---

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

              Thursday, June 29, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 130

                            Headlines

A.M. WOODLAND: Underpays Landscape Production Managers, Short Says
ADVANCE PUBLICATIONS: Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Opposition
AETNA INC: Banks Alleges Third Party's Unauthorized Info Access
AGL ENERGY: Faces Class Suit Over Electricity Prices Manipulation
AIL HOSPITALITY: Class Cert Initial Disclosures Set for July 6

ALLEGIANCE ADMINISTRATORS: Class Cert Bid Replies Due July 17
ALLSTATE PROPERTY: Bid to Exclude Expert Opinions Nixed
AMAZON WEB: Faces Class Action Suit Over BIPA Violations
AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: Parties Must File Status Report by July 17
ANTHEM INSURANCE: A.S. Can't Proceed Under Pseudonym, Court Says

APCO INSULATION: Carabajo Bid for Conditional Status Partly OK'd
APR AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Ayala Wage-and-Hour Suit in M.D. Florida
APRIA HEALTHCARE: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Smith Claims
ASSURANCE IQ: Gardner Sues Over Alleged TCPA Violations
BALTIMORE COUNTY, MD: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Scott Suit

BETMGM LLC: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Over Free Gambling Bet Offers
BIG FISH: Seeks Denial of Campos Class Status Bid
BIO-TECHNE CORP: Bid to Dismiss Shane Class Suit Granted in Part
BLOCK INC: Motion to Dismiss in a Derivative Class Action Granted
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Bid for Leave to File Class Cert Document OK'd

BOYNE USA: Allowed Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal
BREE OGLE: Bid for Class Certification in Ray Due Dec. 6
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Altman Alleges Hotel Room Price Conspiracy
CAPITA PLC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Data Breach
CARLOS DEL TORO: Class Cert Hearing in Beasley Set for July 27

CHARLES SCHWAB: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Barbiero SLUSA Suit
CHARTER FOODS: Deadline to File Class Cert Responses Due June 30
CHECKPEOPLE LLC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Sept. 28
CHRISTIE'S INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Suit Over Unsolicited Texts
CNBC LLC: Discloses Subscribers' Info to FB, Nino Suit Contends

COMPLAINT QUAILS: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Vasquez Alleges
CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Griffin Settlement Gets Final Nod
CREATIVE SERVICES: Final Hearing in Breach Settlement Set Sept. 7
CRIMSON HOLDING: Faces Class Suit Over Facility's "Noxious" Smell
DARLING INGREDIENTS: Court Junks Sines Class Certification Bid

DELTA GROUP: McCombs Suit Tossed Over Subject Matter Jurisdiction
DIRECTV LLC: Settles Unsolicited Calls Class Suit for $16.85-M
DIVIDEND SOLAR: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in McCune
DONALD J. TRUMP: Court certifies Settlement Class in Denson Suit
DUNKIN' BRANDS: Court Dismisses Suit Over Unfair Pricing Practices

DZS INC: Faces Shim Suit Over 10.8% Drop in Share Price
EDWARD D. JONES: Court Narrows Claims in Zigler Discrimination Suit
EFG GENERAL: Renewed Bid to Remand Racca Suit to State Court Denied
EIGHT ELEVEN: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Unpaid OT for $318,000
ELON MUSK: Denies Ownership of Dogecoin in Securities Fraud Suit

ENERCON SERVICES: Munson Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
ENZO BIOCHEM: Fails to Protect Private Info, Epstein Suit Says
ENZO BIOCHEM: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Weinman Alleges
ENZO BIOCHEM: Garfinkel Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Access
FEDEX CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Odometer Fraud Scheme

FLORIDA A&M: Federal Court Questions Discrimination in Class Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Memorandum in Opposition to Class Cert Due June 30
HAPPY LIFE HOME: Faces Puerto Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
HARVARD PILGRIM: Faces Residents Class Suit Over Data Breach
HAWAII: Attorneys' Fees Award in E.R.K. v. HIDOE Affirmed in Part

HI-LEX AMERICA: Faces Boyer FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
IMPERIAL METALS: Proposed Settlement in Securities Suit Gets OK
JBS USA: Agrees to Settle Beef Antitrust Class Suit for $25M
JEA SENIOR: $125K Class Settlement in Bowen Suit Wins Prelim. Nod
KAISER FOUNDATION: Sued Over Unlawful Disclosure of Patients' Info

KATZ TIRES: Green Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Tire Technicians
KAWASAKI KISEN: Third Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Amended Alban Suit
KIA MOTORS: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Stolen Cars for $200-Mil.
LOOK ENTERTAINMENT: McPherson Sues Over Labor Law Violations
MANAGED CARE: Carter Sues Over Third-Party Access of Personal Info

MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS: Martinez Sues Over Labor Code Violations
MDL 3010: State of Texas v. Google LLC Remanded to E.D. Tex.
MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Securities Suit in NY Court Dismissed
MERCY HEALTH: Faces Two Class Suits Over Hospital Data Breach
MISSOURI: Agrees to Pay $5M for Abuse Class Action Suit

NATIONSBENEFITS LLC: Clancy Sues Over Alleged Data Breach
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Teran Suit
NISSAN NORTH: Seeks Decertification in Sunroof Breakage Class Suit
NOVOCURE LTD: Faces Class Suit Over Clinical Trial Data Omission
OLIVERI & ASSOCIATES: Settles Smith FDCPA Class Suit for $415,000

OLYMPIA TRUST: Appellate Court Upheld Denying Trustee Class Suit
OREGON: Compelled to Make Gleim Ready for Deposition in Maney Suit
OVERHILL FARMS: Rivera Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Solomon Sues Over Share Price Drop
PENTAGON FEDERAL: Faces Class Action Suit Over CIPA Violations

PERK INDUSTRIES: Keegan Class Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
PETERBOROUGH, ON: Settlement Hearing in Privacy Suit Set Aug. 30
PHARMERICA CORP: Fails to Secure Private Info, Marallo Suit Says
PLACE FOR ROVER: Settles Misclassification Class Action for $18M
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Class Certification Denial in Cagle Suit Upheld

PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MD: Loses Renewed Bid to Toss Frazier Suit
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Faces Class Suit Over MOVEit Data Breach
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Secure Drivers' Info, Berry Claims
R&B CORP: Hamilton Sues Over Improper Disclosure of Personal Info
REDSTONE CREDIT: Settles Overdraft Class Action Lawsuit for $3.7M

RHAPSODY INTERNATIONAL: Attorneys' Fees in Class Action Discussed
RIVER NORTH TRANSIT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Lewis Suit Claims
RIVERA INC: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Pacheco Suit Alleges
ROBLOX CORP: Settles Online Gaming Purchases' Class Suit for $10M
ROCKET MORTGAGE: Seeks Decertification in Appraisal Practices' Suit

ROERS COS: Faces Class Suit Over Housing Complexes' Toxic Fumes
RXO LAST: Bid to Compel Class List in Muniz Suit Granted in Part
SAGINAW COUNTY, MI: Fox Files Bid for Class Certification
SEQUOIA CAPITAL: Siskind Sues for Fraud, Misappropriation of Funds
SIX FLAGS: Court Dismisses Class Suit Over Securities Violations

ST. PAUL'S SENIOR: Faces Class Suit Over BIPA Violations
STATEBRIDGE CO: Lopez FDCPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
SUTHERLIN NISSAN: Fails to Properly Pay Mechanics, Cadenas Says
SYCAMORE, IL: State Appeals Ruling in Unsafe Water Suit Discussed
SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY: Settles Female Faculty Staff Labor Suit

TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Dismissal of Crosby Tugs' Claims Denied
TALEN PIZZA: Allen Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unreimbursed Costs
TECH MAHINDRA: Appellate Court Revives Williams Discrimination Suit
THUNDER BAY, ON: Court Certifies Pinhole Leak Class Action Suit
TIVITY HEALTH: Stockholders Class in Strougo Suit Certified Again

UDEMY INC: Settlement Final OK Hearing in False Ads Suit on July 28
UINTAH BASIN: Hyatt Sues Over Compromised Patients' Health Info
UNITED SERVICES: Leavitt Sues Over Suppressed Rights, Breached Duty
UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Underpays Security Guards, Carlton Alleges
UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE: Settles Class Suit Over Campus Shutdown

WEST VIRGINIA: Heard Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Hospital Staff
WHOLE FOODS: Uses Sales Tax to Overcharge Customers, Suit Says

                            *********

A.M. WOODLAND: Underpays Landscape Production Managers, Short Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN RYDER SHORT, on behalf of himself and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff v. A.M. WOODLAND
OUTDOOR DESIGN, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, A.M.
LANDSCAPE & DESIGN, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company, AM
LANDSCAPE ROCKY MOUNTAIN, LLC, a Colorado limited liability
company, and DANIEL C. MIGACZ, individually, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-01472 (D. Colo., June 9, 2023) arises from the Defendants'
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado
Minimum and Pay Standards Order, and the Colorado Wage Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants applied a common policy
as to Plaintiff and other employees at their Colorado location, in
that Defendants failed to compensate employees all earned overtime
wages by a) not compensating employees for all overtime hours
actually worked, b) not compensating employees at the proper
overtime rate, or c) implementing allegedly improper salary
exemption(s) which resulted in non-payment of overtime wages.

Additionally, throughout all times pertinent to Plaintiff's claims
herein, the Defendants applied common policies, developed by AML's
owners and managers, that were embedded in its management policies
and procedures relative to Plaintiff and other employees, says the
suit.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants in approximately August
2022 and separated in April 2023 as a landscape production manager
performing manual duties related to Defendants' landscaping and
construction business.

A.M. Woodland Outdoor Design is a Colorado limited liability
company that owns and operates a landscaping, construction and snow
removal business in Colorado, Illinois and other states.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel D. Engelson, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          7900 E. Union Ave., Suite 1100
          Denver, CO 80237
          Telephone: (720)-386-9006

               - and -

          John William Billhorn, Esq.  
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1137
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312)-853-1450

ADVANCE PUBLICATIONS: Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Opposition
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Anderson v. Advance
Publications, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-06826-AT (S.D.N.Y.),
the Defendant move the Court for a two-week extension of time (from
June 21, 2023, to July 5, 2023) to file its opposition to the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The Defendant contends that it has met and conferred with the
Plaintiff's counsel, and the Plaintiff consents to the requested
extension.

On April 17, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a letter motion seeking
leave to file a motion for class certification. The Defendant filed
a response letter on April 24, 2023, explaining that it did not
oppose the Plaintiff’s ability to file a motion for class
certification, but that the Defendant expected to oppose the motion
on the merits after reviewing the Plaintiff's arguments and
evidentiary submission.

The Court granted the Plaintiff's request to file a motion for
class certification on April 25, 2023. The order set May 31, 2023,
as the deadline for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification,
with the Defendant's opposition due by June 21, 2023, and the
Plaintiff's reply due by July 5, 2023, the Plaintiff filed his
motion on May 31, 2023.

Accordingly, the Defendant proposes a corresponding two-week
extension in the Plaintiffs reply deadline, leading to the
following schedule:

-- By July 5, 2023: The Defendant shall file its opposition to the

                    Plaintiff's motion for class certification

-- By July 19, 2023: The Plaintiff shall file his reply, if any.

Advance Publications is a privately-held American media company.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 9, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XkPS7u at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jaime A. Santos, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          1900 N Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 346-4034
          E-mail: JSantos@goodwinlaw.com

AETNA INC: Banks Alleges Third Party's Unauthorized Info Access
----------------------------------------------------------------
BEVERLY BANKS, ANGELA BRODRICK, TRACY BUSSELL, RANDALL CARTER,
JAMES CRAIG, JOHN DAVIS, DENISE EMERY, BRENDA GILPATRICK, WILLIAM
S. HENRY, KIMBERLY HOFFMAN, ROGER JACKSON, PAMELA LAZAROFF, STEPHEN
LAZAROFF, NANCY PATERSON, ROBERTA PLATT, MICHELLE RONNE, KEVIN
STONE, RODERICK VEAZEY, NICOLAS VENEZIA, VALARIE VENEZIA, CYNTHIA
WHITES, and RICHARD XAVAR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AETNA INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-00779-JCH (D. Conn., June 15, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of confidence, invasion
of privacy, and violations of state laws.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action against the Defendant for
its (i) failure to properly secure and safeguard highly valuable,
protected personally identifiable information (PII); (ii) failure
to comply with industry standards to protect information systems
that contain private information; (iii) unlawful disclosure of the
private information of the Plaintiffs and other members of the
class; and (iv) failure to provide adequate notice to the
Plaintiffs and other members of the class that their private
information had been disclosed and compromised.

As a result of the Defendant's negligence, the Plaintiffs and Class
members are at a substantially increased risk of identity theft,
both currently and for the indefinite future, the suit says.

Aetna Inc. is a diversified health care benefits company based in
Hartford, Connecticut. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Steven L. Bloch, Esq.
         Johnathan Seredynski, Esq.
         Brett Burgs, Esq.
         SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
         One Landmark Square, Floor 15
         Stamford, CT 06901
         Telephone: (203) 325-4491
         Facsimile: (203) 325-3769
         E-mail: isloss@sgtlaw.com
                 sbloch@sgtlaw.com
                 jseredynski@sgtlaw.com
                 bburgs@sgtlaw.com

                 - and -
       
         Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
         Erin G. Comite, Esq.
         SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
         The Helmsley Building
         230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
         New York, NY 10169
         Telephone: (212) 223-6444
         Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
         E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
                 ecomite@scott-scott.com

AGL ENERGY: Faces Class Suit Over Electricity Prices Manipulation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Miklos Bolza of The New Daily reports that AGL Energy has been
accused of "gaming" the wholesale electricity market by using bids
to inflate power prices and cause higher bills for consumers.

A class action filed in the NSW Federal Court seeks to compensate
customers for "significant losses" caused by AGL's alleged
manipulation of the electricity market which affected downstream
prices charged to homes and businesses.

Piper Alderman, the law firm behind the lawsuit, said it had been
investigating anomalous spikes in the spot price of electricity in
South Australia between 2013 and 2020.

" (It) is alleged in the class action that certain price spikes
have been caused by AGL adopting 'gaming' strategies in their
supply of electricity," the firm wrote.

"By gaming of the system, it is alleged that AGL has created an
artificial scarcity of supply in the NEM, inflated electricity
prices for consumers and prevented other generators from competing
for market share."

The energy giant is claimed to have made what is known as an
"initial dispatch offer" for the price of electricity coming from
its South Australian power stations and then putting in a
late-stage rebid to push the price up further.

"AGL took advantage of its market power for the substantial purpose
of deterring or preventing competing generators from engaging in
competitive conduct," the class action pleadings say.

"AGL's contraventions were a cause (of) the prices set under
default market offers being higher than the prices otherwise would
have been."

These offers took place on the South Australian Region of the
National Electricity Market, a wholesale exchange operated by the
Australian Energy Market Operator where generators sell the
electricity produced.

The lead applicant in the class action, SA Country Pubs, runs the
Griffins Head Hotel at Adelaide's Hindmarsh Square and claims it
was overcharged for its power bills because of AGL's misconduct.

The firm says it paid more than $474,000 for electricity from June
1, 2017 until the class action was filed on June 1 this year.

In a market with high barriers of entry for new generators or the
expansion of existing ones, AGL had significant competitive power
in the SA market, SA Country Pubs says.

This includes providing more than 37 per cent of all electricity
across the state in the 2017 financial year, documents filed with
the court claim.

Competitors were also unable to come in with lower bids because AGL
allegedly opted to make its rebids at the last minute.

"AGL engaged in the short-notice rebidding in reliance on the
substantial degree of power held by it in the market," the
statement of claim says.

"(AGL) stood to gain greater financial reward from successful
short-notice rebidding than a smaller generator."

This market power allowed AGL to create bids which the Australian
Energy Market Operator would have to accept to dispatch electricity
through the grid, the class action says.

If successful, the lawsuit could lead to AGL paying damages,
compensation and legal costs to overcharged consumers in South
Australia.

In an ASX announcement, AGL said it had been served with the class
action and stood by its actions.

"AGL takes its compliance obligations seriously and intends to
vigorously defend the proceedings," it said.

The matter is scheduled to come before the Federal Court on July
13. [GN]

AIL HOSPITALITY: Class Cert Initial Disclosures Set for July 6
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT BORDNER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AIL
HOSPITALITY, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00033-SPB (W.D. Pa.),
the Hon. Judge Susan Paradise Baxter entered an initial scheduling
order as follows:

   1. Initial disclosures pursuant to              July 6, 2023.
      Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) shall be
      made by:

   2. Joinder of additional parties shall be completed within 90
      days after any order granting or denying collective and class

      action certification.

   3. Amendments to the pleadings shall be filed within 30 days
after
      the close of the post-certification opt-in period or within
90
      days after an order denying collective or class action
      certification.

   4. The ADR process shall be completed by August 5, 2023. The
      parties shall file a Notice with the Court identifying the
      neutral chosen by the parties and the date of the ADR
proceeding
      by June 13, 2023.

   5. The parties shall complete fact discovery on conditional and

      class certification issues by October 30, 2023.

   6. A mid-discovery status conference is scheduled for September
8,
      2023.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 6, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JkaiHO at no extra charge.[CC]

ALLEGIANCE ADMINISTRATORS: Class Cert Bid Replies Due July 17
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cohen et al v. Allegiance
Administrators, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-03411 (S.D. Ohio, Filed July
7, 2020), the Hon. Judge Kimberly A Jolson entered an order on
motion for extension of time to file response/reply regarding
Defendant Allegiance Administrator's Motion for Summary Judgment
and the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification:

  -- Responses due by:                     June 26, 2023

  -- Replies due by:                       July 17, 2023


But the parties are advised that future extension requests will be
denied.

The nature of suit states Diversity-Contract Dispute.[CC]


ALLSTATE PROPERTY: Bid to Exclude Expert Opinions Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GLENN DURGIN, v. ALLSTATE
PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., Case No. 6:19-cv-00721-RRS-CBW
(W.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Carol B. Whitehurst entered an order
denying motion to Exclude Expert Opinions of Nicole N. Zakowicz
filed on behalf of the Defendant.

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, Nicole Zakowicz's, opinion regarding vehicle
valuation is acceptable.

The Court disagrees with Allstate's interpretation of Zakowicz's
report.

Allstate Property operates as an insurance service provider.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 6, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4475T2R at no extra charge.[CC]


AMAZON WEB: Faces Class Action Suit Over BIPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Andy Nghiem of Madison – St. Clair Record reports that a class
action lawsuit alleges the voice identification system used by
Amazon to identify customers violates Illinois privacy laws.

Plaintiffs Christine McGoveran, Joseph Valentine and Amelia
Rodriguez filed the class-action lawsuit in the Madison County
Circuit Court against Amazon Web Services, Inc., citing negligence
and carelessness in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act (BIPA).

According to the lawsuit, Amazon Web Services offers a service
labeled "Amazon Connect" in which the company uses a "cloud-based
contact center service" to facilitate customer calls between
Illinois citizens and its agents from afar. The company advertises
that Amazon Connect integrates with a set of tools, including a
feature provided by Pindrop Security, Inc. that allows Amazon's
call centers to confirm the identity of callers by the sound of
their voice instead of a passcode. Pindrop describes the service as
being able to authenticate callers by "extracting . . .
intelligence from every call encountered." Amazon Connect, through
the use of the built-in Voice ID feature, uses biometric data
captured from Illinois citizens to confirm their identity.

The lawsuit states that BIPA laws require that prior to collecting
biometric data, companies must inform visitors in writing that
biometric data will be collected and stored. It also states that
visitors must be informed in writing of the specific purpose of why
the biometric data is being collected and how long it will be
stored. Additionally, companies must receive a written release for
the collection of biometric data.

The plaintiffs allege Amazon invades the privacy of its customers
by collecting and storing their biometric data without informed
consent. According to the plaintiffs, Amazon never received a
release from them for the collection of their biometric data, and
they never authorized Amazon to collect their biometric data for
this use. They add that Amazon does not have written, publicly
available policies identifying how long it will store biometric
data or information for permanently destroying customers' biometric
data.

The plaintiffs are demanding a jury trial to seek damages for
themselves and everyone in the class action lawsuit, plus court
costs, attorney fees and any other relief the court deems proper.
They are also requesting the court to issue an order requiring
Amazon to comply with BIPA and cease the collection of biometric
data without informed written consent. They are represented in this
case by the attorneys of Schlichter, Bogard & Denton LLP in St.
Louis.

Madison County Circuit Court case number 2023LA000690 [GN]

AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: Parties Must File Status Report by July 17
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Qureshi v. AMERICAN
UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-01141 (D.D.C., Filed May 1, 2020), the
Hon. Judge Christopher R. Cooper entered an order setting class
certification bid deadline:

  -- The parties shall file a joint status        July 17, 2023
     report by informing the Court of the
     status of settlement discussions and,
     if appropriate, re-setting relevant
     discovery and briefing deadlines,
     including deadlines regarding expert
     discovery and deadlines for remaining
     class certification briefing:

The nature of suit states diversity-breach of contract.

The American University is a private federally chartered research
university in Washington, D.C.[CC]

ANTHEM INSURANCE: A.S. Can't Proceed Under Pseudonym, Court Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, A. S., Plaintiff v. ANTHEM INSURANCE COMPANIES, INC.,
NATIONS BENEFITS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00693-TWP-MG
(S.D. Ind.), Judge Mario Garcia of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division:

   a. denies the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed Under a
      Pseudonym; and

   b. grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiff's Motion to
      Seal the Motion for Leave to Proceed Under a Pseudonym.

Pending before the Court are two motions in this putative class
action concerning an alleged data breach. First is the Plaintiff's
Motion for Leave to Proceed Under a Pseudonym. Second is a Motion
to Seal the Motion for Leave to Proceed Under a Pseudonym and the
corresponding brief in support. The Defendants have not responded
to either motion to express their positions on the matters, the
time for doing so having passed.

