/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230627.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, June 27, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 128

                            Headlines

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Consumers Receive Suit Settlement Checks
ADROIT HEALTH: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Echols Alleges
ALBANY ENT: Fails to Protect Patients' Personal Info, Tziakas Says
ALLSTATE PROPERTY: Zakowicz's Opinions Excluded From Durgin Suit
AMADOR COUNTY, CA: Lyle Can Proceed in Forma Pauperis, Court Says

AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Wiley Seeks to Certify Class of Consumers
ANTERO RESOURCES: Kirkbride Appeals Case Dismissal to 6th Cir.
ATLAS MEDSTAFF: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gayler Suit Alleges
BAM TRADING: Faces Osterer Suit Over Stolen Cryptocurrency
BITWISE INDUSTRIES: Nunn Sues Over Layoff Without Prior Notice

BP EXPLORATION: Brown & Norswearthy Claims Dismissed With Prejudice
BROKER SOLUTIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Charbonneau Says
CANADA: Faces Class Suit Over Inadequate Housing Conditions
CAPSULE CORP: Carey, Ruiz Sue Over State Labor Law Violations
CARE AT HOME: Bid to Dismiss Nqadolo's Amended Complaint Denied

CELSIUS HOLDINGS: Settles False Ads Class Suit for $7.8 Mil.
CHAIN DRUG MARKETING: Faces Class Suit Over Lidocaine Patches
CHAMPION PETFOODS: Heavy Metals Class Summary Judgment Affirmed
CHAMPION PETFOODS: Summary Judgment in Paradowski Suit Affirmed
CHICKEN SOUP: Kahan Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty

CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: Brimer Appeals Dismissal of Civil Rights Suit
CHILDTIME CHILDCARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Covington Says
CLOOPEN GROUP: Dong Suit Settled; Matter Discontinued W/ Prejudice
DELTA PACKING: Carrillo, Andres Nixed From Perez Suit W/o Prejudice
DIRECTV LLC: Settles Brown Telemarketing Class Suit for $17 Mil.

DISPLATE CORP: Gutierrez Sues Over False Discount Offers
DISTROKID LLC: Doeman Music Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
ELLUSIONIST.COM INC: Court Narrows Claims in Guerrero Class Suit
ENZO BIOCHEM: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Guthart Alleges
FIRST CONNECTICUT: Dismissal of Karp Securities Class Suit Affirmed

FORD MOTOR: Bolton Sues Over Defective Ford Engines
FORD MOTOR: Militello Suit Moved to Eastern District of Michigan
FORMAN MILLS: Del Rossi Sue Over Termination Without Prior Notice
FRIDA RESTAURANT: Covarrubias Sues Over Busboys' Unpaid Wages
GD TOP NOTCH: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Moore Alleges

GEICO: Discloses Web Visitor's Viewing Habits, Suit Claims
GIVAUDAN SA: Chautauqua Sues Over Fragrance Price Monopoly
GLENN O. HAWBAKER: Hourly Wage Workers Class Certified in Packer
GOHEALTH LLC: Dantzler GIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
GOOGLE LLC: Settles Data Privacy Class Action for $23 Million

HARVARD PILGRIM: Faces Class Suit Over Data Breach, Cyber Attack
HOPKINSVILLE SOLID WASTE: Hawkins Seeks Truck Drivers' Unpaid OT
IBEX GLOBAL: Consumers Receive Data Breach Suit Settlement Checks
INDIANA COUNTY, IN: Superior Court Certifies State Abortion Ban
INSOMNIA COOKIES: Forte Class Suit Moved to N.D. Indiana

JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Stoll Class Suit Over Payment Network Glitch
JPMORGAN CHASE: Stoll Sues Over Zelle Network Service Malfunction
KAMPS INC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Barrios Alleges
KIDSPEECH INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Arstikaitis Alleges
LABRADA NUTRITION: Consumers Receive Class Suit Settlement Checks

LANGUAGE LINE: Approval of $960K Settlement in Rouse Suit Denied
LOADSMART INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Burr Alleges
LOZANO INSURANCE: Counsel in Mosley Suit to Dispense $5K to NIWR
LYFT INC: Ruozzi Sues Over Deceptive Food Delivery Services
MANAGED CARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Brown Alleges

MANAGED CARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Manning Alleges
MANAGED CARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Menendez Alleges
MANAGED CARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Shuey Alleges
MANAGED CARE: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Shuey Alleges
MERCER UNIVERSITY: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Ramos Claims

NATIONAL GRID: Nightingale Appeals Summary Judgment to 1st Cir.
NIGHTHAWK COMPLETION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cytacki Says
NORDIC NATURALS: Caldwell Sues Over Deceptive Product Labeling
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: ERISA Plan Sponsor Class Certification Affirmed
OAKLAND COUNTY, MI: E.D. Michigan Refuses to Stay Sinclair Suit

OWNERS INSURANCE: Summary Judgment in White Knight Suit Affirmed
PEACH CREEK: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Sanders Claims
PEEK-A-BOO CHILDCARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ballagan Claims
PEOPLEREADY INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Pittman Claims
PFIZER INC: Consumers Receive Class Suit Settlement Checks

PHARMERICA CORPORATION: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Says
PLANET AUTOMOTIVE: Bid to Dismiss First Amended Schultz Suit Denied
PLUG POWER: Faces Stewart Suit Over Drop in Share Price
PROVIDENCE, RI: Denial of Washington's Bid to Intervene Recommended
SCRIBE MEDIA: Cormier Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice

SENTINELONE: Fails to Disclose Facts to Investors, Johansson Claims
SIX FLAGS: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings OK'd in OFPRS Suit
SLT LENDING: Fails to Protect Private Info From Data Breach
SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Plaintiffs Seek Rule 23 Class Certification
SOUTH STATE: Rule 12(c) Bid Denied in Fludd Class Action

SQUARETRADE INC: Settles Class Action Suit Over Underpaid Claims
SRG GLOBAL: Court Dismisses Peeler's Claim for Strict Liability
STEEL RIVER: Suit Seeks Judicial Declaration of No Duty to Defend
STERLING JEWELERS: Consumers Receive Suit Settlement Checks
TABLE 87 GOWANUS: Removes Barroso Suit to S.D. New York

TARGET CORP: Fails to Reimburse Gift Cards' Remaining Balance
TRINITY HEALTH: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
TROPICAL INDUSTRIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bautista Says
UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS: Seeks to Stay Class Cert Briefing in Valdez
VARSITY BRANDS: Seeks to Strike Maki Declaration in Jones Suit

WALLACE J 2755: Faces Tran Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
WALMART INC: Court Terminates Bid to Certify Class in Guzman
WALT DISNEY: Fraud Securities Class Action Suit May Proceed
WELLS FARGO: Appellate Court Affirms Order Dismissing Rogers Suit
WEST VIRGINIA AMERICAN: Suit Over 2015 Line Break May Proceed

WESTECH SECURITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carrasquillo Says
WESTERN EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Martin Alleges

                            *********

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Consumers Receive Suit Settlement Checks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brigette Honaker of Top Class Actions reports Similac purchasers
have started to receive payments from a $19.5 million class action
lawsuit settlement with Abbott Laboratories over inflated serving
labeling.

The settlement benefits consumers who purchase certain Similac
products between June 24, 2016, and Sept. 22, 2022.

The Similac class action lawsuit claims that packaging for the
formula brand overstates the total number of servings each
container can make. In reality, the products allegedly make
significantly less than promised — causing consumers to
unknowingly overpay for less product.

Abbott Laboratories didn't admit any wrongdoing but agreed to pay
$19.5 million to resolve the class action lawsuit. Under the terms
of the settlement, consumers could receive up to $15 without proof
of purchase or up to $45 with proof of purchase. Top Class Actions
readers report receiving payments of $15.

The Similac false advertising class action lawsuit is
Ramsey-Standage, et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, Case No.
22PH-CV00853, in the Circuit Court of Phelps County, Missouri. [GN]

ADROIT HEALTH: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Echols Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
MARIA ECHOLS, individually and on behalf of all and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADROIT HEALTH GROUP, LLC; and
MEDIAALPHA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 6:23-cv-00758-LSC (N.D.,
Al., June 12, 2023) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of
making unsolicited calls.

ADROIT HEALTH GROUP, LLC provides insurance agent and broker
services for a range of insurance types. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         J. Matthew Stephens, Esq.
         METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY, STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C.
         2201 Arlington Avenue South
         Birmingham, AL 35205
         Telephone: (205) 939-0199
         Facsimile: (205) 939-0399
         Email: mstephens@mtattorneys.com

ALBANY ENT: Fails to Protect Patients' Personal Info, Tziakas Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ARGIRO TZIAKAS, on behalf of herself individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALBANY ENT & ALLERGY
SERVICES P.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00672-BKS-CFH (N.D.N.Y.,
June 5, 2023) arises from a recent cyberattack resulting in a data
breach of Plaintiff's sensitive information in the possession and
custody and/or control of Defendant in violation of the New York
Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

The alleged data breach, occurred between March 23, 2023, and April
4, 2023, has resulted in the unauthorized disclosure, exfiltration,
and theft of current and former patients' highly personal
identifying information, including names, Social Security numbers,
dates of birth, addresses, and medical history and treatment
information or protected health information.

According to the complaint, Defendant's failure to timely detect
and report the data breach made its patients vulnerable to identity
theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or
credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their sensitive
information. In failing to adequately protect Plaintiff's and the
Class' sensitive information, failing to adequately notify them
about the breach, and by obfuscating the nature of the breach,
Defendant violated state and federal law and harmed an unknown
number of its current and former patients, says the suit.

Albany ENT & Allergy Services P.C is a healthcare practice that
provides care for individuals with disorders of the ear, nose,
throat, head, and neck.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James J. Bilsborrow, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC
          700 Broadway
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 558-5500
          E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com

               - and -

          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          Raina Borrelli, Esq.
          TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
          613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
          Madison, WI 53703 
          Telephone: (608) 237-1775 
          Facsimile: (608) 509-4423 
          E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com
                   raina@turkestrauss.com

ALLSTATE PROPERTY: Zakowicz's Opinions Excluded From Durgin Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GLENN DURGIN v. ALLSTATE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE
CO., Case No. 6:19-CV-00721 (W.D. La.), Magistrate Judge Carol B.
Whitehurst of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Louisiana, Lafayette Division, denies Allstate's Motion to Exclude
Expert Opinions of Nicole N. Zakowicz.

The Plaintiff filed a putative class action against Allstate for
breach of the insurance contract and bad faith damages arising from
Allstate's allegedly improper vehicle valuation methods in property
damage claims. The Court has not yet held a class certification
hearing pending a determination of whether the Plaintiff's
proffered expert, Zakowicz's, opinion regarding vehicle valuation
is acceptable. Zakowicz is a Certified Public Accountant with
expertise in performing relevant financial analyses and economic
damages calculations. Allstate does not challenge her
qualifications. Rather, it contends that her method of calculating
purported class damages is unreliable and otherwise inadmissible.

Zakowicz opined that, assuming Allstate is liable, and the
Plaintiffs are entitled to damages, she can apply the methodology
condoned in Slade v. Progressive Insurance Company to quantify
damages by substituting the Base Value using NADA for Allstate's
Base Value determination. She further concluded that consistent
with the ruling of the Court in Slade, it is her opinion that
damages can be calculated in the same way as in Slade since the
same data are present in the instant case.

Slade was a similar case in which Progressive insureds sought class
certification to recover damages from Progressive's allegedly
improper vehicle valuation method.

Judge Whitehurst explains that the admissibility of expert opinions
is governed by F.R.E. Rule 702, which provides that a witness who
is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience,
training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or
otherwise if the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is
more likely than not that: (a) the expert's scientific, technical,
or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to
understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the
testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony
is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the
expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts
of the case.

Judge Whitehurst agrees that Zakowicz's proposed methodology of
applying the Slade methodology to calculate damages in this case is
admissible to determine whether the class should be certified. She
disagrees with Allstate's interpretation of Zakowicz's report. At
its heart, Zakowicz's opinion is a statement of her ability to
apply the Slade methodology to the facts of the case to determine
purported damages. Allstate does not challenge Zakowicz's ability
to "crunch the numbers," and indeed she appears qualified. Its
objections to Zakowicz's opinion are best considered as challenges
to credibility and the weight of her testimony. Thus, Judge
Whitehurst finds that Allstate's Motion to Exclude should be
denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 6, 2023 Memorandum Ruling is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3npz5zkt from Leagle.com.


AMADOR COUNTY, CA: Lyle Can Proceed in Forma Pauperis, Court Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL WILLIAM LYLE, JR., Plaintiff v. GARY REDMAN,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-1801 TLN DB P (E.D. Cal.),
Judge Deborah Barnes of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California grants the Plaintiff's motion to proceed in
forma pauperis and grants the Plaintiff leave to file an amended
complaint.

The Plaintiff, an inmate at the Amador County Jail, proceeds
without counsel and seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The
matter was referred to Judge Barnes by Local Rule 302 pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1). The Plaintiff's complaint filed on
Oct. 11, 2022, is before the Court for screening.

The Plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis.

Judge Barnes finds that the Plaintiff's declaration motion makes
the showing required by 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a). Hence, she
grants the motion. The Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory
filing fee of $350 for the action. By separate order, the Plaintiff
will be assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with
the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(b)(1). The order will
direct the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing
fee from the Plaintiff's trust account and forward it to the Clerk
of the Court. Thereafter, the Plaintiff will be obligated to make
monthly payments of 20% of the preceding month's income credited to
his prison trust account. These payments will be forwarded by the
appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount
in his account exceeds $10, until the filing fee is paid in full.

Judge Barnes now screens the Plaintiff's complaint. The Plaintiff
and other inmates are temporarily housed during lock downs in
overfull, double maximum capacity cells for longer than four hours.
They are also placed in holding tanks in the booking floor area for
up to eight hours with no access to water, toilets, or water
basins. They are also denied grievances. From these deprivations,
the Plaintiff has suffered injuries to his state of mind.

On Sept. 7, 2022, the Plaintiff and another inmate asked to speak
to a floor sergeant regarding an inmate with a communicable
disease. Sergeant Holstan recorded the conversation even though he
had assured them he was not doing so. Then the Plaintiff personally
witnessed the inmate with a communicable disease handling facility
food without proper equipment (gloves, hair net, and facial hair)
in violation of safety policies and guidelines. This subjected the
Plaintiff and others to a risk of a communicable disease.

The Defendants are Sheriff Gary Redman and Captain J. Martin. The
Plaintiff states he is bringing a class action suit.

Judge Barnes holds that the Plaintiff, who proceeds pro se, can
only bring claims for violations of his own rights, and cannot
litigate claims on behalf of others, including as part of a class
action suit. The Plaintiff's privilege to appear in propria persona
is personal to him. Therefore, he lacks authority to prosecute
claims for persons other than himself.

In addition, Judge Barnes holds that the complaint fails to state a
claim because it lacks facts from which the court can infer that
the named Defendants participated in or directed the alleged
violations or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent
them. Liability cannot be imposed on the Defendants for the alleged
deprivations simply because they hold supervisory positions at the
jail.

In sum, Judge Barnes concludes that the Plaintiff's complaint does
not state any cognizable claims, but the Plaintiff is granted leave
to file an amended complaint. If he chooses to file an amended
complaint, it should be titled "first amended complaint" and must
state what each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of
constitutional rights.

The Plaintiff is not obligated to file an amended complaint. In the
alternative, he may notify the Court he wishes to stand on the
complaint as it is currently pleaded. If he chooses this option,
Judge Barnes will issue findings and recommendations to dismiss the
complaint without further leave to amend, after which the Plaintiff
will be granted an opportunity to file objections, and a district
judge will determine whether the complaint states a cognizable
claim. In the further alternative, if the Plaintiff does not wish
to pursue his claims further, he may file a notice of voluntary
dismissal, which will terminate this action by operation of law.

This opportunity to amend is not for the purpose of adding new
claims. Instead, the Plaintiff should focus efforts on curing
deficiencies of the claims already set forth.

An amended complaint supersedes the prior complaint and must be
complete without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.
Once the Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original
pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in
any amended complaint, the Plaintiff must sufficiently allege each
claim and the involvement of each Defendant.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 6, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5ctrna7f from Leagle.com.


AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Wiley Seeks to Certify Class of Consumers
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MONA WILEY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN
FINANCIAL NETWORK, INC., Case No. 8:22-cv-00244-CJC-DFM (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order for class
certification.

Ms. Wiley moves to certify a class of consumers whose National Do
Not Call Registry registered telephone numbers the Defendant
American Financial Network purchased as leads and repeatedly called
without consent to market its mortgage banking services to in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act's National Do
Not Call Registry provision, 47 U.S.C. section 227(c)(5) & 47
C.F.R. section 64.1200(c)(2).

The case is well-suited for class certification because the central
and determinative issues in this case will all be resolved based on
common, class wide proof, including documents, data, and testimony
from the Defendant AFN and the Plaintiff's expert, and without
regard for the experiences of individual class members.

The Plaintiff also requests that the Court certify her as class
representative and Kaufman P.A. as class counsel.

AFN is a residential mortgage banker.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 5, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XfCLUL at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          237 S. Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 469-5881
          E-mail: rachel@kaufmanpa.com

ANTERO RESOURCES: Kirkbride Appeals Case Dismissal to 6th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Treva Kirkbride filed an appeal from the District Court's
Opinion and Order and Judgment dated May 9, 2023 entered in the
lawsuit entitled Treva Kirkbride, as Trustee of the R and K Trust,
on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated persons v.
Antero Resources Corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-02251-MHW-EPD, in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
at Columbus.

According to the complaint, on August 2, 2011, Myron Roe, as
Lessor, entered into an oil and gas lease with Eclipse Resources I,
LP, as Lessee, pertaining to leased premises located in Noble
County, Ohio. Prior to May 1, 2018, Antero acquired the lessee's
interest in the 2011 Lease Agreement, and Antero has held the
lessee's interest in the 2011 Lease Agreement from the time Antero
first acquired that interest to the present. Through a series of
assignments, the R and K Trust, of which Plaintiff is the sole
trustee, became the sole owner of the lessor interest in the Lease,
and Defendant became the sole owner of the lessee interest.

On May 9, 2023, Judge Michael H. Watson signed an Order granting
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's September 21, 2022 Third
Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim. The Clerk's
Judgment states that pursuant to the Opinion and Order, Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

In this action, Plaintiff, on behalf of the R and K Trust, asserts
an individual and class-wide breach-of-contract claim against
Defendant. The Plaintiff filed suit on May 24, 2022, but she did
not serve the Complaint on Defendant until June 1, 2022. Thus, as
the Complaint was served on Defendant after Plaintiff initiated
this action, by definition, it cannot be pre-suit notice. The fact
that a different court, considering a different contract, and
applying that contract to different facts, concluded that service
of a complaint satisfied the notice requirement does not, in this
case, negate the plain language of the Lease or Plaintiffs failure
to comply with the same. In sum, it is clear from the face of the
Third Amended Complaint that Plaintiff did not comply with a
condition precedent to suit. As such, Plaintiff's breach of
contract claim fails, rules Judge Watson.

The appellate case is captioned as Treva Kirkbride v. Antero
Resources Corporation, Case No. 23-3484, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on June 5, 2023.

The briefing scheduled in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant brief is due on July 17, 2023; and

   -- Appellee brief is due on August 16, 2023.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant TREVA KIRKBRIDE, as Trustee of the R and K
Trust, on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated
persons is represented by:

          George A. Barton, Esq.
          BARTON AND BURROWS
          5201 Johnson Drive, Suite 110
          Mission, KS 66205
          Telephone: (913) 563-6250

Defendant-Appellee ANTERO RESOURCES CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation, is represented by:

          Daniel Thomas Donovan, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS
          1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 389-5174

ATLAS MEDSTAFF: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gayler Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Gayler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff v. Atlas MedStaff, LLC,
FocusOne Solutions, LLC, and Nomad Health Inc., Defendants, Case
No. 3:23-cv-03197-CRL-KLM (C.D. Ill., June 6, 2023) alleges claims
against Defendants Atlas MedStaff, LLC and FocusOne Solutions, LLC
for failure to pay all wages in violation of the Nurse Transparency
Licensing Act, against Atlas MedStaff for violation of Section 14.3
of NALA, and against FocusOne Solutions, LLC and Nomad Health, Inc.
for common law retaliatory discharge.

Plaintiff Jenna Gayler is an Indiana resident, employed by
Defendant to work as a travel nurse at OSF Sacred Heart Hospital in
Danville, Illinois. The Plaintiff entered into a contract with
Atlas on approximately October 4, 2021 to work as a nurse at OSF.
Allegedly, Atlas and FocusOne failed to ensure that subsequent
renewals of existing contracts were modified to comply with NALA.
From July 1, 2022 to the date of the expiration of Plaintiff's
contract, Atlas and FocusOne continued to pay Plaintiff only $61
per hour, despite charging OSF $114 per hour for Plaintiff's
services.

Atlas MedStaff, LLC is a Nebraska LLC with its principal place of
business in Nebraska. The company staffs registered nurses and
medical technicians at hospitals across Illinois. It sources
vacancies at hospitals through FocusOne, an intermediary between
Atlas and the hospitals. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew Fletcher, Esq.
          Haskell Garfinkel, Esq.
          THE GARFINKEL GROUP, LLC,
          The Civitas
          701 N. Milwaukee Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60642
          Telephone: (312) 736-7991
          E-mail: matthew@garfinkelgroup.com
                  haskell@garfinkelgroup.com

BAM TRADING: Faces Osterer Suit Over Stolen Cryptocurrency
----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL OSTERER, individually and on behalf and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAM TRADING SERVICES INC. d/b/a
BINANCE.US, a Delaware corporation, and BINANCE HOLDINGS, LTD.
d/b/a BINANCE, a foreign company, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-22083-RAR (S.D. Fla., June 5, 2023) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff against BAM and its alter ego Binance for
converting, or in the alternative, knowingly aiding and abetting
the conversion of, Plaintiff's digital assets by not complying with
Know Your Customer and Anti-Money Laundering rules, after
Plaintiff's digital assets were stolen and laundered through
Binance accounts.

The action arises from Binance acting as depository for
cryptocurrency (digital assets including bitcoin, Ether, Litecoin,
and many others) stolen from U.S. citizens in the Class, including
Plaintiff who had at least 7.2 bitcoin and 449 Ether stolen from
his cryptocurrency wallet. Binance's role as a depository is
similar to that of a bank, but also different in that the
chain-of-title of cryptocurrency is permanently and accurately
traceable on the blockchain, which acts as a "ledger." In addition,
Defendants unjustly enriched themselves by collecting significant
fees on transactions involving Plaintiff's stolen cryptocurrency,
says the suit.

The Plaintiff and Class members bring this lawsuit to recover the
value of their stolen cryptocurrency, for compensatory damages, and
for restitution and disgorgement of Defendants' ill-gotten gains of
fees collected on transactions involving stolen cryptocurrency.

BAM Trading Services Inc., d/b/a Binance.US, is one of the top five
crypto asset trading platforms in the United States by trading
volume. As of April 1, 2023, BAM's average 24-hour trading volume
was valued at over $282 million.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com

               - and -

          David C. Silver, Esq.
          SILVER MILLER
          4450 NW 126th Avenue, Suite 101
          Coral Springs, FL 33065
          Telephone: (954) 516-6000
          E-mail: DSilver@SilverMillerLaw.com

BITWISE INDUSTRIES: Nunn Sues Over Layoff Without Prior Notice
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRE NUNN, KAILA WEBB, and KASANDRA JIMENEZ, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
BITWISE INDUSTRIES, INC., ALPHAWORKS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, JAKE
SOBERAL, and IRMA L. OLGUIN, JR., Defendants, Case No.
1:23-at-00492 (E.D. Cal., June 6, 2023) arises out of the
Defendants' violations of the California Labor Code, the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and of wage violations
under state laws.

One of the Plaintiffs, Andre Nunn, was employed by Defendants as
the Director of Operations in Buffalo. He worked at Defendants'
facility located at 199 Scott Street, Buffalo, NY until he was
"furloughed" on or about May 29, 2023. Allegedly, the Defendants
failed to provide 60 days advance written notice to Plaintiffs of
their impending termination. They also failed to pay 60 days' wages
and benefits to Plaintiffs and the other similarly situated former
employees in lieu of 60 days' written notice.

Bitwise Industries, Inc. is a California corporation with its
headquarters located at 700 Van Ness Avenue, Fresno, CA. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

            Gail C. Lin, Esq.
            RAISNER ROUPINIAN LLP
            2945 Townsgate Road, Suite 200
            Westlake Village, CA 91361
            Telephone: (212) 221-1747
            Facsimile: (212) 221-1747
            E-mail: gcl@raisnerroupinian.com

                    - and -

            Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
            Rene S. Roupinian, Esq.
            RAISNER ROUPINIAN LLP
            270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1801
            New York, NY 10016
            Telephone: (212) 221-1747
            Facsimile: (212) 221-1747
            E-mail: jar@raisnerroupinian.com
                    rsr@raisnerroupinian.com

BP EXPLORATION: Brown & Norswearthy Claims Dismissed With Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, CHER GRIFFIN BROWN v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC. ET AL., SECTION: "H", CHESTER LEE NORSWEARTHY v. BP
EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC. ET AL., SECTION: "H," Civil Action
Nos. 17-3516, 17-3590 (E.D. La.), Judge Jane Triche of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana:

   a. grants BP Exploration & Production, Inc.; BP America
      Production Co.; BP p.l.c.; Transocean Holdings, LLC;
      Transocean Deepwater, Inc.; Transocean Offshore Deepwater
      Drilling, Inc.; and Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.
      ("collectively BP")'s Motions in Limine to Exclude the
      General Causation Opinions of Plaintiffs' Expert, Dr.
      Jerald Cook;

   b. grants the Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment Due to
      Plaintiff's Inability to Prove Medical Causation in each of
      these cases; and

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

These two cases are among the "B3 bundle" of cases arising out of
the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. This bundle comprises claims for
personal injury and wrongful death due to exposure to oil and/or
other chemicals used during the oil spill response (e.g.,
dispersant). These cases were originally part of a multidistrict
litigation ("MDL") pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana
before Judge Barbier. During this MDL, Judge Barbier approved the
Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement
Agreement, but the B3 plaintiffs either opted out of this agreement
or were excluded from its class definition. Subsequently, Judge
Barbier severed the B3 cases from the MDL to be reallocated among
the judges of this Court. The two cases were reassigned to Section
H.

