---

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

              Monday, June 12, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 117

                            Headlines

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Class Suit Over ESG 401(k) Funds
ARC AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Class Suit Over Airbag Defects Despite Recall
BITWISE: Faces Furloughed Employees' Class Suit Over WARN Violation
BRITISH COLUMBIA: Geoduck Class Certification Ruling Reversed
CARLE FOUNDATION: Pierro Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices

CHORD ENERGY: Chancery Court Closes Siegfried Verified Class Suit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend National Prescription Suit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: De Benning Class Suit Settlement Wins Final Nod
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Dimas Class Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Rough Class Suit Stayed Pending Resolution

COTE LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Dimgelio Suit Says
D & M BOLANOS: Refuses to Pay Overtime Wages, Gomez Suit Alleges
DOUBLEDOWN INTERACTIVE: Social Casino' $415M Class Settlement Okay
EARGO INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit
EBERHARD: Fails to Pay Straight Time, OT Wages, Roman Alleges

EIGER BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
FIVE BELOW: Faces Porras Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif.
FSB GROUP: Court Decertifies Class Suit Over Employment Benefits
GERON CORP: Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set for August 24
H&M HENNES: Court Dismissed Greenwashing' Class Action Suit

HAPPY HOUR: Faces $150M Class Suit Over Deceptive Money Back Ads
HOMOLOGY MEDICINES: Pizzuto Securities Suit Dismissal Bid Pending
HYCROFT MINING: Pope Sues Over Breach of Warrant Agreement
INVIVYD INC: Continues to Defend Brill Securities Class Suit
IONQ INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Leacock, Fisher Suits

KATAPULT HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend McIntosh Class Suit
KOHL'S CORP: Continues to Defend Shanaphy Class Suit in Wisconsin
LIPOCENE INC: Abady Shareholder Class Suit Dismissed
LOTTERY.COM: Reply Brief to Million Suit Dismissal Bid Due June 20
MAKITA USA: Court Narrows Claims in May's First Amended Complaint

MARYGOLD COS: Continues to Defend Lucas Class Suit in New York
MID-CENTURY INSURANCE: Ill. App. Affirms Dismissal of Cook Suit
MONARCHY MEDIA: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
NATIONAL VISION: Continues to Defend Exchange Act Class Suit
NORTHSTAR CAFE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Highman Suit Alleges

NORTHWELL HEALTH: Jackson Sues Over Labor Law Violations
NOW OPTICS: Faces Velazquez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
NUTANIX INC: Final Settlement Hearing Set for Oct. 4
OKTA INC: Discovery Ongoing on Remaining Claims
PAYSIGN INC. Court Narrows Claims in Consolidated Suit

POWER SOLUTIONS: Treadwell Punitive Class Suit Still Pending
PURE HEALTH: Hernandez Sues Over Private Info's Unlawful Disclosure
SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Securities Suits
SPERO THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit
SUNVALLEYTEK INTERNATIONAL: Bid for Preliminary Injunction Tossed

TALIS BIOMEDICAL: Continues to Defend Modrak Class Suit
TARGET CORP: Continues to Defend Federal Securities Law Class Suit
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Suit Over QVAR Anticompetitive Scheme
TMC THE METALS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit
UNDER ARMOUR: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suits

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: Class Suit Over Student Fee Refund Settled
VERU INC: Continues to Defend Ewing Class Suit in Florida
VOYA RETIREMENT: Continues to Defend Ravarino Class Suit in Conn.
WAITR HOLDINGS: Bobby's Class Suit Stayed
WAITR HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Jenson Class Suit in Minnesota

Y & W CORP: McBride Sues Over Unlawful Tip Pooling Practices
ZOOM VIDEO: 9th Cir. Junks Approval of Final Settlement

                            *********

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Class Suit Over ESG 401(k) Funds
---------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille and Austin R. Ramsey of Bloomberg Law report that An
American Airlines Inc. pilot filed a proposed class action claiming
the airline's 401(k) plan is filled with investments that pursue
"leftist political agendas" through environmental, social, and
corporate governance strategies.

The proposed class action, filed on June 2, 2023 in the US District
Court for the Northern District of Texas, accuses American of
pursuing unrelated policy goals over the financial health of the
plan and workers' retirement savings. This choice is "flatly
inconsistent" with the company's fiduciary responsibilities under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and it jeopardizes the
retirement security of airline workers, plaintiff Bryan Spence
alleged in the complaint. [GN]

ARC AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Class Suit Over Airbag Defects Despite Recall
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CollisionRepairMag.com reports that a Vancouver-based law firm has
launched a class action lawsuit against Tier 1 airbag inflator
developer, ARC Automotive Inc., alleging that the manufacturer has
refused to abide by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration's request for a recall.

"In 2023, an investigation by the United States' National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration tentatively concluded that airbag
inflators designed and manufactured by ARC Automotive, Inc. contain
a defective component which has rendered millions of airbags in
motor vehicles vulnerable to exploding and propelling shrapnel and
debris through the cabin of motor vehicles upon deployment," reads
the opening of the press statement released by Slater Vecchio LLP
on May 31, 2023.

Showing shades of the ever-lingering Takata airbag inflator recall,
the firm alleges that ARC "was negligent in its design of the
airbag inflators and for its failure to warn Canadians of this
defect or the safety risk it presents.

"The action also alleges that the manufacturers of vehicles
containing the airbag inflators were negligent in their design of
the vehicles and for failure to warn, and have breached the
Competition Act, RSC 1985, c C-34 and consumer protection
legislation across Canada," an excerpt from the statement reads.

Prior reporting from the Associated Press shows that ARC's
defective inflators have been linked to two deaths in North
America, which, thanks in large part to an NHTSA investigation
launched way back in 2015, led BMW to recall more than one million
vehicles earlier this month.

The class action is seeking compensation for owners and lessees of
numerous models from across eight major OEMs. [GN]

BITWISE: Faces Furloughed Employees' Class Suit Over WARN Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Morris of YourCentralValley.com reports that a class-action
lawsuit will be filed against Bitwise from over 100 of its
furloughed employees, according to an announcement from their legal
team on Friday, June 2, 2023.

"To me, it's very clear that the folks in power at Bitwise knew
that they were going to collapse, and the collapse was imminent.
And the part that makes me mad is that they took the most
vulnerable, their employees, and they put them on the chopping
block and left them to suffer," said Attorney Roger Bonakdar, who
is going to represent Bitwise employees along with his team.

Bonakdar says many employees' last paychecks have bounced and that
Bitwise took their 401k contributions from their pay and did not
deposit the money in their accounts.
"They knew it would buy them time. That's why they did it. They
didn't care about what the consequences were. They didn't care
about who got hurt. They didn't care about people in the hole, in
addition to not getting what they're entitled to. They did it out
of self-interest," said Bonakdar.

Bonakdar said that he and his team will allege a violation of the
WARN Act, which mandates that employees in California be given
ample warning if layoffs or furloughs are imminent.

Bonakdar stated that they will also try to get back as much of the
missing money as possible.

"It's not okay to steal from your employees," said Bonakdar. "It's
not okay to trample the community that gave you a shot. And that's
what Bitwise did here," he said.

Bonakdar said that there is a worry that there won't be enough
money left to recover for his clients with the state of the
company.

"That's one real concern that we have here, is that we don't know
what will be the ultimate recovery for these families. But whatever
it is, what happened here is wrong," he said.

Bonakdar said that his team could file their class-action lawsuit
by next week. [GN]

BRITISH COLUMBIA: Geoduck Class Certification Ruling Reversed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Lazaruk of Vancouver Sun reports that Geoduck fishers do not
have the right to fish for the clams in an area the federal
government closed in Haida Gwaii and therefore are not entitled to
compensation for lost income, the B.C. Court Appeal has ruled in a
decision that reversed a lower court’s granting of certification
for a class action.

The federal government had appealed a 2021 decision by a B.C.
Supreme Court judge that certified a class-action lawsuit brought
by two fishing companies and an individual fisher after they
successfully argued in the lower court that they deserve damages
because Fisheries expropriated their right to fish geoducks.

Hideaway II Ventures, Front Line Diving and Darrell Thomas "allege
the elimination of commercial geoduck fishing in the (strict
protection) zones in Haida Gwaii was an uncompensated expropriation
of their right to harvest geoducks," according to the court’s
reasons for judgment released on June 2, 2023.

The Appeal Court disagreed.

"It is settled law that no one has a proprietary interest in the
fishery in Canada's tidal waters," said the court. [GN]

CARLE FOUNDATION: Pierro Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
JACQUELINE PIERRO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CARLE FOUNDATION HOSPITAL,
Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-02117-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill., May 25, 2026)
arises out of the Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act.

Plaintiff Jacqueline Pierro was employed from approximately August
21, 2017 to August 2020 as an hourly, non-exempt medical assistant.
Pierro alleges that Carle's time clock rounding policies and
practices violate the FLSA, IMWL and IWPCA and result in the
underpayment of overtime and regular wages.

Carle operates, owns and controls hospitals and health care
facilities in Illinois. The company has more than 16,000 employees
and does business under various names including Carle Cancer
Center, Carle Danville Surgery Center, Carle Foundation Hospital
Pharmacy, Carle BroMenn Medical Center, Carle Health Methodist
Hospital, Carle Health Proctor Hospital and Carle Foundation
Hospital. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Thomas M. Ryan, Esq.
            LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C.
            35 East Wacker Drive Suite 650
            Chicago, IL 60601
            Telephone: (312) 726-3400

                      - and -

            James X. Bormes, Esq.
            Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
            LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
            8 South Michigan Avenue Suite 2600
            Chicago, IL 60603
            Telephone:  (312) 201-0575

CHORD ENERGY: Chancery Court Closes Siegfried Verified Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chord Energy Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending May 26, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 26, 2023, that the Delaware Court of
Chancery ordered the closure of Siegfried verified class suit on
May 12, 2023.

On May 31, 2022, Barbara Siegfried ("Plaintiff") filed a Verified
Class Action Complaint (the "Complaint") in the Delaware Court of
Chancery (the "Court") under the caption Siegfried v. McCarthy, et
al., 2022-0470-KSJM (the "Action") on behalf of a putative class of
stockholders of Whiting challenging disclosures made in connection
with the then-proposed merger of Whiting and Oasis (the
"Transaction"), and alleging that the members of Whiting's Board of
Directors (the "Defendants") breached their fiduciary duties to
Whiting's stockholders in connection with disclosures made in the
Proxy Statement.

The Action sought, among other things, a preliminary injunction
against the Transaction.

Also on May 31, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for expedited
proceedings and a motion for a preliminary injunction.

Defendants have denied that they committed any violation of law or
engaged in any of the wrongful acts that were or could have been
alleged in the Action, and expressly maintain that they diligently
and scrupulously complied with their fiduciary and other legal
duties.

On June 14, 2022, without admitting that the allegations in the
Complaint had any merit, Whiting issued a Form 8-K containing
supplemental disclosures that mooted certain of the allegations in
the Action (the "Supplemental Disclosures").

On June 23, 2022, the Court denied the motion for a preliminary
injunction.

On August 4, 2022, the Court entered an order dismissing the Action
as moot and retaining jurisdiction solely for adjudicating the
anticipated application of Plaintiff's counsel for an award of
attorneys’ fees and expenses.

As a result of the Transaction, which closed on July 1, 2022,
Whiting is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Chord Energy
Corporation ("Chord," f/k/a Oasis Petroleum Inc.). Following
negotiations, Chord, on behalf of Defendants, while denying any and
all liability and maintaining that the Proxy Statement already
contained all material information required for stockholders to
cast an informed vote regarding the Transaction prior to the
Supplemental Disclosures, agreed to pay $75,000 to Plaintiff’s
counsel for attorneys’ fees and expenses in full satisfaction of
the claim for attorneys’ fees and expenses in the Action.
On May 12, 2023, the Court entered an order closing the Action,
subject to Chord filing an affidavit with the Court confirming that
this notice has been issued.

In entering the order, the Court was not asked to review, and did
not pass judgment on, the payment of the attorneys' fees and
expenses or their reasonableness.

Chord Energy Corp., formerly known as Oasis Petroleum Inc., is an
independent exploration and production (E&P) company focused on the
acquisition and development of onshore, unconventional crude oil
and natural gas resources in the United States. Oasis Petroleum
North America LLC (OPNA) and Oasis Petroleum Permian LLC (OP
Permian) conduct the company's exploration and production
activities and own its crude oil and natural gas properties located
in the North Dakota and Montana regions of the Williston Basin and
the Texas region of the Delaware Basin, respectively. The company
is based in Houston, Texas.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend National Prescription Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending May 7, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 31, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the National Prescription Opiate
multidistrict suits.

Beginning in December 2017, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation consolidated numerous cases concerning the
impacts of opioid abuses filed against various defendants by
counties, cities, hospitals, Native American tribes, third-party
payors, and others. In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation
(MDL No. 2804) (N.D. Ohio).

Included are cases filed against the Company by counties and cities
in Michigan, New Jersey, Oregon, Virginia and South Carolina, a
third-party payor in Ohio, and a hospital in Texas, class actions
filed on behalf of infants born with opioid-related medical
conditions in 40 states, and class actions and individual actions
filed on behalf of individuals seeking to recover alleged increased
insurance costs associated with opioid abuse in 43 states and
American Samoa.