Addressing the Motion for Leave to Proceed Under Pseudonym first,
Judge Garcia observes that the Plaintiff's motion does not comply
with the Court's Local Rules which require a litigant seeking to
proceed under a pseudonym to at the time of filing of his or her
initial pleading file a Notice of intention to seek leave to
proceed under pseudonym and disclose the litigant's true name with
the notice being maintained under seal. The Plaintiff is also
required to file contemporaneously with the Notice a motion to
proceed under pseudonym, setting forth the justification under
applicable law. The notice was never filed, and instead, on April
30, 2023, the Plaintiff filed the instant Motion, with A.S.' true
identity improperly revealed within the text of the (now sealed)
Motion.

Setting aside the procedural missteps, the Plaintiff's Motion asks
to proceed semianonymously, using only his or her initials, "A.S."
A.S. argues that proceeding under only initials is appropriate here
because A.S. is an alleged victim of a healthcare data breach and
is therefore concerned about privacy and security should A.S.' name
be included in this action and made publicly available. A.S. says
the Defendant will suffer no undue prejudice if the Court permits
A.S. to proceed under initials.

Judge Garcia states that the Court has previously used a six-factor
test to evaluate whether a plaintiff's interest in proceeding
anonymously outweighs the strong public interest in open courts.
The factors include: (1) whether the plaintiff is challenging
governmental activity or an individual's actions; (2) whether the
plaintiff's action requires disclosure of information of the utmost
intimacy; (3) whether the action requires disclosure of the
plaintiff's intention to engage in illegal conduct; (4) whether
identification would put the plaintiff at risk of suffering
physical or mental injury; (5) whether the defendant would be
prejudiced by allowing the plaintiff to proceed anonymously; and
(6) the public interest in guaranteeing open access to proceedings
without denying litigants access to the justice system.

Because the relevant factors on balance weigh against the
Plaintiff, Judge Garcia denies the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to
Proceed Under a Pseudonym. Pursuant to S.D. Ind. L.R. 10-1(e), the
Plaintiff will have 14 days after entry of the Order to re-file the
Complaint using his or her true name.

The Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Seal Docket Entries 10 and 11
in which A.S. asks the Court to continue to maintain under seal the
Motion for Leave to Proceed Under a Pseudonym and the corresponding
brief in support. The Motion does not even attempt to satisfy the
Court's requirements for sealing documents. The only argument the
Plaintiff advances is that the Court should seal these filings "to
protect the Plaintiff's filing until further order of the Court."

Judge Garcia permits the Plaintiff's name to be protected for now,
while A.S. decides how to proceed considering the above ruling on
the Motion for Leave to Proceed Under Pseudonym. Pursuant to S.D.
Ind. L.R. 5-11(d)(2)(A)(i), the Plaintiff is to file a redacted
version of the Motion, with the Plaintiff's name redacted. The
brief in support does not contain the Plaintiff's real name, and
therefore will be unsealed.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Garcia denies the Plaintiff's Motion
for Leave to Proceed Under a Pseudonym. Pursuant to S.D. Ind. L.R.
10-1(e), he orders the Plaintiff to re-file the Complaint using his
or her true name within 14 days of entry of the Order. Failure to
do so will result in dismissal of the lawsuit.

Judge Garcia grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiff's
Motion Seal Docket Entries 10 and 11 as follows: The Motion is
granted to the extent the Clerk is directed to maintain Filing No.
10 under seal. The Plaintiff is further ordered to file a redacted
version of Filing No. 10 within 21 days of the Order. The Motion is
denied to the extent the Clerk is directed to unseal Filing No. 11
within 21 days of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3b599mdb from Leagle.com.


APCO INSULATION: Carabajo Bid for Conditional Status Partly OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIGUEL CARABAJO, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. APCO INSULATION CO
INC., KRESCO BEAMALINDRIC Case No. 1:22-cv-04175-PKC-SJB
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sanket J. Bulsara entered an order
granting in part and denying in part Carabajo's motion to
conditionally certify a collective Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
action.

  -- The collective extends to current and former non-exempt
     mechanical insulators or individuals who worked as an
insulation
     installer for the Defendants in New York City for a three-year

     period.

  -- In addition, the revised proposed notice to be sent to the
     potential opt-in parties should be submitted to the Court for

     final approval by June 23, 2023, Other requests regarding the

     notice form, distribution, and other matters are resolved as
     detailed above. the Defendants' motion to strike is denied.

Carabajo requests that the Court require the Defendants to post
notice and the accompanying consent forms at their business
locations. The Court finds that this, too, is appropriate.

The Plaintiff Carabajo commenced this FLSA and New York Labor Law
(NYLL) case against the Defendants APCO Insulation Co., Inc. and
Kreso Bezmalinovic on July 15, 2022.

Carabajo has moved for conditional certification of a FLSA
collective of all current and former employees employed by the
Defendants as non-exempt laborers or similarly situated employees
between July 15, 2016 and the present.

Carabajo contends that he did not receive overtime pay for all the
hours worked over 40 hours per week. He was "required to come into
work fifteen minutes before [he] could clock-in" and worked before
he was permitted to clock in but was not paid for that time.

Carabajo resides in Queens, New York.

APCO Insulation is a building insulation and construction company
with its principal place of business at 33-46 55th Street in
Woodside, New York.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43T0Bby at no extra charge.[CC]

APR AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Ayala Wage-and-Hour Suit in M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE J. AYALA, JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APR AUTOMOTIVE, INC., d/b/a REED
NISSAN CLERMONT, Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-00372 (M.D. Fla., June
15, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for unpaid
minimum wages and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Mr. Ayala worked for Reed Nissan as an automotive mechanic and
service technician in Orange County, Florida.

APR Automotive, Inc., doing business as Reed Nissan Clermont, is an
authorized dealership of Nissan North America, with its principal
place of business in Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Kevin K. Ross-Andino, Esq.
         ECLAT LAW, PA
         307 Cranes Roost Boulevard # 2010
         Altamonte Springs, FL 32701
         Telephone: (407) 636-7004
         E-mail: kevin.ross@eclatlaw.com

APRIA HEALTHCARE: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Smith Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
LISA SMITH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. APRIA HEALTHCARE LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-01003-RLY-KMB (S.D. Ind., June 9, 2023) is a class action
against Apria for its failure to properly secure and safeguard
Plaintiff's and other similarly situated Apria patients' personally
identifiable information and protected health information,
including personal, medical, health insurance information, and
financial information, and Social Security numbers, from criminal
hackers.

On September 1, 2021, Apria received notification regarding access
to its systems by an unauthorized third party and, through its
investigation, determined that a threat actor had access to its
systems from April 5, 2019 to May 7, 2019, and again from August
27, 2021 to October 10, 2021. Apria filed official notice of a
hacking incident on May 22, 2023. Thus, Apria waited in some cases
over three years to disclose the Data breach to impacted victims.
As a result of this delayed response, Plaintiff and Class Members
had no idea for years 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, says the suit.

The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit to address Apria's
inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private information that
it collected and maintained, and its failure to provide timely and
adequate notice to Plaintiff and Class Members of the types of
information that were accessed, and that such information was
subject to unauthorized access by cybercriminals, the suit alleges.


Apria Healthcare LLC, based in Indianapolis, Indiana, is a provider
of home medical equipment for sleep apnea and other medical
conditions, serving medical providers and patients across the
country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kathleen A. DeLaney, Esq.
          DELANEY & DELANEY LLC
          3646 North Washington Blvd.
          Indianapolis, IN 46205
          Telephone: (317) 920-0400
          E-mail: kathleen@delaneylaw.net

               - and -

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

ASSURANCE IQ: Gardner Sues Over Alleged TCPA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
RAMSEY GARDNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. ASSURANCE IQ, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-03665 (N.D. Ill., June 9, 2023), arises out of the
Defendant's violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff Gardner alleges that the Defendant is engaged in calling
thousands of consumers and playing artificial or prerecorded voice
messages marketing their services. In addition, the Defendant does
not obtain express written consent prior to placing these
artificial or prerecorded voice calls. The Plaintiff has received
numerous unsolicited prerecorded voice messages from Defendant
without his prior express consent and despite the fact that he is
registered on the National Do-Not-Call registry. Through this
action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's
unlawful conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy,
harassment, aggravation and disruption of the daily life of
countless individuals.

Assurance IQ is a Washington limited liability company that
provides direct-to-consumer insurance solutions throughout the
state of Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS ZELMAN LLC
          701 Cookman Ave, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695-3282
          Fascimile: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com

BALTIMORE COUNTY, MD: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Scott Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL A. SCOTT, et al., Plaintiffs v. BALTIMORE
COUNTY, MARYLAND, Defendant, Civil Case No. SAG-21-00034 (D. Md.),
Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland:

     a. grants the County's motion for summary judgment; and

     b. denies the Plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment.

Scott and the other Class Members -- all current or former inmates
at the Baltimore County Detention Center ("BCDC") -- brought the
class action against the County. The Plaintiffs allege the County
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et
seq. and its state-law equivalent, by failing to pay them minimum
wage and overtime when they worked off-site during their
incarceration as work detail employees at the Baltimore County
Department of Public Works' recycling facility.

The County's Executive Branch is comprised of multiple agencies,
including the Department of Corrections ("DOC") and the Department
of Public Works ("DPW"). DOC oversees the BCDC, where the
Plaintiffs served or are serving sentences as inmates. DPW operates
the County's Material Recovery Facility ("MRF"), a recycling
facility where the Plaintiffs helped process collected recycled
material by standing along conveyor belts and sorting trash from
recyclable material.

Although the parties dispute specifics regarding the inmates' work
experiences, the Plaintiffs generally stood at the conveyor belts
picking out trash from the recycled material brought into the
facility. Work detail inmates worked approximately nine-to-ten
hours a day (including breaks) and worked closer to 11-to-12 hours
a day during the holiday season, when DPW anticipated an increase
in recycling. DPW requested from DOC the additional work hours from
the inmates during the busier holiday season, which DOC typically
accommodated. The Plaintiffs worked alongside temporary employees
hired by DPW to perform the same job for fewer hours, in exchange
for minimum wage.

Ultimately, the Plaintiffs received $20 per day for their labor,
along with some opportunities for bonuses and industrial credits to
reduce their remaining time served. The MRF work detail was the
highest paying assignment, given the inmates' general disinterest
in working at the facility and the County's interest in using
inmate labor to staff the sorting positions.

In January 2021, Scott, on behalf of himself and other Class
Members, brought the case against the County for its alleged
violation of federal and state employment laws. Specifically, they
assert that the County willfully violated the FLSA by failing to
pay minimum wage (Count I) and overtime (Count II), willfully
violated the Maryland Wage and Hour Law ("MWHL") by failing to pay
minimum wage (Count III) and overtime (Count IV), and willfully
violated the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law ("MWPCL")
(Count V), which requires an employer to timely pay an employee all
wages owed.

Following discovery, the Defendant moved for summary judgment
arguing that the Plaintiffs could not be "employees" under the
FLSA. In the alternative, it asserted that even if the Plaintiffs
are "employees" under the FLSA, there is no evidence of any willful
violation of the federal and state employment laws. In the
Plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment, they argue that the
economic reality of their working relationship is one of
employment, and therefore the FLSA applies. In the alternative,
they request the Court grants summary judgment for the Plaintiffs
who were recommended for work release but kept on the work detail
program or grant summary judgment against the Defendant's claim
that the work was involuntary.

Judge Gallagher has reviewed the motion and all of the related
briefing and has determined that no hearing is necessary. She finds
that the County oversees both DOC and DPW. Thus, she reviews the
Plaintiffs' circumstances considering (1) the purpose of their work
program, (2) the nature of the working relationship between the
Plaintiffs and the Defendant, and (3) the purposes of the FLSA.

First, as reflected in the case law, Judge Gallagher opines that
the rehabilitative purpose of the work detail program weighs
against application of the FLSA in the case, regardless of the
additional profit motive. She says the Fourth Circuit has held that
a profit does not eliminate the non-pecuniary goals of the
rehabilitative work program. Thus, the nonemployee-status of
detainees is not altered by the private, for-profit nature of the
detention facility. For this reason, the fact that the Defendant,
through DOC, has a rehabilitative purpose for its program weighs
against application of the FLSA.

Second, Judge Gallagher opines that although the Plaintiffs may
choose whether to participate in a voluntary work program, they
have that opportunity solely at the prerogative of the custodian.
The Fourth Circuit noted that DOC wields virtually absolute control
over the inmates to a degree simply not found in the free labor
situation of true employment. Inmates may voluntarily apply for
work detail positions, but they certainly are not free to walk off
the job site and look for other work. When a shift ends, inmates do
not leave DOC supervision, but rather proceed to the next part of
their regimented day. The parties do not enjoy the
employer-employee relationship contemplated in FLSA, but instead
have a custodial relationship to which the Act's mandates do not
apply.

Thus, Judge Gallagher holds that the Fourth Circuit's strong
language against the recognition of any inmate bargaining power
necessitates that she views bargained-for exchange of labor as
weighing against the application of the FLSA.

Lastly, Judge Gallagher opines that the case more closely resembles
work programs operated by or for the prison. For one, any economic
advantage attained by DPW through the work detail program flowed up
to the County, and in turn, financed BCDC and its inmates. Granted,
the record is unclear about the precise flow of revenue and the
benefit that BCDC specifically received. However, the fact that the
economic benefits remain within the County and are not transmitted,
in whole or in part, to a private third party distinguishes this
case from Burrell and other cases concerned about unfair
competitive advantage. Thus, the County's economic advantage in the
market similarly does not merit application of the FLSA. Given the
Plaintiffs are not "employees," their claims under the FLSA, the
MWHL, and the MWPCL fail as a matter of law.

For these reason, the County's motion for summary judgment is
granted and the Plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment is
denied. A separate Order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 9, 2023 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5n8y829f from Leagle.com.


BETMGM LLC: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Over Free Gambling Bet Offers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien of Legal Newsline reports that BetMGM is fighting a
class action lawsuit over free bet offers by pointing to an
arbitration agreement to which it says the plaintiff agreed.

The online gambling platform filed a motion to dismiss June 12 in
New York federal court in Kenneth Sales' lawsuit, which claims
BetMGM lures novice gamblers with deceptive offers.

Sales created his account and used BetMGM's services through its
Arizona platform. He then placed and lost a $10 bet.

"Three months later, Mr. Sale filed a nationwide putative class
action against BetMGM, launching a host of meritless consumer
protection claims concerning BetMGM's sign-up promotions and
marketing materials. But the Court should not wade into the merits
of Mr. Sale's claims because they belong in binding arbitration."

BetMGM's sign-up process included a box to check that the user had
read the terms of service. The text was written in bold and the
terms were available through a hyperlink.

The terms included an agreement to arbitration "all other actions
or proceedings arising in connection with, touching upon, or
relating to these terms, the service(s) (including the gaming
services), the platforms, wagering transactions, the site, the app,
or the alleged breach of these Terms of Service."

The terms also included a broad class action waiver, the motion
says.

"Mr. Sale cannot avoid the Terms of Service by claiming he never
read them," the motion adds. "Mr. Sale cannot reasonably contest
that he was unaware of the Terms of Service, either . . .

"Here, BetMGM provided Mr. Sale with clear and conspicuous notice
of the Terms. The final step of the sign-up flow process featured
in the largest text on the screen, in bold type, flushed center,
and at the top: 'confirm that you've read the terms of service
below.'"

Sale alleges in his class action that BetMGM uses "untruthful and
deceptive promises" in an effort to sign up new customers by
offering a "free bet or risk-free bet." He claims BetMGM uses
complicated deals such as requiring a deposit and if the bet loses,
the customer is credited with the amount lost not in cash but in
bet credits that must be used on the BetMGM app and expire in seven
days.

Sale further claims BetMGM's customers would then receive no
compensation for subsequent bets and would have to win a subsequent
bet or a series of bets just to break even. He alleges that
BetMGM's actions cause gambling novices to gamble "over their
heads."

Sale and the class seek monetary relief, interest, trial by jury
and all other just relief. They are represented by Andrew Shamis of
Shamis & Gentile PA in Miami; Jeffrey Kaliel and Sophia Goren Gold
of Kalielgold PLLC in Washington, D.C.; and Adam Schwartzbaum of
Edelsberg Law PA in Aventura, Florida. [GN]

BIG FISH: Seeks Denial of Campos Class Status Bid
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nathan Campos, v. BIG FISH
GAMES INC., a Washington corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-01806-RSM
(W.D. Wash.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order
denying certification of the Plaintiff's alleged classes.

The Defendant contends that no discovery is needed to decide this
Motion. There can be no dispute that (a) the Plaintiff is seeking
to represent classes that consist of tens of thousands of persons
who are parties to the Big Fish arbitration agreement and/or to the
Kater settlement release, (b) the claims of those persons cannot be
presented in this case unless those agreements are held to be
unenforceable, and (c) the Plaintiff is not a party to either
agreement and therefore lacks standing to challenge their
enforceability.

There are no facts not in the Plaintiff's possession that could
affect the legally mandated result that the Plaintiff’s classes
cannot be certified. The Plaintiff's counsel has suggested that
some users of the Games might not have been presented with the TOU
at all, and that the Plaintiff could adequately represent such
individuals.

In this suit, Plaintiff Campos seeks to represent tens of thousands
of players of two mobile video games produced by defendant Big Fish
Games, Inc., Big Fish Casino and Jackpot Magic Slots.

The Plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of four putative classes,
with a national class and a "California subclass" for each Game.

The Plaintiff defines these classes as follows:

   "All persons in the [United States or California] who, within
the
   applicable statute of limitations, paid money for an in-game
   purchase in [Big Fish Casino or Jackpot Magic Slots] advertised

   using False Strikethrough Ads or False Limited Time Specials."

   The Plaintiff’s class definition does not exclude parties to
Big Fish's arbitration agreement.

Big Fish is a casual mobile gaming company that operates the social
casino-style games Big Fish Casino and Jackpot Magic Slots.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 7, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42NAQrG at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Vanessa Soriano Power, Esq.
          Alissa Harris, Esq.
          STOEL RIVES LLP
          600 University Street, Suite 3600
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 624-0900
          E-mail: vanessa.power@stoel.com
                  ali.harris@stoel.com

                - and -

          Emily Johnson Henn, Esq.
          Lindsey Barnhart, Esq.
          Kevin Hoogstraten, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          3000 El Camino Real
          5 Palo Alto Square
          Palo Alto, CA 94306
          Telephone: (650) 632-4700
          E-mail: ehenn@cov.com
                  lbarnhart@cov.com
                  khoogstraten@cov.com

BIO-TECHNE CORP: Bid to Dismiss Shane Class Suit Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Ryan Shane, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bio-Techne Corporation, Defendant,
Civ. No. 22-3039 (JWB/ECW) (D. Minn.), Judge Jerry W. Blackwell of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota grants in
part and denies in part Bio-Techne's Motion to Dismiss.

The case joins the growing collection of litigation over employment
practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. As vaccines against the
disease became more widely available in 2021, state and federal
authorities adjusted safety requirements and public health
guidance. Employers across the country responded by implementing
employee vaccination requirements, with much of the enforcement
culminating in fall 2021. Lawsuits from former employees appeared
shortly thereafter.

In this purported class action, Dr. Shane contends that Bio-Techne,
his former employer, discriminated against him based on his
religious beliefs and based on a perceived disability, by denying
him a religious exemption from the company's mandatory COVID-19
vaccination policy and terminating his employment for failing to
comply with the policy.

Bio-Techne is a Minneapolis-based biotechnology company that
develops and manufactures products used in medical and drug
research. It hired Dr. Shane as a Virologist Lead Scientist in June
2021.

Dr. Shane often worked by himself in Bio-Techne's facility, either
in his office or a lab. He interacted with coworkers mostly by
email or by phone and did not work directly with customers or
vendors. He would meet weekly with his manager either virtually or
in person (while masked and social-distanced when required).

In early October 2021, Bio-Techne announced that employees who work
at its United States offices or facilities had to be vaccinated
against COVID-19 by Nov. 1, 2021. It planned to resume normal
operations, with all employees working on site on that date. It
expected the U.S. government to require employers like it to have a
vaccine requirement in place. The announcement informed employees
about exemptions: "If you believe that you have a legitimate reason
for a legally permitted exemption from this vaccine requirement,
please contact your local Human Resources representative as soon as
possible."

Dr. Shane was not vaccinated against COVID-19. He wished to remain
that way, so on Oct. 13, 2021, he requested a religious exemption
from the vaccine requirement. Human Resources emailed him the
request form and the message: We are encouraging employees to
complete the form honestly with their sincerely held religious
belief/practice so the committee can begin to research those
values."

After receiving Dr. Shane's request, Human Resources sent him a
questionnaire about his work duties, workspace, and proposed
accommodations, which he answered. A representative then
interviewed Dr. Shane about his beliefs and allegedly stated that
religious accommodations were problematic for the business, but Dr.
Shane's proposed accommodations were not specifically discussed.

A few weeks later, Bio-Techne denied Dr. Shane's exemption request
by email. It decided there was no sufficiently safe and acceptable
accommodation or alternative to vaccination. The company informed
him that remaining unvaccinated would pose an undue hardship, extra
administrative burdens and costs, and an unreasonable safety risk
to others. The email gave a final warning: "In the event you choose
to remain unvaccinated, then your final day with the Company will
be Nov. 30, 2021, because you will no longer meet the requirements
for employment."

Dr. Shane replied to voice skepticism about Bio-Techne's claimed
hardships and to question "why the company has not been willing to
consider any potential alternatives" to vaccination. Bio-Techne
responded that it could not implement or monitor Dr. Shane's
accommodation compliance to ensure workplace safety. Dr. Shane
elected to remain unvaccinated and was eventually terminated.

Just over a year later, Dr. Shane sued Bio-Techne, alleging that
the company never intended to grant his accommodation request and
discriminated against him by judging his religious beliefs to be
incompatible with science. He claims the alleged misconduct
violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII")
(Count I) and the Minnesota Human Rights Act ("MHRA") (Count II).

Dr. Shane also alleges that Bio-Techne fired him based on its
perception that his immune system was deficient without a COVID-19
vaccine. He claims this constitutes illegal "regarded as"
disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA") (Count III) and the MHRA (Count IV).