Plaintiffs Cher Griffin Brown and Chester Lee Norswearthy each
filed lawsuits against the Defendants based on their alleged
exposure to toxic chemicals following the Deepwater Horizon oil
spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Each Plaintiff was allegedly involved
in cleanup or recovery work after the oil spill, and each contends
that his or her resulting exposure to crude oil and dispersants
caused a litany of health conditions. The Plaintiffs bring claims
for general maritime negligence, negligence per se, and gross
negligence against the Defendants.

Now before the Court in each of the captioned cases are the
Defendants' Motions in Limine to Exclude the General Causation
Opinions Testimony of Plaintiffs' Expert and their Motions for
Summary Judgment Due to Plaintiff's Inability to Prove Medical
Causation. In each of the Motions in Limine, the Defendants argue
that the Plaintiffs' expert on medical causation, Dr. Cook, fails
to satisfy the Fifth Circuit's requirements for an admissible
general causation opinion in toxic tort cases and should therefore
be excluded as unreliable. In each of the Motions for Summary
Judgment, the Defendants argue that assuming their Motions in
Limine are granted, each of the Plaintiffs lack expert testimony on
general causation and therefore fail to present a genuine issue of
material fact as to whether his or her injuries were caused by
exposure to oil and dispersants.

Also before the Court in each of the captioned cases is the
Plaintiff's motion entitled Motion for Admission of Plaintiffs'
Expert Opinions because of BP Defendants' Spoliation of Evidence of
Plaintiffs' Exposure. In each of these motions, the Plaintiffs ask
the Court to allow Dr. Cook's expert testimony considering the
Defendants' failure to preserve evidence of exposure to toxic
chemicals by clean-up workers or perform biomonitoring and dermal
monitoring of those workers.

Judge Triche states that B3 plaintiffs must prove that the legal
cause of the claimed injury or illness is exposure to oil or other
chemicals used during the response. The plaintiff's burden with
respect to causation in a toxic tort case involves proof of both
general causation and specific causation. General causation is
whether a substance can cause a particular injury or condition in
the general population, while specific causation is whether a
substance caused a particular individual's injury.

On the topic of general causation, Judge Triche finds that each
Plaintiff has put forth a report from Dr. Cook dated May 31, 2022.
She says this report is not unique to these cases; another judge of
the Court has described it as an omnibus, non-case specific general
causation expert report that has been used by many B3 plaintiffs.
Many sections of the Eastern District of Louisiana, including this
one, have excluded various versions of Dr. Cook's reports,
including the May 2022 report at issue, holding generally that his
opinions are unreliable and unhelpful where he fails to identify
the level of exposure to a relevant chemical that can cause the
conditions asserted in the Plaintiffs' complaints.

Accordingly, Judge Triche agrees that these new arguments do not
alter the outcome of the Defendants' Motions in Limine. For the
same reasons already articulated by Judges Ashe, Barbier, Guidry,
Vance, Vitter, and Zainey, she grants the Defendants' Motions in
Limine.

In response to the Defendants' Motions, each of the Plaintiffs has
filed a motion seeking admission of Dr. Cook's report through a
different mechanism -- as a sanction for spoliation. The Plaintiffs
each argue that the Defendants acted in bad faith when they chose
not to record quantitative data on the exposure of clean-up workers
to specific chemicals and that the Court should allow them to rely
on Dr. Cook's report as a sanction for that spoliation.

As previously explained, however, Dr. Cook's report is flawed in
ways unrelated to BP's decision not to conduct monitoring.
Accordingly, even if the Plaintiffs could prove that the Defendants
spoliated evidence, Dr. Cook's opinion remains unhelpful,
unreliable, and inadmissible. Other sections of this Court have
reached the same result. The Plaintiffs' Motions are, therefore,
denied.

Because the Plaintiffs cannot prove general causation, Judge Triche
also grants the Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment.

All of the Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 6, 2023 Order & Reasons is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5ydbc6zb from Leagle.com.


BROKER SOLUTIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Charbonneau Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
BEAU CHARBONNEAU, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BROKER SOLUTIONS, INC. a/k/a NEW
AMERICAN FUNDING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:23-cv-01007 (C.D.
Cal., June 9, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid
wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Charbonneau was employed by the Defendant as loan
associate.

BROKER SOLUTIONS, INC., doing business as New American Funding,
provides mortgage lending services. The Company provides home
financing options at competitive rates to home owners. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric L. Dirks, Esq.
          WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 945-7110
          Facsimile: (816) 945-7118
          Email: dirks@williamsdirks.com

                - and -

          Michael Hodgson, Esq.
          THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, LLC
          3609 SW Pryor Road
          Lee's Summit, MO 64082
          Telephone: (816) 600-0117
          Facsimile: (816) 600-0137
          Email: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com

                - and -

          Timothy R. West, Esq.
          THE WEST LAW FIRM
          7021 Seal Cir.
          Huntington Beach, CA 92648
          Telephone: (816) 797-2762
          Email: tim@timwestlawfirm.com

CANADA: Faces Class Suit Over Inadequate Housing Conditions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brittany Hobson of Toronto Star reports that the chief of a remote
First Nation in northern Manitoba is proposing a national
class-action lawsuit against the federal government for failing to
address the housing crisis on reserves.

Chief Elvin Flett, of St. Theresa Point First Nation, is seeking $5
billion in compensation, as well as an order that the federal
government comply with its obligation to provide adequate housing
on First Nations.

"Most homes on reserve are falling apart and many are infested with
mould and other toxins. Our lack of housing on reserve forces
generation after generation to cramp together under the same roof,"
Flett told reporters on June 12, 2023.

"This is about broken promises, including the treaties, and the
honour of the Crown to act and the many promises made to our
people."

Flett, on behalf of himself and his community, and his legal team
at the Toronto-based firm McCarthy Tétrault LLP filed a statement
of claim in Federal Court on June 12, 2023. The claim names the
attorney general of Canada as the defendant.

The statement of claim alleges Canada has, "deliberately
underfunded housing on reserves," while simultaneously isolating
First Nations by imposing restrictions on their ability to provide
housing for themselves.

"The resulting catastrophe for First Nations and their members was
not only predictable, it was the defendant's intended result," the
statement claims.

An emailed statement from Indigenous Services Canada said it was
aware of June 12, 2023's news conference announcing the proposed
lawsuit. It said it would continue to work with all First Nation
communities, including St. Theresa Point First Nation, to address
and improve on-reserve housing conditions.

"The Government of Canada is committed to doing more to ensure that
every First Nations community has safe and adequate housing," the
statement said.

St. Theresa Point is one of four First Nations that make up the
Island Lake region in northeastern Manitoba. The community of 5,200
people is accessible by plane or ice road for six weeks out of the
year.

About 467 families in the community need homes, said Flett.

There are approximately 646 houses in St. Theresa Point with 25 per
cent condemnable due to severe decay and rotting, Flett added.
Others require major repairs averaging in cost from $55,000 to
$86,000.

The community received federal funding last year for 20 two-bedroom
units.

"It's barely a dent in what (St. Theresa Point) needs. It doesn't
keep up with the decay in their house and let alone the growth of
their population," said Michael Rosenberg, counsel for the
community. "The First Nation, like so many others across the
country, falls farther and farther behind."

Flett said some of his community's members, and others from First
Nations across the country, are living in unimaginable conditions
that aren't seen elsewhere.

It's not uncommon for families of 12 to live under one roof. In one
instance in St. Theresa Point, 32 people are living in a
four-bedroom home. Leaders have heard of members sleeping in
shifts, while other families resort to more "precarious housing"
including living out of school buses, shacks, tents and makeshift
cabins.

The state of housing on First Nations has mental and physical
health repercussions, said Flett. Members live with ailments that
leaders say are linked to toxins in the home while overcrowding
affects youth and teens who often don't have access to personal
space.

Indigenous Services Canada's statement said that since April 2016,
the federal department has invested $3.93 billion for First Nations
housing, which it said has supported 3,766 housing projects in 611
First Nations communities.

It said that as a result, nearly 15,000 more homes on reserve have
been constructed or are in progress.

It also noted a joint working group made up of the Assembly of
First Nations, Indigenous Services Canada and the Canada Mortgage
and Housing Corporation is developing a 10-year national First
Nations housing and related infrastructure strategy.

Grand Chief Cathy Merrick, of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, said
housing on First Nations has been a "stain on the conscience of
(communities) for far too long."

"First Nations people in Manitoba and across Canada have endured
overcrowded, dilapidating and substandard housing, undermining
their health and their well-being."

Rosenberg said the proposed compensation would address inadequate
housing in communities and those who have been injured by their
living conditions.

"It's important to recognize that no one class action will solve
all the problems of housing," he added.

The proposed class action is directed toward the most extreme
housing emergencies in First Nations. Rosenberg said communities
where at least half of the population resides in homes with a
shortfall of two or more bedrooms and are in need of major repairs
may be eligible to sign on.

The community and Flett are inviting other First Nations to join in
the lawsuit.

"Together we must demand the housing that we deserve . . . together
we can create a safer and healthier future for First Nations across
Canada."

A judge must certify the class action before it can proceed. [GN]

CAPSULE CORP: Carey, Ruiz Sue Over State Labor Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW CAREY and ARIEL RUIZ, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CAPSULE CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 609027/2023 (N.Y., June 7, 2023) arises out of
the Defendant's violations of the New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff Carey was employed by Defendant as a driver at Capsule
from January 2022 through about August 1, 2022 and Plaintiff Ruiz
was employed by Defendant as a pharmacy technician at Capsule from
approximately on or about January 13, 2020 through approximately
June 2022. Throughout their employment for Defendant, both
Plaintiffs performed over 25 percent physical tasks. However, they
have been compensated by Defendant on a bi-weekly basis. Moreover,
the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs and the Class on a timely
basis as required by NYLL, says the suit.

Capsule Corp. is a chain of pharmacy stores that offers same-day
delivery of prescriptions. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

            Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
            Armando A. Ortiz, Esq.
            Dana M. Cimera, Esq.
            FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
            28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
            New York, NY 10005
            Telephone: (212) 300-0375

CARE AT HOME: Bid to Dismiss Nqadolo's Amended Complaint Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NANDE NQADOLO, et al., Plaintiff, v. CARE AT HOME,
LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-612 (KAD) (D. Conn.),
Judge Kari A. Dooley of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut:

   a. denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
      Amended Complaint; and

   b. grants the Defendants' motion to strike certain claims.

Plaintiffs Nande Nqadolo and Pamela Mangali bring the putative
collective and class action against Defendants Care at Home, LLC,
Suzanne Karp, and Daniel Karp, on behalf of themselves and
similarly situated home care assistants employed by the
Defendants.

The Plaintiffs assert in an Amended Complaint two causes of action
by way of six counts: (1) a failure to pay overtime in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 21 U.S.C. Sections 201 et
seq., and (2) a failure to pay overtime in violation of the
Connecticut Minimum Wage Act ("CMWA"), Conn. Gen. Stat. Section
31-58 et seq. The Defendants move to dismiss the Amended Complaint
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), or alternatively to strike
certain claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), which the
Plaintiffs oppose.

The Defendants employ live-in domestic service employees, referred
to as home care assistants ("HCA") or caregivers, to live with
clients, who, due to severe medical conditions, require assistance
caring for themselves. HCAs assist clients with cooking, cleaning,
dressing, bathing, eating, medication, personal hygiene, and
getting to and from medical appointments. They work 13-hour shifts
with three one-hour meal breaks and an eight-hour sleep break each
day. Nqadolo worked as an HCA for the Defendants from March 22,
2021 to Dec. 15, 2021 and Mangali has worked as an HCA for
Defendants since Dec. 7, 2015.

The Defendants' HCAs are assigned to live on-site because clients
frequently require assistance at any time of day. HCAs are
routinely interrupted during their scheduled meal breaks and sleep
breaks, often failing to get five hours of uninterrupted sleep. The
Defendants failed to record all hours worked by HCAs and
accordingly failed to pay them overtime for the hours spent
performing work during those interruptions. They deducted full meal
breaks despite knowing that the Plaintiffs worked through meal
breaks or ate their meals with the clients and otherwise failed to
accurately record the hours worked by Plaintiffs during meal
breaks. They also instructed their HCAs not to document sleep
interruptions on their timesheets and instead to call in the
interruptions; however, the Defendants did not document the sleep
interruption calls. They did not pay HCAs for sleep interruptions.

The Defendants also furnished food and lodging to the Plaintiffs
but did not provide any record of the value of the food or lodging
for the purposes of calculating their regular rate of pay for
calculating an overtime rate. However, they did not deduct the
value of food and lodging from the straight pay the Plaintiffs
received. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have improperly
withheld overtime that should have been paid to the Plaintiffs and
other HCAs in violation of state and federal wage and hours laws.

The Plaintiffs assert two causes of action by way of six counts
against the Defendants based on their alleged failure to pay earned
overtime. They allege that the Defendants violate the FLSA and the
CMWA by failing to compensate them and putative class members for
interruptions to their meal and sleep breaks and by failing to add
the value of food and lodging to their regular rate of pay for
purposes of calculating earned but unpaid overtime.

The Defendants argue that the Amended Complaint should be dismissed
because the Plaintiffs are domestic service employees and as such
are exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA (and
therefore the CMWA). They further argue that any reference to an
enhanced rate of pay for food and lodging provided by them should
be stricken because the Plaintiffs admitted in their Amended
Complaint that Defendants did not reduce or deduct from their pay
the value of such food and lodging.

Judge Dooley reviews the 2015 Rule pursuant to the familiar
two-step Chevron framework. If Congress has directly spoken to the
precise question at issue, then the Court, as well as the agency,
must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.
But if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the
specific issue, courts analyze whether the agency's answer is based
on a permissible construction of the statute.

The Defendants' argument is aimed at step two of the Chevron
framework: is the agency rule a reasonable interpretation of the
FLSA. Judge Dooley concludes that the 2015 Rule is not an
unreasonable interpretation of the FLSA and is therefore entitled
to Chevron deference in line with the D.C. Circuit's decision in
Home Care Ass'n of America v. Weil, 799 F.3d 1084, 1089 (D.C. Cir.
2015), as well as the district court decisions in Aboah v.
Fairfield Healthcare Services, Inc. and Walsh v. Ideal Homecare
Agency, Inc. So, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied.

The Defendants move to strike all allegations related to a Section
203(m) credit or allegations that the Plaintiffs' overtime should
be calculated using an enhanced regular rate of pay based upon
lodging or board that may have been provided. In response, the
Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants took a partial 3(m) credit but
voluntarily waived the remainder when they did not deduct the full
default value of food and lodging from the straight pay Defendants
paid the Plaintiffs.

Judge Dooley agrees with the Defendants. She holds that the
admissions in the Amended Complaint foreclose the Plaintiffs'
inconsistent factual assertion as well as the argument that their
pay for purposes of calculating overtime should be enhanced by the
value of the lodging and board they received. Because the
Plaintiffs' claims for an enhanced regular rate of pay pursuant to
Section 203(m) are barred by their own judicial admissions, she
grants the Defendants' motion to strike.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 6, 2023 Memorandum of Decision
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6mwhe3t from Leagle.com.


CELSIUS HOLDINGS: Settles False Ads Class Suit for $7.8 Mil.
------------------------------------------------------------
Brigette Honaker of Top Class Actions reports Celsius consumers
have begun to receive payments from a $7.8 million class action
lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that Celsuis falsely
advertised its products as preservative-free.

The settlement benefits those who purchased any Celsius beverage
between Jan. 1, 2015, and Nov. 23, 2022.

Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit accused Celsuis of falsely
advertising its beverages as containing "no preservatives." In
reality, Celsius drinks allegedly contain citric acid – an
ingredient that serves as both a preservative and a flavoring
agent.

Celsius didn't admit any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $7.8 million
to resolve the false advertising class action lawsuit. Under the
terms of the settlement, consumers could receive up to $250 in
reimbursement with proof of purchase or up to $20 without proof of
purchase. Top Class Actions readers report receiving payments of up
to $23.66 from the settlement.

The Celsius false advertising class action lawsuit is Hezi, et al.
v. Celsius Holdings Inc., Case No. 1:21-CV-9892-VM, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN]

CHAIN DRUG MARKETING: Faces Class Suit Over Lidocaine Patches
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jessy Edwards of Top Class Actions reports that a Maryland consumer
is suing Quality Choice alleging the company's lidocaine patches do
not work as promised, and fall off within hours -- or even minutes
-- of application.

Plaintiff Matthew Ashley filed the class action lawsuit against
Chain Drug Marketing Association Inc. on June 1 in a Maryland
federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer
laws.

According to the lawsuit, Chain Drug Marketing Association, Inc.
sells adhesive patches promising to deliver 4% lidocaine under the
Quality Choice brand.

The label representations include its description as a "Maximum
Strength Lidocaine Pain Relief Patch" delivering 4% Lidocaine
topical anesthetic. The label also indicates that the product
"Desensitizes Aggravated Nerves and Relieves Pain" through a
"Stay-put Flexible Patch" in a "Single Use Application that Lasts
up to 12 Hours," Ashley says.

However, the product cannot and does not adhere for anywhere close
to twelve hours, rendering the marketing misleading, the lawsuit
states.

Studies have shown that lidocaine patches using the same or
substantially similar delivery mechanism and design are unable to
adhere to the body for more than four hours, often peeling off
within minutes of light activity, "nowhere near the twelve hours of
usage time indicated," the lawsuit states.

Patch can fall off within minutes, lawsuit states

Since the product cannot adhere to a person's skin throughout the
promised time period, it also cannot deliver the active anesthetic
ingredient of lidocaine during that time, Ashley adds.  

Meanwhile, the representation of "Maximum Strength" and "4%
lidocaine" are also misleading, because prescription lidocaine
patches exist on the market that deliver greater amounts of
lidocaine to the wearer, the lawsuit states. The plaintiff also
says the product does not desensitize nerves, as promised on the
label.

As a result, Ashley is suing on behalf of anyone in Maryland who
bought the product, as well as a consumer fraud multistate class of
consumers from Idaho, Alaska, Kansas, Iowa, Mississippi,
Mississippi, South Dakota, West Virginia, Arizona and Utah.

He is suing for violations of state consumer laws, breach of
warranty, fraud and unjust enrichment. He seeks certification of
the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial.

Meanwhile, Rite Aid makes a lidocaine patch that does not work as
promised because it doesn't stick on the skin for as long as it
says it will, a new class action lawsuit alleges.

The plaintiff is represented by Spencer Sheehan of Sheehan &
Associates.

The Quality Choice class action lawsuit is Matthew Ashley, et al.
v. Chain Drug Marketing Association Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-01486-LKG in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland. [GN]

CHAMPION PETFOODS: Heavy Metals Class Summary Judgment Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Keller and Heckman LLP of The National Law Review reports that in
May 2017, following a poor rating of its premium-priced dog food by
the Clean Label Project, Champion Petfoods released a white paper
disclosing the levels of heavy metals in its products and reporting
these were well within ranges for arsenic, cadmium, lead, and
mercury deemed acceptable for dog foods by the National Research
Council and FDA. Then on October 16, 2018, a proposed class action
lawsuit filed in New York federal court alleged that Champion
Petfoods' Acana and Orijen pet foods contain heavy metals known to
pose health risks to humans and animals even though the foods are
advertised as fit for humans.  The plaintiff did not allege that
Champion's pet foods were unsafe or harmed her pets but maintained
that she would not have purchased Champion's products at their
retail prices if she had known that they contained heavy metals.
The district court granted summary judgment for Champion in
dismissing all heavy metal fraud-by-omission claims on March 31,
2022.

On June 6, 2023, the Second Circuit upheld the trial court's
judgment in an order stating, "the factual record establishes that
a reasonable consumer could have discovered that Champion’s pet
foods had a material risk of containing some measurable amount of
heavy metals" and the plaintiff failed to show that "the business
alone possesses" this information, as required under the law.
Further, while acknowledging "the importance of consumer labeling,
especially as it relates to food for both humans and pets alike,"
the appeals court said that it is up to Congress or a federal
agency such as FDA to determine what is disclosed on food labeling.


The appeals court did state that if the plaintiff had claimed that
Champion's pet foods contained quantities of heavy metals in excess
of safe thresholds, then that could be information that "the
business alone" possessed.  This underscores a significant obstacle
in other heavy metals litigation where plaintiffs have been unable
to demonstrate that the unavoidable presence of heavy metals in low
amounts renders the food inedible or unsafe to consume. [GN]

CHAMPION PETFOODS: Summary Judgment in Paradowski Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KATHLEEN PARADOWSKI, Plaintiff-Appellant, RACHEL
COLANGELO, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. CHAMPION PETFOODS USA, INC. &
CHAMPION PETFOODS LP, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 22-962-cv (2d
Cir.), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirms the
district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of
Champion and dismissing all of the Plaintiff's claims.

Plaintiff-Appellant Paradowski appeals from the district court's
grant of summary judgment for Defendants-Appellees Champion
Petfoods USA, Inc., and Champion Petfoods LP (collectively,
"Champion"). On appeal, Paradowski argues that the district court
improperly dismissed her New York General Business Law Section 349
claim alleging that Champion failed to disclose the presence of
heavy metals in two of its pet food formulas.

Champion is a manufacturer and seller of premium-priced dog food.
It markets its products as "Biologically Appropriate" and states
that it uses "animal-based proteins," instead of grains or fillers,
to mirror how wolves or wild dogs would get nutrition in nature
(albeit within the limitations of dry kibble form). In April 2017,
a group called the Clean Label Project published a blog post that
rated pet foods based on several factors, including heavy metal
content, and gave one star out of five to Champion's brands.

Several Champion customers reached out to inquire about the post,
and in May 2017, Champion released a white paper on heavy metals
that disclosed the average levels of heavy metals in its products
in comparison to known safety limits for pets. The white paper
reported that the levels of heavy metals in its products were all
within the acceptable ranges based on guidelines published by the
National Research Council and the Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") outlining maximum tolerable limits for arsenic, cadmium,
lead, and mercury in dog foods.

Approximately one and a half years later, the putative class action
was brought against Champion on behalf of New York purchasers of
Champion dog food. Paradowski is the owner of two German Shepherds,
and the sole remaining named Plaintiff. At various times from
2016-18, she purchased two of Champion's products -- ACANA Regional
Meadowlands and ACANA Heritage Free-Run Poultry. Her second amended
complaint alleged, inter alia, that Champion engaged in common-law
fraud-by-omission and/or violated New York General Business Law
Section 349 by failing to disclose that its recipes "contained
and/or had a material risk of containing" detectible amounts of
heavy metals.

Although the parties dispute the quantity of heavy metals present,
they agree that the question of whether the products were safe is
not at issue in this litigation. The Plaintiff did not allege that
Champion's pet foods were unsafe or that they harmed her pets.
Instead, she maintained that she would not have purchased
Champion's products at their retail prices if she had known that
they contained heavy metals.

In response, Champion argued that heavy metals are widely known to
be naturally occurring in the environment and at safe levels in
many of the foods people (and dogs) eat. It notes that heavy metals
are especially common in the fish and fish-derived products that
are listed as ingredients in its ACANA Heritage Free-Run Poultry
and ACANA Regionals Meadowland offerings. It also provided
uncontroverted evidence that nearly all pet food contains
measurable quantities of heavy metals.

On March 31, 2022, the district court granted summary judgment in
favor of Champion and dismissed all of the Plaintiff's claims. The
court concluded that no reasonable jury could rule for the
Plaintiff on either the heavy metal fraud-by-omission claim or the
Section 349 claim because by ordinary diligence and attention, the
Plaintiff should have known that anything containing fish might
also contain high concentrations of heavy metals.

The Plaintiff timely appealed. She only challenges the district
court's dismissal of her Section 349 heavy metals claim.

Upon review of the record, the Second Circuit agrees that no
reasonable jury could conclude that the omission at issue -- that
Champion's pet foods contained or had a material risk of containing
heavy metals -- was solely within Champion's possession. To start,
it is worth clarifying that the Plaintiff has not pleaded omissions
claim based on the specific quantities of heavy metals present in
Champion's products. If the Plaintiff had claimed that Champion's
pet foods contained quantities of heavy metals more than safe
thresholds, then that could be information that "the business
alone" possessed. However, the Plaintiff's position is that
Champion should have disclosed that its products contained -- or
had a material risk of containing -- any amount of heavy metals.

The factual record establishes that a reasonable consumer could
have discovered that Champion's pet foods had a material risk of
containing some measurable amount of heavy metals. Because the
Plaintiff has failed to show that "the business alone possesses"
this information, its Section 349 claim fails.

Lastly, the Second Circuit acknowledges the importance of consumer
labeling, especially as it relates to food for both humans and pets
alike. However, it is not within the province of the courts to
decide what information must be disclosed on consumer packaging.
That issue should be for Congress or a federal agency such as the
FDA to determine.

The Second Circuit has considered the Plaintiff-Appellant's
remaining arguments and concludes that they are without merit. The
judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 6, 2023 Summary Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bdf6ayfs from Leagle.com.