Claims against the Company filed in federal court outside the MDL
have been asserted by certain counties and cities in Florida and
Georgia; claims filed by certain cities and counties in New York
are pending in state court. Claims against the Company in state
courts in New Jersey, Oklahoma, Utah, and Arizona have been
dismissed.

The Company is defending all of the pending matters.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- https://www.costco.com/ -- is an
American multinational corporation which operates a chain of
membership-only big-box retail stores.[BN]

COSTCO WHOLESALE: De Benning Class Suit Settlement Wins Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending May 7, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 31, 2023, that the De Benning
settlement granted final approval by the Sacramento Superior
Court.

In September 2021, an employee filed a class action against the
Company alleging violations of the California Labor Code regarding
failure to provide sick pay, failure to timely pay wages due at
separation from employment, and for violations of California's
unfair competition law. De Benning v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case
No. 34-2021-00309030-CU-OE-GDS; Sacramento Superior Court). The
Company answered the complaint in January 2022, denying its
material allegations. In April 2022, a settlement for an immaterial
amount was agreed upon, subject to court approval. Final approval
of the settlement was granted on February 10, 2023.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- https://www.costco.com/ -- is an
American multinational corporation which operates a chain of
membership-only big-box retail stores.[BN]

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Dimas Class Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending May 7, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 31, 2023, that the Dimas class suit
has been stayed pending plaintiff's individual claims arbitration.

In July 2021, a former temporary staffing employee filed a class
action against the Company and a staffing company alleging
violations of the California Labor Code regarding payment of wages,
meal and rest periods, wage statements, the timeliness of wages and
final wages, and for unfair business practices. Dimas v. Costco
Wholesale Corp. (Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2021-0006024; San Joaquin
Superior Court).

The Company has moved to compel arbitration of the plaintiff's
individual claims and to dismiss the class action complaint.

On September 7, 2021, the same plaintiff filed a separate
representative action under PAGA, asserting the same Labor Code
violations and seeking civil penalties and attorneys' fees.

The case has been stayed pending arbitration of the plaintiff’s
individual claims.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- https://www.costco.com/ -- is an
American multinational corporation which operates a chain of
membership-only big-box retail stores.[BN]

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Rough Class Suit Stayed Pending Resolution
------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending May 7, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 31, 2023, that the Rough class suit
has been stayed pending resolution.

In May 2019, an employee filed a class action against the Company
alleging claims under California law for failure to pay overtime,
to provide itemized wage statements, to timely pay wages due to
terminating employees, to pay minimum wages, and for unfair
business practices. Rough v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No.
2:19-cv-01340; E.D. Cal.).

Relief is sought under the California Labor Code, including civil
penalties and attorneys' fees.

In September 2021, the court granted Costco's motion for partial
summary judgment and denied class certification. In August 2019,
the plaintiff filed a companion case in state court seeking
penalties under PAGA. Rough v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No.
FCS053454; Sonoma County Superior Court).

Relief is sought under the California Labor Code, including civil
penalties and attorneys' fees.

The state court action has been stayed pending resolution of the
federal action.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- https://www.costco.com/ -- is an
American multinational corporation which operates a chain of
membership-only big-box retail stores.[BN]


COTE LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Dimgelio Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA DIMGELIO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. COTE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-04389 (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2023) arises out of the
Defendant's violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and
the New York City Human Rights Law.

Plaintiff Maria Dimgelio alleges that the Defendant failed to
provide its online content and services in a manner that is
compatible with screen reader technology. In other words, the
Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Defendant's
denial of full and equal access to its website.

Cote LLC is a company that owns and operates www.coteshop.co. Its
website sells nail tools and treatments, including "No. 50 Fiery
Orange Red Nail Polish." [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

D & M BOLANOS: Refuses to Pay Overtime Wages, Gomez Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Gomez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. D & M Bolanos Drywall, LLC, Mirna Bolanos,
individually, David Bolanos, individually, and Benjamin Ward,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-02334 (W.D. Tenn., May
25, 2023) arises out of the Defendants' violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

In March 2017, Defendants jointly employed Mr. Gomez to work as a
foreman. However, the Defendants paid its employees, including Mr.
Gomez, as though they were independent contractors, using Form
1099. Throughout his employment, Mr. Gomez repeatedly complained to
Defendants about his long hours and lack of overtime pay. On or
about April 18, 2023, Mr. Gomez asked Defendant David Bolanos to
pay him the appropriate overtime premium and to pay him using the
appropriate withholding Form W-2. However, the Defendants refused
to pay overtime wages, says the suit.

D & M Bolanos Drywall, LLC is a Tennessee-based company, and may be
reached for service through its registered agent, Mirna Bolanos,
4222 Running Brook Circle, Memphis, Tennessee. The company employs
several foreman and dozens of painters, drywall installers,
finishers, and ceiling specialists. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Alan G. Crone, Esq.
           Philip Oliphant, Esq.
           THE CRONE LAW FIRM, PLC
           88 Union Avenue, 14th Floor
           Memphis, TN 38103
           Telephone: (800) 403-7868
                      (901) 737-7740
           Facsimile: (901) 474-7926
           E-mail: acrone@cronelawfirmplc.com
                   poliphant@cronelawfirmplc.com

DOUBLEDOWN INTERACTIVE: Social Casino' $415M Class Settlement Okay
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Scarcella of Reuters reports that a U.S. judge on June 1, 2023
approved a $415 million class-action settlement resolving claims
that online gaming companies DoubleDown Interactive LLC and
International Game Technology PLC (IGT.N) violated Washington state
gambling laws and consumer protection provisions.

In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik in Seattle federal
court called the resolution "fair, reasonable, and adequate." He
issued his final approval order after a hearing in the case,
concluding more than four years of litigation.

Online consumers alleged "social casino" games developed by the
defendants "constitute unlawful gambling under Washington's
gambling laws." The settlement was the latest in a series of
related cases.

International Game Technology, based in the U.K., and DoubleDown
have denied any liability. They argued that the plaintiffs' claims
"rest on novel and untested interpretations of Washington's
gambling laws."

The games are free to play, but users pay for additional chips. The
lawsuit said consumers wager to acquire more chips that they
otherwise would need to buy.

Tens of thousands of class members "purchased and lost chips" by
wagering at DoubleDown Casino, the plaintiffs' lawyers alleged. The
class attorneys argued users were entitled to pursue their losses
under a Washington state law.

DoubleDown and its lawyers on June 2, 2023 did not immediately
respond to messages seeking comment. Lawyers for International Game
Technology did not immediately respond to a similar request.

Lasnik said seven class members opted out of the settlement, but
there were no formal objections to the dea Plaintiffs' lawyer Todd
Logan at Edelson, the firm that was leading the case, on June 2,
2023 said the firm's social-casino litigation overall has led to
$651 million for clients and class members.

Logan said in the latest settlement "many class members stand to
receive, individually, hundreds of thousands of dollars."

Lasnik awarded nearly $121.5 million in legal fees to lead class
attorneys at Chicago-based Edelson.

Lasnik's fee award amounted to about 29% of the settlement fund.
The plaintiffs' lawyers had said they would seek no more than 30%
for fees.

The litigation was "risky, novel, and hard-fought," Lasnik said in
his order, and so he approved a request for fees that went beyond a
25% benchmark in Washington and other states comprising the 9th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The case is Benson et al v. DoubleDown Interactive LLC et al, U.S.
District Court, Western District of Washington, No.
2:18-cv-00525-RSL.

For Benson: Jay Edelson, Rafey Balabanian and other lawyers from
Edelson; Cecily Jordan of Tousley Brain Stephens

For DoubleDown: Jaime Drozd Allen of Davis Wright Tremaine

For International Game Technology: Lauren Case of Duane Morris, and
Adam Pankratz of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart l. [GN]

EARGO INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eargo 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 securities class suits.

On October 6, 2021, putative shareholder Joseph Fazio filed a
purported securities class action against the Company and certain
of its officers, captioned Fazio v. Eargo, Inc., et al., No.
21-cv-07848 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2021) (the "Fazio Action").
Plaintiff Fazio alleges that certain of the Company’s disclosures
about its business, operations, and prospects, including
reimbursement from third-party payors, violated federal securities
laws. Fazio voluntarily dismissed his complaint on December 6,
2021.

On November 4, 2021, putative shareholder Alden Chung filed a
purported class action lawsuit substantially similar to the Fazio
Action, captioned Chung v. Eargo, Inc., et al., No. 21-cv-08597
(N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2021) (the "Chung Action").

On November 10, 2021, putative shareholder IBEW Local 353 Pension
Plan filed a purported class action substantially similar to the
Fazio and Chung Actions and also asserting claims under the federal
securities laws against current and former members of the Company's
Board of Directors (the "Board of Directors") and the underwriters
of the Company's October 15, 2020 initial public offering of common
stock, captioned IBEW Local 353 Pension Plan v. Eargo, Inc., et
al., No. 21-cv-08747 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2021) (the "IBEW Action").


These class actions, which seek damages and other relief, were
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California.

The Fazio and Chung Actions were brought purportedly on behalf of a
class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Eargo
securities between February 25, 2021 and September 22, 2021.

The IBEW Local 353 Action was brought purportedly on behalf of a
class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired: (i) Eargo
shares in or traceable to the Company's October 15, 2020 initial
public offering of common stock; and/or (ii) shares of Eargo common
stock between October 15, 2020 and September 22, 2021.

On January 5, 2022, the court consolidated the foregoing class
actions (as consolidated, the "Securities Class Action") under the
caption In re Eargo, Inc. Securities Litigation, No.
21-cv-08597-CRB, and appointed IBEW Local 353 Pension Plan and
Xiaobin Cai as Lead Plaintiffs and Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP and Block & Leviton LLP as Lead Counsel.

On May 20, 2022, Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, which purported to extend the class period through March
2, 2022.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on July 29, 2022. The Court
granted the defendants' motion to dismiss on February 14, 2023.

Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on March 16, 2023 and
defendants filed a second motion to dismiss on April 21, 2023.

Plaintiffs have until May 26, 2023 to file an opposition to
defendants’ motion.

The Company intends to vigorously defend the Securities Class
Action and cannot reasonably estimate any loss or range of loss
that may arise from the litigation

Eargo Inc. is an American hearing aid manufacturer based in San
Jose, California.

EBERHARD: Fails to Pay Straight Time, OT Wages, Roman Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL ROMAN, on behalf of the general public and other "aggrieved
employees" v. EBERHARD, a California Corporation, and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV11991 (Cal. Super., May 26,
2023) alleges that the Defendant's California employees were forced
to work overtime and were not paid for all hours worked including
all straight time wages, and overtime wages, in violation of the
Labor Code sections 510, 1194, 1194.2.

According to the complaint, the employees were routinely unable,
and not authorized to take their 10-minute rest periods and were
also unable to take an uninterrupted 30-minute meal break for every
shift they worked. Moreover, the Defendants allegedly failed to pay
premium wages of one hour's pay for each missed meal and rest break
to the Plaintiff and the Defendant's California employees who were
denied timely meal and rest breaks, in violation of Labor Code
sections 226.7, 512, and 558, and IWC Order No. 5-2001, Section 1.

Furthermore, the Defendants allegedly and intentionally failed to
provide the Plaintiff and Defendant's California employees timely,
accurate, itemized wage statements in accordance with Labor Code
section 226 and keep accurate records and required by section
1174(d). The statements provided to the Plaintiff and Defendant's
California employees, and the records maintained by Defendants,
have not accurately reflected actual gross wages earned, including
pay for all hours worked, overtime, and meal/rest premiums, and
total hour worked, the lawsuit claims.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt,
hourly employee in California, including in and around the city of
Van Nuys, County of Los Angeles.

EBERHARD, a California Corporation, is a hardware manufacturer.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Otkupman, Esq.
          Nidah Farishta, Esq.
          OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION
          5743 Corsa Ave., Suite 123
          Westlake Village, CA 91362
          Telephone: (818) 293-5623
          Facsimile: (888) 850-1310
          E-mail: Roman@OLFLA.com
                  Nidah@OLFLA.com

EIGER BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Eiger BioPharmaceuticals, 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
peginterferon lambda class suit lead plaintiff filed a voluntary
dismissal notice without prejudice.

On November 8, 2022 a putative securities class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California alleging that the company and two former
executives violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5.

The complaint alleged generally that between March 2021 and October
2022 material misstatements and omissions were made to shareholders
regarding the TOGETHER study of peginterferon lambda for the
treatment of COVID-19 as well as the likelihood of FDA approval of
an Emergency Use Authorization for peginterferon lambda.

The Court appointed a lead plaintiff on March 2, 2023. On April 10,
2023, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal
without prejudice.

Eiger BioPharmaceuticals, Inc. is a clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company committed to bringing to market novel
products for the treatment of orphan diseases.

FIVE BELOW: Faces Porras Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------
NATHANAEL PORRAS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIVE BELOW, INC., a Pennsylvania
Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
23G DCV01090 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 25, 2023)
arises out of the Defendants' violations of the California Labor
Code, California Business and Professions Code, the applicable Wage
Order(s) issued by the California Industrial Welfare Commission,
and related common law principles.

Plaintiff Porras was employed by Defendants from on or about August
15, 2019 as a non-exempt, hourly employee. Among other things,
Porras claims that the Defendants did not pay him for all hours
worked, including time that was automatically deducted from his pay
for legally inadequate meal periods.

