---

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

              Thursday, June 15, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 120

                            Headlines

1ST FRANKLIN: 5 Georgia Deceptive Practice Act Suits Consolidated
1ST FRANKLIN: Ct. Appoints Mason LLP as Interim Counsel in Allen
1ST FRANKLIN: Ct. Appoints Mason LLP as Interim Counsel in Dunn
1ST FRANKLIN: Ct. Appoints Mason LLP as Interim Counsel in Moreland
A&F IMPERIO: Guevara Sues Laundry Workers' Unpaid Wages

A1 HD TOWING: Underpays Tow Truck Drivers, Pennington Suit Says
AGL ENERGY: Breaches Competition and Consumer Law, Suit Says
ALLY BANK: $325K Class Deal in Velazquez Suit Wins Prelim. Approval
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Class Suit Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duty
AUSTRALIA: Hearings Begin in Torres Strait Islands' Climate Suit

BANK OF GREENE: Class Settlement in Broockmann Suit Wins Prelim. OK
BINANCE HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over Stolen Cryptocurrency
BINANCE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Alleged Profiteering
BP EXPLORATION: Cook Testimony Excluded; Howard Claims Dismissed
BRIGHT DATA: Faces Class Suit Over Scraping Minors' Data from IG

C M RICHEY: Yuquilema Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Electricians
CITRIX SYSTEMS: $2.75MM TCPA Class Settlement Granted Final OK
COWHAND SADDLERY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Guillot Suit Claims
DAVENPORT HOTEL: Faces Class Action Over Building Collapse
DIRECT ENERGY: Dickson's Class Suit Continues Over TCPA Violations

DOUBLEDOWN INTERACTIVE: Settles Casino Games Class Suit for $415M
FIVE GUYS: Class Counsel in Lusk Suit Must File Billing Records
FLORIDA STATE: Faces Class Suit Over State Discrimination
FORD MOTOR: Denial of Bid for Arbitration in Miller Suit Reversed
GKN DRIVELINE: Mebane Appeals Class Decertification Ruling

GLENN O. HAWBAKER: Faces Class Action Over Benefit Plan Payments
GLOBAL TRAVEL: Sides Appeals Class Cert Bid Denial & Summ. Judgment
GOLFTEC INTELLECTUAL: Winegard Suit Dismissed for Lack of Standing
GOOGLE LLC: Illinoisans Set to Receive BIPA Settlement Payout
GOOGLE LLC: October 12 Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set

HAMILTON COVE: Appellate Ruling in Consumer Fraud Suit Discussed
HANAM DAEJI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Pirir Suit Says
HORIZON HEALTH: Hearing Begins in Suit Over Use of Oxytocin Drug
INDIANA: Lawsuit Over Abortion Ban Granted Class Certification
INSIGNIA FINANCIAL: Trial in Shareholders' Class Suit Commenced

ISAACS ROOFING: Zelaya Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Roof Installers
LBA HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Davis Suit Alleges
MCDONALD'S CORP: Bid to Reconsider Dismissal in Misleading Suit
MERCER UNIVERSITY: Faces Three New Class Actions Over Data Breach
MICHIGAN: Sixth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Does 1-5 Complaint

MONUMENT INC: Sued Over Unlawful Disclosure of Private Info
OHIO: Kelly Allowed to Amend Complaint v. ORDC Dir. Chambers-Smith
ORIGNAL PIZZA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hernandez Suit Says
PAWN AMERICA: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Thomas Suit
PROGREXION HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Workers' Abrupt Termination

PUBLIC SERVICE: Faces Class Action Over "Junk Solicitations"
RAPID ARMORED: Fails to Pay Overtime Premiums, Ortiz Suit Claims
SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CA: Handling of Inmates Violates Law, Jury Says
SENTINELONE INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
SHAKEY'S USA: Faces Conway Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices

SOUTH AFRICA: Faces Class Suit Over Hammanskraal Cholera Outbreak
SOUTHERN POVERTY: Completion of Class Discovery Due April 16, 2024
TINGO GROUP: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Class Action
TRANSAMERICA CORPORATION: Smith Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi
TRIWIN INC: Molloy Files Suit in C.D. California

UINTAH BASIN HEALTHCARE: Halton Files Suit in D. Utah
UNION PACIFIC: Fitness-For-Duty Policy Violates ADA, Cromeens Says
UNISERVE PROJECT: Jackson Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages for Mail Clerks
VAN BUREN COUNTY, MI: Viser Appeals Protective Order in Wayside
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Settles Class Action Over 401(k) Plan

VF OUTDOOR INC: Ramirez Suit Removed to N.D. California
WALGREEN EASTERN: Johnson Suit Removed to D. Connecticut
WATERMARK SERVICES: Harris Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
WAYFINDER FAMILY: Ratliff Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensation
WELLNOW URGENT CARE: Sears Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

WESTROCK SERVICES: Quiles Suit Removed to N.D. California
WINGSTUFF.COM INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
YUM! BRANDS INC: Ester Suit Removed to W.D. Kentucky
ZOA ENERGY LLC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ZURN INDUSTRIES: Hernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California

[*] European Union Set to Roll Out New Class Action Directive

                            *********

1ST FRANKLIN: 5 Georgia Deceptive Practice Act Suits Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1st Franklin Financial 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 15, 2023, that the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
consolidated five putative Georgia Deceptive Practices Act class
suits.

Between March and April 2023, five putative class action lawsuits
were filed against the Company in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia.

The complaints generally assert claims of negligence, breach of
implied contract and, in one case, violations of the Georgia
Deceptive Practices Act, on behalf of a putative class of
individuals whose personally identifiable information ("PII") was
accessed in the previously disclosed November 2022 cyber-attack on
the Company and related data breach.

The plaintiffs are seeking equitable and injunctive relief and an
unspecified amount of damages in connection with their claims, as
well as an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against these matters.

On May 4, 2023, the Court entered a sua sponte Order consolidating
all five (5) cases into one which is captioned Morehead v. 1st
Franklin Financial Corporation, Case No. 2023-CV-0038=SCJ.

1st Franklin Financial Corporation -- https://www.1ffc.com/ --
operates as financial company. The Company offers residential
mortgage loans and home loan solutions.[BN]


1ST FRANKLIN: Ct. Appoints Mason LLP as Interim Counsel in Allen
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Allen, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. 1ST FRANKLIN
FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-00049-SCJ (N.D. Ga.), the
Hon. Judge Steve C. Jones entered an order the Hon. Judge Steve c.
Jones entered an order granting the motion to appoint interim
counsel.

Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3),
the Court appoints Laura Van Note of Cole & Van Note, Ryan D. Maxey
of Morgan & Morgan Complex Business Division and Gary Mason of
Mason LLP as Interim Co-Lead Counsel for the consolidated case.

These attorneys are to serve as co-lead interim counsel in the
consolidated case (and to act in the best interests of the class as
a whole) until lead counsel is appointed in the class certification
process.

Furthermore, given the apparent confusion about the sua sponte
consolidation of the Allen and Dunn cases, the Court directs the
Clerk to file a copy of this Order in these administratively closed
cases (Case No. 2:23-cv-00052 and Case No. 2:23-cv-00049) for
purposes of notifying the attorneys of record in those cases.

In the interest of caution, the Court further directs the Clerk to
add the Allen and Dunn plaintiffs to the listing of plaintiffs in
this Civil Action (No. 2:23-cv-00038) to ensure that all attorneys
of  record receive notice of the filings in the consolidated action
regardless of lead counsel status. Moreover, the Court hereby
allows the Parties 30-days from the date of this Order to file a
Consolidated Amended Complaint and accordingly amends the deadline
for such in the prior consolidation order.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42rqpKr at no extra charge.[CC]


1ST FRANKLIN: Ct. Appoints Mason LLP as Interim Counsel in Dunn
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dunn, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. 1ST FRANKLIN FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-00052-SCJ (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge
Steve c. Jones entered an order granting the motion to appoint
interim counsel.

Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3),
the Court appoints Laura Van Note of Cole & Van Note, Ryan D. Maxey
of Morgan & Morgan Complex Business Division and Gary Mason of
Mason LLP as Interim Co-Lead Counsel for the consolidated case.

These attorneys are to serve as co-lead interim counsel in the
consolidated case (and to act in the best interests of the class as
a whole) until lead counsel is appointed in the class certification
process.

Furthermore, given the apparent confusion about the sua sponte
consolidation of the Allen and Dunn cases, the Court directs the
Clerk to file a copy of this Order in these administratively closed
cases (Case No. 2:23-cv-00052 and Case No. 2:23-cv-00049) for
purposes of notifying the attorneys of record in those cases.

In the interest of caution, the Court further directs the Clerk to
add the Allen and Dunn plaintiffs to the listing of plaintiffs in
this Civil Action (No. 2:23-cv-00038) to ensure that all attorneys
of record receive notice of the filings in the consolidated action
regardless of lead counsel status. Moreover, the Court hereby
allows the Parties 30-days from the date of this Order to file a
Consolidated Amended Complaint and accordingly amends the deadline
for such in the prior consolidation order.

The class action data breach case originated as five separate
lawsuits against the Defendant, filed by the following the
Plaintiffs: Moreland, Williams, Laney, Dunn, and Allen. Previously,
the Court granted a joint motion to consolidate the Moreland,
Williams, and Laney cases, and designated the Moreland case as the
lead case.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 23, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43mVn7z at no extra charge.[CC]

 


1ST FRANKLIN: Ct. Appoints Mason LLP as Interim Counsel in Moreland
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM MORELAND,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
1ST FRANKLIN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-00038-SCJ
(N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Steve C. Jones entered an order the Hon.
Judge Steve c. Jones entered an order granting the motion to
appoint interim counsel.

Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3),
the Court appoints Laura Van Note of Cole & Van Note, Ryan D. Maxey
of Morgan & Morgan Complex Business Division and Gary Mason of
Mason LLP as Interim Co-Lead Counsel for the consolidated case.

These attorneys are to serve as co-lead interim counsel in the
consolidated case (and to act in the best interests of the class as
a whole) until lead counsel is appointed in the class certification
process.

Furthermore, given the apparent confusion about the sua sponte
consolidation of the Allen and Dunn cases, the Court directs the
Clerk to file a copy of this Order in these administratively closed
cases (Case No. 2:23-cv-00052 and Case No. 2:23-cv-00049) for
purposes of notifying the attorneys of record in those cases.

In the interest of caution, the Court further directs the Clerk to
add the Allen and Dunn plaintiffs to the listing of plaintiffs in
this Civil Action (No. 2:23-cv-00038) to ensure that all attorneys
of record receive notice of the filings in the consolidated action
regardless of lead counsel status. Moreover, the Court hereby
allows the Parties 30-days from the date of this Order to file a
Consolidated Amended Complaint and accordingly amends the deadline
for such in the prior consolidation order.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WTBzqf at no extra charge.[CC]


A&F IMPERIO: Guevara Sues Laundry Workers' Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
DORIS GUEVARA. Plaintiff, v. A&F IMPERIO POBLANO LLC (DBA ANGEL
LAUNDRY) and ARACELY GUTIERREZ, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-02950
(D.N.J., May 30, 2023) is a class action complaint arising out of
the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant IMPERIO POBLANO LLC (DBA
ANGEL LAUNDRY) at its laundry shop from on or about October 2022
until April 2023, as a laundry worker. Allegedly, the Defendants
engaged in a pattern and practice of failing to pay its employees,
including Plaintiff, minimum wage and overtime compensation for all
hours worked over 40 each workweek.

Imperio Poblano LLC (DBA Angel Laundry) is a duly organized New
Jersey business corporation engaged in the laundry services
industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

A1 HD TOWING: Underpays Tow Truck Drivers, Pennington Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER PENNINGTON, ANDREW ALLAN BARKER, and JOSE LUIS SANCHEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. A1 HD TOWING, LLC; JOSE FRANCISCO PINEDA, JR.; and
DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV12291
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 31, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code
and the California Public Policy including failure to pay all
minimum wages earned, failure to pay all overtime wages earned,
failure to pay wages for missed meal periods, failure to pay wages
for missed rest periods, failure to furnish accurate wage
statements, failure to pay all wages upon discharge, waiting time
penalties, constructive wrongful termination, and civil penalties.

Mr. Pennington worked for the Defendants as a tow truck driver from
May 4, 2018, continuously through September 16, 2022, with
exception to several months off during COVID.

Mr. Barker worked for the Defendants as a tow truck driver
continuously from approximately September 3, 2021 through December
1, 2022.

Mr. Sanchez worked for the Defendants as a tow truck driver
continuously from approximately October 3, 2020, through December
1, 2022.

A1 HD Towing, LLC is a privately-owned towing company based in
Lancaster, California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Kasey Diba, Esq.
         Amir T. Alavi, Esq.
         FINNEGAN & DIBA, A LAW CORPORATION
         3660 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 800
         Los Angeles, CA 90010
         Telephone: (213) 480-0292
         Facsimile: (213) 480-0805

AGL ENERGY: Breaches Competition and Consumer Law, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Navya Mittal of Reuters reports that Australia's AGL Energy Ltd
(AGL.AX) said on June 5, 2023 it was served with a class action
lawsuit in the Federal Court alleging that it breached competition
and consumer law during bidding in the South Australian region of
the National Electricity Market (NEM).

The gas and electricity supplier said it took its compliance
obligations seriously and would "vigorously defend" the
proceedings.

The NEM is a regulated wholesale electricity market operated by the
Australian Energy Market Operator, with the Australian Energy
Regulator undertaking compliance monitoring and enforcement, AGL
noted in its announcement to the stock exchange.

The government has ramped up scrutiny of the gas industry,
introducing price caps, and proposing to expand powers to curb
liquefied natural gas exports from east coast plants to ensure
sufficient supply for domestic consumers at affordable prices.
[GN]


ALLY BANK: $325K Class Deal in Velazquez Suit Wins Prelim. Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARIELA AGUILAR VELAZQUEZ, an individual, and RONEY
EDLER BARROSO DA SILVA, an individual, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALLY BANK, Defendant,
Case No. 2:21-cv-02375-MCE-DB (E.D. Cal.), Judge Morrison C.
England, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California grants the Plaintiffs' unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Settlement Approval.

Through the class action, Plaintiffs Mariela Aguilar Velazquez
("Aguilar") and Roney Edler Barroso da Silva ("Barroso"),
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, seek
relief from Defendant All rising from its alleged policy of denying
full access to checking and savings accounts, in addition to other
banking products and services, to applicants who are not United
States citizens or Legal Permanent Residents ('LPRs'). Presently
before the Court is the Plaintiffs' unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Settlement Approval.

Since 2012, Aguilar has been a recipient of Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals ("DACA") and has continuously possessed an
employment authorization card and Social Security Number ("SSN").
She resides in Sacramento, California. On Nov. 2, 2020, Aguilar
applied to open a checking and savings account with the Defendant
through its online portal in which she uploaded her employment
authorization card and SSN obtained under the DACA initiative. A
couple of days later, on Nov. 4, 2020, the Defendant's
representative informed Aguilar that she is ineligible to open a
checking and savings account because she is not a United States
citizen or LPR.

Similarly, Barroso is a K-1 Visa recipient and has continuously
possessed a valid SSN. In August 2021, he married Kari Johnson
("Johnson"), an American citizen, and they reside in Overland Park,
Kansas. A month later, in September 2021, Johnson applied to add
Barroso to her checking and savings account with the Defendant
through its online portal and uploaded, in part, his SSN obtained
under the K-1 Visa program. Some days later, the Defendant sent a
secure message directing Johnson to call its customer service line.
The Defendant's representative then informed her that Barroso'
documents were insufficient and denied her request to add him to
her existing account.

Aguilar initiated the present class action lawsuit in the Court on
Dec. 20, 2021, alleging the following causes of action: (1)
Alienage Discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 and
(2) violation of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, California
Civil Code Sections 51 et seq. Pursuant to stipulation, the matter
was eventually referred to the magistrate judge for a settlement
conference, which occurred on Jan. 12, 2023. The parties reached a
settlement at that conference and executed their settlement
agreement on March 13, 2023. Aguilar subsequently filed the present
unopposed Motion on the same day.

Following oral argument and in response to the Court's order, on
April 28, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended
Complaint, which lists Barroso as a named Plaintiff in addition to
Aguilar. As requested by the Court, the Plaintiffs also filed, in
part, (1) an Amended Settlement Agreement and Release, (2) amended
Notice and Claim Form, (3) an exclusion or opt-out form, and (4) an
amended proposed order.

On April 28, 2023, the parties executed the Settlement. For
settlement purposes only, the Plaintiffs move to certify the
following classes:

     a. California Class means those persons who applied for a
checking or savings account with the Defendant between Dec. 20,
2019 and the date of the Preliminary Approval Order, resided in
California at the time of the application, possessed a valid SSN or
Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) at the time of the
application, and were not permitted to open or be added to an Ally
checking or savings account because they were not U.S. permanent
residents.

     b. National Class means those persons who applied for a
checking or savings account with the Defendant between Dec. 20,
2017 and the date of the Preliminary Approval Order, resided in the
U.S. but outside of California, possessed a valid SSN or ITIN at
the time of the application, and were not permitted to open or be
added to an Ally checking or savings account because they were not
U.S. permanent residents.

The parties estimate that there are approximately 3,638 members of
the National Class and 772 members of the California Class (total
4,410 class members).

The Settlement provides two forms of relief for Class Members: (1)
Programmatic Relief requiring the Defendant to update its deposit
agreement and website, and amend its policies and procedures as
appropriate, to provide that applicants for deposit accounts with a
SSN or ITIN who are residents or citizens of the United States will
be eligible to open deposit accounts or to be added as an
accountholder to an existing deposit account; and (2) a Settlement
Fund of between $280,000 and $325,000 to compensate the Class
Members with verified claims.

Members of the California Class are entitled to $2,500 per denied
application whereas members of the National Class are entitled to
$250. In the event that the total amount of Verified Claims exceeds
$325,000, or the amount remaining after deduction of any excess
settlement administration costs, the payments made to the class
members for Verified Claims will convert to a pro rata share, with
each California Class Member entitled to three times the pro rata
share for each Verified Claim as compared to the pro rata share for
each Verified claim for each National Class Member On the other
hand, if the combined total payments to Settlement Class Members
are less than $280,000, the difference between those combined total
payments and $280,000 will be distributed to the following cy pres
recipient: Immigrants Rising.

The Defendant also agrees to pay $25,000 in administration costs to
Angeion Group ("Settlement Administrator"); however, if the
administration costs exceed that amount, it will pay up to an
additional $10,000. If the administration costs exceed $10,000,
then the excess amount will be paid from the Settlement Fund, but
only if the minimum $280,000 threshold is not met. Finally,
separate from the Settlement Fund, Plaintiffs seek incentive awards
of $3,000 each and Defendant agrees to pay the Plaintiffs' counsel,
the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund ("MALDEF"
or "Class Counsel"), $60,000 in attorneys' fees and costs.

Not later than 30 days after preliminary approval, the Defendant
will provide the Settlement Administrator with the Notice List and
the Settlement Administrator will then distribute the Notice and
Claim Form to all Class Members by first class U.S. mail. If any
Notice is returned with a forwarding address, the Settlement
Administrator will re-mail the Notice to that address. The
Settlement Administrator will also create a dual English-Spanish
website and operate a dual English-Spanish automated toll-free
contact center to address questions from the Class Members.

To receive a payment from the Settlement Fund, the Class Members
must complete and submit the Claim Form within 60 days after the
Notice Mailing Date. To be excluded from the Settlement, a Class
Member must submit the Request to Opt Out form. Class Members who
do not exclude themselves from the Settlement may object to it.

In exchange for the monetary relief, each Class Member, including
Plaintiffs Aguilar and Barroso da Silva, will release the Defendant
of any and all claims related to its alleged denial of their
application to open or be added to a checking or savings account
from it based on alienage and/or immigration status, including but
not limited to, any claims under Section 1981 or the Unruh Act.

First, a court may certify a class if a plaintiff demonstrates that
all of the prerequisites of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)7
have been met, and that at least one of the requirements of Rule
23(b) has been met.

Judge England finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied requirements
of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3). Because the Plaintiffs have
established facts sufficient to meet the requirements of Rule 23(a)
and (b)(3), they have satisfied the elements essential to
settlement class certification for both the National and California
Classes. Accordingly, Judge England preliminarily certifies both
Classes for purposes of settlement.

Next, the Court may approve a class action settlement only if it is
fair, reasonable, and adequate.

Judge England finds that the parties participated in good faith and
arms-length negotiations, the relief set forth in the settlement is
within the range of possible approval, and the Notice and proposed
Notice plan is practicable under the circumstances and comports
with due process.

