceed with a "money had and received" claim
considering the parties' express contract; and the claim for
declaratory relief is duplicative of the other claims and thus must
be dismissed. In addition, PNC seeks to cut short Ratulowski's
purported class claims at the pleadings, arguing that the
allegations make clear that the putative Multi-State Class and
Indiana Subclass cannot be certified for a variety of reasons.

First, Judge Simon finds that the evidence reflects a "reasonable
probability" that Ratulowski was harmed financially by PNC when he
authorized Gateway Motors to send his money, whether borrowed or
paid up-front, on his behalf to PNC to pay off the finance
agreement early. This early payoff, he says, created a concrete
financial injury to Ratulowski personally that was traceable to
PNC's allegedly overstated Payoff Quote, resulting in an
overpayment to PNC of approximately $157 in unearned GAP fees that
PNC has not refunded.  Thus, Ratulowski has established the type of
financial injury required to confer Article III standing to proceed
on his contract claim.

Next, as to breach of contract claim (Count I), Judge Simon finds
that the 2018 amendments to the statute specifically regulating
refunds upon the termination of a GAP agreement or early prepayment
of an auto finance agreement do not form a basis for Ratulowski to
claim that PNC breached an implied term of the finance agreement
and GAP Addendum. It is also plausible that, as Ratulowski alleges,
the authorization of his early payoff to PNC cancelled his GAP
coverage, entitling him to a pro-rata refund of any unearned GAP
fees. Hence, Ratulowski will be permitted to proceed with his
breach of contract claim based on the express terms of the finance
agreement and GAP Addendum.

Turning to Ratulowski's "money had and received" claim (Count II),
Judge Simon finds that Ratulowski has pleaded the existence of an
express contract and will be permitted to proceed with his contract
claim. Consequently, he is precluded from proceeding on his
parallel equitable claim. Ratulowski cites authority for the
proposition that he can maintain this claim, despite the existence
of an express contract between the parties, because the contract
"contains a provision which is prohibited by Indiana law." But
Indiana law in place at the time Ratulowski executed his auto
finance agreements did not require an automatic refund of GAP fees.
Accordingly, Count II is dismissed.

Like the breach of contract claim, Count III (declaratory relief)
requests a declaration that PNC is obligated to pay the refund of
GAP fees "under the GAP agreements at issue in this lawsuit," plus
interest. Ratulowski further avers that it is potentially possible
that these issues may not be resolved with the breach of contract
claim if PNC prevails on its other defenses to that claim, and that
a declaration that PNC unlawfully refuses to refund unearned GAP
fees will benefit him, members of the proposed class, and the
general public, even if PNC defeats his contract claim.

As Judge Simon has already explained, to the extent no refund is
owed under the parties' contract, PNC would not be obligated to pay
a refund to Ratulowski, so no such declaration would be warranted.
Therefore, Count III is dismissed as duplicative of Count I.

PNC also seeks to strike the class allegations.

Ratulowski seeks to assert claims on behalf of a Multi-State Class
consisting of: All persons (1) who entered into finance agreements
with GAP addendums in an Automatic Refund State that were assigned
to PNC; (2) who paid off their finance agreements before the end of
the contract term during the time period that the applicable
Automatic Refund Law was in effect; and (3) who did not receive a
credit or refund of the unearned GAP fees and/or the accrued
interest on those unpaid amounts. The class period is based on the
applicable statutes of limitations in each of the Automatic Refund
States.

Ratulowski further seeks to assert claims on behalf of an Indiana
Subclass consisting of: All persons (1) who entered into finance
agreements with GAP addendums in the State of Indiana that were
assigned to PNC; (2) who paid off their finance agreements before
the end of the contract term during the time period that an
Automatic Refund Law was in effect; and (3) who did not receive a
credit or refund of the unearned GAP fees and/or the accrued
interest on those unpaid amounts. The class period is based on the
applicable statutes of limitations in Indiana.

In sum, the putative Multi-State Class and Indiana Subclass are
defined to include only those individuals who entered finance
agreements with GAP addendums in an Automatic Refund State, and who
paid off their finance agreement early during the time period that
the applicable Automatic Refund Law was in effect.

Judge Simon holds that Ratulowski plausibly claims PNC breached the
express terms of his particular finance agreement and GAP Addendum,
but he entered these agreements before the applicable Automatic
Refund Law went into effect. While he may seek to represent
similarly aggrieved Indiana customers who entered finance
agreements assigned to PNC that contained substantially similar
cancellation and termination provisions obligating PNC to
automatically refund unearned GAP fees pro-rata in the event of an
early payoff of their finance agreements, he cannot seek to
represent a class based on the theory that PNC violated Automatic
Refund Laws that were never incorporated as implied terms of his
agreements.

For this reason, the motion to strike the Multi-State Class and
Indiana Subclass is granted. However, Ratulowski is granted a final
opportunity to amend his complaint to address the deficiencies in
his class allegations and perhaps narrow them to similarly situated
individuals who bought similar GAP coverage, as Ratulowski did in
Indiana.

Finally, Ratulowski admittedly did not reside in or purchase a GAP
product in any state other than Indiana, yet he seeks to represent
a Multi-State Class of consumers in five other states. At this
juncture, Judge Simon withholds judgment on the propriety of
Ratulowski asserting class claims on behalf of customers aggrieved
by violations of consumer protection laws in states in which he
does not reside and has never purchased a GAP product. However, the
FAC does not appear to allege a personal injury-in-fact in the five
other states included in the putative Multi-State Class.

Judge Simon says it is, therefore, questionable whether Ratulowski
has standing to bring such claims -- as opposed to a customer who
resided in and purchased a GAP product assigned to PNC in one of
those five states. At this point, PNC appears to have a strong
argument that Ratulowski cannot seek to represent customers harmed
in states other than Indiana based on Automatic Refund Laws in
place in those jurisdictions, where he does not reside and never
contracted for GAP coverage.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Simon grants in part and denies in
part PNC's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Multi-State
Class Action Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Count II (money had and received) and Count
III (declaratory judgment) are dismissed without prejudice. Judge
Simone grants PNC's Motion to Strike Class Allegations from
Plaintiff's First Amended Multi-State Class Action Complaint.
Ratulowski is given 30 days from the date of the Order in which to
file an amended complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 10, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://rb.gy/70e5v from Leagle.com.


POLARITYTE INC: Court Junks Amended Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Polaritye Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 12, 2023, that the United States District Court,
District of Utah issued final order and opinion dismissing the
securities class suit amended complaint with prejudice on April 19,
2023.

On September 24, 2021, a class action complaint alleging violations
of the Federal securities laws was filed in the United States
District Court, District of Utah, by Marc Richfield against the
Company and certain officers of the Company, Case No.
2:21-cv-00561-BSJ.

The Court subsequently appointed a Lead Plaintiff and ordered the
Lead Plaintiff to file an amended Complaint by February 7, 2022,
which was extended to February 21, 2022. The Lead Plaintiff filed
an amended complaint on February 21, 2022, against the Company, two
current officers of the Company, and three former officers of the
Company (the "Complaint").

The Complaint alleges that during the period from January 30, 2018,
through November 9, 2021, the defendants made or were responsible
for, disseminating information to the public through reports filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission and other channels that
contained material misstatements or omissions in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 adopted thereunder. Specifically,
the Complaint alleges that the defendants misrepresented or failed
to disclose that: (i) the Company's product, SkinTE, was improperly
registered as a 361 HCT/P under Section 361 of the Public Health
Service Act and that, as a result, the Company's ability to
commercialize SkinTE as a 361 HCT/P was not sustainable because it
was inevitable SkinTE would need to be registered under Section 351
of the Public Health Service Act; (ii) the Company characterized
itself as a commercial stage company when it knew sales of SkinTE
as a 361 HCT/P were unsustainable and that, as a result, it would
need to file an IND and become a development stage company; (iii)
issues arising from an FDA inspection of the Company's facility in
July 2018, were not resolved even though the Company stated they
were resolved; and (iv) the IND for SkinTE was deficient with
respect to certain chemistry, manufacturing, and control items,
including items identified by the FDA in July 2018, and as a result
it was unlikely that the FDA would approve the IND in the form it
was originally filed.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to
state a claim, on April 22, 2022.

The Lead Plaintiff filed its memorandum in opposition to the
Company's motion to dismiss on July 18, 2022.