Defendants are corporations and/or other business entities of
unknown form, existing under the laws of the state of California,
and/or authorized to do business and doing business in the state of
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
            Melissa Robinson, Esq.
            HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
            801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
            Glendale, CA 91203
            Telephone: (818) 696-2306
            Facsimile: (818) 696-2307
            E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com
                    melissa@hbklawyers.com

FSB GROUP: Court Decertifies Class Suit Over Employment Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Langton of Investment Executive reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit alleging that insurance agents were improperly
treated as independent contractors rather than employees has fallen
apart after just about every agent opted out.

Since the proposed class action against FSB Group Ltd. was
certified by Ontario's Superior Court of Justice in 2021, 66 of a
possible 69 class members have opted out the litigation. Of the
other three, one is dead, one can't be found, and the other is the
plaintiff, Raj Navartnarajah.

As a result, the court decertified the case, which alleged that FSB
agents were denied overtime, vacation, and holiday pay because they
were improperly classified as independent contractors.

In 2021, the defendants in the case argued that not only was it
wrong to claim that agents were misclassified, but that independent
status actually benefits agents because, among other benefits, they
retained ownership of their books and enjoyed tax certain
advantages. FSB said the case was being driven by a single agent to
the detriment of most of the others.

While the court initially rejected FSB's argument and certified the
case as a class action, the agents have effectively proven the
company correct.

"The negative possibility that was embedded in this claim all along
has come true," the court said in its decision. "As defendants'
counsel put it in his submissions on decertification, the putative
class members have voted with their feet."

The court suggested the claim of the plaintiff alone might be a
matter for small claims court.

"It is self-evident that if this action is not decertified, the
plaintiff will potentially be in a position to negotiate a
'class-wide' settlement in which only he and his counsel will
benefit. That is not what one would call access to justice. Indeed,
it may be its opposite; it may work an injustice to the rest of the
putative class that has opted out," the court said. [GN]

GERON CORP: Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set for August 24
---------------------------------------------------------------
Geron 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 U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California scheduled second final approval
hearing for the consolidated class suits settlement on August 24,
2023.

Between January 23, 2020 and March 5, 2020, three securities class
action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its
officers.

One of the lawsuits was voluntarily dismissed on March 19, 2020.

The other two lawsuits, filed in the U.S. District Court, or the
Court, for the Northern District of California, or the Northern
District, were consolidated by the Court on May 14, 2020, and on
August 20, 2020, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class
action complaint.

The consolidated class action complaint alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act,
in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made
by the Company related to IMbark during the period from March 19,
2018, to September 26, 2018.

The consolidated class action complaint alleges, among other
things, that we violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 by failing to disclose facts related to the
alleged failure of IMbark to meet the two primary endpoints of the
trial, spleen response rate and Total Symptom Score, and that its
stock price dropped when such information was disclosed.

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

On October 22, 2020, lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
class action complaint.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended consolidated
class action complaint on November 23, 2020.

On April 12, 2021, the Court granted in part and denied in part our
motion to dismiss. The Company's answer to the amended consolidated
class action complaint was filed on May 13, 2021.

On September 30, 2021, lead plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification, and on April 2, 2022, the Court granted the lead
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

On September 2, 2022, the parties agreed to a settlement and
entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, or the
Stipulation, which is subject to court approval.

On October 13, 2022, the Court preliminarily approved the
parties’ settlement, and permitted notice to be distributed to
the class members.

On March 30, 2023, the Court held a hearing on the motion for final
approval of the settlement and plan of allocation and ordered
supplemental notice to be sent to all of the class members.

A second final approval hearing is scheduled for August 24, 2023.

Geron Corporation is a biotechnology company located in Foster
City, California, which specializes in developing and
commercializing therapeutic products for cancer that inhibit
telomerase.


H&M HENNES: Court Dismissed Greenwashing' Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Ferris, Joseph Lawlor and Emily Ketterer of Reuters report
that on May 12, a federal judge in the Eastern District of Missouri
dismissed a proposed class action lawsuit against H&M for its
"Conscious Choice" line of products based, in part, on a finding
that plaintiff's allegations that H&M's "sustainable" marketing
violated California and Missouri consumer protection laws, as well
as the FTC's Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims,
known as Green Guides, were not supported (Abraham Lizama, et al.,
v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz LP, 4:22-cv-01170 (E.D. Mo.)).

While headlines touting H&M's victory may embolden marketers to
leverage sustainability messaging, they should still maintain
caution and closely adhere to all available Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) guidance on these claims.

The suit alleged that H&M's marketing for its "Conscious"
collection deceives consumers into believing that the products are
sustainable and environmentally friendly. Instead of calling
products "environmentally friendly," H&M leaned heavily on words
such as "conscious" and "sustainable."

For example, "sustainable" was used in the following statements on
the retailer's website:

-- "The shortcut to more sustainable shopping."

-- "You can identify our most environmentally sustainable products
by looking out for our green Conscious hangtags."

-- "[P]ieces created with a little extra consideration for the
planet. Each Conscious choice product contains at least 50% or more
sustainable materials -- like organic or recycled polyester -- but
many contain a lot more than that. The only exception is recycled
cotton, where we accept a level of at least 20%."

-- "With new technological solutions and innovations, we're
continually working to make our range even more sustainable."

Even so, plaintiffs took the position that H&M's campaign was not
compliant with FTC guidance on "green" marketing because it used an
unqualified General Environmental Benefit Claim that misleadingly
overstated the line's positive impact on the environment. The FTC's
Green Guides do not currently provide parameters for when and how
marketers can use "sustainability" claims, a purposeful choice
since, at its last review in 2012, FTC stated that it lacked
insight on how consumers interpreted that term.

The FTC did, however, caution marketers against using vague
"General Environmental Benefit Claims" like "eco-friendly,"
"greener," and "environmentally friendly" as these claims on their
own can be difficult to make in a not misleading and fully
substantiated manner.

Use of the term "sustainable" has flourished in the absence of
guidance on its use. The FTC reacted by filling the void with
warning letters and hefty fines to jewelry and clothing retailers,
signaling that, despite the term's absence from the Green Guides,
the Commission did in fact see "sustainable" as on par with
"eco-friendly," "greener," "environmentally friendly," and similar
terms.

In keeping with this trend, the FTC announced in December 2022 that
it is revisiting the Green Guides and is reconsidering its omission
of "sustainable" guardrails.

On a broader level, regulators worldwide have been increasingly
concerned with the reality of how products are ultimately disposed
(e.g., in landfills), the difficulties in accurately calculating
environmental benefits of a particular product and/or its
manufacturing or packaging method, and the ability of marketers to
concisely convey that information without misleading consumers.

In dismissing the complaint, U.S. District Court Judge Rodney W.
Sippel found that H&M's "sustainable" claims were appropriately
qualified with statements that "[e]ach Conscious Choice product
contains at least 50% more sustainable materials -- like organic
cotton or recycled polyester." The Court found those content claims
accurate and "that the use of those materials is more
environmentally beneficial than the use of virgin or non-organic
counterparts."

These benefits were not negligible in the Court's eyes because a
majority of the materials were "more sustainable" and the retailer
explained the differences between materials and the environmental
impacts of each. Because this evidence was "uncontested," the Court
did not scrutinize the validity of the environmental impact
statements and the integrity of the underlying calculations that
led to those statements.

This decision adds to a growing body of case law supporting the
proposition that "sustainable" claims are qualifiable and
supportable in some contexts, which may provide some comfort to
countless brands that tout their sustainability bona fides. But
wise marketers should take note: The FTC's position is that vague
General Environmental Benefit Claims are best avoided unless
stringent criteria are met -- including carefully understanding the
trade-offs that can occur with certain manufacturing decisions.

For example, the FTC has said that "Green, made with recycled
content" could be deceptive if the environmental costs of using
recycled content outweigh the environmental benefits of using it.

Thus, while the Court here focused on the literal truth of H&M's
claims on their face, the FTC is likely to take a more holistic
view when evaluating green claims. The H&M decision will likely
further fuel the agency to cement its policy on "sustainable"
within the forthcoming update to the Green Guides, which should
provide brands and courts more guidance on how to approach these
claims in the future. The National Advertising Division, the
self-regulatory body that hears challenges regarding national
advertising materials, is likely to continue to align itself with
the FTC and its interpretation of claims.

Moreover, H&M faces another lawsuit over its sustainability
marketing, and similar previous cases have offered a mixed bag of
results. While further guidance from the FTC may help harmonize
outcomes across consumer, competitor, and regulatory enforcement
actions, brands waiting for clarity should still err on the side of
caution by focusing on transparency, carefully vetting their
substantiation, and not overstating the environmental benefits of
their products. [GN]

HAPPY HOUR: Faces $150M Class Suit Over Deceptive Money Back Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leada Gore of Al.com reports financial guru Dave Ramsey, along with
his company and a marketing firm, are being sued over endorsements
of a failed timeshare exit company.

Seventeen former Ramsey listeners filed a class-action lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court for Western Washington, ReligionNews
reported.

In the suit, the petitioners claim Ramsey was paid some $30 million
from 2015 to 2021 to endorse the Timeshare Exit Team, part of the
Washington-based Reed Hein & Associates LLC that later agreed to
pay $2.61 million over claims it deceptively advertised a
100-percent money back guarantee. Customers were required to pay
thousands in upfront fees but many were left with no resolution on
their timeshare agreements, the settlement contended.
Timeshare Exit Team later went out of business.

The lawsuit from Ramsey listeners alleges he, Time Share Exit Team
and Happy Hour Media Group, which has ties to Brandon Reed,
co-founder of Timeshare Exit Team, violated the Washington Consumer
Protection Act by defrauding customers and were guilty of "unjust
enrichment" and conspiracy.

The lawsuit seeks damages of $150 million. [GN]

HOMOLOGY MEDICINES: Pizzuto Securities Suit Dismissal Bid Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Homology Medicines 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 motion to dismiss
the Pizzuto securities class suit is pending in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.

On March 25, 2022, the Company and certain of its executives were
named as defendants in a putative securities class action lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California; Pizzuto v. Homology Medicines, Inc., No.
2:22–CV–01968 (C.D. Cal 2022).

The complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose certain
information regarding efficacy and safety in connection with a
Phase I/II HMI-102 clinical trial, and seeks damages in an
unspecified amount.

The case is in its early stages.

The Company believes the claims alleged lack merit and has filed a
motion to transfer venue (filed September 2, 2022) and a motion to
dismiss (filed October 17, 2022).

On April 18, 2023, the court granted the motion to transfer,
finding that venue was not proper in the Central District of
California and transferring the case to the District of
Massachusetts.

Following the transfer, the case number changed to 1:23-cv-10858-AK
(D. Mass.).

The motion to dismiss remains pending.

As the outcome is not presently determinable, any loss is neither
probable nor reasonably estimable.

Homology Medicines, Inc. is a genetic medicines company with
principal executive offices located at One Patriots Park, Bedford,
Massachusetts. [BN]


HYCROFT MINING: Pope Sues Over Breach of Warrant Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------
TRAVUS POPE, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HYCROFT MINING HOLDING CORPORATION and
MUDRICK CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P., Case No. 2023-0563 (Del. Ch., May
26, 2023) concerns the efforts of Hycroft and certain of its equity
holders to fleece its Warrant Holders.

The alleged conduct occurs after emerging from bankruptcy, at a
time when, after years of being a privately held company, Hycroft's
Warrant Holders are finally about to realize the value of the
warrants and the liquidity of the NASDAQ Stock Market. These
efforts represent the final chapter of a process that originated in
2015 when Hycroft's predecessor, Allied Nevada Gold Corporation,
negotiated an extremely controversial "prepackaged" bankruptcy with
this same group of former lenders.

On September 18, 2015, the first draft of the heavily negotiated
Warrant Agreement was filed with the bankruptcy court. The Equity
Committee filed a motion to retain the Gordian Group to structure
and draft the Warrant Agreement terms, which was granted on August
5, 2015. The Warrant Agreement included material anti-dilution
provision.

On October 22, 2015, Allied Nevada Gold Corporation (ANV) emerged
from Chapter 11 as a privately held company known as the Hycroft
Mining Corporation. Pursuant to the Global Settlement, ANV's
pre-bankruptcy equity holders received warrants to purchase 17.5%
of the equity, quotient of (A) 17.5 divided by (B) 82.5
representing 21.21% of the Total Share Number of the reorganized
company, i.e., Hycroft Mining Corporation.

Pursuant to Section 5.2, the company is obligated to notify Warrant
Holders when there is a Mechanical Adjustment to the warrants,
setting forth the Initial Share Number or the Converted Share
number or the Cheap Stock Factor (and thus, the Per Warrant Share
Number and the Exercise Price) as so adjusted, along with the facts
that required the adjustment and the computation by which such
adjustment was made.

Accordingly, Hycroft Mining Corporation entered into a series of
transactions that culminated with the closing of the
Recapitalization Transaction on May 29, 2020. Despite each of these
transactions requiring an adjustment under the Warrant Agreement,
the June 2, 2020 Warrant Adjustment Certificate only acknowledged
one of the transactions. Hycroft's failure to properly adjust the
warrants to reflect each of the transactions consummated by the
closing of the Recapitalization Transaction on May 29, 2020
amounted to a breach of the Warrant Agreement, says the suit.