Based on the foregoing reasons, Judge England grants the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Settlement Approval.

The Court preliminarily certifies the following classes solely for
purposes of the settlement:

     a. California Class means those persons who applied for a
checking or savings account with the Defendant between Dec. 20,
2019 and the date of the Preliminary Approval Order, resided in
California at the time of the application, possessed a valid SSN or
Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) at the time of the
application, and were not permitted to open or be added to an Ally
checking or savings account because they were not U.S. permanent
residents.

     b. National Class means those persons who applied for a
checking or savings account with the Defendant between Dec. 20,
2017 and the date of the Preliminary Approval Order, resided in the
U.S. but outside of California, possessed a valid SSN or ITIN at
the time of the application, and were not permitted to open or be
added to an Ally checking or savings account because they were not
U.S. permanent residents.

Judge England appoints (i) the Plaintiffs as the Class
Representatives and MALDEF as the Class Counsel; and (ii) Angeion
Group as the Settlement Administrator.

He approves the proposed Notice plan set forth in the Preliminary
Approval Order and in the Settlement. Not later than 30 days from
the entry of the Memorandum and Order, the Settlement Administrator
will distribute Notice to all Class Members by first class U.S.
mail and create the dual English-Spanish website and automated
toll-free contact center in accordance with the Settlement.

The Class Members who wish to receive payment under the Settlement
will complete, sign, and return the Claim Form in accordance with
the instructions contained therein. All Claim Forms must be
postmarked no later than 60 days after the Notice Mailing Date.
Class Members who wish to exclude themselves from the Settlement
must complete, sign, and return the Request to Opt Out form not
later than 45 days after the Notice Mailing Date to the Settlement
Administrator.

Class Member who does not timely and validly exclude himself or
herself from the Settlement Class may object to the Settlement but
must do so in writing not later than 45 days after the Notice
Mailing Date in accordance with the Settlement and this Memorandum
and Order. The written Objection must be filed with the Clerk of
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California, Robert T. Matsui United States Courthouse, 501 I
Street, Sacramento, California 95814. If requested, the Objection
must also include official documentation as set forth above.

Any Class Member who does not file a timely and valid Notice of
Intention to Appear will not be entitled to appear at the Final
Approval Hearing and raise any objections.

All Class Members who do not exclude themselves from the Settlement
Class by properly and timely submitting a Request to Opt Out form
will be bound by all determinations and judgments in this action
concerning the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable to the
Class.

The Final Approval Hearing is set for Oct. 19, 2023, at 10 a.m. and
will be conducted by videoconference. The motion in support of
final approval of the Settlement will be filed and served no later
than 14 days prior to the Final Approval Hearing and any responsive
papers will be filed and served no later than seven days prior to
the Final Approval Hearing.

The Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and expenses and/or
incentive awards will be filed and served no later than 35 days
prior to the Final Approval Hearing.

The Court reserves the right to continue the date of the Final
Approval Hearing without further notice to the Class Members and
retains jurisdiction to consider all further applications arising
out of or connected with the Settlement. It may approve the
Settlement with such modifications as may be agreed to by the
parties, if appropriate, without further notice to the Classes.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 26, 2023 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y4z9pnha from Leagle.com.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Class Suit Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duty
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Leff of View from the Wing reports that a senior American
Airlines pilot has filed a class action lawsuit in U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas over the 100,000 member,
$26 billion airline pension, arguing that it is pursuing "leftist
political agendas" by making investments that follow ESG
(Environmental, Social, and Governance) guidelines.

He argues that the plan breaches its fiduciary duty by privileging
activism on issues including race, LGBTQ+ rights, and
environmentalism over financial returns, that "firms whose job is
to deliver investment returns are instead weaponizing retirement
funds, public pensions and other investments in pursuit of nakedly
ideological goals."

And, he says, that many employees do not "realize that their
hard-earned money is being used against them." Senior pilots
especially tend not to align with the political goals of these
funds. The desired action in the suit is for American to pay for
gains that haven't been realized by virtue of pursuing suboptimal
investment strategies, and to stop further ESG investing.

There's a basic point here about the tradeoff between ESG investing
and financial returns, and that's worth understanding (and I think
that it ought to be a part of investing education). However this
lawsuit isn't going anywhere.

ESG funds necessarily earn lower rates of return. Any good
investment that an ESG fund makes, a non-ESG fund can also make.
ESG funds can't make the good investments which go against their
principles.

So what's an ESG fund good for? Driving progress on social causes
with dollars. The usual mechanism by which this works (note: this
is not just virtue signaling!) is by lowering the cost of capital
for 'good' companies (more investment, more money available and
competition to make those funds available) and by raising the cost
of capital for 'bad' companies (with marginally fewer dollars
available to them). However, and this really shouldn't be
controversial:

Social investing isn't a free lunch. If you exclude high return
investments from your portfolio that are inconsistent with your
guidelines, you will have lower returns. It's easy to confuse
environmental companies delivering good returns - and even the
sector outperforming others - with environmental investing not
incurring tradeoffs. Non-ESG funds can invest in ESG projects
because they are likely to yield strong returns! The only
investments that ESG funds can invest in and non-ESG funds won't
are the ones with lower expected returns.

ESG investing leads to higher returns for non-ESG investors. That's
by definition, since it leaves profitable opportunities on the
table for others rather than competing down those returns. It's the
mathematical flip side of raising the cost of capital for companies
you deem bad actors! You should be fine with that, but recognize
both that you're giving up returns and helping raise the returns
for other investors who don't share your philosophy.

How many ESG funds actually short non-ESG companies? Most ESG funds
do their work badly. If they were serious about raising the cost of
capital for non-ESG projects shorting would be a necessary
component of the strategy, and possibly even more effective.
It can be possible to do more for environmental and social causes
by earning more and donating rather than by imposing strict
constraints on business activities. Giving up returns gives up the
ability to invest in those causes.

There's enough of an industry practice, enough industry experts who
promote these funds, and enough historically strong performance in
some of them that the claim the pension is in violation of ERISA
law seems… implausible.

I believe it is admirable to invest with your principles, but you
shouldn't believe that you're getting a free lunch by doing so.
It's admirable because it costs you something!

So should a retirement plan pursue goals that some of its members
may not share? Maybe that's a little harder, and similar to
arguments over whether unions ought to invest member dues in
political activism that runs contrary to the preferences of some
members. But investors wouldn't be better off with a standard that
says trustees must focus only on total returns, because that just
opens pensions to more litigation likely to… drain those pensions
of returns. And investing decisions necessarily mean making
choices, some of which aren't articulable or well-documented.

This lawsuit isn't going anywhere, and it probably shouldn't, but
maybe there's an opportunity to engage people more in understanding
what happens with pension money. Financial education is always
something I can get behind. [GN]

AUSTRALIA: Hearings Begin in Torres Strait Islands' Climate Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stefica Nicol Bikes of KFGO reports that Australian federal court
officials on June 5, 2023 began hearings on a lawsuit filed by a
group of Torres Strait Islanders alleging the Australian government
had failed to protect them from climate change, which threatens to
destroy their homes.

The case, the first climate class action brought by Australia's
First Nations people, was filed in 2021 on behalf of the remote
islands of Boigu and Saibai in the Torres Strait off Australia's
north coast.

The initial hearings will happen in the islands until June 19, with
the court expected to hear from the islanders about the threats
from rising sea to their culture, life and homes.

"From Saibai's point of view, they say by 2029 most of the
low-lying islands in the Torres Strait will go underwater, that is
very true because Saibai and Boigu will be the very first islands
to disappear," Paul Kabai, one of the two plaintiffs, told
Reuters.

The Torres Strait Islands face the threat of floods and salt
ruining their soil as global warming leads to more storms and
rising sea levels.

Plaintiffs are seeking court orders that require the federal
government - which currently aims to reach net zero emissions by
2050 - to take more steps to hit that target earlier.

The case is being supported by a non-profit advocacy group, Grata
Fund, and the Urgenda Foundation, and is being run by class action
firm Phi Finney McDonald. [GN]

BANK OF GREENE: Class Settlement in Broockmann Suit Wins Prelim. OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANDREW BROOCKMANN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE BANK OF GREENE COUNTY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00390-AMN-ATB (N.D.N.Y.), Judge Anne M.
Nardacci of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
New York grants the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement.

The Plaintiff has applied for an order, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23, preliminarily approving the Settlement
Agreement and Releases entered into between him, individually and
on behalf of the proposed settlement Class, and Defendant Bank of
Greene County ("BGC").

Having reviewed the Agreement as submitted to the Court with the
Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement, Judge Nardacci finds that the Agreement proposed by the
Parties likely meets the considerations set forth in the amended
Rule 23(e), as well as the factors set forth in City of Detroit v.
Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448, 463 (2d Cir. 1974). As a result, she
finds it fair, reasonable, and adequate and likely to be approved
at a final approval hearing such that giving notice is justified.
She preliminarily approves the representations, agreements, terms,
and conditions of the Settlement, as embodied in the Agreement and
the exhibits attached thereto, pending a final hearing on the
Settlement.

Judge Nardacci finds that the Court will likely certify at the
final approval stage the settlement Class, for purposes of the
Settlement only, consisting of: Those checking account customers of
The Bank of Greene County who, from April 26, 2016, to the date of
the Court's preliminary approval order, while residing in the
United States, paid an overdraft fee on a transaction that The Bank
of Greene County determined was authorized into a positive
available balance, and for whom that overdraft fee was not
refunded. She therefore preliminarily certifies the proposed
settlement Class.

For purposes of the Settlement only, Judge Nardacci appoints (i)
Broockmann as the Named Plaintiff; (ii) the following as the Class
Counsel: Jeffrey D. Kaliel Sophia Goren Gold KALIELGOLD PLLC
KALIELGOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor 950 Gilman Street,
Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20005 Berkeley, CA 94710
jkaliel@kalielpllc.com sgold@kalielgold.com; and (iii) Epiq Class
Action and Claims Solutions, Inc. as the Claims Administrator.

Having reviewed the proposed Notice program, including the proposed
Postcard Notice, Email Notice, and Long Form Notice submitted by
the Parties as Exhibit 1 to the Agreement, Judge Nardacci approves,
as to form and content, such Notices for the purpose of notifying
the settlement Class as to the proposed Settlement, the Final
Approval Hearing, and the rights of the members of the settlement
Class. She directs the Claims Administrator to cause a copy of the
Email Notice or Postcard Notice to be sent to all settlement Class
members in accordance with the Notice program. The Notice program
will be completed no later than 30 days after the Preliminary
Approval Order. The Email Notice, Postcard Notice, and Long Form
Notice will be updated by the Claims Administrator to include the
Final Approval Hearing date and time as set forth in the
Preliminary Approval Order.

Any person falling within the definition of the settlement Class
may, upon request, be excluded or opt-out from the settlement
Class. In the event a settlement Class member wishes to be excluded
from the Settlement and not to be bound by this Agreement, that
person must sign and mail a notice of intention to opt-out of the
Settlement to the Claims Administrator. The notice must be
postmarked on or before the last day of the Opt-Out Period and must
include the name of the Action. Any members of the settlement Class
who fail to submit a valid and timely opt-out request will be bound
by all terms of the Agreement and the Final Approval Order,
regardless of whether they have requested to be opted-out from the
Settlement.

Any settlement Class Member who does not make his or her objections
in the manner and by the date set forth in the Order will be deemed
to have waived any objections and will be forever barred from
raising such objections in this or any other action or proceeding,
absent further order of the Court.

Prior to the Final Approval Hearing, (i) Class Counsel will file
with the Court and serve on all Parties an affidavit or declaration
of the Claims Administrator certifying that the Notice program was
completed and providing the name of each settlement Class member
who timely and properly requested exclusion from the settlement
Class; and (ii) BGC will file with the Court and serve on all
Parties a declaration certifying that notice was provided to the
appropriate government entities in accordance with the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. Section 1715.

All pretrial proceedings in the Action are stayed and suspended
until further order of this Court, except such actions as may be
necessary to implement the Agreement and this Preliminary Approval
Order.

Upon the entry of the Order, the Named Plaintiff and all members of
the settlement Class will be provisionally enjoined and barred from
asserting any claims against BGC and the Released Parties arising
out of, relating to, or in connection with the Released Claims
prior to the Court's decision as to whether to grant Final Approval
of the Settlement.

The Class Counsel and BGC's Counsel are authorized to use all
reasonable procedures in connection with approval and
administration of the Settlement that are not materially
inconsistent with the Order or the Agreement.

A Final Approval Hearing will be held on Oct. 11, 2023, at 10:00
a.m.

Any settlement Class Member may enter an appearance in the Action,
at their own expense, individually or through counsel of their own
choice. If a settlement Class Member does not enter an appearance,
he or she will be represented by settlement Class Counsel.

Judge Nardacci sets the following schedule of events:

     a. Notice program Complete (including Initial Mailed Notice
and the Notice Order) - June 26, 2023 (30 days after Prelim.
Approval Re-Mailing Process)

     b. Motion for Final Approval, Application for Attorneys' Fees,
Expenses and Costs, and for a Service Award - July 10, 2023 (45
days after Prelim. Approval Order)

     c. Opt-Out Deadline - Aug. 24, 2023 (90 days after Prelim.
Approval Order)

     d. Deadline to Submit Objections - Aug. 24, 2023 (90 days
after Prelim. Approval Order)

     e. Deadline to Respond to Objections - Sept. 8, 2023 (105 days
after Prelim. Approval Order)

     f. Final Approval Hearing - Oct. 11, 2023, at 10:00 a.m.
(Approx. 135 days after Prelim. Approval Order)

A full-text copy of the Court's May 26, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3zvcmxua from Leagle.com.


BINANCE HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over Stolen Cryptocurrency
----------------------------------------------------------------
Since 2018, Silver Miller (www.SilverMillerLaw.com) -- one of the
leading cryptocurrency investor law firms in America, and the only
law firm in America to successfully prosecute a class action
lawsuit against cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase -- has been
aggressively investigating, prosecuting, and resolving hundreds of
cases related to account intrusions at cryptocurrency platforms. In
many of those instances, cryptocurrency stolen from U.S.-based
investors was allegedly deposited into accounts at Binance -- the
world's largest cryptocurrency exchange -- which has allegedly
become the preferred cryptocurrency exchange for criminal asset
laundering due to Binance's grossly substandard security
protocols.

On June 5, 2023, Silver Miller and co-counsel Kopelowitz Ostrow
filed a new federal court class action lawsuit against Binance
Holdings, Ltd. d/b/a Binance and its alleged United States-based
alter ego BAM Trading Services, Inc. d/b/a Binance.US.  As the
lawsuit claims, Binance and Binance.US knowingly converted or aided
and abetted in the conversion of stolen cryptocurrency worth tens
of millions of dollars by not complying with basic Know Your
Customer ("KYC") and Anti-Money Laundering ("AML") standards. The
lawsuit also alleges that Binance unjustly enriched itself by
collecting significant fees on transactions involving stolen
cryptocurrency on the Binance platform.

READ THE LAWSUIT AT WWW.SILVERMILLERLAW.COM

If you are a U.S. resident and suffered an account intrusion
resulting in cryptocurrency being stolen from you, and you would
like to discuss our lawsuit or to investigate whether your stolen
cryptocurrency was possibly laundered through Binance, please
contact us by e-mailing David Silver of Silver Miller at
DSilver@SilverMillerLaw.com or by calling (954) 516-6000.

For many years, Binance has acted with relative impunity in the
U.S. by asserting that no U.S. legal or administrative authority
can exercise its jurisdiction over Binance. Binance claims to have
no sustaining business presence in the U.S. that would subject the
company to jurisdiction here. However, both our class action
lawsuit and a recent civil action brought against Binance and
Binance.US by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission allege
that Binance should be subject to accountability and appropriate
censure in the U.S. The widespread financial harm that has befallen
U.S.-based investors and has allegedly flowed through Binance's
platform, because of weak and unenforced KYC/AML protocols, with
Binance's knowledge and participation is very real. Binance should
be held responsible.

For more information about the class action lawsuit or our fight to
protect investors against financial fraud, please contact:

David C. Silver
Managing Partner
Silver Miller
Florida 954-516-6000
Maryland 240-516-6000
Washington, D.C. 202-852-6000
E-Mail: DSilver@SilverMillerLaw.com
Website: www.SilverMillerLaw.com

Jeff Ostrow
Managing Partner
Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A.
Florida 954-525-4100
E-Mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
Website: www.kolawyers.com [GN]

BINANCE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Alleged Profiteering
----------------------------------------------------------
Shalini Nagarajan, writing for Blockworks, reports that after being
sued by the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC), Binance now
faces a class-action lawsuit for allegedly profiting from
transactions involving stolen cryptocurrency.

On June 5, law firm Silver Miller along with co-counsel Kopelowitz
Ostrow filed the collective action against Binance and its US-based
counterpart operator BAM Trading.

As a perquisite, it states that there are more than 100 members of
the putative class and the total amount in controversy exceeds $5
million.

Michael Osterer, a resident of New York, serves as the primary
plaintiff. He alleges in a court document that he lost 7.2 bitcoin
(BTC) and 449 ether (ETH), valued at over $1 million at the time of
the filing, from his Coinbase account in April 2021.

He further claimed that these funds were subsequently deposited in
Binance without undergoing the necessary Know Your Customer (KYC)
procedures to verify lawful ownership.

The lawsuit cites multiple allegations made in both the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission's case and the SEC's case against
Binance as supporting evidence to establish that US citizens engage
in the unauthorized use of Binance.

The plaintiff stresses that Binance is well aware of US-based users
using VPN services to access its platform, despite the existence of
BAM.

"Binance has a strong monetary incentive to encourage, facilitate,
and allow as many transactions on its exchange as possible -- even
transactions involving stolen cryptocurrency," the filing states.

"Binance has turned a blind eye to the wide variety of money and
cryptocurrency laundering from around the globe it knowingly
facilitates through its platform."

Binance also allowed thieves to launder stolen cryptocurrency by
neglecting to establish security measures to verify the lawful
ownership of cryptocurrency held in Binance accounts, the lawsuit
alleges. This includes the accounts where the plaintiff's stolen
cryptocurrency was deposited.

To date, Binance has allegedly enabled money laundering by
permitting deposits and withdrawals of up to 2 bitcoin per day on
the Binance.com exchange without any form of identification
verification, according to the case. Blockworks has reached out to
Binance for comment.

The lawsuit invites US residents who have encountered an account
breach resulting in crypto theft and are interested in
investigating the potential laundering of stolen crypto through
Binance to contact Silver Miller. It seeks compensation for the
plaintiff and other class members in accordance with applicable
laws. [GN]

BP EXPLORATION: Cook Testimony Excluded; Howard Claims Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LARRY HOWARD v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET
AL. SECTION: D (2), Civil Action No. 17-3543 (E.D. La.), Judge
Wendy B. Vitter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana:

   a. grants BP's Daubert Motion to Exclude the Causation
      Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook;

   b. grants the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; and

   c. denies the Plaintiff's Motion for Admission of Plaintiff's
      Expert Opinions Because of BP Defendants' Spoliation of
      Evidence of Plaintiff's Exposure.

Before the Court is BP's Daubert Motion filed by Defendants BP
Exploration & Production Inc., BP America Production Company, and
BP p.l.c. as well as the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.
Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., Transocean Holdings, LLC,
Transocean Deepwater, Inc., and Transocean Offshore Deepwater
Drilling, Inc. (collectively "Defendants") have joined in both
motions. The Plaintiff opposes both Motions and the Defendants have
filed Replies in support of their Motions. Also before the Court is
the Plaintiffs' Spoliation Motion, which the Defendants oppose.

The case arises from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of
Mexico in 2010 and the subsequent cleanup efforts of the Gulf
Coast. On Jan. 11, 2013, District Judge Carl J. Barbier, who
presided over the multidistrict litigation arising out of the
Deepwater Horizon incident, approved the Deepwater Horizon Medical
Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement (the "MSA"). However,
certain individuals, referred to as "B3" plaintiffs, either opted
out of or were excluded from the MSA. Howard opted out of the MSA
and, accordingly, is a B3 plaintiff.

The Plaintiff filed his individual action against the Defendants on
April 18, 2017 to recover for injuries allegedly sustained as a
result of the oil spill. For approximately four months in 2010, the
Plaintiff worked as an offshore cleanup worker, tasked with
cleaning up oil and oil-covered debris from the coastal areas near
Biloxi and Pascagoula, Mississippi, and Mobile, Alabama.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' negligence and
recklessness in both causing the Gulf oil spill and subsequently
failing to properly design and implement a clean-up response caused
him to suffer myriad injuries including cough, nasal
discharge/congestion, sore throat, chronic rhinitis, earache,
decreased sense of smell, facial pain or sinus pain, throat
irritation, chest pain, burning eyes, dry eyes, blurred vision,
double vision, chronic conjunctivitis, eye irritation, rash, acne,
skin dryness/flaking, itching, diarrhea, nausea, dizziness,
shortness of breath, and depression.13 Specifically, Plaintiff
seeks to recover economic damages, personal injury damages --
including damages for past and future medical expenses and for pain
and suffering -- punitive damages, and attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses.