The Company filed its reply memorandum to the Lead Plaintiff's
opposition memorandum on August 11, 2022, and oral argument on the
motion to dismiss was held September 8, 2022.

At the hearing the judge issued a ruling from the bench dismissing
the Complaint without prejudice and granting the Lead Plaintiff
leave to file an amended complaint.

The Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (the "Amended
Complaint") on October 3, 2022, alleging additional facts.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint for
failure to state a claim on November 2, 2022, Lead Plaintiff filed
its brief in opposition to the Company's motion on December 2,
2022, and the Company filed its reply brief to the Lead Plaintiff
brief in opposition on December 23, 2022.

Oral argument on the Company's motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint was held March 6, 2023.

Following oral argument, the judge ruled that the Amended Complaint
be dismissed with prejudice and requested that the Company, through
its counsel, submit a proposed opinion and order.

The Company and Lead Plaintiff subsequently reached an agreement
stipulating to the form of the opinion and order, waiving the Lead
Plaintiff's right to appeal, and waiving the Company's right to
seek sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

The final opinion and order dismissing the Amended Complaint with
prejudice was issued by the judge on April 19, 2023.

PolarityTE Inc., a biotechnology and regenerative biomaterials
company, focuses on discovering, designing, and developing a range
of regenerative tissue products and biomaterials for the fields of
medicine, biomedical engineering, and material sciences in the
United States. The company operates in two segments, Regenerative
Medicine and Contract Services. PolarityTE, Inc. is headquartered
in Salt Lake City, Utah.



PROPHASE LABS: Faces False Advertisement Class Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ProPhase Labs Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2023, that the Company faces
false advertisement class suit in the Superior Court for the State
of California, County of Los Angeles.

The Company's wholly-owned subsidiary, TK Supplements, Inc., is the
defendant in Aviles v. TK Supplements, Inc., a purported class
action pending in the Superior Court for the State of California,
County of Los Angeles.

In the complaint that was filed on April 27, 2023, the plaintiff
alleges that TK Supplements falsely advertised its Legendz XL male
enhancement supplement in violation of California’s Consumer
Legal Remedies Act.

The plaintiff is seeking certification of a class of California
purchasers; actual, statutory and punitive damages; an award of
attorneys' fees and costs; and all other relief at law or in equity
as may be proper.

The Company believes the lawsuit and the allegations contained
therein are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against
the litigation.

ProPhase Labs, Inc. a manufacturing and marketing company with
deep
experience with OTC consumer healthcare products and dietary
supplements. The company is engaged in the research, development,
manufacture, distribution, marketing and sale of OTC consumer
healthcare products and dietary supplements in the United States.
The company is based in Doylestown, Pennsylvania.


RE/MAX HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Sunderland Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
RE/MAX Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Sunderland class suit in the Federal
Court of Canada.

On April 9, 2021, a putative class action claim (the "Sunderland
Action") was filed in the Federal Court of Canada against the
Toronto Regional Real Estate Board ("TRREB"), The Canadian Real
Estate Association ("CREA"), RE/MAX Ontario-Atlantic Canada Inc.
("RE/MAX OA"), which was acquired by the Company in July 2021,
Century 21 Canada Limited Partnership, Royal Lepage Real Estate
Services Ltd., and many other real estate companies, collectively
the "Defendants", by the putative representative plaintiff, Mark
Sunderland (the "Plaintiff").

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants conspired, agreed or
arranged with each other and acted in furtherance of their
conspiracy to fix, maintain, increase, control, raise, or stabilize
the rate of real estate buyers' brokerages' and salespersons'
commissions in respect of the purchase and sale of properties
listed on TRREB's multiple listing service system (the "Toronto
MLS") in violation of the Canadian Competition Act.

On February 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Fresh as Amended Statement
of Claim.

With respect RE/MAX OA, the amended claim alleges franchisor
defendants aided and abetted their respective franchisee brokerages
and their salespeople in violation of the section 45(1) of the
Competition Act.

Among other requested relief, Plaintiff seeks damages against the
defendants and injunctive relief.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against all claims.

RE/MAX Holdings, Inc. is one of the world's leading franchisors in
the real estate industry, franchising real estate brokerages
globally under the RE/MAX(R) brand, and mortgage brokerages within
the U.S. under the Motto Mortgage(R) brand. RE/MAX is a global
franchisor of real estate brokerage services with more than
125,000
agents operating in over 110 countries and territories. The
company
is based in Denver, Colorado.




REDFIN CORP: Cook Seeks Initial OK of Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------
Redfin Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 4, 2023, that plaintiffs in the Cook class suit
filed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement on April 7,
2023.

On August 28, 2019, Devin Cook, who was one of the Company's former
independent contractor licensed sales associates, whom it calls
associate agents, filed a complaint against the Company in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco.

The plaintiff initially pled the complaint as a class action and
alleged that the Company misclassified her as an independent
contractor instead of an employee. The plaintiff also sought
unspecified penalties pursuant to representative claims under
California's Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA").

On January 30, 2020, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint
dismissing her class action claim and asserting only claims under
PAGA.

On November 20, 2020, Jason Bell, who was one of the Company's
former lead agents as well as a former associate agent, filed a
complaint against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.

The complaint was pled as a class action and alleges that, (1)
during the time he served as an associate agent, the Company
misclassified him as an independent contractor instead of an
employee and (2) during the time he served as a lead agent, it
misclassified him as an employee who was exempt from minimum wage
and overtime laws.

The plaintiff also asserted representative claims under PAGA.

The plaintiff sought unspecified amounts of unpaid overtime wages,
regular wages, meal and rest period compensation, waiting time and
other penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief, and
plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs.

On May 23, 2022, pursuant to a combined mediation, the Company
settled the lawsuits brought by Ms. Cook and Mr. Bell for an
aggregate of $3,000.

This amount is subject to adjustment if its actual number of
associate agents, lead agents, or their respective workweeks
differs from the number that it represented to the plaintiffs. This
settlement is subject to court approval.

On April 7, 2023, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the class settlements.

Redfin Corporation is a residential real estate brokerage based in
Seattle.

REDWIRE CORP: Loses Bid to Dismiss Lemen Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Redwire Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 11, 2023, that the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida denied the defendants motion to
dismiss the amended Lemen complaint on March 22, 2023.

On December 17, 2021, the Company, the Company's CEO, Peter
Cannito, and its former CFO, William Read, were named as defendants
in a putative class action complaint filed in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida. That litigation
is captioned Lemen v. Redwire Corp. et al., Case No.
3:21-cv-01254-TJC-PDB (M.D. Fla.).

On March 7, 2022, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff.

On June 17, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

In the amended complaint, the lead plaintiff alleges that the
Company and certain of its directors and officers made misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose material facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects, allegedly in
violation of Section 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder)
and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

As relief, the plaintiffs are seeking, among other things,
compensatory damages.

The defendants believe the allegations are without merit and
intend to defend the suit vigorously.

On August 16, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint
in its entirety, and such motion was denied by the Court on March
22, 2023.

Redwire Corporation is into critical space solutions and
components
based in Texas.


RTH ENTERPRISES: Hawkins Files Bid for Conditional Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Daphne Hawkins, an Arizona
resident; v. RTH Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Dennys, an Arizona company;
Rahul Haria, an Arizona resident; and SIRH, LLC d/b/a Dennys an
Arizona company; Case No. 2:23-cv-00530-DLR (D. Ariz.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her motion and
provide the following relief to the Plaintiff:

   (1) Conditionally certifying this case as a collective action;

   (2) Authorizing the Opt-In procedure; and

   (3) For any such other relief as this Court deems just and
proper.

The Plaintiff seeks to conditionally certify a collective action
pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
consisting of:

   "All current or former tipped employees; who are neither
managers,
   supervisors, nor owners; who work(ed) for any the Defendants,
and /
   or any of Rahul Haria's owned and / or managed Dennys; within
the
   last three years."

Through this lawsuit, the Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid tips
for herself and the Collective Members, requiring the proper
payment of tips to workers, under the collective action mechanism
of the FLSA, specifically 29 U.S.C. section 203(m)(2)(B).

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and the
Collective Members. The Plaintiff was a full-time employee who
worked for the Defendants.

The Plaintiff began working for Dennys in or around February 2014
as a server. The Plaintiff has not been provided with my proper
tips she earned. When the Plaintiff would cash out an online order,
the ticket would read OLO and it would not be registered under her
name, even if she prepared the order.