Hycroft failed to notify Warrant Holders until three months after
the Recapitalization Transaction, with a Regulation FD Disclosure
on August 30, 2020, that they had changed warrant agents. Instead
they misrepresented still having the former agent, making it
virtually impossible to perform under the Warrant Agreement during
this time. Hycoroft delayed listing the warrants on the NASDAQ
contradicting their pledge in Delaware Chancery Court. This did not
occur until over three months after the Recapitalization
Transaction, making it virtually impossible to perform under the
Warrant Agreement during this time.

The actions taken by the company prejudiced the Warrant Holders
ability to perform and execute the warrants for several months when
the publicly traded market price of the Hycroft Mining Holding
Corporation common stock was the greatest. As a result of the
breach of the Warrant Agreement, Plaintiff has been harmed and is
entitled to damages, the suit alleges.

Plaintiff Travus Pope is an individual residing in the State of
Florida. Mr. Pope owns a beneficial interest in warrants governed
by the Warrant Agreement, identified by CUSIP number 44862P125

Hycroft is a gold and silver development company that acquired the
Hycroft Mine located in Nevada.[BN]

INVIVYD INC: Continues to Defend Brill Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
INVIVYD 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 Brill securities class suit in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.

On January 31, 2023, a securities class action lawsuit captioned
Brill v. Invivyd, Inc., et. al., Case No. 1:23-CV-10254-LTS, was
filed against the Company and certain of its former officers in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder on the basis of
purportedly materially false and misleading statements and
omissions concerning ADG20's effectiveness against the Omicron
variant of COVID-19.

The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified damages,
attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other costs.

The Company believes that is has strong defenses and it intends to
vigorously defend against this action.

Invivyd, Inc., f/k/a Adagio Therapeutics, Inc., is a
clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company.[BN]


IONQ INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Leacock, Fisher Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
IonQ 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 Leacock and Fisher securities class
suits in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland.

In May 2022, a securities class action complaint captioned Leacock
v. IonQ, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:22-cv-01306, was filed by a
stockholder of the Company in the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland (the "Leacock Litigation") against the
Company and certain of the Company's current officers. In June
2022, a securities class action complaint captioned Fisher v. IonQ,
Inc., Case No. 8:22-cv-01306-DLB (the "Fisher Litigation") was
filed by a stockholder against the Company and certain of the
Company’s current officers (the "IonQ Defendants"). Both the
Leacock Litigation and Fisher Litigation, which have been
consolidated into a single action, allege violations of Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and seek damages.

In September 2022, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs and counsel
for lead plaintiffs, and ordered lead plaintiffs to file a
consolidated amended complaint.

The consolidated amended complaint was filed on November 22, 2022.


As part of the consolidated amended complaint, certain members of
the Company’s board of directors (the "Board") as well as other
dMY-related defendants ("Additional Defendants") have been added as
defendants to the case.

On February 7, 2023, the IonQ Defendants and the Additional
Defendants each filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint.

Both the IonQ Defendants and the Additional Defendants believe that
the allegations in the various complaints are without merit and
intend to defend the matters vigorously.

IONQ, INC. operates as a computing hardware and software company.
The Company develops a general-purpose trapped ion quantum
computer
and software to generate, optimize, and execute quantum circuits.
[BN]



KATAPULT HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend McIntosh Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Katapult 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 11, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the McIntosh class suit in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

On August 27, 2021, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Katapult Holdings, Inc., two officers of FinServ, one of
whom is a current Company director, and two officers of Legacy
Katapult, both of whom are current Company officers.

The lawsuit is captioned McIntosh v. Katapult Holdings, Inc., et
al.

On May 26, 2022, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff, who, on July
29, 2022, filed an amended complaint in the action.

The amended complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a),
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seeks an
unspecified amount of damages on behalf of persons and entities
that (a) beneficially owned and/or held FinServ common stock as of
the close of business on May 11, 2021 and were eligible to vote at
FinServ's June 7, 2021 special meeting (the "FinServ Putative
Class"); or (b) purchased or otherwise acquired Katapult securities
between June 15, 2021 and August 9, 2021, inclusive (the "Katapult
Putative Class").

The amended complaint alleges that certain defendants misled the
FinServ Putative Class by failing to disclose that prime lenders
could and would reach down the credit waterfall and take
Katapult’s customers.

The amended complaint further alleges that certain defendants
misled the Katapult Putative Class by providing materially false
and misleading financial guidance.

The Company and the other defendants filed amended complaints on
November 4, 2022.

On January 9, 2023, the Company filed a motion to dismiss.

In March 2023 the Plaintiffs filed opposition briefs and the
Company replied in April 2023.

The Company is currently waiting for response from the Court.

The Company and the other defendants intend to vigorously defend
against the claims in this action.

Katapult Holdings, Inc. is an e-commerce focused financial
technology company, provides e-commerce point-of-sale
lease-purchase options for nonprime consumers in the United
States.
The company’s technology platform provides nonprime
consumers
with a lease purchase option to enable them to obtain durable
goods
from its network of e-commerce merchants. The company was formerly
known as Cognical Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to Katapult
Holdings, Inc. in February 2020. The company is headquartered in
Plano, Texas.


KOHL'S CORP: Continues to Defend Shanaphy Class Suit in Wisconsin
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kohl's Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending April 29, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 1, 2023, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the Shanaphy class suit in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

On September 2, 2022, Sean Shanaphy, an alleged shareholder of the
Company, filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin against the Company,
its directors, and its Chief Financial Officer alleging violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934. Shanaphy v. Kohl’s Corporation, No. 2:22-cv- 01016-LA (E.D.
Wis.).

The plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between
October 20, 2020 and May 19, 2022, and seeks compensatory damages,
interest, fees, and costs.

The complaint alleges that members of the putative class suffered
losses as a result of (1) false or misleading statements and
withholding of information regarding the conception, execution, and
outcomes of the Company's strategic plan announced on October 20,
2020 and the Company's financial results for the first quarter of
fiscal 2022 and (2) the Company's internal controls over financial
reporting, disclosure controls, and corporate governance
mechanisms.

The case is in its early stages. Lead plaintiff applications were
submitted on November 1, 2022, and a lead plaintiff has not yet
been selected.

The Company intends to file a motion to dismiss the complaint and
to vigorously defend against these claims.

Kohl's Corporation operates as an omnichannel retailer. The
Company's stores and website sells private and national brand
apparel, footwear, accessories, beauty, and home products, as well
as offers online shopping and store credit cards. Kohl's serves
customers in the United States. [BN]


LIPOCENE INC: Abady Shareholder Class Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
Lipocene 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 United District Court for the
District of Utah dismissed the Abady shareholder class suit with
prejudice on April 14, 2023.

On November 14, 2019, the Company and certain of its officers were
named as defendants in a purported shareholder class action
lawsuit, Solomon Abady v. Lipocine Inc. et al., 2:19-cv-00906-PMW,
filed in the United District Court for the District of Utah. The
complaint alleges that the defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that the Company's filing of
the NDA for TLANDO to the FDA contained deficiencies and as a
result the defendants' statements about our business and operations
were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis in
violation of federal securities laws.

The lawsuit sought certification as a class action (for a purported
class of purchasers of the Company's securities from March 27, 2019
through November 8, 2019), compensatory damages in an unspecified
amount, and unspecified equitable or injunctive relief.

The Company has insurance that covers claims of this nature.

The retention amount payable by the Company under its policy is
$1.25 million.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit on
July 24, 2020.

In response, the plaintiffs filed their response to the motion to
dismiss the class action lawsuit on September 22, 2020 and the
Company filed its reply to its motion to dismiss on October 22,
2020.

A hearing on the motion to dismiss occurred on January 12, 2022.

On April 14, 2023, a judgment was issued ordering the case
dismissed with prejudice and closure of the action.

Lipocine Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company developing
innovative pharmaceutical products for use in men's and women's
health using its proprietary drug delivery technologies. Lipocine's
clinical development pipeline includes three development programs
LPCN 1021, LPCN 1111 and LPCN 1107. LPCN 1021, a novel oral prodrug
of testosterone containing testosterone undecanoate, is designed to
help restore normal testosterone levels in hypogonadal men.



LOTTERY.COM: Reply Brief to Million Suit Dismissal Bid Due June 20
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lottery.com disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 24, 2023, that the deadline for the Company to
file a reply brief to support the motion to dismiss the Million
class suit due on June 20, 2023.

On August 19, 2022, Preston Million filed the Class Action
Complaint (the "Class Action Complaint") against the Company and
certain former officers and directors of the Company in the United
States District Court for Southern District of New York (the
"SDNY"), styled Preston Million, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated vs. Lottery.com, Inc. f/k/a Trident
Acquisitions Corp., Anthony DiMatteo, Matthew Clemenson and Ryan
Dickinson (Case No. 1:22-cv-07111-JLR).

The Class Action Complaint alleged violations by all defendants of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b), 78t(a), as amended by
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"),
U.S.C. § 78u-4 et seq. (collectively "Federal Securities Laws").

On November 18, 2022, the SNDY ordered the appointment of RTD Bros,
LLC, Todd Benn, Tom Benn and Tomasz Rzedian (collectively "Lottery
Investor Group") as lead plaintiff and Glancy Prongay & Murray, LLP
as lead counsel for plaintiffs and for the class in the case.

On December 5, 2022, the Court stipulated a Scheduling Order in the
case.

On January 12, 2023, the Company's legal counsel timely filed its
Notice of Appearance. On January 31, 2022, plaintiffs filed their
Amended Complaint adding Kathryn Lever, Marat Rosenberg, Vadim
Komissarov, Thomas Gallagher, Gennadii Butkevych, Ilya Ponomarev as
additional defendants in the case.

The Amended Complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants
made materially false and misleading statements in violation of
Section 10(b),14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and plaintiffs
seek compensatory damages, reasonable cost and expenses including
counsel fees and expert fees.

Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, the Company filed its motion to
dismiss the Amended Complaint on April 3, 2023, under the newly
consolidated caption and its proposed order to dismiss the matter.


Plaintiffs are expected to file their opposition to the motion to
dismiss no later than May 18, 2023, which would trigger the
Company's deadline to file its reply brief in support of their
motion to dismiss no later than June 20, 2023.

Lottery.com is a provider of domestic and international lottery
products and services that enable consumers and businesses to
purchase purportedly legally sanctioned lottery tickets in the
United States and abroad online through its proprietary
business-to-consumer platform.[BN]


MAKITA USA: Court Narrows Claims in May's First Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THOMAS MAY, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff(s) v. MAKITA U.S.A., INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:22-CV-79-SNLJ (E.D. Mo.), Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh,
Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Southeastern Division, grants in part and denies in part
the Defendant's motion for dismissal of all the Plaintiff's claims
in the First Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff May is suing Makita for allegedly failing to put an
expiration date label on its product, a type of organic bonded
abrasive wheel used to cut metal and concrete. The Court dismissed
Counts I, III, IV, V, VI, and VII of the Plaintiff's original
petition, but granted the Plaintiff leave to file an amended
complaint. The Plaintiff filed his FAC, in which he repleads two of
his previously-dismissed claims and amends his claim under the
Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. The Defendant moves for
dismissal of all the Plaintiff's claims in the FAC for failure to
state a claim and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The Plaintiff's FAC includes an amended count for a violation of
the Missouri Merchandising Practice Act (Count I), and the FAC has
repleaded counts for breach of implied warranty (Count II) and
violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Count
III).

The Plaintiff is a citizen of Illinois. The Defendant is a
corporation incorporated in the state of California with its
principal place of business in La Mirada, California. It makes and
sells organic bonded abrasive wheels used to cut metal and
concrete. The wheels get attached to power tools that spin at
blistering speeds. Thus, if a wheel broke while in use, it could
cause serious injuries.

The Plaintiff purchased one or more of the Defendant's wheels
within the last five years at a Tractor Supply Company store in
Cape Girardeau, Missouri. He brings a class action claim arising
from the deceptive business practices of the Defendant in the
advertising, packaging, and labeling of a bonded abrasive wheel
product that it manufactured, produced, distributed, and/or sold.

The Plaintiff thought he was buying a wheel that did not expire
because the wheel's packaging did not have a clearly-printed label
that warned of the wheel's expiration date. But in fact, the wheels
have an expiration date of three years, and it is an industry
standard in the United States to include a three-year expiration
date for such wheels. After the three-year expiration date, the
wheels become too brittle or weak to use safely and reliably.
Likewise, several other leading organic bonded abrasive wheel
manufactures put expiration dates on their wheels. Thus, after
three years, the wheels are useless because of an unacceptable risk
that they may break while in use, which could cause serious
injuries to the user or bystanders.

The Plaintiff's complaint is that the Defendant failed to properly
label its wheels with a clearly-printed expiration date informing
buyers of when the wheels should no longer be used. Because of the
omission of a clearly-printed expiration date, the Plaintiff and
the other consumers suffer out-of-pocket damages by either
purchasing worthless wheels that already expired or wheels that are
worthless (or worth less) because there is no way for a reasonable
consumer to tell when the product expires, thus rendering them
unsafe to use.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant, based on well-known and
then-existing industry standards, knew that the wheels had an
expiration date but failed to disclose these details to customers.
Because he thought he was buying one thing (a wheel that never
expired) but instead received another (a wheel that expired after
three years), the Plaintiff -- and the other class members --
overpaid for the wheels. Despite the Defendant's past
misrepresentations, the Plaintiff pleads that he would buy more of
its wheels if defendant put a clear expiration date on them. Until
that time, he will not buy any more of the Defendant's wheels
because he has no way of knowing when the wheels expire.