To help support his claims that exposure to the chemicals present
in the oil spilled by Defendants caused his particular health
symptoms, the Plaintiff offers the report and testimony of Dr.
Cook. Dr. Cook is a retired Navy physician with expertise
specifically as an occupational and environmental physician. His
Report is not tailored directly to the Plaintiff's claims; rather,
Dr. Cook's generic causation Report has been utilized by numerous
B3 plaintiffs, including many plaintiffs currently before this
Court as well as in other cases before other sections of this
Court. Accordingly, Dr. Cook's Report pertains only to general
causation and not to specific causation.

The Defendants filed the instant Motion in limine and Motion for
Summary Judgment on May 1, 2023. In their Motion in limine, they
contend that Dr. Cook should be excluded from testifying due to,
inter alia, his failure to identify the harmful level of exposure
capable of causing the Plaintiff's particular injuries for each
chemical that the Plaintiff alleges to have been exposed to.
Because Dr. Cook should be excluded from testifying, the Defendants
argue, the Court should grant their Motion for Summary Judgment as
the Plaintiff is unable to establish general causation through
expert testimony, a necessary requirement under controlling Circuit
precedent.

In response, the Plaintiff argues that Dr. Cook's Report satisfies
the Daubert standards for reliability and relevancy and, therefore,
that summary judgment is inappropriate. He also filed a Motion for
Admission of Plaintiff's Expert Opinions Because of BP Defendants'
Spoliation of Evidence of Plaintiff's Exposure, in which he argues
that Dr. Cook's Report and general causation opinions should be
deemed reliable and admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 702 because of
BP's alleged failure to collect exposure data on oil spill cleanup
workers. He argues that BP had an obligation to preserve evidence
that it reasonably anticipated may have been relevant to future
litigation and that BP intentionally destroyed said evidence in bad
faith.

The Defendants filed a response in opposition to the Plaintiff's
spoliation Motion, arguing that the Plaintiff cannot demonstrate
spoliation of evidence because there never was evidence to spoliate
in the first place. They also contend that the issue of biological
monitoring of cleanup workers is irrelevant to the reliability and
admissibility of Dr. Cook's Report. Finally, they argue that the
remedy sought by the Plaintiff -- admission of Dr. Cook's Report --
is inappropriate and without basis.

Judge Vitter holds that the Court has previously considered the May
31, 2022 version of Dr. Cook's Report offered by the Plaintiff,
finding that the Report fails to meet the Daubert standards for
reliability and helpfulness to the trier of fact. For the same
reasons set forth in that Order and Reasons, she determines that
the Plaintiff has failed in his burden of establishing the
reliability and relevance of his expert's report and finds it
appropriate to grant the Defendants' Motion in limine to exclude
Dr. Cook's Report.

Regarding the Plaintiff's Spoliation Motion, Judge Vitter holds
that the chief flaw in the Plaintiff's argument is that he does not
point to any actual evidence allegedly spoiled by the Defendants.
Put differently, the Plaintiff asks the Court to sanction the
Defendants for not creating evidence in the first place. That is
not the law, nor would it be tenable in practice. The Plaintiff has
not provided any support for that proposition, and the Court has
found none.

Finally, the remedy sought by the Plaintiff, even if he could prove
spoliation, is wholly inappropriate. Judge Vitter finds no basis --
and the Plaintiff has failed to provide any support -- for the
theory that an unreliable, unhelpful, and otherwise inadmissible
expert opinion may nevertheless be admitted due to one party's
alleged spoliation. Because she finds no merit to the Plaintiff's
Spoliation Motion, she denies it.

For these reasons, the Plaintiff lacks expert testimony on general
causation. Without expert testimony, which is required to prove
general causation, Judge Vitter rules that the Plaintiff has failed
to demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact regarding his
claims that his injuries were caused by exposure to oil. Thus, the
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment must be granted as the
Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law due to the
Plaintiff's failure to establish general causation.

Accordingly, Judge Vitter grants the Defendants' Daubert Motion and
Motion for Summary Judgment. She denies the Plaintiff's Spoliation
Motion. The Plaintiff's claims against the Defendants are dismissed
with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 30, 2023 Order & Reasons is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycxujbsx from Leagle.com.


BRIGHT DATA: Faces Class Suit Over Scraping Minors' Data from IG
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marissa Newman of Bloomberg Law reports that a proposed
class-action suit in Israel is accusing data collection company
Bright Data of selling personal information about minors that it
pulled from Facebook and Instagram, allegedly in violation of local
privacy laws.

Plaintiff Roni Rachmian and his 17-year-old daughter filed a claim
in an Israeli court on June 5, 2023 and asked that the class be
extended to all users of Meta Platforms Inc.'s social media
services in the country, according to the lawsuit seen by Bloomberg
ahead of its filing. [GN]

C M RICHEY: Yuquilema Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Electricians
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GUILLERMO YUQUILEMA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. C M RICHEY INC. and CHRISTOPHER
RICHEY, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-04032 (E.D.N.Y., May 31, 2023)
is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to
pay overtime wages, failure to provide notice at time of hiring,
and failure to provide accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as an electrician from
September 2019 until March 2022, and then again from June 2022
until January 9, 2023.

C M Richey Inc. is an electrical contracting firm based in Long
Beach, New York. [BN]

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

CITRIX SYSTEMS: $2.75MM TCPA Class Settlement Granted Final OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Review reports that well another $1MM in attorneys
fees was just awarded to the Wolf and a cohort of plaintiff's
lawyers who hunted down Citrix and netted a $2.75MM TCPA class
action settlement.

That explains why the guy was in a good mood on June 2, 2023.

In Boger v. Citrix 2023 WL 3763974 (D. Md. 06/01/2023) the court
granted final approval to the deal that arose out of calls to
numbers on the national DNC.

The class was: all persons or entities within the United States to
whom Defendant or a third party acting on its behalf: (a) made one
or more telephone calls to their cellular telephone number; (b)
made two or more telephone calls while the call recipient's number
was on the National Do Not Call Registry; and/or (c) made one or
more calls after asking Defendant or a third party acting on
Defendant's behalf to stop calling

There were 526,544 class members here–which makes sense a very
good settlement for Citrix and just $5.22 a class member! Nice job
guys.

The class ended up with a claims rate of about 6%. Claiming class
members will receive $44.14 each.

And the Plaintiff's lawyers? $916,666.67 in fees plus $60k in
expenses.

So it goes . . .[GN]

COWHAND SADDLERY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Guillot Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN GUILLOT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. COWHAND SADDLERY, LLC d/b/a COWHAND SERVICES, LLC d/b/a
COWHAND SERVICES, Case No. 1:23-cv-00125-H (N.D. Tex., May 30,
2023) arises out of the Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff Guillot worked as an operator for Cowhand from September
2021 until April 2023. Guillot and the other workers like him often
worked 12-hour shifts in a week, but they were not paid overtime
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek.
Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, Cowhand
improperly classified these workers as independent contractors and
paid them a single day rate for all hours worked each day, says the
suit.

Cowhand Saddlery is a Texas limited liability company that provides
oilfield support services, such as flowback services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
            PARMET PC
            2 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 250
            Houston, TX 77046
            Telephone: (713) 999-5228
            E-mail: matt@parmet.law

DAVENPORT HOTEL: Faces Class Action Over Building Collapse
----------------------------------------------------------
Linda Cook, writing for OurQuadCities.com, reports that two people
who have filed a lawsuit in Scott County Court demand a jury trial,
alleging the owner of a partially collapsed Davenport apartment
building "directly and proximately caused the collapse."

Mildred Harrington and Rijeh Garnett, through their attorneys
Shindler, Anderson, Goplerud & Weese P.C., Des Moines; and Milberg
Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC, of Chicago, say the
collapse of the six-story apartment building in Davenport on May 28
was because of "egregious negligence" and ask for damages after
"the untold suffering and damage it has caused."

Named as the defendant in the class-action lawsuit is Davenport
Hotel LLC, owned and operated by Andrew Wold.

This is a class-action lawsuit, which means it allows one or more
people to file a lawsuit on behalf of a larger group, or "class."

At the time of the collapse, the suit says, Harrington lived in an
apartment in The Davenport. Garnett lived in another apartment
building on the same block, the suit says.

"Defendant purchased the Building in 2021, and the negligent
renovations leading up to the Collapse were unfortunately just one
of many instances of Defendant's negligence in caring for the
property," lawsuit document say.

The suit refers to numerous complaints about the state of the
building and says one business owner leasing space on the first
floor of the building "had been calling the city to complain about
conditions in the Building since December when the bathroom in
their retail space collapsed. "

Additionally, the suit mentions former resident Schlaan Murray
(earlier, Murray spoke to Local 4 News and said "It was hell"
living there.)

Mildred Harrington lived with her boyfriend, Phillip Brooks, and
Phillip Brooks' mother, Lisa Brooks, in an apartment in the
building, according to documents.

"At the time of the Collapse, Mildred and Phillip were in the
Building hallway and were unable to get to their apartment unit
where Phillip's mother Lisa was," documents say. Lisa Brooks, 59,
"was trapped in the family's apartment unit until she was finally
rescued the next day on May 29," the suit says.

Lisa Brooks was admitted to a local hospital for dehydration
because she was trapped in the building, according to the suit.

The suit says Harrington has had to miss work and "is worried that
she may lose her employment as a result of the Collapse."

The suit alleges that virtually all of Harrington's belongings, her
boyfriend's belongings, and her boyfriend's mother's belongings,
including clothing and identification, are in the collapsed
building "and likely lost forever." Additionally, the suit says
Harrington and her family have "suffered emotionally" from the
collapse and have lost their home.

Garnett lived in an apartment building on the same block as the
building, and was out of town during the collapse, court documents
say.

She returned to Davenport and "was told by a police officer that,
due to the Collapse, she was not allowed to access her apartment
building." She kept two pet dogs in her apartments, and both were
in the building at the time of the collapse.

"After being insistent and speaking with another police officer,
Plaintiff was escorted to her apartment unit where she was able to
retrieve her two dogs," the suit says, saying she, too, experienced
emotional distress the day of the Collapse and in recovering her
pets.

Garnett has been homeless since the collapse, according to the
suit, which alleges:

   -- Wold failed to maintain the building in a reasonably safe
condition per Davenport Municipal Code.
   -- failed to remediate the improperly performed repair work that
resulted in observed "falling bricks" and a weakening of the
building's structure.
   -- failed to hire competent contractors, inspectors, engineers,
and appropriate entities to perform the required maintenance.
   -- failed to warn residents of structural concerns associated
with the building.
   -- failed to warn residents of the dangers in the building of
which (Wold) knew or should have known.
   -- failed to address warning and complaints from residents of
structural concerns associated with the building, "Falsely
representing to the residents of the Building that the Building was
safe for residential and commercial tenants."

The plaintiffs and class members were trapped in the building as it
collapsed, suffered physical and mental injury, lost personal
property, and/or were displaced from their residences because of
the collapse, according to court documents.

The suit says plaintiffs and class members are "entitled to money
damages for personal physical injury, mental pain and suffering,
loss of earnings, loss of property, and all other damages to which
they may be entitled under applicable law" and are also entitled to
injunction relief because of the collapse.

Injunctive relief, or an injunction, can offer relief when monetary
compensation does not suffice or is not appropriate. [GN]

DIRECT ENERGY: Dickson's Class Suit Continues Over TCPA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Sams of Claims Journal reports that a single voicemail message
left on a cellphone without permission is enough to allow an
individual to proceed with a class-action lawsuit alleging
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, a
panel with the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on June 1, 2023.

The appellate panel reversed a District Court ruling that found
Matthew Dickson lacked standing to pursue a lawsuit against Direct
Energy LP because he suffered no concrete harm.

"The 6th Circuit's ruling in Dickson v. Direct Energy resolves a
critical legal issue for TCPA plaintiffs on Article III standing
and will allow our case to move forward and hopefully secure a
judgment for the in excess of 2.5 million class members who were
subjected to Direct Energy's illegal prerecorded telemarketing
calls," Dickson's attorney, Brian K. Murphy, said in an email.

The TCPA allows civil penalties of $500 per call, or $1,500 for
"willful violations." Murphy, who is a partner with the Murphy
Murray Moul + Basil law firm in Columbus, Ohio, said Dickson is
seeking damages in the range of $1.4 billion to $4.2 billion for
Direct Energy's robocalling campaign.

Dickson alleged in a lawsuit that he received "multiple" ringless
voicemails, known as RVMs, on his cell phone in November 2017.RVM
technology allows telemarketers to automatically dial telephone
numbers and deliver prerecorded voice messages without triggering
the device's ringer.

Congress passed the TCPA in 1991 to bar automatic telephone calls
to people who have not given permission. Dickson alleged that the
pre-recorded messages placed on his cell phone by "Nancy Brown with
Direct Energy" were a nuisance and a violation of the law. He filed
a lawsuit and sought class-action status to seek damages for an
estimated 2.5 million consumers who received voicemails during
Direct Energy's telemarketing campaign.

During discovery, Dickson said he received 11 ringless voicemails
from Direct Energy. An expert for Direct Energy, however, concluded
that only one of those RVMs came from the company, which sells
electricity distribution plans to residents and businesses.

US District Judge John R. Adams, with the Northern District of Ohio
in Akron, ruled that a single RVM was not enough concrete harm to
give Dickson standing because Dickson was not charged for the call
and the call did not tie up his phone. Dickson appealed, arguing
that even one call was an "intrusion upon seclusion."

The 6th Circuit panel said it has never before been asked to decide
whether a single call is enough to give a consumer standing under
the TCPA. The panel reviewed several decisions by the Supreme Court
and other Circuit Courts to decide that it is.

Citizens have a common-law right to privacy, which includes the
right to be left alone, the panel said.

"From a lay perspective, we can see why members of the public and
Congress, through the TCPA, deemed such calls intrusive," the
opinion says. "For example, some consider their phone number a
matter of private information in and of itself. People commonly
exercise discretion in publicizing their phone numbers, entrusting
them only to their circle of friends, family, and select others on
an as-needed basis."

The panel said the District Court relied on two 11th Circuit
rulings that found an invasion of privacy must be "substantial" to
create a concrete harm that would give Dickson standing to pursue
his lawsuit. Those rulings are "not persuasive," the panel said,
because they did not look to "both history and the judgment of
Congress to determine whether an intangible harm is sufficiently
concrete to constitute an injury in fact."

"Dickson's receipt of an unsolicited RVM bears a close relationship
to the kind of injury protected by the common law tort of intrusion
upon seclusion; and his claimed harm directly correlates with the
protections enshrined by Congress in the TCPA," the panel
concluded. "Therefore, Dickson suffered a concrete injury in fact
sufficient for Article III standing purposes." [GN]

DOUBLEDOWN INTERACTIVE: Settles Casino Games Class Suit for $415M
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Olivia Cole of CasinoGuardian reports that a U.S. judge officially
approved a class-action settlement worth $415 million involving
South Korean online gambling operator DoubleDown Interactive LLC
and the UK-based multinational gambling company International Game
Technology PLC (IGT). The settlement straighten out the claims that
the two operators breached the state gambling legislation and
consumer protection provisions of the state of Washington.

In a ruling, published at the beginning of the month, US District
Judge Robert Lasnik in the federal court of Seattle described the
resolution of the case as adequate, reasonable, and fair. The judge
issued his final order to approve the settlement after a hearing in
the case was held to conclude legal action that went on for more
than four years. Apart from that, Judge Lasnik awarded legal fees
of almost $121.5 million to Edelson, a Chicago-based legal firm
that lead the class action in court.

The two companies faced some online customers' allegations claiming
that their social casino games constituted illegal gambling under
the gambling legislation of Washington state. As mentioned above,
the $415-million settlement came as the latest move in a series of
related cases.

Both UK-headquartered International Game Technology and South
Korea-based DoubleDown have denied any liability for the alleged
violations. The companies argued that the claims that the
plaintiffs had made rested on some novel and untested
interpretations of the state gambling legislation.

Social Casino Games Require Real-Money Payments for Purchasing
Additional Chips to Play
So-called "social casino games" are known for being free to play,
but customers usually have to pay with real money for additional
chips. The legal action against IGT and DoubleDown claimed that
consumers wager to acquire more chips they would otherwise have to
purchase. According to the plaintiffs' claims in court, tens of
thousands of class members purchased and lost chips by betting at
DoubleDown Casino, with their lawyers arguing that the online
casino users had the right to pursue their losses under the laws of
the state of Washington.

At the time when US District Judge Robert Lasnik announced his
ruling on the announced settlement, neither International Game
Technology nor DoubleDown and their legal representatives
immediately responded to requests for comment on the situation. The
Seattle federal court judge revealed that seven class members
decided to withdraw from the settlement but the agreement faced no
formal objections.

Plaintiff's lawyer Todd Logan from the legal firm leading the
litigation - Edelson - confirmed that the social-casino court
action overall has resulted in $651 million for class members and
firm clients. Mr Logal explained that the latest settlement that
was approved by the court would make sure that many class members
stand to individually receive hundreds of thousands of dollars from
the two companies.

In his order, Judge Lasnik described the litigation process as a
"risky, novel, and hard-fought" endeavour, so he eventually
approved a fee request for fees that were lower than the 25%
benchmark not only in Washington but also in other states forming
the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals. [GN]

FIVE GUYS: Class Counsel in Lusk Suit Must File Billing Records
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEREMY R. LUSK, on behalf of himself, all others
similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff v. FIVE GUYS
ENTERPRISES LLC and ENCORE FGBF, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-0762 JLT EPG (E.D. Cal.), Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California orders
the Class Counsel to file billing records documenting the tasks
completed and the amount of time spent on the action.

Lusk asserts the Defendants violated federal and California
credit/consumer reporting laws, California wage-and-hour laws, and
California unfair competition law. He now seeks final approval of a
settlement reached in the class action, including attorneys' fees
from the gross settlement fund.

The Court has discretion to use either a lodestar or percentage of
the common fund calculation to evaluate a fee request. The Ninth
Circuit observed that either method may have its place in
determining what would be reasonable compensation. In addition, the
Court may perform a lodestar cross-check to assist in the
determination of whether the fees sought from a common fund are
reasonable. While the Class Counsel assert the Court should apply
the percentage from the common fund doctrine, the Class Counsel
also contend a lodestar crosscheck supports the requested fee. The
lodestar method calculates attorney fees by multiplying the number
of hours reasonably expended by counsel on the particular matter
times a reasonable hourly rate. The product of this computation,
the "lodestar" amount, yields a presumptively reasonable fee.

The Class Counsel report they spent 460.2 hours on the action. The
Class Counsel assert their work on the action included, among other
things, conducting the initial investigation of the case and
developing the facts, defending the Plaintiff's deposition,
conducting a review of the record, working with an expert to
analyze the data produced by the Defendants, engaging in
contentious arm's-length negotiation at the mediation, and working
with the Defendants to prepare the Settlement Agreement. However,
the Class Counsel did not submit time sheets to support the fees
requested or lodestar crosscheck, such that the Court may determine
the total time expended was reasonable.

The Ninth Circuit explained that a district court may not
uncritically accept a fee request but must review the time billed
and assess whether it is reasonable in light of the work performed
and the context of the case. However, Judge Thurston is unable to
perform such a review without the billing records of the Class
Counsel.

Accordingly, Judge Thurston orders the Class Counsel to file
billing records documenting the tasks completed and the amount of
time spent on the action within seven days of the date of service
of her Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 26, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yjvvs5v5 from Leagle.com.


FLORIDA STATE: Faces Class Suit Over State Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------
Margie Menzel of WUSF reports that A potential class action lawsuit
alleging state discrimination against Florida A&M -- an
historically Black public university -- is moving forward. For
some, the case continues the school's long-held tradition of
student activism.

The six student plaintiffs argue the state has failed to meet its
funding obligations to FAMU and has maintained a "segregated system
of higher education."

"We do deserve to be treated equally as those students that are
literally across the tracks from us," said Britney Denton.

Denton is one of the student plaintiffs in the case. In
Tallahassee, FAMU's campus and Florida State University's campus
are literally divided by railroad tracks. And from Denton's
viewpoint it seems clear one school gets more state support than
the other.