Rth Enterprises is in the restaurant, family chain business.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 9, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pHo00p at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Barrat, Esq.
          WEILER LAW PLLC
          5050 N. 40th St., Suite 260
          Phoenix, AZ 85018
          Telephone: (480) 442-3410
          Facsimile: (480) 442-3410
          E-mail: jbarrat@weilerlaw.com

SHADE STORE: Crowder Sues Over Deceptive Discount Pricing Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHARON CROWDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE SHADE STORE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
Case 5:23-cv-02331-NC (N.D. Cal., May 12, 2023) alleges Defendant's
violations of the California's False Advertising Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant makes, sells, and markets
window covering products and accessories, including but not limited
to, blinds, shades, and drapes ("The Shade Store Products" or
"Products"). The Products are sold online through Defendant's
website, www.theshadestore.com. The Defendant's website prominently
advertises purportedly time-limited, sitewide sales. These
advertisements include purported regular prices and purported
discounts. But these advertisements are false. Defendant always
offers sitewide discounts, so it never sells any of its Products at
the purported regular price. The sales are not limited in time, but
instead immediately reset and continue to be available, says the
suit.

The Defendant's published regular prices were not the prevailing
regular prices. The sale Defendant advertised was not really a
time-limited sale. Had Defendant been truthful, Plaintiff and other
consumers would not have purchased the Products or would have paid
less for them, the suit asserts.

THE SHADE STORE, LLC is a home decoration products provider. The
Company offers custom shades, blinds, and drapery, as well as
provides design assistance, trial swatches, measure, and
installation services. Shade Store serves customers in the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christin Cho, Esq.
          Simon Franzini, Esq.
          Grace Bennett, Esq.
          DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
          201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 656-7066
          Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
          Email: christin@dovel.com
                 simon@dovel.com
                 grace@dovel.com

SKYE BIOSCIENCE: Continues to Defend Consumer Protection Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Skye Bioscience Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the consumer protection-related class suit in
the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench.

In July 2020, Emerald Health Therapeutics, Inc., a subsidiary of
the Company, was added as a defendant in a proposed class action
commenced against a large number of Canadian license holders
including Aurora Cannabis Inc.; Aurora Cannabis Enterprises Inc.;
AuroraCo.; Aleafiaco; Aleafia Health Inc.; Canopy Growth
Corporation; Emblem Cannabis Corp.; Hexo Corp.; HexoCo; Cronos
Group Inc.; Cronosco; Tilray Canada Ltd.; Organigram Holdings Inc.;
OrganigramCo; MediPharm Labs Corp.; MediPharmCo; CanopyCo; Aphria
Inc.; Broken Coast Cannabis Ltd.; AphriaCo; Emerald Cannabis
Corporation; and EmeraldCo. The proposed class action was commenced
in the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench sitting at Calgary.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants, including Emerald Health
Therapeutics, Inc., marketed and sold medicinal and recreational
cannabis products with an advertised content of THC and CBD and
that the amount of THC and/or CBD as contained on the label was
wrong and outside the permissible variability limits.

The claim alleges the following causes of action indiscriminately
against all of the defendants: breach of contract and breach of
consumer protection legislation, including the various Sale of
Goods Acts and Consumer Protection Acts; common law and statutory
misrepresentation; negligence in product labelling; breach of the
duty to warn; unjust enrichment; waiver of tort.

The claim seeks an aggregate of $505 million in damages as against
all of the defendants) and $5,000,000 in punitive damages against
each defendant plus an accounting of revenues from each defendant.


The Company is disputing the allegations and have been and will
continue to vigorously defend against the claims.

Skye Bioscience, Inc. (OTCQB: SKYE) is a biopharmaceutical
company,
discovers, develops, and commercializes cannabinoid-based
molecules
for the treatment of infectious diseases. The company's lead
product candidate is SBI-100, which is in Phase I trials for the
treatment of glaucoma and ocular hypertension. It is also
developing SBI-200 that is in preclinical trials to treat and
manage various eye diseases, including uveitis, dry eye syndrome,
macular degeneration and diabetic retinopathy. The company was
formerly known as Emerald Bioscience, Inc. and changed its name to
Skye Bioscience, Inc. in January 2021. Skye Bioscience, Inc. was
founded in 2012 and is headquartered in San Diego, California.





  

SPECIALIZED HOME: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Emerson Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
SHARON EMERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. SPECIALIZED HOME CARE PROVIDERS,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-00974-JRA (N.D. Ohio., May 12,
2023) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the
Plaintiff and the class minimum wages, and overtime compensation
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff Emerson was employed by the Defendant as a home aide.

SPECIALIZED HOME CARE PROVIDERS, LLC provides companion services,
sitter services, personal care services, and nursing services.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris Wido, Esq.
          SPITZ, THE EMPLOYEE'S ATTORNEY
          25825 Science Park Drive, Suite 200
          Beachwood, OH 44122
          Telephone: (216) 291-4744
          Facsimile: (216) 291-5744
          Email: Chris.Wido@Spitzlawfirm.com

SPOKEO INC: Plaintiffs Allowed Leave to File 1st Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AVIVA KELLMAN, JASON FRY,
and NICHOLAS NEWELL, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. SPOKEO, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-08976-WHO
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick III entered an order
granting the Plaintiffs' request for leave to file a First Amended
Complaint

The Plaintiffs shall file their First Amended Complaint within
three days of the Order.

The briefing schedule on the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification is modified as follows:

    -- The Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for
class
       certification shall be due on September 19, 2023.

    -- The Plaintiffs' reply shall be due on October 18, 2023.

    -- The hearing shall be on November 15, 2023.

Spokeo is a people search website that aggregates data from online
and offline sources.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/457tW2P at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael F. Ram, Esq.
          Marie N. Appel, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 358-6913
          Telephone: (415) 358-6293
          E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com
                  mappel@forthepeople.com


STAR TRIBUNE: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due June 1, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KYLE FELDMAN, ON BEHALF OF
HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, V. STAR TRIBUNE MEDIA
COMPANY LLC, Case No. 0:22-cv-01731-ECT-TNL (D. Minn.), the Hon.
Judge Tony N. Leung entered a pretrial scheduling order (phase i of
class certification) as follows:

   -- The Plaintiff's class certification:           June 1, 2024

   -- The Defendant’s response:                      July 1,
2024

   -- The Plaintiff's reply:                         July 15, 2024

   -- The parties shall appear for a                 Aug. 7, 2023
      settlement conference with the
      Court on:

Star Tribune is communication media which provide the services of
news and information.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MvwZuC at no extra charge.[CC]

STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Stronghold Digital Mining, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the securities class suit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

On April 14, 2022, the Company, and certain of its current and
former directors, officers and underwriters were named in a
putative class action complaint filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the Company made
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material facts in
violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. §77k and
Section 15 of the Securities Act, about the Company’s business,
operations, and prospects in the Company's registration statement
on Form S-1 related to its initial public offering, and when
subsequent disclosures were made regarding these operational issues
when the Company announced its fourth quarter and full year 2021
financial results, the Company's stock price fell, causing
significant losses and damages.

As relief, the plaintiffs are seeking, among other things,
compensatory damages.

On August 4, 2022, co-lead plaintiffs were appointed.

On October 18, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

On December 19, 2022, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss.

On February 17, 2023, the plaintiffs filed an opposition to the
defendant's motion to dismiss.

On March 20, 2023, the Company filed a reply brief in further
support of its motion to dismiss.

The Company cannot predict when the court will rule on its motion.
The defendants believe the allegations in the initial complaint are
without merit and intend to defend the suit vigorously.

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: $4.3-Mil. Class Deal in Saucillo Suit Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GILBERT SAUCILLO; JAMES R. RUDSELL, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees
v. SADASHIV MARES, Objector-Appellant, and JOHN BURNELL; JACK
POLLOCK, Plaintiffs v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY OF ARIZONA,
LLC, an Arizona corporation, Defendant-Appellee, and SWIFT
TRANSPORTATION COMPANY INCORPORATED; DOES, Defendants, Case No.
22-55560 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit affirms the district court's approval of a class action
settlement between Defendant Swift and the named Plaintiffs.

Objector-Appellant Sadashiv Mares appeals the district court's
approval of a class action settlement between Swift and Plaintiffs
Saucillo and Rudsell. The district court approved a $7.25 million
settlement, of which the class counsel would receive approximately
$1.8 million in attorneys' fees.