First, the Defendant again seeks dismissal under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that the Plaintiff completely
lacks Article III standing to pursue either monetary or injunctive
relief.

Judge Limbaugh holds that the Plaintiff's alleged overpayment is an
Article III injury in fact for his past wheel purchases. He says
the Plaintiff's alleged injury stems from his overpaying for a
product due to the Defendant's alleged fraudulent
misrepresentations. Thus, his claims are not fundamentally based on
a product defect, they are fundamentally based on fraud.

Moreover, the Plaintiff does not plead or brief any theory of
Article III standing for injunctive relief other than his own
personal standing, which he lacks. Therefore, he does not have
personal Article III standing to seek injunctive relief, but Judge
Limbaugh abstains from deciding whether a class, once formed, would
have standing to pursue injunctive relief for the Defendant's
deceptive practices.

Having established that the Plaintiff has standing to pursue claims
for damages based on his past purchases of the Defendant's wheels,
Judge Limbaugh turns to the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's remaining counts.

The Defendant moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's MMPA for lack of
standing under Rule 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim under
Rule 12(b)(6).

Judge Limbaugh finds that (i) the Plaintiff sufficiently pled he
purchased the wheels for personal, family, or household use, so the
motion to dismiss Count I is denied; (ii) the Plaintiff fails to
plead any facts showing that he complied with the notice
requirements of Sec. 400.2-607(3), so Count II is dismissed; and
(iii) because the Plaintiff does not have standing for injunctive
relief and he failed to comply with the CLRA's specific notice
requirements, his CLRA count (Count III) must be dismissed.

Finally, Judge Limbaugh defers ruling on class certification for
the Plaintiff's proposed Missouri subclass for his MMPA count until
after the parties have had opportunity to be heard on the issue.

Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's FAC
is granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiff's Count II and
III are dismissed without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 24, 2023 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2s3ps332 from Leagle.com.


MARYGOLD COS: Continues to Defend Lucas Class Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Marygold Companies 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 15, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from Lucas putative class suit
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On June 19, 2020, USCF, USO, John P. Love, and Stuart P. Crumbaugh
were named as defendants in a putative class action filed by
purported shareholder Robert Lucas (the "Lucas Class Action").  The
Court thereafter consolidated the Lucas Class Action with two
related putative class actions filed on July 31, 2020 and August
13, 2020, and appointed a lead plaintiff.  The consolidated class
action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under the caption In re: United States Oil
Fund, LP Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-04740.

On November 30, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
(the "Amended Lucas Class Complaint"). The Amended Lucas Class
Complaint asserts claims under the 1933 Act, the 1934 Act, and Rule
10b-5.  The Amended Lucas Class Complaint challenges statements in
registration statements that became effective on February 25, 2020
and March 23, 2020 as well as subsequent public statements through
April 2020 concerning certain extraordinary market conditions and
the attendant risks that caused the demand for oil to fall
precipitously, including the COVID-19 global pandemic and the Saudi
Arabia-Russia oil price war.  

The Amended Lucas Class Complaint purports to have been brought by
an investor in USO on behalf of a class of similarly-situated
shareholders who purchased USO securities between February 25, 2020
and April 28, 2020 and pursuant to the challenged registration
statements. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint seeks to certify a
class and to award the class compensatory damages at an amount to
be determined at trial as well as costs and attorney's fees. The
Amended Lucas Class Complaint named as defendants USCF, USO, John
P. Love, Stuart P. Crumbaugh, Nicholas D. Gerber, Andrew F Ngim,
Robert L. Nguyen, Peter M. Robinson, Gordon L. Ellis, and Malcolm
R. Fobes III, as well as the marketing agent, ALPS Distributors,
Inc., and the Authorized Participants: ABN Amro, BNP Paribas
Securities Corporation, Citadel Securities LLC, Citigroup Global
Markets, Inc., Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC, Deutsche Bank
Securities Inc., Goldman Sachs & Company, J.P. Morgan Securities
Inc., Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corporation, Morgan
Stanley & Company Inc., Nomura Securities International Inc., RBC
Capital Markets LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, UBS Securities
LLC, and Virtu Financial BD LLC.

The lead plaintiff has filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of its
claims against BNP Paribas Securities Corporation, Citadel
Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse
Securities USA LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Morgan Stanley &
Company, Inc., Nomura Securities International, Inc., RBC Capital
Markets, LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, and UBS Securities LLC.

USCF, USO, and the individual defendants in In re: United States
Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation intend to vigorously contest
such claims and has moved for their dismissal.

Marygold Companies Inc.  designs, markets, and supports unified
messaging products. The Company's products integrate voice
technology and software as a solution to the remote access needs
of
Internet electronic mail (e-mail), fax, and voice mail users.
Marygold's software enables Internet e-mail users to have e-mail
read to them over any telephone as instructed by voice command.
[BN]


MID-CENTURY INSURANCE: Ill. App. Affirms Dismissal of Cook Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, COOK AU VIN, LLC an Illinois Limited Liability
Company, for Itself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant v. MID-CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY, a California
Corporation, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 1-22-0601 (Ill. App.),
the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division,
affirms the trial court's dismissal of Plaintiff Cook's
class-action complaint.

Cook appeals the trial court's dismissal of its class-action
complaint alleging that Mid-Century violated the Illinois
eavesdropping statute. On appeal, the Plaintiff contends the trial
court erred in dismissing its complaint where (1) it was a party to
the phone conversation between its attorney and Mid-Century's
representative and (2) its second-amended complaint alleged
sufficient facts to show that Mid-Century surreptitiously recorded
the phone call without its consent.

The Plaintiff is a bakery and catering company servicing Chicago
since 2005. In March 2020, it suffered financial hardship due to
government closure orders related to the COVID-19 pandemic. At the
time, it possessed a commercial general liability policy issued by
Mid-Century. The Plaintiff sought coverage under the policy for
more than $360,000 in business interruption losses and expenses
sustained because of the government-mandated closures. Its
principal, Vincent Colombet, retained attorney William E. Meyer to
represent it in the claim.

The Plaintiff submitted the claim on July 2, 2020, and that same
day, claim representative Erin Dufner contacted Meyer in relation
to the claim. Based on their conversation, the Plaintiff filed a
class-action complaint against Mid-Century on Oct. 13, 2020, and
filed an amended complaint on March 26, 2021. Mid-Century moved to
dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code
of Civil Procedure. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss
without prejudice.

On Nov. 12, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a second-amended complaint.
The complaint alleged that it retained attorney Meyer to represent
it in its insurance claim. The complaint also alleged that
Mid-Century, by and through its claim representative Dufner, called
the Plaintiff through counsel, William E. Meyer, Jr. When Dufner
stated that the call was being recorded, the Plaintiff, through
counsel William Meyer, requested that Dufner cease recording the
conversation. Meyer informed Dufner that he was the Plaintiff's
attorney and neither he nor the Plaintiff consented to the
recording. The Plaintiff alleged that Mid-Century violated the
eavesdropping statute by surreptitiously recording the telephone
conversation without obtaining plaintiff's consent.

Mid-Century filed a combined motion to dismiss the second-amended
complaint with prejudice under section 2-619.1 (id. Section
2-619.1) of the Code where (1) pursuant to section 2-615, the
Plaintiff could not allege facts to support a violation of the
eavesdropping statute and (2) pursuant to section 2-619(a)(9) (id.
Section 2-619(a)(9)), the Plaintiff lacked standing to prosecute
the claim where it was not a party to the phone call.

On March 31, 2022, the trial court granted Mid-Century's section
2-619 motion to dismiss with prejudice because the Plaintiff lacked
standing to pursue a claim under the eavesdropping statute. It also
found that dismissal was proper under section 2-615 regarding the
conversation that occurred after Dufner notified Meyer of the
recording. However, dismissal under section 2-615 was not
appropriate regarding the portion of the conversation from the
moment the call began until the point that Dufner announced that
the call was being recorded, because a question of fact existed as
to whether Mid-Century surreptitiously recorded that conversation.
The Plaintiff now appeals.

The Appellate Court states that there is authority supporting that
a corporation can be a party to a private conversation held by its
officers and corporate employees in their capacity as a corporate
representative. Meyer, however, was the Plaintiff's attorney.
Meyer's role as the Plaintiff's attorney is legally distinguishable
from that of a corporate officer. Other than alleging that Meyer
acted as the Plaintiff's attorney, the Plaintiff has set forth no
facts showing it was a party to the conversation between Meyer and
Dufner. Therefore, the Appellate Court opines that the dismissal
was proper under section 2-619.

Even assuming, arguendo, that the Plaintiff had standing to bring
the action, dismissal was proper under section 2-615. The Appellate
Court finds that the Plaintiff also has not sufficiently alleged
facts showing that Mid-Century recorded a private conversation
between Dufner and Meyer. The Plaintiff has not, and cannot, allege
sufficient facts showing it intended the conversation between Meyer
and Dufner to be of a private nature under circumstances justifying
such an expectation. It must establish this expectation of privacy
to prevail on its eavesdropping claim. Therefore, dismissal of
plaintiff's complaint under section 2-615 was proper.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Cook County circuit
court is affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 24, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/zt8hzwe7 from Leagle.com.

William E. Meyer Jr. -- info@fklawfirm.com -- Blake W. Buether,
Vincent Formica -- vince@fklawfirm.com -- and Lauren K. Miller, of
Fuksa Khorshid, LLC, of Chicago, for the Appellant.

Brian I. Hays -- bhays@lockelord.com -- Randall A. Hack --
rhack@lockelord.com -- and Heidi L. Brady --
heidi.brady@lockelord.com -- of Locke Lord LLP, of Chicago, for the
Appellee.


MONARCHY MEDIA: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
KARLA SICAEROS, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL SIMILARLY SITUATED
EMPLOYEES, v. MONARCHY MEDIA, LLC, JURY DEMAND MICAELA RUDARI,
NICOLE TABS, ANDREA D'AGOSTINI, EMMET OSBOURN, DENTAL GAME PLAN,
AND JOSH SUMMERS, Case No. 6:23-cv-00411 (W.D. Tex., May 26, 2023)
is an action brought alleging violations of the minimum wage
provisions of the Texas Labor Code section 62.051 and the minimum
wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ms. Sicaeros works as a call center supervisor and project manager
from May 2020 until December 2022. As a call center supervisor and
later a project manager, the Plaintiff Sicaeros' primary duties
were to work with customers and clients of Defendant Dental Game
Plan and/or Defendant Monarchy.

The Defendant improperly classified her and the Plaintiff Class
Members as independent contractors and improperly deemed them as
exempt from the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the FLSA.
The Defendants treated the Plaintiff as an independent contractor
only for tax purposes and for the benefit and convenience of the
Defendants, the Plaintiff contends.

The Defendants have allegedly deprived the Plaintiff of proper
minimum wage for all hours worked and proper overtime compensation
for all of the hours worked over forty per week. The Defendants are
liable to the Plaintiff for monetary damages, liquidated damages
and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees provided by the
FLSA for all violations which occurred beginning at least three
years preceding the filing of the Plaintiff's initial complaint,
plus periods of equitable tolling, says the suit.

The proposed collective is defined as:

         All persons who worked for Defendants as Call Center
         employees, or as Project Managers, or in other positions
         that were classified as independent contractors at any
         time within three years prior to the commencement of this

         action, and who were not paid all wages earned and due for

         hours worked.

Monarchy is a marketing agency that specializes in providing the
best possible results.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark D. Downey, Esq.
          DOWNEY LAW GROUP LLC
          5308 Ashbrook
          Houston, TX 77081
          Telephone: (214) 764-7279
          E-mail: mdowney@dlawgrp.com

NATIONAL VISION: Continues to Defend Exchange Act Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
National Vision 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 11, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Exchange Act class suit
in Georgia.

On January 27, 2023, a purported class action complaint was filed
in federal court in the Northern District of Georgia against the
Company and two of the Company’s officers. The complaint alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 for materially false and misleading statements made between
May 2021 and May 2022.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages as well as equitable
relief.

On March 28, 2023, the original plaintiff, City of Southfield
General Employees Retirement System, and a new plaintiff,
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 793, Members
Pension Benefit Trust of Ontario, filed a lead plaintiff motion,
seeking to be appointed co-lead plaintiffs.

On April 3, 2023, the Company along with its named officers filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint.

The Company believes that the claims alleged are without merit and
intends to defend the litigation vigorously.

National Vision Holdings, Inc. is an optical retailer,
Headquartered in Duluth, Georgia. [BN]



NORTHSTAR CAFE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Highman Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY W. HIGHMAN, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. NORTHSTAR CAFE EASTON LLC, &
NORTHSTAR CAFE WESTERVILLE LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-01757-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio, May 25, 2023) arises out of the
Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, the Ohio
Constitution, Art. II Section 34a, and the Ohio common law of
unjust enrichment.

Allegedly, the Defendants has a company-wide practice to regularly
pay Plaintiffs a tipped hourly wage less than the statutory $7.25
per hour federal minimum wage and the relevant Ohio minimum wage.
They also rely on the "tip credit" provisions of the FLSA and Ohio
Wage Laws to satisfy their minimum wage obligations. However, the
Defendants require Plaintiffs to participate in a tip pooling
arrangement that takes their tips and pays them to non-customarily
and regularly tipped employees and to Defendants' management and
supervisory employees. They also compensate Plaintiffs for their
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek at either
one-and-a-half times the direct cash wage after application of the
tip credit under the relevant Ohio minimum wage instead of
one-and-a-half times the relevant Ohio minimum wage minus the tip
credit or one-and-a-half times the federal minimum wage instead of
the relevant Ohio minimum wage, says the suit.