"It's just -- it's not fair that we aren't able to get the same
opportunities, we aren't allowed to get the same amount of money,
we aren't allowed the same education in the same city as another
school that has every opportunity in the world," she said.

On June 3, 2023, U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle heard a motion
from the state to dismiss the case, but he's permitting it to
proceed. He did, however, pepper the leader of the students' legal
team, civil rights attorney Josh Dubin, with questions. And he gave
the plaintiffs 30 days to revise the case and provide more specific
examples of discrimination.

Here's Dubin on the courthouse steps after the hearing:

"I'm not a betting man, but if I were, I'd say they'll probably
file another motion to dismiss and we might be back again," he
said. "Whether there will be oral argument attached to that, I
don't know."

The lawsuit raises a series of issues about funding and programs
that it contends are discriminatory, including duplication of
programs with nearby FSU and an alleged failure to have "unique"
non-core programs at FAMU.

Arguments in the case involve such things as an engineering program
that FAMU shares with Florida State and a FAMU law school that was
closed in the 1960s and revived decades later at an Orlando campus.
The closure of the original FAMU law school came as a Florida State
law school opened. Dubin doesn't believe the harm of that
juxtaposition has been mitigated.

"I don't believe it has," he said. "I don't believe you undo that
sort of stripping of a core academic institution at an historically
Black college and university."

FAMU President Larry Robinson isn't a party to the lawsuit. During
an interview with WFSU after the lawsuit was filed last year, he
acknowledged that he walks a fine line between his students and his
bosses in state government. But also, he says, social activism is a
longstanding tradition at the school.

"We have at FAMU some of the nation's most socially conscious and
aware students on the planet," Robinson said." And when there are
things that they see that don't necessarily go the way that they
think they should, then they should step up and say something,
right? And so, these young students and whomever else is involved
see the reason to file the lawsuit."

Britney Denton says her family and friends have been nothing but
supportive.

"My family is very proud of the stand that I am able to take, my
colleagues are very proud of me, my classmates -- they have
actually been asking if there's any way that they would be able to
get involved, even so late into the lawsuit happening," she said.

Denton, a first-year doctoral candidate in pharmacy, says that win
or lose, she wants to encourage her fellow students and those who
come to FAMU after her.

"And I want to say thank you to everyone who has supported me and
especially my mother, Dr. Ora Denton, who has been able to just
guide me through exactly how to be the lady that I am to answer
these questions that you asked me on June 3, 2023."  

Dubin and his team are asking Hinkle to certify the case as a class
action to represent all of the students enrolled at FAMU during the
2021-2022 school year through the date the judge agrees to do so,
if in fact he does. Here's Dubin:

"I wish I'd had as much courage, intellect and bravery as these
students have when I was their age," he said. "And I think it
speaks volumes about their character, and it's a privilege and an
honor to represent them in what we think is a very important,
historic case."

The lawsuit requests the appointment of a mediator, who would
recommend a remedy to the court that will allow FAMU to achieve
parity with the state's traditionally white institutions within the
next five years. [GN]

FORD MOTOR: Denial of Bid for Arbitration in Miller Suit Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, LLC, Plaintiff Below,
Petitioner v. RONALD R. MILLER, Defendant Below, Respondent, Case
No. 22-0007 (W. Va.), Judge Tim Armstead of the Supreme Court of
Appeals of West Virginia reverses the circuit court's denial of
Ford Credit's motion to compel arbitration.

Ford Credit sued Miller in the Circuit Court of Wyoming County to
collect the unpaid balance on an automobile loan. When Miller filed
a class-action counterclaim to challenge Ford Credit's collection
practices, Ford Credit moved to compel arbitration and attached to
its motion a copy of a retail installment contract containing the
arbitration provisions that Ford Credit sought to enforce. Miller
did not deny that he signed the retail installment contract or that
the copy attached to Ford Credit's motion was authentic. In fact,
he attached a copy of the same retail installment contract to his
own brief opposing Ford Credit's motion. Nevertheless, the circuit
court found that Ford Credit failed to offer any "admissible
evidence" in support of its right to arbitration and denied Ford
Credit's motion to compel arbitration. Ford Credit appeals from
this decision.

Miller purchased a Lincoln MKX on credit through Ford Credit. When
he failed to make his payments, Ford Credit sued him in circuit
court for the alleged balance due on the loan. With its complaint,
Ford Credit filed a copy of a retail installment contract. The
retail installment contract, which is dated Feb. 18, 2017, and
which purports to be signed by Miller in three places, contains an
arbitration provision and assigns "all" the dealership's "rights,
privileges, and remedies" to "Ford Motor Credit Company."

Miller answered the complaint and asserted a class-action
counterclaim for unlawful debt collection practices. In response,
Ford Credit moved to compel arbitration and attached a second copy
of the retail installment contract to its motion. Later, it moved
to stay discovery. Miller opposed the motion to compel arbitration,
arguing that the arbitration agreement is unconscionable and that
Ford Credit waived arbitration by filing suit.

The parties appeared for a hearing in September 2021 on the motion
to compel arbitration. According to the circuit court, Ford Credit
"failed to provide evidence that an arbitration agreement exists or
was transferred with the right to collect the original debt." Ford
Credit appeals from the circuit court's Dec. 6, 2021 order refusing
to compel arbitration.

Ford Credit argues that the circuit court erred in two respects.
First, it alleges that the circuit court erred by finding that it
failed to prove that an arbitration agreement exists between the
parties. Secondly, it maintains that the circuit court erred by
denying it an opportunity to respond to Miller's last-minute
argument opposing arbitration. Ford Credit asks the Supreme Court
to vacate the circuit court's order and remand the case to the
circuit court with instructions to either compel arbitration or
rule on Miller's waiver and unconscionability objections.

Miller responds that the record shows Ford Credit's "absolute
failure" to prove the existence of a valid arbitration agreement
through affidavits, witnesses, or even a simple request to enter
evidence into the record and that it was hardly a surprise tactic
for him to insist that Ford Credit provide threshold evidence for
its own motion. He maintains that this appeal is nothing more than
an attempt to re-do a hearing that did not go well" for Ford
Credit.

Judge Armstead disagrees. On the facts of the case, he finds that
Ford Credit made an initial, prima facie showing that an
arbitration agreement exists between the parties when it attached
to its motion to compel a copy of the signed retail installment
contract containing both the arbitration agreement and the
assignment of "all" rights from the dealership to Ford Credit. He
finds, further, that the circuit court erred when it determined
that Ford Credit failed to meet this light evidentiary burden.
Because Miller does not contest his signature on the retail
installment contract or the contract's authenticity, the existence
of an arbitration agreement between the parties has been
established.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Armstead reverses the circuit court's
Dec. 6, 2021 order denying Ford Credit's motion to compel
arbitration, and he remands the case to the circuit court for
further proceedings consistent with his Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 30, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/y2677esj from Leagle.com.

Jessica L. Ellsworth, Esq. -- jessica.ellsworth@hoganlovells.com --
Hogan Lovells US LLP, Washington, District of Columbia, Pro Hac
Vice.

Michael Bonasso, Esq. -- mbonasso@flahertylegal.com -- Bryan N.
Price, Esq. -- bprice@flahertylegal.com -- Jason A. Proctor, Esq.
-- jproctor@flahertylegal.com -- Flaherty Sensabaugh Bonasso PLLC,
Charleston, West Virginia, Counsel for the Petitioner.

Troy N. Giatras, Esq., Matthew Stonestreet, Esq., Phillip A.
Childs, Esq., The Giatras Law Firm, PLLC, Charleston, West
Virginia, Counsel for the Respondent.


GKN DRIVELINE: Mebane Appeals Class Decertification Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs James Mebane, et al., filed an appeal from the District
Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated May 12, 2023 entered in
the lawsuit styled JAMES MEBANE and ANGELA WORSHAM, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GKN
DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-00892-LCB-LPA, in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina at Greensboro.

The Plaintiffs in the complaint worked for Defendant as non-exempt,
hourly employees until April 2018. They filed this suit on their
own behalf and on behalf of similarly situated employees on October
23, 2018, alleging that the Defendant failed to pay its employees
for all hours worked in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and North Carolina Wage and Hour Act.

On Nov. 5, 2020, the Court conditionally certified the Plaintiffs'
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action and certified
the following North Carolina Wage and Hour Act ("NCWHA") class
under Rule 23 ("Rounding Class"): "Individuals who were, are, or
will be employed at Defendant GKN's North Carolina facilities on
the manufacturing floor in non-managerial positions, were not
compensated all promised, earned, and accrued wages due to
Defendant's rounding policy, including, but not limited to,
compensation for all hours worked up to forty (40) in a week and
for hours worked above forty (40) in a week within two years prior
to the commencement of this action, through the present."

After the Plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Complaint, the Court
certified an additional Rule 23 class on Aug. 2, 2022, including
employees that worked during their scheduled lunch breaks and were
impacted by the Defendant's "Automatic Deduction Policy"
("Automatic Deduction Class").

The Court defined that class as: "Individuals who were, are, or
will be employed at Defendant GKN's North Carolina facilities on
the manufacturing floor in non-managerial positions, were not
compensated all promised, earned, and accrued wages for hours
worked during unpaid meals due to Defendant's automatic deduction
policy, including, but not limited to, compensation for all hours
worked up to forty (40) in a week and for hours worked above forty
(40) in a week within two years prior to the commencement of this
action, through the present."

On Aug. 16, 2022, the Defendant requested reconsideration of the
Court's order certifying the Automatic Deduction Class arguing that
(1) the Court incorrectly certified the Automatic Deduction Class
without requiring Plaintiff Mebane to establish that the class is
ascertainable and (2) the Automatic Deduction Class is an improper
merits-based fail-safe class.

On Nov. 16, 2022, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
Defendant's motion to reconsider and found that modification of the
Automatic Deduction Class definition was necessary to avoid it
being an impermissible fail-safe class. It requested that the
Plaintiffs submit a proposed redefinition of the Automatic
Deduction Class.

The Plaintiffs then proposed the following redefinition: "All
Individuals who were, are, or will be employed at Defendant GKN's
North Carolina facilities on the manufacturing floor in
non-managerial positions, subjected to an automatic 30-minute meal
break deduction, and who have or may have worked through or during
unpaid meal breaks without compensation at least once at any time
within two years prior to the commencement of this action, through
the present."

The Defendant moved to decertify the Plaintiffs' FLSA collective
action, the Rule 23 Rounding Class, and the Rule 23 Automatic
Deduction Class. It also moved for partial summary judgment on the
Plaintiffs' collective and class claims related to the Rounding
Class, as well as Plaintiff James Mebane's individual claims. The
Plaintiffs likewise move for partial summary judgment on their
claims related to both the Rounding Class and Automatic Deduction
Class.

On May 12, 2023, Judge Loretta C. Biggs of the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina:

   a. granted the Defendant's Motion to Decertify the Class and
Collective Action; and

   b. denies as moot both parties' cross-motions for partial
summary judgment.

Judge Briggs concluded that the evidentiary record makes clear that
that both the automatic deduction claims and rounding claims
implicate highly individualized facts and circumstances unique to
each Plaintiff, making it untenable to allow the matter to proceed
on a class and collective basis. The Plaintiff advanced no
meaningful way to address such issues. Accordingly, the Defendant's
motion to decertify the FLSA collective action, Rule 23 Rounding
Class, Rule 23 Automatic Deduction Class was granted, and both
parties' motions for summary judgment were denied as moot.

The appellate case is captioned as James Mebane v. GKN Driveline
North America, Inc., Case No. 23-190, filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on May 26, 2023.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners JAMES MEBANE, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, et al., are represented by:

          Gilda Adriana Hernandez, Esq.
          Hannah B. Simmons, Esq.
          Matthew D. Wright, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC
          1020 Southhill Drive
          Cary, NC 27513
          Telephone: (919) 741-8693

Defendants-Respondents GKN DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICAN, INC., et al.,
are represented by:

          Amardeep Kaur Bharj, Esq.
          EPSTEIN, BECKER & GREEN, P.C.
          227 West Monroe Street
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 499-1400

               - and -

          Paul DeCamp, Esq.
          EPSTEIN, BECKER & GREEN, PC
          1227 25th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20037-1156
          Telephone: (202) 861-1819

               - and -

          Kevin Scott Joyner, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC
          8529 Six Forks Road
          Raleigh, NC 27615
          Telephone: (919) 789-3175

               - and -

          Adriana Stefanie Kosovych, Esq.
          EPSTEIN, BECKER & GREEN, P.C.
          875 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 351-4527

GLENN O. HAWBAKER: Faces Class Action Over Benefit Plan Payments
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Beauge, writing for PennLive, reports that a lawsuit that
accuses a major Pennsylvania highway contractor of stealing pension
and welfare benefits of hourly employees assigned to prevailing
wage projects is now a class action.

U.S. Middle District Judge Matthew W. Brann on June 6 granted the
motion of three former employees of Glenn O. Hawbaker Inc. of State
College.

Lester Packer Sr. of Trout Run and Lester Packer II and Shawn
Dyroff, both of Jersey Shore, will represent the more than 1,400
current and former employees who worked on prevailing wage
contracts for Hawbaker in Pennsylvania between Sept. 1, 2012, and
Dec. 31, 2018.

The three sued the company, its board, the directors and the
administrator of Hawbaker's employee benefits plan in October 2021
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA).

They accuse the company of breaching certain fiduciary duties by,
among other things, failing to make required contributions to
Hawbaker's 401(k) retirement savings plan and other employee
benefits plans.

The complaint is related to the criminal charges filed by the state
attorney general's office that alleged the illegal diversion of
pension money and other workers' benefits.

The criminal case was resolved in August 2021 when Hawbaker pleaded
no contest in Centre County to four theft counts and agreed to pay
restitution of more than $20.6 million.

The company stated by pleading no contest that it accepted the
convictions but did not expressly admit to committing the crime.

In approving class-action status, Brann found the Packers and
Dyroff had met the legal requirements that include number of
plaintiffs and commonality.

The three cited the plea agreement in the criminal case in which
Hawbaker agreed to pay restitution to 1,262 current and former
workers. That agreement does not encompass all "class members,"
they claim.

Hawbaker denies there was any theft or misuse of more than $20
million in wage benefits as claimed in this and another civil
action that was remanded to state court.

The company operates a self-funded health insurance plan that means
it pays claims itself instead of through an insurance company.

Also pending in federal court is a related suit brought by Twin
City Fire Insurance of Hartford, Connecticut.

It claims its policy does not provide coverage for one criminal and
two civil actions while Hawbaker contends a policy that took effect
April 1, 2021, does. [GN]

GLOBAL TRAVEL: Sides Appeals Class Cert Bid Denial & Summ. Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Lisa Sides, et al., filed an appeal from the District
Court's Order dated March 24, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled
ISA SIDES, et al., v. GLOBAL TRAVEL ALLIANCE, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-00053-SPW-TJC, in the United States District Court for the
District of Montana, Billings.

The suit, filed on April 24, 2020, is brought against the
Defendant, who has sought to misuse and breach its own contractual
cancellation policy as a means to profit from the COVID-19 pandemic
by keeping the hard-earned money of parents and students for
cancelled student class trips and to leverage students and parents
into accepting less desirable and uncertain alternatives.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, Magistrate Judge Timothy
J. Cavan recommended on Jan. 18, 2023 that:

   1. Global Travel's motion to strike or deny class be granted;

   2. The Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment be
denied; and

   3. Global Travel's motion for partial summary judgment be
granted.

The Plaintiffs timely filed objections on February 15, 2023 and the
Defendant filed a response to those objections on March 10, 2023.

On March 24, 2023, the Court adopted Judge Cavan's recommendations
through an Order signed by Judge Susan P. Watters.  Judge Watters
held that Plaintiff's September 2, 2022 motion for partial summary
judgment is denied; Defendant's September 2, 2022 motion for
partial summary judgment is granted; and Defendant's April 13, 2022
motion to strike or deny class certification is granted.

The appellate case is captioned as Lisa Sides, et al. v. Global
Travel Alliance, Inc., Case No. 23-35368, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 26, 2023.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Erin Claunch, Jackie Claunch, Lisa Sides, Tracy
Smith, Julie Swenson, Jennifer Wersland and Julie Wrobel Mediation
Questionnaire was due June 2, 2023;

   -- Appellants Erin Claunch, Jackie Claunch, Lisa Sides, Tracy
Smith, Julie Swenson, Jennifer Wersland and Julie Wrobel opening
brief is due on July 24, 2023;

   -- Appellee Global Travel Alliance, Inc. answering brief is due
on August 22, 2023; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants LISA SIDES, for herself and her daughter
K.S., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, et
al., are represented by:

          Joseph Cook, Esq.
          John Heenan, Esq.
          HEENAN LAW FIRM
          1631 Zimmerman Trail
          Billings, MT 59102
          Telephone: (406) 839-9091

               - and -

          John M. Morrison, Esq.
          MORRISON, SHERWOOD, WILSON & DEOLA, PLLP
          401 N. Last Chance Gulch
          Helena, MT 59601
          Telephone: (406) 442-3261  

Defendant-Appellee GLOBAL TRAVEL ALLIANCE, INC. is represented by:

          Ian McIntosh, Esq.
          CROWLEY HAUGHEY HANSON TOOLE & DIETRICH
          P.O. Box 10969
          Bozeman, MT 59719-0969
          Telephone: (406) 556-1430
          
               - and -

          William McIntosh Morris, Esq.
          CROWLEY FLECK, PLLP
          1915 S 19th Avenue
          P.O. Box 10969
          Bozeman, MT 59718-0969
          Telephone: (406) 522-4536

GOLFTEC INTELLECTUAL: Winegard Suit Dismissed for Lack of Standing
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAY WINEGARD, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOLFTEC INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LLC,
and GOLFTEC ENTERPRISES LLC, Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-1244 (BMC)
(E.D.N.Y.), Judge Brian M. Cogan of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York grants the Defendant's motion to
dismiss for lack of standing.

The Plaintiff, a deaf individual, brings the putative class action
under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 12101
et seq., and corresponding provisions of state law, seeking
injunctive relief and damages principally because the Defendants'
website does not have closed captioning. Using cookie-cutter
complaints similar to the one in the case, the Plaintiff has
brought 49 ADA cases in this district against other companies. The
Defendants have moved to dismiss on several grounds, one of which
the Court raised itself -- namely, whether the Plaintiff has
standing under Article III of the Constitution.

The Plaintiff, a resident of Queens, alleges that the Defendants
run a website offering instructional golf videos. He asserts that
he would like to "learn about" the services that they offer.
Specifically, he claims he would like to watch certain videos on
the Defendants' website but is unable to do so because the videos
have no closed captioning.

After reviewing the complaint, the Court ordered the Plaintiff to
show cause why the action should not be dismissed for lack of
standing, citing Calcano v. Swarovski N. Am. Ltd., 36 F.4th 68 (2d
Cir. 2022). The Plaintiff timely responded to the Order to Show
Cause, and six days later, the Defendants moved to dismiss the case
on standing and other grounds, to which plaintiff has also
responded.

Boiled down from the 396 words arguably addressed to standing in
the complaint, Judge Cogan says the Plaintiff's standing allegation
is essentially this: On Feb. 6, 2023, and on subsequent days, he
visited the Defendants' website but could not access the videos
because they lacked closed captioning. He intends to return to the
website in the future to watch videos if closed captioning is
added.

Judge Cogan cannot distinguish the perfunctory allegation from the
allegations that the Second Circuit held inadequate in Calcano.
That was a consolidated appeal involving five cookie-cutter ADA
complaints in which each vision-impaired plaintiff sued various
retailers for not selling braille gift cards. It's true that
Calcano is a brick-and-mortar case and the instant case deals with
website access, but if anything, that makes the Plaintiff's
allegations even less sufficient. The fact that the Plaintiff is a
serial filer (a fact easily gleaned from public records) thus bears
on the plausibility of his standing claim.

Judge Cogan emphasizes that the ADA serves the important function
of facilitating full participation in American life for those with
disabilities. But it has also been a statute particularly subject
to abuse. Judge Cogan says it is hard to avoid the conclusion that,
instead of achieving greater accessibility for disabled persons,
cases instead settle for a nominal monetary recovery and what is
likely an equally nominal attorney's fee without any involvement by
the court. If that is what's happening, it amounts to a perversion
of the ADA's purpose and Congress's intent. They do a disservice to
the disabled, and to the vast majority of lawyers who carry out
their duties under the ADA with skill, dedication, and
professionalism. This kind of ADA litigation saps judicial
resources, wastes attorneys' and litigants' time, and ultimately
mocks the statute's mission.

Based on the Second Circuit's decision in Calcano, Judge Cogan
concludes that the Plaintiff lacks standing. He grants the
Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of standing.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 26, 2023 Memorandum Decision &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/f8tx7cvu from
Leagle.com.