Reviewing for abuse of discretion, the Ninth Circuit affirms.

The Ninth Circuit previously vacated an order by the district court
approving the same settlement agreement because the court applied
the wrong legal standard, failing to engage the heightened fairness
inquiry that is required when a settlement agreement is reached
prior to class certification. On remand, the district court
conducted the requisite "probing inquiry," scrutinizing the
settlement agreement for any subtle signs that the class counsel
allowed pursuit of their own self interests to infect the
negotiations.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in approving the
settlement agreement, the Ninth Circuit holds. In scrutinizing the
agreement for subtle signs of collusion, it finds that the court
appropriately considered the interaction between the agreement's
clear sailing provision and the size of the attorneys' fees and
determined that there was no cause for concern, given that the
attorneys' fees were proportionate and no portion of the settlement
fund could revert to Swift. The remaining "red flags" that Mares
raises do not otherwise indicate collusion.

The Ninth Circuit concludes that after nearly a decade of
litigation and several intervening legal developments that were not
favorable to the Plaintiffs, the parties reached a settlement
agreement resulting in nearly $4.3 million for the class as a whole
and an average award of more than $200 per driver. Given the
district court's exposure to the litigants, and their strategies,
positions and proof, the Ninth Circuit cannot say that the court
abused its discretion in approving the settlement agreement.
Rather, it scrutinized the settlement agreement for subtle signs of
collusion and appropriately concluded that the settlement agreement
was the product of non-collusive negotiations.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 10, 2023 Memorandum is
available at https://rb.gy/8119n from Leagle.com.


TROPICOFC INC: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tropicofc Inc. The
case is styled as Maria DiMeglio, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Tropicofc Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03989
(S.D.N.Y., May 12, 2023).

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

Tropic of C -- https://tropicofc.com/ -- is a company that operates
in the Apparel & Fashion industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TTEC SERVICES: Class Action Settlement in Beasley Gets Initial Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YOLANDA BEASLEY, KIMBERLY
SHEARS-BARNES, SHENEEQUA CARRINGTON, and JOLYNN FROST, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TTEC SERVICES
CORPORATION, Case No. 1:22-cv-00097-PAB-STV (D. Colo.), the Hon.
Judge Philip A. Brimmer entered an order granting the Plaintiffs'
unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement and memorandum in support.

The Court further ordered that:

  -- the parties shall contact the Court's chambers within seven
days
     of the entry of this order to set a date for the fairness
     hearing.

  -- the Joint Request for Scheduling of Case Management Conference
is
     denied as moot.

  -- the unopposed and joint motion for status is denied as moot.

The Plaintiffs Yolanda Beasley, Kimberly Shears-Barnes, Sheneequa
Carrington, Jolynn Frost, and David Anderson, along with David
Barocas and Brent Lett, filed the unopposed motion for preliminary
approval of class action settlement.

The motion for preliminary approval seeks certification of a
nationwide class consisting of:

    "all individuals within the United States (1) whose protected
    health information or personal identifying information was
stored,
    possessed or controlled by TTEC; and (2) who were affected by
the
    TTEC data security incident that occurred in approximately
March
    to September of 2021."

The motion also seeks approval of a California subclass consisting
of:

    "all natural persons residing in the State of California at the

    time of the Data Security Incident (1) whose protected health
    information or personal identifying information was stored,
    possessed or controlled by TTEC; and (2) who were affected by
the
    TTEC Data Security Incident that occurred in approximately
March
    to September of 2021."

    The following persons are excluded from the nationwide class:
any
    judge presiding over the litigation and any members of their
    first-degree relatives; judicial staff; and persons who timely
and
    validly request exclusion from the settlement class.

    The following persons are excluded from the California
subclass:

        "any judge presiding over the litigation and any members of

        their first-degree relatives; judicial staff; the officers
and
        directors of TTEC; and persons who timely and validly
request
        exclusion from the California subclass."

        The settlement agreement provides for a $2,500,000 non-
        reversionary settlement fund. Each class member who files a

        valid claim will be eligible for one cash payment for (i) a

        basic award of $100 or (ii) a reimbursement award of up to

        $5,000 for documented out-of-pocket expenses incurred in
        connection with the data security breach.

        In addition, California settlement subclass members are
        eligible to receive a California subclass award payment of

        $100 in recognition of their California Confidentiality of

        Medical Information Act (CIMA) claim, regardless of whether

        they also receive a basic award or reimbursement award.

TTEC is a global provider of customer experience technology and
services.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Wa7fad at no extra charge.[CC]


UNILEVER: Loudenslager Suit Transferred to D. Connecticut
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Linda Loudenslager, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Unilever United States Inc.,
Case No. 3:22-cv-01020 was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana, to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut on May 12, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00625-VAB to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Unilever United States, Inc. -- https://www.unileverusa.com/ --
manufactures personal care products.[BN]

UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Class Cert. Bid Hearing Continued to August 4
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MERIDIAN TREATMENT
SOLUTIONS INC., DESERT COVE RECOVERY, LLC, and HARMONY HOLLYWOOD,
LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH (operating as OPTUMHEALTH BEHAVIORAL
SOLUTIONS), Case No. 4:19-cv-05721-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Jeffrey S. White entered an order granting joint stipulation
continuing motion hearing on the plaintiffs' corrected motion for
class certification.

The Court continues the hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification to August 4, 2023. If the Court determines the
motion can be resolved without oral argument, it will notify the
parties in advance of the hearing date.

On January 3, 2023, the Court issued an Order modifying the
parties’ schedule for the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and set the hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification for June 9, 2023.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 8, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3o1nAS4 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew M. Lavin, Esq.
          Aaron R. Modiano, Esq.
          ARNALL GOLDEN GREGORY LLP
          2100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 350S
          Washington, D.C. 20037
          Telephone: (202) 677-4030
          Facsimile: (202) 677-4031
          E-mail: matt.lavin@agg.com
                  aaron.modiano@agg.com

                - and –

          David M. Lilienstein, Esq.
          Katie J. Spielman, Esq.
          DL LAW GROUP
          345 Franklin St.
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 678-5050
          Facsimile: (415) 358-8484
          E-mail: david@dllawgroup.com
                  katie@dllawgroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Heather L. Richardson, Esq.
          Geoffrey Sigler, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: 213.229.7000
          Facsimile: 213.229.7520
          E-mail: hrichardson@gibsondunn.com
                  gsigler@gibsondunn.com

UNIVERSAL CREDIT: Class Cert Expert Discovery Due June 30
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON LEE HINKEL, SR., and
NARILY NOON, Individually and as a Representative of the Classes,
v. UNIVERSAL CREDIT SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-01902-KBH (E.D.
Pa.), the Hon. Judge Kelley B. Hodge entered an order that the case
shall proceed on the following amended schedule:

   1. On or before May 22, 2023, the plaintiff(s) shall serve
      defendant(s) with expert report(s) for all expert witnesses.

   2. On or before June 5, 2023, defendant(s) shall serve
plaintiff(s)
      with report(s) for all expert witnesses.

   3. All expert discovery, including depositions of expert
witnesses,
      shall be completed by June 30, 2023.

   4. Any summary judgment motions and class certification motions

      shall be filed and served on or before July 20, 2023.

   5. Responses in opposition to summary judgment motions and class

      certification motions shall be filed and served on or before

      August 22, 2023.

   6. Daubert motions shall be filed and served on or before
August
      22, 2023.

   7. Replies in support of summary judgment motions and class
      certification motions shall be filed and served on or before

      September 5, 2023.

   8. Responses in opposition to Daubert motions shall be filed and

      served on or before September 12, 2023.

   9. Replies in support of Daubert motions shall be filed and
served
      on or before September 26, 2023.

  10. The parties shall comply with Judge Hodge's Policies and
      Procedure which are located at
https://www.paed.uscourts.gov.

Universal Credit is a financial services company specializing in
credit reports, credit checks, and credit reports services.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IfVJVb at no extra charge.[CC]

UTICA PUBLIC: Magistrate Judge Endorses Dismissal of Hendricks Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANIELLE C. HENDRICKS, Plaintiff v. UTICA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS; ELIZABETH, Last Name Unknown-Utica Public Defender
Office; FRANK, Last Name Unknown, only handle misdemeanors-Utica
Public Defender Office; JUDGE SABB, Criminal Court Judge; and UTICA
DISTRICT ATTORNEY, Defendants, Case No. 6:23-CV-0431 (LEK/ML)
(N.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of New York:

   (1) grants the Plaintiff's in forma pauperis application;

   (2) denies the Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel;
       and

   (3) recommends that the Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed in
       its entirety in part (a) with leave to amend, and
       (b) without leave to amend.