Northstar Cafe Easton LLC is a domestic for-profit limited
liability company registered in the State of Ohio and is currently
headquartered in Columbus, OH. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

             Jacob A. Mikalov, Esq.
             Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
             BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP
             4200 Regent Street, Suite 210
             Columbus, OH 43219
             Telephone: (614) 221-4221
             Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
             E-mail: jmikalov@barkanmeizlish.com
                     bderose@barkanmeizlish.com

NORTHWELL HEALTH: Jackson Sues Over Labor Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
MAGGIE JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHWELL HEALTH INC., Defendant, Case No.
608412/2023 (N.Y., May 25, 2023) alleges that the Defendant
violated the New York Labor Law and the New York Wage Theft
Prevention Act.

In or around the summer of 2019, Plaintiff Jackson was hired by
Defendant to work as a standardized patient at Northwell located in
New Hyde Park, New York. Plaintiff's employment with Defendant was
terminated in September 2022 in retaliation after she raised wage
issues as well as potential race discrimination with regard to
standardized patients, says the suit.

The Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the NYLL due to
Defendant's failure to compensate her for her earned and due wages
and the WTPA for failing to provide accurate wage notices and
statements.

Northwell Health Inc. is New York State's largest private employer
and health care provider, with 22 hospitals and more than 830
outpatient facilities. Northwell Health Inc. is located at 2000
Marcus Avenue, New Hyde Park, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert J. Valli, Jr., Esq.
          VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP
          600 Old Country Road, Ste. 519
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7180
          Facsimile: (516) 706-0248

NOW OPTICS: Faces Velazquez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRYAN VELAZQUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NOW OPTICS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-04407 (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2023) arises out of the
Defendant's violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Plaintiff Velazquez alleges that the Defendant failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.myeyelab.com, to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people. He seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become
and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

Now Optics LLC is an eye health provider that offers eye care
services and eyewear products under the brands Stanton Optical and
My Eyelab. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

NUTANIX INC: Final Settlement Hearing Set for Oct. 4
----------------------------------------------------
Nutanix 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 24, 2023, that the final settlement hearing for
the consolidated securities class suit is set for October 4, 2023.


Beginning on March 29, 2019, several purported securities class
actions were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company and two of its
officers.

The initial complaints generally alleged that the defendants made
false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5.

In July 2019, the court consolidated the actions into a single
action, and appointed a lead plaintiff, who then filed a
consolidated amended complaint (the "Original Complaint").

The action was brought on behalf of those who purchased or
otherwise acquired its stock between November 30, 2017 and May 30,
2019, inclusive.

The defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the Original
Complaint, which the court granted on March 9, 2020, while
providing the lead plaintiff leave to amend.

On April 17, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint (the "Amended Complaint"), again naming the Company and
two of our officers as defendants.

The Amended Complaint alleges the same class period, includes many
of the same factual allegations as the Original Complaint, and
again alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act, as well as SEC Rule 10b-5.

The Amended Complaint sought monetary damages in an unspecified
amount.

On September 11, 2020, the court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss the Amended Complaint and held that the lead plaintiff
adequately stated a claim with respect to certain statements
regarding its new customer growth and sales productivity.

On January 27, 2021, lead plaintiff, Shimon Hedvat, filed a motion
to (i) withdraw as lead plaintiff and (ii) substitute proposed new
lead plaintiffs and approve their appointment of a new co-lead
counsel.

On March 1, 2021, the court granted the lead plaintiff’s motion
to withdraw as lead plaintiff but denied without prejudice his
motion to substitute proposed new lead plaintiffs.

The court also reopened the lead plaintiff selection process,
allowing any putative class member interested in serving as the new
lead plaintiff to file a lead plaintiff application.

Following the lead plaintiff selection hearing on April 28, 2021,
on June 10, 2021 the court appointed California Ironworkers Field
Pension Trust as lead plaintiff and approved its appointment of
counsel.

On May 28, 2021, one of the movants for lead plaintiff, John P.
Norton on behalf of the Norton Family Living Trust UAD 11/15/2002,
filed a separate class action complaint (the "Options Class Action
Complaint") in the Northern District of California on behalf of a
class of persons or entities who transacted in publicly traded call
options and/or put options on Nutanix stock during the period from
November 30, 2017 and May 30, 2019, containing allegations
substantively the same as those alleged in the Amended Complaint
(the "Options Class Action") and naming the same defendants.

On September 8, 2021, the court appointed the John P. Norton on
behalf of the Norton Family Living Trust UAD 11/15/2002 as the lead
plaintiff in the Options Class Action.

On April 26, 2022, the parties met for mediation, which did not
result in a settlement.

On September 1, 2022, California Ironworkers Field Pension Trust
filed a third amended complaint (which amends the Amended
Complaint, the "Third Amended Complaint") and John P. Norton on
behalf of the Norton Family Living Trust UAD 11/15/2002 filed an
amended complaint (which amends the Options Class Action Complaint,
the "First Amended Complaint").

On November 14, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Third Amended Complaint and the First Amended Complaint.

On February 9, 2023, the plaintiffs and the defendants agreed to a
mediator’s recommendation to settle these actions for a total of
$71.0 million, which has been accrued as of January 31, 2023 and is
included within accrued expenses and other current liabilities on
our condensed consolidated balance sheet.

On May 19, 2023, the court granted its preliminary approval of the
settlement and the notice to class members, and a final settlement
hearing is scheduled for October 4, 2023.

Nutanix Inc. provides a cloud platform, the Nutanix Cloud
Platform,
based in California.

OKTA INC: Discovery Ongoing on Remaining Claims
-----------------------------------------------
Okta Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending April 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 1, 2023, that discovery is ongoing for the
remaining claims of cybersecurity-related class suit in the

On May 20, 2022, a purported shareholder filed a putative class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain of its
executive officers, captioned In re Okta, Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 3:22-cv-02990. The lawsuit asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
alleging that the defendants made false or misleading statements or
omissions concerning the Company's cybersecurity controls,
vulnerability to data breaches, and the Company's integration of
Auth0, Inc.

The lawsuit seeks an order certifying the lawsuit as a class action
and unspecified damages.

The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

On March 31, 2023, the court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the motion to dismiss.

The court dismissed in full the claims based on plaintiff's
allegations related to the Company's cybersecurity controls and
vulnerability to data breaches, and dismissed in part and denied in
part the claims based on allegations related to the Auth0
integration.

Discovery will proceed with respect to the issues remaining in the
case.

Okta, Inc. is an independent identity Provider based in California.

PAYSIGN INC. Court Narrows Claims in Consolidated Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Paysign 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 United States District Court
for the District of Nevada denied and granted in part the motion of
Defendants to dismiss the consolidated Shi and Chase class suits on
February 9, 2023.

The Company has been named as a defendant in three complaints filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada:
Yilan Shi v. Paysign, Inc. et. al., filed on March 19, 2020
("Shi"), Lorna Chase v. Paysign, Inc. et. al., filed on March 25,
2020 ("Chase"), and Smith & Duvall v. Paysign, Inc. et. al., filed
on April 2, 2020 (collectively, the "Complaints" or "Securities
Class Action").

Smith & Duvall v. Paysign, Inc. et. al. was voluntarily dismissed
on May 21, 2020.

On May 18, 2020, the Shi plaintiffs and another entity called the
Paysign Investor Group each filed a motion to consolidate the
remaining Shi and Chase actions and to be appointed lead plaintiff.


The Complaints are putative class actions filed on behalf of a
class of persons who acquired the Company's common stock from March
19, 2019 through March 31, 2020, inclusive.

The Complaints generally allege that the Company, Mark R. Newcomer,
and Mark Attinger violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and
that Messrs. Newcomer and Attinger violated Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, by making materially false or misleading statements,
or failing to disclose material facts, regarding the Company's
internal control over financial reporting and its financial
statements.

The Complaints seek class action certification, compensatory
damages, and attorney's fees and costs.

On December 2, 2020, the Court consolidated Shi and Chase as In re
Paysign, Inc. Securities Litigation and appointed the Paysign
Investor Group as lead plaintiff.

On January 12, 2021, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint in the
consolidated action.

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint on March
15, 2021, which Plaintiffs opposed via an opposition brief filed on
April 29, 2021, to which Defendants replied on June 1, 2021.

On February 9, 2023, the Court granted in part and denied in part
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

Paysign Inc. is a provider of prepaid card products and processing
services for corporate, consumer and government applications based
in Nevada.


POWER SOLUTIONS: Treadwell Punitive Class Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Power Solutions International 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
Jerome Treadwell punitive class suit remains pending in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois.

In October 2018, a punitive class-action complaint was filed
against the Company and NOVAtime Technology, Inc. ("NOVAtime") in
the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.

In December 2018, NOVAtime removed the case to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division under
the Class Action Fairness Act.

Plaintiff has since voluntarily dismissed NOVAtime from the lawsuit
without prejudice and filed an amended complaint in April 2019.

The operative, amended complaint asserts violations of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") in connection with
employees' use of the time clock to clock in and clock out using a
finger scan and seeks statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and
injunctive and equitable relief.

An aggrieved party under BIPA may recover (i) $1,000 per violation
if the Company is found to have negligently violated BIPA or (ii)
$5,000 per violation if the Company is found to have intentionally
or recklessly violated BIPA plus reasonable attorneys' fees.

In May 2019, the Company filed its motion to dismiss the
plaintiff’s amended complaint.

In December 2019, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss.
In January 2020, the Company moved for reconsideration of the
court’s order denying the motion to dismiss, or in the
alternative, to stay the case pending the Illinois Appellate
Court’s ruling in McDonald v. Symphony Healthcare on a legal
question that would be potentially dispositive in this matter.

In February 2020, the court denied the Company's motion for
reconsideration, but required the parties to submit additional
briefing on the Company's motion to stay.

In April 2020, the court granted the Company's motion to stay and
stayed the case pending the Illinois Appellate Court's ruling in
McDonald v. Symphony Healthcare.

In October 2020, after the McDonald ruling, the court granted the
parties' joint request to continue the stay of the case for 60
days.

The court also ordered the parties to schedule a settlement
conference with the Magistrate Judge in May 2021 which went forward
without a settlement being reached.

The stay remains in place pending further guidance from the Court.


Power Solutions International, Inc. designs, engineers,
manufactures, markets, and sells engines and power systems
primarily in North America, the Pacific Rim, and Europe. Power
Solutions International, Inc. was founded in 1985 and is
headquartered in Wood Dale, Illinois.






PURE HEALTH: Hernandez Sues Over Private Info's Unlawful Disclosure
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GABRIELA HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PURE HEALTH RESEARCH LLC, a
Wyoming limited liability company d/b/a PUREHEALTHRESEARCH.COM,
Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00971-BAS-DEB (S.D. Cal., May 25, 1986)
arises out of the Defendant's violations of the Video Privacy
Protection Act.

When Plaintiff played the video on www.purehealthresearch.com, the
Defendant knowingly disclosed the title to Google, along with
numerous identifiers that constitute personally identifiable
information. In addition, the Defendant used that data to build
audiences on Google and retarget them for its advertising, says the
suit.

Pure Health Research LLC is a manufacturer and seller of
nutritional supplements based in Virginia. It also owns, operates,
and/or controls the website and offers multiple videos for
consumers to view and play through the website. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
           PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation
           4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
           Newport Beach, CA 92660
           Telephone: (949) 706-6464
           Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
           E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com

SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Securities Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Spectrum Pharmaceuticals 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
consolidated securities class suits in the U.S. District Court,
District of Nevada.

Luo v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court,
District of Nevada, Case No. 2:21-cv-01612.

On August 31, 2021, this putative securities class action lawsuit
was filed by a purported shareholder, alleging that we and certain
of the Company’s current and former executive officers and
directors made false or misleading statements and failed to
disclose material facts about its business and the prospects of
approval for our BLA to the FDA for eflapegrastim (ROLVEDON) in
violation of Section 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act").

On November 1, 2021, four individuals and one entity filed
competing motions to be appointed lead plaintiff and for approval
of counsel.

On July 28, 2022, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and counsel
for the putative class.

On September 26, 2022, an amended complaint was filed alleging,
inter alia, false and misleading statements with respect to
ROLVEDON manufacturing operations and controls and added
allegations that defendants misled investors about the efficacy of,
clinical trial data and market need for Poziotinib between a Class
Period of March 7, 2018 and August 5, 2021.

The amended complaint seeks damages, interest, costs, attorneys’
fees, and such other relief as determined by the Court.

On November 30, 2022, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, which motion is pending.

There is no hearing date presently scheduled.

Three additional related putative securities class action lawsuits
were subsequently filed by shareholders against us in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York: Osorio-Franco
v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-10292
(filed December 5, 2022); Cummings v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-10677 (filed December 19, 2022); and
Carneiro v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:23-cv-00767 (filed January 30, 2023). These three New York
lawsuits allege that we and certain of our executive officers and
directors made false or misleading statements about, inter alia,
the safety and efficacy of and clinical trial data for Poziotinib
in violation of Section 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and seek remedies
including damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and such other
relief as determined by the Court.