REBECCA A. PETERSON -- rapeterson@locklaw.com -- (Robert K.
Shelquist -- rkshelquist@locklaw.com -- on the brief), Lockridge
Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN, (Daniel E. Gustafson --
dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Glueck, PLLC,
Minneapolis, MN, Kevin A. Seeley -- kseely@robbinsllp.com --
Robbins LLP, San Diego, CA, Kenneth A. Wexler --
kaw@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler Boley & Elgersma LLP, Chicago, IL,
on the brief) for the Plaintiff-Appellant.

LINDA T. COBERLY -- lcoberly@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP,
Chicago, IL (David A. Coulson -- dcoulson@winston.com -- Winston &
Strawn LLP, Miami, FL, on the brief), for the
Defendants-Appellees.


CHICKEN SOUP: Kahan Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
-----------------------------------------------------
MARTIN KAHAN, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
stockholders of CHICKEN SOUP FOR THE SOUL ENTERTAINMENT INC.,
Plaintiff v. WILLIAM J. ROUHANA, JR., CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL, FRED M.
COHEN, COSMO DENICOLA, AMY L. NEWMARK, MARTIN POMPADUR, VIKRAM
SOMAYA, CHRISTINA WEISS LURIE, DIANA WILKIN, and CHICKEN SOUP FOR
THE SOUL ENTERTAINMENT INC., Defendants, Case No. 2023-0593 (Del.
Ch., June 5, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
breaches of fiduciary duties.

On May 17, 2023, Chicken Soup filed a definitive proxy statement
including Proposal 2 defined as the Charter Amendment Proposal and
asking the Company's stockholders, including Plaintiff "to approve
an amendment to our certificate of incorporation to reflect new
Delaware law provisions regarding officer exculpation."

According to the complaint, the Individual Defendants have failed
to provide Chicken Soup's public stockholders with all material
information necessary to decide whether to vote in favor of
Proposal 2. As a result of the actions of the Individual
Defendants, Plaintiff and the Class will suffer irreparable injury,
in that they face an uninformed vote on Proposal 2 and an improper
counting of the vote on Proposal 2. Unless the Individual
Defendants are enjoined by the Court, they will continue to breach
their fiduciary duties owed to Plaintiff and the members of the
Class, says the suit.

Chicken Soup for the Soul Entertainment Inc.  is an American
self-help, consumer goods and media company. Defendant Rouhana is
the Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Company's
Board.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David A. Jenkins, Esq.
          Julie M. O'Dell, Esq.
          SMITH, KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS LLP
          1000 North West Street, Suite 1501
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 652-8400
          E-mail: daj@skjlaw.com
                  jmo@skjlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq.
          Michael J. Klein, Esq.
          ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
          450 Seventh Avenue, 38th Floor
          New York, NY 10123
          Telephone: (212) 279-5050
          E-mail: jabraham@aftlaw.com
                  mklein@aftlaw.com

CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: Brimer Appeals Dismissal of Civil Rights Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Richard Brimer, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated May 10, 2023
entered in the lawsuit entitled Bryan Tessanne and Richard Brimer,
on their own behalf and on behalf of the class similarly situated
v. Children's Hospital Medical Center of Akron, Case No.
5:22-cv-00354-JRA, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio at Akron.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 14, 2022, the
suit alleges that Defendant violates the Plaintiffs' First
Amendment Right to freely exercise their religion.

The Defendant allegedly failed to engage in a meaningful
interactive process to determine whether reasonable accommodations
could be made to ensure the Plaintiffs could freely exercise their
religious beliefs and thus decline the experimental SARS-CoV-2
injection(s) after the Defendant mandated the injections due to the
rule promulgated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
The Defendant placed Plaintiffs on leave without pay unless and
until Plaintiffs comply by receiving the experimental injection,
with the expectation that the Plaintiffs will be terminated
officially at the end of February 2022.

Children's Hospital has committed religious discrimination against
them. On November 5, 2021, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services (CMS) published an interim final rule (IFR) requiring
healthcare workers at facilities receiving Medicare and Medicaid
reimbursement to be vaccinated against SARS-COV-2 by January 4,
2022. Twenty-four states sued CMS to enjoin enforcement of the IFR
in U.S. federal district courts in Louisiana and Missouri. Ohio
joined the Louisiana lawsuit. The district courts enjoined the IFR,
the Fifth and Eighth Circuit Courts of Appeals upheld the
injunctions. Then, CMS appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which
ruled for CMS January 13, 2022.

On May 10, 2023, Judge Charles Esque Fleming entered a Memorandum
Opinion and Order GRANTING Hospital's motion to dismiss under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) while the motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6) was deemed MOOT. The Plaintiffs' motion for leave to
amend their complaint was DENIED. For the reasons stated in the
Memorandum Opinion and Order, the matter was DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.

The appellate case is captioned as Richard Brimer, et al. v.
Children's Hospital Medical Center of Akron, Case No. 23-3480, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on
June 5, 2023.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant brief is due on July 17, 2023; and

   -- Appellee brief is due on August 14, 2023.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants RICHARD BRIMER, et al., on their own behalf
and on behalf of the class similarly situated, are represented by:

          Warner D. Mendenhall, Esq.
          Brian C. Unger, Esq.
          MENDENHALL LAW GROUP
          190 N. Union Street, Suite 201
          Akron, OH 44304
          Telephone: (330) 535-9160

Defendant-Appellee CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER OF AKRON is
represented by:

          Alexandra C. Eckrich, Esq.
          WESTON HURD
          1300 E. Ninth Street, Suite 1400
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 241-6602

               - and -

          Mark I. Wallach, Esq.
          ROETZEL & ANDRESS
          1375 E. Ninth Street, Suite 1000
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 623-0150

CHILDTIME CHILDCARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Covington Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES COVINGTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHILDTIME CHILDCARE, INC.; and LEARNING CARE
GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00710-GLS-ATB (N.D.N.Y.,
June 13, 2023) is an action against the Defendant for failure to
pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals, and
provide accurate wage statements.

Plaintiff Covington was employed by the Defendants as a
housekeeper.

CHILDTIME CHILDCARE, INC. provides child care services. The Company
offers preschool, kindergarten, and general child care services.
Childtime Childcare serves children throughout the United States.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
          675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810,
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (718) 669-0714
          Email: mgangat@gangatpllc.com

CLOOPEN GROUP: Dong Suit Settled; Matter Discontinued W/ Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BOYAN DONG, ET AL., Plaintiffs v. CLOOPEN GROUP
HOLDING LIMITED, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-10610 (JGK)
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge John G. Koeltl of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York orders that the matter be
discontinued with prejudice but without costs.

Judge Koeltl says it has been reported to the Court that the
parties have settled the action. He orders that the matter be
discontinued with prejudice but without costs; provided, however,
that within 45 days of the date of his Order, the counsel for the
Plaintiffs may apply by letter for restoration of the action to
Judge Koeltl's calendar, in which event the action will be
restored.

Any application to reopen must be filed within 45 days of the
Order; any application to reopen filed thereafter may be denied
solely on that basis. Further, if the parties wish for the Court to
retain jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing any settlement
agreement, they must submit the settlement agreement to the Court
within the same 45-day period to be so-ordered by the Court. Unless
the Court orders otherwise, it will not retain jurisdiction to
enforce a settlement agreement unless it is made part of the public
record.

All pending motions are dismissed as moot. All conferences are
canceled. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 6, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y2khbvrx from Leagle.com.


DELTA PACKING: Carrillo, Andres Nixed From Perez Suit W/o Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALEJANDRA PEREZ, et al., Plaintiffs v. DELTA PACKING
COMPANY OF LODI, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02228-DAD-JDP
(E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California dismisses Carrillo and Andres from
the action, without prejudice.

On May 17, 2023, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiffs
Martin Mendoza Carrillo and Miguel Andres to individually inform
the Court in writing within 14 days of the service of the order
whether he intends to continue prosecuting the action and, if so,
whether he intends to obtain substitute counsel or proceed pro se.
In that order, the Court warned Carrillo and Andres that their
failure to respond to its order in this regard will result in their
dismissal from the action due to their failure to prosecute and
failure to comply with the Court's order.

The deadline set by the Court's May 17, 2023 order has now passed.
To date, Carrillo and Andres have not complied with that order, or
otherwise communicated with the Court. It thus appears that they
have no intention to continue their participation as named
Plaintiffs in this putative class action and have abandoned the
litigation.

Accordingly, Judge Drozd dismisses Carrillo and Andres from the
action, without prejudice, due to their failure to prosecute the
action and failure to comply with a court order. The Clerk of the
Court is directed to update the docket to reflect that both
Plaintiffs have been terminated as named Plaintiffs in this
action.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 6, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mh44n5td from Leagle.com.


DIRECTV LLC: Settles Brown Telemarketing Class Suit for $17 Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brigette Honaker of Top Class Actions reports that readers have
reported receiving payments from a $17 million class action lawsuit
settlement with DirecTV over alleged unsolicited telemarketing
calls.

The settlement benefits consumers who received phone calls from
DirecTV or its agents regarding a debt despite not being a DirecTV
customer since Oct. 1, 2004.

According to the class action lawsuit, DirecTV violated the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by contacting consumers
with unsolicited telemarketing phone calls. These calls allegedly
sought payment for debts despite the call recipients never having
been DirecTV customers.

DirecTV agreed to resolve the TCPA class action lawsuit with a $17
million settlement. Under the terms of the settlement, consumers
could receive a proportional share of the net settlement based on
which DirecTV agent called them. Top Class Actions readers report
receiving payment as high as $1,693!

The DirecTV TCPA class action lawsuit is Jenny Brown, et al. v.
DirecTV LLC, Case No. 2:13-cv-01170, in the District Court for the
Central District of California. [GN]

DISPLATE CORP: Gutierrez Sues Over False Discount Offers
--------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL GUTIERREZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DISPLATE CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00861-ADA-BAM (E.D. Cal., June 6, 2023) alleges
claims against the Defendant for breach of contract, breach of
express warranty, breach of implied warranty, quasi-contract/unjust
enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, intentional
misrepresentation, and violations of the California's False
Advertising Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and Unfair
Competition Law.

Displate Corporation, the Defendant, makes, sells, and markets
Displate posters, which are available online through Defendant's
website, www.displate.com. The Defendant's website prominently
advertises purportedly time-limited, site-wide sales for these
products. These advertisements include purported regular prices and
purported discounts. However, these advertisements are allegedly
false since the Defendant repeatedly offers site-wide discounts off
of the purported regular prices. The sales are not limited in time;
instead, they repeatedly reset and continue to be available.
Moreover, the Defendant's website creates an illusion that
customers are receiving a limited-time discount. Defendant does
this by advertising fake limited-time sales, fake regular prices,
and fake discounts based on the fake regular prices, says the
suit.

Displate Corporation is a Delaware company with headquarters is in
Austin, TX. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

DISTROKID LLC: Doeman Music Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
--------------------------------------------------------------
DOEMAN MUSIC GROUP MEDIA AND PHOTOGRAPHY LLC, on behalf of itself
and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DISTROKID LLC, KID
DISTRO HOLDINGS, LLC D/B/A DISTROKID, RAQUELLA "ROCKY SNYDA"
GEORGE, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-04776 (S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2023)
alleges common law claims against the Defendants for breach of
fiduciary duty and for breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing.

Despite having information available such as procedures how to
upload their music, on what the terms and procedures are for
uploading, and the royalty collection process, DistroKid allegedly
did not provide Doeman with all of the information that it had
about the takedown notice. It did not provide the proper
information to submit a counter-notice. And, it did not initiate a
reasonable investigation when the take-down notice was challenged
by the copyright owner.

In addition, DistroKid breached the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing when it refused to provide the information regarding the
takedown (especially the information necessary for Doeman to get
the music put back up whether via DistroKid or other music
distributors) and refused to conduct a reasonable investigation
regarding attempts to keep the music up, says the suit.

DistroKid LLC is a Delaware limited-liability company with a
principal place of business in the Southern District of New York.
The company operates as a music distributor and serves as a
middleman between independent artists and labels and the platforms
that supply the music directly to the public, such as Spotify,
Amazon Music, and iTunes. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Megan Keenan, Esq.
          INFORMATION DIGNITY ALLIANCE
          P.O. Box 8684
          Portland, OR 97207
          Telephone: (925) 330-0359
          E-mail: Megan@InformationDignityAlliance.org

ELLUSIONIST.COM INC: Court Narrows Claims in Guerrero Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EDELMIRA GUERRERO, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELLUSIONIST.COM, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-2465 (ER) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Edgardo Ramos
of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim.

Guerrero, a visually impaired person, brings the putative class
action for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and monetary
damages against Ellusionist for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA") and the New York City Human Rights
Law ("NYCHRL"), alleging denial of equal access to a website
operated by Ellusionist.

Guerrero is a resident of Bronx, New York and is visually impaired.
She uses NonVisual Desktop Access ("NVDA") screen reading software
to navigate websites on the internet. Ellusionist is a corporation
registered in California, and it conducts business in New York
through its website, ellusionist.com. It designs and sells cards
that are used for magic tricks and card games.

Guerrero alleges that Ellusionist failed to make the website
accessible to the visually impaired, thereby denying her access to
the goods available on the website. She alleges that on four
occasions -- Feb. 1, March 20, July 24, and July 26, 2022 -- she
browsed and attempted to purchase a deck of "Queen Bee
Luxury-pressed E7" cards. Yet, because of the accessibility
barriers on the website, which Ellusionist has failed to cure as of
the date of the filing of the first amended complaint ("FAC"),
Guerrero could not buy the cards.

Guerrero filed the action on March 27, 2022, seeking injunctive
relief, as well as compensatory and punitive damages against
Ellusionist. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation entered by the
Court on July 27, 2022, Guerrero filed a FAC on July 28, 2022. On
Sept. 30, 2022, Ellusionist filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state
a claim.

First, Guerrero alleges that Ellusionist violated Title III of the
ADA, 42 U.S.C. Section 12101 et seq., and the NYCHRL, N.Y.C.
Administrative Code Sections 8-101 et seq., by failing to provide
equal access to blind and visually-impaired consumers on its
website. Ellusionist's principal argument is that its website is
not a "place of public accommodation" under the ADA. It argues that
the list of places provided in Title III that qualify as places of
public accommodation include only physical locations, not
websites.

Judge Ramos holds that the website is a place of public
accommodation within the meaning of the ADA. Thus, Guerrero has
sufficiently alleged discrimination upon which relief can be
granted under the ADA and the NYCHRL. Accordingly, Ellusionist's
motion to dismiss is denied.

Next, Ellusionist argues that Guerrero is not entitled to recover
civil penalties, fines or punitive damages under the NYCHRL for two
reasons: (1) civil penalties and fines are paid to the city, not to
a private plaintiff, and (2) Guerrero's case does not meet the high
bar for obtaining punitive damages, which requires more than mere
negligence. Guerrero contends she is entitled to damages because
she did not bring this claim under Section 8-127(a), but rather
under Section 8-502(a).

A motion to dismiss is addressed to a 'claim' -- not to a form of
damages, Judge Ramos states. Because damages are not an independent
cause of action, he says a motion to dismiss these damages is
procedurally premature. Therefore, he denies Ellusionist's motion
to dismiss Guerrero's request for monetary relief, including civil
penalties, fines, or punitive damages.

Ellusionist also moves to dismiss Guerrero's claim for a
declaratory judgment that it violated the ADA and the NYCHRL
because it is redundant. Count III of the FAC only adds one more
allegation than those in Count I and II and is essentially a
reiteration of the same allegations set forth in Count I and II.
Accordingly, the claim is redundant and Judge Ramos grants
Ellusionist's motion to dismiss Count III.

For the foregoing reasons, Ellusionist's motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim under the ADA and the NYCHRL is denied.
Its motion to dismiss for failure to establish a claim for damages
under the statutes is denied and the motion to dismiss Count III is
grants. Ellusionist is directed to answer the complaint by June 27,
2023. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the
motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 6, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/33n5wsym from Leagle.com.


ENZO BIOCHEM: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Guthart Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARK GUTHART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ENZO BIOCHEM, INC.; ENZO CLINICAL LABS;
INC.; and LAB CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-04364-RPK-LGD (E.D.N.Y., June 13, 2023) is an action
arising from a breach of sensitive information in the possession
and custody and control of Defendants.

According to the complaint, the Data Breach resulted in the
unauthorized disclosure, exfiltration, and theft of consumers'
highly personal information, including names, Social Security
numbers, dates of service, ("personal identifying information" or
"PII"), and clinical test information ("protected health
information" or "PHI"). Plaintiff refers to both PII and PHI
collectively as "Sensitive Information."

The Defendants' failure to timely detect and report the Data Breach
made its consumers vulnerable to identity theft without any
warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to
prevent unauthorized use of their Sensitive Information. The
Defendants knew or should have known that each victim of the Data
Breach deserved prompt and efficient notice of the Data Breach and
assistance in mitigating the effects of PII and PHI misuse, says
the suit.

ENZO BIOCHEM, INC. researches, develops, and manufactures health
care products based on molecular biology and genetic engineering
techniques. The Company also provides diagnostic services to the
medical community. Enzo Biochem labeling and detection products for
gene sequencing and genetic analysis are sold to the life sciences
market throughout the world. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
           Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
           Philip Furia, Esq.
           85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
           Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
           Telephone: (845) 483-7100
           Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
           Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                 furiap@thesultzerlawgroup.com

FIRST CONNECTICUT: Dismissal of Karp Securities Class Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP of JD Supra reports that on June 1, 2023,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed
the grant of summary judgment dismissing claims under Sections
14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a financial
company and certain of its directors. Karp v. First Connecticut
Bancorp, Inc., -- F.4th --, 2023 WL 3743604, at *1 (4th Cir. 2023).
Plaintiff alleged that the company in which he held stock made
misrepresentations in a proxy solicitation in connection with a
proposed stock-for-stock merger with another company. The Fourth
Circuit held that plaintiff failed to allege any material omission
from the proxy statement and also failed to establish loss
causation.

Plaintiff alleged that the proxy statement summarized different
financial analyses performed by the company's financial advisor,
which issued a fairness opinion, but omitted a prior analysis by
that financial advisor that -- although prepared without input from
company management -- had yielded more optimistic cash-flow
projections. Plaintiff thus contended that the company's
shareholders approved the merger based on an incomplete picture of
the value of their shares. His expert opined that the alleged
omission undervalued plaintiff's stock, but offered no opinion
about whether the alleged omission caused the putative class
members any damages. The company's experts opined that proxy
statements in other transactions typically did not include any
cash-flow projections, that the merger counterparty would not have
agreed to a higher merger consideration, and that there was "no
reason to believe" that disclosure of additional projections would
have changed the result of the proxy solicitation.

The Court rejected plaintiff's argument that the district court
erred in holding that the omission of the cash flow projections was
not material under Section 14(a). The Court noted that "an omitted
fact is material if it's substantially likely that a reasonable
shareholder would consider it important in deciding how to vote."
The Court, however, agreed with defendants that "it's not enough to
speculate that shareholders might have found the projections
helpful to the deliberations, so long as the merger proxy provided
a thorough and accurate summary of the financial advisor's work."
The Court relied on precedent from the Seventh Circuit, which had
similarly rejected a challenge to a proxy statement in light of all
the other information provided and emphasized that "shareholders
are not entitled to the disclosure of every financial input used by
a financial advisor so that they may double-check every aspect of
both the advisor's math and its judgment." (citing Kuebler v.
Vectren Corp., 13 F.4th 631 (7th Cir. 2021)). The Fourth Circuit
highlighted the "array of metrics" in the proxy statement and
concluded that plaintiff failed to offer a "plausible theory for
treating the … projected cash flows as material in light of all
the other information provided to shareholders." In fact, the Court
noted that plaintiff himself "didn’t testify that the cash-flow
projections would have actually affected [his] vote for or against
the proposed merger." Indeed, plaintiff testified that he did not
recall how (or even whether) he had voted on the merger or what
information he would have relied upon, leading the Court to observe
that while the standard for materiality refers to a "reasonable
shareholder," "it's at least relevant that the lead plaintiff in
this case didn't even look for the cash-flow projections."

The Fourth Circuit also agreed with the district court that
plaintiff separately failed to establish loss causation. Fourth
Circuit explained that plaintiff failed to establish that the
omission of the cash flow projection caused a loss, noting that the
purchase price represented a nearly $6 per share premium over the
company's trading price, that the buyer was willing to walk if its
offer was not accepted, and that no other bidders sought to
purchase the company. The Fourth Circuit rejected plaintiff's
contention that loss causation and transaction causation were one
and the same for Section 14(a) cases, such that he need only "show
that [the] misleading proxy statement proximately caused the
merger." (emphasis in original). To the contrary, the Fourth
Circuit held that loss causation requires a plaintiff to show not
only that the proxy statement was an essential link in the
transaction, but also to prove that the challenged
misrepresentations or omissions caused their economic loss, joining
several other Circuits that have held this framework applies to
both Section 10(b) and Section 14 claims. [GN]

FORD MOTOR: Bolton Sues Over Defective Ford Engines
---------------------------------------------------
MARLON BOLTON; JENNY PTASZEK; GINA BILOTTA; VERONICA MALDONADO;
JOHN WRIGHT; MARGARET VASQUEZ; TRACEY DROTOS; and SCOTT MARTIN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-00632-UNA (D. Del., June 9, 2023) is a class action brought
against the Defendant by the Plaintiffs on behalf of a class of
current and former owners and lessees of defective model year 2016
or later Ford-brand vehicles equipped with a 1.0L EcoBoost engine
("Class Vehicles"), including 2016-2017 Ford Fiesta vehicles,
2018-2021 Ford EcoSport vehicles and 2016-2018 Ford Focus
vehicles.

According to the complaint, the Ford 1.0L EcoBoost engine is a one
liter, 3-cylinder engine used in several models of economy,
subcompact and compact cars manufactured by Ford. Unfortunately,
these engines have an inherent defect related to the oil pump,
about which Ford has known but not disclosed to consumers. This
defect results in catastrophic engine failure, often shortly
outside of the 60,000-mile powertrain warranty as demonstrated
below.

The alleged defect presents a serious safety hazard because it can
cause catastrophic engine failure without warning while driving,
lost motive power, and sudden limp mode activation, increasing the
likelihood of a collision. Moreover, because Ford is aware that the
failures - which attract the owners' notice - occur frequently just
outside the warranty, it is unfairly transferring the cost of the
warranty repairs to unsuspecting consumers of the economy vehicles
in which these engines are equipped.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY designs, manufactures, and services cars and
trucks. The Company also provides vehicle-related financing,
leasing, and insurance through its subsidiary. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert J. Kriner, Jr., Esq.
          Scott M. Tucker, Esq.
          CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER &
          DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
          2711 Centerville Rd., Suite 201
          Wilmington, DE 19808
          Tel.: (302) 656-2500
          Email: rjk@chimicles.com
                 smt@chimicles.com

               - and -

          Timothy N. Mathews, Esq.
          Alex M. Kashurba, Esq.
          CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER
          & DONALDSON SMITH LLP
          361 W. Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: (610) 642-8500
          Email: tnm@chimicles.com
                 amk@chimicles.com

               - and -

          Russell D. Paul, Esq.
          Abigail Gertner, Esq.
          Amey J. Park, Esq.
          Natalie Lesser, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          Email: rpaul@bm.net
                 agertner@bm.net
                 apark@bm.net
                 nlesser@bm.net

               - and -

          Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
          Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
          Laura E. Goolsby, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          Email: Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
                 Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
                 Laura.Goolsby@capstonelawyers.com

FORD MOTOR: Militello Suit Moved to Eastern District of Michigan
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARK MILITELLO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 22-CV-6425DGL (W.D.N.Y.), Judge David G.
Larimer of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New
York grants Ford's motion to transfer the action to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Militello filed the complaint in the action on Oct. 5, 2022, on
behalf of himself and a class consisting of all persons who
purchased a vehicle manufactured by Ford from an authorized Ford
dealer in New York from 2007 onwards, containing an internal water
pump that suffers from an alleged design defect that can cause it
to fail prematurely. Ford has moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1404(a), to transfer the action to the Eastern District of
Michigan. The Plaintiff opposes the motion.

The 108-page complaint alleges that the Plaintiff, a citizen and
resident of New York, bought a 2016 Ford Explorer in March 2019
from an authorized Ford dealer in Avon, New York. The Plaintiff
further alleges that in or around September 2019, when his
vehicle's odometer was at about 61,300 miles, the vehicle's water
pump failed due to a defect in the design of the water pump. He
alleges that he was forced to spend around $2000 in repair costs.

Because the alleged defect was in the design of the pump, it was,
allegedly, not unique to the Plaintiff's water pump. The Plaintiff
claims that the defect existed, and currently exists, in thousands
of vehicles manufactured by Ford incorporating its "Cyclone
Engine," which contains the defective water pump.

Based on these allegations, the Plaintiff asserts four claims
against Ford, all under New York law: (1) a claim under Gen. Bus.
L. Section 349 (deceptive acts or practices); (2) a claim under
Gen. Bus. L. Section 350 (false advertising); (3) a claim under
U.C.C. Section 2-314 (breach of implied warranty); (4) and fraud by
omission or fraudulent concealment.

The Plaintiff defines the class in this action as "All persons who
purchased a Class Vehicle from an authorized dealer in New York for
personal, family, or household purposes." "Class Vehicle" is
defined as follows: "Beginning in 2007 and through at least 2020,
Ford has incorporated the Cyclone Engine, containing an Internal
Water Pump with the Defect into thousands of vehicles (the 'Class
Vehicles')."