The Clerk has sent a pro se complaint in the captioned action
together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a
motion for appointment of counsel filed by Hendricks to the Court
for review.

On April 5, 2023, the Plaintiff commenced the action by filing a
pro se Complaint against Defendants Utica Public Defenders,
Elizabeth, Frank, Judge Sabb, and Utica District Attorney. In
addition, he filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
and a motion for appointment of counsel.

The Complaint is on a form complaint, which purports to assert
civil rights actions arising under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. It
alleges that the Plaintiff was represented by Utica Public
Defenders office in a criminal proceeding before Sabb. It alleges
that she rejected a plea offer but that Frank, Elizabeth, and Sabb
agreed to dismiss the charges on the condition that she serves a
term of 90 days in a psychiatric hospital. The Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendants accused her of having schizophrenia.

Based on these factual allegations, the Plaintiff appears to assert
the following two claims: (1) a claim that the Defendants violated
her right to an attorney pursuant to the Sixth Amendment and 42
U.S.C. Section 1983; and (2) a claim that the Defendants provided
ineffective assistance of counsel. As relief, she appears to be
seeking $2 million in compensatory damages, the Defendants to be
disbarred, and her son to be placed back in her custody.

First, as to the Plaintiff's in forma pauperis application, Judge
Lovric finds that the Plaintiff meets the standard. Therefore, he
grants her application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

Second, Judge Lovric examines the Plaintiff's complaint. He
explains that notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion
thereof, that may have been paid, the court will dismiss the case
at any time if the court determines that the action (i) is
frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief
may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant
who is immune from such relief 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2).

Having reviewed Plaintiff's Complaint with this principle in mind,
Judge Lovric recommends that all causes of action be dismissed. He
finds that the Plaintiff's claims under Section 1983 seeking
monetary damages against Sabb, who acted as the criminal law judge,
are barred under the doctrine of judicial immunity. As a result, to
the extent that the Complaint seeks monetary damages against Sabb,
he recommends that it be dismissed because Sabb is immune from such
relief, and, consequently, as frivolous.

Insofar as the Plaintiff seeks declaratory or injunctive relief
against Sabb alleging that the representation by Utica Public
Defender, Elizabeth, and Frank violated certain attorney or ethical
misconduct rules, disciplinary rules, and/or the New York State
Rules of Professional Conduct, Judge Lovric holds that violations
of attorney rules of professional conduct or state ethical rules or
guidelines for attorneys do not form a basis of a constitutional
claim for the same reasons that a legal malpractice claim does not
suffice to set forth a claim under section 1983. Moreover, he says
the Plaintiff fails to allege facts plausibly suggesting that
Defendant Sabb is liable for any deficiencies in the representation
of Plaintiff by other defendants. As a result, he recommends that
the Plaintiff's claims requesting declaratory or injunctive relief
against Sabb be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.

Judge Lovric also holds that the Plaintiff's claims against Utica
District Attorney -- which seek monetary damages -- are barred by
the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. For the
same reason, he recommends that the Plaintiff's request for
declaratory or injunctive relief against Utica District Attorney be
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.

As to the Plaintiff's claims against Utica Public Defender,
Elizabeth, and Frank, in their capacities representing her against
criminal charges, Judge Lovric holds that they should be dismissed
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. As a
result, he recommends that the Plaintiff's claims against them for
their actions representing her in the criminal proceeding, be
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.

On the opportunity to replead, Judge Lovric notes that better
pleading could not cure the Court's lack of subject matter
jurisdiction based on the immunities described above with respect
to the Plaintiff's claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983
against Sabb and Utica District Attorney seeking monetary damages.
However, he says it is not clear whether a better pleading would
permit the Plaintiff to assert a cognizable claim pursuant to 42
U.S.C. Section 1983 against (1) Sabb and Utica District Attorney
for declaratory/injunctive relief, and (2) Utica Public Defender,
Elizabeth, and Frank. Out of deference to the Plaintiff's pro se
status, Judge Lovric recommends that the Plaintiff be granted leave
to amend the Complaint with respect to those claims.

If the Plaintiff chooses to avail herself of an opportunity to
amend, such amended pleading must set forth a short and plain
statement of the facts on which she relies to support any legal
claims asserted. In addition, the amended complaint must include
allegations reflecting how the individuals named as Defendants are
involved in the allegedly unlawful activity. Finally, the Plaintiff
is informed that any amended complaint will replace the existing
Complaint, and must be a wholly integrated and complete pleading
that does not rely upon or incorporate by reference any pleading or
document previously filed with the Court.

Finally, the Plaintiff has also submitted a request for appointment
of counsel. Judge Lovric has recommended dismissal of the action.
As such, he cannot find that the Plaintiff's claims are likely to
be of substance. The Plaintiff's motion is therefore denied.

Accordingly, Judge Lovric grants the Plaintiff's application to
proceed in forma pauperis only for purposes of filing and any
appeal unless the trial court certifies in writing that the appeal
is not taken in good faith. He denies the Plaintiff's motion for
appointment of counsel without prejudice.

Judge Lovric dismisses without prejudice and with leave to amend
the Complaint to the extent that it seeks monetary relief from Sabb
and Utica District Attorney, who are immune from such relief
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B). He dismisses with
leave to amend the Complaint to the extent that it (1) seeks
declaratory/injunctive relief from Sabb and Utica District
Attorney, and (2) alleges claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983
against Utica Public Defender, Elizabeth, and Frank, for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B).

The Clerk of the Court will file a copy of the Order, report, and
recommendation on the docket of the case and serve a copy upon the
parties in accordance with the local rules.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1), the parties have 14 days
within which to file written objections to the foregoing report.
Such objections will be filed with the Clerk of the Court. Failure
to do so will preclude appellate review.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 10, 2023 Order &
Report-Recommendation is available at https://rb.gy/5dmlq from
Leagle.com.

DANIELLE C. HENDRICKS, Utica, New York, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


VERRA MOBILITY: Merits Discovery in Brantley Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Verra Mobility Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2023, that the Merits discovery
for Brantley class suit in trial court is underway.

Brantley v. City of Gretna is a class action lawsuit filed in the
24th Judicial District Court of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana against
the City of Gretna ("City") and its safety camera vendor, Redflex
Traffic Systems, Inc. in April 2016.

The plaintiff class, which was certified on March 30, 2021, alleges
that the City's safety camera program was implemented and operated
in violation of local ordinances and the state constitution,
including that the City's hearing process violated the plaintiffs'
due process rights for lack of a "neutral" arbiter of liability for
traffic infractions.

Plaintiffs seek recovery of traffic infraction fines paid.

The City and Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. appealed the trial
court's ruling granting class certification, which was denied and
their petition for discretionary review of the certification ruling
by the Louisiana Supreme Court was declined.

Merits discovery in the trial court is underway.

No trial date has been set. Based on the information available to
the Company at present, it cannot reasonably estimate a range of
loss for this action and, accordingly, it has not accrued any
liability associated with this action.

Verra Mobility Corporation is a provider of smart mobility
technology solutions and services based in Arizona.



VIA RENEWABLES: Continues to Defend Gilkin Variable Rate Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Via Renewables Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Gilkin variable rate class suit in the
United States District Court, Southern District of New York.

On January 14, 2021, Glikin, et al. v. Major Energy Electric
Services, LLC, a purported variable rate class action was filed in
the United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
attempting to represent a class of all Major Energy customers
(including customers of companies Major Energy acts as a successor
to) in the United States charged a variable rate for electricity or
gas by Major Energy during the applicable statute of limitations
period up to and including the date of judgment.

The Company believes there is no merit to this case and is
vigorously defending this matter; however, given the current early
stage of this matter, it cannot predict the outcome of this case at
this time.

Via Renewables Inc. is an independent retail energy services
company. The Company provides residential and commercial customers
in competitive markets across the United States with an alternative
choice for their natural gas and electricity.