Bio-Techne moves to dismiss Dr. Shane's claims with prejudice.

Judge Blackwell holds that applying Title VII's definition of
"religion" to recognize a failure-to-accommodate claim under the
MHRA would create an obligation that is otherwise absent. Dr. Shane
therefore cannot claim that Bio-Techne failed to accommodate his
religion under the MHRA. Accordingly, Judge Blackwell analyzes only
whether Dr. Shane states such a claim under Title VII.

Neither party contests Dr. Shane's allegations that (1) he holds a
sincere religious belief that conflicts with Bio-Techne's
vaccination requirement, (2) he informed Bio-Techne of that belief
when he requested and was denied a religious exemption from the
requirement, and (3) that his choice to remain unvaccinated was the
basis for terminating his employment. Those allegations suffice to
establish a prima facie case of failure to accommodate, so the
analysis turns to Bio-Techne's undue hardship defense.

Judge Blackwell holds that Bio-Techne's undue hardship defense
cannot be resolved at the pleading stage. Discovery may indeed
confirm that accommodating Dr. Shane would have led to hardship.
Procedurally, summary judgment is more appropriate for resolving
that question. Hence, Bio-Techne's motion is denied as to Dr.
Shane's failure-to-accommodate claim under Title VII.

To the extent Dr. Shane asserts a separate claim of direct
religious discrimination, Judge Blackwell finds that he fails to
adequately plead it. Dr. Shane does not allege that he was replaced
by a non-religious worker or by a religious worker who did not
request a vaccine exemption. Nor does he allege that Bio-Techne
discharged him for any plausible reason other than his
non-compliance with a mandatory vaccination policy that applied to
all U.S.-based employees. As pleaded, Dr. Shane cannot plausibly
claim that Bio-Techne treated him and other religious objectors
differently from non-religious objectors. That component of his
Title VII claim (to the extent Dr. Shane means to pursue it) is
therefore dismissed with prejudice.

Judge Blackwell also dismisses Dr. Shane's claim that Bio-Techne
violated the MHRA by making improper religious inquiries. He says
the claim fails at the outset because the MHRA prohibits requests
for information about religious beliefs "before a person is
employed." Setting aside the threshold question of whether an
employee can plausibly allege or has standing to claim that
misconduct occurred during interviews of job applicants, Dr.
Shane's sparse, conclusory allegations are not sufficient to state
the claim.

Finally, Dr. Shane does not (and cannot) plausibly allege that
Bio-Techne perceived him as anything more than non-compliant with
its vaccination policy, much the less that it perceived him as
having a physiological disorder or condition. Dr. Shane cannot
claim "regarded as" discrimination under either the ADA or the MHRA
based on his vaccination choice. Hence, Judge Blackwell dismisses
those claims with prejudice.

Because Dr. Shane's only plausible claim is that Bio-Techne failed
to accommodate his religion, Bio-Techne's Motion to Dismiss is
granted in part and denied in part. Judge Blackwell denies the
Defendant's motion as to the claim that it failed to accommodate
his religious beliefs in Count I of Dr. Shane's Complaint. He
grants the Defendant's motion as to the remainder of Count I and
dismisses the remainder of that count with prejudice. He grants the
Defendant's motion as to Counts II, III, and IV of the Complaint,
and dismisses those counts with prejudice in their entirety.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 9, 2023 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3vtr9xsz from
Leagle.com.

Nicholas J. Nelson, Esq. -- nicholas.nelson@crosscastle.com -- and
Samuel W. Diehl, Esq. -- sam.diehl@crosscastle.com -- CrossCastle
PLLC, counsel for the Plaintiff.

Anna F. Barton, Esq. -- anna.barton@maslon.com -- Charles G.
Frohman, Esq. -- charles.frohman@maslon.com -- Stephanie M. Laws,
Esq. -- stephanie.laws@maslon.com -- Maslon LLP, and Melissa R.
Muro LaMere, Esq. -- mmurolamere@swlaw.com -- Snell & Wilmer, LLP,
counsel for the Defendant.


BLOCK INC: Motion to Dismiss in a Derivative Class Action Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Priya Cherian of JD Supra reports that a New York business
professor called it a "$300 million bar tab to hang out with
Jay-Z." A Delaware judge said that "by all accounts, it was a
terrible business decision."

Despite numerous red flags, Jack Dorsey's company Block Inc.
(formerly Square) acquired Jay-Z's failing music-streaming company,
TIDAL, in a deal that was conceptualized as the two businessmen
summered in the Hamptons together.

The deal was not received well, particularly by a Block pension
fund shareholder who launched a derivative class action against
Block's directors.

Fortunately for Block, a Delaware judge dismissed the lawsuit in
May because the plaintiffs failed to plead demand futility; this
was despite the other details of the case that showed it was, in
fact, a terrible deal.

A Brief Background on the TIDAL Acquisition
Shawn Carter, aka Jay-Z, acquired a Norwegian-based music-streaming
company in 2015 and rebranded it as TIDAL, with the goal to
introduce a more artist-friendly streaming platform.

However, by 2020, the company was failing, having logged
multimillion-dollar losses for 10 quarters straight.

The company had other woes, too, like blowing through five
different CEOs, unpaid liabilities to music labels, and an ongoing
criminal investigation in Norway for artificially inflating
streaming numbers, to name a few.

Despite the company's failings, someone might still want to acquire
it. Enter Jack Dorsey.

Why would Dorsey, the CEO of Block (a financial technology
company), want to acquire the music-streaming platform --
especially since, according to court documents, Block had "never
ventured into the music-streaming industry and, at the time it
acquired TIDAL, had no plans to do so."

Of course, many great business deals come out of collaborations
between friends. But there are plenty of details around this
particular case that show it was a bad move, leaving people to
wonder why Dorsey was so eager to push ahead.

Details of the case reveal that:

Dorsey proposed the acquisition during a video conference with the
company board while he was in the Hamptons vacationing with the
Carters.

Block's Transaction Committee's first meeting only lasted 35
minutes.

Block management highlighted the potential risks of the deal to the
Transaction Committee, including the fact that TIDAL only had a
paltry 2.1 million subscribers and it would be difficult to grow
that number with competitors like Spotify (which, by contrast, had
138 million subscribers) and others. Other risks included the
criminal investigation, the company losses, a federal lawsuit,
expired contracts, bad relationships with musical artists, and
more.

Existing artists with TIDAL would have no legal obligation to Block
after the merger.
There were no plans to integrate the company into Block, and the
Transaction Committee was aware that the lack of a clear
operational/strategic lead was one of the greatest risks of the
deal.

Block management estimated that the acquisition would generate a
negative EBITDA for Block of $68.3 million by 2023.

Dorsey was the only executive who was strongly advocating moving
forward with the deal, and there was already substantial pushback
from senior executives.

On this last point, it has to be said: Dorsey has an impressive
track record as a business visionary given that he's a co-founder
of both Twitter and Block. This would not have been the first time
he was a strong "yes" in the face of a lot of naysayers.

In any case, Block completed the acquisition on April 30, 2021.
After the deal closed, Carter joined the Block board of directors
as its 12th member.

The Court's Decision
Given the facts of the situation, it is unsurprising that
shareholders brought suit alleging that Dorsey and the board had
breached their fiduciary duties. Perhaps plaintiffs thought the
facts were so egregious they had a slam dunk case.

The court, however, was not impressed by the plaintiff's failure to
allege demand futility. As a result, notwithstanding the facts of
the situation, Block won its motion to dismiss in May 2023.

The demand requirement is a prerequisite for bringing a derivative
suit under Delaware law and states that before bringing suit, the
stockholder must demand that the board look into a shareholder's
allegations.

Demand is excused, however, if it is futile, meaning that the board
lacks the ability to look at the allegations objectively as
independent directors are required to do.

When the plaintiff filed their complaint, the board was composed of
12 members -- Dorsey, Carter, the four Transaction Committee
members, and six other board members.

In her decision, Delaware Judge Cathleen McCormick referred to a
previous Delaware case in United Food and Commercial Workers Union
v.  Zuckerberg stating that in order for the plaintiff to prove
that the Block board was not impartial, it would need to show that
at least six of the 12 directors were not able to make an
independent decision.

This would require that the court consider the following:

Did the director receive a "material personal benefit" from the
alleged misconduct;
Does the director "face a substantial likelihood of liability" on
any of the plaintiff’s claims; and

Does the director have a relationship with someone who could be
described by the first two items listed?

Given the relationship between Dorsey and Carter, Dorsey clearly
lacked the ability to be impartial.

I'm grateful for Jay's vision, wisdom, and leadership. I knew TIDAL
was something special as soon as I experienced it, and I'm inspired
to work with him. He'll now help lead our entire company, including
Seller and the Cash App, as soon as the deal closes.
https://t.co/YRfYjcWJQx pic.twitter.com/xBtq2xfwue

-- jack (@jack) March 4, 2021

Of course, the plaintiffs were betting on the lack of impartiality
of Dorsey and Carter as board members -- but what about the rest of
the board?

Ultimately, Judge McCormick held that the plaintiff had failed to
meet its burden relating to the other 10 board members.

Did Block Directors Act in Bad Faith?
Since the other directors did not have a relationship-independence
issue, under Zuckerberg, the demand would only be futile if a
majority of board members faced a substantial likelihood of
liability.

Block, however, has director exculpation provisions in its
certificate of incorporation. As a result, the directors would only
face liability if they acted in bad faith during the deal.

After a lengthy analysis, Judge McCormick found that the board did,
in fact, do the work necessary during the deal. She noted that the
board formed an independent Transaction Committee that received
reports and asked numerous questions.

In her words, while the facts of the case "do not generate
tremendous confidence in the transaction committee's process, they
fall short of supporting an inference of bad faith."

As to the involvement of board members not on the Transaction
Committee, the plaintiff's arguments fell flat overall. The
plaintiff argued that the remaining defendants merely failed to
meaningfully supervise the Transaction Committee's process and
should have intervened to stop the TIDAL acquisition.

However, the court noted that because the plaintiff had not
"adequately alleged that the Transaction Committee's approval of
the TIDAL acquisition rose to the level of bad faith, it is
difficult to imagine how the Board's lack of 'supervision' of that
process did so."

In other words, if the Transaction Committee did not act in bad
faith, the other directors' alleged lack of supervision does not
come into play.

Ultimately, Judge McCormick granted Block's motion to dismiss,
concluding that "because Plaintiff failed to adequately allege with
particularity facts giving rise to a reasonable doubt that a
majority of the Board was disinterested or lacked independence with
respect to the TIDAL acquisition, Plaintiff failed to plead that
demand was futile."

Takeaways
No director wants to be pulled into a bad M&A deal. Bad deals
destroy shareholder value and certainly do not enhance the
reputations of the directors involved.

That said, as the court in the Block case so succinctly notes:
"Under Delaware law … a board comprised of a majority of
disinterested and independent directors is free to make a terrible
business decision without any meaningful threat of liability, so
long as the directors approve the action in good faith."

While that sentiment seems extreme, it underscores Delaware's
respect for boardroom processes when those processes are conducted
by independent directors in good faith.

This case highlights the fact that yes, you can make a terrible
deal, but if directors have done all the right things during the
M&A process, they can reduce their risk.

Of course, in a world where even good deals are challenged by
plaintiffs, directors should certainly expect to be sued if they
approve a controversial deal.

This is why, if there is even a hint of social connections in the
mix, forming an M&A transaction committee is an excellent defensive
move.

Also, in addition to documenting a robust and independent process,
directors will want to make sure they have an updated personal
indemnification agreement and the best possible D&O insurance in
place. [GN]

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Bid for Leave to File Class Cert Document OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Boston Scientific Corporation
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:20-cv-12225 (D. Mass., Filed Dec.
16, 2020), the Hon. Judge Douglas P. Woodlock entered an order on
motion for leave to file document.

The Court grants assented to motion for leave to file reply
memorandum, to the extent that such reply brief is not redundant of
the brief in support of the motion for class certification and
addresses only matters raised in defendants' opposition which were
not reasonably foreseeable when their initial brief in support of
the motion for class certification was filed.

Boston Scientific is a biomedical/biotechnology engineering firm
and multinational manufacturer of medical devices used in
interventional medical specialties.

The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act.[CC]

BOYNE USA: Allowed Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWRENCE ANDERSON, as
trustee for the LAWRENCE T. ANDERSON AND SUZANNE M. ANDERSON JOINT
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, ROBERT AND NORA ERHART, and TJARDA CLAGETT,
v. BOYNE USA, INC., BOYNE PROPERTIES, INC., AND SUMMIT HOTEL, LLC,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00095-BMM (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Brian Morris
entered an order granting the Defendants' unopposed motion for
leave to file exhibits under seal.

  -- Exhibit D and Exhibit E to Boyne's Reply in Support of Motion
to
     Strike or Deny Class Certification may, for now, be filed
under
     seal pursuant to the Court's Stipulated Confidentiality Order.


Boyne USA owns and operates mountain resorts.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 6, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43NhvIs at no extra charge.[CC]



BREE OGLE: Bid for Class Certification in Ray Due Dec. 6
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ray v. Bree W. O Ogle, et
al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01265 (N.D. Ohio, Filed July 18, 2022), the
Hon. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan entered an order as follows:

  -- Motion for class certification is due Dec. 6, 2023.

  -- Telephonic Status Conference is set for Aug. 31, 2023.

The suit alleges violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
involving consumer credit.


CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Altman Alleges Hotel Room Price Conspiracy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit alleges a host of Atlantic City hotel and casino
heavyweights have illegally conspired to fix, raise and stabilize
hotel room prices.

The sprawling 109-page case alleges the operators of Caesars,
Harrah's, Tropicana, Borgata, Bally's, MGM Tower, Hard Rock and
other Atlantic City hotels have for years used a "shared pricing
algorithm" platform to conspire on room prices, causing consumers
to overpay for guest rooms rented directly from the companies since
at least late June 2018.

As the lawsuit tells it, the casino-hotel operators'
anticompetitive scheme has worked given that room rates and revenue
have spiked during the relevant time period.

"The numbers reveal substantial increases in room rates and revenue
coupled with marked decreases in occupancy rates, while casino
gaming revenue from the same period increased at a much lower
rate," the antitrust suit says.

Until recently, casino-hotels set their room rates independently
from each other as dictated by market forces, the filing explains.
Given that casino-hotels aim primarily to increase demand for
on-site gambling, they have historically offered low room rates so
as to fill hotels with guests who might gamble in a hotel's casino,
rather than that of a competitor, the suit says.

However, a seismic shift began when a platform was developed and
released by The Rainmaker Group to help hospitality clients
"capture revenue they believed was being lost during the process of
competing for guests," the case states. This pricing algorithm,
which Cendyn has come to refer to as "the hotel revenue and profit
optimization cloud" after acquiring it in 2019, is designed to
"optimize" room rates casino-hotels charge guests in order to
"maximize" the corresponding revenue, the filing shares.

"At a basic level, the algorithm platform works like this: Each
casino-hotel client provides its current, non-public room pricing
and occupancy data to the platform on a continuous basis. In turn,
the algorithm continuously processes and analyzes this information,
along with the same type of data the client's participating
competitors also submit to the platform, and other relevant supply
and demand-related data. The algorithm utilizes this continuous
flow of real-time data to obtain a clear and complete picture of
market supply and demand and competitive dynamics at any given
time. The algorithm ultimately uses this information to generate
'optimal' room rates, updated multiple times per day, for each
client to charge guests."

The defendants, which own and operate most of the casino-hotels in
Atlantic City, each began using Cendyn's pricing algorithm sometime
before June 28, 2018 after a "sustained period of financial
distress," the complaint says. As the Atlantic City casino-hotel
defendants recovered financially, conditions existed for the
companies to “raise room rates through their shared use of the
Rainmaker platform," knowingly fixing, stabilizing and artificially
inflating room prices in coordination with each other, the lawsuit
contends.

"In doing so, Casino-Hotel Defendants replaced a historically
independent room pricing system in Atlantic City with an
interdependent, collusive one," the case summarizes.

The suit says that it is "hardly surprising" that Atlantic City
casino-hotels have come to use Cendryn's pricing algorithm given
the company's assurance that it can help increase revenue. Indeed,
statistics touted by Cendyn show that the pricing algorithm has
come to be an essential, indispensable tool for casino-hotel
operators as far as setting room rates, the lawsuit states.

Most importantly for the defendants, the suit alleges, is the
comfort in knowing that they can increase hotel room rates while
their competitors will not undercut them.

"Casino-Hotel Defendants' shared use of the Rainmaker pricing
algorithm platform … has allowed them to charge more for rooms
while knowing that their competitors would not lower their own room
rates to take share—i.e., what would have happened under normal
competitive conditions," the case contests.

Per the case, defendant Cendyn Group, LLC has heavily promoted
"collective adherence" to its algorithm’s pricing
recommendations, and key personnel have emphasized that revenue
managers must recognize that a "race to the bottom" price-wise in
the market need not be the only solution when competition becomes
fierce. Cendyn personnel have delivered the common message to
casino-hotel clients that they must "see the importance of a
disciplined group revenue solution," the filing adds.

"This direct evidence of collusion is enough to prove an antitrust
violation," the lawsuit alleges.

The lawsuit looks to cover all persons who have directly purchased
a guest room in Atlantic City, New Jersey from one or more of the
defendants (listed below) or their alleged co-conspirators since at
least June 28, 2018.

Named as defendants are Caesars Atlantic City Hotel & Casino,
Harrah's Resort Atlantic City Hotel & Casino, Tropicana Casino and
Resort Atlantic City, MGM Resorts International, Borgata Hotel
Casino & Spa, Hard Rock Hotel & Casino Atlantic City and Cendyn
Group, LLC. According to the case, the defendants, minus Cendyn,
have controlled at least between 72 percent and 80 percent of the
hotel-casino market share in Atlantic City since June 2018. [GN]

CAPITA PLC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------
Adrian McGarry of Experts Exchange reports that Capita faces first
legal letter over alleged data breach.

Capita, a UK-based IT services company, has been served with its
first legal letter over an alleged data breach that could have
affected up to 9.5 million people. The letter, sent by Barings Law
on behalf of a group of affected individuals, alleges that Capita
failed to adequately protect the personal data of its customers,
which could have led to the data being stolen by criminals.

The data breach is said to have occurred between January and March
2023. It could have affected customers of many businesses using
Capita's services, including the Department for Work and Pensions,
the NHS, and the Ministry of Justice. The data that was allegedly
stolen could include names, addresses, dates of birth, and National
Insurance numbers.

Capita denied wrongdoing and said it is "confident that our
customers' data are safe and secure." However, the company has said
it is "cooperating fully" with the investigation.
The legal letter is the first sign of potential legal action
against Capita over the alleged data breach. If the case goes to
court, it could set a precedent for other cases involving data
breaches by large companies.

The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), the UK's data
protection regulator, is investigating the alleged data breach. The
ICO can fine companies up to £4 million for data breaches.

The alleged data breach by Capita is a severe incident that could
significantly impact the company and its customers. It is important
to note that the allegations have not been proven, and Capita has
denied any wrongdoing. However, the legal letter and the ICO
investigation suggest the allegations are serious and could lead to
legal action.

What caused the Capita data breach?

An exposed Amazon S3 bucket potentially caused the data breach at
Capita. Amazon S3 is a popular cloud-based service that allows
businesses to store data online. However, if an S3 bucket is not
correctly configured, anyone can access it, including threat
actors.
It is alleged in the case of the Capita data breach, an S3 bucket
containing sensitive data was left publicly accessible, which
allowed cyber criminals to steal the data, which included names,
addresses, dates of birth, and National Insurance numbers.

The Capita data breach is just one example of the many data
breaches that misconfigurations in cloud-based services have
caused. Organizations must protect their data and take steps to
configure their cloud-based services appropriately, reviewing their
configurations regularly.

What can be done to deter future breaches?

There are many things that businesses can do to deter future data
breaches, including:
Properly configure cloud-based services: When using cloud-based
services, it is important to properly configure them to ensure that
only authorized users can access the data.

Regularly review cloud-based service configurations: Businesses
should periodically review the configurations of their cloud-based
services to ensure that unauthorized users have not changed them.

Implement robust cybersecurity measures: Businesses should
implement strong cybersecurity measures, such as advanced threat
detection and response capabilities, regular security assessments,
employee training, and collaboration with industry peers and law
enforcement agencies.

By taking these steps, organizations can help to protect their data
from threat actors.

What is the Impact of the Capita data breach?

The Capita data breach has significantly impacted the company and
its customers. The breach has led to the loss of sensitive data,
which threat actors could use to commit identity theft or other
crimes.

The breach has also damaged Capita's reputation and led to this
legal letter from affected customers.

The Capita data breach is a reminder of the importance of data
security. Organizations need to take steps to protect their data
from threat actors.

By following the tips outlined above, companies can help to protect
their data and prevent future data breaches. [GN]

CARLOS DEL TORO: Class Cert Hearing in Beasley Set for July 27
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BEASLEY, et al., v. DEL
TORO et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00667 (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge
Christopher R. Cooper entered an order that the parties should
appear for a hearing on the plaintiffs' pending Motion for Class
Certification and the government's pending motion for voluntary
remand on July 27, 2023.

The nature of suit other statutes -- other statutory actions.[CC]

CHARLES SCHWAB: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Barbiero SLUSA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LAUREN MARIE BARBIERO, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants
v. CHARLES SCHWAB INVESTMENT ADVISORY, INC.; THE CHARLES SCHWAB
CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees, No. 22-15932 (9th Cir.), the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the district
court's dismissal of the Plaintiffs-Appellants' putative class
action complaint.

Lauren Barbiero and other named plaintiffs appeal the district
court's dismissal of their putative class action complaint against
Charles Schwab Investment Advisory, Inc. and Charles Schwab
Corporation (collectively, "Schwab") as precluded by the Securities
Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ("SLUSA").