Ford's motion to transfer relates to an action, Roe v. Ford Motor
Co., No. 2:18-cv-12528, that was filed in the Eastern District of
Michigan on August 14, 2018. In Roe -- in which the plaintiffs are
represented by same counsel as in the case at bar -- the complaint
alleges the same defect in Ford's engines as in this case, in
wording identical to that of the complaint here. Both complaints
also allege that Ford has been aware of the defect but concealed it
from purchasers and the general public.

The complaint in Roe is brought on behalf of a "Nationwide Class"
comprising "all persons or entities in the United States who
purchased, leased or own a Class Vehicle," and eleven sub-classes,
each consisting of class members from one of eleven states (which
do not include New York). There are 55 causes of action, asserting
various claims under the laws of those eleven states and the
federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2301 et seq.
For example, there are four claims asserted on behalf of the
Arkansas sub-class, and eight claims by the California sub-class.

In support of its motion to transfer, Ford contends that the
Militello claims easily could have been brought in the Eastern
District of Michigan, and the balance of relevant factors favors
transferring the action there. It contends that the decision to
file Militello in this district was motivated by forum shopping,
and a desire to avoid the supervision of the Roe court.

Judge Larimer explains that among the factors to be considered in
determining whether to grant a motion to transfer venue are, inter
alia: (1) the plaintiff's choice of forum, (2) the convenience of
witnesses, (3) the location of relevant documents and relative ease
of access to sources of proof, (4) the convenience of the parties,
(5) the locus of operative facts, (6) the availability of process
to compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses, and (7) the
relative means of the parties.

After considering the relevant factors, he concludes that Ford has
demonstrated that transfer of the action to the Eastern District of
Michigan is appropriate. First, while he does not agree with Ford
that the Plaintiff's choice of forum in this case should be given
no weight, Judge Larimer says neither is it entitled to great
weight. Were it otherwise, few if any cases would ever be
transferred, since a transfer necessarily means moving the case out
of the district in which it was brought.

Judge Larimer finds that on the whole, the remaining factors, which
generally relate to matters of convenience and the burden on the
parties of proceeding in one forum or the other, do not tilt
strongly one way or the other. Ford is correct that the operative
facts are centered more in Michigan than in New York. Although the
Plaintiff's vehicle was purchased and suffered a water pump failure
in New York, his claims do not relate so much to the facts of that
particular breakdown, but to the design of the pump and Ford's
alleged knowledge that the design was flawed. As Ford notes, those
matters mostly concern Ford's operations in Michigan, where
presumably most of the relevant witnesses and sources of proof are
located.

Finally, Judge Larimer notes that the Plaintiff asserts that Ford's
motion to transfer is simply a subterfuge, and that if the case
were transferred, Ford will seek to dismiss it on the ground that
the Roe litigation is too far advanced to disrupt it by the
addition of the Plaintiff (or the Plaintiffs) and claims in
Militello. That argument is misplaced. All the Court is doing is
transferring the action to the Eastern District of Michigan. Once
that is done, how the case should proceed will be up to the Roe
court. Any issues concerning consolidation with Roe or similar
matters can be addressed by that court, following transfer.

For these reasons, Ford's motion to transfer is granted. The action
is transferred to the Eastern District of Michigan, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1404(a).

A full-text copy of the Court's June 6, 2023 Decision & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2cf88etk from Leagle.com.


FORMAN MILLS: Del Rossi Sue Over Termination Without Prior Notice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NOELL DEL ROSSI, individually and on behalf of all
similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff v. FORMAN MILLS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-03136 (D.N.J., June 7, 2023) arises out
of the Defendant's violations of the Federal WARN Act and New
Jersey WARN Act.

The Plaintiff worked in Defendant's corporate office in Pennsauken,
New Jersey. On June 6, 2023, Plaintiff and the other employees who
worked at the facility were notified by Defendant that their
employment was terminated, effective immediately. Accordingly,
Plaintiff brings this class action against the Defendant for its
failure to provide at least 60 days advance written notice as
required by Federal WARN Act. The Plaintiff also alleges that the
Defendant failed to provide aggrieved employees with the 90- day
written notice that is required by the NJ WARN Act. In addition,
the Defendant also failed to provide them with the severance
payment and an additional four weeks of pay that is required under
the NJ WARN Act, says the suit.

Forman Mills, Inc. is a Delaware for-profit corporation that is
registered with the New Jersey Division of Revenue and Enterprise
Services under the entity identification number 0100438815. Its
corporate headquarters are located at 1070 Thomas Busch Memorial
Highway, Pennsauken, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Franklin J. Rooks, Jr., Esq.
           MORGAN ROOKS, P.C.
           525 Route 73 North, Suite 104
           Marlton, NJ 08053
           Telephone No. (856) 874-8999
           Facsimile No. (856) 494-1707
           E-mail: fjrooks@morganrooks.com
         
                    - and -


            James E. Goodley, Esq.
            Ryan P. McCarthy, Esq.
            GOODLEY MCCARTHY LLC
            One Liberty Place
            1650 Market Street, Suite 3600
            Philadelphia, PA 19103
            Telephone: (215) 394-0541
            E-mail: james@gmlaborlaw.com
                    ryan@gmlaborlaw.com

FRIDA RESTAURANT: Covarrubias Sues Over Busboys' Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
SEBASTIAN COVARRUBIAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRIDA RESTAURANT BEVERLY HILLS,
LLC, a Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1-20, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 23SMCV02492 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 7, 2023)
arises out of the Defendants' alleged violations of the California
Labor Code.

Plaintiff Sebastian Covarrubias was employed by Cantina Frida as a
busboy from approximately March 2021 to July 31, 2022 at Cantina
Frida Beverly Hills location as a nonexempt general laborer
employee and was and is paid in whole or in part on an hourly
basis. Allegedly, the Defendants have engaged in a uniform policy
and systematic scheme of wage abuse against Plaintiff in violation
of applicable California laws, including, without limitation,
failing to provide meal and rest breaks, failing to pay minimum and
overtime wages, failing to provide accurate wage statements, and
failing to pay all earned wages upon separation of employment.

Frida Restaurant Beverly Hills, LLC ("Cantina Frida") is a
traditional Mexican cuisine restaurant and is located in Beverly
Hills, California. It conducted and continues to conduct
substantial business in the state of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vache A. Thomassian, Esq.
          Caspar Jivalagian, Esq.
          Christopher A. Adams, Esq.
          KJT LAW GROUP LLP
          230 N. Maryland Ave. Suite 306
          Glendale, CA 91206
          Telephone: (818) 507-8525
          E-mail: chris@kjtlawgroup.com
                  vache@kjtlawgroup.com
                  caspar@kjtlawgroup.com

GD TOP NOTCH: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Moore Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
JEREMIAH MOORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. GD TOP NOTCH CLEANING SERVICE, INC., Case No.
2:23-cv-11410-SFC-DRG (E.D. Mich., June 14, 2023) is an action
against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.

Plaintiff Moore was employed by the Defendant as a field office
supervising coordinator.

GD TOP NOTCH CLEANING SERVICE, INC. is a construction company based
in Redford, Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer L. McManus, Esq.
          FAGAN MCMANUS, PC
          25892 Woodward Avenue
          Royal Oak, Michigan 58067-0910
          Telephone: (248) 542-6300
          Email: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (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
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com

GEICO: Discloses Web Visitor's Viewing Habits, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason Grant of PropertyCasualty360 reports that a consumer advocate
has launched a putative class action against Geico, claiming the
national insurer is secretly reporting to Google user information
and video-watching behavior for all those who watch videos on
Geico's website.

"Visitors would be shocked and appalled to know that defendants
secretly disclose to Google all of the key data regarding a
visitor's viewing habits," the lawsuit, lodged in U.S. District
Court in Los Angeles by plaintiff Jesse Cantu, claims.

Cantu's lawsuit alleges that Geico uses Google Analytics to help
report the "personally identifiable information, the titles watched
and more" of the viewers of Geico’s website videos for the
purpose of "data harvesting and targeted advertising."

And it claims that such surreptitious reporting of information and
data, done without first getting informed, written consent from the
video-watchers, violates the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988.

The act was meant to protect an individual's privacy, and Cantu's
12-page complaint asks for declaratory and injunctive relief,
statutory damages under the VPPA, punitive damages and attorneys
fees and costs for the putative class.

Cantu is a consumer privacy advocate with dual motivations for
watching a video on the website, said the complaint. Cantu was
genuinely interested in learning more about Geico's goods and
services, in addition to being a "tester," who works to "ensure
that companies abide by the obligations imposed by federal law."

He is represented in the lawsuit, filed on April 25, by Todd
Friedman of the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, based in Woodland
Hills, California. Meghan Killian, a partner at Duane Morris in Los
Angeles, has entered an appearance on behalf of auto insurer Geico
in the case.

"When plaintiff [Cantu] watched videos on the website, defendants
disclosed information that allowed Google (and any ordinary person)
to readily identify plaintiff's video-watching behavior," the
complaint says at one point.

It then alleges that the "defendants did so knowingly and for the
purpose of retargeting plaintiff in connection with Google
advertising campaigns," even though "defendants did not obtain the
informed, written consent of Plaintiff to disclose PII concerning
plaintiff to third parties."

It also alleges that the potential class for the lawsuit numbers in
the thousands.

"While the exact number and identities of the class members are
unknown to plaintiff at this time and can only be ascertained
through appropriate discovery. Plaintiff is informed and believes
and thereon alleges that the class includes thousands of members,"
the complaint states.

Friedman, the attorney for Cantu, could be reached for comment on
June 12, 2023.

It appears he has represented Cantu in other consumer-privacy suits
against other defendants, as well, based on online information.

Killian, representing Geico, also couldn't be reached for comment.
[GN]

GIVAUDAN SA: Chautauqua Sues Over Fragrance Price Monopoly
----------------------------------------------------------
CHAUTAUQUA SOAP COMPANY, individually and on behalf of and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GIVAUDAN S.A.; GIVAUDAN
FRAGRANCES CORPORATION; GIVAUDAN FLAVORS CORPORATION; UNGERER &
COMPANY, INC.; INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS & FRAGRANCES INC.; SYMRISE AG;
SYMRISE INC.; SYMRISE US LLC; FIRMENICH INTERNATIONAL S.A.;
FIRMENICH INCORPORATED; and AGILEX FLAVORS & FRAGRANCES, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-03249 (D.N.J., June 13, 2023) alleges
Defendants' violation of the Sherman Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that because of the
Defendants' anticompetitive conduct, the Plaintiff and the Class
members were forced to pay more for these products than they
otherwise would have, and thus have suffered substantial overcharge
damages at the hands of the Defendants. The Defendants' unlawful
conduct has successfully eliminated or suppressed competition in
the market, and the Plaintiffs and the Class members have sustained
and continue to sustain, significant losses in the form of
artificially inflated prices paid to Defendants, says the
Plaintiff.

The Defendants, through their unlawful conduct, allegedly reduced
competition in the fragrance market, increased prices, reduced
choice for purchasers, and caused antitrust injury to purchasers in
the form of overcharges.

GIVAUDAN SA manufactures and markets fragrances and flavors from
natural and synthetic ingredients. The Company sells its products
to manufacturers of perfumes, beverages, prepared foods, and
consumer goods. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blaine Finley, Esq.
          Cody McCracken, Esq.
          CUNEO, GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Ave., NW Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          Email: bfinley@cuneolaw.com
                 cmccracken@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Jon A. Tostrud, Esq.
          Anthony Carter, Esq.
          TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1925 Century Park East Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 278-2600
          Facsimile: (310) 278-2640
          Email: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com
                 acarter@tostrudlaw.com

GLENN O. HAWBAKER: Hourly Wage Workers Class Certified in Packer
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LESTER PACKER, SR., LESTER PACKER, II, and SHAWN
DYROFF, individually and (Chief Judge Brann on behalf of the Glenn
O. Hawbaker, Inc. Benefit Plan, Plaintiffs v. GLENN O. HAWBAKER,
INC., BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF GLENN O. HAWBAKER, INC., PLAN
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE GLENN O. HAWBAKER, INC. BENEFIT PLAN, and JOHN
DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-CV-01747 (M.D. Pa.), Judge
Matthew W. Brann of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Pennsylvania grants the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

In this putative class action, the Plaintiffs allege that their
employer -- the heavy construction contractor Glenn O. Hawbaker,
Inc. -- stole their pension and health and welfare benefits, as
well as those of their coworkers similarly assigned to public,
prevailing wage projects. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have brought
claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA") against Hawbaker, the Hawbaker Board of Directors, and
the Administrator of Hawbaker's employee benefits plan. They now
move for class certification.

On April 8, 2021, the Office of the Attorney General for the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania filed a criminal complaint against
Hawbaker, alleging that the company failed to provide its employees
working prevailing wage jobs with the required "fringe benefits"
under Hawbaker's employee benefits plan.

Specifically, the Attorney General asserted that Hawbaker stole its
prevailing wage workers' pension and health and welfare money,
using those fringe benefit funds to lower its costs, thereby
helping it win more government bids, and increase the company's
profits. Between 2015 and 2018, the fringe benefit funds Hawbaker
allegedly stole from its prevailing wage workers totaled more than
$20 million. The Attorney General brought four charges of Theft by
Failure to Make Required Disposition of Funds Received, in
violation of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 3927(a) -- one claim for each year
between 2015 and 2018.

In August 2021, Hawbaker pleaded nolo contendere to all four
counts, effectively accepting punishment for the offenses without
admitting to the facts alleged. As part of the plea agreement,
Hawbaker committed to pay restitution for the charged period in the
amount of $20,696,453 to affected victims. Attached to the plea
agreement was a restitution table listing 1,262 prevailing wage
workers, with the restitution amount owed itemized by worker.

Two months later, the Plaintiffs -- Lester Packer Sr., Lester
Packer II, and Shawn Dyroff -- initiated the instant action. All
three men worked at Hawbaker between 2012 and 2018, with each
dedicating at least 95 percent of their work to prevailing wage
projects. The Plaintiffs styled their Complaint as a putative class
action, bringing on behalf of all "current and former hourly wage
employees who worked on prevailing wage contracts at Hawbaker
within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania during the period Sept. 1,
2018, though Dec. 31, 2018," claims for breach of fiduciary duty
and failure to adequately monitor other fiduciaries against
Hawbaker, its Board of Directors, and the Administrator of the
Hawbaker Benefit Plan.

The Plaintiffs moved for class certification on Jan. 16, 2023. They
move under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(1) to certify the following class:
" All current and former hourly wage employees who worked on
prevailing wage contracts at Hawbaker within the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania during the period Sept. 1, 2012, through Dec. 31,
2018."

Judge Brann states that plaintiffs seeking class certification must
satisfy the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) and also show that the
action is maintainable under Rule 23(b)(1), (2), or (3). To
succeed, they must affirmatively demonstrate their compliance with
the requirements of Rule 23 by a preponderance of the evidence.
When assessing whether certification is proper, courts must refrain
from conducting a preliminary inquiry into the merits. That said,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit directs courts to
carefully examine the factual and legal allegations.

Given the clear direction provided by the Third Circuit, Judge
Brann says the Court is favorably disposed to requests for class
certification on ERISA breach of fiduciary duty claims such as
those presented in the case. And by tethering their claims to the
criminal complaint the Pennsylvania Attorney General brought
against Hawbaker -- to which Hawbaker pleaded no contest -- the
Plaintiffs have presented the evidence necessary to meet their
obligations under Rule 23.

Judge Brann concludes that the Plaintiffs have satisfied all four
prerequisites of Rule 23(a) as well as the requirements of both
Rules 23(b)(1)(A) and 23(b)(1)(B). Because the Plaintiffs' have
satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23,
class certification is therefore warranted. The motion for class
certification is, therefore, granted. An appropriate Order
follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 6, 2023 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/7558ec58 from Leagle.com.


GOHEALTH LLC: Dantzler GIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TYRAH DANTZLER, individually and on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. GOHEALTH, LLC, Case
No. 2023CH02165, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, Chancery Division, to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, on June 7,
2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:23-cv-03611 to the proceeding.

The case asserts claims against the Defendant for alleged
violations of the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act.

GoHealth LLC is a health insurance marketplace and digital health
company that offers Medicare plans. [BN]  

The Defendant is represented by:

           William J. Tarnow, Esq.
           Jason C. Kim, Esq.
           Alissa J. Griffin, Esq.
           NEAL, GERBER & EISENBERG LLP
           2 N. LaSalle St. Suite 1700
           Chicago, IL 60602
           Telephone: (312) 269-8000

GOOGLE LLC: Settles Data Privacy Class Action for $23 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Ziegler, writing for Fox 10 Phoenix, reports that another
tech giant will be paying millions to settle a data privacy
lawsuit.

Google has settled a class action lawsuit that alleged the company
compromised personal data from people who used Google to search for
information on the internet. Google has denied any wrongdoing and
agreed to a $23 million settlement.

If you're one of the millions of U.S. residents who used Google
Search between October 2006 and September 2013, you can file a
claim.

Here's what you need to know.

Who is eligible for settlement money?
In settling the suit, it was decided that all anyone in the United
States who went to Google and carried out a search, and clicked on
a search result from Oct. 26, 2006 - Sept. 30, 2016 is eligible to
file a claim.

How do I file a settlement claim?
Those who are eligible may fill out a claim form and submit it
online, or mail a printed form.

Your claim form must be submitted -- either postmarked or
electronically -- by July 31, 2023, to be considered.

Filing for this settlement online is a two-step process.

First, you will first need to register to receive a Class Member
ID. You cannot file a claim without this ID.

Your Class Member ID will be emailed to you, and you'll use it to
complete the second step of submitting a claim.

For both steps, you'll have to provide your full name, address,
email and phone number. During the second step, you'll also need
your Class Member ID and then attest that you've used Google Search
during the time period specified in the lawsuit (Oct. 25, 2006 -
Sept. 30, 2013).

You can then choose how you'd like to receive your payment: prepaid
card, PayPal, Venmo, Zelle, or direct deposit.

And you'll give one last swear under penalty of perjury that you're
eligible to file and the information you've submitted is correct.

You can fill out the online claim form here and get directions
about printing and mailing a claim form here.

How much money will users get?
As mentioned, Google has agreed to pay $23 million as part of the
settlement agreement, though it's not known yet exactly how much
individual users may get as part of the payout.

Though, based on early estimates, each person who files an approved
claim is estimated to get approximately $7.70.

The amount will likely vary though based on how many people submit
valid claims.

What is the lawsuit about?
The main allegation of the lawsuit is that Google compromised the
privacy of people who used Google to search for information, by
"systematically and repeatedly divulging" its users' search queries
and histories.

The lawsuit alleged Google allowed users' search queries be
transferred to marketers and data brokers, and be sold and resold
to countless other third parties.

The lawsuit said search queries contain personally-identifiable
information, such as real names, addresses, phone numbers, credit
card numbers, social security numbers, financial account numbers
and more.

In addition to the settlement money, Google will also revise its
"FAQs" and "Key Terms" webpages regarding the disclosure of search
queries.

And if a data privacy lawsuit settlement sounds familiar, another
tech giant -- Facebook -- agreed to settle a different data privacy
lawsuit earlier this year, to the tune of $725 million. That one is
accepting claims until Aug. 25, 2023. [GN]

HARVARD PILGRIM: Faces Class Suit Over Data Breach, Cyber Attack
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Mansfield, Esq. of Legalscoops reports that on May 25, 2023,
Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Inc. one of the largest healthcare
insurers in the Northeast United States, announced that it began
sending out letters advising over 2.5 million individuals of a data
breach attack in April 2023 by a third-party hacker.

Consumers have responded by filing class action lawsuits against
the company.

According to Harvard Pilgrim's data breach notice:

"[w]e determined that the files at issue may contain the following
types of personal information and/or protected health information:
names, physical addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, health
insurance account information, Social Security numbers, provider
taxpayer identification numbers, and clinical information (e.g.,
medical history, diagnoses, treatment, dates of service, and
provider names)."

According to this notice, consumers may have been impacted if they
are a current or former member of Harvard Pilgrim (including
individual and family plans purchased directly from Harvard
Pilgrim, state-based exchanges or plans selected through their
employer) between March 28, 2012, and April 17, 2023 - a period of
over 10 years - or if their physician or other provider is
currently contracted with Harvard Pilgrim.

Consumers may also have been impacted if they are current or were
former members of certain Harvard Pilgrim Health Plans Inc. between
June 1, 2020, and April 17, 2023. Such private information could
reveal sensitive and personal material leading to privacy and
security breaches.

Harvard Pilgrim Sued in Class Actions

Several class action lawsuits have been filed over this issue in
Massachusetts where Harvard Pilgrim Health Care is based, and will
likely be consolidated together in the next couple of months.

The class action lawsuits allege claims for negligence, breach of
duties to protect confidential information, breach of contract and
unjust enrichment.

The class action lawsuits seek an unspecified amount of damages. As
these class action lawsuits have just been filed,  Harvard Pilgrim
Health Care and its parent company have not yet responded.

For free information on your right to seek compensation by joining
a class action lawsuit, fill out the form below or call us at
1-844-BREACH8 (1-844-273-2248).

According to Harvard Pilgrim, beginning on or about March 28, 2023,
a hacker accessed and began to steal files from systems that
support the Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Commercial and Medicare
Advantage Stride℠ plans (HMO)/(HMO-POS) system.

Harvard Pilgrim admitted this hacker was able to breach data by
accessing files within their Health Care's servers, but did not
detect this infiltration for almost three weeks: "Unfortunately,
the investigation identified signs that data was copied and taken
from our Harvard Pilgrim systems from March 28, 2023, to April 17,
2023."

Harvard Pilgrim claims that the hacker stole no patient banking
information or was aware of any misuse but was not clear about the
extent of personal information that is at issue.

Harvard Pilgrim is still investigating this incident and will
provide updates if the investigation determines additional
individuals may potentially be impacted.

If you obtained services from Harvard Pilgrim between March 28,
2012 and April 17, 2023, your personal information may have been
hacked and you may have been the victim of a data breach.

Data Breach Laws Protect You

Many states have data breach protections laws, including
Massachusetts, but do not provide a direct right of action for its
violation. However, there are other claims that individuals can
assert that can provide for compensation.

In addition, California laws specifically protect the personal
information of California residents who may have used Harvard
Pilgrim's services in the last 10 years.

The California Customer Records Act requires businesses to
implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices
to protect consumers' personal information.
In 2018, California passed the California Consumer Privacy Act
(CCPA). This law has many protections for the personal information
of California residents.

The Confidential Medical Information Act (CMIA) also protects
confidential health-related information, depending on the materials
accessed. It is unclear at this time whether the information hacked
violated that law. The CMIA requires a health care provider, health
care service plan, or contractor who creates, maintains, preserves,
stores, abandons, destroys, or disposes of medical records to do so
in a way that preserves the confidentiality of the information
within those records. The CMIA defines "medical information" to
mean any individually identifiable information, in electronic or
physical form, in possession of or derived from a provider of
health care, health care service plan, pharmaceutical company, or
contractor regarding a patient's medical history, mental or
physical condition, or treatment. "Individually identifiable" means
that the medical information includes or has any element of
personal identifying information sufficient to allow identification
of the individual, such as the patient's name, address, electronic
mail address, telephone number, or other information that reveals
the individual's identity.

While all consumers who received notice of this breach may be
entitled to some money, consumers in California may specifically be
entitled to between $100 and $1,000 or your actual damages,
whichever is greater, depending on which of these laws are
violated.

Participants in data breach class actions can recover damages,
injunctive relief (to ensure that the business has reasonable
security practices to protect consumer data from being leaked
again), and anything else necessary to compensate data breach
victims and prevent these harms from occurring again.

For free information on your right to seek compensation by joining
a class action lawsuit, fill out the form below or call us at
1-844-BREACH8 (1-844-273-2248).

Identity theft is on the upswing.

Exercise Your Rights Under the Law

Even when your data has been part of a breach, you may not be
awarded compensation without legal assistance. Experienced data
breach and class action attorneys can help you exercise your
rights, evaluate your options and decide whether you are entitled
to compensation. You have no out-of-pocket costs, as we only get
paid if we prevail.

If you have used services provided by Harvard Pilgrim Health Care
and are concerned about this breach of your personal data and your
options, fill out the following form or call us at 1-844-BREACH8
(1-844-273-2248). [GN]

HOPKINSVILLE SOLID WASTE: Hawkins Seeks Truck Drivers' Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN CRAIG HAWKINS and TIMOTHY BRIAN SHEPHARD, JR., Plaintiffs
v. HOPKINSVILLE SOLID WASTE ENTERPRISE, Defendant, Case No.
5:23-cv-00083-BJB (W.D. Ky., June 5, 2023) is a class action
arising out of the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Kentucky Wages and Hours Act, and the Kentucky
Whistleblower Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant as truck drivers, then
promoted to the position of Supervisor. However, Plaintiffs' job
duties remained largely the same after the promotion and did not
include a primary duty of management of Defendant's enterprise.
Nevertheless, with the promotion, Defendant misclassified
Plaintiffs as exempt under the FLSA and KWHA, changed Plaintiffs'
pay from an hourly basis with hours worked being recorded by a time
clock to a salary basis with Defendant doing nothing to record the
number of hours worked. Moreover, the Plaintiffs worked overtime in
numerous work weeks following their promotions but were not paid
any compensation for that overtime work, in violation of the FLSA
and KWHA, says the suit.

Further, to obscure Defendant's violations of the FLSA with respect
to Plaintiffs "Supervisor" work, Defendant awarded compensation to
Plaintiffs after the promotion in the form of a benefit which
Defendant referred to as "Comp Time." The Defendant, in retaliation
for Plaintiff Hawkin's reports about Defendant’s management
embezzling Defendant’s funds and in violation of the Kentucky
Whistleblower Act, encouraged Plaintiff Hawkins to use the "Comp
Time" benefit after Hawkin's home was destroyed in the December
2021 tornado, while simultaneously taking advantage of Plaintiff
Hawkins' resulting absence to disparage, demote and constructively
terminate him. With respect to Plaintiff Shephard, Defendant failed
to pay the accrued "Comp Time" benefit upon Plaintiff Shephard
ceasing to be employed by Defendant, which was a breach of contract
and the KWHA, the suit claims.