VIAQUEST RESIDENTIAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due August 5, 2024
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH SIMMONS, v.
VIAQUEST RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00201-SDM-EPD
(S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers entered an
order clarifying the Preliminary Pretrial Order, as follows:

  -- Any motion for class certification shall          Aug. 5,
2024
     be filed by no later than:

  -- All discovery shall be completed by               July 5,
2024
     no later than:

  -- Any dispositive motion shall be filed             Aug. 5,
2024
     by no later than:

A copy of the Court's order dated May 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MbBx8e at no extra charge.[CC]


VOYA FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Ravarino Class Suit in Conn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Voya Financial Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Ravarino class suit in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut.

Litigation also includes Ravarino, et al. v. Voya Financial, Inc.,
et al. (USDC District of Connecticut, No. 3:21-cv-01658)(filed
December 14, 2021).

In this putative class action, the plaintiffs allege that the named
defendants breached their fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty
in the administration of the Voya 401(k) Savings Plan.

The plaintiffs claim that the named defendants did not exercise
proper prudence in their management of allegedly poorly performing
investment options, including proprietary funds, and passed
excessive investment-management and other administrative fees for
proprietary and non-proprietary funds onto plan participants.

The plaintiffs also allege that the defendants engaged in
self-dealing through the inclusion of the Voya Stable Value Option
into the plan offerings and by setting the "crediting rate" for
participants' investment in the Stable Value Fund artificially low
in relation to Voya's general account investment returns in order
to maximize the spread and Voya's profits at the participants'
expense.

The complaint seeks disgorgement of unjust profits as well as costs
incurred.

The Company denies the allegations, which it believes are without
merit, and intends to defend the case vigorously.

Voya is a financial, retirement, investment and insurance company.
Voya offers its products and services throughout the United
States,
including in this District, through a group of financial
intermediaries, one of which is Voya Services Company, the Plan
sponsor.

WALT DISNEY: Local 272 Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Local 272 Labor-Management Pension Fund, on Behalf of Itself and
All Others Similarly Situated v. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, ROBERT
CHAPEK, CHRISTINE M. McCARTHY, and KAREEM DANIEL, Case No.
2:23-cv-03661 (C.D. Cal., May 12, 2023), is brought as a securities
class action on behalf of all purchasers of Disney common stock
between December 10, 2020 and November 8, 2022, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies against Disney and
certain of the Company's current and former senior executives under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934("Exchange Act"), and SEC Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

During the Class Period, the Defendants repeatedly misled investors
about the success of the Disney+ platform by concealing the true
costs of the platform, concealing the expense and difficulty of
maintaining robust Disney+ subscriber growth, and claiming that the
platform was on track to achieve profitability and 230-260 million
paid global subscribers by the end of fiscal year 2024.

The Defendants made these representations notwithstanding the fact
that initial subscriber numbers for Disney+ had been boosted
temporarily and unsustainably by a low launch price of $6.99 per
month, a bevy of additional short term, low-cost promotions, and a
near-captive audience of consumers who were homebound due to
COVID-19 restrictions. As a result, the consumers most likely to
subscribe to Disney+ had already done so by the start of the Class
Period. Furthermore, Disney was suffering staggering costs in
creating the content needed to attract such a large number of
subscribers in the highly competitive streaming wars that were then
raging among Disney's many competitors such as Netflix, Apple TV+,
Amazon Prime, Paramount+, HBO Max, YouTube, and Peacock. In truth,
during the Class Period, Disney+ was never on track to achieve the
2024 profitability and subscriber figures provided to investors and
such estimates lacked a reasonable basis in fact.

To conceal these adverse facts, the Defendants engaged in a
fraudulent scheme designed to hide the extent of Disney+ losses and
to make the growth trajectory of Disney+ subscribers appear
sustainable and 2024 Disney+ targets appear achievable when they
were not. Specifically, the Defendants used the newly created DMED
to inappropriately shift costs out of the Disney+ platform and onto
legacy platforms. DMED, under the direction of Chapek and Daniel
and with the knowledge of McCarthy, debuted content created for
Disney+ initially on a legacy platform in order to shift marketing
and production costs onto that platform. Under the newly
reorganized Company, the initial costs of marketing campaigns were
generally recognized in the DMED distribution platform of initial
exploitation, with allocation of programming and production costs
driven by distribution of the relevant content across windows, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased Disney common stock during the Class
Period.

The Walt Disney Company (originally known as Disney Brothers
Cartoon Studio) was founded in 1923 by brothers Walt and Roy
Disney.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian E Cochran, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619/231-1058
          Fax: 619/231-7423
          Email: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com


WEBSTER FINANCIAL: Friar Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
-----------------------------------------------------------
Justin Friar, Paul Courey, Rayna Fedorczyk, and Maria Melo on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. WEBSTER
FINANCIAL CORPORATION, WEBSTER BANK, N.A., Case No.
3:23-cv-00628-JCH (D. Conn., May 15, 2023), is brought against
Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard
highly valuable, protected personally identifiable information,
including without limitation, names, bank account numbers, and
Social Security numbers (collectively "PII"); failure to comply
with industry standards to protect information systems that contain
PII; unlawful disclosure of the PII of Plaintiffs and other members
of the class; and failure to provide adequate notice to Plaintiffs
and other members of the class that their PII had been disclosed
and compromised.

Despite Defendants representations that Webster Bank provided
robust data protection services, in reality, Webster Bank's
security program (and the program of the vendors Webster Bank
entrusted information to), its decision-making regarding which
vendors to entrust customer data to, and its monitoring of those
vendors, were all woefully inadequate. Webster Bank and its agents'
unsound, vulnerable systems containing valuable data, including
Plaintiff and class member PII, were an open invitation for
intrusion and exfiltration by cybercriminals, who were seeking to
exploit this valuable information.

The Defendants shared Plaintiffs' and class members' sensitive PII
with various third-party vendors Defendants engaged to assist
Webster Bank with its operations, including Guardian Analytics,
Inc.. Webster Bank retained Guardian Analytics to provide fraud
detection services for Webster Bank and its customers, including
Plaintiffs and class members.

On January 26, 2023, the Defendants reportedly first learned that,
beginning on November 27, 2022, an unauthorized third party
obtained Plaintiffs' and class members' PII by accessing Defendant
Guardian Analytics systems, downloading files containing names,
bank account numbers, and social security numbers of tens of
thousands of Webster Bank customers (the "Data Breach"). This
unauthorized access continued undetected for nearly two full
months, ending January 22, 2023. The stolen data, including PII,
has already been found for sale on the dark web.

Despite purportedly learning of the Data Breach on January 26,
2023, Webster Bank did not begin notifying the impacted individuals
(including Plaintiffs) that their sensitive data was compromised,
until April 10, 2023. This delay deprived Plaintiffs and class
members of the opportunity to take meaningful steps to mitigate the
impact of the Data Breach.

As a result, Plaintiffs and class members are at substantially
increased risk of future identity theft, both currently and for the
indefinite future. Plaintiffs' and class members' PII--including
their bank account numbers and Social Security numbers which were
compromised by cyber criminals in the Data Breach--is highly
valuable to bad actors who may seek to commit fraud and identity
theft, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs shared their most valuable data with Webster Bank.

The Defendants operate Webster Bank, a nationally chartered
commercial bank with "over $70 billion in assets" based in
Stamford, Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ian W. Sloss, Esq.
          Zachary A. Rynar, Esq.
          SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
          One Landmark Square, Floor 15
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Phone: (203) 325-4491
          Fax: (203) 325-3769
          Email: isloss@sgtlaw.com
                 zrynar@sgtlaw.com

               - and -

          James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
          Amanda Boltax, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          888 16th Street, NW, Suite 300
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Phone: (202) 540-7200
          Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
                 mboltax@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Steven M. Nathan, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          33 Whitehall St., 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (646) 357-1100
          Email: snathan@hausfeld.com


WELLNESS RESIDENTIAL: Stevenson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tamika Stevenson, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated individuals v. WELLNESS RESIDENTIAL SERVICES LLC &
IDORENYIN FRED, Case No. 1:23-cv-00281-MRB (S.D. Ohio, May 12,
2023), is brought to recover compensation, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and also seeks all available
relief under the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, (the "Ohio
Wage Act"), the Ohio Prompt Pay Act ("OPPA"), (the Ohio Wage Act
and the OPPA will be collectively referred to as the "Ohio Acts").