GOOGLE LLC: Illinoisans Set to Receive BIPA Settlement Payout
-------------------------------------------------------------
97.7 WMOI reports that without admitting wrongdoing, Google plans
to pay around $95 each to Illinoisans who filed to be part of a
class action settlement over violations of the state's Biometric
Privacy Information Act. The Chicago Tribune reports more than
687,000 current and former Illinois residents will get the payment
from the $100 million settlement. Google was hit with a BIPA charge
for using facial recognition to tag photos without explicit
consent. [GN]





GOOGLE LLC: October 12 Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Google agreed to a $23 million
settlement to resolve claims it shared searches with third-party
websites and companies without user consent.

The settlement benefits Google Search users who clicked on a search
result in the United States between Oct. 26, 2006, and Sept. 30,
2013.

According to the class action lawsuit, Google shared search queries
with third parties without first getting user consent. Plaintiffs
in the case claim their information was wrongfully compromised by
this conduct.

Google Search allows users to ask questions and search for
information on the web. Companies may advertise on Google Search to
promote their web pages in certain search queries.

Google hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $23 million
settlement to resolve the search privacy class action lawsuit.

Under the terms of the Google settlement, class members can receive
an equal share of the net settlement fund.

Each class member is estimated to receive around $7.70, but actual
payments may be higher or lower than this estimate depending on the
number of participating claimants.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is July 31, 2023.

The final approval hearing for the Google settlement is scheduled
for Oct. 12, 2023.

In order to receive a settlement payment, class members must submit
a valid claim form by July 31, 2023.

Who's Eligible
Google Search users who clicked on a search result in the United
States between Oct. 26, 2006, and Sept. 30, 2013

Potential Award
$7.70

Proof of Purchase
N/A

Claim Form
CLICK HERE TO FILE A CLAIM »
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.

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

Claim Form Deadline
07/31/2023

Case Name
In re: Google Referrer Header Privacy Litigation, Case No.
5:10-cv-4809-EJD, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California

Final Hearing
10/12/2023

Settlement Website
RefererHeaderSettlement.com

Claims Administrator
In re Google Referrer Header Settlement
c/o Kroll Settlement Administration
P.O. Box 225391
New York, NY 10150-5391
info@refererheadersettlement.com
833-512-2306

Class Counsel
Kassra Nassiri
NASSIRI & JUNG LLP

Michael Aschenbrener
KAMBERLAW LLC

Mark Bulgarelli
PROGRESSIVE LAW GROUP LLC

Defense Counsel
Edward D Johnson
MAYER BROWN LLP [GN]

HAMILTON COVE: Appellate Ruling in Consumer Fraud Suit Discussed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha L. Southall, Christopher J. Dalton, and Nicholas S.
Pradaxay from Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC of Mondaq report in
Pace, et al. v. Hamilton Cove, et al., the New Jersey Appellate
Division held a ruling in June 2023 that a class action waiver
clause in a residential lease was unenforceable because it failed
to also include a mandatory arbitration agreement.

The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's decision in a
putative class action, which residential tenants brought against
their landlord, a luxury apartment complex, alleging claims of
common law fraud and violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to -20. The panel rejected Defendants'
argument that Plaintiffs had waived their right to file a class
action.

Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants' advertisements, brochures and
statements to prospective tenants promoted "elevated, 24/7
security" at the apartment complex. Upon moving into the apartment
complex, however, Plaintiffs allegedly found the complex's security
cameras were not functioning and the front desk was only staffed
for limited hours.

Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint for failure to
state a claim or, in the alternative, to strike Plaintiffs' class
allegations. Plaintiffs asserted that, as tenants negotiating with
a sophisticated landlord, they lacked bargaining power and,
therefore, inclusion of the class action waiver demonstrated the
lease was an unconscionable contract of adhesion. Defendants argued
the leasing agreements were not, as Plaintiffs claimed, contracts
of adhesion, the class action waivers were valid and enforceable,
and a class action was not necessary to vindicate plaintiffs'
interests.

The trial court denied Defendants' motion in its entirety, finding
Plaintiffs had pled their common-law and statutory fraud claims
with the requisite specificity required by Rule 4:5-8, Plaintiffs
sufficiently supported their contracts of adhesion claims to
survive a motion to dismiss, and Plaintiffs had met one of the
three alternative requirements under Rule 4:32-1(a) for maintaining
a class action.

On appeal, the panel recognized the right to pursue a class action
may be waived in an arbitration agreement because the slow, costly
aspects of class-based dispute resolution were incompatible with
the basic, efficiency characteristics of resolution through
arbitration. The panel reasoned, however, that these benefits do
not exist when an arbitration clause is not included in the
agreement. The panel's reasoning relied heavily on New Jersey's
public policy favoring class actions and explicitly rejected
Defendants' position that the lease was not an adhesion contract,
and the class action waiver was not unconscionable, because the
lease was subject to a clear and unambiguous three-day attorney
review period.

Although the trial court had not yet ruled on class certification,
the panel provided some guidance on the issue. It noted, under New
Jersey public policy, that a class action is clearly the favorable
vehicle to address the particular facts of this case -- without
deciding the issue. The panel also declined to address the issue of
Plaintiffs' alleged ascertainable loss or damages. The appellate
panel made it clear that its opinion was addressing a narrow issue:
establishing a new bright-line rule that "there is no societal
interest in enforcing a class action waiver in a contract that does
not contain a mandatory arbitration provision" and concluding that
"the class action waivers in this case are unenforceable as a
matter of law and public policy."

Based on this new bright-line rule, businesses that operate in New
Jersey that have included class action waivers in their terms and
conditions or individual contracts with their consumers should
revisit those documents. In addition to reemphasizing the State's
public policy favoring class actions, the panel's decision appears
to be directing New Jersey providers and sellers to give clear
instruction as to what forms of procedural relief are available to
consumers. Buchanan's class action defense lawyers are able to
assist clients with reviewing their contracts' terms and conditions
and providing this necessary clarity in order to avoid unnecessary
litigation and develop an efficient consumer dispute resolution
process. [GN]

HANAM DAEJI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Pirir Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ALFREDO PIRIR, on behalf of himself and similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. HANAM DAEJI, INC. (DBA HANAM BBQ HOUSE) and KANG-WON
LEE, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-02951 (D.N.J., May 30, 2023)
arises out of the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a cook at its restaurant
from on or about October 2022, until March 26, 2023. Allegedly, the
Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread
violations of the FLSA and NJWHL by engaging in a pattern and
practice of failing to pay its employees, including Plaintiff,
minimum wage and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40
each workweek.

Hanam Daeji, Inc., doing business as Hanam BBQ House, is a duly
organized New Jersey business corporation organized under the laws
of the State of New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

HORIZON HEALTH: Hearing Begins in Suit Over Use of Oxytocin Drug
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBC reports that a hearing began on June 6 to determine if a
class-action lawsuit can proceed against Horizon Health Network and
a former obstetrics nurse at the Moncton Hospital.

The suit is filed on behalf of mothers who believe they were
improperly given a labour-inducing drug at the hospital. It alleges
Nicole Ruest, who worked in the labour-and-delivery unit between
2010 and 2019, administered oxytocin to "hundreds" of patients
without their consent.

Ruest, who was fired by Horizon in 2019, denies any wrongdoing. The
allegations have not been proven in court. Crown prosecutors
determined there wasn't enough evidence to proceed with charges
after an RCMP investigation.

A certification hearing, which determines if a lawsuit can proceed
as a class action instead of case-by-case, began in October 2021.
But the proceedings came to a halt after the plaintiffs' lawyers
were contacted by a doctor, claiming to have new information about
what the hospital knew, and when.

The hearing must prove a class-action lawsuit provides access to
justice for plaintiffs, judicial economy and could result in
behaviour modification.

Drug allegedly led to 'traumatizing' deliveries

Layers for the plaintiffs have presented affidavits from eight
women who say they experienced "traumatizing" deliveries due to the
alleged administration of oxytocin through tainted IV bags.

In some cases, mothers say the drug prompted painful emergency
caesarian sections, including one instance without anesthesia.

Oxytocin is a drug used during labour and delivery that causes
contractions. It can be dangerous for the health of the fetus as it
can affect fetal heart rate and cut off oxygen supply.

Lawyer John McKiggan, of Halifax-based firm McKiggan Hebert
Lawyers, and Virginia Gillmore of Fidelis Law in Moncton, are
representing the mothers.

McKiggan told court the proposed class includes all persons who
allegedly received oxytocin that was improperly administered by
Nicole Ruest, between September 2010 and March 2019, and suffered
harm or losses as a result.

Chief Justice Tracey DeWare asked the plaintiffs' lawyers if those
who gave birth would know if they had been administered the drug by
Ruest.

McKiggan said two mothers were told by the hospital they were
improperly administered oxytocin by a nurse, at the same time Ruest
was fired. He said others knew she was their nurse, are able to
recognize her in photos, or can look at their medical charts.

"They will be able to determine, to some degree of confidence, that
Nicole Ruest was involved."

Horizon argues suit should not proceed

Lawyers representing the defendants want a ruling against
certification and have argued the allegations do not meet the
requirements for a class-action suit.

Lawyer Ryan Burgoyne of the firm Cox & Palmer, representing
Horizon, raised issues with the proposed class definition. He
argued the word "alleged" prevents determining who may have
received oxytocin, without looking at individual claims.

"They could allege without any objective grounds that they were
administered oxytocin and suffered harm," Burgoyne said.

Burgoyne said breach of the standard of care could not be
determined on a class-wide basis. He said there are not enough
facts in the statement of claim to determine how Ruest allegedly
administered oxytocin inappropriately.

"We do not litigate class actions based on hypothetical scenarios,"
he said.

"All they have are those stats and those stats do not give you any
indication what is going on."

The certification hearing will continue on Tuesday, June 13, 2023.
[GN]

INDIANA: Lawsuit Over Abortion Ban Granted Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Casey Smith, writing for Indiana Capital Chronicle, reports that a
lawsuit that seeks to strike down the state's near-total abortion
ban on the basis of Indiana's controversial religious freedom law
was certified on June 6 as a class action by a Marion County
Superior Court judge.

The legal challenge up for debate was filed in August by the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Indiana on behalf of
Hoosier Jews for Choice, as well as four anonymous women who
represent a variety of faiths.

The lawsuit argues that the new abortion law violates Indiana's
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

The plaintiffs include practitioners of Judaism, Unitarian
Universalism, Episcopalianism and paganism -- all belief systems
that allow abortions under circumstances outside the ban's narrow
exceptions.

The ACLU asked the court in September to grant certification of a
class that includes all Hoosiers whose religious beliefs "direct
them to obtain abortions in situations" prohibited by Senate
Enrolled Act 1 -- the near-total abortion ban -- and "who need, or
will need, to obtain an abortion and who are not, or will not be,
able to obtain an abortion because of the Act."

According to Indiana Trial Rule 23, for a lawsuit to be certified
as a class action case, one or more members of a class may sue or
be sued only if:

1. the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable;
2. there are questions of law or fact common to the class;
3. the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical
of the claims or defenses of the class; and
4. the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect
the interests of the class.

In her 29-page order, Welch determined that all of the unnamed
plaintiffs in the case share a common claim with those that are
named, that there is a large group of potential plaintiffs and that
the named plaintiffs have claims that are representative of the
entire class.

"Even within denominations, there are legitimate disagreements
among observant followers on how members of a particular religion
should approach issues in our world in accordance with articles of
faith," Welch wrote in her ruling. "The Court's role then is to
determine that the alleged religious infringement is objective and
observable rather than rely solely on the subjective assessment of
the class members."

The state opposed the proposed class, saying in multiple court
filings that it depends on class members' "individual
circumstances, states of mind, and subjective beliefs at any given
moment."

The Indiana Attorney General's Office argued that there is not an
objective way to determine who would be motivated by religious
reasons to obtain an abortion, and that there is no consensus among
the religions, to which the current plaintiffs belong, "over
whether and what circumstances the plaintiffs would be directed to
obtain an abortion as part of their religious practices."

Welch conceded that "there are certainly conflicts within religious
traditions on when a practitioner may be compelled to seek an
abortion on religious grounds."

But the judge maintained in her ruling that there is "sufficient
evidentiary support that the religions to which plaintiffs and
putative class members belong would guide its practitioners to seek
abortions under particular circumstances based on testimony from
leaders of these faiths."

This is the second case involving the ban. In January, Indiana
Supreme Court justices heard a case against the ban based on
liberty and privacy rights. They have not issued a ruling.

The new abortion ban was in effect for just a week in September
before a Republican judge in Owen County issued a first temporary
injunction in a separate ACLU lawsuit, which challenges the
constitutionality of the law based on liberty and privacy
protections.

The decision put the ban on hold while Indiana Supreme Court
justices continue to weigh the case. Under that injunction, the
state's previous abortion law stands -- allowing abortions up to 20
weeks.

The Republican-dominated Indiana General Assembly advanced the
abortion-restricting measure during a heated, two-week special
session that concluded in August. That made Indiana the first state
in the nation to approve such legislation since the high court
ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade.

The ban outlaws all abortions except in the case of a fatal fetal
anomaly and cases of serious health risk to the mother. One part of
the law says these exceptions are up to 20 weeks but another part
says they can be used anytime. Rape survivors can get an abortion
up to 10 weeks post-fertilization.

It also strips abortion clinics of their state medical licenses,
and provides that only hospitals and hospital-owned ambulatory
surgical centers can provide abortions. [GN]

INSIGNIA FINANCIAL: Trial in Shareholders' Class Suit Commenced
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rhea Nath of Lawyers Weekly reports that a trial investigating
alleged misconduct by Insignia Financial Limited (IFL) has
commenced on June 5, 2023 and is expected to run for up to five
weeks.

The case against the wealth management company (formerly IOOF
Holdings Limited) will examine whether the company had neglected
its obligations to shareholders by failing to disclose alleged
misconduct.

This included insider trading; front-running; failure to manage
conflicts of interest; issues with the company's systems, data
integrity, and cyber security; and whether the company's "roll-up"
business model was materially compromised.

According to Shine Lawyers, which represents hundreds of investors
in the case, the company failed to disclose the alleged corporate
misconduct and issues with its "roll-up" business model between 1
March 2014 and 7 July 2015.

With the class action, the firm seeks to recover losses suffered as
a result of alleged non-disclosures and potential misconduct
affecting purchases of IFL shares.
On 8 May 2023, Shine Lawyers participated in a court-ordered
mediation with Insignia Financial and its representatives. However,
as a settlement was not reached between the parties, the class
action would proceed to trial.

"This financial service provider was trusted by investors to advise
its clients and manage the funds they had placed with the company
responsibly and ethically," said Shine Lawyers' joint head of class
actions, Craig Allsopp.

"We claim that the misconduct alleged in this case seriously
undermined that trust and damaged the company's reputation."

He thought it "unsurprising" that the company had since abandoned
its IOOF branding.

"We will continue to fight this case to keep corporations honest.
They owe transparency to shareholders, and that's what we'll argue
in court on June 5, 2023," Mr Allsopp said.

Previous several shareholder and financial services class actions
by Mr Allsopp and his team would include claims against major
corporations like AMP Insurance and CBA CommInsure.

Insignia Financial told Money Management it would vigorously defend
the claim in court.

This case relates to events that are alleged to have occurred more
than seven years ago and, in some cases, nearly 15 years ago.

"Insignia Financial will vigorously defend the claim and is looking
forward to having the matter heard and determined," a spokesperson
said.

The firm declined any further comment on the legal matter that was
currently before the court.

According to Stephen Conrad, chief executive of Litigation Lending
Services (LLS), which is funding the class action, the case was
"yet another example of a failure of governance for a company that
had a front row seat at the Hayne royal commission".

The trial is expected to conclude by Friday, 7 July 2023. [GN]

ISAACS ROOFING: Zelaya Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Roof Installers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
OLVIN Y. ZELAYA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ISAACS ROOFING & INSULATION CORPORATION, and
ISAIAS DEL SOL, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-22008 (S.D. Fla., May
31, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to
compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated workers overtime
pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempted,
full-time roof installer from approximately April 2007 to April 29,
2023.

Isaacs Roofing & Insulation Corporation is a general construction
contractor, with its place of business in Miami, Dade County,
Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
         ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA
         9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
         Miami, FL 33156
         Telephone: (305) 446-1500
         Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
         E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

LBA HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Davis Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
DESIREE DAVIS, on behalf of herself and similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. LBA HOLDINGS LLC d/b/a HUDSON GRILLE and RUSSELL
ADAMS, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-02426-JPB (N.D. Ga., May 30,
2023) is a class action arising out of the Defendants' violations
of the Fair and Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Desiree Davis worked as a server and a backup bartender,
and was paid less than the federal minimum wage. She worked for
Defendants from approximately January 11, 2021 to January 17, 2023,
before she was terminated about three weeks after formally
demanding payment of her unpaid wages. Moreover, this case arises
from Defendants' violations of the FLSA's tip credit and subsequent
underpayment of its employees at the federally mandated minimum
wage rate and for Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and all
similarly situated workers their earned minimum wages.

Allegedly, the Defendants pay their servers below the minimum wage
rate by taking advantage of the tip-credit provisions of the FLSA.
Under the tip-credit provision, an employer of tipped employees
may, under certain circumstances, pay those employees less than the
minimum wage rate by taking a "tip credit" against the employer's
minimum wage obligations from the tips received from customers.

LBA Holdings LLC, d/b/a Hudson Grille, operates a full-service
restaurant that employ servers and bartenders to provide services
to customers. Its restaurant chain in Atlanta, GA (Fulton County)
commonly known as "Hudson Grille." [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arnold J. Lizana, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ARNOLD J. LIZANA III
          1175 Peachtree Street NE, 10th Floor
          Atlanta, GA 30361
          Telephone: (470) 207-1559
          Facsimile: (470) 231.0672
          E-mail: alizana@attorneylizana.com

                  - and -

          Tia T. Brown, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF THORNTON BROWN, LLC
          235 Peachtree Street Suite 400
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 946-8702
          Facsimile: (229) 337-5459
          E-mail: tjbrown@thorntonbrown.com

MCDONALD'S CORP: Bid to Reconsider Dismissal in Misleading Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland of Cook County Record reports that McDonald's has
asked a Cook County judge to reconsider its request to end a class
action complaint involving allegations of misleading menu prices at
O'Hare Airport locations.

Named plaintiff Farah Gohari initiated the complaint against
McDonald's in June 2016, alleging two McDonald's locations at
O'Hare International Airport violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act with prices that exceeded,
sometimes by 30%, those advertised on electronic menus.

Circuit Judge Kathleen Pantle presided over the case until retiring
in July 2018. Circuit Judge Anna Loftus then took the case.

During a hearing to address depositions in July 2019, Gohari made a
motion to substitute another judge in place of Loftus, but Loftus
denied the request. In October 2020, Loftus approved a McDonald's
motion to dismiss the case. But in February 2022, an Illinois First
District Appellate Court panel ruled Loftus should've allowed the
substitution motion. It therefore vacated all subsequent rulings
and remanded the complaint.

On April 20, 2023, presiding Judge Cecilia Horan denied a motion
for summary judgment from McDonald's. On May 22, the burger giant
filed a motion to reconsider. Judge Horan's ruling came after oral
arguments, McDonald's said, accusing her of misapplying Illinois
law by saying there remained a factual dispute over whether Gohari
was "actually deceived" in accordance with fraud law standards.

McDonald's said Horan relied on Gohari's subjective emotions --
specifically testimony she "felt stressed out and under pressure"
when buying the airport food -- rather than assessing what
information was available to Gohari and other similarly situated
patrons.

"There are no exceptions under the ICFA for plaintiffs who felt
hurried or rushed," McDonald's wrote. "Second, the court's ruling
did not properly consider the role that a customer receipt plays in
evaluating ICFA claims."

The company argued any time an Illinois court has considered
differences between menu prices and what a customer pays, the
opinion has held "the existence of an accurate receipt from which a
consumer could detect the pricing discrepancy negates" fraud
claims.

Defendants in every such action were able to win dismissal,
McDonald's said, including a March 2023 opinion from U.S. District
Judge Sara Ellis dismissing a claim against Walmart that held, in
part, the customer could've challenged the pricing discrepancies
while still inside the store.

"Gohari had all the information she needed at the point of sale to
know there was a discrepancy between the posted price and the
register price of the Steak & Egg McMuffin meal she purchased,"
McDonald's said. It alleged she complained about the price of all
three orders, said workers repeatedly told her the menu prices were
incorrect and noted she demanded the store honor the posted price.