The Defendant operates a municipal waste system, including
servicing dumpsters at commercial facilities in Hopkinsville,
Kentucky. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

           Mark N. Foster, Esq.
           LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER, PLLC
           P.O. Box 869
           Madisonville, KY 42431
           Telephone: (270) 213-1303
           E-mail: MFoster@MarkNFoster.com

IBEX GLOBAL: Consumers Receive Data Breach Suit Settlement Checks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brigette Honaker of Top Class Actions reports consumers are
receiving payments from a $2.4 million class action lawsuit
settlement over a 2020 Ibex data breach.

The settlement benefits individuals who received a data breach
notification letter from Ibex informing them their personal
identifying information may have been impacted by a data security
incident that occurred between July 27, 2020, and Aug. 17, 2020.

According to the data breach class action lawsuit, Ibex failed to
implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to prevent the 2020
data breach. As a result, consumer information was compromised,
allegedly putting them at risk for fraud and other harm.

Under the terms of the settlement, victims of the data breach could
receive up to $5,000 in reimbursement for data breach-related
losses. These payments include fraudulent charges, identity theft
damages, lost time payments and more. One Top Class Actions reader
reported receiving a payment of $125.

The Ibex data breach class action lawsuit is Sanders, et al. v.
Ibex Global Solutions Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00591-TNM, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. [GN]

INDIANA COUNTY, IN: Superior Court Certifies State Abortion Ban
---------------------------------------------------------------
Editorial Board of The Journal Gazette reports a Marion County
Superior Court judge last week certified a lawsuit seeking to
reverse Indiana's abortion ban as a class action. And it argues the
abortion law violates the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act
of 2015.

Filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana on behalf of
five unnamed plaintiffs as well as the organization Hoosier Jews
for Choice, the complaint asserts the state’s near-total abortion
ban of 2022 violates their sincere religious beliefs.

This is the second case concerning the ban. In January, the Indiana
Supreme Court heard a case based on liberty and privacy rights. The
justices have yet to issue a ruling.
The Republican-dominated General Assembly passed the abortion ban
during a two-week special session in August, making Indiana the
first state to prohibit the procedure after the U.S. Supreme Court
overturned Roe v. Wade. In September, the ACLU asked the court to
grant certification of a class that includes all Hoosiers whose
religious beliefs "direct them to obtain abortions in situations"
prohibited by the ban, and "who need, or will need, to obtain an
abortion and who are not, or will not be, able to obtain an
abortion."

Judge Heather Welch agreed, finding there is a large enough group
of potential Hoosier plaintiffs with the same objections to the
abortion ban. She found 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."

Stevie Pactor, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Indiana, told The
Journal Gazette that the framework provided under the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act to challenge the abortion ban puts the
organization in a favorable legal position.

"One thing to keep in mind is that RFRA applies to organized,
systematized religions, but it also applies to people whose
religious beliefs don't fit neatly into a specific category," she
said.

As an example, let's say a Roman Catholic woman has a religious
belief that abortion is required under a certain circumstance. That
could present a viable claim under RFRA, Pactor said, regardless of
the Catholic Church's position on the issue.

Under the act, a state law cannot substantially burden religion.
Yet the ACLU argues that "under Jewish law, a fetus attains the
status of a living person only at birth" and that Islam "does not
believe that the fetus is ensouled at the moment of conception."

The ACLU of Indiana says RFRA applies to all Hoosiers of faith and
not just conservative Christians. And that's been the problem with
the law from the beginning – a narrow interpretation of
religion.

Christianity is not the only belief system in the state. [GN]

INSOMNIA COOKIES: Forte Class Suit Moved to N.D. Indiana
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled JENNIPHER RENEE FORTE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
INSOMNIA COOKIES, LLC d/b/a Insomnia Cookies; SERVE U BRANDS, INC.;
SETH BERKOWITZ, Defendants, Case No. Case No. 23-cv-03401, was
removed from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana on June 12, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00551-JD-MGG to
the proceeding. The Case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Jon E.
DeGuilio and referred to Judge Michael G. Gotsch.

INSOMNIA COOKIES LLC retails food products. The Company offers
bakery products such as cookies with various toppings such as
brownie bites, snickers, and rainbow sprinkles. Insomnia Cookies
serves customers in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 110
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324

JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Stoll Class Suit Over Payment Network Glitch
------------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett of Top Class Actions reports that Chase Bank
customers were subjected to double debits of payments from their
accounts on or about June 1, 2023 due to a service malfunction on
the peer-to-peer payment network, Zelle Network at Chase, a new
class action lawsuit alleges.

Plaintiff Ronald Stoll claims Chase customers, in addition to being
deprived access to funds that were rightfully theirs, were unable
to obtain information about the true status of their account
balances due to extended wait times.

Stoll argues Chase customers ultimately suffered "financial
hardship, bounced checks, charges, general confusion and emotional
and mental distress" on account of Chase and Zelle's allegedly
unlawful and negligent conduct.

"Defendant was aware that its customers depended upon the proper
functioning of Zelle and regularly used Zelle for fundamental
transactions, such as rent payments," the Chase class action
states.

Stoll wants to represent a nationwide class and New York subclass
of Chase customers whose accounts were affected by the service
malfunction involving Zelle on June 1, 2023.

Duplicate debits from Chase bank accounts reversed on or about June
2, says class action
Stoll argues that himself and other Chase customers began noticing
on June 1 that without limitation payments they had authorized to
be made on Zelle had been twice-debited from their Chase accounts.


"Upon information and belief, as a result of the Service
Malfunction, numerous Chase customers began complaining of missing
funds and unexpected negative balances," the Chase class action
states.

The duplicate debits from the Chase accounts were ultimately
reversed on or about June 2, according to the Chase class action.

Stoll claims Chase and Zelle are guilty of breach of fiduciary
duty, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and negligence, and of
violating New York General Business Law.

Plaintiff is demanding a jury trial and requesting declaratory and
injunctive relief along with an award of  actual, nominal,
consequential, punitive, and treble damages for himself and all
class members.

A separate class action lawsuit was filed against Chase and Zelle
last month by a consumer arguing the companies failed to adequately
protect and reimburse their customers from and after instances of
Zelle fraud.

The plaintiff is represented by Peretz Bronstein of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC.

The Chase Zelle glitch class action lawsuit is Stoll, et al. v.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. D/B/A Chase Bank, et al., Case No.
1:23-cv-04149, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York. [GN]

JPMORGAN CHASE: Stoll Sues Over Zelle Network Service Malfunction
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RONALD STOLL, Plaintiff v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. D/B/A CHASE
BANK, JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., & EARLY WARNING SERVICES, LLC D/B/A
ZELLPAY.COM, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-04149 (E.D.N.Y., June 5,
2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and
on behalf of a class of similarly situated customers of Defendants
arising from a service malfunction that occurred on June 1, 2023,
on Defendants' peer-to-peer payment network, Zelle Network(R) at
Chase.

Without warning, on the morning of June 1, Chase customers, like
Stoll, began noticing that payments, including without limitation
payments they had authorized to be made via Zelle had been debited
from their accounts twice. Chase customers further noticed that
funds that had been sent to them via Zelle by other Chase customers
had credited to their accounts twice, causing them to mistakenly
believe they had additional funds available in their account, says
the suit.

As a result of Defendants' negligence and other violations of law,
Plaintiff and Class members were (1) subjected to double debits of
payments from their accounts and thereby deprived from accessing
funds that were rightfully theirs as the funds had been debited
from their accounts twice and weren't reversed until the next day
and (2) were unable to obtain information from Chase as to the true
status of their account balances due to extended wait times in
attempting to contacting customer service, all resulting in
financial hardship, bounced checks, charges, general confusion and
emotional and mental distress, alleges the suit.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. d/b/a Chase Bank, is a national bank
providing, inter alia, retail banking products and services to
consumers, including personal deposit accounts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          Edward Gewirtz, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          E-mail: Peretz@bgandg.com
                  Chona@bgandg.com

KAMPS INC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Barrios Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
NERY BARRIOS, an individual, Plaintiffs v. KAMPS INC. Domestic
Profit Corporation, OCCUGUIDES USA LLC, Foreign Limited Liability
Company, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00584
(W.D. Mich., June 7, 2023) is a civil action brought by the
Plaintiff, on behalf all other similarly situated employees,
arising out of the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Improved Workforce Opportunity Wage Act.

Plaintiff Barrios was employed by the Defendants from approximately
the end of March 2022 through April 17, 2023. Allegedly, the
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff overtime at the rate of one and
one-half times his regular rate for hours worked in excess of 40
hours during a workweek. Plaintiff complained about not being paid
overtime on several occasions. However, two to three days before he
was fired, Plaintiff complained about his compensation. Moreover,
Plaintiff claims that the Defendant's termination of employment
constitutes unlawful retaliation under the FLSA.

Kamps Inc. is a domestic limited liability company whose registered
office is located at 3140 Belle Chase Way Ste 600, Lansing,
Michigan. With over 400 locations nationwide, Kamps Inc. is a
national pallet supplier. [BN]


The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Robert Anthony Alvarez, Esq.
            AVANTI LAW GROUP, PLLC
            600 28th St. SW
            Wyoming, MI 49509
            Telephone: (616) 257-6807
            E-mail: ralvarez@avantilaw.com

KIDSPEECH INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Arstikaitis Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE L. ARSTIKAITIS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KRISTIN R. HALL; LISA L. GENTRY;
and KIDSPEECH, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-02607-SCJ (N.D.
Ga., June 12, 2023) is an action against the Defendant's failure to
pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff Arstikaitis was employed by the Defendants as a practice
manager.

KIDSPEECH, INC. offers pediatric speech therapy services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          K. Prabhaker Reddy, Esq.
          THE REDDY LAW FIRM, P.C.
          1325 Satellite Boulevard Suite 1506
          Suwanee, GA 30024
          Telephone: (678) 629-3246
          Facsimile: (678) 629-3247
          Email: kpr@reddylaw.net

LABRADA NUTRITION: Consumers Receive Class Suit Settlement Checks
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brigette Honaker of Top Class Actions reports consumers are
receiving payments from a $625,000 class action lawsuit settlement
with Labrada over supplement false advertising.

The settlement benefits consumers who purchased Labrada Green
Coffee Bean Extract or Labrada Garcinia Cambogia supplements in
California between Feb. 2, 2012, and July 15, 2022.

According to the false advertising class action lawsuit, Labrada
portrayed its supplements as fat-loss solutions. The supplements
allegedly included claims such as "Fat Buster" and "Fat Loss
Optimizer" that were purportedly backed by peer-reviewed studies.
In reality, there was no support for these claims, the plaintiffs
allege.

Labrada agreed to pay $625,000 to resolve the class action lawsuit.
Under the terms of the settlement, consumers could receive up to
$50 with proof of purchase or up to $20 without proof of purchase.
Top Class Actions readers reportedly received settlement payments
of $18.08.

The Labrada false advertising class action lawsuit is Woodard, et
al. v. Labrada, et al., Case No. 5:16-SV-00189-JGB-SP, in the
District Court for the Central District of California. [GN]

LANGUAGE LINE: Approval of $960K Settlement in Rouse Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DEREK ROUSE, individually and o/b/o all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-0204-DGK (W.D. Mo.), Judge Greg Kays of
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri,
Western Division, denies the parties' Motion for Approval of FLSA
Collective Action Settlement without prejudice.

The lawsuit is a conditionally certified collective action lawsuit
seeking to recover unpaid wages and overtime pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Now before the Court is the parties'
Motion for Approval of FLSA Collective Action Settlement, the
Court's Order directing the Plaintiff's counsel to provide
additional information about the proposed settlement, and the
Plaintiff's subsequent filings.

Judge Kays has no doubt the litigation involves a bona fide dispute
over FLSA provisions, but says the proposed settlement is not fair
and reasonable. The most concerning features are that it is a
claims-made settlement with a reversion provision, combined with
what appears to be a clear-sailing provision on attorneys' fees and
an overly-high award of attorneys' fees.

To begin, the claims procedure -- which requires each class member
to submit a formal claim to receive a settlement check, even though
doing so appears to serve no purpose other than to lower
participation rates -- is unnecessary. The proposed settlement uses
a claims-made process which requires a class member to complete
additional paperwork to receive his or her settlement check, a
procedure which departs from recognized best practices.

The reversion provision is also problematic. Judge Kays emphasizes
that reversion provisions are disfavored in FLSA collective-action
cases. If participation is low, the Defendants receive a large
reversion, which significantly reduces their total payout, while
the Plaintiffs' attorneys still receive their full fees based on
the maximum settlement amount.

Finally, Judge Kays finds that the fees and expenses sought are
quite high ($325,000) for a settlement reached so early in the
litigation, particularly given that the Plaintiff's counsel spent
relatively little time on the case -- 120 hours, including
non-lawyer staff time -- so the fees and expenses sought by the
Plaintiff's counsel are wildly disproportionate to the lodestar
amount. While Judge Kays will not second guess the parties'
determination that the fair settlement value of this case is
approximately $960,000 (the $635,000 settlement fund plus $325,000
in attorneys' fees), he declines to approve the settlement since so
much of the value is going to the Plaintiff's counsel who has spent
relatively little time on the case.

Judge Kays concludes that although the proposed settlement has
several positive attributes -- such as the total value of the
settlement, which is approximately $960,000 -- it is not fair and
reasonable in its present form. That said, he believes that a
slightly revised settlement would merit approval. The motion for
preliminary approval is, therefore, denied without prejudice. That
said, Judge Kays believes that a slightly revised settlement would
merit approval.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 6, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ywzpw77s from Leagle.com.


LOADSMART INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Burr Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL BURR; GABRIELE EIMONTAITE; and KEVIN VILLARREAL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. LOADSMART, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-03708
(N.D. Ill., June 12, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as a sales
representative.

LOADSMART, INC. operates and manages logistics services platform.
The Company offers online freight quotes, booking, and full truck
loading support services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Erika Pedersen, Esq.
          PEDERSEN & WEINSTEIN LLP
          33 N. Dearborn Street, Suite 1170
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 322-0710
          Email: epedersen@pwllp.com

               - and -

          Melissa L. Stewart, Esq.
          Rebecca L. Pattiz, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          E-mail: mstewart@outtengolden.com
                  rpattiz@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Courtney J. Hinkle, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          1225 New York Ave, NW Suite 1200B
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 915-5810
          E-mail: chinkle@outtengolden.com

LOZANO INSURANCE: Counsel in Mosley Suit to Dispense $5K to NIWR
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHERI MOSLEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOZANO INSURANCE ADJUSTERS, INC.,
FRANK LOZANO, LISETTE LOZANO, ANCHOR INSURANCE HOLDINGS, INC., and
KEVIN PAWLOWSKI, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-379-TJC-JK (M.D.
Fla.), Judge Timothy J. Corrigan of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, authorizes the
Class Counsel to distribute $5,000 and any remaining interest to
the National Institute for Workers' Rights.

The case is before the Court upon the Parties' Notification of a
Final Circuit Court Decision in Johnson v. NPAS Sols., LLC. (Doc.
134). In the Court's previous Order entered on Jan. 28, 2021, the
Court approved the parties' Settlement Agreement, but deferred
ruling on the issue of whether $5,000 should be distributed to the
Named Class Plaintiff Mosley as a service award due to a pending
final decision in Johnson v. NPAS Solutions, LLC, 975 F.3d 1244
(11th Cir. 2020). The Court ordered the parties to deposit $5,000
into its registry and to notify the Court when a final decision was
issued in Johnson. Lozano deposited the money.

On Aug. 3, 2022, the Eleventh Circuit ordered that Johnson would
not be reheard en banc and the parties filed their joint notice. In
their notice, they argue that the Court should still distribute the
$5,000 award to Mosley because it is "not a salary or bounty"
prohibited by Johnson; rather, the money is compensation for the
risk she has incurred for serving as the Named Plaintiff in the
suit. Alternatively, they argue the Court should treat the $5,000
award as uncashed funds pursuant to section III.F of the Settlement
Agreement and distribute the money to their mutually agreed upon cy
pres recipient, the National Institute for Workers' Rights (NIWR).

Although the parties argue that Johnson does not cover the $5,000
service award because it compensates the Named Plaintiff for her
risks in serving in the role rather than compensation for her
bringing the suit, Judge Corrigan says the distinction is without a
difference. By the parties' characterization, he says the service
award still functions as compensation to Mosley for her role as the
Named Plaintiff in the lawsuit. The law in this Circuit is clear
that awards that to compensate a class representative for her time
and rewards her for bringing a lawsuit are prohibited.

Based on the parties' recommendation, however, a cy pres award is
appropriate. Judge Corrigan notes that cy pres distribution is a
common and proper method of distributing unclaimed settlement
funds, subject to court approval of the application of the funds.
Courts employing cy pres distribution have been inclined to
distribute such unclaimed settlement funds to worthy charities,
especially to charities whose purposes harmonize with the
underlying lawsuit.

The parties have selected the NIWR as the recipient. The
institute's mission is "to advance workers' rights through
research, thought leadership, and education for policymakers,
advocates, and the public." It is the related charitable public
interest organization of the National Employment Lawyers
Association (NELA). As the underlying claims in the case concerned
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act for owed wages,
this charitable organization's purpose is aligned with the nature
of the suit. Therefore, Judge Corrigan holds that the NIWR is an
appropriate cy pres recipient.

Accordingly, the Clerk will return to the Class Counsel the sum of
$5,000, plus any accrued interest, subject to the administrative
handling fee authorized by the Judicial Conference of the United
States. The Class Counsel is authorized to distribute $5,000 and
any remaining interest to the NIWR. Because this should conclude
the distribution of the Settlement Amount, the Clerk is directed to
close the file.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 6, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/bdd6ha66 from Leagle.com.


LYFT INC: Ruozzi Sues Over Deceptive Food Delivery Services
-----------------------------------------------------------
SKYE RUOZZI, ALAN ARCE, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. LYFT, INC., GRUBHUB HOLDINGS, INC. and
GRUBHUB, INC., Case No. 517118/2023 (N.Y. Sup., June 12, 2023)
seeks damages caused by the Defendants' deceptive acts and
practices with respect to its food delivery services in the State
of New York, in violation of the New York's Consumer Protection Act
and General Business Law sections 349 and 350.

According to the complaint, Grubhub, were and continue to be, aided
and abetted by Defendants, LYFT, INC. by and through Lyft's own
subscription called "Lyft Pink," which inter alia offers its'
subscribers a "Free year of Grubhub+ ($0 delivery fees)."

On February 5, 2023, Plaintiff Ruozzi proceeded to use the newly
subscribed to "Grubhub+" service, and decided on purchasing certain
items from a restaurant known as "Springbone Kitchen." Upon
completion of the order, Plaintiff Ruozzi paid the following
additional charges, not related to the food order price. The
Plaintiff paid an ambiguous and unexplained fee of $2.50 for "Other
fees."

The Defendants, together and severally, deceptively advertised to
the Plaintiffs that, if Plaintiffs subscribe to Grubhub's
subscription service, "Grubhub+", such subscription will yield
Plaintiffs free delivery, at their favorite restaurants. On the
contrary, however, the Plaintiffs who enrolled in "Grubhub+", did
not get actual free delivery (despite the statement "Grubhub+ --
Free Delivery" found on said receipt), since, the Plaintiffs still
paid Grubhub's "Other fees," which offset the advertised free
delivery and included fees not otherwise found at checkout, the
Plaintiffs contend.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' conduct, the
Defendants have caused, and are likely to continue causing,
substantial injury to the public and to the Plaintiffs, and the
Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages, including enhanced
damages, if available, in an amount to be determined at trial, and
reasonable attorneys' fees.

Plaintiffs Ruozzi and Arce were and still are natural persons,
residing in the County of Kings, City of New York.

Lyft is an American company offering mobility as a service,
ride-hailing, vehicles for hire, motorized scooters, a
bicycle-sharing system, rental cars, and food delivery in the
United States and select cities in Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael J.S. Pontone, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF
          MICHAEL J.S. PONTONE, ESQ., P.C.
          233 Broadway, Suite 900
          New York, NY 10279
          Telephone: (917) 648-8784

MANAGED CARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Brown Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
BRITTNEY BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MANAGED CARE OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 0:23-cv-61112-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 9, 2023) is
a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly
secure and safeguard personally identifiable information including,
but not limited to, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' names,
addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and medical
records.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint, the Defendant maintained
the Private Information in a negligent manner. In particular, the
Private Information was maintained on computer systems and networks
that were in a condition vulnerable to cyberattack. Upon
information and belief, the mechanism of the Data Breach and
potential for improper disclosure of the Plaintiff's and Class
Members' Private Information was a known risk to Defendant; and,
thus, Defendant was on notice that failing to take appropriate
protective measures would expose and increase the risk that the
Private Information could be compromised and stolen. Hackers can
offer for sale the unencrypted, unredacted Private Information to
criminals. The exposed Private Information of Plaintiff and Class
Members can, and likely will, be sold repeatedly on the dark web,
says the Plaintiff.

MANAGED CARE OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., doing business as MCNA Dental,
provides dental plans. The Company offers medicare, long term, and
commercial plans. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
          3833 Central Ave.
          St. Petersburg, FL 33713
          Telephone: (813) 786-8622
          Email: jcohen@milberg.com

               - and -

          Gary Klinger, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          227 W. Monroe Street Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (866) 252-0878
          Email: gklinger@milberg.com

               - and -

          Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
          PEIFFER WOLF CARR
          KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP
          818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
          St. Louis, MO 63104
          Telephone: (314) 833-4825
          Email: bwise@peifferwolf.com

               - and -

          Andrew R. Tate, Esq.
          PEIFFER WOLF CARR
          KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP
          235 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 400
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 282-4806
          Email: atate@peifferwolf.com

MANAGED CARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Manning Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
TAYLOR MANNING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MANAGED CARE OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., dba
MCNA DENTAL, Defendant, Case No. 0:23-cv-61146-XXXX (S.D. Fla.,
June 14, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for its
failure to secure and safeguard the Plaintiff and the Class'
personally identifying information and personal health information,
including names, dates of birth, addresses, telephone numbers,
emails, Social Security numbers, driver's license or
government-issued identification numbers, health insurance
information, Medicaid/Medicare ID numbers, and information
regarding dental and orthodontic care.

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, as a result of the
Defendant's inadequate security and breach of its duties and
obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and the Plaintiff's and
Class members' PII/PHI was accessed and stolen. The Defendant owed
a duty to the Plaintiff and Class members to implement and maintain
reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect, and
safeguard their PII/PHI against unauthorized access and disclosure.
The Defendant breached that duty by, among other things, failing to
implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices
to protect its customers’ PII/PHI from unauthorized access and
disclosure, says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks to remedy the Defendant's failings and their
consequences. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself
and all persons whose private information was exposed as a result
of the Data Breach.

MANAGED CARE OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., doing business as MCNA Dental,
provides dental plans. The Company offers medicare, long term, and
commercial plans. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Jean S. Martin, Esq.
          Francesca Kester, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
                 fkester@forthepeople.com
                 jeanmartin@forthepeople.com

MANAGED CARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Menendez Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
DARRIN MENENDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MANAGED CARE OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., d/b/a
MCNA DENTAL, Defendant, Case No. 0:23-cv-61149-DPG (S.D. Fla., June
14, 2023) seeks monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory
relief arising from the  Defendant's failure to safeguard the
Personally Identifiable Information and Protected Health
Information of its clients' health plan members, which resulted in
unauthorized access to its information systems on or around
February 26, 2023 and the compromised and unauthorized disclosure
of that Private Information, causing widespread injury and damages
to Plaintiff and the proposed Class.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that as a result of the Data
Breach, which the Defendant failed to prevent, the Private
Information of the Defendant's clients' health plan members,
including Plaintiff and the proposed Class members, were stolen and
released including their first and last names, address, email,
phone number, date of birth, gender, driver's license number,
Social Security number, government-issued ID number, health
insurance information, dental health information and bills and
insurance claims.

The Defendant's failure to safeguard Customers' highly sensitive
Private Information as exposed and unauthorizedly disclosed in the
Data Breach violates its common law duty and Defendant's implied
contract with its customers to safeguard their Private
Information.

The Plaintiff and Class members now face a lifetime risk of
identity theft due to the nature of the information lost, including
Social Security numbers, which they cannot change, and which cannot
be made private again, says the suit.

MANAGED CARE OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., doing business as MCNA Dental,
provides dental plans. The Company offers medicare, long term, and
commercial plans. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
          Steven Sukert, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW
          FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954-525-4100
          Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                 cardoso@kolawyers.com
                 sukert@kolawyers.com

MANAGED CARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Shuey Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS SHUEY; TENIA FLOWERS; on behalf of MINOR SON, T.S.; and
SHAVONNE DIGGSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. MANAGED CARE OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. d/b/a
MCNA DENTAL PLANS, Defendant, Case No. 0:23-cv-61132-RS (S.D. Fla.,
June 12, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for its
failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable
information including, but not limited to, the Plaintiffs' and
Class Members' names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security
numbers, and medical records..

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint, the Defendant maintained
the Private Information in a negligent manner. In particular, the
private information was maintained on computer systems and networks
that were in a condition vulnerable to cyberattack. Upon
information and belief, the mechanism of the data breach and
potential for improper disclosure of the Plaintiffs' and Class
Members' private information was a known risk to Defendant; and,
thus, Defendant was on notice that failing to take appropriate
protective measures would expose and increase the risk that the
Private Information could be compromised and stolen. Hackers can
offer for sale the unencrypted, unredacted Private Information to
criminals. The exposed Private Information of Plaintiffs and Class
Members can, and likely will, be sold repeatedly on the dark web,
the Plaintiffs contend.