Despite regularly working in excess of 40 hours per workweek,
Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members are not paid at the
appropriate overtime rate (150% their regular rate) for their
overtime hours worked. Rather, it is Defendants' joint practice and
policy to pay Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members at their
regular hourly rates for all hours worked in a workweek, even those
hours worked in excess of 40. This joint practice and policy
results in Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members not being paid
at the proper overtime rate for all their hours worked in excess of
40 in a workweek. The Defendants' violations of the FLSA and the
Ohio Wage Acts are willful because Defendants do not have a good
faith basis for the way they pay Plaintiff, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is currently employed by Defendants as a non-exempt
employee and has been an employee of Defendants since September 23,
2022.

Wellness Residential Services LLC is a for-profit organization
registered in the State of Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob A. Mikalov, Esq.
          Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
          BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP
          4200 Regent Street, Suite 210
          Columbus, OH 43219
          Phone: (614) 221-4221
          Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
          Email: jmikalov@barkanmeizlish.com
                 bderose@barkanmeizlish.com


WESTLAKE SERVICES: Nguyen Sues Over ERISA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Mary Nguyen, individually, and on behalf of all similarly situated
participants v. WESTLAKE SERVICES HOLDING COMPANY; WESTLAKE
SERVICES HOLDING COMPANY EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN; WESTLAKE
SERVICES HOLDING COMPANY EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN COMMITTEE;
DON HANKEY; BRET HANKEY; IAN ANDERSON; PAUL KERWIN, EUGENE
LEYDIKER, GRACIA ANG, and DOES 1-50, Case No. 8:23-cv-00854 (C.D.
Cal., May 15, 2023), is brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") on behalf of a Class of
former employee participants (and their beneficiaries) in the Plan,
arising out of Defendants' violation of the terms of the Plan
and/or abuse of their discretion in the management of the Plan and
the interpretation of the Plan when they eliminated the right of
Plaintiff and the Class to hold Westlake stock in the ESOP and
required Plaintiff and the Class to liquidate their shares at an
improper price.

As a remedy, Plaintiff seeks to require Defendants to: make good to
the Plan, Plaintiff, and the Class members losses resulting from
fiduciary violations; restore to the Plan any profits that may have
been made by the breaching fiduciaries and parties in interest
through the use of Plan assets; and obtain other appropriate
equitable and legal remedies to redress violations and to enforce
the provisions of Title I of ERISA.

The proposed Class consists of terminated Employee Participants in
the ESOP (and their beneficiaries) who, as alleged below, have been
deprived of promised benefits as a result of violations of ERISA by
Defendants. "Terminated Employee Participants" are ESOP
participants with vested account balances whose employment with
Westlake or any of its affiliates was terminated during the first
quarter of 2020.

The Plan's primary asset is its equity holdings in Westlake stock.
The ESOP allocates shares of Westlake stock to the individual
accounts of Plan participants. The Plan has long been an important
part of the compensation package for employees of Westlake and its
affiliates. Plaintiff and other members of the Class contributed to
Westlake's success and were able to share in that success as the
value of the Westlake stock holdings in their individual ESOP
accounts grew over time.

Under the terms and practice of the effective written instrument of
the Plan, the Plan permitted Terminated Employee Participants to
continue to hold Westlake stock in their Plan accounts until the
second quarter of the year following their employment. Segregation
of Westlake stock occurred in the Plan year following termination
of employment based on the valuation of the Westlake stock at the
end of the year of termination.

Until at least June 2020, Plaintiff and over 100 Terminated
Employee Participants continued to hold their Westlake stock after
terminating employment. In recent years, the share price of the
Westlake stock has risen significantly. In June 2020, Defendants
forced Plaintiff and other Terminated Employee Participants to sell
their Westlake stock, closed their individual accounts, and
transferred their liquid assets out of the ESOP ("forced sale" or
"forced buyout"). This forced sale violated ERISA and breached
promises Defendants had made to Plaintiff and other Terminated
Employee Participants. In addition, Defendants used a stale and
improper special valuation to set the share price for the Westlake
stock in the sale.

The Plaintiff and other Terminated Employee Participants were
divested of the benefit and right to continue to hold the Westlake
stock in their Plan accounts. As a result of Defendants' fiduciary
breaches and violations of ERISA, Plaintiff and the Class received
less than the fair market value of their Westlake stock in the
force sale and have lost out on the continued appreciation of the
Westlake stock, dividends, and distributions paid to Westlake
shareholders in 2021, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was formerly employed by Hankey Investment Corp., an
affiliate of Westlake, the sponsor of the Plan.

Westlake is a technology-based, privately held finance company that
specializes in the acquisition and servicing of prime to subprime
automotive retail installment contracts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kolin Tang, Esq.
          MILLER SHAH, LLP
          19712 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 222
          Irvine, CA 92660
          Phone: (415) 429-5272
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          Email: kctang@millershah.com

               - and -

          Ronald S. Kravitz, Esq.
          MILLER SHAH, LLP
          465 Montgomery Street, Suite 1900
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: (415) 429-5272
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          Email: rskravitz@millershah.com


WEXFORD HOME: Marin Sues Over Unlawful Biometric Scanning
---------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Marin, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly
situated v. WEXFORD HOME CORP., Case No. 2023LA000497 (Ill. Cir.
Ct., DuPage Cty., May 15, 2023), is brought to obtain statutory
damages and other equitable relief under the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act ("BIPA" or "the Act") as a result of the
Defendant's unlawful biometric scanning and storage practices of.

As past and present employees of Defendant, Plaintiff and class
members were required to provide it with their personalized
biometric indicators and the biometric information derived
therefrom ("biometric data"). Specifically, Defendant collects and
stores its employees' fingerprints and requires all the employees
to clock-in and clock-out by scanning their fingerprints into a
fingerprint-scanning machine.

Following the capture of their employees' biometric data, Defendant
uses this data to compare the future scans of their employees'
fingerprints into a punch-clock device. The punch-clock device
scans each fingerprint and confirms that the employee punching in
to work is who they claim to be. The collection of the punch-clock
fingerprint entries is then used to confirm employees' presence at
work. Before collecting and storing biometric data, Defendant did
not notify Plaintiff and class members where or how long their
fingerprints would be stored, or what might happen to this valuable
information.

If Defendant insists on collecting and storing their employees'
fingerprints, Defendant must comply with the BIPA. This includes,
prior to collecting and storing biometric data, notifying employees
the practice is taking place; informing employees of how the
practice is implemented; obtaining written consent from the
employees to collect and store their biometric data; maintaining
their employees' biometric data in a sufficiently secure manner;
and maintaining a publicly available disclosure of how the
biometric data will be handled and destroyed. Unfortunately for the
Plaintiff and class members, none of these directives were
followed. Accordingly, Plaintiff bring this action individually and
on behalf of class members pursuant to obtain statutory damages and
injunctive relief for violations of the BIPA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is an individual subject to the same
fingerprint-storing practices as other of Defendant's employees.

The Defendant is a for-profit corporation that is registered to and
doing business in the state of Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
          William H. Beaumont, Esq.
          BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
          107 W. Van Buren, Suite 209
          Chicago, IL 60605
          Phone: (773) 831-8000
          Email: rlc@beaumontcostales.com
                 whb@beaumontcostales.com


WHITE ROSE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Florence Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
AVERY FLORENCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WHITE ROSE PIZZA, LLC; and ROBIN S.
MCINTYRE, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-00431-SDJ (E.D. Tex., May
12, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Florence was employed by the Defendant as a delivery
driver.

WHITE ROSE PIZZA, LLC operate Domino's Pizza franchise stores.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katherine Serrano, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE, PLLC
          400 N. St. Paul Street Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 210-2100
          Facsimile: (469) 399-1070
          Email: kserrano@foresterhaynie.com

WILLIAM O. BRONSON: McPherson Files FDCPA Suit in D. Montana
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against William O. Bronson,
et al. The case is styled as Matthew McPherson, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. William O. Bronson,
PLLC, DCI Credit Services, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-00021-BMM (D.
Mont., May 15, 2023).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

William O. Bronson, P.L.L.C. has a law office located in Great
Falls, MT.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dawn McCraw, Esq.
          CONSUMER ATTORNEYS PLC
          8245 N. 85th Way
          Scottsdale, AZ 85258
          Phone: (602) 807-1527
          Email: dmccraw@consumerattorneys.com


WISCONSIN ELECTRIC: Continues to Defend Munt Suit in Wisconsin
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin Electric Power Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Munt class suit in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

In May 2022, a putative class action, Munt, et al. v. WEC Energy
Group, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Wisconsin - Milwaukee Division.