The Osorio-Franco and Cummings lawsuits allege Class Periods
between December 6, 2021 and September 22, 2022.

The Carneiro lawsuit alleges a Class Period between July 27, 2020
and September 22, 2022, which overlaps with the Luo action Class
Period.

On February 15, 2023, the Court consolidated the three New York
lawsuits, with Osorio-Franco as the lead case.

On March 21, 2023, the Court entered an order designating Steven
Christiansen as lead plaintiff.

The Company believes that all of the putative securities class
action lawsuit claims are without merit and intends to vigorously
defend against these claims.

Spectrum purports to be a biopharmaceutical company focused on
acquiring, developing, and commercializing novel and targeted
oncology therapies.[BN]


SPERO THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Spero 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 11, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the consolidated Germond and Memom class
suits in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York.

Two putative class action lawsuits were filed against the Company
and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, one captioned Richard S. Germond
v. Spero Therapeutics, Inc., Ankit Mahadevia, and Satyavrat Shukla,
Case No. 1:22-cv-03125, filed on May 26, 2022, and the other
captioned Kashif Memon v. Spero Therapeutics, Inc., Ankit
Mahadevia, and Satyavrat Shukla Case No. 1:22-cv-04154, filed on
July 15, 2022.

The parties moved to consolidate the two complaints on July 22,
2022, which were ordered consolidated on August 5, 2022.

Both Mr. Memon and stockholder Nabil Saad filed motions for
appointment of lead plaintiff/lead counsel on July 25, 2022.

Mr. Saad withdrew his opposition on August 15, 2022, and Mr. Memon
was appointed lead plaintiff on September 19, 2022.

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of stockholders who
purchased the Company's common stock from May 6, 2021 through May
2, 2022 (Mr. Memon's complaint alleged a six-month longer class
period than the complaint originally filed by Mr. Germond).

The complaint generally alleges that the Company and certain of its
officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the
New Drug Application for tebipenem HBr in an effort to lead
investors to believe that the drug would receive approval from the
FDA.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys’
fees, and other costs.

Mr. Memon filed an amended complaint on December 5, 2022.

The amended complaint generally restates the same allegations
contained in the original complaint.

The Court held a pre-motion conference on February 22, 2023 and set
a date of June 21, 2023 for the Company to file its fully-briefed
motion to dismiss, including Plaintiffs' opposition.

The Company denies any allegations of wrongdoing and intends to
vigorously defend against this lawsuit.

Spero Therapeutics, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical
company which focuses on identifying, developing, and
commercializing treatments for multi-drug resistant bacterial
infections and rare diseases in the United States.[BN]


SUNVALLEYTEK INTERNATIONAL: Bid for Preliminary Injunction Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID OH, v. SUNVALLEYTEK
INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-00866-SVK (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Susan Van Keulen entered an order denying the
Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction.

The Court said, "The Plaintiff's motion must be denied for several
other reasons. First, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff in
support of his motion for preliminary injunction is not
authenticated by an affidavit or declaration. "Factual contentions
made in support of or in opposition to any motion must be supported
by an affidavit or declaration and by appropriate references to the
record." "Extracts from depositions, interrogatory answers,
requests for admission, and other evidentiary matters must be
appropriately authenticated by an affidavit or declaration." Here,
the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction relies on
documents that were attached to the motion with no authenticating
affidavit or declaration."

The Plaintiff then relies on the revenue and cash asset numbers in
the Defendant's balance sheets to argue that the Defendant "has a
history of sending nearly all of its earnings to its parent
entities in China."

However, the "evidence" relied upon is not sufficient to establish
that the Defendant is transferring assets outside the United States
or that the Defendant's conduct will impair the Court's ability to
grant the final relief requested absent an asset-freezing
preliminary injunction.

In this putative class action, the Plaintiff Oh alleges that the
Sunvalleytek, which makes, sells and markets consumer electronics,
paid for high ratings and reviews of its products on websites like
Amazon.com without disclosing this information to consumers.

The Defendant Sunvalleytek is a California corporation with its
principal place of business in San Jose, California. According to
an amended corporate disclosure Sunvalleytek filed in this case, it
is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sunvalley (HK) limited.

In 2019, the Plaintiff purchased three products sold by the
Defendant on Amazon.com. He claims that he read and relied on
product reviews when making these purchases. The Plaintiff alleges
that despite the positive reviews of the products he purchased,
they were poorly made and of low quality.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of consumers who purchased
the Defendant's products.

According to the FAC, Amazon delisted the Defendant's products in
or around June 2021 because the Defendant's product review
practices violated Amazon's terms of service.

In the motion for preliminary injunction, the Plaintiff claims that
the Defendant has brought an arbitration against Amazon, seeking
over $4 million that Amazon allegedly owes for past sales.

The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is in briefing and
set for hearing on July 11, 2023.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42e9rz4 at no extra charge.[CC]


TALIS BIOMEDICAL: Continues to Defend Modrak Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Talis Biomedical 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 11, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend Modrak class suit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.

On or about January 7, 2022, John Modrak filed a class action in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company, certain of its officers and
directors, and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, BofA Securities, Inc.,
Piper Sandler & Co., and BTIG, LLC, underwriters of its February
2021 initial public offering (“IPO”), captioned as Modrak v.
Talis Biomedical Corp., et al., No. 3:22-cv-00105, purportedly on
behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of its stock that were
registered in its IPO.

On February 18, 2022, Karen Mitcham filed a substantively identical
lawsuit in the same court captioned as Mitcham v. Talis Biomedical
Corp., et al., No. 3:22-cv-01039-JD, against the Company, and the
same officers and directors as the Modrak lawsuit.

The complaints alleged that its registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with our IPO was false and
misleading and omitted to state material adverse facts related to
the comparator test used in its primary study, its EUA application
for its Talis One COVID-19 test system, and associated regulatory
approval and commercialization.

The complaints sought unspecified damages under Section 11 and
Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act"), and
reasonable attorneys’ and expert witnesses’ fees and other
costs.

These two cases have been consolidated and co-lead plaintiffs have
been appointed as mandated by the applicable federal securities
laws.

On December 9, 2022, the Court granted its motion to dismiss and
plaintiffs leave to amend their consolidated complaint.

On January 13, 2023, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
asserting claims for violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act
against all defendants and Section 15 of the Securities Act against
the individual defendants and seeking unspecified damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and other costs.

The consolidated complaint does not assert claims against the
above-referenced underwriters.

On April 28, 2023, the Court denied its motion to dismiss.

The Company disputes these claims and intends to defend these
matters vigorously.

Talis purportedly develops diagnostic tests to enable accurate,
reliable, low cost, and rapid molecular testing for infectious
diseases and other conditions at the point-of-care. The Talis One
tests are being developed for respiratory infections, infections
related to women's health, and sexually transmitted infections.
The
Individual Defendants are officers and directors of the
company.[BN]


TARGET CORP: Continues to Defend Federal Securities Law Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Corp.  disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending April 29, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 26, 2023, that the Company continues to defend
itself from federal securities class suit in the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota.

On March 29, 2023, Target Corporation and certain of its officers
were named as defendants in a purported federal securities law
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
relating to certain prior disclosures of Target about its business
model, strategy, and inventory.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired Target common stock between August
18, 2021 and May 17, 2022.

The plaintiff seeks damages and other relief, including attorneys'
fees, based on allegations that the defendants misled investors
about Target's business model, strategy, and inventory and that
such conduct affected the value of Target common stock.

Target intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit.

Target Corporation is an American retail corporation,
headquartered
in Minneapolis, Minnesota. [BN]




TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Suit Over QVAR Anticompetitive Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
UTAH-IDAHO TEAMSTERS SECURITY FUND, on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.; TEVA
PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; TEVA BRANDED PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS
R&D, INC.; and NORTON (WATERFORD) LTD., Case No. 1:23-cv-11198-PGL
(D. Mass., May 26, 2023) alleges that Teva and its affiliates,
embarked on a nearly decade-long (and continuing) anticompetitive
scheme to delay generic competition for QVAR, its blockbuster line
of brand name asthma inhalers.

This suit is brought under federal and state antitrust laws and
state unfair trade practices law to recover the overcharges
sustained by end-payors for QVAR and QVAR Redihaler, and to enjoin
further extensions to Teva's unlawful monopoly.

The Plaintiff contends that Teva knowingly and intentionally
engaged in an anticompetitive scheme designed to block and delay
entry of AB-rate generic versions of QVAR and QVAR Redihaler to
maintain is market power. This scheme included:

        Wrongfully causing ineligible patents to be listed in the
        Orange Book as QVAR drug product patents to extend Teva's
        monopoly from July 2015 until November 2017;

        Executing a hard-switch product hop from QVAR to QVAR
        Redihaler to destroy the market for AB-rated generic
        equivalents of QVAR;

        Wrongfully causing device patents to be listed in the
        Orange Book as claiming the drug product QVAR Redihaler to

        frustrate would-be competitors;

        Manufacturing a near-indefinite bottleneck in generic QVAR

        competition by deliberately not suing Amneal and its
        duplicitous stipulations with Cipla and Aurobindo;

        Agreeing with Amneal to delay generic competition; and

        Preparing for a second product hop from QVAR Redihaler to
        QVAR Digihaler.

QVAR is a drug-device combination: an asthma medication called
beclomethasone dipropionate HFA placed into an inhaler device. In
the mid-to late 2000s, Teva acquired the rights to QVAR, a
medication that millions of people rely on to prevent
life-threatening asthma attacks.

Although Teva's last valid drug-product patent expired in July
2015, there is still -- today, eight years later -- no generic
version of QVAR available to patients, and health plans and other
payors are continuing to pay supracompetitive prices to ensure that
their members can breathe. Even eight years of improper monopoly is
not enough to slake Teva's greed. Teva recently announced the next
phase of its anticompetitive scheme: it plans to -- sometime in the
near future -- execute a second product hop, from the QVAR
Redihaler to yet another inhaler device called the QVAR Digihaler.
If Teva's anticompetitive scheme is not brought to a halt, that
product hop could extend Teva's unlawfully prolonged monopoly for
another twenty years, says the suit.

As a direct and proximate result of Teva's unlawful maintenance of
market power, the Plaintiff and members of the class have been
injured in their business or property by Teva’s antitrust
violations. Their injury consists of having paid, and continuing to
pay, higher prices for their beclomethasone dipropionate products
than they would have paid in the absence of those violations. Such
injury in the form of overcharges is an injury of the type
antitrust laws were designed to prevent and remedy, and flows from
that which makes Teva’s conduct unlawful. The Plaintiff and
members of the class are the proper entities to bring a case
concerning this conduct. Were it not for Teva's overarching
anticompetitive scheme, affordable generic versions of QVAR would
have become available years ago. Indeed, generic QVAR has been
marketed and sold for years outside the United States, including in
the UK, India, and Australia. Pharmacists would have substituted
affordable generic QVAR for more expensive brand-name
prescriptions. And the Plaintiff and members of the class would
have saved, collectively, hundreds of millions, if not billions, of
dollars in prescription reimbursements, the suit further contends.

Utah-Idaho Teamsters is a multiemployer health and welfare plan
headquartered in Utah that provides self-funded healthcare coverage
to over 3,000 employees and their family members.

Teva Pharmaceutical is an Israeli multinational pharmaceutical
company, specializing primarily in generic drugs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kathleen M. Donovan-Maher, Esq.
          Leslie R. Stern, Esq.
          Steven L. Groopman, Esq.
          Kristie A. LaSalle, Esq.
          Christina L. Gregg, Esq.
          Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Esq.
          Nicole Lavallee, Esq.
          Todd A. Seaver, Esq.
          Matthew D. Pearson, Esq.
          BERMAN TABACCO
          One Liberty Square
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 542-8300
          Facsimile: (617) 542-1194
          E-mail: kdonovanmaher@bermantabacco.com
                  lstern@bermantabacco.com
                  sgroopman@bermantabacco.com
                  klasalle@bermantabacco.com
                  cgregg@bermantabacco.com
                  jtabacco@bermantabacco.com
                  nlavallee@bermantabacco.com
                  tseaver@bermandetabacco.com
                  mpearson@bermantabacco.com

                - and -

          Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
          Eamon Kelly, Esq.
          Martin V. Sinclair, Jr., Esq.
          David Lesht, Esq.
          SPERLING & SLATER, LLC
          55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3200
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 641-3200
          E-mail: jvanek@sperling-law.com
                  ekelly@sperling-law.com
                  msinclair@sperling-law.com
                  dlesht@sperling-law.com

                - and -

          Steve D. Shadowen, Esq.
          Richard M. Brunell, Esq.
          Matthew C. Weiner, Esq.
          Tina J. Miranda, Esq.
          HILLIARD & SHADOWEN LLP
          1135 W. 6th Street, Suite 125
          Austin, TX 78703
          Telephone: (855) 344-3298
          E-mail: steve@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
                  rbrunell@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
                  matt@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
                  tmiranda@hilliardshadowenlaw.com

TMC THE METALS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
TMC the Metals Co 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 Caper and Tran class suits
in the Eastern District of New York.

On October 28, 2021, a shareholder filed a putative class action
against us, one of our executive and former director in federal
district court for the Eastern District of New York, captioned
Caper v. TMC The Metals Company Inc. F/K/A Sustainable
Opportunities Acquisition Corp., Gerard Barron and Scott Leonard.