MANAGED CARE OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., doing business as MCNA Dental,
provides dental plans. The Company offers medicare, long term, and
commercial plans. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Jessica Wallace, Esq.
         SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
         20200 West Dixie Highway, Suite 902
         Aventura, FL 33180
         Telephone: (786) 244-5660
         Email: jwallace@sirillp.com

              - and -

         Mason A. Barney, Esq.
         Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
         745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
         New York, NY 10151
         Telephone: (212) 532-1091
         Email: mbarney@sirillp.com
               tbean@sirillp.com

MANAGED CARE: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Shuey Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS SHUEY, TENIA FLOWERS, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND HER MINOR
SON, T.S., and SHAVONNE DIGGSE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. MANAGED CARE OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.
d/b/a MCNA DENTAL PLANS, Case No. 0:23-cv-61132-RS (S.D. Fla., June
12, 2023) alleges that MCNA failed to properly secure and safeguard
Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated MCNA patients' personally
identifiable information and protected health information from
criminal hackers.

The private information includes names, addresses, dates of birth,
phone numbers, email addresses, Social Security numbers, driver's
license numbers and other government-issued ID numbers, health
insurance information (including plan information, insurance
companies, member numbers, and Medicaid-Medicare ID numbers),
information related to medical care and treatment received
(including visits, dentist names, doctor names, past care,
x-rays/photos, medications, and treatments), and billing and
insurance claim information, the Plaintiffs claim.

On May 26, 2023, MCNA confirmed that it had suffered a ransomware
attack that disrupted its computer systems. MCNA detected the Data
Breach on March 6, 2023, and waited more than eleven weeks before
informing the public. Indeed, Plaintiffs did not receive a
notification letter until May 26, 2023. As a result of this delayed
response, the Plaintiffs and Class Members had no idea for almost
three months that their Private Information had been compromised,
and that they were, and continue to be, at significant risk of
identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and
financial harm. This risk will remain for their respective
lifetimes, says the suit.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class,
assert claims for negligence, breach of contract, breach of implied
contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief.

The Plaintiffs propose the following Nationwide Class subject to
amendment as appropriate:

   Nationwide Class

   All individuals in the United States who had Private
Information
   accessed and/or acquired as a result of the Data Breach,
   including all who were sent a notice of the Data Breach.

   Excluded from the Class are Defendant and its parents or
   subsidiaries, any entities in which it has a controlling
   interest, as well as its officers, directors, affiliates, legal

   representatives, heirs, predecessors, successors, and assigns.

   Also excluded is any Judge to whom this case is assigned as well

   as their judicial staff and immediate family members.

The Plaintiffs provided their private information to the Defendant
as a requisite to receiving medical services and benefits from the
Defendant.

MCNA is a dental insurer for government subsidized Medicaid and
Children's Health Insurance Programs ("CHIP").[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jessica Wallace, Esq.
          Mason A. Barney, Esq.
          Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
          SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
          20200 West Dixie Highway, Suite 902
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (786) 244-5660
          E-mail: jwallace@sirillp.com
                  mbarney@sirillp.com
                  tbean@sirillp.com

MERCER UNIVERSITY: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Ramos Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
EMILY RAMOS, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERCER UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case
No. 5:23-cv-00197-TES (M.D. Ga., June 5, 2023) alleges claims for
negligence and negligence per se, breach of implied contract,
unjust enrichment, and injunctive/declaratory relief due to
Defendant's failure to implement and follow basic security
procedures to safeguard Plaintiff's personally identifiable
information(PII).

Mercer experienced a data security incident between February 12,
2023 and February 24, 2023 that involved Plaintiff's and other
consumers' PII. As a result, an unauthorized party accessed certain
files and folders within the Defendant's systems and may have
viewed, acquired, and/or exfiltrated data containing affected
parties' PII. The security incident was wide-reaching, affecting a
number of the Defendant's computer systems and compromising the PII
of more than 93,000 people, says the suit.

As a result of Defendant's failure to implement security
procedures, Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII is now in the hands
of criminals. The Plaintiff and Class Members now and will forever
face a substantial increased risk of identity theft. Consequently,
Plaintiff and Class Members have had to spend, and will continue to
spend, significant time and money in the future to protect
themselves due to the Defendant's failures, the suit asserts.

Mercer University is a private university with its main campus in
Macon, Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          E. Adam Webb, Esq.
          G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq.
          WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
          1900 The Exchange, S.E. Suite 480
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (770) 444-9325
          Facsimile: (770) 217-9950
          E-mail: Adam@WebbLLC.com
                  Franklin@WebbLLC.com

               - and -

          Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
          Kevin W. Fay, Esq.
          GOLOMB SPIRT GRUNFELD
          1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 985-9177
          E-mail: kgrunfeld@golomblegal.com
                  kfay@golomblegal.com

NATIONAL GRID: Nightingale Appeals Summary Judgment to 1st Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff ROBERT NIGHTINGALE filed an appeal from the District
Court's Memorandum & Order and Judgment dated May 19, 2023 entered
in the lawsuit entitled ROBERT NIGHTINGALE v. NATIONAL GRID USA
SERVICE COMPANY, INC., FIRST CONTACT LLC, and IQOR US INC., Case
No. 1:19-cv-12341-NMG, in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, Boston.

The lawsuit involves claims of unfair and deceptive business
practices in violation of regulations promulgated by the
Massachusetts Attorney General under the Massachusetts Consumer
Protection Act. Mr. Nightingale brought this action under section 9
of that statute on behalf of himself and a putative class against
National Grid USA Service Company, Inc.

In October 2018, the Plaintiff filed suit in Massachusetts Superior
Court on behalf of himself and a putative class of Massachusetts
consumers against National Grid. During discovery, National Grid
represented that it had contracted with First Contact to place
first-party collection calls on its behalf. In September 2019,
Nightingale filed a second amended complaint naming First Contact
and iQor as co-defendants. The Defendants then collectively removed
the action to this Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act,
28 U.S.C. Section 1453(b).

The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint for failure to state a claim which the Court denied in
August 2020. In December 2022, the Plaintiff moved to certify a
class and a sub-class of Massachusetts residents who were called
more than twice within a seven-day period regarding their debts to
National Grid. The Court denied that motion in April 2023.

The Defendants moved for summary judgment in October 2022, which
the Plaintiff has opposed. The Plaintiff has also filed motions to
exclude certain testimony and to certify a question of law to the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ("the SJC"). Those
non-dispositive motions are not related to or dependent upon the
resolution of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification or the
Defendants' pending motion for summary judgment and they are, in
fact, rendered moot by virtue of the Court's instant decision.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge Nathaniel
M. Gorton entered a Memorandum and Order on May 19, 2023 allowing
the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Viewing the facts in
the light most favorable to plaintiff, the Court concluded that a
reasonable fact-finder could determine that the calls placed by
defendants were unreasonable relative to their purpose but could
not determine that they caused a substantial or serious intrusion
upon the sphere of personal privacy maintained by Nightingale.

The appellate case is captioned as Nightingale v. National Grid USA
Service Company, et al., Case No. 23-1476, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on June 5, 2023.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appearance form, docketing statement, and transcript
report/order form were due on June 20, 2023.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant ROBERT NIGHTINGALE, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
          Joshua Markovits, Esq.
          Stephen Taylor, Esq.  
          LEMBERG LAW LLC
          43 Danbury Rd.
          Wilton, CT 06897
          Telephone: (203) 653-2250

Defendants-Appellees NATIONAL GRID USA, et al., are represented
by:

          Diana A. Balluku, Esq.
          Angela Bunnell, Esq.
          David G. Thomas, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          1 International Pl, Ste 2000
          Boston, MA 02110-0000
          Telephone: (857) 313-3924

               - and -

          Louis Michael Ciavarra, Esq.
          Jared A. Fiore, Esq.
          BOWDITCH & DEWEY LLP
          311 Main St., PO Box 15156
          Worcester, MA 01608
          Telephone: (508) 926-3408

NIGHTHAWK COMPLETION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cytacki Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB CYTACKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NIGHTHAWK COMPLETION SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 7:23-cv-00085 (W.D. Tex., June 13, 2023) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Cytacki was employed by the Defendant as a field
technician.

Nighthawk Completion Services, LLC is a privately owned and
operated oilfield service company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Fernando M. Bustos, Esq.
          Brandon C. Callahan, Esq.
          Matthew N. Zimmerman, Esq.
          BUSTOS LAW FIRM, P.C.
          P.O. Box 1980
          Lubbock, TX 79408-1980
          Telephone: (806) 780-3976
          Facsimile: (806) 780-3800
          Email: fbustos@bustoslawfirm.com
                 bcallahan@bustoslawfirm.com
                 mzimmerman@butsoslawfirm.com

NORDIC NATURALS: Caldwell Sues Over Deceptive Product Labeling
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHERYL CALDWELL, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORDIC NATURALS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:23-cv-02818 (N.D. Cal., June 7, 2023) alleges claims
against Defendant for breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranty, quasi contract/unjust enrichment, and for violations of
the California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising
Law, Unfair Competition Law in connection with the alleged false
and deceptive advertising and labeling of Defendant's Ultimate
Omega 2X fish oil product.

The Defendant allegedly made false representations that lead
reasonable consumers to believe its Ultimate Omega 2X fish oil
product has twice the amount of Omega-3s per serving than that
found in Defendant's regular Ultimate Omega product, which also
states "Ultimate Omega" on the front label of the product. The
regular Ultimate Omega product contains 1280 mg of Omega-3s per
serving. Accordingly, for the Ultimate Omega 2X fish oil product to
have twice the amount of Omega-3s per serving, it should have 2560
mg (1280 x 2) of Omega-3s per serving. However, the Ultimate Omega
2X fish oil product only contains 2150 mg of Omega-3s per serving,
which represents a 16 % shortfall per serving for consumers, says
the suit.

Nordic Naturals, Inc. is a California corporation with its
principal place of business in Watsonville, CA. Defendant is an
industry leader in Omega-3 fish oil supplements. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

             Robert Abiri, Esq.
             Wyatt Donen, Esq.
             CUSTODIO & DUBEY LLP
             445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2520
             Los Angeles, CA 90071
             Telephone: (213) 593-9095
             Facsimile: (213) 785-2899
             E-mail: abiri@cd-lawyers.com
                     donen@cd-lawyers.com

NORTHROP GRUMMAN: ERISA Plan Sponsor Class Certification Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Seyfarth Shaw LLP of JD Supra reports that the United States Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently took a clarifying
pencil to certain standards applicable to benefits disputes under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §
1001 et. seq. (ERISA). In Carlson, et al. v. Northrop Grumman
Severance Plan, et al.[1] the Seventh Circuit considered an appeal
in a certified class action by ex-employees of Northrop Grumman --
the former employees alleged they were owed cash severance
benefits. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the grant of summary
judgment by the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois in favor of Northrop and the plan and held (1)
that Northrop acted within its discretion to deny benefits, and (2)
the increased stakes arising from class certification was "good
cause" to withdraw an agreed-to case referral from the assigned
magistrate judge back to the district court judge (Hon. Andrea R.
Wood).

Quick Facts of Carlson (District Court):

The plain language of the severance plan granted Northrop's human
resources (HR) department discretion to determine who qualified for
benefits. Northrop determined that for an employee to qualify they
needed to be (1) regularly scheduled to work at least 20 hours a
week, and (2) a recipient of an individually-issued "memo" by HR.

After two ex-employees did not receive cash severance benefits,
they filed suit. They argued that their eligibility was established
because they regularly worked more than 20 hours a week and
characterized the "memo," which neither received, as a document
that merely verified eligibility under the 20-hour standard.
Northrop argued that the plan treated the "memo" as more than a
ministerial document -- it was the means by which eligibility for
severance benefits was determined. The District Court granted
summary judgment in Northrop's favor, ruling that the plan's
language conferred discretion to choose who, if anyone, is eligible
to receive the disputed severance benefits post-termination.

In the District Court, the parties consented to a magistrate judge
presiding over the case under 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c). However,
once the class was certified (on behalf of all ex-employees who did
not receive the "memo") and the stakes multiplied, Northrop
requested that the district court judge resume control. The
District Court agreed.

On appeal (Seventh Circuit):

The Seventh Circuit affirmed that the language in the plan made
clear that severance benefits were contingent on the receipt of the
“memo,” which plaintiffs and other class members plainly did
not receive.

Plaintiffs argued that until October 2011, Northrop provided the
"memo" to every terminated employee who had worked a threshold
number of hours -- they contended that the plan's change in course
supported an estoppel theory. The Seventh Circuit rejected this
argument, finding that it tended to "show[] only that the firm may
have made a mistake; it does not create a legal entitlement to have
the mistake extended to other kinds of benefits."

The Seventh Circuit rejected plaintiffs' argument that Northrop's
conduct could be characterized as "interference" with their rights,
in violation of 29 U.S.C. Section 1140. The Seventh Circuit
explained that plaintiffs' argument effectively asked the Court to
treat the HR department as their fiduciary, when it is not.

The Seventh Circuit agreed that the District Court was entitled to
rescind the assignment made to a magistrate, as the assignment was
contingent on a district judge's consent. Under 28 U.S.C. Section
636(c)(4), "[t]he [district judge] may, for good cause shown on its
own motion, or under extraordinary circumstances shown by any
party, vacate a reference of a civil matter to a magistrate judge
under this subsection." The Seventh Circuit also viewed the
increased stakes of the matter following class certification as
"good cause" for withdrawing the referral.
Key takeaways:

Carlson considers how an estoppel theory may apply in situations
where a sponsor acts in a non-uniform manner.

Carlson addresses the operation of a discretionary grant of
authority. Carlson makes clear that plan sponsors do not have
unlimited authority -- they must follow the terms of the plan. If a
plan does not grant a sponsor discretion in the execution of the
plan, then no discretion may be exercised. However, if discretion
is granted, then it must be exercised within the limits of the
grant and carefully.

Carlson noted the "good cause" standard for withdrawal of a case
referral from a magistrate judge back to a district court judge
(particularly in the context of class certification).

Carlson, et al. v. Northrop Grumman Severance Plan, et al., 67
F.4th 871, 2023 WL 3299703 (7th Cir. May 8, 2023) [GN]

OAKLAND COUNTY, MI: E.D. Michigan Refuses to Stay Sinclair Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Terrence G. Berg of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, denies the motion to stay
the case, MARION SINCLAIR, Plaintiff v. ANDY MEISNER, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-CV-14042-TGB-MJH (E.D. Mich.).

Defendant Oakland County and its Treasurer moved to stay the case
pending a decision on their petition for certiorari in Hall v.
Meisner, No. 21-874, and a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in
Tyler v. Hennepin County, No. 22-166.

In this putative class action, Sinclair asserts that various
government units, private entities, and public officials conspired
to deprive her and other similarly situated individuals in
Southfield, Michigan of the equity value of their homes. She says
that, through a series of real-estate transactions, defendants took
title to tax-delinquent properties, sold them, and failed to
reimburse the former owners for the difference between the value of
their homes and the delinquent debts -- often pocketing tens or
hundreds of thousands of dollars in the process.

The procedural history of the case is long and complex. In short,
Sinclair's legal theories have changed since she filed her original
complaint. In a proposed second amended class-action complaint, she
raised five claims against various Defendants: (1) a federal
takings claim against Oakland County and the City of Southfield;
(2) a state-law takings claim against Oakland County and the City
of Southfield; (3) a procedural due-process claim against Oakland
County and the City of Southfield for failing to provide a process
to secure the return of equity value after a foreclosure sale; (4)
an unjust enrichment claim against Oakland County, the City of
Southfield, and various other defendants for refusing to compensate
property owners for the equity in their homes; and (5) a civil
conspiracy claim.

On Feb. 28, 2022, the Court entered an order denying Sinclair leave
to file the proposed amended complaint and dismissing the case.
Based on the Michigan Supreme Court's decision in Rafaeli, LLC v.
Oakland County, 952 N.W.2d 434 (Mich. 2020), and other decisions
from this district, the Court reluctantly concluded that Sinclair
could not state a cognizable claim because she and the putative
class members did not have a property interest in the equity of
their homes.

Sinclair filed a notice of appeal. While her appeal was pending,
the Sixth Circuit decided Hall, which concerned the same tax
foreclosure scheme in Southfield alleged in this case. In Hall, the
Sixth Circuit declared that homeowners did have a property right in
the equity of their homes. Then in December 2022, in light of its
decision in Hall, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an
order affirming in part and vacating in part this Court's dismissal
of Sinclair's complaint and ordering further proceedings on
Sinclair's claims against some defendants.

Only a few weeks later, the Supreme Court granted a petition of
certiorari in Tyler v. Hennepin County, 26 F.4th 789 (8th Cir.
2022), cert. granted, 143 S.Ct. 644 (Mem) (Jan. 13, 2023), to
consider whether a homeowner who had filed a complaint about a
similar tax-delinquency scheme in Hennepin County, Minnesota had
stated a claim under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. Oakland
County and its Treasurer, who are defendants both in this case and
in Hall, then moved to stay this case pending the resolution of
Tyler and a determination of their petition for certiorari from the
Sixth Circuit's decision in Hall. On May 25, 2023, the Supreme
Court issued a written opinion resolving Tyler.

In light of the position taken by Oakland County and the Treasurer,
acknowledging the likely dispositive impact of Tyler on the
petition for certiorari in Hall, Judge Berg holds that stay is not
appropriate. Given Tyler's holdings, he sees little chance that any
final disposition on the petition for certiorari in Hall would lead
to a reversal of the Sixth Circuit's opinion in that case. Judicial
economy therefore would not be served by staying proceedings. And
as Sinclair points out in her response brief, a stay would cause
considerable hardship to her and putative class members, who have
been waiting since 2018 -- when the original complaint was filed --
to vindicate their rights in court.

For the reasons he explained, Judge Berg denies the motion for a
stay. Because the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of
Sinclair's claims against some defendants, Sinclair will need to
file an amended complaint consistent with the opinion of the Court
of Appeals.

As the Court understands it, Sinclair may assert the following
claims: (1) a federal takings claim against Oakland County; (2) a
state-law takings claim against Oakland County; (3) a procedural
due-process claim against Oakland County; (4) an unjust enrichment
claim against Oakland County; and (5) a civil conspiracy claim. As
to this last claim, the Sixth Circuit noted that the district court
should reevaluate Sinclair's civil conspiracy claim considering
Hall. And so the Court will do if that claim is reasserted.

Within 30 days of the entry of the Order, Sinclair must file a
motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint, with a proposed
Third Amended Complaint attached, consistent with the above. The
Defendants' response is due in accordance with local rules and the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 6, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5y5dby9z from Leagle.com.


OWNERS INSURANCE: Summary Judgment in White Knight Suit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, White Knight Diner, LLC; Larry Lee Hinds; Karen
Freiner, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Owners Insurance Company,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 21-2956 (8th Cir.), the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirms the decision of the district
court to grant summary judgment in favor of Owners.

White Knight Diner, LLC, Larry Lee Hinds, and Karen Freiner
(collectively, White Knight) appeal the decision of the district
court to grant summary judgment in favor of Owners. On March 15,
2015, Ambar Arango and Dzemal Omervic were involved in a car
accident in St. Louis, Missouri. One of the cars crashed into White
Knight Diner, resulting in property damage to the restaurant. At
the time, White Knight was insured by Owners pursuant to a policy
that provided coverage for property damage and loss of business
income. The Policy was also subject to a $1,000 deductible.

Following the accident, White Knight submitted a claim to Owners
pursuant to the Policy, and Owners paid White Knight $66,366.27.
That amount represented $49,965.10 for property damage and
$16,371.17 for loss of business income. The repairs for White
Knight's property damage were completed by October 2015.

White Knight subsequently sued in Missouri state court against
Arango and Omervic for lost income (the Arango Litigation). Arango
was insured by State Farm, and Omervic was insured by Progressive.
Both drivers were subject to policy limits for liability coverage:
Arango's State Farm policy limit was $50,000, and Omervic's
Progressive policy limit was $25,000.

Before White Knight initiated the Arango Litigation, Owners sought
to recoup from State Farm and Progressive the money it had paid to
White Knight under the Policy, as well as White Knight's $1,000
deductible. Specifically, on July 15, 2015, Owners sent State Farm
a "Request for Payment" with instructions to "CONTACT OWNERS PRIOR
TO SETTLEMENT." On Dec. 8, 2015, State Farm issued a check to
Owners in the amount of $33,668.14, which represented half of the
money Owners had paid to White Knight plus half of White Knight's
$1,000 deductible.

Owners then issued a $500 check to White Knight. State Farm did not
require a full release of White Knight's claims or future claims in
exchange for its payment to Owners. Owners also sent a
near-identical request to Progressive but, unlike State Farm,
Progressive declined to pay. Owners told White Knight, which was
aware of the Policy's subrogation clause, about its efforts to
recoup its payment to White Knight from the drivers' insurers.
White Knight did not object.

After Arango's insurer paid Owners, Arango sought a setoff for that
amount in the still-ongoing Arango Litigation. The state court
denied that request, concluding that Arango could not assert a
setoff against any amount she owed White Knight for sums State Farm
paid to Owners. White Knight eventually settled its claim against
Omervic for $25,000 and settled its claim against Arango for
$16,331.86. The state court then dismissed White Knight's case with
prejudice.

While the Arango Litigation was still pending, White Knight and
several other insureds filed the instant class action against
various insurance companies including Owners. The plaintiffs
sought, among other things, an order declaring that these insurers'
practice of settling subrogation claims with each other directly,
without the insureds' involvement, violated Missouri subrogation
law. After the insurers brought several motions to dismiss, the
district court dismissed all parties except for Owners and White
Knight. White Knight then filed an amended complaint against Owners
only, adding new causes of action, including breach of contract and
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Owners filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims. White
Knight moved for partial summary judgment on its declaratory
judgment claim. The district court granted Owners' motion, denied
White Knight's motion, and entered judgment in Owners' favor. White
Knight now appeals.

On appeal, White Knight argues that because Owners' conduct
violated Missouri subrogation law, the district court erred in
granting summary judgment to Owners on its declaratory judgment
claim. In addition, it argues there were disputed questions of
material fact concerning whether Owners' actions were taken in
violation of the Policy and thus a reasonable jury could find in
White Knight's favor on its breach of contract and implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing claims.

First, White Knight contends it was entitled to an order declaring
that Owners violated Missouri law when it sought
subrogation-related reimbursement from State Farm and Progressive
before White Knight recovered any money from the drivers
responsible for its damages.

The Eighth Circuit finds that a refusal to recognize a premature
payment as valid subrogation is not the same as saying those
premature efforts are illegal. The Owners sought -- and partially
obtained -- payment from the drivers' insurers, even though they
had no legal right to the claim against either driver.

But the state court in the Arango Litigation recognized this.
Citing Hagar v. Wright Tire & Appliance, Inc., 33 S.W.3d 605, 610
(Mo. Ct. App. 2000), the court denied Arango's request for a credit
against the judgment for the money State Farm -- Arango's insurer
-- had already paid Owners.

White Knight calls out Owners for trying to circumvent the
subrogation clause in the Policy. In Hagar the court addressed
almost identical circumstances and agreed that the insurance
companies' premature settlement and reimbursement efforts were not
enforceable as a matter of law. But the court did not declare the
conduct unlawful. Until Missouri courts or the Missouri legislature
makes such a declaration, the Eighth Circuit declines White
Knight's invitation to do so.

The more difficult question is whether Owners breached the Policy
when it sought reimbursement from the tortfeasors' insurers in a
manner contrary to the subrogation rights granted in the Policy.
White Knight argues that disputed material facts remain as to
whether Owners' subrogation efforts -- or attempted subrogation
efforts -- were conducted in breach of the Policy.

But, according to the Eighth Circuit, the Policy does not expressly
prohibit Owners from requesting payment from the tortfeasors'
insurers. And to the extent White Knight argues that Owners
breached its contract because its reimbursement request to State
Farm violated Missouri law, this argument is unavailing.
Nonetheless, even assuming Owners' actions were taken pursuant to
the Policy, White Knight's claim still fails because it does not
establish that it suffered any damages due to Owners' failure to
abide by the contracted-for procedures. To the extent White Knight
now suggests it had identifiable uninsured losses, White Knight
fails to offer any evidence -- or point to anything in the record
-- demonstrating any uninsured losses.

Finally, White Knight argues that Owners violated its duty of good
faith and fair dealing when it asked State Farm for its pro rata
share of the damages paid to White Knight under the Policy. It
argues that because there are disputed issues of fact as to whether
Owners breached the Policy, a jury could find that Owners violated
its duty of good faith and fair dealing when it exercised its
subrogation rights in a manner that disadvantaged White Knight and
deprived it of the benefits of the subrogation clause. Because the
breach of contract claim fails, the Eighth Circuit holds that this
claim necessarily fails as well.

For these reasons, the Eighth Circuit affirms the judgment of the
district court.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 6, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/57p9awmc from Leagle.com.


PEACH CREEK: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Sanders Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
KAYLA SANDERS, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated V. PEACH CREEK ALF No. 1 LLC and PEACH CREEK ALF
No. 2 LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-02134 (S.D. Tex., June 12, 2023)
alleges that the Defendants' failed to pay overtime to the
Plaintiff and Class Members, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants allegedly did not pay the Plaintiff overtime, or at
least not the correct amount of overtime, because the Defendants
instituted a policy under which it would spread its employees'
weekly schedules between Peach Creek ALF No. 1 LLC and Peach Creek
ALF No.2 LLC to avoid scheduling work in excess of 40 hours a week
at either building.