The plaintiffs allege that WEC Energy Group and others breached
their fiduciary duties with respect to the operation and oversight
of WEC Energy Group's Employee Retirement Saving Plan (the "Plan")
in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974, as amended.

The class is alleged to be participants in the Plan from May 10,
2016 through the date of judgment.

The complaint seeks injunctive relief, damages, interest, costs,
and attorneys' fees.

WEC Energy Group is vigorously defending against the allegations
made in this lawsuit and intends to continue to do so.

Wisconsin Electric Power Company, doing business as WE Engeries,
Defendant, represented by Sean M. Scullen --
sean.scullen@quarles.com -- Quarles & Brady LLP & Steven M. Kruzel
-- steven.kruzel@quarles.com -- Quarles & Brady LLP.



XTREME MANUFACTURING: Class Settlement in Gonzalez Gets Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUDY GONZALEZ, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. XTREME
MANUFACTURING, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01704-JLT-SKO (E.D.
Cal.), the Court entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the
      Settlement;

   2. granting certification of the Settlement Class defined as
      follows:

      "All current and former non-exempt California employees of
      Xtreme who worked at least one shift from December 4, 2016,
to
      March 1, 2022;"

   3. approving the PAGA award of $10,000 from the Gross Settlement

      Amount— including payment of $7,500.00 to California's
Labor and
      Workforce Development Agency, with the remainder distributed
to
      aggrieved employees;

   4. granting the request for a Class Representative service
payment
      for Gonzalez in the amount of $5,000.00;

   5. granting Class Counsel's motion for fees in the amount of 33
      1/3% of the gross settlement fund -- in the total amount of
      $96,666.67;

   6. granting Class Counsel's request for costs in the amount of
      $12,897.03;

   7. approving Settlement Administration costs in the amount of
      $5,500.00, to be paid from the gross settlement fund;

   8. dismissing the action with prejudice, with each side to bear
its
      own costs and attorneys' fees except as otherwise provided by

      the Settlement and ordered by the Court; and

   9. directing the Clerk to close this action.

Rudy Gonzalez asserts Xtreme failed to comply with California's
wage and hour laws as provided in the California Labor Code, Fair
Labor Standards Act, and the Business and Professions Code.

Gonzalez seeks final approval of a class settlement reached in this
action. In addition, Gonzalez seeks attorneys’ fees and costs
from the settlement fund, costs for settlement administration, and
a service payment for the class representative.

Gonzalez was employed by Xtreme as a machinist in the company's
facility located in Selma, California, beginning in April 2019.
Gonzalez asserts he was classified as a nonexempt employee, and as
a result he "was entitled to be paid for every hour worked and
overtime as appropriate." However, Gonzalez alleges that "Xtreme
failed to pay Gonzalez and its other non-exempt employees for all
hours they worked."

Xtreme is a manufacturer of heavy equipment & construction
machinery including lifts, loaders, and telehandlers.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nV5Nfs at no extra charge.[CC]


YODLEE INC: Wesch Class Certification Bid Due April 8, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH WESCH, et al., v.
YODLEE, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-05991-SK (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Sallie Kim entered an order setting amended schedule as follows:

  Close of Fact Discovery:                        Jan. 12, 2024

  Expert Disclosure Deadline:                     Jan. 22, 2024

  Expert Rebuttal Report Deadline:                Mar. 4, 2024

  Close of Expert Discovery:                      Mar. 25, 2024

  The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class:               Apr. 8, 2024
  Certification:

  Yodlee's Opposition to Class Certification:     May 13, 2024

  The Plaintiffs' Class Certification Reply:      Jun. 3, 2024

  Hearing on Class Certification:                 Jul. 1, 2024

Yodlee is a technology and applications platform for digital
financial services in the cloud.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MoJJD8 at no extra charge.[CC]

YOUSICIAN OY: Matzura Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yousician Oy. The
case is styled as Steven Matzura, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Yousician Oy, Case No.
1:23-cv-04000-AT (S.D.N.Y., May 12, 2023).

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

Yousician -- http://yousician.com/-- is a Finnish interactive and
educational music service made to learn and play a musical
instrument.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: nyjg@aol.com
                 michael@gottlieb.legal


ZARA USA: Court Grants Bid to Compel Arbitration in Dike Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GINIKA DIKE, Plaintiff v. ZARA USA, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 23-cv-00342-WHO (N.D. Cal.), Judge William H. Orrick of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
grants Zara's motion to compel arbitration, with the exception of
Dike's non-individual PAGA claim, which is stayed pending the
California Supreme Court's decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies,
Inc., No. G059860, 2022 WL 1073583.

Zara, an apparel company, moves to compel arbitration of individual
claims brought by one of its former sales assistants, Dike, who
alleges that Zara violated California law when it failed to pay
non-exempt workers for the time they spent screening for COVID-19
before beginning their shifts. Zara also moves to dismiss Dike's
class and representative claims.

Dike, who worked from Zara from approximately November 2018 to
March 2022, alleges that she and other Zara non-exempt employees
were required to screen for COVID-19 by answering a series of
questions on a computer and taking their temperatures before
starting their shifts. The First Amended Complaint alleges that
these screenings could take several minutes, and that when
employees clocked in for their shifts, they were instructed not to
include the time spent on pre-shift COVID-19 screening. The FAC
further alleges that these employees were not paid for this time.

Dike sued Zara in state court on Dec. 16, 2022, alleging various
violations of California law. Zara removed the case to the Court on
Jan. 23, 2023, 30 days after it was served. Dike then filed the
FAC, which alleges five claims: failure to pay wages and
compensation; failure to provide accurate wage statements; failure
to pay wages upon separation of employment; violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); and for remedies under
PAGA. Each claim is brought on behalf of Dike and the class.

In March 2023, Zara moved to compel arbitration of Dike's
individual claims and to dismiss the class claims and
representative PAGA claim. According to Zara, on March 22, 2019,
the day that it hired Dike as a sales associate, she signed a
"Mutual Dispute Resolution Agreement." Dike's name and signature
appear directly below the attestation.

Dike does not dispute that she signed the Agreement, or that it
contains arbitration provisions. Instead, she contends that the
Agreement is unconscionable and thus unenforceable. She further
argues that unconscionable provisions so permeate the Agreement
that they cannot be severed.

Judge Orrick holds that although the Agreement is a term of
adhesion, Dike has shown only minimal oppression and surprise. Any
procedural unconscionability is moderate at most.

First, on its own, any adhesive nature of the Agreement does not
determine whether the Agreement is unconscionable. Other
indications of oppression or surprise, or a high degree of
substantive unconscionability, are required before a contract of
adhesion is unenforceable. Second, even if the rest of the
Agreement contained prolix language or legalese, this section would
have been seen by Dike and is clear: Any disputes covered by the
Agreement will not go to a judge or jury, but instead to
arbitration. Hence, any oppression is minimal at best and undercuts
Dike's argument about procedural unconscionability. Last, Zara's
failure to attach the American Arbitration Association ("AAA")
rules does not affect my consideration of her claims of
unconscionability.

Judge Orrick then holds that Dike has not shown that mutuality or
the PAGA waiver render the Agreement substantively unconscionable,
let alone to a high enough degree that slides the moderate amount
of procedural unconscionably (if that) to a point where the
Agreement is unconscionable. The Agreement is enforceable. Dike
must arbitrate her individual claims against Zara.

The final question is what to do with Dike's non-individual PAGA
claim. Judge Orrick holds that if the Supreme Court's understanding
of state law is wrong, California courts, in an appropriate case,
will have the last word. The California Supreme Court has done just
that, taking up the issue of statutory standing in Adolph. Cases
within this District have stayed, rather than dismiss,
non-individual PAGA claims pending "further legal developments" or
the California Supreme Court's decision in Adolph, which was just
argued. Judge Orrick does the same.

In view of his analysis, Judge Orrick grants Zara's motion to
compel arbitration, except for Dike's non-individual PAGA claim,
which is stayed pending the California Supreme Court's decision in
Adolph. The parties will notify the Court within 10 days of the
state court's decision so that a Case Management Conference may be
scheduled.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 10, 2023 Order is available at
https://rb.gy/z4l6r from Leagle.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 2023. 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 ***