The Plaintiffs' state law claims involve Schwab's handling of their
assets in their Schwab Intelligent Portfolios ("SIP") accounts.
They contend that by over-concentrating clients' assets in cash,
Schwab imposed an "undeclared fee" and contravened clients'
investment objectives. Thus, even though misrepresentation is not
an element of all of the Plaintiffs' causes of action, the gravamen
of the claims is a deceptive practice actionable under federal
securities law.

The Plaintiffs argue that any misrepresentations and omissions were
not, however, material to a decision by one or more individuals
(other than the fraudster) to buy or sell a 'covered security,'
taking the case out of SLUSA's class action bar. However, the
Plaintiffs allege that the deceptive conduct here directly affected
the "trading strategies" in their SIP accounts, not just their
decision to keep those accounts open or their relationship with
Schwab.

The fact that Schwab, rather than the Plaintiffs themselves, did
the actual buying and selling of securities is inapposite because
the complaint makes plain that the Plaintiffs had control over
Schwab's decision to buy and sell securities on their behalf, the
Ninth Circuit holds. It thus agrees with the district court that
SLUSA precludes the Plaintiffs' claims.

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
declining to grant leave to amend. According to the Ninth Circuit
it is clear on de novo review that the Plaintiffs' complaint could
not be saved by amendment. No amendment would change the conclusion
that deceptive statements or conduct form the gravamen or essence
of the claim. Thus, it cannot say that the district court abused
its discretion.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 9, 2023 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/pe3wr4j4 from Leagle.com.


CHARTER FOODS: Deadline to File Class Cert Responses Due June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GALLAGHER v. CHARTER
FOODS, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00049 (W.D. Pa., Filed Jan. 10,
2020), the Hon. Judge Robert J. Colville entered an order granting
motion for extension of time to file:

  -- The deadline to move for class certification under Rule 23 and

     final certification and decertification of the conditionally
     certified collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act
is
     extended to June 16, 2023.

  -- The deadline for Responses to the motions is June 30, 2023,
and
     the deadline for any Replies is July 17, 2023.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Charter Foods was founded in 1997. The Company's line of business
includes the retail sale of prepared foods and drinks for
on-premise consumption.[CC]


CHECKPEOPLE LLC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Sept. 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gaul v. CheckPeople, LLC,
Case No. 1:21-cv-01313 (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E.
Hawley entered an order on motion for extension of time to complete
discovery:

  -- Class Certification motion to be filed        Sept. 28, 2023
     by Miscellaneous Deadline of:

  -- Responses to class certification              Oct. 19, 2023
     motion due by:

  -- Replies in support of class                   Nov. 2, 2023
     certification motion due by:

  -- Dispositive Motions due by:                   Dec. 21, 2023

The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Personal Property Damage.[CC]

CHRISTIE'S INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Suit Over Unsolicited Texts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric J. Troutman of The National Law Review reports that so another
real estate brokerage looks to be in hot water over unsolicited
texting by agents.

A new case filed in New York district court alleges Christies
International Real Estate agent Mary Jo Ann Byrne sent repeated
unwanted text messages in a bid to convince the Plaintiff to use
her services.

The case is Weingberg v. Christies, which you can read here:
Christie's Complaint

In the complaint Plaintiff contends he received these text messages
without consent.
The texts apparently continued despite a lack of any response. (It
does not appear that the plaintiff texted "stop" however.)

To make matters more personal, Plaintiff provides a picture of the
agent he blames for the text in the Complaint.

Mercifully, however, Ms. Byrne is not named personally in the
lawsuit–although she could have been.

The Complaint seeks to represent a class of All persons in the
United States who from four years prior to the filing of this
action through trial (1) Defendant (or an agent acting on behalf of
the Defendant) texted and/or called more than one time, (2) within
any 12 month period, (3) where the person's residential telephone
number had been listed on the National Do No Call Registry for at
least thirty days, (4) for substantially the same reason Defendant
called and/or texted Plaintiff

The defendant has not yet responded to the complaint.

This filing is yet another reminder of the dangers of unsolicited
texting–particularly in the real estate context where these cases
have been pouring in.

Under the TCPA's DNC rules, marketing texts cannot be sent to
numbers on the national DNC list without express written consent or
an established business relationship. This is true even if the
texts are sent "p2p" or manually–so watch out.

Real estate agents, in particular, have been guilty of violating
the DNC rules recently as companies target agents with "lead lists"
of FSBO or former listings–or just neighborhood level data–that
the agents then load into systems and send texts to. This practice
can be EXTREMELY dangerous–as the folks over at Christie's just
found out. [GN]

CNBC LLC: Discloses Subscribers' Info to FB, Nino Suit Contends
---------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE NINO, SANDRA SION, and JOSEPH WAWROCKI, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. CNBC LLC, Case No.
7:23-cv-05025-CS (S.D.N.Y., June 14, 2023) sues the Defendant for
disclosing Plaintiffs' personally identifiable information to
Facebook without notifying Plaintiffs and without Plaintiffs'
consent, in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act.

The Plaintiffs are subscribers of Defendant's website, cnbc.com.
When someone becomes a subscriber to the Defendant's Website, they
receive emails from the Defendant with links to articles and videos
published on the Website. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant
monetizes its Website by knowingly collecting and disclosing its
subscribers' PII to Facebook, namely data that personally
identifies subscribers and the videos they view. The video
name/description and Facebook ID are sent to Facebook together and
at the same time as a single piece of data.

The Plaintiffs did not consent to the disclosure of their PII, in
writing or otherwise, and the Defendant did not attempt to obtain
Plaintiffs' consent in a form separate and distinct from other
legal obligations. The Defendant also did not provide the
Plaintiffs with an opportunity to withdraw from the disclosure of
their PII. The Defendant's disclosure of Plaintiffs' PII was not
related to an ordinary course of business (e.g., debt collection,
order fulfillment, request processing, or any transfer of
ownership), the Plaintiffs allege.

The surreptitious disclosure of PII (i.e., an individual's FID
paired with a URL and the name/description of video content they
view) is an outrageous invasion of privacy and would be offensive
to a reasonable person, says the suit.

Accordingly, the Defendant is liable to the Plaintiffs for
statutory damages in an amount not less than $2,500 for each
disclosure of PII, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.


Defendant is a media publisher that developed, owns, and/or
operates the cnbc.com, which receives millions of visits per
year.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq.
          Livia Khemmoro, Esq.
          LIDDLE SHEETS COULSON P.C.
          975 East Jefferson Avenue
          Detroit, MI 48207-3101
          Telephone: (313) 392-0015
          Facsimile: (313) 392-0025
          E-mail: ncoulson@lsccounsel.com
                  lkhemmoro@lsccounsel.com

COMPLAINT QUAILS: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Vasquez Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
MIRNA VASQUEZ, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated v. COMPLAINT QUAILS NEST LLC d/b/a BAGEL BOSS HEWLETT, and
RANDY ROSNER, Case No. 2:23-cv-04396 (E.D.N.Y., June 14, 2023)
alleges that the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff premium
overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week,
failed to pay spread of hours compensation, failed to furnish a
proper wage notice at her time of hire, and failed to provide
accurate wage statements in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff regularly worked from 5:00 a.m. until between 2:00
p.m. and 7:00 p.m., without an uninterrupted meal break each day.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a food preparer and
salad maker from March 2022 through May 2, 2023.

Allegedly, the Defendants would often ask Plaintiff to work on
Sunday's from 5:00 a.m. until between 11:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.,
without an uninterrupted meal break. Throughout her employment,
Defendants would compensate the Plaintiff at her straight time rate
of pay for all hours worked, including those hours worked in excess
of 40 hours per workweek. Therefore, at no time during the
Plaintiff's employment was she compensated at a rate of one and
one-half times her regular hourly rate for any hours worked in
excess of 40 each week, the suit claims.

Throughout her employment, the Plaintiff often worked daily shifts
that exceeded ten hours per workday from its start to its finish.
However, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff spread of hours
compensation of one additional hour at the applicable minimum wage
rate, or her regular rate of pay, whichever was higher, for each
workday that exceeded ten hours, in violation of the NYLL, the suit
alleges.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of preparing and selling
bagels, pastries, and other baked goods and breakfast-style food to
customers at its restaurant located at 1352 Peninsula Boulevard,
Hewlett, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Farnworth, ESQ.
          Peter A. Romero, ESQ.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
          490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Telephone: (631) 257-5588

CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Griffin Settlement Gets Final Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRICILLA GRIFFIN,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees
pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act, v.
CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-00885-WBS-KJN (E.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge William B. Shubb entered an order granting the
Plaintiff's unopposed motion for final approval of the parties'
class action settlement and motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and
class representative service payment.

The Court further ordered that:

   (1) Solely for the purpose of this settlement, and pursuant to
       Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the court certifies the

       following class:

       all current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees
who
       worked for defendant within the state of California at any
time
       during the period from February 24, 2017, through March 23,

       2022.

   (2) The court appoints the named plaintiff Tricilla Griffin as
       class representative and finds that she meets the
requirements
       of Rule 23;

   (3) The court appoints the law firm of Lawyers for Justice, PC
as
       class counsel and finds that it meets the requirements of
Rule
       23;

   (4) The settlement agreement’s plan for class notice satisfies
the
       requirements of due process and Rule 23. The plan is
approved
       and adopted. The notice to the class complies with Rule
       23(c)(2) and Rule 23(e) and is approved and adopted;

   (5) The court finds that the parties and their counsel took
       appropriate efforts to locate and inform all class members
of
       the settlement. No employees have requested to be excluded
from
       the class. Given that no class member filed an objection to
the
       settlement, the court finds that no additional notice to the

       class is necessary;

   (6) As of the date of the entry of this order, plaintiff and all

       class members who have not timely opted out of this
settlement
       do and shall be deemed to have fully, finally, and forever
       released, settled, compromised, relinquished, and discharged

       defendants of and from any and all settled claims, pursuant
to
       the release provisions stated in the parties' settlement
       agreement;

   (7) The Plaintiff’s counsel is entitled to fees in the amount
of
       $280,000, and litigation costs in the amount of $8,863.75;

   (8) ILYM Group is entitled to administration costs in
       the amount of $15,000;

   (9) the Plaintiff Tricilla Griffin is entitled to an incentive
       award in the amount of $7,500;

  (10) $150,000 from the gross settlement amount shall be paid to
the
       California Labor and Workforce Development Agency in
       satisfaction of defendant’s alleged penalties under the
Private
       Attorneys General Act;

  (11) The remaining settlement funds shall be paid to
participating
       class members and aggrieved employees in accordance with the

       terms of the Settlement Agreement; and

The Plaintiff Tricilla Griffin, individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated employees, brought this putative
class action against defendant Consolidated Communications
alleging wage and hour violations under California law.

-- Class Certification

   The parties define the class as "all current and former
hourly-paid
   or non-exempt employees who worked for the Defendant within the

   State of California at any time during the period from February
24,
   2017, through March 23, 2022.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CA4Gp1 at no extra charge.[CC]

CREATIVE SERVICES: Final Hearing in Breach Settlement Set Sept. 7
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports Creative Services Inc. (CSI) agreed to
pay $1.2 million to resolve claims it failed to prevent a 2021 data
breach that compromised sensitive employee and consumer
information.

The settlement benefits consumers and Creative Services employees
who used CSI's services whose personal identifying information was
potentially accessed by a third party in a November 2021 data
breach.

Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim Creative Services
failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures. As a result,
a November 2021 Creative Services data breach allegedly compromised
the personal information, including Social Security numbers, of
over 165,000 employees and customers.

Creative Services is a background check, drug screening and
security consulting company.

Creative Services hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a
$1.2 million settlement to resolve the data breach class action
lawsuit.

Under the terms of the Creative Services settlement, class members
can receive up to $3,000 for out-of-pocket losses related to the
data breach such as bank fees, communication charges, damages from
fraud and more.

Class members can also receive $25 per hour for four hours of lost
time for maximum lost time payments of $100.

All class members are eligible for two years of free credit
monitoring and identity theft services.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 26, 2023.

The final approval hearing for the Creative Services data breach
settlement is scheduled for Sept. 7, 2023.

In order to receive settlement benefits, Class Members must submit
a valid claim form by Aug. 10, 2023.

Who's Eligible

Consumers and Creative Services employees who used CSI's services
whose personal identifying information was potentially accessed by
a third party in a November 2021 data breach.

Potential Award

$3,100

Proof of Purchase

Documentation of data breach-related expenses.

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

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

Claim Form Deadline
08/10/2023

Case Name
Kondo, et al. v. Creative Services Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-10438-DJC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts

Final Hearing
09/07/2023

Settlement Website
CreativeServicesDataBreachSettlement.com

Claims Administrator
Creative Services Data Breach Settlement
c/o Claims Administrator
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Info@CreativeServicesDataBreachSettlement.com
888-614-5993

Class Counsel
David Lietz
Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC

Defense Counsel
Joseph J Orzano
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP

Jesse Brown LaFlamme
WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP [GN]

CRIMSON HOLDING: Faces Class Suit Over Facility's "Noxious" Smell
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lucas Smolcic Larson of Michigan Live reports that Tammy Gunnin was
out with her dog, a Maltipoo she takes on walks around her home of
58 years in Adrian, when the smell hit her.

"Like a dead animal, like something that has been sitting out in
the hot sun," she recalled.

The fumes sent her running indoors, as she became physically ill.

"I was puking in the yard because the smell was so bad," Gunnin
said.

More than a year later, Gunnin and other Adrian residents are
taking to the courts to fight what they say has snowballed into
more than a year of unbearable odors coming from a powdered egg
plant a few blocks from their neighborhood -- a facility whose
operations have landed it in hot water with the city and state
environmental regulators.

On June 12, 2023 Gunnin and residents Dan and Diana Mueller filed a
class action lawsuit in federal court against Crimson Holdings,
LLC, the company that took over the former Dairy Farmers of America
powdered milk facility on East Maumee Street in December 2021.
The company swapped milk for eggs, producing an ingredient used in
pet food but also unleashing "noxious" odors in the area in the
process, the suit alleges.

Gunnin said she is now forced to keep her windows closed, and even
then the smell infiltrates her home.

"It's not something anyone should be forced to live with," said her
attorney David Dubin, who filed the 13-page complaint in U.S.
District Court in Detroit on June 12, 2023. "It drives you from
your property."

The biggest goal of the legal action is for Crimson to act as a
"responsible neighbor" and end the smells, as well as achieve
compensation for the plaintiffs, he said.

The class action suit, a kind of lawsuit where a smaller group of
parties represent a larger group of people in a similar situation,
proposes to encompass anyone who owned or occupied property with in
a three-mile boundary of the Crimson facility -- estimated to be
more than 11,000 households.

The company has not yet filed a response in court. Crimson does not
comment on or discuss ongoing litigation, Emily Bir, a company
spokesperson, said in a statement.

In recent media interviews and through its website, the company,
affiliated with Madison, Wisconsin-based OvaInnovations, has
acknowledged the odor problems and detailed nearly $2 million in
improvements to the aging facility, including the installation of a
new 100-foot exhaust stack. The emissions from the facility do not
pose a threat to residents' health, the company has said.

Its leadership said the company is accountable to the community and
continues to pursue odor solutions, including "nano-bubble"
technology that uses oxygen to break down smells.

"There is a lot of talk but not a lot of action," Dubin said,
adding the company needs to bring an end to the problem.

"Otherwise, you're putting profits before the quality of the
residents. And that's not acceptable here," he said.

Crimson faces a similar message on other fronts.

The Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy has
hit Crimson with environmental violations, some related to the
odor, like the most recent one on March 28. State environmental
regulators told MLive in April they were working through an
enforcement process. If not addressed satisfactorily, the issues
could be referred to the state Attorney General's Office.

Adrian officials, observing the protracted process of state
enforcement, issued its own odor violation in May 2022, and a
Lenawee County District Court judge ordered Crimson to follow
restrictions limiting operations to nighttime hours.

The company has appealed the violation and sought to remove the
restrictions, but they now remain in replace, with another hearing
scheduled in July, according to city officials.

The city met with senior leadership at Crimson in May, according to
a lengthy June 7 statement from City Administrator Greg Elliott.

"We anticipate further discussions. While we are not at liberty to
disclose settlement discussions, the city will not agree to any
resolution that is not designed to result in the abatement of the
current nuisance," he said.

Residents near the plant have suffered harm and decreased property
values as a result of the odor issues, the new class action suit
alleges. It asks that a judge certify the proposed class, award
damages and attorneys fees, order that the odors constitute a
nuisance and grant some injunctive relief.

Some 60 households have communicated with Dubin about the impact of
the odors on their daily lives, and he suspects a significant
number will come forward and join the suit.

Gunnin looks forward to opening her windows to the warm air again.

"If you can't go outside and enjoy your summer, it's sad," she
said. [GN]

DARLING INGREDIENTS: Court Junks Sines Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES and MANUELA SINES,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
DARLING INGREDIENTS INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-19121-EP-CLW (D.N.J.),
the Hon. Judge Evelyn Padin entered an order:

  -- Granting the Defendant's motions to exclude pursuant to
Federal
     Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc.,

     509 U.S. 579 (1993); and

  -- Denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
pursuant
     to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

Darling Ingredients is a manufacturer, processor, and distributor
of sustainable natural ingredients extracted from edible and
inedible bio-nutrients.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 6, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CB1zgw at no extra charge.[CC]

DELTA GROUP: McCombs Suit Tossed Over Subject Matter Jurisdiction
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EVELINE McCOMBS, Plaintiff v. DELTA GROUP ELECTRONICS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00662-MLG-KK (D.N.M.), Judge
Matthew L. Garcia of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Mexico grants Delta's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First
Amended Complaint.

The matter comes before the Court on the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff Eveline McCombs' First Amended Complaint. The
motion seeks dismissal of McCombs' claims stemming from an alleged
data breach of Delta's computer systems.

McCombs was employed by Delta from 2019 to 2022, and in connection
with her employment, McCombs provided Delta with personal
identifying information (PII) and financial information. An unknown
cybercriminal hacked Delta's computer systems and accessed data
that included McCombs', and other employees', first and last names,
Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, and financial
account numbers.

Delta notified McCombs and other employees of the unauthorized
access via e-mail on June 17, 2022. The letter reported that an
unauthorized actor accessed Delta's systems and acquired a limited
number of files from certain servers between Nov. 2, 2021, and Nov.
5, 2021. Delta "promptly took steps" to secure the system, engaged
a cybersecurity firm to assist, and completed an investigation. It
offered McCombs (and the other affected employees) free credit and
identity monitoring services for one year following the breach.

McCombs alleges that the compromise of the data will be an
"omnipresent threat" for her and the proposed class "for the rest
of their lives." She avers that unauthorized attempts to access her
bank account are likely related to the breach and that she has
experienced a deluge of spam calls, emails, and texts from
cybercriminals seeking to defraud her which has induced a
heightened level of stress and anxiety.

Based on the preceding facts, McCombs filed the instant matter.
She, individually, and on behalf of each member of the putative
class, brings three claims stemming from the alleged data breach.
First, McCombs asserts Delta acted negligently in failing to
promptly notify the employees of the breach and in failing to
provide adequate computer systems and data security practices to
safeguard the PII and financial information. Second, McCombs
asserts Delta breached an implied contract which was created when
McCombs and the class members provided Delta their PII and
financial information in exchange for Delta's implementation of
adequate data security measures to safeguard the PII.

Third, McCombs argues Delta was unjustly enriched "by unduly taking
advantage of" McCombs and the class members and denying them the
ability to make a rational and informed purchasing decision. The
thrust of this claim for relief is (apparently) that class members
provided their PII to Delta to purchase products and services, but
that these same consumers would not have undertaken these
transactions if they had been aware of claimed vulnerabilities in
Delta's cybersecurity. McCombs seeks monetary damages and
injunctive relief for herself and the proposed class.

McCombs' claimed damages include the following: out-of-pocket
expenses associated with the prevention, detection, and recovery
from identity theft, tax fraud, and/or unauthorized use of her PII
and financial information; diminution of value of her PII; lost
time, annoyance, interference, and inconvenience; and anxiety and
increased concerns for the loss of privacy. She also points the
Court to two instances of supposed realized harm: several
unauthorized attempts to access her bank account by an unknown
actor and a purported increase in spam communications. McCombs
argues that the lost time, unauthorized attempts to access her bank
account, and increased number of spam communications are all
cognizable injuries.

McCombs also alleges general future risks of harm associated with
identity theft, but these have yet to materialize. Indeed, she
concedes that the alleged fraudulent activity may not come to light
for years and highlights a generalized threat of future harm.
Nevertheless, McCombs believes her PII may end up for sale on the
dark web or may lead to targeted marketing, and she is "left to
speculate" about the possible future impacts of the breach.

In its motion to dismiss, Delta first argues McCombs has not
alleged an injury in fact to confer standing because she only
alleges speculative future harm. To the extent McCombs has
identified some adverse impact resulting from the data breach,
Delta argues that McCombs cannot "manufacture" standing by spending
time attempting to mitigate harm following the data breach. It
further claims that any alleged harm cannot be fairly traced to the
data breach and McCombs therefore lacks standing to bring her
claims. Alternatively, Delta argues that if even if McCombs has
standing, her complaint should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim.

Judge Garcia concludes that McCombs has not met her burden to
establish an injury in fact that is fairly traceable to the
supposed harm. None of the claimed "imminent and impending"
injuries, or risks of harm, are sufficiently concrete to constitute
an injury in fact, and her pleadings do not detail facts that would
prompt the Court to infer a causal connection between the data
breach and her pled harms. Consequently, McCombs lacks standing
under Article III.

Since McCombs has failed to allege an injury in fact that is fairly
traceable to the data breach, and thereby lacks Article III
standing, the Court is without subject matter jurisdiction to
further adjudicate McCombs' case. Without subject matter
jurisdiction, Judge Garcia cannot address Delta's Rule 12(b)(6)
arguments in their motion to dismiss.

For these reasons, Delta's Motion to Dismiss is granted. McCombs
lacks standing to pursue her claim in federal court.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 9, 2023 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/549f8dkv from
Leagle.com.