Whether she felt rushed should be irrelevant, McDonald's said,
pointing to a 2018 case in federal court in Chicago in which it won
dismissal against a plaintiff who sued because her food would've
been less expensive as a la carte purchases versus a combination
meal. In that case, Killeen v. McDonald's, the court wrote:
"Plaintiff may not have wished to take the time to compare prices,
but there is no question that doing so would have dispelled the
deception on which her claims are based."

Even if a customer's time to do math could be factored, McDonald's
continued, Gohari testified she spent "approximately 15 minutes at
the counter placing her orders, speaking with restaurant personnel
about why the total of those orders was higher than she expected,
asking if the restaurant would honor its menu board pricing, paying
for her food, receiving her receipt and taking pictures of the
digital menu board."

Gohari has been represented by Clinton A. Krislov and Kenneth
Goldstein, of Krislov Associates, of Chicago.

McDonald's is represented by Smith, Gambrel & Russell, of Chicago.
[GN]

MERCER UNIVERSITY: Faces Three New Class Actions Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Schwartz, writing for Higher Ed Dive, reports that Mercer
University was recently hit with at least three newly filed class
action lawsuits over a data breach, with plaintiffs alleging that
the Georgia college failed to safeguard their personal data.

One plaintiff is a former law student at Mercer, while another is a
professor at Yale School of Medicine who taught a course at Mercer
in 2016 and 2018. Another, a former student who stayed anonymous
over privacy concerns, said he suffered from fraudulent credit card
charges after the data breach.

None of the three lawsuits, which contend more than 93,000 people
were caught up in the data breach, have been certified as class
actions yet. They all allege that Mercer improperly delayed
informing affected individuals and failed to have adequate
cybersecurity defenses.

Dive Insight:
The spate of lawsuits illustrate the complicated risks colleges and
universities face when it comes to protecting data. Cybercriminals
frequently target higher education institutions, which house
massive amounts of personal and financial information.

Colleges can be particularly vulnerable to ransomware attacks, in
which cybercriminals either threaten to publish sensitive data or
block victims' access to it unless they pay a ransom.

When colleges experience data breaches, lawsuits can often follow.
That was the case at Knox College late last year, when hackers
broke into the institution's computer system and later emailed
students threatening to sell their Social Security numbers.
Multiple students have since taken legal action against the
Illinois institution.

The lawsuits say a month passed between Mercer discovering the data
breach and notifying those who were affected.

A May 9 post on Mercer's website said the university detected "an
incident involving unauthorized access to its computer network."  

With the help of law enforcement and outside legal and technical
consultants, Mercer investigated the incident. It found that
sensitive data, including Social Security numbers and driver's
license numbers, were removed from systems without authorization,
according to the announcement. It also said it found no evidence
that personal financial information was taken.

A Mercer spokesperson said on June 6 that the university does not
comment on pending litigation.

One lawsuit links to recent reporting from Cybernews, which said a
ransomware gang called Akira posted stolen data from Mercer on its
dark web blog. Akira said the university had declined to pay its
ransom, according to the publication.

The anonymous former Mercer student said the university hasn't
provided adequate updates on the data breach.

"Plaintiff and the Class Members remain, even today, in the dark
regarding what particular data was stolen, the particular malware
used, and what steps are being taken, if any, to secure their
[personally identifiable information] and financial information
going forward."

Similarly, the former law student said letters notifying
individuals of the data breach were insufficient.

"Upon information and belief, the Akira ransomware gang posted on
the dark web that Mercer was one of its victims, but Mercer's
Notification Letters did not disclose any details regarding the
Akira ransomware gang, or any other bad actor," the complaint
states. [GN]

MICHIGAN: Sixth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Does 1-5 Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN DOES 1-5, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. GRETCHEN
WHITMER; RICHARD DALE SNYDER; JOSEPH GASPAR; KRISTE KIBBEY ETUE,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 22-1925 (6th Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirms the order of the district
court granting the motion to dismiss and dismissing the complaint.

Five sex offenders allege that the Michigan State Police (MSP)
continued to enforce provisions of Michigan's Sex Offender
Registration Act (SORA) against them even after federal courts
declared those provisions unconstitutional. In this 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 action, the Plaintiffs seek damages from high-ranking
Michigan officials, alleging that they oversaw and failed to stop
the police's unconstitutional actions. The district court dismissed
the complaint on various grounds, including sovereign immunity; and
the Plaintiffs appealed.

In two previous suits, two sets of plaintiffs claimed that SORA was
unconstitutional. In the first suit, filed in March 2012, four
plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief. John Does 1-4
v. Snyder (Does I), 932 F.Supp.2d 803, 807 (E.D. Mich. 2013). The
district court held at the motion-to-dismiss stage that: (1) the
plaintiffs plausibly stated a claim that the school-zone provisions
and some reporting requirements were unconstitutionally vague, in
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; (2) the plaintiffs plausibly
stated a claim that some of SORA's reporting requirements violated
the First Amendment; and (3) the retroactive application of SORA
amendments did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. The Sixth
Circuit reversed, holding that the retroactive application of SORA
did violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. But it did not address the
other constitutional issues.

Days after the Sixth Circuit's decision, in August 2016, a second
set of plaintiffs filed a class action challenging SORA on the same
constitutional grounds as those raised by the plaintiffs in Does I.
Doe v. Snyder (Does II), 449 F.Supp.3d 719 (E.D. Mich. 2020). In
February 2020, the district court granted summary judgment in favor
of the plaintiffs, holding that: (1) the retroactive application of
any SORA provision violated the Ex Post Facto Clause; (2) the
school-zone provisions and some reporting requirements were
unconstitutionally vague; and (3) some of the reporting
requirements violated the First Amendment. But it delayed the entry
of final judgment, first giving the parties a month to formulate a
proposed form of judgment, and then entering an interim order to
provide a temporary solution during the COVID-19 pandemic.

While this interim order was in effect, Michigan passed a new
(fourth) version of SORA, which became effective on March 24, 2021.
This new SORA removed or modified the provisions that Does II had
declared unconstitutional. On Aug. 4, 2021, the district court
entered final judgment in Does II.

On Aug. 17, 2021, John Does 1-5, five Michigan sex offenders, filed
their complaint in this class-action lawsuit, challenging
Michigan's enforcement of SORA for a third time. They sued Michigan
Governor Gretchen Whitmer, former Michigan Governor Richard Snyder,
Joseph Gaspar, the current MSP director, and Kriste Etue, the
former MSP director, seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
The Plaintiffs allege that the MSP enforced unconstitutional
provisions of SORA against them from 2006 onwards, including after
Does I, Does I on appeal, and Does II were decided. And they allege
that the Defendants, whom they purport to sue in their individual
capacities, knew that the invalidated provisions were
unconstitutional, but failed to stop their subordinates from
enforcing them against the Plaintiffs.

The district court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). It held that: (1)
Michigan's three-year statute of limitations for personal-injury
claims barred any claims based on conduct that occurred before
August 17, 2018; (2) Whitmer and Snyder could not be held liable
under Section 1983 for supervising the MSP, but Etue and Gaspar
could; (3) all Defendants were entitled to sovereign immunity; and
(4) the Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity as to
the Plaintiffs' timely Ex Post Facto Clause claims, but were
entitled to qualified immunity as to any First and Fourteenth
Amendment violations that were not clearly established.

The state defendants urge the Sixth Circuit to affirm the district
court's dismissal on sovereign-immunity grounds.

The Sixth Circuit states that resolving the case on the merits is
more straightforward. It says the sovereign immunity issue in the
case is complex. Sovereign immunity bars official-capacity suits
for damages, but not individual-capacity suits for damages.

The Plaintiffs seek to hold the Defendants liable on a theory of
supervisory liability. They allege that the Defendants knew that
SORA was unconstitutional but failed to stop their subordinates
from enforcing the statute against them.

The Sixth Circuit opines that the Plaintiffs do not plausibly
allege that the Defendants authorized, approved, or knowingly
acquiesced in any unconstitutional conduct. While Etue and Gaspar
oversaw the MSP, many of the complaint's allegations appear to
target the behavior of local law enforcement, which the MSP
directors did not supervise. The Plaintiffs' allegations of
knowledge thus cross the line from conceivable to plausible only
barely, if at all.

Even if the Plaintiffs plausibly allege that Etue and Gaspar knew
of ongoing constitutional violations, the Sixth Circuit holds that
their allegations that the directors acquiesced in or implicitly
authorized those violations are wholly conclusory. Even drawing all
reasonable inferences in the Plaintiffs' favor, the complaint's
allegations against the MSP directors fail to state a claim of
supervisory liability. The district court's ruling on this point
was erroneous.

However, the district court correctly dismissed the Plaintiffs'
supervisory-liability claims against Whitmer and Snyder, the Sixth
Circuit opines. It finds that the Plaintiffs' allegations, like
those against the MSP directors, merely charge the governors with a
failure to act, which is not enough. Hence, they fail to state a
claim of supervisory liability against the governors.

Because the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim of supervisory
liability, the district court properly dismissed the complaint
under Rule 12(b)(6). The Sixth Circuit affirms the judgment of the
district court but on different grounds.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 30, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/5vsvny34 from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Paul Matouka -- notifications@oliverlawgroup.com -- OLIVER
LAW GROUP, P.C., Troy, Michigan, for the Appellants.

Scott L. Damich, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing,
Michigan, for the Appellees.

ON BRIEF: Paul Matouka, Alyson Oliver, OLIVER LAW GROUP, P.C.,
Troy, Michigan, for the Appellants.

Scott L. Damich, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing,
Michigan, for the Appellees.


MONUMENT INC: Sued Over Unlawful Disclosure of Private Info
-----------------------------------------------------------
D.M., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. MONUMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-CV-04482
(S.D.N.Y., May 30, 2023) alleges claims for negligence, breach of
implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the
California Unfair Competition Law, the California False Advertising
Law, and the California Confidentiality of Medical Information
Act.

The Defendant allegedly failed to properly protect and safeguard
Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, unauthorized
third parties were able to access Plaintiff's and Class Members'
Private information, without prior authorization. It even installed
Pixels and other code on its website to track users and collect
data and information about them that it could later monetize. It
also handed over Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information
to some of the largest online advertising companies in the world,
such as Meta, Google, Bing, and Pinterest, often permitting these
companies to use the sensitive Private Information for their own
research, product development, and advertising purposes.

Monument, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of
business located at 350 7th Avenue, New York. It has been in
operation since 2018, offering online alcohol dependency treatment
and counseling services via various websites and affiliated
physicians. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

             Mason A. Barney, Esq.
             SIRI & GLIMSTAD, LLP
             745 Fifth Ave, Suite 500
             New York, NY 10151
             Telephone: (212) 532-1091
             E-mail: mbarney@sirillp.com

                     - and -
             
             Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
             Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
             Fernando Valle, Jr., Esq.
             BRADLEY/GROMBACHER LLP
             31365 Oak Crest Dr., Suite 240
             Westlake Village, CA 91361
             Telephone: (805) 270-7100
             E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
                     kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
                     fvalle@bradleygrombacher.com

OHIO: Kelly Allowed to Amend Complaint v. ORDC Dir. Chambers-Smith
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM L. KELLEY, Plaintiff v. ODRC DIRECTOR ANETTE
CHAMBERS-SMITH, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-1391 (S.D.
Ohio), Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division,
grants the Plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint.

The Plaintiff, a prisoner at the Belmont Correctional Institution,
has filed a pro se civil rights complaint against Defendants
Annette Chambers-Smith, Alicia Hardwick, Kasey Plank, Michael
Laytart, Joe Schifer, Mr. Diller, and the ODRC chief inspector. The
Plaintiff has paid the full filing fee. He has also filed a motion
to amend his complaint. The amended complaint was filed by the
Plaintiff to change the caption and civil cover sheet of the
initial submission.

The matter is now before the Court for a sua sponte review of the
complaint, as amended, to determine whether the complaint or any
portion of it, should be dismissed because it is frivolous,
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted
or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief.

The Plaintiff was previously located at the Marion Correctional
Institution (MCI), with two other inmates, Henry Brown and Dana
Gibson. He asserts that they are members of a protected class
(African American). According to him, in August of 2020, he, Brown,
and Gibson, were housed in MCI's Veterans Dorm. In response to
escalating racial tension and discriminatory treatment, the
Plaintiff alleges that he, along with Brown and Gibson, filed
numerous complaints regarding alleged discriminatory treatment.

The Plaintiff claims that he and others were retaliated against in
violation of his First Amendment rights. In September and November
of 2020, he alleges that Gibson was expelled from the Veterans Dorm
in retaliation for filing numerous discrimination complaints. He
also alleges that on Sept. 8, 2021, Brown was fired from his job in
the laundry department for verbally exercising his First Amendment
Rights to the laundry department's supervisor, Mr. Diller,
pertaining to the discriminatory treatment of African Americans
within MCI's Veteran's Dorm and the laundry department. Between
Dec. 5 and 19, 2021, the Plaintiff claims that he, Brown, and
Johnson made numerous complaints to the MCI staff.

On Dec. 20, 2021, he claims that Defendants Michal Laytart and Joe
Schifer changed their bed assignment in retaliation for the
grievances, moving them to a less desirable location and replacing
them with Caucasian, non-veteran inmates. He further alleges that
in the following days, Laytart and Schifer -- along with the
Caucasian inmates -- subjected him and the other African American
residents to racial insults.

The Plaintiff claims that he pursued complaints within the ODRC.
However, he alleges that Defendant institutional inspector Kasey
Plank issued a final disposition that he claims was premised on a
racially biased one-sided investigation. It appears from the
complaint, that he did not receive a response to a subsequent
appeal.

The Plaintiff indicates that he executed a "hardship transfer" out
of MCI. He claims that after being transferred to Belmont
Correctional Institution, on Feb. 8, 2023, he was gathering
documents and making arrangements to retain an attorney for a
scheduled April 1, 2023 parole board hearing. However, he claims
that the hearing was rescheduled without any prior notice. The
Plaintiff claims he was awoken at 11:00 p.m. on Feb. 8, 2023 to
attend the hearing nine hours later.

Finally, in March of 2023, it appears that the Plaintiff requested
a section 1983 complaint form from the U.S. District Court. He
claims that the complaint was opened outside of his presence,
copied, and disorganized. He claims that he spent twenty to thirty
minutes reorganizing the complaint into the correct order.

Based on these factual allegations, the Plaintiff brings four
claims. First, he asserts First Amendment retaliation and
Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claims against Defendants
Plank, Laytart, Schifer, and Mr. Diller. Second, he claims that
ODRC chief inspector and inspector Plank violated his due process
rights by failing to properly investigate and/or respond to the
appeal of his grievances or complaints. Third, he claims that the
Ohio Adult Parole Authority (APA) violated his due process rights
by rescheduling his parole hearing. Finally, in claim four, the
Plaintiff brings a failure-to-train claim against ODRC director
Chambers-Smith based on his allegation that she tacitly approved a
pattern or practice of racial discrimination.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and mo damages.

At this stage in the proceedings, without the benefit of the
briefing by the parties to the action, Judge Deavers concludes that
the Plaintiff may proceed with his First and Fourteenth Amendment
claims against Laytart and Schifer. Out of an abundance of caution,
the Plaintiff may also proceed with his claim against
Chambers-Smith. These claims are deserving of further development
and may proceed at this juncture. However, she says the Plaintiff's
remaining claims should be dismissed.

As an initial matter, Judge Deavers rules that the complaint should
be limited to alleged violations of the Plaintiff's rights.
Therefore, she construes the Plaintiff as the sole plaintiff to the
action and the complaint should be limited to alleged violations of
his own federal rights. In the original complaint filed by the
Plaintiff, the Plaintiff purported to bring a class action. The
amended complaint alters the case caption to omit the reference to
the action being a purported class action. To the extent that the
Plaintiff still intends to include Brown and Gibson as plaintiffs
or pursue claims on their behalf, neither Brown nor Gibson have
signed the complaint and the Plaintiff is unable to pursue the
claims of others.

The complaint should be dismissed against Mr. Diller. Judge Deavers
finds that the Plaintiff's sole allegation against this defendant
pertains to alleged retaliation against inmate Brown.  Absent any
factual allegations suggesting that Diller violated the Plaintiff's
rights, Diller should be dismissed as a defendant.

The Plaintiff's claims against the state officials for monetary
damages are also subject to dismissal. As noted, the Plaintiff
seeks relief, in part, in the form of monetary damages. Absent an
express waiver, a state is immune from damage suits under the
Eleventh Amendment. The State of Ohio has not constitutionally nor
statutorily waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity in the federal
courts. Therefore, all of the named state defendants are immune
from suit in their official capacities to the extent that the
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages.

The Plaintiff's claims that Plank and the ODRC chief inspector
violated his constitutional rights in connection with the grievance
process and investigation of his complaints are subject to
dismissal. As noted, in his second claim, the Plaintiff alleges
that he pursued a complaint within the ODRC and that Plank failed
to adequately investigate his claims/grievances. However, Judge
Deaves says there is no statutory or common law right, much less a
constitutional right, to an investigation. Therefore, the Plaintiff
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against
Plank, the ODRC chief inspector, or any other Defendant to the
extent that he complains about the grievance procedure,
investigation, or appeal of his grievances or complaints.

The Plaintiff has also failed to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted based on his allegation that the Defendants' failure
to respond to his grievances/appeals interfered with the exhaustion
of his claims. His allegations are also insufficient to state an
actionable claim to the extent that he seeks to hold the Defendant
liable under 42 U.S.C. Section 1985. His allegations are
insufficient to support any inference that the defendants were
involved in a conspiracy, or in other words, that the defendants
"shared a common discriminatory objective." In the absence of such
allegations, the Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted under Section 1985.

Finally, Judge Deavers holds that the Plaintiff's claim that the
APA violated his due process rights in connection with his Feb. 8,
2023 parole hearing should also be dismissed. The Sixth Circuit has
repeatedly noted that there is no constitutional or inherent right
of a convicted person to be conditionally released [e.g. paroled]
before the expiration of a valid sentence. The Plaintiff's
procedural due process claim should therefore be dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Accordingly, the complaint should be dismissed as to Hardwick, who
the Plaintiff names as a defendant in connection with his due
process claim.

In view of her analysis, Judge Deavers dismisses the complaint, as
amended, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A(b),
with the exception of the Plaintiff's claims against Laytart,
Schifer, and Chambers-Smith.

She certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3) that for the
foregoing reasons an appeal of any Order adopting her Report and
Recommendation would not be taken in good faith, and therefore,
denies the Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

Therefore, the Plaintiff's motion to amend is granted. Because the
Plaintiff paid the filing fee in the matter and is not proceeding
in forma pauperis, he is responsible for having the summons and
complaint served on Laytart, Schifer, and Chambers-Smith within the
time allowed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and must furnish the necessary
copies to the person who makes the service. If the Plaintiff wishes
to have the Clerk of Court serve process, he will submit to the
Clerk of Court the following documents within 30 days: a completed
summons form, a copy of the complaint, and an addressed envelope
bearing sufficient certified mail postage to serve the summons and
complaint. Any questions regarding service should be directed to
the Clerk of Court.

The Plaintiff will serve upon the Defendants or, if appearance has
been entered by the counsel, upon the Defendants' attorney(s), a
copy of every further pleading or other document submitted for
consideration by the Court. He will include with the original paper
to be filed with the Clerk of Court a certificate stating the date
a true and correct copy of any document was mailed to the
Defendants or the Defendants' counsel. Any paper received by a
district judge or magistrate judge which has not been filed with
the Clerk or which fails to include a certificate of service will
be disregarded by the Court.

The Plaintiff will inform the Court promptly of any changes in his
address which may occur during the pendency of the lawsuit.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file
specific, written objections to the Report & Recommendation within
14 days after being served with a copy thereof. All objections will
specify the portion(s) of the R&R objected to and will be
accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. A
party will respond to an opponent's objections within 14 days after
being served with a copy of those objections. Failure to make
objections to this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 30, 2023 Order & Report &
Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/ysbbdhtr from
Leagle.com.


ORIGNAL PIZZA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hernandez Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ISRAEL HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ORIGINAL PIZZA, INC., and
related or affiliated entities, and FRANK FONTANA and VINCENT
FONTANA, individually, Defendants, Case No. 154860/2023 (N.Y. Sup.,
May 30, 2023) arises out of the Defendants' violations of the New
York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff worked as a food preparer for Defendants from
approximately February 2018 through August 2021. Beginning in
approximately May 2017 and continuing through the present,
Defendants allegedly have engaged in a policy and practice of
failing to pay Plaintiff and Putative Class members their earned
wages, including failing to pay them for overtime compensation at
the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for
hours worked in excess of 40 in a week. Plaintiff seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation and spread of hours compensation, as
well as unpaid uniform maintenance compensation.