Accordingly, the Defendants only paid overtime when an employee
exceeded 40 hours at week at either Peach Creek ALF No. 1 LLC or
Peach Creek ALF No. 2, a prospect which they diligently attempted
to schedule around by directing their employees to split their
weeks between the two buildings. The Defendants used this same
false delineation between the two companies to deprive 20 other
employees in the last three years of their overtime as well. The
Defendants owe its employees back pay, liquidated damages,
attorneys’ fees and court costs, the suit claims.

The Defendants implemented the same pay policies for other workers.
Therefore, the Plaintiff sues on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated employees pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).
She requests that the court authorize a notice to be sent to all
similarly situated employees so that they can be informed of this
action and to apprise them of their right to join this lawsuit, the
suit adds.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from May of 2021 to
February of 2023. The Plaintiff worked as a caregiver and later as
an assistant manager.

Peach Creek is an Assisted Living community.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beatriz-Sosa Morris, Esq.
          John Neuman, Esq.
          SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
          Texas State Bar No. 24076154
          5612 Chaucer Drive
          Houston, Texas 77005
          Telephone: (281) 885-8844
          Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
          E-mail: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com
                  JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com

PEEK-A-BOO CHILDCARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ballagan Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carmen Ballagan and other similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs
v. PEEK-A-BOO CHILDCARE, INC., JDL CLEANING SERVICE LLC, and
EPHRAIM NUSSBAUM, individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-03130
(D.N.J., June 6, 2023) arises out of the Defendant's alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State
Wage and Hour Law.

Plaintiff Ballagan was employed from on or about January 2018 until
March 1, 2023. Throughout Plaintiff's employment from March 1, 2020
to March 1, 2023, the Defendants allegedly failed to pay employees
the applicable minimum wage and overtime rate for all time worked
in excess of 40 hours per week. In addition, the Defendants also
failed to keep accurate records of hours worked by employees as
required by the FLSA and NJWHL, says the Plaintiff.

Peek-A-Boo Childcare, Inc. and JDL Cleaning Service LLC are both
organized New Jersey business corporations organized under the laws
of the State of New Jersey with two addresses at 601 Prospect St
Lakewood, NJ 08701 and 1580 Burrsville Rd, Brick Township, New
Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

PEOPLEREADY INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Pittman Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Derrick Pittman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PeopleReady, Inc., a Washington corporation;
TrueBlue, Inc., a Washington corporation; and Does 1 through 100,
inclusive; Defendants, Case No. 23STCV12938 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., June 7, 2023) arises out of the Defendants' alleged
systematic pattern of wage and hour violations under the California
Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders and for
violations of the California Business and Professions Code.

The Plaintiff was employed in a non-exempt position by Defendants.
Allegedly, the Defendants violated the state wage and hour laws by,
among other things, failing to pay Plaintiff and Class members all
overtime and double-time wages at the proper regular rate of pay
and failing to provide timely, uninterrupted, off-duty meal periods
of no less than 30 minutes for each period of five hours worked.

PeopleReady, Inc. is a Washington corporation whose employees are
engaged throughout the State of California. It provides staffing
services to hospitals and other healthcare facilities throughout
California, including the County of Los Angeles. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
         Chancellor Nobles, Esq.
         Brielle Edborg, Esq.
         Lebe Law, APLC
         777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90021
         Telephone: (213) 444-1973
         Facsimile: (213) 457-3092
         E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com
                 chancellor@lebelaw.com
                 Brielle@lebelaw.com

PFIZER INC: Consumers Receive Class Suit Settlement Checks
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason Stoogenke of wsoctv.com reports that the manufacturers of
EpiPen just began making payments to consumers as a result of a
class action lawsuit, settlement officials told Action 9′s Jason
Stoogenke.

In order to receive money from the settlement, there are two things
you had to do:

Purchased an EpiPen or EpiPen Jr. for personal use between Aug. 24,
2011, and Nov. 1, 2020, and Submitted proof of purchase by July 25,
2022.

Digital payments are the first to go out. For those who want a
check, email info@EpiPenClassAction.com.

Action 9′s Jason Stoogenke first reported on the outrage over
EpiPen pricing back in 2016 when patients claimed drug companies
Mylan, Pfizer and other defendants raised the EpiPen price more
than 500%.

In 2022, both sides agreed to a settlement of $264 million.

The lawsuit was not a recall. No one in the case claimed EpiPens
are unsafe or don't work. The class action lawsuit was strictly
about price and anti-competition concerns. [GN]

PHARMERICA CORPORATION: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
VANESSA WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PHARMERICA CORPORATION, d/b/a
PHARMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00301-DJH (W.D. Ky., June
14, 2023) is an action arising from a recent cyberattack resulting
in a data breach of sensitive information in the possession and
custody and control of the Defendant.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Data Breach
resulted in unauthorized disclosure, exfiltration, and theft of
consumers' highly personal information, including names, Social
Security numbers, dates of birth, addresses, telephone numbers, and
email addresses ("personally identifying information" or "PII").
The Defendant's failure to timely detect and report the Data Breach
made its consumers vulnerable to identity theft without any
warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to
prevent unauthorized use of their PII. The Defendant knew or should
have known that each victim of the Data Breach deserved prompt and
efficient notice of the Data Breach and assistance in mitigating
the effects of PII misuse, says the Plaintiff.

In failing to adequately protect the Plaintiff's and the Class's
PII, failing to adequately notify them about the breach, and by
obfuscating the nature of the breach, Defendant violated state and
federal law and harmed an unknown number of its consumers, the suit
added.

PHARMERICA CORPORATION provides health care services. The Company
offers skilled nursing, senior living, long term care, oncology,
and hospital pharmacy management services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          Raina Borrelli, Esq.
          TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
          Telephone: (608) 237-1775
          Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
          Email: sam@turkestrauss.com
                 raina@turkestrauss.com

               - and -

          Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Ste. 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636-6481
          Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com

PLANET AUTOMOTIVE: Bid to Dismiss First Amended Schultz Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALISON SCHULTZ, Plaintiff v. PLANET AUTOMOTIVE GROUP,
LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 5:23-CV-00030-KDB-SCR
(W.D.N.C.), Judge Susan C. Rodriguez of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of North Carolina, Statesville Division,
denies as moot the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's
First Amended Class Action Complaint, filed May 22, 2023, without
prejudice.

The Plaintiff filed her Amended Complaint within 21 days following
receipt of the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. No Answer has been
filed. Accordingly, the amendment is as a matter of course.

Judge Rodriguez says it is well-settled that an amended pleading
supersedes the original pleading, and that motions directed at
superseded pleadings are to be denied as moot. Therefore, she
administratively denies as moot the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
without prejudice.

The Clerk is directed to send copies of the Order to the counsel
for the parties and to the Honorable Kenneth Bell.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 6, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3yzhehrn from Leagle.com.


PLUG POWER: Faces Stewart Suit Over Drop in Share Price
-------------------------------------------------------
JOHN STEWART, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PLUG POWER INC., ANDREW MARSH, PAUL B. MIDDLETON, DAVID
MINDNICH, and MARTIN D. HULL, Case No. 1:23-cv-00704-TJM-CFH
(N.D.N.Y., June 12, 2023) is a federal securities class action on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded
common stock of the Company between August 9, 2022 and March 1,
2023, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by the
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Accordingly, the Defendants violated section 10(b) of the 1934 Act
and Rule 10b-5 in that they: employed devices, schemes and
artifices to defraud; made untrue statements of material facts or
omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they
were made, not misleading; and/or engaged in acts, practices and a
course of business that operated as a fraud or deceit upon the
Plaintiff and others similarly situated in connection with their
purchases of the Company's common stock during the Class Period.

On August 9, 2022, in a letter to shareholders, the Defendants
touted Plug's "Strong Business Outlook" and assured investors that
the Company’s "[g]rowth outlook remains robust with over $15
billion sales funnel."

On October 14, 2022, the Defendants announced that the Company's
"prior full year 2022 revenue guidance of $900-925M could be 5-10%
lower for the year" and attributed this revised guidance to "some
larger projects potentially being completed in 2023 instead of 2022
due to timing and broader supply chain issues." On this news, the
price of Plug common stock declined $1.20 per share, or more than
6%, from a close of $19.23 per share on October 13, 2022, to close
at $18.03 per share on October 14, 2022.

On November 8, 2022, the Company reported its financial results for
the third quarter of 2022, revealing that -- contrary to the
Defendants' prior claims of substantial growth in the second half
of 2022 -- the Company’s gross margins had decreased 3%
sequentially, and 2% on a year-over-year basis, and that Plug's
inventory levels had further increased to $516 million.

After the market closed on March 1, 2023, Plug announced
disappointing financial results for the fourth quarter and full
year 2022, including annual revenue of $701.4 million
--representing only 40% year-over-year growth and missing even the
reduced guidance the Company had recently provided. On this news,
the price of Plug common stock declined $0.88 per share, or more
than 6%, from a close of $14.21 per share on March 1, 2023, to
close at $13.33 per share on March 2, 2023.

Had the Plaintiff and the other members of the Class been aware
that the market price of the Company's common stock had been
artificially and falsely inflated by the Defendants' misleading
statements and by the material adverse information which the
Defendants did not disclose, they would not have purchased the
Company's common stock at the artificially inflated prices that
they did, says the suit.

Plug purports to develop hydrogen fuel cell power systems for use
in electric vehicles, stationary power units, and other purposes.
Among the Company's products are hydrogen electrolyzers, which use
electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen so the
hydrogen can be stored for later use.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          4145397 275 Madison Ave., 40th
          Floor New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com

PROVIDENCE, RI: Denial of Washington's Bid to Intervene Recommended
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, COALITION OF BLACK LEADERSHIP, et al., Plaintiffs v.
JOSEPH A. DOORLEY, et al., Defendants. WILLIE K. WASHINGTON,
Proposed Intervenor, v. JORGE O. ELORZA, et al., Defendants, C.A.
No. 71-4523JJM (D.R.I.), Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Sullivan of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island recommends
that Washington's motion to intervene be denied and that all of his
other motions be denied as moot.

In 2022, with his post-conviction relief petition pending in the
Superior Court, Washington submitted to the City of Providence a
Civilian Complaint alleging irregularities and misconduct by
officers of the Providence Police Department during the 2014
investigation that culminated in his 2015 criminal conviction. In
response, Washington was told by the investigating officer that a
review of his Civilian Complaint and a conferral with the Rhode
Island Attorney General's Office had resulted in the conclusion
that the accused officers did not violate any Police Department
procedures or rules. He was further advised that he would not be
afforded the informal hearing that is mandated by Providence's
civilian complaint procedure because his allegations had been heard
in his criminal case.

Dissatisfied with this response, Washington now seeks to intervene
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 in this 52-year-old case so that he
can pursue a motion to have the Defendants adjudged in contempt of
the 1973 Consent Judgment that established Providence's civilian
complaint procedure. He alleges a violation of the Consent
Judgment's mandate that complainants alleging police misconduct be
afforded an informal hearing.

Pending before the Court are the following motions that Mr.
Washington has filed pro se:

     a. motion for Rule 22 interpleader, interpreted as a motion
for Rule 24 intervention;

     b. motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis;

     c. motion to adjudge in contempt;

     d. motion to appoint counsel; and

     e. motion to amend the contempt motion to strike three newly
named Defendants and to add additional money damage claims, as well
as claims for declaratory relief, against the remaining
Defendants.

Washington's motion to adjudge in contempt, as supplemented by his
motion to amend, sets out the claim for which intervention is
sought as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(c). Each of the motions
includes a secondary caption with Washington as "Interpleader"
against a new set of proposed Defendants who for the most part are
current or recent holders of the offices held by the officials who
were named and joined as Defendants in the 1971 suit.

The Court ordered the City of Providence to respond to the motion
to intervene. It complied, asking the Court to deny the motion
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a-b) as untimely and prejudicial, as
well as because Washington's interest in challenging the evidence
supporting his criminal conviction differs significantly from the
race-based police brutality that was the subject of the 1971 action
and because Washington's claim and the 1971 action lack common
questions of law and fact. Relying on Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor
Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723, 750 (1975), Providence also invokes Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing that Washington lacks standing to
enforce a consent decree to which he is not a party.

The motions have been referred for determination and/or report and
recommendation.

Fifty-two years ago, an organization known as the "Coalition of
Black Leadership," suing through its "President, Michael Van
Leesten," together with six named individuals suing for themselves
and those similarly situated, initiated the case against various
officials of the City of Providence, including the mayor, the
Commissioner of Public Safety, the police chief, the police
Director of Personnel and a police officer. Soon after, the
"Providence Lodge #3, Fraternal Order of Police" intervened and was
joined as an additional defendant.

Following a trial, in 1973 the parties settled the case with a
Consent Judgment that required the City of Providence Police
Department ("PPD") immediately to adopt a specified procedure for
accepting, investigating, processing and resolving civilian
complaints against PPD officers, including that each complainant
must have an informal hearing with a hearing officer. After the
settlement, litigation continued regarding whether the Consent
Judgment would be modified. As reflected in the resulting
decisions, attempts to modify the Consent Judgment were rejected.
The Consent Judgment remains in full force and effect. The last
activity reflected in the docket was in mid-March 1980. Washington
and the counsel for the City of Providence agree that the original
parties are now deceased or unavailable. It does not appear that a
class was ever certified.

Washington does not allege that the City of Providence and PPD
failed to comply with the Consent Judgment's requirement that a
specific civilian complaint procedure must be adopted; to the
contrary, he represents that he agrees with the foundational
structure of the civilian complaint system and internal affairs
procedures and doesn't want to reopen the proceedings to disregard
the consent decree, but to enforce the document's core principles,
which all parties already agree upon and Washington agrees with.

Washington's interest as reflected in his Civilian Complaint
focuses on the 2014 police investigation that resulted in his 2015
conviction, which he alleges is tainted by the admission of
evidence that was fabricated and falsified by the investigating PPD
officers. In 2014, he was a resident of Smithfield, Rhode Island,
when he was identified by the PPD as a suspect in connection with a
shooting in Providence in the early morning of Nov. 15, 2014.
Washington is now pressing a post-conviction relief petition ("PCR
Petition") filed on Sept. 17, 2018. The trial justice offered
Washington a prompt hearing as soon as his attorney filed a motion
asserting such an argument. The PCR Petition remains pending in the
Superior Court.

In August 2022, Washington filed his Civilian Complaint with the
PPD OPR. The Civilian Complaint alleges that PPD officers who
participated in the investigation of the Nov. 15, 2014, shooting
failed to conform their arrest reports and narratives to
requirements in various PPD policies. Nothing in Washington's
Civilian Complaint alleges or even suggests that he was the victim
of or was seeking to expose racially-animated police brutality. It
contains no reference to race and does not allege that any of the
alleged misconduct was racially motivated.

In his Contempt Motion, Washington has focused on Providence's
failure to schedule an informal hearing to address his Civilian
Complaint in these unique circumstances where the allegations of
misconduct during a police investigation remain in issue in the
complainant's ongoing criminal case. To remedy this "technical"
violation, Mr. Washington asks the Court to allow him to intervene,
either as of right or permissively; to hold a contempt hearing; to
find that the Defendants are in contempt of the Consent Judgment;
and to award him equitable sanctions of $1 million.

In his motion to amend, Washington seeks to add more money damage
claims (totaling another $1.5 million in punitive and "liability"
damages), as well as "municipal liability" damages of $1 million
from the City of Providence and the Providence Lodge #3, Fraternal
Order of Police. The motion to amend also asks for $5,000 per day
and for a declaration that the failure to afford him an informal
hearing not only violated the Consent Judgment but also
transgressed constitutional and other legal rights of "class
members." Washington does not ask for an injunctive remedy.

Washington's filings do not mention either his race or his
community of residence. This information may be derived from one of
his exhibits, the 2014 PPD Incident Report, which indicates that he
is "Black" and a resident of Smithfield, Rhode Island. Thus,
Washington is not a member of the putative class alleged in this
case, whether it was certified, because he was not a "black
resident of the City of Providence" in 2014 at the time of the
police conduct he seeks to challenge.

Based on her analysis, Judge Sullivan recommends that Washington's
motion to intervene should be denied because (i) he lacks standing
to pursue intervention or contempt, (ii) the attempted intervention
is untimely and prejudicial to the City of Providence, and (ii) he
has failed to establish either that he has a demonstrated interest
in the transactions that were the subject matter of the case and/or
that he is raising claims that share with the main action common
questions of law and fact. If the Court adopts this recommendation,
all of Washington's other motions should be denied as moot.

Any objection to Judge Sullivan's Report and Recommendation must be
specific and must be served and filed with the Clerk of the Court
within 14 days of its receipt. Failure to file specific objections
in a timely manner constitutes waiver of the right to review by the
district judge and the right to appeal the Court's decision.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 6, 2023 Report &
Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/2vaueemu from
Leagle.com.


SCRIBE MEDIA: Cormier Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALYSSA CORMIER, Plaintiff, v. SCRIBE MEDIA, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:23-cv-00647 (W.D. Tex., June 7, 2023) is a class action
arising out of the Defendant's alleged violations of the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.

Scribe hired Plaintiff Alyssa Cormier for a Senior Project Manager
role on approximately April 4, 2022. Until her layoff, Plaintiff
worked as a Senior Project Manager at Scribe.  On or about May 24,
2023, Scribe notified approximately 90 employees they were being
terminated immediately on a conference call with President and
Chief Executive Officer JeVon McCormick and Director of People Jes
McAvoy. Scribe made no offer of severance pay to the terminated
employees, and their health insurance benefits end immediately.
Accordingly, Plaintiff alleges that Scribe violated the WARN Act by
terminating her and class members without providing at least 60
days advance written notice of a mass layoff or plant closure.

Scribe Media, LLC is a book publishing company based in Austin,
Texas, that has employees working primarily remotely, in Austin and
throughout the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Caitlin Boehne, Esq.
           Ryan Estes, Esq.
           Austin Kaplan, Esq.
           KAPLAN LAW FIRM
           3901 S. Lamar Blvd., # 260
           Austin, TX 78704
           Telephone: (512) 814-7348
           Facsimile: (512) 692-2788
           E-mail: cboehne@kaplanlawatx.com
                   restes@kaplanlawatx.com
                   akaplan@kaplanlawatx.com

SENTINELONE: Fails to Disclose Facts to Investors, Johansson Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SAKARI JOHANSSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. SENTINELONE, INC., TOMER
WEINGARTEN, and DAVID BERNHARDT, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-02786
(N.D. Cal., June 6, 2023) arises out of the Defendants' violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.

Between June 1, 2022 and June 1, 2023, Defendants materially misled
the investing public, thereby inflating the price of SentinelOne's
securities, by publicly issuing false and/or misleading statements
and/or omitting to disclose material facts necessary to make
Defendants' statements not false and/or misleading. The statements
and omissions were materially false and/or misleading because they
failed to disclose material adverse information and/or
misrepresented the truth about SentinelOne's business, operations,
and prospects, says the suit.

On June 1, 2023, after the market closed, SentinelOne published a
press release titled "SentinelOne Announces First Quarter Fiscal
Year 2024 Financial Results." The Company disclosed that as a
result of a change in methodology and correction of historical
inaccuracies, a one-time adjustment was made to Annual Recurring
Revenue (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. 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 suit alleges.

SentinelOne is a cybersecurity company that claims to have
pioneered the world's first AI-powered Extended Detection and
Response platform to make cybersecurity defense truly autonomous.
The Company claims its Singularity Platform instantly defends
against cyberattacks, performing at a faster speed, greater scale,
and higher accuracy than otherwise possible from humans.
SentinelOne is incorporated under the laws of Delaware with its
principal executive offices located in Mountain View, California.
SentinelOne’s Class A common stock trades on the New York Stock
Exchange under the symbol "S."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
         Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
         Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
         GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
         1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (310) 201-9150
         Facsimile: (310) 201-9160

                     - and -

         Howard G. Smith, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
         3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
         Bensalem PA 19020
         Telephone: (215) 638-4847
         Facsimile: (215) 638-4867

SIX FLAGS: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings OK'd in OFPRS Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS
PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM, v. SIX FLAGS ENTERTAINMENT
CORPORATION ET AL., Case No. 4:20-cv-00201-P (N.D. Tex.), the Hon.
Judge Mark T. Pittman entered an order:

  -- Granting the Defendants' motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

     because the Plaintiff lacks standing to sue;

  -- Denying the Plaintiff's motion to file its amended complaint;
and

  -- Denying Movant's motion to intervene.

The case arises from The Defendants' failed attempt to expand their
amusement parks into China. Throughout 2018, the Defendant
Executives repeatedly maintained that their development and
earnings schedule remained on-track.

But the projected park opening schedule was allegedly "in serious
jeopardy" as early as May 2018. Movant began purchasing shares of
The Defendants' stock in July 2018.

Throughout the rest of the year, Riverside began defaulting on its
licensing payments, and "construction in China came to a
standstill" by 2019.

Six Flags is an American amusement park corporation.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 2, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/466R9Tn at no extra charge.[CC]


SLT LENDING: Fails to Protect Private Info From Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
JAMELAH ELDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SLT LENDING SPV, INC. DBA SUR LA TABLE,
Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-01059 (C.D. Cal., June 6, 2023),
alleges claims against the Defendant for negligence, breach of
implied contract, and unjust enrichment in connection with the data
breach that took place between March 15, 2023 and March 25, 2023.

According to the complaint, information stolen in the Data Breach
included individuals' sensitive information, including at least,
names, driver's license numbers or state identification numbers,
and/or medical or health information. As a result of the Data
Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered ascertainable losses
in the form of loss of the value of their private and confidential
information, out-of-pocket expenses and the value of their time
reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the
attack. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit
on behalf of those similarly situated to address Defendant's
inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that
it collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and
adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their
information had been subject to the unauthorized access of an
unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information
was accessed.

SLT Lending SPV, Inc. DBA Sur La Table is a Washington based
corporation headquartered at 6100 4th Avenue South, Suite 500
Seattle, Washington. It is a retail store chain that sells culinary
tools, cookware, bakeware, knives, small appliances, serving ware,
and other kitchen gadgets. It also offers cooking classes. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
         Gregory Haroutunian, Esq.
         Brandon P. Jack, Esq.
         CLAYEO C. ARNOLD A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
         6200 Canoga Avenue, Suite 375
         Woodland Hills, CA 91367
         Telephone: (747) 777-7748
         Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
         E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com
                 gharoutunian@justice4you.com
                 bjack@justice4you.com

SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Plaintiffs Seek Rule 23 Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADAM FRANCHI, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. SMILEDIRECTCLUB,
INC., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00962 (M.D. Tenn.), the Lead
Plaintiff 1199SEIU Health Care Employees Pension Fund and the
Plaintiff Bucks County Employees Retirement System move the Court
for an Order:

   1. certifying class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of
the
      Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and

   2. appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives and
approving
      their selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Class

      Counsel.

SmileDirectClub is a teledentistry company.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher M. Wood, Esq.
          Henry S. Bator, Esq.
          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          Scott H. Saham, Esq.
          Jeffrey J. Stein, Esq.
          Ashley M. Kelly, Esq.
          Ting H. Liu, Esq.
          Stephen johnson, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
          & DOWD LLP
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-2203
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          E-mail: cwood@rgrdlaw.com
                  hbator@rgrdlaw.com
                  darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
                  scotts@rgrdlaw.com
                  jstein@rgrdlaw.com
                  akelly@rgrdlaw.com
                  tliu@rgrdlaw.com
                  sjohnson@rgrdlaw.com

SOUTH STATE: Rule 12(c) Bid Denied in Fludd Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fludd v. South State Bank,
et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01959 (D.S.C., Filed May 20, 2020), the
Hon. Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks entered an order denying
SouthState's Rule 12(c) motion.

  -- The Court agrees with the Plaintiff that SouthState's
arguments
     pertaining to class certification of Butcher's Regulation E
claim
     are premature at this time.

The nature of suit states Diversity-Other Contract.

South State Bank, based in Winter Haven, Florida, is an American
bank based in Florida and a subsidiary of South State Corporation,
a bank holding company.[CC]

SQUARETRADE INC: Settles Class Action Suit Over Underpaid Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brigette Honaker of Top Class Actions reports consumers are
receiving payments from a class action lawsuit settlement with
SquareTrade, resolving claims that it underpaid consumer claims
under protection plans.

The settlement benefits consumers who submitted a claim for
coverage under a SquareTrade protection plan and whose claim was
resolved via a Fast Cash payment. The settlement also benefits
consumers who submitted a claim for coverage under a SquareTrade
protection plan, resolved the claim with a monetary payment and
received less than the amount they should have due to a SKU-cap
error.

According to the class action lawsuit, SquareTrade failed to
sufficiently compensate consumers under their payment protection
plans due to SKU-cap errors which applied a cap to the
reimbursement offered. In addition, the company's Fast Cash payment
process allegedly returned replacement costs far below what is
accurate -- causing an additional source of underpayment.

SquareTrade didn't admit any wrongdoing but agreed to a settlement
to resolve the class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the
settlement, consumers could receive up to $35 without documentation
but could receive higher payments with documentation. Top Class
Actions Readers report receiving payments of up to $35 from the
settlement.

The SquareTrade underpayment class action lawsuit is Shuman, et al.
v. SquareTrade Inc., Case No. 3:20-CV-02725-JCS, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN]

SRG GLOBAL: Court Dismisses Peeler's Claim for Strict Liability
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHELLE PEELER, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SRG GLOBAL COATINGS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-CV-23-SNLJ (E.D. Mo.), Judge Stephen N.
Limbaugh, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri, Southeastern Division, grants the Defendant's motion
to dismiss Count III, Strict Liability - Ultrahazardous Activity,
of the Plaintiff's class action complaint.

The Plaintiff filed the putative class action against SRG. SRG
manufactures parts for the automotive industry and operates a
manufacturing facility in Portageville, Missouri.