DIRECTV LLC: Settles Unsolicited Calls Class Suit for $16.85-M
--------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that DirecTV agreed to a $16.85 million
nationwide class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it
violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) with
unsolicited phone calls to people whose numbers were on the
National Do Not Call Registry.

The settlement benefits individuals in the United States whose
telephone numbers were listed on the National Do Not Call Registry,
who received more than one telemarketing call within any
twelve-month period from DirecTV AC1 Communications, and who are
associated with 113,997 specific telephone numbers listed in a
sealed court filing.
Consumers in West Virginia sued DirecTV, claiming it is legally
responsible for telemarketing calls placed by DirecTV's dealer, AC1
Communications, to people whose telephone numbers were listed on
the National Do Not Call Registry.

The consumers alleged these calls violated the TCPA, which
prohibits telemarketers from initiating two or more calls in a
calendar year to numbers on the registry.

DirecTV is a California-based video company that primarily provides
a digital satellite service serving customers in the United
States.

Under the terms of the DirecTV TCPA settlement, people who got
certain telemarketing calls from AC1 can get an estimated minimum
cash payment of $324. The estimated average cash payment is over
$461.

Those eligible for the payment don't need to remember receiving the
call. Class members can check to see if their phone number is
included in the settlement by visiting the administrator's
website.

The settlement payments will come from the $16.85 million
settlement fund, which will also be used to pay the costs of
notifying people about the settlement, the lawyers' fees, and
awards to the people who helped bring the lawsuit.

The deadline for exclusion or objection is Aug. 7, 2023.

The final approval hearing for the DirecTV unsolicited calls
settlement is scheduled for Aug. 24, 2023.

In order to receive a settlement payment, class members must submit
a valid claim form by Aug. 7, 2023.

Who's Eligible

Individuals in the United States whose telephone numbers were
listed on the National Do Not Call Registry, who received more than
one telemarketing call within any twelve-month period from DirecTV
AC1 Communications, and who are associated with 113,997 specific
telephone numbers listed in a sealed court filing.

Potential Award
More than $461

Proof of Purchase
Submit your phone number to see if you are included in the
settlement.

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

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

Claim Form Deadline
08/07/2023

Case Name
Roxie Vance, et al. v. DirecTV, Case No.  5:17-CV-179, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia.

Final Hearing
08/24/2023

Settlement Website
DirecTVClassActionSettlement.com

Claims Administrator
Kroll Settlement Administration LLC
DIRECTV, c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC
PO Box 5324
New York, NY 10150-5324
info@DIRECTVClassActionSettlement.com
866-211-3496

Class Counsel
John W Barrett
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP

Matthew P McCue
LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P MCCUE

Edward A Broderick
BRODERICK LAW PC

Anthony Paronich
PARONICH LAW PC

Defense Counsel
Lauren R Goldman
GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP [GN]

DIVIDEND SOLAR: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in McCune
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as McCune v. Dividend Solar
Finance LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-04075-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon.
Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows:

   -- Rule 16 scheduling conference

      The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
      30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
      The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.

   -- Discovery plan

      The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
      calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.

   -- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference

      If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
      plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
      conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
      discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
      within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16

      scheduling conference be cancelled.

   -- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing

      For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
      by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a

      telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to

      appear for an in-person hearing.

   -- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the

      discovery deadline has already passed

      The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court

      after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
      disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the

      relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
      raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
      discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
      the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
      discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
      discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
      they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move

      that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any

      subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.

   -- Settlement conferences and mediation

      The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or

      mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
      settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
      Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.

Dividend is a national provider of renewable energy and
energy-efficiency financing solutions.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 7, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PfXCFL at no extra charge.[CC]

DONALD J. TRUMP: Court certifies Settlement Class in Denson Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Denson v. Donald J. Trump
For President, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-04737-PGG (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Paul G. Gardephe entered an order granting preliminary
approval of a class action settlement, certifying a settlement
class, approving notice, and setting dates for final approval.

  -- The proposed Settlement Class is certified pursuant Rules
23(a)
     and 23(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for purposes
of
     Settlement as follows:

     "Al Campaign employees, contractors, and volunteers who
executed
     an Employment Agreement, or any contract containing similar
     nondisclosure and non-disparagement clauses, during the 2016
     election cycle."

  -- The Court appoints Bowles & Johnson PLLC, Ballard Spahr LLP,
and
     Protect Democracy, Plaintiff's attorneys of record, as class
     counsel.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 7, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42LUEM3 at no extra charge.[CC]


DUNKIN' BRANDS: Court Dismisses Suit Over Unfair Pricing Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
Allie Reed of Bloomberg Law reports that Dunkin' Brands Group Inc.
has escaped a lawsuit from a Bostonian alleging the coffee chain's
mobile application routinely overcharges him for a bagel and cream
cheese.

Martin Kelledy claimed Dunkin's app violated Massachusetts pricing
regulations by tacking on undisclosed charges that added over $2 to
his order.

Kelledy tried to sue Dunkin' in federal court under the Class
Action Fairness Act, which requires at least one class member to
come from a state different than the defendant. But the court lacks
the authority to hear the case. [GN]


DZS INC: Faces Shim Suit Over 10.8% Drop in Share Price
-------------------------------------------------------
JASON SHIM, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DZS INC., CHARLES DANIEL VOGT, and MISTY KAWECKI, Case
No. 4:23-cv-00549 (E.D. Tex., June 14, 2023) is a class action on
behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded DZS securities between March 10, 2023, and May 31,
2023, inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by
the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Class Period begins on March 10, 2023, when DZS filed with the
SEC its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2022. Attached to the 2022 Annual Report were certifications
pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 signed by the Defendants
Vogt and Kawecki attesting to the accuracy of any material changes
to the Company's internal control over financial reporting, and the
disclosure of all fraud.

Then, on May 9, 2023, DZS filed with the SEC its Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q for the Quarter ended March 31, 2023 (the "1Q23
Report"). The 1Q23 Report did not disclose the ongoing issues with
the Company's internal controls as it related to revenue
recognition, instead focusing on prior issues where the errors had
been corrected before issuance of financial statements to the
public. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that DZS' financial statements
from March 31, 2023, to the present included certain errors; as a
result, DZS would need to restate its previously filed quarterly
financial statement for the period ending March 31, 2023.

On June 1, 2023, before the market opened, the Company announced
that it would restate its financial statements from May 9, 2023, to
the present. Also, the Company posted a press release on its
website entitled "DZS to Restate First Quarter 2023 Financial
Statements and Updates Full Year 2023 Guidance."

On this news, the price of DZS stock plummeted by $2.17 per share,
or 36%, to close at $3.82 on June 1, 2023, on extremely high
trading volume. The next day, the price of DZS stock declined
another $0.42, or 10.8%, to close at $3.46.

Had the Plaintiff and the other members of the Class been aware
that the market price of DZS securities had been artificially and
falsely inflated by Defendants' misleading statements and by the
material adverse information which the Defendants did not disclose,
they would not have purchased DZS securities at the artificially
inflated prices that they did, or at all, the lawsuit claims.

As a result of the alleged wrongful conduct alleged herein, the
Plaintiff and other members of the Class have suffered damages in
an amount to be established at trial.

The Plaintiff purchased DZS securities during the Class Period and
was economically damaged thereby.

DZS purports to be a "global provider of access and optical
networking infrastructure and cloud software solutions that enable
the emerging hyper-connected, hyper-broadband world and broadband
experiences. The Company provides a wide array of reliable,
cost-effective networking technologies and software to a diverse
customer base."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart L. Cochran, Esq.
          COCHRAN LAW PLLC
          8140 Walnut Hill Ln., Suite 250
          Dallas, TX 75231
          Telephone: (469) 333-3405
          Facsimile: (469) 333-3406
          E-mail: stuart@scochranlaw.com

                - and -

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

EDWARD D. JONES: Court Narrows Claims in Zigler Discrimination Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BLAIR ZIGLER, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EDWARD D. JONES & CO., L.P. et
al., Defendants, Case No. 22 C 4706 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Elaine E.
Bucklo of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, grants in part and denies in part the
Defendant's motion to dismiss.

The Amended Complaint alleges that Defendant Edward D. Jones & Co.,
a financial services firm, paid Zigler, a Financial Advisor (or
"FA"), and similarly situated female employees less than it paid
male employees for comparable work in violation of the Equal Pay
Act ("EPA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 206(d), Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e, et seq., the Illinois
Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/101 et seq., and the Illinois Equal
Pay Act ("IEPA"), 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. 112/1 et seq.

Zigler alleges that centralized, systemic, company-wide,
discriminatory employment practices yielded the pay inequity she
challenges, and that the Defendant has long been aware of these
discriminatory practices. Indeed, the Amended Complaint asserts
that after the Defendant was sued for systemic race discrimination
in 2018, it conducted an internal pay equity analysis and reported
in its "Purpose, Inclusion, and Citizenship Report, 2020" that as
many as two percent of its nearly 20,000 employees -- including
Zigler herself -- had been paid less than their peers for
comparable work in 2020. Both before and after learning the results
of this analysis, Zigler allegedly complained to the Defendant's
leadership about its discriminatory compensation practices, but it
took no meaningful action to remedy the pay gaps its pay equity
analysis had uncovered.

Zigler began her employment with the Defendant in 2018 as an
Illinois-based "Field FA," a customer-facing role with a
commission-based compensation structure. In that role, Zigler
allegedly confronted unwanted sexual advances from male colleagues,
and she was not given the support that her male colleagues received
to help them establish a book of business, such as a dedicated
office and internal asset transfers. Instead, the Plaintiff was
required to drum up business herself by knocking on strangers'
doors in designated Illinois neighborhoods -- an approach that she
felt was unsafe. But the Defendant dismissed her safety concerns,
telling her to "take a self-defense class" if she was fearful.

In view of the Defendant's lack of support for her professional
development and personal safety as a Field FA, the Plaintiff
decided to apply for a position as a Home Based Associate ("HBA")
FA, a remote position with the Defendant's home office. In this
allegedly less prestigious position, which did not offer an
opportunity to earn fees or commissions, she did not have her own
clients but rather assisted the clients of other FAs when they were
out of office.

According to the Amended Complaint, Zigler continued to suffer from
sex-based discrimination in her HBA role as well. On one occasion,
a male partner at one of the Defendant's local Illinois offices --
the Regional Leader for Zigler's local area, and someone with whom
Zigler had worked as a Field FA -- requested a work-related
meeting. Zigler met the partner at a local restaurant, and after
discussing work-related matters, the partner allegedly cornered
Zigler outside the restroom and told her that he wanted to have sex
with her. Zigler refused.

Zigler was promoted to the position of Team Leader -- another
home-office position -- in January of 2021 and began several weeks
of training for the position. Although she had been told that she
would be assigned a team to lead in February of 2021, after she
told the Defendant that she would be taking parental leave starting
in May of 2021, the Defendant decided not to assign her a team
until she returned from leave in September of 2021. In the
meantime, she was assigned tasks commensurate with the work of
employees four grades below her title -- indeed, the very employees
she would supervise as a Team Leader.

When Zigler returned from parental leave, she received an email
informing her that she had been identified as having received
unequal pay relative to her peers. Although the Defendant raised
Zigler's pay to align her salary with those of colleagues
performing similar work, the raise was not retroactive, and thus
did not compensate her for past discrimination. In addition,
Zigler's pay increase was offset by the Defendant's decision to
make her ineligible for future "position-in-range" raises, which
she had previously been promised.

When Zigler was finally assigned a team to lead in November of
2021, she discovered that all of her team members were new
employees -- an unusual situation that not only made the
Plaintiff's job harder and more labor-intensive than that of other
Team Leaders, it also made it difficult or impossible for her to
perform well according to the performance metrics by which her work
was assessed. This caused Zigler's performance rating to fall from
"Exceeding Expectations" to "Meeting Expectations," with a
commensurate fall in her bonus potential and yearly merit
increase.

In early 2022, Zigler resigned her position, citing inadequate pay
as the reason for her departure. She claims that she was
continually paid less than, given fewer opportunities than, and
given less support than her male colleagues performing the same
job, and that her experience was similar to that of other women
FAs. On June 14, 2022, Zigler filed a charge of discrimination with
the Illinois Human Rights Commission and the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission. She received a Right to Sue notice on Aug.
4, 2022.

With respect to her EPA claim, Zigler seeks to represent a
collective defined as: All current and former female FAs employed
by Edward Jones' home office from three years prior to the filing
of the original Complaint to the present. This collective
definition excludes workers in the field.

With respect to her Title VII, IHRA, and IEPA claims, Zigler seeks
to represent classes defined as: All current and former female home
office FAs employed by Edward Jones in Illinois during the
applicable limitations period. This collective definition excludes
workers in the field.

The Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint in its entirety on
various grounds. It leads with the argument that Judge Bucklo lacks
specific personal jurisdiction over it because none of Zigler's
claims arise out of its conduct with Illinois.

There is no merit to this argument, Judge Bucklo opines. She says
the Defendant consented to an ongoing relationship with the
Plaintiff, training her for jobs it knew she would perform to its
benefit in Illinois and providing her with the material support she
needed to do so. In addition, the Plaintiff was allegedly harassed
at an Illinois restaurant by an Illinois-based partner with whom
she had previously worked in Illinois. That Defendant did not, as
its affiants state, require the Plaintiff's presence in Illinois,
or reap a business benefit tied specifically to her Illinois
location is not dispositive. Judge Bucklo is satisfied that the
requirements of specific personal jurisdiction are satisfied.

The Defendant next argues that Judge Bucklo lacks personal
jurisdiction with respect to the potential claims of out-of-state,
opt-in members of the EPA collective.

The Seventh Circuit has not spoken on this issue, and while several
courts in this circuit have aligned with the view of the Sixth and
Eighth Circuits, they have declined to dismiss the claims of
out-of-state plaintiffs and opt-ins on jurisdictional grounds prior
to conditional certification. That approach strikes Judge Bucklo as
sensible, and she follows it in the case.

The Defendant next challenges the adequacy of Zigler's pleading.
Its first argument is that Zigler fails to state viable EPA and
IEPA claims.

Judge Bucklo agrees with Zigler that these allegations raise a
reasonable inference that she and similarly situated female home
office FAs were paid lower wages for the work they performed in
that position than men who performed similar work. That said,
Zigler's allegations based on the pay equity report do not support
her wage claims insofar as they challenge the wages she earned as a
Team Leader -- a position to which she was "promoted" in January of
2021. Nothing in these allegations suggests that she earned less as
a Team Leader than any male Team Leader who performed similar work.
For these reasons, Judge Bucklo concludes that the Amended
Complaint fails to state a claim that the Defendant violated the
EPA and IEPA based on the wages it paid her in her role as a Team
Leader.

Turning to the Plaintiff's Title VII claim, the Defendant argues
that various dimensions of this claim must be dismissed as
non-exhausted or untimely then goes on to attack the sufficiency of
Zigler's allegations. Its first argument is that Zigler's class
claims exceed the scope of her administrative charge.

Judge Bucklo finds that the allegations of discrimination that
Zigler raises in the Amended Complaint generally echo those she
raised in her administrative charge. It is true that in the charge,
Zigler complained about discrimination on behalf of herself and
similarly situated "female FAs," while her complaint asserts claims
on behalf of (presumably broader) classes of "female 'home office'
associates." But this strikes Judge Bucklo as an issue concerning
the scope of the proposed class that can be addressed at the class
certification stage rather than a ground for dismissal.

The Defendant next argues that Zigler failed to exhaust -- and
later argues that she fails to state -- a disparate impact claim
under Title VII because neither her administrative charge nor her
Amended Complaint identifies any facially neutral policy that
allegedly affected her disproportionately because of her sex.

The Defendant's arguments in this connection -- both procedural and
substantive -- have merit, Judge Bucklo opines. Zigler does not
identify a "specific employment practice" but instead asserts
broadly that defendant applied its "compensation program" in a
manner that "disadvantages female home office employees." That is
insufficient, according to Judge Bucklo.

Judge Bucklo also opines that Zigler's disparate treatment claim
survives the Defendant's motion. She has considered the battery of
procedural and substantive arguments the Defendant raises and
concludes that none warrants extended discussion. The standing
argument borders on the frivolous. A disparate treatment claim
requires only that a plaintiff advance plausible allegations that
she experienced discrimination because of her protected
characteristics. Zigler's allegations amply satisfy this standard.
As for her claim of a "pattern or practice" of discrimination,
Zigler's assertion that up to two percent of the Defendant's
associates were paid inequitably based on a protected
characteristic plausibly suggests something more than an isolated
experience.

The final section of the Defendant's motion argues that Zigler's
claims under the IEPA and the IHRA should be dismissed for the same
reasons that warrant dismissal of her federal claims. Indeed,
Zigler's IEPA and IHRA claims are subject to the same analyses as
their federal analogues and should be resolved in a similar
manner.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Bucklo grants the Defendant's
motion to dismiss to the extent it targets: 1) Zigler's EPA and
IEPA claims arising out of the wages she earned as a Team Leader;
and 2) Zigler's Title VII and IHRA claims based on a disparate
impact theory of liability. He otherwise denies the motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 9, 2023 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4jmssfdy from
Leagle.com.


EFG GENERAL: Renewed Bid to Remand Racca Suit to State Court Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RONDA RACCA, Plaintiff v. EFG GENERAL PARTNER CORP.,
EDUCATION FUTURES MANAGEMENT, COMPANY, EDUCATION FUTURES GROUP,
LLC, COMPUTER CAREER CENTER, L.P. d/b/a Vista College, and JIM
TOLBERT, Defendants, JIM TOLBERT, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff
v. PROSPECT PARTNERS, LLC, Third-Party Defendant, Civil Action No.
1:22-CV-142 (E.D. Tex.), Judge Marcia A. Crone of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas denies Racca's Opposed
Renewed Motion to Remand.

Pending before the Court is Racca's Opposed Renewed Motion to
Remand, wherein she contends that the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over her claims against Defendants EFG General Partner
Corp.; Education Futures Management, Company; Education Futures
Group, LLC; Computer Career Center, L.P. d/b/a Vista College; and
Jim Tolbert. Racca argues that the Court no longer has subject
matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C.
Sections 1332(d), 1453, 1711-1715, and, therefore, the case should
be remanded to state court because her operative complaint deleted
her prior class action allegations and abandoned her claims against
diverse defendants, leaving only Texas citizens as parties.
Defendants and Third-Party Defendant Prospect Partners, LLC filed a
response in opposition.

Vista formerly operated as a private, post-secondary educational
institution, with its headquarters located in Richardson, Texas.
The Richardson location was licensed to provide online education to
students located in 28 other states. Vista operated five Texas
campuses that provided in-person education, located in Beaumont,
College Station, Killeen, El Paso, and Longview. It also maintained
campuses outside of Texas -- in Las Cruces, New Mexico, and Fort
Smith, Arkansas.

In August 2021, Vista announced that it planned to stop enrolling
new students at its in-person campuses but that it would continue
enrolling students in its online programs. At that time, it
promised its existing students in an email that they will continue
to offer the courses their need to graduate from their programs. On
Oct. 8, 2021, however, Vista ceased all operations without prior
notice to its students, citing "unforeseen events." Racca was a
student at Vista's Beaumont campus at the time of the closure.

On Oct. 12, 2021, Racca, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated persons, filed the class action lawsuit in the 136th
District Court of Jefferson County, Texas, against the Defendants.
She also asserted claims against Prospect, Michael McInerney, and
Louis Kenter in her original class action petition. On April 7,
2021, Prospect, McInerney, and Kenter removed the action to the
Court.

Racca then filed her original Opposed Motion to Remand, arguing
that the case should be remanded to state court because the local
controversy exception and the local single event exclusion to CAFA
both required that the court decline to exercise jurisdiction. The
Court denied her motion in a Memorandum and Order dated July 7,
2022, holding that Racca had failed to establish that either the
local controversy exception or the local single event exclusion to
CAFA jurisdiction applied in this case.

Subsequently, Racca filed a series of amended complaints.
Importantly, her Third Amended Complaint, filed on Sept. 27, 2022,
deleted all class action allegations and removed earlier language
referencing "others who are similarly situated." Racca's Fourth
Amended Complaint, filed on Oct. 13, 2022, then omitted Prospect,
McInerney, and Kenter from the pleadings, leaving no diverse
Defendants. On Feb. 15, 2023, Racca filed the pending motion to
remand.

Judge Crone states that both Racca's Original Class-Action Petition
and her First Amended Class-Action Petition -- the operative
pleading at the time of removal -- state that the case was filed
pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 42, which governs class
actions filed in Texas state courts. Thus, Racca filed the case
under a state rule of judicial procedure authorizing class actions,
thereby meeting Section 1332(d)(1)(B)'s definition of a class
action. Furthermore, the Court previously held in its Order denying
Racca's initial remand motion that CAFA jurisdiction was proper in
this case at the time of removal. As a result, applying American
National Property & Casualty Co.'s rule that CAFA jurisdiction is
determined at the time of removal, federal jurisdiction remains
proper in the case.

Therefore, Judge Crone holds that the time-of-removal rule set out
in American National Property & Casualty Co. governs whether the
Court retains jurisdiction over this case. The Court's prior Order
denying Racca's initial motion to remand determined that CAFA
jurisdiction was proper in the case at the time of removal. Racca
has not provided any "legitimate purpose" for amending her
complaint to omit all class action allegations and abandon her
claims against the diverse defendants. Thus, Racca's post-removal,
amended complaints do not divest the Court of subject matter
jurisdiction under CAFA.

An evaluation of the relevant facts and controlling law reveals
that the Court continues to have federal subject matter
jurisdiction over the action. Accordingly, Judge Crone denies
Racca's Opposed Renewed Motion to Remand.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 9, 2023 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/44eafjhr from Leagle.com.


EIGHT ELEVEN: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Unpaid OT for $318,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Eight Eleven Group agreed to a
$318,000 class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it
failed to properly compensate per diem workers for overtime work.