Original Pizza Inc. is a business corporation incorporated under
the laws of the State of New York, with three locations at 95-14
Avenue L, Brooklyn, New York 11236; 6823 4th Ave. Brooklyn, NY
11220; and its third location and principal place of business
located at 2351 Ralph Ave. Brooklyn, NY 11234. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

              Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
              Leonor H. Coyle, Esq.
              VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
              40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
              New York, NY 10004
              Telephone: (212) 943-9080
              Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
              E-mail: lcoyle@vandallp.com

PAWN AMERICA: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Thomas Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pawn America, Minnesota, LLC, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Order dated May 11, 2023 entered in the lawsuit
entitled MELISSA THOMAS; RANDELL HUFF; MEGAN MURILLO; MONIQUE DERR;
and PAOLA MANZO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. PAWN AMERICA MINNESOTA, LLC; PAYDAY AMERICA, INC.; and
PAL CARD MINNESOTA, LLC, Case No. 0:21-cv-02554-PJS-JFD, in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.

The Plaintiffs are customers of Pawn America who filed this
putative class action against Pawn America on November 23, 2021
after their sensitive personal information was stolen from Pawn
America's computer network.  

On January 7, 2022, after the Court entered orders consolidating
related actions, the Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint.

On February 9, 2022 Pawn America filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint. Pawn America argued that Plaintiffs lacked
standing and, alternatively, that all of Plaintiffs' claims should
be dismissed on the merits.

On April 15, 2022 Judge Hildy Bowbeer entered an Initial Scheduling
Order and Order for Partial Stay Pending Ruling on the Motion to
Dismiss.

On July 11, 2022, more than seven months after this litigation was
commenced, Pawn America formally notified Plaintiffs that it had
elected to arbitrate Plaintiffs' claims.

On August 8, the Court granted Pawn America's motion to dismiss in
part. The Court found that Plaintiffs had standing to seek monetary
relief, but not to seek injunctive or declaratory relief.

On August 22, Pawn America moved for a protective order and to stay
litigation pending the Court's ruling on its motion to compel
arbitration. Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty held a hearing on
September 8 and granted the motion from the bench.

On September 12, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge Patrick J.
Schiltz entered an order on May 11, 2023, denying the defendants'
motion to compel arbitration.

The Court said, "Even if the status conference transpired exactly
as Pawn America describes, Pawn America has offered no explanation
for why it did not appeal or object to Judge Bowbeer's order so as
to preserve its right to arbitrate. Nor can Pawn America explain
why it never informed this Court about its intent to arbitrate
either before orduring the hearing on its motion to dismiss. Pawn
America does not dispute that it never raised arbitration with this
Court until July, three months after it allegedly raised the issue
with Judge Bowbeer, and more than two months after the Court heard
argument on its motion to dismiss."

The appellate case is captioned as Melissa Thomas, et al. v. Pawn
America MN, LLC, et al., Case No. 23-2292, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on May 26, 2023.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Transcript is due on or before July 5, 2023;

   -- Appendix is due on July 17, 2023;

   -- BRIEF APPELLANT, PAL Card Minnesota, LLC, Pawn America,
Minnesota, LLC and Payday America, Inc. is due on July 17, 2023;
and

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues
the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant.[BN]

Defendants-Appellants Pawn America, Minnesota, LLC, et al., are
represented by:

          Douglas R. Boettge, Esq.
          STINSON, LLP
          50 S. Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 335-7252

               - and -

          Thomas W. Hayde, Jr., Esq.
          SPENCER & FANE
          1 N. Brentwood Boulevard, Suite 1200
          Saint Louis, MO 63105-0000
          Telephone: (314) 863-7733  

               - and -

          Shawn Tuma, Esq.
          SPENCER & FANE
          5700 Granite Parkway, Suite 650
          Plano, TX 75024
          Telephone: (972) 324-0317  

Plaintiffs=Appellees Melissa Thomas, on behalf of herself
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et
al., are represented by:

          Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Bores, Esq.
          Nathan D. Prosser, Esq.
          Christopher Paul Renz, Esq.
          CHESTNUT & CAMBRONNE
          100 Washington Avenue, S., Suite 1700
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-7300

               - and -

          Terence Coates, Esq.
          MARKOVITS & STOCK
          119 E. Court Street, Suite 530
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 651-3700

               - and -

          Lindsey LaBelle Larson, Esq.
          Anne T. Regan, Esq.
          HELLMUTH & JOHNSON
          8050 W. 78th Street
          Edina, MN 55439
          Telephone: (952) 941-4005

PROGREXION HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Workers' Abrupt Termination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Wolf, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that credit repair
business Progrexion was hit with a proposed class action just one
day into the company's Chapter 11 bankruptcy case, facing
allegations it abruptly terminated about 900 employees without
advance notice in early April.

Progrexion and related bankrupt entities held by PGX Holdings Inc.
violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act when
it conducted mass layoffs of telemarketers at its central operating
facilities in Utah, according to a suit filed on June 5 in the US
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.

The proposed class is led by plaintiff Kirsten Hansen.

Court: US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, Case
Number: 23-50396 [GN]


PUBLIC SERVICE: Faces Class Action Over "Junk Solicitations"
------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Abrams, writing for Public Radio, reports that three companies,
including Public Service Company of Oklahoma, are facing a proposed
class action lawsuit from a Tulsa resident for allegedly selling
customer information and sending "junk solicitations" to PSO
customers with misleading information, according to a petition
filed on June 5.

The lawsuit was filed in Tulsa County District Court and alleges
resident John Woodstock received mail from repair company
HomeServe, one of the defendants, advertising a coverage plan for
consumers in case of electrical issues outside their homes,
labelled "exterior electrical coverage."

However, the suit alleges this coverage is "worthless," that PSO is
actually responsible for ongoing electrical line maintenance and
that PSO sold customer information to HomeServe to send the
mailings. The suit also alleges the companies made "huge sums" from
the misleadingly labeled plan because of automatic renewal.

Additionally, the suit alleges that Oklahoma utilities companies,
including PSO, "do not maintain their infrastructure as they are
obligated to do under the OCC-approved rate. Instead, Oklahoma
electrical utilities, including defendant PSO, deceptively work to
shunt these obligations to Oklahoma consumers," according to the
petition.

Woodstock filed nine claims and is seeking damages from the
companies under the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act.

Attorneys for the plaintiff and a PSO spokesperson both declined to
comment on this story.

Woodstock is represented by the Indian and Environmental Law Group,
PLLC. Counsel information for the defendants was not immediately
available. [GN]

RAPID ARMORED: Fails to Pay Overtime Premiums, Ortiz Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
EMMANUAL ORTIZ, on behalf of himself and the Class, Plaintiff v.
RAPID ARMORED CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 515800/2023 (N.Y.
Sup., May 30, 2023) arises out of the Defendant's violations of the
New York Labor Law.

From on or about March 2003 until on or about March 2022, Plaintiff
Ortiz was employed by Defendant as a security guard and armored car
driver. He was regularly scheduled to work 60 hours per week.
However, he was not compensated overtime premiums for all hours
worked over 40. Further, Defendant had a policy of automatically
rounding Plaintiff's hours down to an hour regardless of hours
worked. The Plaintiff clocked in and out on a daily basis from
Brooklyn hub located in New York. Despite this, Plaintiff’s
compensation was improperly rounded down to his detriment. In
addition, he never compensated a spread of hours premium, says the
suit.

RAPID AMORED CORPORATION is a domestic limited liability company
organized under the laws of the State of New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CA: Handling of Inmates Violates Law, Jury Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
CBS-Sacramento of Yahoo! News reports that and we'll new
information tonight about a grand jury report. The grand jury
report says the county keeps suicidal inmates in cells with blind
spots where they can't always be seen on camera. The report also
found the county has failed to make many to make any changes three
years after a major class action lawsuit settlement over the lack
of staffing and poor medical and mental health care. The grand jury
report says failing to make these changes could be catastrophic.
Now the sheriff's office does have the chance to respond. They will
now have 60 days to respond. [GN]


SENTINELONE INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), on June 6 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Johansson
v. SentinelOne, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-cv-02786, on behalf of
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
SentinelOne, Inc. ("SentinelOne" or the "Company") (NYSE: S)
securities between June 1, 2022 and June 1, 2023, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the date
of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.

If you suffered a loss on your SentinelOne investments or would
like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your
loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/sentinelone-inc/. You can
also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com or
visit our website at www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your
rights.

On June 1, 2023, after the market closed, SentinelOne published a
press release titled "SentinelOne Announces First Quarter Fiscal
Year 2024 Financial Results." Therein, the Company disclosed that
"[a]s a result of a change in methodology and correction of
historical inaccuracies, which we further describe in our letter to
shareholders, we made a one-time adjustment to ARR of $27.0 million
or approximately 5% of total ARR." The Company also revised its
fiscal year 2024 revenue guidance downward to a range of $590
million to $600 million from a range of $631 million to $640
million. In a shareholder letter published the same day,
SentinelOne further explained that "we . . . discovered historical
upsell and renewal recording inaccuracies relating to ARR on
certain subscription and consumption contracts, which are now
corrected" and that "[w]e are applying a comparable estimated
adjustment to the remaining quarters in fiscal year 23, which we
believe is a reasonable approximation of the impact in those
periods."

On this news, SentinelOne's stock price fell $7.28 per share, or
more than 35%, to close at $13.44 per share on June 2, 2023.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: investors: (1) that the Company lacked effective internal
controls over accounting and financial reporting; (2) that, as a
result, the Company's ARR was overstated; (3) that, as a result,
the Company's guidance was overstated; and (4) that, as a result of
the foregoing, Defendant's positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired SentinelOne securities
during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60
days from the date of this notice to ask the Court to appoint you
as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take
any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or
take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you
wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire,
of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California
90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.

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

Contacts:
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]

SHAKEY'S USA: Faces Conway Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA CONWAY, on behalf of herself and current and former
aggrieved employees, Plaintiff vs. SHAKEY'S USA, INC.; and DOES 1
to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV1 2144 (Cal. Super.,
Los Angeles Cty., May 30, 2023) arises out of the Defendants'
alleged violations of the California Labor Code.

Plaintiff Melissa Conway was employed by Defendants in an hourly
position at Defendants' location in Los Angeles from approximately
April 2017 until on or about October 1, 2022. Pursuant to Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004, Plaintiff Conway seeks civil
penalties associated with Defendants' violations of the Labor Code
based on Defendants' failure to pay wages for all hours worked at
minimum wage and all overtime hours worked at the overtime rate of
pay; failure to authorize or permit all legally required and/or
compliant meal periods or pay meal period premium wages; failure to
authorize or permit all legally required and/or compliant rest
periods or pay rest period premium wages; failure to pay wages for
accrued paid sick time at the regular rate of pay; statutory
penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements;
statutory waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages
for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon separation
of employment.

Shakey's USA, Inc. operates in Los Angeles County and employed
Plaintiff and aggrieved employees in Los Angeles County, including
but not limited to, at 935 W. Arbor Vitae Street, Inglewood,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Joseph Lavi, Esq., Esq.
           Vincent C. Granberry, Esq., Esq.
           Melissa A. Huether, Esq.
           LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
           8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
           Beverly Hills, CA 90211
           Telephone: (310) 432-0000
           Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
           E-mail: ilavi@lelawfirm.com
                   vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
                   mhuether@lelawfirm.com
                   WHT3@lelawfirm.com

SOUTH AFRICA: Faces Class Suit Over Hammanskraal Cholera Outbreak
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rapula Moatshe of IOL reports that the government has been
threatened with a class action suit for negligence stemming from
the provision of contaminated water to Hammanskraal residents,
resulting in the deaths of 23 people.

Advocate Moafrika Wa Maila told the Pretoria News that he would
institute a class action against the government on behalf of those
who died, those admitted to hospital and other affected residents.

Since May 15, 2023, many people in the township were admitted to
Jubilee District Hospital after they fell ill with diarrhoeal
disease or gastrointestinal infections said to be caused by the
consumption of contaminated water. The government subsequently
declared that there was a cholera outbreak in the area.

Maila said one of the bases for the lawsuit would be previous
reports with findings on the Hammanskraal water situation,
including the 2021 report compiled by the South African Human
Rights Commission after its public inquiry into the quality of
water.

Part of the commission's report blamed the municipality "for the
unacceptable levels of pollution", which was attributed to "the
failure to manage and maintain existing wastewater treatment works
over a prolonged period of time".

Maila said he would host a media briefing with the bereaved
families next week to outline their legal strategy.

"I have been a water activist in Hammanskraal for the past years.
When the four children died in 2015 of cholera the media refused to
cover the story and I took action, but we lost the court case
because the autopsy results were twisted. This time there has been
some acknowledgement that there is indeed cholera and that gives
our case a 90% chance of winning," he said.

Maila is seeking compensation for the affected families for loss of
income and comfort, among other things.

"These are family members, wives and siblings who had duties and
everything and now some of them had their lives cut short due to
negligence by the government which provided them with water that
killed them. It is the duty of the government to provide clean
water," Maila said.

The SAHRC report said the government, by giving the people of
Hammanskraal contaminated water, was in gross violation of a human
right and they ought to be held criminal liable, adding
calculations were still to be done on the amount of the claim.

Maila said money was not going to be a problem because he had
secured some funders and the support of powerful senior advocates.
"I am going full swing in this matter and I am using powerful
senior advocates. I am winning this one."

He said one of the people who died was a woman in her forties who
had a career and earned a minimum monthly salary of R12 000.

"She has three children who are below the age of 12. She had a long
life ahead of her. She had an opportunity to grow her career but
now her life has been cut short by government negligence. Who will
take care of these kids? The government must take responsibility,"
Maila said.

This week the City of Tshwane council approved a R450 million
allocation to capacitate Rooiwal wastewater treatment plant, which
has been identified as the source of problem for Hammanskraal
residents.

It was announced during a joint media briefing held this week with
Minister of Water and Sanitation Senzo Mchunu and Tshwane mayor
Cilliers Brink that the estimated cost of a full rehabilitation and
upgrade of Rooiwal would be about R4 billion.

Meanwhile, WaterCAN - an initiative of the Organisation Undoing Tax
Abuse (Outa) - said on June 1, 2023 that it had commissioned an
independent laboratory service, Aquatico Laboratories, to test
water from four taps in Hammanskraal. The laboratory found that
water from three of four taps "was not safe to drink," WaterCAN
said.

However, it said there was no trace of cholera after independent
analysis of the bacteriological water quality.

WaterCAN's executive manager, Dr Ferrial Adam, said: "The water may
be free of E coli and free of cholera, but there is still a very
high number of other bacteria in the water which is a major cause
for concern as it indicates either inadequate treatment before it
goes into the pipes, or water is secondarily polluted after it
leaves the treatment facility. Either way, it remains unsafe for
consumption." [GN]

SOUTHERN POVERTY: Completion of Class Discovery Due April 16, 2024
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONALD A. KING and THE
DUSTIN INMAN SOCIETY, INC., v. THE SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00207-WKW-JTA (M.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge W.
Keith Watkins entered a uniform scheduling order as follows:

  -- Trial and Pretrial Dates scheduled for:      Sept. 19, 2024

  -- Dispositive motions, e.g., motions for       May 16, 2024.
     summary judgment, shall be filed no
     later than:

  -- The Parties' Settlement Conference, no       April 16, 2024
     later than:

  -- Motions to amend the pleadings and to        July 24, 2023
     add parties shall be filed by the
     parties, on or before:

  -- All discovery shall be completed on          April 16, 2024
     or before:

Southern Poverty is an American 501 nonprofit legal advocacy
organization specializing in civil rights and public interest
litigation.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43RPcZf at no extra charge.[CC]

TINGO GROUP: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on June 6
announced an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf
of shareholders of Tingo Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: TIO) resulting from
allegations that Tingo Group may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=16856 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On June 6, 2023, before the market opened,
market analyst Hindenburg Research issued a report entitled "Tingo
Group: Fake Farmers, Phones, and Financials-The Nigerian Empire
That Isn't", alleging that Tingo Group is "an exceptionally obvious
scam with completely fabricated financials." Among other things,
the report alleged that the company's founder and CEO made false
and misleading claims about his past, including his educational
background. Further, the company alleged that photos of a planned
company facility are, in actuality, a "rendering of an oil refinery
from a stock photo website", that the company's claims about its
telecommunications business are fraudulent, and that the company's
revenue claims relating to its food business are untrue. Lastly,
the report stated, "Tingo's cash flow and balance sheet statements
do not reconcile and show major errors indicating a complete lack
of financial controls. Its cash flow statements regularly subtract
items from cash that should be added and vice versa."

On this news, Tingo Group's stock price fell as much as $1.20, or
47%, in pre-market trading.

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

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

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

TRANSAMERICA CORPORATION: Smith Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transamerica
Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Christopher Carson Smith,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
Transamerica Corporationl Aegon NV, Aegon USA, LLC doing business
as: Transamerica, Transamerica Life Insurance Company, Aegon Direct
Marketing Services, Inc. formerly known as: Aegon Special Marketing
Services, Inc., Penney OpCo LLC doing business as: JCPenney
formerly known as: JC Penney, Inc., TCS e-Serve International
Limited, Case No. 3:23-cv-00357-KHJ-MTP (S.D. Miss., June 5,
2023).

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

The Transamerica Corporation -- http://www.transamerica.com/-- is
an American holding company for various life insurance companies
and investment firms operating primarily in the United States,
offering life and supplemental health insurance, investments, and
retirement services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Malcolm McMullan, Jr., Esq.
          BARRETT LAW GROUP, PA - Lexington
          P. O. Box 927
          404 Court Square
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Phone: (662) 834-2488
          Fax: (662) 834-2628
          Email: dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com


TRIWIN INC: Molloy Files Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Triwin Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Michael Molloy, on behalf of himself and
those similarly situated v. Triwin Inc., Triwin Games Co. Ltd.,
Case No. 2:23-cv-04317-GW-AS (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Triwin Games -- https://www.triwingames.com/ -- is a game publisher
that offers expertise in the design, development and publishing of
online casino games worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew T. Ryan, Esq.
          RYAN LAW APC
          317 Rosecrans Avenue
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Phone: (310) 321-4800
          Fax: (310) 496-1435
          Email: andrew.ryan@theryanlawgroup.com


UINTAH BASIN HEALTHCARE: Halton Files Suit in D. Utah
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Uintah Basin
Healthcare. The case is styled as Earl Halton, Donna Halton, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Uintah Basin
Healthcare, Case No. 2:23-cv-00373-JCB (D. Utah, June 7, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

The Uintah Basin Medical Center -- https://ubh.org/ -- is a
non-profit community hospital located in Roosevelt, Utah, United
States of America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jared D. Scott, Esq.
          Jacob W. Nelson, Esq.
          ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
          50 W Broadway, Ste. 600
          Salt Lake City, UT 84101
          Phone: (801) 534-1700
          Fax: (801) 364-7697
          Email: jscott@aklawfirm.com
                 jnelson@aklawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Blaine J. Benard, Esq.
          HOLLAND & HART LLP
          222 S Main St Ste 2200
          Salt Lake City, UT 84101
          Phone: (801) 799-5800
          Email: bjbenard@hollandhart.com


UNION PACIFIC: Fitness-For-Duty Policy Violates ADA, Cromeens Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
GAYLON CROMEENS, Plaintiff v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO.,
Defendant, Case No. 8:23-cv-00234-JFB-CRZ (D. Neb., May 31, 2023)
is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's practice of subjecting
employees to its fitness-for-duty program, which requires employees
in certain positions to disclose their specified health conditions
even when the condition had no impact on their ability to safely
perform their job. Moreover, Union Pacific made matters worse by
imposing a policy that automatically removes employees who disclose
health conditions, or who Union Pacific suspects may have health
conditions, from service. As a result of this Fitness-for-Duty
evaluation policy, the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees
were removed from service and excluded from work at Union Pacific
because of their disabilities.

Union Pacific Railroad Co. is a railroad carrier headquartered in
Omaha, Nebraska. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         James H. Kaster, Esq.
         Lucas J. Kaster, Esq.
         Jacob C. Harksen, Esq.
         NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
         80 South Eighth Street
         4700 IDS Center
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Telephone: (612) 256-3200
         Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
         E-mail: kaster@nka.com
                 lkaster@nka.com
                 jharksen@nka.com

UNISERVE PROJECT: Jackson Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages for Mail Clerks
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNISERVE PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.;
UNISERVE FACILITIES SERVICES CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV12245 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., May 31, 2023) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code's Private
Attorneys General Act including failure to provide employment
records, failure to pay overtime and double time, failure to
provide rest and meal periods, failure to pay minimum wage, failure
to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage
statements, failure to pay reporting time wages, failure to pay
split shift wages, failure to pay all wages earned on time, failure
to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation, failure to
reimburse business-related expenses, and failure to provide notice
of paid sick time and accrual.