The complaint alleges that all defendants violated Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
Messrs. Barron and Leonard violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to
disclose information about our operations and prospects during the
period from March 4, 2021 and October 5, 2021.

On November 15, 2021, a second complaint containing substantially
the same allegations was filed, captioned Tran v. TMC the Metals
Company, Inc.

These cases have been consolidated. On March 6, 2022, a lead
plaintiff was selected.

An amended complaint was filed on May 12, 2022, reflecting
substantially similar allegations.

The Plaintiff is seeking to recover compensable damages caused by
the alleged wrongdoings.

The Company denies any allegations of wrongdoing and have filed and
served the plaintiff a motion to dismiss on July 12, 2022 and
intend to defend against this lawsuit.

On September 26, 2022, the motion to dismiss was fully briefed and
the parties are awaiting a ruling.

There is no assurance, however, that the Company or the other
defendants will be successful in its defense of this lawsuit or
that insurance will be available or adequate to fund any settlement
or judgment or the litigation costs of this action. If the motion
to dismiss is unsuccessful, there is a possibility that we may
incur a loss in this matter.

TMC is a deep-sea minerals exploration company focused on the
collection, processing and refining of polymetallic nodules found
on the seafloor in international waters of the Clarion Clipperton
Zone, about 1,300 nautical miles south-west of San Diego,
California.

UNDER ARMOUR: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Under Armour 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 24, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the consolidated securities class suits in
the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.

On March 23, 2017, three separate securities cases previously filed
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland (the "District Court") were consolidated under
the caption In re Under Armour Securities Litigation, Case No.
17-cv-00388-RDB (the "Consolidated Securities Action").

On November 6 and December 17, 2019, two additional putative
securities class actions were filed in the District Court against
the Company and certain of its current and former executives
(captioned Patel v. Under Armour, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-03209-RDB
("Patel"), and Waronker v. Under Armour, Inc., No.
1:19-cv-03581-RDB ("Waronker"), respectively).

On September 14, 2020, the District Court issued an order that,
among other things, consolidated the Patel and Waronker cases into
the Consolidated Securities Action.

The operative complaint (the Third Amended Complaint or the "TAC")
in the Consolidated Securities Action, was filed on October 14,
2020.

The TAC asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"),
against the Company and Mr. Plank and under Section 20A of the
Exchange Act against Mr. Plank.

The TAC alleges that the defendants supposedly concealed
purportedly declining consumer demand for certain of the Company's
products between the third quarter of 2015 and the fourth quarter
of 2016 by making allegedly false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's performance and future prospects and by
engaging in undisclosed and allegedly improper sales and accounting
practices, including shifting sales between quarterly periods
allegedly to appear healthier.

The TAC also alleges that the defendants purportedly failed to
disclose that the Company was under investigation by and
cooperating with the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") and the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") since July
2017.

The class period identified in the TAC is September 16, 2015
through November 1, 2019.

Discovery in the Consolidated Securities Action commenced on June
4, 2021 and is currently ongoing.

On July 23, 2021, the Company and Mr. Plank filed an answer to the
TAC denying all allegations of wrongdoing and asserting affirmative
defenses to the claims asserted in the TAC.

On December 1, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking, among
other things, certification of the class they are seeking to
represent in the Consolidated Securities Action.

On September 29, 2022, the court granted the plaintiffs' class
certification motion.

The Company continues to believe that the claims asserted in the
Consolidated Securities Action are without merit and intends to
defend the lawsuit vigorously.

Under Armour Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes a
range of apparel and accessories using synthetic microfiber
fabrications in the U.S. and internationally. The company was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland.


UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: Class Suit Over Student Fee Refund Settled
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Verges of Inforum reports that the University of Minnesota has
settled a class-action lawsuit over student fee refunds it issued
early in the coronavirus pandemic.

The case had been scheduled for trial next week in Hennepin County.
Instead, attorneys for each side will draft a formal settlement
agreement and present it to the judge for approval sometime in the
next 45 days, according to a letter to the court from one of the
plaintiffs' attorneys.

Eventually, some 60,000 students who paid mandatory student fees at
one of the university's five campuses during the spring 2020
semester could get additional money back, but the dollar amounts
haven't been disclosed.

The university in 2020 issued $35.4 million in prorated refunds for
housing, dining and parking contracts and various student fees
after shutting down the campus in an effort to slow the spread of
the coronavirus.

Students got back only half of their prorated fees for student
government and student services, however, and no refunds for fees
connected to building improvements and football stadium debt.

Twin Cities students Steven Staubus and Patrick Hyatte filed
separate lawsuits against the university in 2020, seeking larger
refunds. The two cases were consolidated, and a judge last November
granted class certification.

At issue in the case was whether or not marketing materials create
an "implied contract" about the services students can expect to
receive on campus. Courts in other jurisdictions have reached
conflicting conclusions on that question.

Hennepin County District Judge Laurie Miller found the plaintiffs'
argument more persuasive, writing in December that the U of M's
decision to issue partial refunds suggested the Board of Regents
felt students didn't get what they paid for.

"As the University has admitted, Plaintiffs were entitled to
receive something in exchange for those fees. And the University
made partial refunds, which can be construed as a recognition by
the University that it was not delivering what it promised when it
collected the Mandatory Fees," Miller wrote as she denied the
university's motion to stop the lawsuit.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs did not respond to requests for
information on the settlement, and a spokesman for the university
said he had no details to share. [GN]

VERU INC: Continues to Defend Ewing Class Suit in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
Veru 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 Ewing class suit in the Southern District of Florida.

On December 5, 2022, a putative class action complaint was filed in
federal district court for the Southern District of Florida (Ewing
v. Veru Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-23960) against the Company
and certain of its current officers and directors (the "Ewing
Complaint").

The Ewing Complaint alleges that certain public statements about
sabizabulin as a treatment for COVID-19 between May 11, 2022 and
November 9, 2022 violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The Company believes that the allegations asserted in the Ewing
Complaint are without merit, and the Company intends to vigorously
defend the lawsuit.

Veru is primarily an oncology-based biopharmaceutical company that
develops drugs for the management of breast and prostate cancers.
Veru also develops medicines for COVID-19 and other diseases
related to viral and acute respiratory distress syndrome ("ARDS"),
and has two FDA-approved products for sexual health.[BN]

VOYA RETIREMENT: Continues to Defend Ravarino Class Suit in Conn.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Voya Retirement Insurance & Annuity Co. 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 Ravarino class suit in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.

Litigation 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, which include the Company, 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 Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company, together with its
subsidiaries, operates as a stock life insurance company in the
United States. The company was formerly known as ING Life
Insurance
and Annuity Company and changed its name to Voya Retirement
Insurance and Annuity Company in September 2014. The company is
based in Windsor, Connecticut. Voya Retirement Insurance and
Annuity Company operates as a subsidiary of Voya Institutional
Plan
Services, LLC.


WAITR HOLDINGS: Bobby's Class Suit Stayed
------------------------------------------
Waitr 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 11, 2023, that the litigation in
Bobby’s Country class suit is currently stayed while it proceeds
on appeal.

In April 2019, the Company was named as a defendant in a class
action complaint filed by certain current and former restaurant
partners, captioned Bobby's Country Cookin', LLC, et al v. Waitr
Holdings Inc., which is currently pending in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.

The plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract and violation
of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and they seek recovery
on behalf of themselves and two separate classes.

Based on the current class definitions, as many as 10,000
restaurant partners could be members of the two separate classes at
issue.

In February 2022, the parties reached a proposed settlement in
principle to resolve the litigation in its entirety and requested a
stay of the pending litigation.

Ultimately, no settlement agreement was executed by the parties nor
was District Court approval obtained. Consequently, the stay of the
litigation was briefly lifted until the District Court certified
its ruling on a motion for summary judgment for immediate appeal.

The litigation is currently stayed while the matter proceeds on
appeal.

Waitr Holdings, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business located in Lake Charles, Louisiana.  According
to
the Company's profile, Waitr purports to be a leading online food
ordering and delivery service connecting local restaurants to
diners in underserved markets via its Web site and mobile
application ("app") Waitrapp.com.[BN]

WAITR HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Jenson Class Suit in Minnesota
------------------------------------------------------------------
Waitr 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 11, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from Jenson class suit in the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota.

In November 2022, the Company was named as a defendant in Jenson et
al v. Bitesquad.com, LLC, No. 22-cv-03044 (NEB), filed in Minnesota
state court. The plaintiffs, three customers purporting to
represent a class, allege that the Company's advertising is false
and misleading in that the Company's "free delivery" promotions
violate the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Practices Act and the
Minnesota False Statement in Advertising Act as a result of the
Company charging "other fees" on such orders that plaintiffs assert
constitute a "delivery charge."

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages as well as injunctive and
declaratory relief.

The Company removed the case to the United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota under the Class Action Fairness Act.


Based on the existence of an arbitration provision in the BiteSquad
website "terms and conditions" section, the Company then moved to
compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act.

The parties briefed and presented arguments on this motion to the
court on March 8, 2023 and are waiting on the court's ruling.

The Company believes that this lawsuit lacks merit and that it has
strong defenses to all claims alleged.

The Company continues to vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Waitr Holdings, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business located in Lake Charles, Louisiana.  According
to
the Company's profile, Waitr purports to be a leading online food
ordering and delivery service connecting local restaurants to
diners in underserved markets via its Web site and mobile
application ("app") Waitrapp.com.[BN]

Y & W CORP: McBride Sues Over Unlawful Tip Pooling Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIE MCBRIDE and ANITA LEDESMA, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs Y & W CORP., d/b/a The Tangy
Crab, OHANA SUSHI CORP. d/b/a Ohana Sushi, Z & W RESTAURANTS, INC.,
d/b/a Tangy Crab of Flint, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-00540 (W.D. Mich., May 25, 2023) arises out of the
Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Michigan Minimum Wage Law,  and the Michigan Improved Workforce
Opportunity Wage Act.

Plaintiff McBride worked for Defendants at their Tangy Crab and
Ohana Sushi locations from approximately May 2021 to April 2022 and
Plaintiff Ledesma worked at the Defendants' Tangy Crab location in
Lansing, MI from approximately June 15, 2021 to October 30, 2022.
Both McBride and Ledesma are servers and tipped employees for
Defendants throughout their employment. Among other things, McBride
and Ledesma allege that the Defendants maintain an unlawful tip
pooling arrangement, which violated the minimum wage and overtime
provisions of the FLSA and Michigan Minimum Wage Law.

Y & W Corp. d/b/a Tangy Crab ("Tangy Crab") is a Michigan company
maintaining its principal place of business in Lansing, Michigan,
which is located within the Western District of Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

            David M. Blanchard, Esq.
            Kelly R. McClintock, Esq.
            BLANCHARD & WALKER PLLC
            221 N. Main Street, Suite 300
            Ann Arbor, MI 48104
            Telephone: (734) 929-4313
            E-mail: blanchard@bwlawonline.com
                    mcclintock@bwlawonline.com

ZOOM VIDEO: 9th Cir. Junks Approval of Final Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
Zoom Video Communications Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ending April 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 25, 2023, that the Ninth
circuit dismissed the court's final settlement approval new appeal
of plaintiffs.

Beginning on March 30, 2020, multiple putative class actions were
filed against us in various U.S. federal district courts and state
courts relating to our alleged privacy and security practices,
including alleged data sharing with third parties (the "U.S.
Privacy Class Actions"). The plaintiffs claim violations of a
variety of state consumer protection and privacy laws, and also
assert state constitutional and common law claims, such as
negligence and unjust enrichment.

The U.S. Privacy Class Actions seek to certify both nationwide and
state-specific classes of individuals using the Company's services
in certain time periods.

The plaintiffs seek various forms of injunctive and monetary
relief, including restitution, statutory and actual damages,
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. The federal cases have been
transferred to and consolidated in the NDCA with our consent; lead
plaintiffs' counsel have been appointed; and plaintiffs filed their
first amended consolidated class action complaint on October 28,
2020.

On March 11, 2021, the court granted in part, and denied in part,
our motion to dismiss, and gave plaintiffs leave to amend.

On July 30, 2021, we entered into a settlement agreement with
plaintiffs to settle the action on a classwide basis, and
plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement with the court on July 31, 2021.

On October 21, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved the
settlement.

Under the terms of the settlement, we have paid $85.0 million into
an escrow account that will be used to pay claims filed by
settlement class members, attorneys' fees and expenses,
administrative costs, and service payments to plaintiffs.

On April 21, 2022, the Court granted final approval of the
settlement.

On May 19, 2022, two objectors to the settlement appealed the
Court's final approval order.

On May 20, 2022, a third objector appealed the Court’s final
approval order.

On October 17, 2022, the Company plaintiffs, and all three
objector-appellants agreed to settle the appeals, and on October
27, 2022, the Company and plaintiffs initiated proceedings in the
district court to obtain Court approval of the settlements, which
the district court approved on December 16, 2022.

On January 13, 2023, a new objector appealed the court's December
16, 2022 approval of the settlements of the prior appeals, and on
March 31, 2023, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the new appeal.

With the appeals resolved, the class action settlement is final and
the settlement administrator will be making payments to claimants.


Zoom Video Communications, Inc. and its subsidiaries connect
people
through its core unified communications offering, which brings
together video, phone, chat, webinars events, and contact center,
and enables meaningful experiences across disparate devices and
locations.


                            *********

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 ***