The settlement benefits individuals who worked for Eight Eleven
Group as an hourly exempt computer technician or an hourly
non-exempt employee who received per diem payments and worked over
40 hours in one or more work weeks between Oct. 11, 2019, and Oct.
23, 2022.

Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim Eight Eleven Group
failed to pay its workers for overtime workers under the guise of
overtime exemption. According to the plaintiffs, they did not
qualify for overtime exemption under federal and state labor laws
and should have received additional overtime wages which took into
account per diem payments.

Eight Eleven Group is a healthcare technology company that offers
services under divisions such as Brooksource, Medasource and
CalculatedHire.

Eight Eleven hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay
$318,000 to resolve the per diem class action lawsuit.

Under the terms of the Eight Eleven Group settlement, class members
can receive a cash payment based on their payment terms and the
number of work weeks they worked during the Class period. Class
members received a payment estimate with their mailed settlement
notice.

Half of each settlement payment will be considered wages and
subject to a W-2 tax form. The other half of each payment will be
treated as non-wage income and be subject to a 1099 tax form. Class
members may wish to consult with a tax professional about the
implications of accepting a settlement payment.
There is no exclusion or objection deadline listed on the
settlement website.

The settlement was granted final approval Feb. 27, 2023.

In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must submit
a valid claim form by June 28, 2023.

Who's Eligible

Individuals who worked for Eight Eleven Group as an hourly exempt
computer technician or an hourly non-exempt employee who received
per diem payments and worked over 40 hours in one or more work
weeks between Oct. 11, 2019, and Oct. 23, 2022

Potential Award

Varies
Proof of Purchase

N/A
Claim Form Deadline

06/28/2023

Case Name
Denham, et al. v. Eight Eleven Group LLC, No. 3:22-cv-00531-JAG, in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia

Final Hearing
02/27/2023

Settlement Website
PerDiemSettlement.com

Claims Administrator
Denham v. EEG Settlement
c/o Settlement Administrator
PO Box 23678
Jacksonville, FL 32241-3678
info@perdiemsettlement.com
833-404-4961

Class Counsel
Craig J Curwood
Zev Antell
BUTLER CURWOOD PLC

Defense Counsel
Michael S McIntosh
Lauren Marie Bridenbaugh
LITTLER MENDELSON PC [GN]

ELON MUSK: Denies Ownership of Dogecoin in Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Torpey of Coin Market Cap reports that Tesla CEO Elon Musk has
denied allegations of owning Dogecoin wallets connected to insider
trading amid an ongoing class action lawsuit. The lawsuit accuses
Musk of participating in a racketeering scheme to support the
meme-based cryptocurrency. Court records claim that two wallets
associated with Musk sold 1.4 billion Dogecoins, amounting to over
$124 million, during a two-day period in April. However, Musk's
attorney, Alex Shapiro, dismissed the claims, stating that they are
baseless and lack evidence. The lawsuit, which has been amended by
a group of DOGE investors, accuses Musk of market manipulation and
taking advantage of his substantial Twitter following.

Elon Musk, known as the "Dogefather" and "Dogecoin CEO," has been
an outspoken supporter of the meme coin, often sharing tweets about
it. Dogecoin, initially created as a joke in 2013, has gained
significant popularity and market value, currently ranking as the
eight largest cryptocurrency with a market capitalization of around
$8.7 billion. The lawsuit against Musk alleges manipulative
practices in pumping the token's price, citing his influence on
social media and his appearance on NBC's Saturday Night Live. The
court will ultimately determine whether Musk's involvement with
Dogecoin extends beyond trolling on Twitter. [GN]

ENERCON SERVICES: Munson Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC MUNSON, individually and for others similarly situated v.
ENERCON SERVICES, INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-00238-CVE-SH (N.D. Okla.,
June 12, 2023) is a collective action brought by the Plaintiff to
recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from Enercon
Services under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Munson has worked for Enercon as a field engineer and
senior test engineer since approximately August 2022. Throughout
his employment, Enercon assigned Munson to provide services to
Enercon's client, Southern Nuclear, at Plant Vogtle. Throughout his
employment, Enercon paid Munson under its salary plus extras pay
scheme and failed to pay him overtime wages at a rate not less than
one and a half times his regular rate of pay for the hours he
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, says the Plaintiff.

Enercon Services, Inc. is a diversified consulting company offering
architectural engineering, environmental, technical and management
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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
          E-mail: 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
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

ENZO BIOCHEM: Fails to Protect Private Info, Epstein Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ELIANA EPSTEIN, on behalf of herself individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENZO BIOCHEM, INC.,
ENZO CLINICAL LABS, INC., and LAB CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS,
Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-04282 (E.D.N.Y., June 9, 2023) arises
from a recent cyberattack that resulted in a data breach of
sensitive information in the possession and custody and/or control
of Enzo Biochem, Enzo Clinical, and Lab Corporation of America
Holdings.

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, and clinical test information. The data
breach occurred between April 4, 2023, and April 6, 2023. The
Defendants did not become aware of suspicious activity on its
network until April 6, 2023, allowing cybercriminals unfettered
access to Plaintiff's and the Class' highly private sensitive
information for two days.

Plaintiff Epstein alleges claims against the Defendants for
negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, and for violations of the New York Deceptive Trade
Practices Act. Among other things, Epstein asserts that the
Defendants failed to notify her and the members of the Class of the
data breach and exacerbated her and the Class' injury by depriving
them of the earliest ability to take appropriate measures to
protect their sensitive information and take other necessary steps
to mitigate the harm caused by the data breach.

Enzo Biochem is a molecular diagnostics company based in New York.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           James J. Bilsborrow, Esq.
           WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC
           700 Broadway
           New York, New York 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

ENZO BIOCHEM: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Weinman Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARJORIE WEINMAN, on behalf of herself individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. ENZO BIOCHEM, INC., Case No.
1:23-cv-04393-BMC (E.D.N.Y., June 14, 2023) sues the Defendant for
its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally
identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part
of its regular business practices, including names, Social Security
numbers, and medical and/or clinical information, which is
protected health information as defined by the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.

The Defendant allegedly failed to adequately protect the
Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information –– and
failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information.
This unencrypted, unredacted Private Information was compromised
due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and
their utter failure to protect patients' sensitive data. The
present and continuing risk to victims of the Data Breach will
remain for their respective lifetimes. Moreover, although the
Defendant became aware of the Data Breach April 6, 2023, the
Defendant nonetheless did not notify the Plaintiff and Class
Members of the Data Breach and/or inform them that their Private
Information was compromised until May 31, 2023₋₋approximately
eight weeks after the Data Breach, the suit alleges.

The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injuries as a result
of Defendant's conduct. These injuries include:

     (i) invasion of privacy;

    (ii) loss of benefit of the bargain;

   (iii) lost time, spent on activities remedying harms resulting
         from the Data Breach;

    (iv) lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to
         mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; and

     (v) the continued and certainly increased risk to their
         Private Information, the suit claims.

The Plaintiff and Class Members seek to remedy these harms and
prevent any future data compromise on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and
stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to
Defendant's inadequate data security practices

Ms. Weinman is and has been a resident and citizen of New York. She
provided her Private Information to the Defendant on the condition
that it be maintained as confidential and with the understanding
that the Defendant would employ reasonable safeguards to protect
her Private Information.

The Defendant is a healthcare entity that describes itself as a
"pioneer in molecular diagnostics, leading the convergence of
clinical laboratories, life sciences, and intellectual property
through the development of unique diagnostic platform
technologies."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vicki J. Maniatis, Esq.
          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300
          E-mail: vmaniatis@milberg.com
                  gklinger@milberg.com

ENZO BIOCHEM: Garfinkel Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Access
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GITA GARFINKEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ENZO BIOCHEM, INC., ENZO CLINICAL LABS,
INC., and LAB CORPORATION OF AMERICAN HOLDINGS, Defendants, Case
No. 2:23-cv-04445 (E.D.N.Y., June 15, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy,
and unjust enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard the protected health information (PHI) and personally
identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly
situated individuals stored within their network following a data
breach between April 4, 2023, and April 6, 2023. The Defendants
also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals about the data breach. As a result, the PII and PHI of
the Plaintiff and Class Members were compromised and damaged
through access by and disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized
third party.

Enzo Biochem, Inc. is a biotechnology company, with its principal
place of business at 81 Executive Blvd. Suite 3, Farmingdale, New
York.

Enzo Clinical Labs, Inc. is a clinical reference laboratory
operator, with its principal place of business at 28 Liberty
Street, New York, New York.

Lab Corporation of American Holdings is a provider of clinical
laboratory services, with its principal place of business at 531
South Spring Street, Burlington, North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Todd S. Garber, Esq.
         FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
         One North Broadway, Suite 900
         White Plains, NY 10601
         Telephone: (914) 298-3284
         Facsimile: (914) 908-6722
         E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com

                 - and -
       
         Paul M. Sod, Esq.
         The Law Office of Paul M. Sod
         337R Central Avenue
         Lawrence, NY 11559
         Telephone: (516) 295-0707
         Facsimile: (516) 295-0722
         E-mail: paulmsod@gmail.com

FEDEX CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Odometer Fraud Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------
Darcy Spears of KTNV Las Vegas reports that allegations of odometer
fraud by a trusted American brand.

It's a story 13 investigates first broke two years ago. Now,
there's a major development in a case that began with a local man
that has national implications.

FedEx forever changed expectations of delivery wait times. The
shipping giant's website boasts a fleet of over 200,000 vehicles
worldwide. Their trucks rack up lots of miles to make those speedy
deliveries.

When FedEx retires trucks, they're often resold through auto
auctions and converted to other uses like food trucks. However, a
newly-filed federal class action lawsuit says some of those trucks
harbor a dangerous secret.

The lawsuit accuses FedEx of participating in the largest odometer
fraud scheme in U.S. automotive history.

13 investigates first met Tom Layton in the spring of 2021 when he
shared his story exclusively with 13 Investigates.

"What brought us here June 20, 2023 is I'm a commercial truck
dealer," he said.

Based in Henderson, Layton has been buying and selling trucks for
36 years.

"Over the last several years, I've noticed that some of the
commercial trucks that have been going through my dealership had
issues with the odometers," he said.

He made the discovery in March 2017 when he sold a Freightliner
delivery truck to a FedEx contractor in Washington state.

"About a month after the sale, the FedEx contractor contacted me
and said, 'hey! What are you trying to pull here? And I said,
'what's wrong?' And he said, 'I took this into Freightliner and had
the vehicle hooked up to the computer. And it has over 400,000
miles. And your odometer says 180,000 miles'."

Tom was determined to find out how and why the odometer readings
didn't match up.
"...and through our research, found out that the odometer was
changed by FedEx, not by any car dealership," Layton said.

He says he figured that out by comparing odometers. That discovery
led to a federal class action lawsuit filed last week in New
Jersey.

The four named plaintiffs represent thousands of potential victims
from across the country.

Many of them in different lines of work including food truck owners
and other mom and pop businesses. These operators who shelled out
much of their life savings to buy and refit former FedEx trucks
that they believed had low mileage, often less than 100,000 miles.

However, the lawsuit says they started having serious mechanical
breakdowns, the kind seen in vehicles that are past their expected
life cycle of about 300,000 miles.

One food truck owner was forced to go out of business when he
learned his vehicle would soon need a new engine.

Court documents say FedEx engaged in large-scale replacement of
odometers on thousands of vehicles with no valid reason.

FedEx is accused of failing to reset the odometers to the actual
mileage, and failing to disclose that the odometers were replaced
which is required by federal law.

The lawsuit alleges that FedEx, and its fleet management company,
Holman Fleet Leasing, were then able to resell the vehicles on the
used market for much more money than their actual worth.

FedEx declined our request for an on-camera interview. They sent a
statement to say "they had not yet been served with the complaint
or had the opportunity to fully review the lawsuit's allegations."

Holman Fleet Leasing said while it's their policy not to comment on
pending litigation, the company complies with its legal obligations
and looks forward to defending the case in court.

Tom Layton, whose story we first shared in 2021, is still fighting
his own federal lawsuit that he filed nearly six years ago. He said
he couldn't comment on the class action case because he's not named
in that litigation. [GN]

FLORIDA A&M: Federal Court Questions Discrimination in Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Saunders of 104.5WOKV reports that while allowing attorneys to
revise the case, a federal judge issued a ruling this week that
indicated skepticism about key parts of a potential class-action
lawsuit alleging state discrimination against Florida A&M
University.

U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle on June 20, 2023 dismissed a
version of the lawsuit filed in January, though he gave attorneys
for a group of students until July 3 to file a revised case.
Hinkle, however, said the attorneys will have to provide more
evidence to show that the alleged discrimination can be traced to
segregation.

"The first amended complaint (the version dismissed on June 20,
2023) alleges differences between FAMU and other public
universities, including in funding, quality of faculty, graduation
rates, and mission statements, but the first amended complaint is
short on facts tying these differences to the segregated-by-law
system," Hinkle wrote.

Hinkle focused, in part, on allegations that FAMU, the state's only
historically Black public university, has suffered because of
duplication of programs with nearby Florida State University and
other schools. But Hinkle pointed to the massive growth in Florida
since the passage of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an
anti-discrimination law at issue in the case.

"When Title VI was adopted, Florida's population was about 5.7
million, and the state had only three public universities -- two
white and one black," Hinkle wrote. "Florida now has 12 public
universities serving a population of over 22 million. Of course,
there are duplicated programs at the 12 universities, but the
assertion they were created to maintain segregation, rather than to
accommodate the enormous population increase, is implausible."

As an example of duplication, attorneys for the plaintiffs have
cited a joint engineering program shared by FAMU and Florida State.
Also, they have pointed to a FAMU law school that was closed in the
1960s and revived decades later at an Orlando campus. The closure
of the original FAMU law school came as a Florida State law school
opened.

But Hinkle's ruling raised doubts about the arguments.

"The first amended complaint addresses colleges of law and
engineering but does so inconsistently -- apparently asserting FSU
and FAMU should have neither separate colleges (as in law) nor a
joint college (as in engineering)," he wrote. "Either way, the
first amended complaint does not adequately allege that the current
situation is a vestige of the segregated-by-law system."

Hinkle questioned attorneys about such issues during a June 1
hearing but did not formally rule until this week.

Attorneys for six FAMU students filed an initial version of the
lawsuit in September and an amended version in January. They have
sought an injunction against state practices that they say violate
the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution and Title VI.

An important issue in the case is whether state decisions are
"traceable" to de jure segregation -- segregation sanctioned by
law.

"Throughout its history and up to the present, Florida has
intentionally and consistently engaged in racial discrimination by
maintaining a dual and unequal system of higher education,
including by providing disparate funding and duplicating non-core
FAMU programs, that has and continues to perpetuate de jure
segregation in Florida's higher education system and has prevented
FAMU from achieving parity with Florida's public traditionally
white institutions," the January version of the lawsuit said.
But attorneys for the state have disputed such arguments.

"The challenged policy or practice must not only be traceable to de
jure segregation, it must also have continuing segregative
effects," attorneys for the state wrote in a February motion to
dismiss the case. "Here, plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged
that the challenged policies are traceable to de jure segregation
or that they have segregative effects." [GN]

GENERAL MOTORS: Memorandum in Opposition to Class Cert Due June 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Riley v. General Motors
LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00924 (S.D. Ohio, Filed March 4, 2021), the
Hon. Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers entered an order granting
unopposed motion for extension of time to file memorandum in
opposition to motion to certify class.

  -- Memorandum in Opposition due by June 30, 2023.

The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan, United
States.[CC]




HAPPY LIFE HOME: Faces Puerto Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
CLAUDIA LOBO PUERTO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HAPPY LIFE HOME HEALTH AGENCY INC.
and JANUS HOMECARE AGENCY INC., and MICHAEL PAGAN, as an
individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-04915 (S.D.N.Y., June 12,
2023) arises from the Defendants' alleged egregious violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a personal care aid
and home attendant while performing related miscellaneous duties
for the Defendants from January 2022 until January 2023.  She
alleges the Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages, failure to
pay wages for all hours worked, failure to wage statements, and
failure to furnish written notice.

Happy Life Home Health Agency Inc. provides in-home health care
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591


HARVARD PILGRIM: Faces Residents Class Suit Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Dario News from New Hampshire reports that Two New Hampshire
residents are suing Harvard Pilgrim Health Care over a recent data
breach.

In two separate class action lawsuits, they allege that Harvard
Pilgrim and its parent company, Point32Health, failed to protect
customer information by providing adequate cyber security. An April
ransomware attack compromised the sensitive data of 2.5 million
people, according to a disclosure filed with the federal
government. The incident exposed information like their Social
Security numbers, full names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of
birth, provider taxpayer identification numbers and medical
histories.

The lawsuits also claim it took the company too long to detect the
cyber attack and notify customers, leaving impacted users
vulnerable to identity theft and fraud.

One of the people suing the insurer works at St. Paul's School in
Concord and receives her health insurance through the school,
according to her lawsuit. She claims she experienced $250 worth of
credit card fraud after the incident.

In a separate lawsuit, another New Hampshire resident said she has
experienced stress and other ailments due to the data breach, as
well as an increase in spam texts and phone calls.

The New Hampshire residents aren't alone in pursuing legal action
against the insurer due to the data breach. Massachusetts residents
filed two additional lawsuits. All four of the lawsuits have been
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

In a statement, Point32Health said they have started to notify
impacted individuals.

"Due to the systems outage we were not able to directly communicate
with our members as contact information was not accessible,"
Kathleen Makela, Director of Public Relations for Point32Health,
wrote in a statement to NHPR.

Makela said they tried to use other channels -- like their website,
notices to employers or brokers, and press releases -- to let
people know that they were offering credit monitoring in response
to the incident.

She said Point32Health will begin mailing notifications to people
who were potentially affected by June 15. [GN]

HAWAII: Attorneys' Fees Award in E.R.K. v. HIDOE Affirmed in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, E. R. K., by his legal guardian R.K.; et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees v. STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
Defendant-Appellant. E. R. K., by his legal guardian R.K., et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
Defendant-Appellee, Case Nos. 22-16023, 22-16126 (9th Cir.), the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms in part the
award of attorneys' fees under a class action settlement and
remands in part for proceedings consistent with its Memorandum
Disposition.

Defendant-Appellant, the State of Hawaii Department of Education
("HIDOE"), appeals the award of attorneys' fees under a class
action settlement. HIDOE argues that the district court erred when
interpreting the settlement agreement's attorneys' fees provision
and abused its discretion when calculating the lodestar to award
$430,608.50 to the Plaintiffs-Appellees ("Class Counsel"). On
cross-appeal, the Class Counsel argues that the district court
abused its discretion when reducing certain hourly rates.

The Ninth Circuit interprets the language of a settlement agreement
de novo. It reviews the district court's decision to award attorney
fees to class counsel and the method of calculation for abuse of
discretion.

First, the Ninth Circuit holds that the district court did not err
when interpreting the settlement agreement's attorneys' fee
provision. Under Hawai'i law, absent an ambiguity, the terms of
contract should be interpreted according to their plain, ordinary,
and accepted use in common speech, unless the contract indicates a
different meaning. The settlement agreement provides for the Class
Counsel to be paid $1.5 million in attorneys' fees and costs. On
top of that, the plain language of the settlement agreement allows
the Class Counsel to seek an additional $250,000 in attorneys' fees
upon application to and approval by the District Court.

The Ninth Circuit also agrees with the district court that the
settlement agreement also allows the Class Counsel to seek
additional attorneys' fees and costs beyond the $250,000 upon a
written request to the Court with notice to HIDOE and an
opportunity for HIDOE to respond. In other words, $250,000 is not a
"cap" on additional attorneys' fees, but an amount disbursable upon
approval of the district court. If the Class Counsel seeks
"additional" fees beyond that, it must comply with the more
stringent notice requirements.

Next, the Ninth Circuit also holds that the district court was
within its discretion to apply an "across-the-board" fee reduction
before removing duplicative entries and when setting the Class
Counsel's hourly rates according to the court's own knowledge
regarding prevailing market rates.

The district court, however, failed to state whether incremental
fees disbursed before the court's April 2022 order were accounted
for in the $430,608.50 award. The Ninth Circuit says HIDOE
identifies $210,032.45 that was previously disbursed in incremental
payments. It cannot determine whether these disbursements were
accounted for in the final $430,608.50 award. On remand, the
district court should make clear if and how it factored in these
incremental disbursements when awarding $430,608.50, and, if
necessary, reduce the overall award accordingly.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 9, 2023 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/wk7bszxc from Leagle.com.


HI-LEX AMERICA: Faces Boyer FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
DWAYNE BOYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HI-LEX AMERICA, INCORPORATED, Defendant,
Case No. 2:23-cv-11429-NGE-EAS (E.D. Mich., June 15, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendant for unpaid overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly
employee at 5200 Wayne Rd., Battle Creek, Michigan from
approximately October 2022 through approximately May 12, 2023.

Hi-Lex America, Incorporated is a supplier of electromechanical
devices and control cables, headquartered in Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Jesse L. Young, Esq.
         SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
         141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600
         Kalamazoo, MI 49007
         Telephone: (269) 250-7500
         E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com

                 - and -
       
         Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
         SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
         One Town Square, 17th Floor
         Southfield, MI 48076
         Telephone: (248) 355-0300
         E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com

                 - and -
       
         Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
         Laura Supanich, Esq.
         MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C.
         1801 Century Park East, Suite 850
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (310) 824-3828
         E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com
                 lms@melmedlaw.com

IMPERIAL METALS: Proposed Settlement in Securities Suit Gets OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Siskinds LLP and Groia & Company Professional Corporation of Cision
reports notice of settlement has been issued. The notice is
directed to all persons and entities, excluding certain persons
associated with the Defendants, who acquired Imperial Metals
Corporation's common shares, notes or other such securities from
August 15, 2011 through to August 4, 2014, inclusive, and continued
to hold some or all of those securities as of August 5, 2014.