Mr. Jackson has been hired by the Defendants as a mail clerk on or
about August 17, 2021 until the present.

Uniserve Project Management Services, Inc. is a provider of
janitorial services doing business in California.

Uniserve Facilities Services Corporation is a provider of cleaning
services doing business in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
         Diana Zadykyan, 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
                 diana@hbklawyers.com

VAN BUREN COUNTY, MI: Viser Appeals Protective Order in Wayside
---------------------------------------------------------------
Movants VISSER AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC, et al., filed an appeal from
the District Court's Order dated May 15, 2023 entered in the
lawsuit styled WAYSIDE CHURCH, MYRON W. STAHL, and HENDERSON
HODGENS, individually and on behalf of a class of all others
similarly situated, v. VAN BUREN COUNTY, et al., Case No.
1:14-cv-01274, in the United States Western District for the
District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.

The Plaintiffs brought this action in 2014 to obtain damages for
all former property owners in the State whose real property was
sold at tax auction with the municipality keeping the surplus.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Defendants
sought a review of the Court's Order dated February 16, 2021,
granting in part and denying in part their motion to dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction.

On March 23, 2023, Frederick Grainger, Jr. filed a MOTION to
intervene for a limited purpose or, in the alternative, to oppose
Wayside's Motion for Preliminary Approval considering him as a
non-intervenor movant.

On March 27, 2023, Judge Paul L. Maloney entered an Order
dismissing Mr. Grainger's motion to intervene. Movant Grainger, et
al., previously filed an appeal from this District Court's Order.

On March 29, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an EMERGENCY MOTION for
protective order Governing Non-Party Solicitations of Named
Plaintiffs and Class Members.

The Defendants then filed a MOTION to quash subpoenas and a MOTION
to quash additional subpoenas on April 25, 2023 and May 1, 2023,
respectively.

On May 15, 2023, the Court entered an Opinion and Order granting in
part and denying in part Plaintiffs' March 29, 2023 motion for
protective order; and granting Defendants' April 25, 2023 and May
1, 2023 motions.

On the same day, Court entered a protective order holding that:

   -- Donald Visser, Donovan Visser, and all attorneys and staff
members employed by Visser and Associates, PLLC are prohibited from
soliciting and communicating with, in any form, any class members,
as defined in the preliminarily approved settlement agreement in
Wayside Church v. Van Buren County, No. 1:14-cv-1274 (W.D. Mich.),
that had not retained the Vissers before March 24, 2023, regarding
the subject of this matter;

   -- The Vissers shall produce an accounting of class members they
have solicited or communicated with, but only with respect to class
members the Vissers solicited/communicated with, in any form,
following the Court's preliminary approval of the class, and whom
the Vissers did not represent prior to preliminary approval. This
accounting will be due within 14 days of the date of this order;
and

   -- Class counsel in this matter may conduct discovery, with
responses due in fourteen days from the date of service, in the
form of subpoenas to produce documents, regarding Visser's
solicitation efforts following the preliminary approval of the
class.

The appellate case is captioned as Wayside Church, et al. v. Van
Buren County, MI, et al., Case No. 23-1471, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on May 26, 2023.[BN]

Movants-Appellants VISSER AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC, et al., are
represented by:

          Donald Ray Visser, Esq.
          VISSER & ASSOCIATES
          2480 44th Street, Suite 150
          Kentwood, MI 49512
          Telephone: (616) 531-9860

Plaintiffs-Appellees WAYSIDE CHURCH, an Illinois Not-For-Profit
(Ecclesiastical) Corporation, individually and on behalf of a class
of all others similarly situated, et al., are represented by:

          David H. Fink, Esq.
          Nathan Joshua Fink, Esq.  
          FINK BRESSACK
          38500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 350
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
          Telephone: (248) 971-2500

               - and -

          Owen Dennis Ramey, Esq.
          LEWIS, REED & ALLEN
          136 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 800
          Kalamazoo, MI 49007
          Telephone: (269) 388-7600

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Settles Class Action Over 401(k) Plan
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Verizon
Communications Inc. announced plans to settle a 200,000-person
class action challenging a hedge fund investment in the company's
401(k) plan, averting a looming trial.

The settlement notice, filed on June 5, comes one month before the
parties were scheduled to begin a multi-day trial before Judge Paul
G. Gardephe of the US District Court for the Southern District of
New York. The parties reached an agreement following a two-day
mediation session and plan to file the deal for court approval by
July 7, according to the notice. [GN]

VF OUTDOOR INC: Ramirez Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Virginia Ramirez, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated v. VF OUTDOOR, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, Case No. 23STCV08323 was removed from the Superior Court
in the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on June 7, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-04479.

The Complaint asserts the following claims for relief: Failure To
Pay Wages For All Hours At The Minimum Wage in Violation of Labor
Code; Failure To Pay Overtime Wages For Daily Overtime worked In
Violation of Labor Code; Failure To Authorize or Permit Meal
Periods in Violation of Labor Code; Failure To Authorize or Permit
Rest Periods in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Provide
complete And Accurate Wage Statements In Violation of Labor Code;
Failure To Timely Pay All Earned Wages and Final Paychecks Due At
Time of Separation Of Employment in Violation of Labor Code; and
Unfair Business Practices in Violation of Business and Professions
Code.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Janel R. Ablon, Esq.
          Krystal Saleh, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
          Phone: 310.553.0308
          Fax: 800.715.1330
          Email: jablon@littler.com
                 ksaleh@littler.com


WALGREEN EASTERN: Johnson Suit Removed to D. Connecticut
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as John Johnson, for himself and other similarly
situated employees v. WALGREEN EASTERN CO., INC., Case No.
HHD-CV-23-6169060-S was removed from the Connecticut Superior
Court, Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford, to the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut on June 7,
2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00743.

The Plaintiff's Complaint is framed as a putative class action and
seeks recovery for purported wage and hour violations under
Connecticut law. The Plaintiff's Complaint seeks to recover unpaid
wages, unpaid overtime wages, statutory damages, attorneys' fees
and costs and interest, based on Walgreens alleged failure to pay
straight time wages in violation of Conn.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christopher M. Wasil, Esq.
          Christopher A. Parlo, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One State Street
          Hartford, CN 06103
          Phone: (860) 240-2700
          Fax: (860) 240-2701
          Email: christopher.wasil@morganlewis.com
                 christopher.parlo@morganlewis.com


WATERMARK SERVICES: Harris Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Watermark Services
IV, LLC. The case is styled as Telecia B. Harris, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated v. Watermark Services IV,
LLC, Case No. 23CV035212 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., June 6,
2023).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."

Watermark Services IV, LLC is a business entity in Tucson,
Arizona.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          LAVI AND EBRAHIMIAN LLP
          8889 West Olympic Boulevard Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Phone: (310) 432-0000
          Fax: (310) 432-0001
          Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com


WAYFINDER FAMILY: Ratliff Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brynesha Ratliff, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved
Employees, v. WAYFINDER FAMILY SERVICES, a California Nonprofit
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV12718
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 5, 2023), is brought
against the Defendants' failure to pay compensation in violation of
Labor Code, the California Code of Regulations, and the applicable
Wage Orders

The Defendants failed to provide employment records in violation of
Labor Code; failed to pay overtime and double time in violation of
Labor Code and the applicable Wage Orders; failed to provide rest
and meal periods in violation of Labor Code, and the applicable
Wage Orders; failed to pay minimum wage in violation of Labor Code
and the applicable Wage Orders; failed to keep accurate payroll
records and provide itemized wage statements in violation of Labor
Code, and the applicable Wage Orders; failed to pay reponing time
wages in violation of California Code of Regulations, Title 8,
section failed to pay split shift wages in violation of California
Code of Regulations failed to pay all wages earned on time in
violation of Labor Code section 204; failed to pay all wages earned
upon discharge or resignation in violation of Labor Code; failed to
reimburse necessary, business-related expenses in violation of
Labor Code; failed to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual
in violation of Labor Code; employers, and individuals acting on
behalf of employers, violating or causing to be violated a section
of the Labor Code or any Wage Order in violation of Labor Code;
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from July 20, 2017
through the present.

The Defendants are a provider of services and temporary shelter for
children, youth, and adults.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
          Cathy Gonzalez, Esq.
          Raffi Tapanian, Esq.
          HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
          801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Phone: 1-818-696-2306
          Facsimile: 1-818-696-2307
          Email: haig@hbklawyers.com
                 cathy@hbklawyers.com
                 raffi@hbklawyers.com


WELLNOW URGENT CARE: Sears Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stacey Sears, individually and for others, individually and for
others similarly situated v. WELLNOW URGENT CARE, P.C., Case No.
1:23-cv-03544 (N.D. Ill., June 6, 2023), is brought to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant in
violation the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York
Labor Law (NYLL).

Like the Putative Class Members, the Plaintiff regularly worked
more than 40 hours in a workweek. But the Defendant did not pay for
all the hours they worked. Instead, the Defendant deducted 30
minutes a day from these employees' work time for so-called meal
breaks even if they were unable to take, and did not clock out and
record they took, a meal break. the Plaintiff and the Putative
Class Members were thus not paid for all time they worked. The
Defendant fails to provide the Plaintiff and the Putative Class
Members with bonafide meal Instead, the Defendant requires the
Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members to remain on-duty
throughout their shifts and continuously subjects them to
interruptions during their unpaid "meal breaks."

The Defendant's meal break deduction policy violates the FLSA and
the NYLL by depriving the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members
of overtime pay for all overtime hours worked. Further, in addition
to excluding time the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members
worked during their unpaid "meal breaks," the Defendant also
subjects these employees to its uniform 7-minute automatic rounding
policy.

Specifically, the Defendant automatically rounds the Plaintiff's
and the Putative Class Members' recorded time punches up to 7
minutes to the nearest quarter hour to the Defendant's--not these
employees'--predominant benefit. Indeed, the Defendant uniformly
prohibits the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members from
clocking in more than 7 minutes before their scheduled shift start
and clocking out more than 7 minutes after their scheduled shift
end. the Defendant's automatic rounding policy violates the FLSA
and NYLL by depriving the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members
of overtime pay for all overtime hours worked, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Licensed Practice Nurse
(LPN) at the Defendant's facility in Plattsburgh, New York.

WellNow bills itself as "one of the fastest-growing providers of
urgent medical care, telehealth and occupational medicine services
in the United States, with more than 180 centers across Illinois,
Indiana, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 419-1008
          Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
                 msalas@flsalaw.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Phone: 713-352-1100
          Facsimile: 713-352-3300
          Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                 adunlap@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
          Houston, TX 77046
          Phone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: 713-877-8065
          Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com

               - and -

          William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq.
          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Phone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
                 austin@a2xlaw.com


WESTROCK SERVICES: Quiles Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Victor A. Quiles, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. WESTROCK SERVICES, LLC., a
Georgia Limited Liability Company and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case
No. 23CV000807 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Monterey, to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on June 7, 2023, and
assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-02817.

Among other things, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is liable to
the Plaintiff and Class Members for the following: Failure to
timely pay wages upon separation pursuant to California Labor Code;
Failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements to Plaintiff
and the Class pursuant to California Labor Code; Improper use of
consumer credit reports for employment purposes pursuant to
California Labor Code; Unlawful business practices pursuant to
California Business and Professions Code; Failure to make proper
disclosures; Failure to obtain proper authorizations; Failure to
make proper disclosures pursuant to California Civil Code; Failure
to make proper disclosures pursuant to California Civil Code.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mia Farber, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
          Phone: (213) 689-0404
          Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
          Email: Mia.Farber@jacksonlewis.com

               - and -

          Scott P. Jang, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          50 California Street, 9th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4615
          Phone: (415) 394-9400
          Facsimile: (415) 394-9401
          Email: Scott.Jang@jacksonlewis.com

               - and -

          Isabella L. Shin, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          160 W. Santa Clara St., Suite 400
          San Jose, CA 95113
          Phone: (408) 579-0404
          Facsimile: (408) 454-0290
          Email: Isabella.Shin@jacksonlewis.com


WINGSTUFF.COM INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wingstuff.com, Inc.
The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Wingstuff.com, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-04800 (S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2023).

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

Wingstuff.com, Inc. -- https://wingstuff.com/ -- specialize in
Honda Goldwing Parts and Accessories for the GL1500, GL1800 and
more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


YUM! BRANDS INC: Ester Suit Removed to W.D. Kentucky
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Karen Ester, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Yum! Brands, Inc., Case No. 23-CI-002557 was
removed from the Jefferson Circuit Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Kentucky on June 5, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00290-BJB to the
proceeding.

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

Yum! Brands, Inc. -- https://www.yum.com/ -- formerly Tricon Global
Restaurants, Inc., is an American fast food corporation listed on
the Fortune 1000.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Amina A. Thomas, Esq.
          Lynn Toops, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Phone: (317) 636-6481
          Fax: (317) 636-2593
          Email: athomas@cohenandmalad.com
                 ltoops@cohenandmalad.com

               - and -

          Andrew E. Mize, Esq.
          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Phone: (615) 254-8801
          Fax: (615) 255-5419
          Email: amize@stranchlaw.com
                 gstranch@stranchlaw.com

               - and -

          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          TURKE & STRAUSS, LLP
          613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
          Madison, WI 53703
          Phone: (608) 237-1775
          Fax: (608) 509-4423
          Email: sam@turkestrauss.com

The Defendants is represented by:

          Cloe Anderson, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP - DC
          1999 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006-1101
          Phone: (202) 263-3291
          Email: cmanderson@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Sarah M. McKenna, Esq.
          Sarah Diana Reddick, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP - LOUISVILLE
          101 S. Fifth Street, Suite 2500
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Phone: (502) 581-8000
          Fax: (502) 581-8111
          Email: sarah.mckenna@dinsmore.com
                 sarah.reddick@dinsmore.com


ZOA ENERGY LLC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ZOA Energy, LLC. The
case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. ZOA
Energy, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-04680 (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2023).

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

ZOA Energy -- https://zoaenergy.com/ -- offers a line of healthy,
naturally-derived energy drinks that contain vitamins and
immunity-boosting superfood ingredients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


ZURN INDUSTRIES: Hernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Peter Hernandez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. ZURN INDUSTRIES, LLC. d/b/a “Zurn
Elkay Water Solutions: and/or “Zurn Wilkins,” a Delaware
limited liability company; REXNORD INDUSTRIES, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No.
23CVP-0147 was removed from the San Luis Obispo County Superior
Court, State of California, to the United States District Court for
the Central District of California on June 5, 2023, and assigned
Case No. 2:23-cv-04398.

In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges eleven causes of action against
Defendants: failure to pay all wages; failure to pay overtime wages
at the overtime rate; failure to provide meal and rest periods;
failure to pay premium wages at the regular rate; failure to
reimburse work expenses; illegal wage deductions; independent and
derivative failures to provide accurate wage statements; a
derivative claim under section 203; and unfair business
practices.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael J. Nader, SBN 200425
          Alexandra M. Asterlin, SBN 221286
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2500
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Phone: 916-840-3150
          Facsimile: 916-840-3159
          Email: michael.nader@ogletree.com
                 alexandra.asterlin@ogletree.com

[*] European Union Set to Roll Out New Class Action Directive
-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Vanderford, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports
that class-action lawsuits -- a favorite of U.S. lawyers that costs
companies billions of dollars each year -- are set to roll out
throughout the European Union this month, as the bloc requires each
of its members to make it easier for consumer groups to bring group
actions targeting alleged corporate wrongdoing.

Though some EU states had delved into allowing class actions
previously, a new directive scheduled to come into effect later
this month will expand the mechanism across the bloc. Countries
will have to allow suits based on EU laws touching on areas such as
data privacy, the environment, food labeling, airline delays and
insurance, among others.

The new regime doesn't create new-EU level class-action courts, but
instead directs EU member states to create enabling legislation
with a minimum number of certain characteristics. Qualified
entities, such as nonprofit consumer groups, would be allowed to
bring such actions.

The potential impact on companies doing business in Europe,
especially those that deal directly with consumers, could be
wide-ranging. Class-action suits can be among the most expensive
lawsuits for companies and payouts sometimes run in the billions of
dollars. The suits allow claims to be brought on behalf of large
groups of consumers, or even all of a company's customers.

"Companies in general are fairly worried by what's going on in
Europe," said Scevole de Cazotte, senior vice president for
international initiatives at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute
for Legal Reform. "We see trouble ahead . . . they're not at all
used to this aggressive, entrepreneurial way of bringing cases"
seen in the U.S.

In the U.S., class action lawsuits are a common way for consumers
to seek redress. In just the past few weeks, for example, Delta Air
Lines was hit with a class action over alleged claims about the
airline's carbon neutrality, Dish Networks was sued over a data
breach and Abbott Laboratories was hit for allegedly lying in its
marketing of a children's drink. None of those claims have been
proven. Delta and Abbott said the suits were without merit. Dish
didn't respond to a request for comment.

Observers generally say it is difficult to predict exactly how much
exposure companies operating in Europe will face as member states
change their laws. U.S.-based companies in 2022 spent $3.6 billion
in defense costs in class action cases, according to a study by the
law firm Carlton Fields.

Though the deadline for countries to adopt changes is technically
later this month, some countries are lagging behind and the changes
could be rolled out piecemeal. But member states ultimately must
comply, and businesses are closely watching the new European legal
regime to see if it leads to a wave of lawsuits.

"This is going to make a difference but the degree of impact is
quite hard to predict," said Edward Turtle, a lawyer for the firm
Cooley. "A lot of companies are grappling with trying to understand
how much it moves the needle."

The EU's move comes after consumer groups agitated for legal
changes that would allow such lawsuits. Advocacy groups have been
galvanized by high-profile incidents that affected consumers across
the bloc, such as the Volkswagen Dieselgate scandal, in which the
German automaker admitted it systematically cheated emissions
tests, and a 2017 mass cancellation by budget airline Ryanair.

Though corporate wrongdoing can cause widespread harm, it has
traditionally been difficult in the EU to take companies to task in
the courtroom. Early U.S. class actions procedures were formalized
in the 19th century, and a rule change adopted in 1966 codified the
modern form. But the class action legal mechanism has historically
been used sparingly in continental Europe.

The new regime should eventually be a "game-changer," said BEUC, a
European consumer organization.

Any company that sells in Europe could face lawsuits. For U.S.
companies operating in Europe, the potential wave of lawsuits could
seem all too familiar as lawyers and consumer groups in Europe
bring more claims. About 12% of goods sold in the EU in 2022 were
made in the U.S., EU statistics show. Many U.S. companies, from
consumer goods conglomerates to tech giants, have a deep and
enduring presence in the bloc, the world's largest single market.

Some U.S. firms specializing in class-action suits are looking to
capitalize on the European market by opening new offices there. Law
firm Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman opened an office in
Germany and established a local website offering consumers free
checks for emissions defeat devices in their cars, a bid to see if
they are entitled to compensation.

Other U.S. firms have also opened offices in the bloc, particularly
in Amsterdam, an early adopter of the EU's changes and a hub for
class-action litigation. Hausfeld, a major U.S.-founded law firm
that represents consumers, now operates offices in Amsterdam,
Brussels, Berlin, Düsseldorf and Stockholm.

The directive is a "long-awaited step forwards toward access to
justice across the EU," London-based Hausfeld partner Lucy Rigby
said.

Maarten van Luyn, a consultant for the litigation funder Omni
Bridgeway, said the directive would be good for the company's
business. Australia-based Omni advances money to fund lawsuits with
the expectation of being paid from winnings.

The EU directive provides for a system that differs from its U.S.
counterpart. The EU recommended its member states retain a "loser
pays" funding model for class-action suits, leaving consumer groups
that bring suits deemed non-meritorious potentially on the hook for
some company legal expenses. In the U.S., parties bringing lawsuits
typically pay their own way, leaving law firms that represent
consumers freer to experiment with novel legal theories.

The EU also recommended against the use of punitive damages, which
in the U.S. allows juries to punish companies with verdicts that go
beyond the direct damages sought. And the bloc hasn't mandated the
kind of "opt out" suit that is common in the U.S., in which
consumers are automatically swept into an action.

But member states are free to adopt their own, tougher regimes, and
the EU directive has prodded member companies to contemplate new
legislation they might not have otherwise considered, said Kenny
Henderson, a partner at the law firm CMS, a leading European firm
that defends against class actions.

"It's inevitably going to lead to a lot more litigation," Henderson
said. [GN]


                            *********

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 ***