The Plaintiff alleges that SRG caused chemicals and metals,
including hexavalent chromium, chromium, nickel, and PFAS, to
migrate from SRG's properties into the soil, groundwater, and
municipal drinking water to the surrounding properties in
Portageville. Specifically, she alleges that she was exposed to and
ingested the chemicals and metals in the drinking water supply from
1987 to 2022.

The Plaintiff seeks damages in excess of $5 million on behalf of
herself and the putative class. She brings three causes of action:
Negligence (Count I), Private Nuisance (Count II), and Strict
Liability - Ultrahazardous Activity (Count III). She also requests
medical monitoring damages on behalf of herself and the putative
class.

The Defendant moves to dismiss Count III for failure to state a
claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). It argues
that Count III should be dismissed because plaintiff has not stated
a claim, and cannot state a claim, for strict liability for an
ultrahazardous/abnormally dangerous activity.

The Plaintiff alleges that hazardous chemicals and metals from the
SRG properties have migrated into the soil and groundwater and
drinking water underlying the SRG properties and surrounding
properties in and near Portageville. She further alleges that SRG
agreed to remediate the contamination, but that residents have been
and are being exposed to the hazardous chemicals and metals in
their drinking water, which is drawn from groundwater wells in
Portageville, including wells on the SRG properties. In Count III,
the Plaintiff states that in carrying out the conduct alleged
herein, defendant engaged in abnormally dangerous activity
violation of federal, state, and/or local laws and/or regulations
rending it strictly liable for any resulting damages.

The Defendant's motion to dismiss assumes that the Plaintiff's
claim involves the Defendant's manufacturing activities, but she
suggests the proper lens is the Defendant's remediation activities
-- not manufacturing. Regardless, Judge Limbaugh holds that
Missouri courts have narrowly applied the doctrine of strict
liability for abnormally dangerous activities.

To state a claim, the Plaintiff must plead facts showing that: (1)
the Defendant's activity created a high degree of risk of harm; (2)
the harm has been and will be significant; (3) the risk cannot be
eliminated; and (4) the harm outweighs the value of the activity
and resulted in injuries to the Plaintiff. Only two activities have
been found to be "abnormally dangerous" by Missouri courts:
blasting operations and radioactive nuclear emissions.

Judge Limbaugh holds that the Plaintiff does not plead either that
the risks inherent to remediation cannot be eliminated or that the
harm of the remediation outweighs the value of the activity.
Further, she identifies no Missouri case to support her claim that
the Defendant's activities constitute abnormally dangerous
activities under Missouri law. In fact, she relies only on an
unpublished Connecticut state court opinion to support her claim.

Neither the Defendant's manufacturing nor remediation activities
qualify as "abnormally dangerous" activities under Missouri law.
Thus, the Defendant's motion to dismiss Count is granted. The
Plaintiff's Count III for strict liability for abnormally dangerous
activities is dismissed.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 6, 2023 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ms3c2jjn from Leagle.com.


STEEL RIVER: Suit Seeks Judicial Declaration of No Duty to Defend
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY v. STEEL RIVER SYSTEMS, LLC, JAY D.
HEATH, BEVERLY G. STOLL, AMBER BOWER, and JOEL COURTNEY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Case
No. 3:23-cv-50224 (N.D. Ill., June 12, 2023) is an insurance
coverage action to obtain a judicial declaration that it does not
have the duty to defend or indemnify Steel River in connection with
a class action lawsuit resulting from a data breach that occurred
between May 25, 2022 and July 16, 2022, captioned as Heath et al.
v. Steel River Systems, LLC, Case No. 2023-LA-000006, in the
Circuit Court for Whiteside County, Illinois.

The complaint alleges that on July 16, 2022, Steel River became
aware of suspicious activity on its computer network, and data
contained on certain Steel River systems was subject to
unauthorized access and/or acquisition between May 25, 2022 to July
16, 2022. Scottsdale issued to Steel River a commercial general
liability insurance policy, No. CPS7455799, effective October 6,
2021 to October 6, 2022 ("Policy"). The Policy specifically
excludes "personal and advertising injury" by the Exclusion –
Personal and Advertising Injury Endorsement (form CG 21 38 11 85),
which provides that "COVERAGE B (Section I) does not apply and none
of the references to it in the Coverage Part apply," the lawsuit
claims.

Even if the Policy included Coverage B or all other prerequisites
under Coverage A were met, which Scottsdale denies, the Policy’s
Access or Disclosure Exclusion, which applies to alleged damages
arising out of any access to or disclosure of any person's
confidential or personal information, including "any other type of
nonpublic information," completely precludes a duty to defend the
Class Action Lawsuit, the lawsuit adds.

Steel River has sought from Scottsdale a defense against the Class
Action Lawsuit. On February 10, 2023, Scottsdale denied Steel
River's tender.

Scottsdale requests this Court to declare and adjudge the
controversy as follows:

  A. Scottsdale has no duty to defend Steel River in the Class
     Action Lawsuit;

  B. Scottsdale has no duty to indemnify Steel River in the Class
     Action Lawsuit; and

  C. Grant any other relief that this Court deems just and
     equitable under the circumstances, including the award of
     costs.

Steel River was founded in 2015. The company's line of business
includes collection and adjustment services on claims and other
insurance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan L. Schwartz, Esq.
          Glenn A. Klinger, Esq.
          FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY LLP
          33 N. Dearborn St., Suite 1430
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (773) 389-6440
          E-mail: jonathan.schwartz@fmglaw.com
                  glenn.klinger@fmglaw.com

STERLING JEWELERS: Consumers Receive Suit Settlement Checks
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brigette Honaker of Top Class Actions reports Sterling Jewelers
employees are receiving payments from a $175 million class action
lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that the jeweler discriminated
against women.

The settlement benefits women who worked as part-time sales
associates, full-time sales associates, department managers,
assistant managers, assistant general managers, store managers or
general managers at retail stores owned by Sterling Jewelers.

The Sterling Jewelers class action lawsuit claims that the jeweler
discriminated against female workers by paying them less and
denying them promotions. According to plaintiffs in the case,
Sterling Jewelers violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and
the federal Equal Pay Act.

Sterling Jewelers agreed to resolve the class action lawsuit with a
$125 million settlement payment fund. Under the terms of the
settlement, consumers could receive a cash payment based on the
number of years they worked for the company. Top Class Actions
readers have reportedly started receiving payments from this
settlement.

The Sterling Jewelers class action lawsuit is Jock, et al. V.
Sterling Jewelers Inc., Case No. 08 civ. 2875, in the Southern
District of New York, and Case No. 11-16-00655-08 (aaa), before the
American Arbitration Association. [GN]

TABLE 87 GOWANUS: Removes Barroso Suit to S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of JORGE FLORES BARROSO, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TABLE 87
GOWANUS NYC LLC; TABLE 87 IC LLC; TABLE 87, FROZEN, LLC; and THOMAS
CUCCO, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the
Superior Court of the State of New York, County of New York (Case
No. 153303/2023) to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on June 9, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:23-cv-04864. The case is assigned to Judge Katherine
Polk Failla.

TABLE 87 GOWANUS NYC LLC owns and operates a pizza restaurant.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gregory S. Lisi, Esq.
          Alexander Leong, Esq.
          FORCHELLI DEEGAN TERRANA LLP
          333 Earle Ovington Blvd., Suite 1010
          Uniondale, NY 11553
          Telephone: (516) 248-1700
          Facsimile: (516) 248-1729
          Email: glisi@forchellilaw.com
                 aleong@forchellilaw.com

TARGET CORP: Fails to Reimburse Gift Cards' Remaining Balance
-------------------------------------------------------------
FATIMA VALDEZ and HAROLD ROBERTSON II, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Target Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 0:23-cv-01681-SRN-DJF (D. Minn., June 5, 2023)
arises from the Defendant's refusal to reimburse customers,
including Plaintiffs, for the remaining balance on their gift cards
in violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the Connecticut Unfair
Trade Practices Act, the Hawaii Unfair Competition Law, the Maine
Unfair Trade Practices Act, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, the
Rhode Island Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Vermont Consumer
Protection Act, and the Washington Consumer Protection Act.

Target, like most other national retailers, offers gift cards for
sale for use toward purchases in its retail stores and on its
website. Consumers purchase gift cards and add value to them at
Defendant's retail stores or on its website. The unused or
remaining balances on gift cards are ultimately claimed by the
issuing companies as revenue, enriching the issuing company at the
expense of the consumer. According to Target's own policies
regarding its gift cards, "Target GiftCards cannot be redeemed for
cash or credit except where required by law."

Contrary to Target's representation and its own stated policy that
gift cards can be redeemed for cash where state law requires that
option, Target makes its gift cards completely non-refundable and
denies customer refunds for the remaining value even when state
laws require it to do so. By so doing, Target has, upon information
and belief, illegally retained millions of dollars of customer
money and continues to do so, says the suit.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David M. Cialkowski, Esq.  
          Behdad C. Sadeghi, Esq.
          Charles R. Toomajian, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 341-0400  
          Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
          E-mail: David.Cialkowski@zimmreed.com
                  Behdad.Sadeghi@zimmreed.com
                  Charles.Toomajian@zimmreed.com

               - and -
          
          Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          205 N. Monroe St.
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: (215) 864-2800
          E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com

               - and -

          Alex Lee, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 782-4880
          Facsimile: (312) 782-4485
          E-mail: alee@caffertyclobes.com

               - and -

          Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
          Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
          SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
          1109 Lancaster Avenue
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (888) 711-9975
          Facsimile: (610) 421-1326
          E-mail: jgs@sstriallawyers.com
                  jbk@sstriallawyers.com

TRINITY HEALTH: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Brown of Bloomberg Law reports that Trinity Health
Corp. breached their duty to protect the personal information of
21,000 people that was exposed in a March data breach, a new
proposed federal class action said.

Jennifer Medenblik alleged Trinity Health failed to implement
adequate data-security practices, comply with industry
data-security standards and those required under the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or properly monitor
its network for intrusions.

Information exposed in the breach included names, addresses,
birthdates, driver's-license and state-identification numbers,
Social Security numbers, financial account information, medical
record numbers, Medicare and Medicaid identification numbers,
treatment information, diagnosis codes, dates of service and
discharge, prescription. [GN]

TROPICAL INDUSTRIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bautista Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
ELIA BAUTISTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TROPICAL INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:23-cv-03159 (D.N.J., June 9, 2023) seeks to recover from the
Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff Bautista was engaged by the Defendant as a sales
representative.

TROPICAL INDUSTRIES, INC. is a food manufacturer who contracts with
retail stores to carry and sell its products to the stores’
customers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
          Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
          Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          9 Tanner St. Ste 101
          Haddonfield, NJ 08033
          Telephone: (856) 685-7420
          Facsimile: (856) 685-7417

UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS: Seeks to Stay Class Cert Briefing in Valdez
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELA VALDEZ, RICKY
ABEYTA, MARK FRANKLIN, and MICHAEL CHILDS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS OF
VIRGINIA, LLC, a Virginia Limited Liability Company, Case No.
1:23-cv-01015-PAB-KLM (D. Colo.), Universal asks the Court to enter
an order staying briefing on the Plaintiffs' Motion so that it may
have a fair opportunity to conduct discovery comports with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, decisional law from this Court
and others, as well as this Court's civil practice standards.

The Plaintiffs' position on Universal's deadline to respond to
their motion not only fails to find support in the rules or case
law, but also runs contrary to the civil practice standards issued
by this Court. Under those practice standards, the presumptive
period for discovery in a case is six months.

The Plaintiffs filed their Individual and Class Action Complaint in
the District Court for Arapahoe County on March 13, 2023, and
Universal removed the action to this Court on April 24, 2023.
Universal answered the Complaint on April 28, 2023. On May 8, 2023,
the Court issued its Order Setting Scheduling/Planning Conference
setting the Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) conference for June 20, 2023.

No. 11. Eleven days later, on May 19, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed
their Motion for Class Certification.

Universal Logistics transports general freight, metal sheet, log
pole, building maintenance, large machinery, paper, and more.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 1, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CvtNJt at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David H. Miller, Esq.
          Victoria Guzman, Esq.
          THE WILHITE LAW FIRM
          1600 Ogden Street
          Denver, CO 80218
          Telephone: (303) 551-7667
          E-mail: dhmiller@wilhitelawfirm.com
                  vguzman@wilhitelawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          James T. Spolyar, Esq.
          SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
          10 West Market Street, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 637-1777
          Facsimile: (317) 687-2414
          E-mail: jspoloyar@scopelitis.com

                - and -

          Sterling J. LeBoeuf, Esq.
          DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS LLP
          1550 17th Street, Suite 500
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 892-9400
          Facsimile: (303) 893-1379
          E-mail: sterling.leboeuf@dgslaw.com

VARSITY BRANDS: Seeks to Strike Maki Declaration in Jones Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONES, ET AL., v. VARSITY
BRANDS, LLC, ET AL., Case No. 2:20-cv-02892-SHL-tmp (W.D. Tenn.),
the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order striking the Maki
Declaration.

The Defendants also request that the Court grant them leave to file
a surreply of up to twenty pages to address new arguments and
material presented in the Plaintiffs' Reply.

In light of the substantial volume of arguments and material
submitted by the Plaintiffs for the first time in connection with
their reply, good cause exists for the Defendants' requested
surreply.

The Defendants make this request for a joint surreply, instead of a
separate request for each the Defendant, to present necessary
responses to the Plaintiffs' arguments in the most efficient and
concise manner possible.

Pursuant to this Court's scheduling orders and Rules 16, 26, and
37, the Defendants move to strike the supplemental declaration of
the Plaintiffs' expert witness Jen Maki, PhD, submitted in
connection with their Reply in Support of Indirect Purchaser the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

The Defendants also seek leave to file a surreply in opposition to
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification to address the
substantial volume of new arguments and material in the reply.

Varsity Brands is an American apparel company owned by Bain
Capital.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 1, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qRSEEL at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          George S. Cary, Esq.
          Steven J. Kaiser, Esq.
          Linden Bernhardt, Esq.
          CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN &
          HAMILTON LLP
          2112 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 974-1500
          Facsimile: (202) 974-1999
          E-mail: gcary@cgsh.com
                  skaiser@cgsh.com
                  lbernhardt@cgsh.com

                - and -

          Jennifer Kennedy Park, Esq.
          Heather Nyong’o, Esq.
          CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN &
          HAMILTON LLP
          1841 Page Mill Road, Suite 250
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 815-4100
          Facsimile: (202) 974-1999
          E-mail: jkpark@cgsh.com
                  hnyongo@cgsh.com

                - and -

          Matthew S. Mulqueen, Esq.
          Adam S. Baldridge, Esq.
          Grady Garrison, Esq.
          Nicole Berkowitz Riccio , Esq.
          BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN,
          CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ
          165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 526-2000
          Facsimile: (901) 577-0866
          E-mail: mmulqueen@bakerdonelson.com
                  abaldridge@bakerdonelson.com
                  ggarrison@bakerdonelson.com
                  nriccio@bakerdonelson.com

                - and -

          Paul E. Coggins, Esq.
          Brendan P. Gaffney, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD LLP
          2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2800
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 740-8000
          Facsimile: (214) 740-8800
          E-mail: pcoggins@lockelord.com
                  bgaffney@lockelord.com

                - and -

          Edward L. Stanton III, Esq.
          S. Keenan Carter, Esq.
          BUTLER SNOW LLP
          6075 Poplar Avenue, Suite 500
          Memphis, Tennessee 38119
          Telephone: (901) 680-7336
          Facsimile: (901) 680-7201
          E-mail: Edward.Stanton@butlersnow.com
                  Keenan.Carter@butlersnow.com

WALLACE J 2755: Faces Tran Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
TRIEU TRAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WALLACE J 2755 SE FEDERAL HIGHWAY, LLC d/b/a
WALLACE CHRYSLER JEEP DODGE RAM, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-14164
(S.D. Fla., June 6, 2023) is a putative class action brought by the
Plaintiff pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the
Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant engages in unsolicited
text message marketing, including to individuals who have
registered their telephone numbers on the National Do-Not-Call
Registry, and to those who have not provided Defendant with their
prior express written consent as required by the FTSA. The
Defendant's unsolicited text message spam caused Plaintiff and the
Class members harm, including violations of their statutory rights,
trespass, annoyance, nuisance, invasion of their privacy, and
intrusion upon seclusion. The Defendant's text messages also
occupied storage space on Plaintiff's and the Class members’
telephones, says the suit.

Through this action, Plaintiff seeks an injunction and statutory
damages on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class members and any other
available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the alleged
unlawful actions of Defendant.

Wallace J 2755 SE Federal Highway, LLC, d/b/a Wallace Chrysler Jeep
Dodge Ram, is a jeep dealer based in Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street Suite 1744
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301

WALMART INC: Court Terminates Bid to Certify Class in Guzman
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Guzman et al v. Walmart
Inc., et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-09133 (N.D. Cal., Filed Nov. 24,
2021), the Hon. Judge Nathanael M. Cousins entered an order
administratively terminating motion to certify class in light of
stay of the case.

The Motion may be noticed for a new hearing date when the stay is
lifted. The termination is not on the merits, Judge Cousins says.

The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Employment.

Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores in the United States, headquartered in Bentonville,
Arkansas.[CC]



WALT DISNEY: Fraud Securities Class Action Suit May Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Corrina Murdoch of InsideTheMagic.com reports that Disney is in the
headlines, and this time it's not good press as a class action
lawsuit against The Walt Disney Company moves forward. While it's
not the first legal action the company's encountered, the nature of
this massive lawsuit is alarming.

Litigation, a fun legalese term for arguing, has always been a
method of finding order in chaos. There are two types: criminal and
civil. The latter deals with money, while criminal punishments tend
toward jail time or other corollary remedies.

And Disney's no newbie when it comes to the courtroom, both in its
shows and in the real world. There's the lawsuit that cost Dwayne
Johnson his job. The 2023 lawsuits in Florida became all the buzz.
Arrests after recent illegal activity led to dozens facing legal
action.

But, if you thought that one of these led to the class action
lawsuit against the Walt Disney Company, you’d be wrong. In the
end, it all comes down to the great greenback: money.

The class action lawsuit against the Walt Disney Company is a
matter of securities fraud.

According to official records, the fresh legal action is a result
of alleged false filings. The idea is that Disney used analytics to
estimate the top and bottom lines. These figures turned out to be
incorrect, to the estimation of $1.47 billion. The release of these
Q4 reports caused a drastic stock downturn of 13.2%.

The official class action alleges, "Disney+ was suffering
decelerating subscriber growth, losses, and cost overruns," and
that "the true costs incurred in connection with Disney+ had been
concealed by Disney executives by debuting certain content intended
for Disney+ initially on legacy distribution channels (. . .)"

Essentially, the suit claims that Disney knowingly misled vested
parties to the detriment of the plaintiffs. The lawsuit
representing the allegedly injured parties is actively seeking
those who meet the parameters. The deadline for participation is
July 11, 2023. [GN]

WELLS FARGO: Appellate Court Affirms Order Dismissing Rogers Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RALEIGH G. ROGERS, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO BANK,
N.A., Defendant, Case No. COA22-978 (N.C. App.), the Court of
Appeals of North Carolina affirms the trial court's order granting
Wells Fargo's motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant opened a fraudulent bank
account in his name in December 2013. He filed a complaint in the
superior court of Caldwell County, which was removed by Defendant
to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina.

The Defendant petitioned for dismissal in federal court for res
judicata, citing the judgment in Jabbari v. Wells Fargo & Co.,
No.15-CV-02159-VC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106294, 2017 WL 5157608,
at *3, (N.D. Cal. July 8, 2017), aff'd sub nom., Jabbari v. Farmer,
813 F. App'x 259 (9th Cir. 2020) (unpublished). Jabbari was a
nationwide class action settlement of all customer claims based on
the Defendant opening unauthorized or "fraudulent" accounts and
related misconduct from May 1, 2002 until April 20, 2017.

The trial judge in the Western District dismissed the Plaintiff's
claim on May 5, 2021, holding the judgment and settlement in Jabari
is binding on the Plaintiff, has a preclusive effect on his claims,
and any claims he might assert are subject to the exclusive
jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.

While the Defendant's motion to dismiss was pending in the Western
District, the Plaintiff filed this new action in Caldwell County
Superior Court in October 2020. He had a summons issued on April
19, 2021. The Defendant moved to dismiss or alternatively to stay
the action while the appeal proceeded in the federal action. The
superior court stayed the action following a hearing on Oct. 4,
2021.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the
dismissal of the Plaintiff's complaint. The Supreme Court of the
United States denied the Plaintiff's petition for writ of
certiorari.

The Defendant noticed the hearing on the pending motion to dismiss
and its intention to seek the court to lift the stay on June 27,
2022. Prior to the hearing, the Defendant drafted a letter to the
presiding judge, which provided background on the case's procedural
history and materials supporting their motion. The letter and
materials were sent through the trial court coordinator and the
Plaintiff was copied.

At the hearing on Aug. 23, 2022, a different judge, from whom the
letter and materials were provided, presided. The trial court
informed the parties he was taking the arguments under advisement.
The parties were told, if the court lifted the motion to stay and
dismissed the action, the Defendant's counsel would be asked to
prepare a proposed order. The trial court stated the parties would
be informed of his decision within two weeks.

The next day, the trial court coordinator advised the Defendant's
counsel the trial court was going to lift the stay and asked the
Defendant's counsel to draft a proposed order. The Defendant's
counsel drafted the proposed order and provided it to the Plaintiff
for review. The Plaintiff responded to the court and submitted a
draft order to lift the stay and deny the Defendant's motion to
dismiss. The Defendant's counsel submitted the proposed draft order
to the court to lift the stay and allow the motion to dismiss.

The trial court filed the Defendant's proposed order lifting the
stay and allowing the motion to dismiss on Sept. 19, 2022. The
Plaintiff emailed the trial court coordinator requesting a formal
investigation and court conference into any ex parte communications
with the Defendant and the trial court regarding how the
Defendant's counsel received "advance notice" of what the trial
court was going to rule prior to the expiration of two weeks. The
Plaintiff noticed his appeal to this Court.

The Plaintiff argues the trial court: (1) lacked neutrality; (2)
the trial court engaged in ex parte communications; (3) erred by
ruling his claims were barred by res judicata in Jabbari; (4) the
trial court erred by allowing his motion to dismiss; (5) violated
the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and North Carolina's
Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") by
dismissing his claim without a jury trial; and, (6) erred that by
dismissing his claims violated his due process rights in violation
of the Law of the Land Clause in Article I, Section 19 of the North
Carolina Constitution.

The Court of Appeals holds that the Plaintiff failed to raise the
trial court's purported lack of neutrality, alleged engagement in
ex parte communications, alleged violations of the ADA and our
State's RICO statutes, or his claim under the Law of the Land
Clause in argument or motion before the trial court or in a
post-hearing motion. It says the Plaintiff has waived appellate
review on these issues.

The Court of Appeals now turns to the Plaintiff's remaining issues
asserting the trial court erred by allowing the Defendant's motion
to dismiss for res judicata. It combines these issues for review.
It finds that the Plaintiff's claims all arise from the same
factual basis: the Defendant's admitted opening of an unauthorized
or "fraudulent" account in the Plaintiff's name. As the Western
District, the Fourth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court
all held, the Plaintiff met the class member description is
Jabbari, had actual notice of the settlement, and had failed to
affirmatively "opt out" to avoid the preclusive effect of the
settlement. Hence, the trial court properly dismissed the
Plaintiff's claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted for res judicata.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals concludes that the
Plaintiff litigated the same factual basis in federal court prior
to this action. Res judicata precludes him from relitigating the
same claims in this action. The Court of Appeals affirms the trial
court's conclusion to dismiss the Plaintiff's claim pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6) based upon res judicata. It is so ordered.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 6, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/47jepx7z from Leagle.com.

Raleigh Rogers pro se.

McGuire Woods LLP, by Bradley R. Kutrow -- bkutrow@mcguirewoods.com
-- and Abigail A. Golden -- agolden@mcguirewoods.com -- for the
Defendant-Appellee.


WEST VIRGINIA AMERICAN: Suit Over 2015 Line Break May Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Adkins of The Lincoln Journal reports that the West Virginia
Supreme Court of Appeals has ruled that a class action lawsuit may
proceed against West Virginia American Water over a 2015 line break
in Dunbar, West Virginia.

The high court issued the ruling this week denying West Virginia
American Water's request for a writ of prohibition seeking to undo
a Kanawha County Circuit judge's certification of the class action
in 2022. The lawsuit was originally filed in 2017 by Richard
Jeffries and Colours Beauty Salon. [GN]



WESTECH SECURITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carrasquillo Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANA CARRASQUILLO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WESTECH SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION
INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-04931 (S.D.N.Y., June 12, 2023)
seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Carrasquillo was employed by the Defendant as a security
guard.

WESTECH SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION INC. operates a security and
private investigation company under the name "WESTECH," which
provides services to both commercial and residential sites. [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 10011
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

WESTERN EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Martin Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS MARTIN; FREDERICK NEAL; and CARL McROBERTS, JR.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. WESTERN EXPRESS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-00775 (D. Conn., June 14, 2023) seeks to recover from the
Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as truck drivers.

WESTERN EXPRESS, INC. provides transportation solutions. The
Company offers truckload van, dedicated fleet, flatbed
transportation, expedited truck and rail, and logistics services.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter Goselin, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF PETER GOSELIN
          P.O. Box 331313
          Hartford, CT 06133
          Telephone: (860) 580-9675
          Email: pdgoselin@gmail.com

               - and -

          Hillary Schwab, Esq.
          Rachel Smit, Esq.
          FAIR WORK, P.C.
          192 South Street, Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 607-3260
          Email: hillary@fairworklaw.com
                 rachel@fairworklaw.com


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2023. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***