On August 7, 2014, a proposed class action was commenced in Toronto
(the "Action"). The Plaintiff alleges that Imperial Metals
Corporation's continuous disclosure documents contained
misrepresentations at law and within the meaning under Part
XXIIII.1 of the Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5 and, if
necessary, the other provincial and territorial securities
legislation from August 15, 2011 through to August 4, 2014,
inclusive, by failing to disclose the adverse conditions at
Imperial Metals Corporation's tailings storage facility at the
Mount Polley mine.

The proposed settlement of the Action was approved by the Superior
Court of Justice on May 11, 2023. This notice provides a summary of
the terms of the settlement.

Persons eligible to participate in the settlement are persons,
other than Excluded Persons, who acquired Imperial Metals
Corporation's common shares, notes or other such securities from
August 15, 2011 through to August 4, 2014, inclusive, and continued
to hold some or all of those securities as of August 5, 2014 who
did not opt out of the Action.

SUMMARY OF THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT
The Defendants will pay $6 million, in full and final settlement of
all claims, to be distributed in accordance with the following
priorities:

(a)  $1,765,917.40 to the lawyers for the Class for fees,
disbursements and taxes;

(b)  all costs and expenses incurred in the administration of the
settlement, including the costs of RicePoint Administration Inc.
the Court-appointed Administrator; and

(c)  a pro rata share of the balance to each Class Member in
accordance with the Court-approved claims process and Plan of
Allocation.

The Settlement Agreement, the Plan of Allocation and a description
of the claims process may be viewed at
https://www.imperialmetalsclassaction.com/.

A CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION MUST BE MADE BY OCTOBER 13, 2023.

Each Class Member must submit a completed Claim Form on or before
October 13, 2023 in order to participate in the Settlement. The
Claim Form can be accessed or downloaded at
https://www.imperialmetalsclassaction.com/ or obtained by calling
the Administrator at 1-888-850-0045. If you do not submit a
completed Claim Form by October 13, 2023, you will not receive any
compensation.

The Claim Form should be submitted to the Administrator by using
the secure Online Claims System at
https://www.imperialmetalsclassaction.com/ or by e-mail to
imperialmetals@ricepoint.com. You may submit a paper Claim Form
only if you do not have internet access. The paper Claim Form may
be sent by mail or courier to:

RicePoint Administration Inc., Administrator, Imperial Metals
Corporation Class Action Administration

1480 Richmond Street
Suite 204
London, ON N6G 0J4

QUESTIONS
Questions for the lawyers for the Class may be directed to:

Garett Hunter
Siskinds LLP
275 Dundas Street, Unit 1
London, ON  N6B 3L1
Tel: (519) 660-7802
E-mail: garett.hunter@siskinds.com    


Kevin Richard
Groia & Company Professional Corporation
Wildeboer Dellelce Place
1100 - 365 Bay Street
Toronto, ON  M5H 2V1
Tel: (416) 203-2115
Fax: (416) 203-9231
E-mail: krichard@groiaco.com

This notice has been approved by the Court. Questions regarding
this notice should NOT be directed to the Court.[GN]

JBS USA: Agrees to Settle Beef Antitrust Class Suit for $25M
------------------------------------------------------------
Cision PR Newswire reports that If you purchased boxed or
case-ready Beef processed from Fed Cattle, from January 1, 2015,
through May 25, 2023, for business use in commercial food
preparation in the United States, excluding ground beef made
exclusively from culled cows, a class action settlement may affect
your rights.

A Settlement has been reached in a class action antitrust lawsuit
filed on behalf of Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser
Plaintiffs with Defendants JBS USA Food Company, Swift Beef
Company, JBS Packerland, Inc. and JBS S.A., and all their
predecessors; successors; assigns; affiliates; and any and all
past, present, and future parents, owners, subsidiaries, divisions,
and departments (collectively "JBS" or "Settling Defendants"). This
Settlement only applies to JBS and does not dismiss claims against
other Defendants in the case entitled In re Cattle and Beef
Antitrust Litigation (Commercial and Institutional Indirect
Purchaser Plaintiff Action), Case No. 22-md-3031 (D. Minn.). The
Settlement requires JBS to pay $25,000,000. There will be no
payments to the Settlement Class at this time. You will be notified
later of an opportunity to file a claim. Before any money is paid,
the Court will hold a hearing to decide whether to approve the
Settlement.

The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
authorized this notice. This Court-ordered notice may affect your
rights. Please read this notice carefully.

WHO IS INCLUDED?

For settlement purposes, members of the Settlement Class are
defined as all persons and entities who during the Settlement Class
Period indirectly purchased for business use in commercial food
preparation in the United States, from any of the Defendants or
their respective subsidiaries and affiliates, boxed or case-ready
Beef processed from Fed Cattle, excluding ground beef made
exclusively from culled cows from January 1, 2015, to May 25,
2023.

All Settlement Class members are members of the nationwide class.
Only Settlement Class members in the following jurisdictions are
eligible to potentially recover money from the settlement funds:
Arkansas, Arizona, California, District of Columbia, Florida,
Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York,
North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin,
and/or any state where a commercial indirect purchaser claim is
permissible.

If you are not sure if you are included, you can get more
information, including a detailed notice, at
www.BeefCommercialCase.com or by calling toll-free 1-888-570-3771.

WHAT IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT?

Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs allege
that Defendants and their co-conspirators conspired to limit the
supply, and fix the prices, of Beef sold to members of the
Settlement Class in the United States from at least January 1,
2015, with the intent and expected result of increasing prices of
Beef products in the United States, in violation of federal
antitrust laws and various state antitrust, consumer protection and
unfair trade practices, and unjust enrichment laws. The Court did
not decide which side was right, but both sides agreed to the
Settlement to resolve the case. The case is still proceeding on
behalf of Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser
Plaintiffs against other Defendants who may be subject to separate
settlements, judgments, or class certification orders.

WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?

If the Settlement is approved, JBS will pay $25,000,000 to resolve
all Settlement Class members' claims against JBS for the Released
Claims (as defined in the Settlement Agreement). In addition to
this monetary benefit, JBS has also agreed to provide specified
cooperation in Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser
Plaintiffs' continued prosecution of the litigation. The Settlement
Agreement is on the Settlement Website at
www.BeefCommercialCase.com.

No money will be distributed at this time. Settlement Class Counsel
will continue to pursue the lawsuit against the other Defendants.
Settlement Class Counsel may request that the Court award
attorneys' fees and permit the reimbursement of certain litigation
costs and expenses. Settlement Class Counsel will also seek
permission to set aside up to seven percent of the Settlement Fund
for future litigation expenses to be used in the continuing lawsuit
against the non-settling Defendants and will seek service awards
for the class representative. When Settlement Class Counsel's
motion for fees, costs, expenses, and service awards is filed, it
will be available on the Settlement Website at
www.BeefCommercialCase.com. All Settlement funds that remain after
payment of the Court-ordered attorneys' fees, costs, expenses, and
service awards will be distributed at the conclusion of the lawsuit
or as ordered by the Court. You will be notified later, when there
is an opportunity to make a claim to receive a payment.

Settlement Class Counsel will ask the Court for attorneys' fees
based on their services in this litigation, not to exceed one third
of the Settlement Fund net of any expense reimbursement and class
representative service awards. Settlement Class Counsel will ask to
be reimbursed for certain expenses already incurred on behalf of
the Settlement Class in an amount up to $1 million and will also
seek permission to set aside up to seven percent of the gross
Settlement Fund for future litigation expenses to be used in the
continuing lawsuits against the non-settling Defendants. Settlement
Class Counsel will also seek service awards of up to $15,000 for
each class representative. Any payment to the attorneys or class
representative will be subject to Court approval, and the Court may
award less than the requested amount. The attorneys' fees, costs,
expenses, and service awards that the Court orders, plus the costs
to administer the Settlement, will come out of the Settlement Fund.
Settlement Class Counsel may seek additional attorneys' fees,
costs, expenses, and service awards from any other settlements or
recoveries obtained in the future. When Settlement Class Counsel's
motion for fees, costs, expenses, and service awards is filed, it
will be available at www.BeefCommercialCase.com. The motion will be
posted on the website at least 14 days before the deadline for
objecting, commenting on, or excluding yourself from the
Settlement. You will have an opportunity to comment on this
request. All Settlement funds that remain after payment of the
Court-ordered attorneys' fees, costs, expenses, and service awards
will be distributed at the conclusion of the lawsuit or as ordered
by the Court. You will be notified later, if and when there is an
opportunity to make a claim to receive a payment.

WHAT ARE YOUR RIGHTS AND OPTIONS?

You do not need to take any action to remain a member of the
Settlement Class and be bound by the Settlement Agreement. As a
Settlement Class member, you may be able to participate in (or
exclude yourself from) any future settlements or judgments obtained
by Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs
against other Defendants in the case.

If you do not want to be legally bound by the Settlement Agreement,
you must exclude yourself. Your exclusion request must be
postmarked by August 14, 2023, or you will not be able to sue or to
continue suing the JBS Released Parties for the Released Claims (as
defined in the Settlement Agreement). If you exclude yourself, you
cannot get money from the Settlement. If you do not exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you may object to the
Settlement. Your objection must be postmarked by August 14, 2023.
The detailed notice explains how to exclude yourself or object.
Details may also be found on the FAQs page of the Settlement
website at www.BeefCommercialCase.com.

While this Settlement is only with JBS at this time, the Settlement
Class includes purchasers of Beef products (as defined in the
Settlement Agreement) from Fed Cattle (as defined in the Settlement
Agreement) from any of the Defendants or their co-conspirators. If
you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not exclude
yourself, you may be eligible to participate in (or exclude
yourself from) any additional settlements which may arise with any
other Defendants in the case.

The Court will hold a hearing in this case In re Cattle and Beef
Antitrust Litigation (Commercial and Institutional Indirect
Purchaser Plaintiff Action), Case No. 22-md-3031 (D. Minn.) on
November 21, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. via video conference, to consider
whether to approve the Settlement Agreement. You may ask to speak
at the hearing, but you do not have to.

This notice is a summary only. You can find more details about the
Settlement at www.BeefCommercialCase.com or by calling toll-free
1-888-570-3771. Do not contact the Court. [GN]

JEA SENIOR: $125K Class Settlement in Bowen Suit Wins Prelim. Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANNICA B. BOWEN, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JEA SENIOR LIVING HEALTH AND
WELFARE BENEFIT PLAN, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-2318-KJN (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
grants the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for provisional
certification of a settlement class and preliminary approval of a
Rule 23 Class Action and California Private Attorneys General Act
settlement.

The Plaintiff alleges in the First Amended Complaint that she
previously worked as a non-exempt hourly-wage employee for
Defendants Empire Ranch, Willow Springs, and Blossom Grove, who
jointly ran Alzheimer care centers in Northern California.  She
alleges that from at least 2016 through 2021, the Defendants
enforced policies and practices that did not allow for her and
other caregivers to: (i) take meal breaks despite working 5+ hours
a day; (ii) take rest breaks for every four hours worked; (iii)
receive itemized wage statements; and (iv) receive all wages owed
at the conclusion of their employment. The Plaintiff alleges, in
essence, that the Defendants deprived her and other caregivers of
breaks by requiring them to always remain on site and in possession
of their localized communication devices.

On April 30, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action in
California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, on behalf of herself
and similarly situated current and former caregivers. The
Defendants removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California and answered the complaint; the case was
transferred to the Eastern District in November of 2020. After
exchanging discovery responses, the parties participated in
mediation in June of 2021, executed a settlement agreement shortly
thereafter, submitted a first amended complaint in January of 2022,
and moved for preliminary approval in March of 2022. The matter was
taken under submission by the assigned district judge, reassigned
to a different district judge, and ultimately reassigned to Judge
Newman after the parties consented to magistrate judge
jurisdiction.

The Settlement Agreement contains a release of all claims that are
factually supported by the FAC against the Defendants by the
proposed class, who are defined as "all current or former nonexempt
caregivers working at the Willow Springs Facility, the Empire Ranch
Facility, and/or the Blossom Grove Facility at any time between
April 30, 2016, through Sept. 2, 2021." The Agreement sets the PAGA
period from April 20, 2019, to Sept. 2, 2021. The proposed class
consists of approximately 498 class members, with 323 former
employees and the remaining those who continued employment with the
new management company beyond 2021.

In return for the release of claims from these individuals, the
Settlement Agreement provides for a non-reversionary gross
settlement amount of $125,000. This amount represents approximately
a quarter of the potential damages for alleged missed rest breaks
(at just under $500,000), and approximately one-eighth to one-tenth
of the potential maximum relief if additional penalties were to be
found cognizable.

The estimates are based on the counsel's examination of discovery
documents showing the number of breaks potentially at issue (13,863
work weeks) and the average hourly pay rate of class members (at
$12/hour). In arguing the settlement is fair, the counsel notes the
significant weaknesses in the Plaintiff's case, including that the
Defendants' facial policy appears to allow caregivers to leave the
premises during breaks, among other things.

The Settlement Agreement proposes deducting from the $125,000 gross
settlement amount the following: (a) Class representative incentive
award of $3,000; (b) Class counsel's attorney's fees of up to
$41,666 (one-third of the gross amount); (c) Class counsel's
litigation costs of up to $12,500; (d) Settlement administrator
costs of up to $9,000; and (e) A PAGA payment of $3,750 to be paid
to the Labor Workforce and Development Agency (LWDA), out of an
overall PAGA award of $5,000. These deductions, if fully approved,
would yield a Net Settlement Fund of $55,084. (See id.)

As proposed, the Net Settlement Fund would be distributed across
all class members who do not opt out of the settlement, on a
pro-rata basis, as determined by the number of workweeks they
worked as class members during the class period. Using the parties'
numbers, the proposed settlement would result in an average
recovery of $110 per class member ($55,084 Net Settlement Fund/498
class members, which of course will vary depending on the number of
workweeks each class member actually worked).

The Settlement Agreement requires the Settlement Administrator to
mail out notices of the class action settlement within 30 days of
the court's preliminary approval. It then allows 45 days from the
mailing of the proposed Notice of Class Action Settlement for class
members to (a) do nothing and receive a payment, (b) request to be
excluded from the settlement, (c) object to the terms of the
settlement, or (d) dispute their dates of employment and estimated
recovery amount listed.

Those who opt out will retain their right to sue but receive no
payment under the settlement; those who remain in would ultimately
receive their "Individual Settlement Payment" by check. The
Settlement Agreement also contains a procedure for distribution of
the PAGA settlement should a class member opt out of the Rule 23
class settlement, and the Class Notice informs the class members
that opting out of the Rule 23 class does not affect the PAGA
settlement.

The Plaintiff seeks: (A) provisional certification of the Rule 23
settlement class, her appointment as class representative, and
appointment of her counsel as class counsel; (B) preliminary
approval of a class action settlement; (C) approval of the PAGA
settlement; and (D) appointment of the settlement administrator,
approval of the notice to class members, and setting of a fairness
hearing. The Defendants submitted a statement of non-opposition,
given their participation in the 2021 mediation session.

The Plaintiff moves for an appointment of Stephen M. Harris of the
Law Offices of Stephen M. Harris, P.C., and Louis Benowitz of Smith
and Benowitz as the Class Counsel.

Judge Newman finds the Settlement Agreement appears fair,
reasonable, and adequate. Hence, he preliminarily approves the
Settlement Agreement under Rule 23(e) as to the class claims. He
provisionally designates the Plaintiff's counsel as the Class
Counsel.

Judge Newman also approves of the Class Notice and schedule -- with
one exception. So that the absent class members can evaluate their
choice to opt out of the Rule 23 class but understand they cannot
do so with the PAGA settlement, he orders that the notice will
provide the class members with the amounts they will be awarded for
each segment of the settlement. One line stating the Rule 23 award
and another line for the PAGA award will suffice. The remainder of
the notice meets the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) and 23(e)(4) and
(5), as well as relevant case law.

For clarity, Judge Newman now reiterates the remaining deadlines as
per in the Settlement Agreement, the Class Notice, and the parties'
proposed order. Additional categories were added by the Court as
appears to be required by the Settlement Agreement. The deadline
for fairness hearing has been set to account for any delay in
remailing notices to the class members.

     a. Deadline for defendants to provide to Claims Administrator
a database of all putative Class Members, including names, last
known addresses, social security numbers, and dates of employment -
June 19, 2023

     b. Deadline for mailing of Class Notices by Claims
Administrator - July 10, 2023

     c. Last day for Class Members opt out, submit written
objections to the court, or dispute the (or remailing) workweeks
calculated - 45 days from the mailing of the Class Notice

     d. Last day for the Plaintiff to request final approval of the
settlement agreement, attorneys' fees, and incentive award - Oct.
30, 2023

     e. Last day for Settlement Administrator to file Proof of
Mailing - Oct. 30, 2023

     f. Fairness Hearing Date (Courtroom 25) - Dec. 5, 2023, at
9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 25 of the Matsui Courthouse, 501 I. St.,
Sacramento, CA, 95814.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Newman grants the Plaintiff's
unopposed motion for provisional class certification and
preliminary approval of settlement. The Settlement Agreement is
preliminarily approved.

As defined and for purposes of settlement only, the Rule 23 class
is provisionally certified, Bowen (a.k.a. Annica Palacio) is
appointed class representative, and Stephen M. Harris and Louis
Benowitz are appointed class counsel. Simpluris, Inc. is appointed
Claims Administrator.

The parties' plan for notice to the class is the best notice
practicable and satisfies the due process concerns of Rule 23,
after small modifications are made.

The parties will follow the deadlines set, as delineated by the
Settlement Agreement.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 9, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/254yfajh from Leagle.com.


KAISER FOUNDATION: Sued Over Unlawful Disclosure of Patients' Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN DOE and JANE DOE, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN,
INC., KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, and THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL
GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-02865 (N.D. Cal., June 9,
2023) arises out of the Defendants' violations of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act,
common law's invasion of privacy, invasion of privacy and violation
of the California Constitution, breach of contract, and breach of
implied contract.

Allegedly, Kaiser Permanente unlawfully discloses the contents of
patients' confidential information and communications with a number
of third party companies such as Quantum Metric, Twitter, Adobe,
Bing, and Google. Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs and its other patients,
Kaiser Permanente has installed code from multiple third parties
throughout the Kaiser Permanente website that allows these third
party companies to intercept the content of Plaintiffs and Class
Members' patient status, identifying information, medical topics
researched, choices made, information shared and communications
with their medical providers, including personally identifiable
medical information and other confidential information and
communications, when that information is in transit, says the
suit.

Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. is a health care provider
headquartered in Oakland, CA. The company has an integrated care
model, offering both hospital and physician care through a network
of hospitals and physician practices operating under the Kaiser
Permanente name. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

           Jennifer L. Joost, Esq.
           KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
           One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
           San Francisco, CA 94104
           Telephone: (415) 400-3000
           Facsimile: (415) 400-3001
           E-mail: jjoost@ktmc.com

                   - and -

           Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
           Melissa L. Yeates
           Tyler S. Graden
           Jordan E. Jacobson
           KESSLER TOPAZMELTZER & CHECK, LLP
           280 King of Prussia Road
           Radnor, PA 19087
           Telephone: (610) 667-7706
           Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
           E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
                   myeates@ktmc.com
                   tgraden@ktmc.com
                   jjacobson@ktmc.com
           
                   - and -

           James E. Cecchi, Esq.
           Michael A. Innes, Esq.
           Kevin G. Cooper, Esq.
           CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
           5 Becker Farm Road
           Roseland, NJ 07068
           Telephone: (973)-994-1700
           Facsimile: (973)-994-1744
           E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
                   minnes@carellabyrne.com
                   kcooper@carellabyrne.com
                 
                   -and-

           Zachary Jacobs, Esq.
           CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
           222 S Riverside Plaza
           Chicago, IL 06606
           E-mail: zjacobs@carellabyrne.com

KATZ TIRES: Green Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Tire Technicians
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BOBBIE GREEN and BRIAN LONBERGER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KATZ TIRES SERVICE LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-01945-JLG-EPD (S.D. Ohio, June 15,
2023) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to
compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees overtime
pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio overtime
compensation statute.

Plaintiffs Green and Lonberger were employed by the Defendant as
tire technicians from February 2022 until April 2023 and from July
2021 until April 2023, respectively.

Katz Tires Service LLC is an operator of tire stores, with its
principal place of business in Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
         8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104
         Skokie, IL 60076
         Telephone: (847) 986-5889
         Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
         E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com

                 - and -
       
         James L. Simon, Esq.
         SIMON LAW CO.
         5000 Rockside Road
         Liberty Plaza, Suite 520
         Independence, OH 44131
         Telephone: (216) 816-8696
         E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com

KAWASAKI KISEN: Third Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Amended Alban Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JILL M. ALBAN; GRANT M. ALBAN; MARY ARNOLD; AL BAKER;
KATRINA BONAR; STEVEN BRUZONSKY; MONICA BUSHEY; MELINDA DENEAU;
JENNIFER DILLON; JEFFREY GANNON; PAMELA G. GOESSLING; EUGENE THOMAS
GOESSLING; SHERYL HALEY; LESLIE DENISE HART; BRUCE HERTZ; MARIA
KOOKEN; ADAIR LARA; KORI LEHRKAMP; MICHAEL LEHRKAMP; JOHN LEVYA;
DANIEL MORRIS; JUDY A. REIBER; RICHARD TOMASKO; JOHN O'NEIL JOHNSON
TOYOTA, LLC; RUSH TRUCK CENTERS OF ARIZONA, INC., Appellants v.
KAWASAKI KISEN KAISHA, LTD; K LINE AMERICA, INC., Case No. 22-2754
(3d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirms
the judgment of the District Court dismissing the Plaintiffs'
amended complaint with prejudice and determining that specific
performance was not an appropriate remedy.

The Plaintiffs sued Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha and "K" Line America
(collectively, "K Line") for breach of a settlement agreement
reached in a multidistrict litigation. The District Court dismissed
the Plaintiffs' amended complaint with prejudice for failure to
adequately plead damages caused by K Line's alleged breach. It also
determined that specific performance was not an appropriate
remedy.

In 2013, direct and indirect purchasers of vehicle carrier services
sued K Line and other providers of such services in various class
actions around the country. The purchasers alleged violations of
state and federal antitrust laws stemming from the providers'
participation in a "global conspiracy to fix prices and allocate
the market and customers of vehicle carrier services." Joint
Appendix ("JA") 006. These class actions were eventually
consolidated into the multidistrict "Vehicle Carrier litigation."
The Plaintiffs are a proposed class of indirect purchasers from the
Vehicle Carrier litigation.

In 2015, while K Line's motion to dismiss was pending in the
Vehicle Carrier litigation, K Line and the Plaintiffs executed a
Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") to settle the Plaintiffs'
claims against K Line. Under the MOU, K Line promised to pay a
specified settlement amount in exchange for release from claims the
Plaintiffs have asserted or may have asserted related to the sale
of Vehicle Carrier Services in In re Vehicle Carrier Services
Antitrust Litigation. The parties agreed that the MOU would remain
in effect, even if the motion to dismiss were successful, and
provided for the negotiation of a "long-form" agreement. The MOU
specified that K Line would deposit the settlement amount into an
interest-bearing escrow account.

Almost a month later, the parties amended the MOU to allow K Line
an additional 10 business days following the date on which the
counsel for the Plaintiffs provides the counsel for K Line with the
necessary escrow account information to fund the escrow account.
They did not formally move for preliminary approval of the
settlement or request a stay of the case pending approval of the
settlement agreement from the District Court.

Eight days after the parties amended the MOU, the District Court
granted K Line's motion to dismiss with prejudice, determining that
the Shipping Act of 1984 barred the federal antitrust claims,
preempted the state antitrust claims, divested federal courts of
jurisdiction, and required that private claims be brought before
the Federal Maritime Commission ("FMC"). It also noted that it was
required to address the motion to dismiss, even though broad
settlement terms had been reached between K Line and the Plaintiffs
because no motion to consider the settlement agreement was before
it at that time.

The Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration requesting that the
District Court retains jurisdiction solely to consider preliminary
and final approval of its settlement agreement with K Line. The
District Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration
and declined to retain jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs appealed the
District Court's grant of K Line's motion to dismiss and denial of
their motion for reconsideration and the Third Circuit affirmed
both. While those appeals were pending, the Plaintiffs also filed
an action before the FMC. The FMC dismissed their complaint with
prejudice upon finding that indirect purchasers lacked standing
under the direct-purchaser rule and declined to consider the
settlement agreement.

The Plaintiffs aver that the parties continued long-form agreement
negotiations until the Plaintiffs lost their appeal of the District
Court's decisions granting dismissal and denying reconsideration.
Despite K Line's refusal to continue negotiations over the
long-form agreement, from 2017 to 2021, they continued their
efforts to secure K Line's execution of the MOU and provided
counsel for K Line with the required escrow account information to
get K Line to deposit the agreed-upon funds.

Eventually, the Plaintiffs filed a breach-of-contract class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
alleging that K Line breached its obligations under the MOU by
failing to fund the escrow account. They sought damages and
specific performance, but later voluntarily dismissed that action
due to subject matter jurisdiction concerns.

Relevant here, the Plaintiffs then filed the same
breach-of-contract class action in the Superior Court of New
Jersey. K Line removed the case to federal court in the District of
New Jersey and moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The District
Court granted K Line's motion and dismissed the amended complaint
with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The Plaintiffs timely
appealed.

The Plaintiffs challenge the District Court's determination that
they failed to allege damages that were caused by K Line's
purported breach of the contract. They also argue that the District
Court abused its discretion in concluding that specific performance
was not an appropriate remedy.

The Third Circuit opines that the Plaintiffs fail to adequately
assert that the damages sought were caused by K Line's alleged
breach. It is not persuaded by their argument that they are damaged
by the breach because they cannot acquire the settlement funds. The
Third Circuit reasons that the Plaintiffs cannot access the money
they were promised, not because of K Line's refusal to fund the
account, but because they have failed to secure a forum for
approving a settlement. Despite the Plaintiffs' many efforts -- by
a motion for reconsideration to the District Court, appeal to this
Court, and suit before the FMC -- they have secured no forum with
jurisdiction over these claims.

Hence, the Third Circuit affirms that the District Court properly
dismissed the Plaintiffs' amended complaint for failing to plead
damages caused by K Line's breach.

The Plaintiffs' argument that specific performance is an available
remedy also fails. According to the Third Circuit, the MOU does tie
the release of the funds to approval of the settlement and,
unfortunately for the Plaintiffs, no forum has the authority to so
approve. As a result, specific performance would cause K Line to
remit funds only to have them held in escrow indefinitely. The
District Court did not abuse its discretion in holding that
specific performance of the MOU would be inequitable and cause
unreasonable and unnecessary loss to K Line.

For the foregoing reasons, the amended complaint does not establish
damages caused by K Line's breach of contract and specific
performance is not an appropriate remedy. The Third Circuit
therefore affirms the District Court's judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/mryw687c from Leagle.com.


KIA MOTORS: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Stolen Cars for $200-Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Grady of FOX6 Milwaukee reports that the first class
action lawsuit brought against Kia and Hyundai due to the crime
wave was done so by a Milwaukee law firm in 2021. A year later,
more than 60 other class action lawsuits have been filed in
multiple states, leading to the consolidation into one massive
class action lawsuit that played out in California, where the two
automakers are based in the U.S.

Kia and Hyundai waved the white flag and agreed to settle the suit
for $200 million.
FOX6 News sat down with James Barton, the Milwaukee attorney who
decided he had enough with the car thefts wreaking havoc on his
city.

FOX6's Stephanie Grady: "Stealing cars, that is certainly not a new
crime. Two years ago, the rate of cars being stolen in Milwaukee
just absolutely skyrocketed. When did you guys first start thinking
something bigger is going on here?"

"Was almost two years ago to the day," said Barton. "It started in
May, June 2021.  Had some friends of the firm that had their cars
stolen and one was a Kia and one was a Hyundai. When we started
looking into this, all of a sudden, it was like, wow, how are
thefts of Kias and Hyundais up 2,500%?"

FOX6's Stephanie Grady: "Were stolen car cases your law firm's
bread and butter before all of this?"

"No, no, no," said Barton. "We are not a stolen vehicle law firm.
I'm not an auto mechanic by trade. No one in our firm is, but we
went down to the junkyard, and we got some ignition assemblies of
Kia and Hyundais to figure out what was the common theme about
that, and we did a ton of research. Kia and Hyundai didn’t
install immobilizer technology which has been ubiquitous in the
automotive industry since the mid-1990s."

FOX6's Stephanie Grady: "Is it required?"

"It's not required by NHTSA," said Barton. "In the EU, it's been
required since 2000 or 2001. In Canada, it’s been required since
2007. I believe in Australia, as well.

FOX6's Stephanie Grady: "Why do you think it's not required here?"

"NHSTA said we can't, and the reason we can't is because our
charge, when we create these federal motor vehicle standards, is
they are minimum performance standards, OK?" said Barton. "We can't
impose design criteria."

"FOX6's Stephanie Grady: "Does any agency has a statutory authority
to mandate this?"
"Not necessarily immobilizers," said Barton.

FOX6's Stephanie Grady: "Are there any required mandates for
airbags, per se?"

"There are, but they are minimum performance standards, but what
ultimately happened is you know the VIN in your car, right? That
also appears on your doors and on your engine block and on your
transmission, and it was passed in the early 80s as another means
to prevent auto theft," said Barton. NHTSA said look, all vehicles
have to comply with this parts marking requirement, but if you take
steps to install something like an immobilizer, that, in our
opinion, will do a better job at preventing deaths. Then you don't
have to comply with the parts requirement part of it. Virtually
every manufacturer followed suit and made immobilizer standard
across various vehicle lines except Kia and Hyundai."

FOX6's Stephanie Grady: "You never got into whether this was a
cost-cutting measure or anything like that?"

"The average cost to comply with the parts marking requirement was
like, $6 a vehicle, give or take, whereas the cost to implement the
immobilizer technology could range from $200-$500 a vehicle," said
Barton. "We can do the math. You multiply that out by a couple of
million vehicles. Well, there you go. It’s pretty immense cost
savings."

FOX6's Stephanie Grady: "You said this was really just a case of
common sense. Can you explain that?"

"There was a kid who steals one of these cars, gets in a high-speed
chase with the cops, and he's driving Good Hope Road going
westbound," said Barton. "He's going 90 miles an hour in oncoming
traffic and just smokes another car head-on, and that's when it
really hit me. My nanny takes that road all the time, oftentimes
with my children in the car."

FOX6's Stephanie Grady: "And that's what push you over the edge?"

"Yeah, yeah," said Barton. "No one was doing anything about it, so
we said, 'OK. Fine, Kia and Hyundai. You wanna pick a fight? Pick a
fight with us. Let's go."

FOX6's Stephanie Grady: "Have you ever taken a case like this
before?"

"In terms of the profound effect this is having on our community
and why we really did this, no," said Barton. "I have not taken on
a case like this before. It's been very, very rewarding, but, this
isn't about notching W-2s for our firm. We did it for the fact that
this was an existential crisis and still is. We're still getting
calls about people who are getting their cars stolen left and
right, and thank goodness help is on the way. Again, like you said,
the wheels of justice turn slowly. Sometimes, they do, but we're
getting there, and that feels really, really good that if we did
our part to make our community safer then that feels great." [GN]

LOOK ENTERTAINMENT: McPherson Sues Over Labor Law Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELIQUE MCPHERSON, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LOOK ENTERTAINMENT LTD, d/b/a Billy Dean's
Showtime Café, WILLIAM "BILLY" DEAN an individual, and RORI
GORDON, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-04273
(E.D.N.Y., June 9, 2023) arises out of the Defendants' alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York
Labor Law.

Plaintiff Angelique McPherson worked for Billy Dean's Showtime Cafe
as a dancer from September 1, 2021, to March 16, 2022. Plaintiff
McPherson estimates that generally she worked approximately 20
hours per week. She, like others similarly situated, was paid in
cash at the end of each shift. At no time during her employment did
Plaintiff ever receive paystubs or any kind of notification of
access to an online equivalent. Further, Plaintiff discovered
Defendants' past payroll records that show she was paid on an
hourly basis. In addition, the quantity of hours worked did not
reflect the hours that she actually worked. The Plaintiff also
claims that the Defendants are engaged in fraudulent reporting
activities on their tax forms, such as W2.

Look Entertainment Ltd d/b/a Billy Dean's Showtime Cafe is a
corporation doing business within Nassau County, and whose
principal place of business is located at 1538 Newbridge Rd, North
Bellmore, NY. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Penn A. Dodson, Esq.
          ANDERSONDODSON, P.C.
          11 Broadway, Suite 615
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 961-7639
          Facsimile: (646) 998-8051
          E-mail: penn@andersondodson.com

MANAGED CARE: Carter Sues Over Third-Party Access of Personal Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
MONTWAIN CARTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MANAGED CARE OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., MCNA
INSURANCE CO., and MCNA HEALTH CARE HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 0:23-cv-61158-CMA (S.D. Fla., June 15, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, breach of confidence,
unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief.

The Plaintiff brings this class action against the Defendants for
their failure to properly secure and safeguard protected health
information and personally identifiable information stored within
their network and servers following a data breach between at least
February 26 and March 7, 2023. The Defendants also failed to timely
notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the
data breach. As a result, the PII and PHI of the Plaintiff and
Class members were compromised and damaged through access by and
disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party.

Managed Care of North America, Inc., doing business as MCNA Dental,
is a dental benefits manager, with its principal place of business
in Miramar, Florida.

MCNA Insurance Company is a dental benefits manager, with its
principal place of business located in Miramar, Florida.

MCNA Health Care Holdings, LLC is the parent of MCNA Insurance
Company and Managed Care of North America, Inc., with its principal
place of business located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
         Patrick A. Barthle, II, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN
         201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
         Tampa, FL 33602
         Telephone: (813) 223-5505
         E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
                 pbarthle@forthepeople.com

                 - and -
       
         Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
         Barrett J. Vahle, Esq.
         J. Austin Moore, Esq.
         Tanner J. Edwards, Esq.
         Brandi S. Spates, Esq.
         STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
         460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
         Kansas City, MO 64112
         Telephone: (816) 714-7100
         E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
                 vahle@stuevesiegel.com
                 moore@stuevesiegel.com
                 tanner@stueveisegel.com
                 spates@stuevesiegel.com

                 - and -
       
         Daniel Srourian, Esq.
         SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
         3435 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1710
         Los Angeles, CA 90010
         Telephone: (213) 474-3800
         E-mail: daniel@slfla.com

MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS: Martinez Sues Over Labor Code Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL MARTINEZ, individually, and on behalf of all other aggrieved
employees, Plaintiff v. MCDONALD’S RESTAURANTS OF CALIFORNIA,
INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1-20, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 23STCV13258 (Cal. Super., June 9, 2023) seeks
to recover civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act
of 2004 and to address an employer's violations of the California
Labor Code.

The Plaintiff was employed as a shift manager at Defendants'
Pacoima location in Los Angeles County. The Plaintiff's duties as a
shift manager included general customer service, monitoring
employee work, and ensuring sales targets were hit in service of
Defendants' customers. The Defendants violated the Labor Code by,
among other things, failing to accurately pay Plaintiff overtime
wages and failing to provide him with meal periods before the end
of the fifth hour worked, says the Plaintiff.

MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS OF CALIFORNIA, INC. provides fast food
services throughout California, including in Los Angeles County,
and employs numerous non-exempt employees at each of these
locations. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald W. Makarem, Esq.
          Samuel Almon, Esq.
          Daniel J. Bass, Esq.
          MAKAREM & ASSOCIATES APLC
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2440
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-1760
          Telephone: (310) 312-0299
          Facsimile: (310) 312-0296

                      - and-

          Matthew Mann, Esq.
          Justin R. Rogal, Esq.
          MANN ROGAL APC
          16501 Ventura Blvd., Suite 400
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (310) 620-2314
          Facsimile: (310) 620-2314

MDL 3010: State of Texas v. Google LLC Remanded to E.D. Tex.
------------------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district litigation captioned "In Re: Google Digital
Advertising Antitrust Litigation," MDL No. 3010, Judge Karen K.
Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, remands the case docketed as "The State of Texas, et
al. v. Google, LLC," C.A. No. 1:21−0684 back to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas, under C.A. No.
4:20-00957.

Said action was transferred from the Eastern District of Texas to
the Southern District of New York for centralized pretrial
proceedings in MDL No. 3010. Following centralization, legislation
was enacted in December 2022 amending Section 1407(g) to exempt
state antitrust enforcement actions arising under federal antitrust
law from MDLs. Plaintiffs in State of Texas moved for an order
remanding the action to the Eastern District of Texas on the ground
that the legislation applies to their action. Defendant Google LLC
opposed the motion for remand.

Plaintiffs assert that the amendment applies to all pending state
antitrust enforcement actions.

Having determined that the amendment to Section 1407(g) applies to
state antitrust enforcement actions pending in MDLs, the Panel
finds that remand is required. The Panel observed that it possesses
the authority to remand State of Texas to its transferor court,
even though Section 1407(g), as amended, potentially could be
construed as eliminating the Panel's subsection (a) remand
authority over the action due to the opening clause - "Nothing in
this section [i.e., Section 1407] shall apply to any action in
which the United States or a State is a complainant arising under
the antitrust laws."

"On its face, the Venue Act plainly is intended to allow state
antitrust actions to proceed in the action's original forum, and
interpreting the subsection (g) amendment to eliminate the
possibility of remand to that forum yields an absurd result that is
the exact opposite of the statute's purpose. Thus, we conclude that
we retain the authority to remand previously-centralized state
antitrust enforcement actions under subsection (a). We also believe
that the power to remand is a part of the Panel's inherent
authority to grant a remedy for actions transferred to an MDL that
no longer belong there," adds the Panel.

A full-text copy of the court's June 5, 2023 Remand Order is
available at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3010-Remand_Order-5-23.pdf


MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Securities Suit in NY Court Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
Medical Properties Trust, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2023, that on April 12, 2023,
the company and certain of its executives were named as defendants
in a putative federal securities class action lawsuit filed by a
purported stockholder in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:23-cv-03070. On May 9,
2023, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this lawsuit.

The complaint sought class certification on behalf of purchasers of
the company's common stock between March 1, 2022, and February 22,
2023, and alleged false and/or misleading statements and/or
omissions resulting in artificially inflated prices for its common
stock. The complaint sought unspecified damages including interest
and an award of reasonable costs and expenses.

Medical Properties Trust, Inc. is a self-advised REIT focused on
investing in and owning net-leased healthcare facilities based in
Alabama.


MERCY HEALTH: Faces Two Class Suits Over Hospital Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Clark Kauffman of Iowa Capital Dispatch reports that an Iowa
hospital network is facing a pair of potential class-action
lawsuits over a cyberattack that allegedly resulted in hackers
gaining access to personal information on more than 20,000 eastern
Iowa patients.

Lawyers for Tiffany Harris of Clinton are suing Mercy Health
Network, also known as MercyOne Clinics, for negligence, breach of
implied contract and unjust enrichment. The lawsuit seeks
unspecified damages and a court injunction that would help ensure
patient information is kept confidential and protected from any
future hacks.

The lawsuits stem from an incident earlier this year that prompted
Mercy Health Network to publish a notice in May stating that
portions of its network "were accessed by an unknown and
unauthorized party between March 7, 2023 and April 4, 2023." Mercy
said the attack was "limited to its clinics in the Clinton, Iowa,
area."

The notice said that on May 23, 2023, Mercy determined individuals'
"information may have been impacted" by the incident, and it went
on to say the types of information might include people's name,
address, date of birth, driver's license number, Social Security
number, financial account information, treatment and condition
information, diagnostic information, prescription-medicine
information, billing information and other data.

The lawsuit alleges that despite Mercy's duty to secure and
safeguard personal information, the network had “stored this
private information on a database that was negligently and/or
recklessly configured.” Mercy, the lawsuit claims, failed to
adequately encrypt the information and, "foreseeably,
cybercriminals exploited these vulnerabilities."

The hack has created a risk of identity theft risk for the affected
patients and that risk "will remain for their respective
lifetimes," the lawsuit alleges.

Harris is a MercyOne-Clinton patient and has sought medical care
from the hospital "in several instances," but is very careful about
sharing her personal information, according to the lawsuit. The
data breach has allegedly caused Harris to experience "stress, fear
and anxiety" while spending a significant amount of time monitoring
her financial accounts and credit reports to ensure no fraudulent
activity has occurred.

In seeking class-action status so that others may join Harris as
plaintiffs in the case, attorney Jeffrey C. O'Brien of the
Minneapolis law firm Chestnut Cambronne alleges that "there are
certainly tens of thousands, and probably at least more than 20,865
individuals whose private information was improperly accessed in
the data breach."

A similar lawsuit was filed this week by West Des Moines attorney
J. Barton Goplerud on behalf of plaintiff Jennifer Medenblik of
Illinois. That lawsuit, which also names MercyOne's parent, Trinity
Health Corp., as a defendant, alleges violations of the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and a failure to
protect sensitive data according to Federal Trade Commission
guidelines.

Mercy Health Network is an integrated system of hospitals, clinics
and other health care providers with more than 2,000 physicians and
advanced-practice clinicians working in 18 medical centers. It is
run by Trinity Health Corp., one of the largest not-for-profit,
faith-based health care systems in America. Trinity has 123,000
employees, and nearly 27,000 physicians and clinicians, working in
26 states.

Mercy Health Network has yet to file a response to either of the
lawsuits, and a spokesperson declined to comment on the
litigation.

Last fall, a business partner of the Mercy Health Network called
CommonSpirit Health announced that it had "experienced a ransomware
event that impacted some personal information" belonging to some
unspecified number of individuals.

The information included names, addresses, dates of birth, phone
numbers, email address, diagnosis and treatment information and
medical billing information. CommonSpirit Health indicated that
"for a small number of individuals," Social Security numbers were
also involved. [GN]

MISSOURI: Agrees to Pay $5M for Abuse Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Ufonobong Umanah of Bloomberg Law reports that The St. Louis
Metropolitan Police Department has agreed to pay $4,914,000 to
settle the claims of people it arrested in the wake of an officer's
acquittal in 2017.

Jason Stockley was charged— but not convicted—of the murder of
Anthony Lamar Smith, leading to a September 2017 protest in St.
Louis. A class action filed about the protest alleged that the
police used chemical agents on protesters before arresting them.
Judge Catherine D. Perry of the US District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri gave final approval to the class settlement on
June 13, 2023. [GN]



NATIONSBENEFITS LLC: Clancy Sues Over Alleged Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
EILEEN CLANCY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONSBENEFITS, LLC and AETNA INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 0:23-cv-61107-RKA (S.D. Fla., June 9, 2023)
arises from the Defendant's failure to secure and safeguard
Plaintiff's and over 3,000,000 other individuals' personally
identifying information and personal health information from the
data breach that affected Fortra's network systems.

On February 7, 2023, NationsBenefits was notified that Fortra, the
provider of a file transfer software used by NationsBenefits,
experienced a data breach on or about January 30, 2023.
Unauthorized individuals breached Fortra's network systems and
accessed files containing the PII/PHI of NationsBenefits' and
Aetna's customers, including Plaintiff and Class members, says the
suit.

NationsBenefits is a Florida-based company which provides
healthcare solutions and supplemental benefits to managed care
organizations. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
           ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
           225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720
           Boca Raton, FL 33432
           Telephone: 561/750-3000
           Facsimile: 561/750-3364
           E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
                       
                   - and -

           Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
           Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
           GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON
           501 Fifth Avenue, 19th Fl.
           New York, NY 10017
           Telephone: (212) 983-1300
           Facsimile: (212) 983-0383
           E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
                   gegleston@gme-law.com

NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Teran Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Navient Solutions, LLC, et al., filed an appeal from the Court's
Memorandum Decision dated March 30, 2023 entered in the case
captioned as "In re OSCAR D. TERAN, Debtor. v. NAVIENT SOLUTIONS,
LCC; NAVIENT CREDIT FINANCE CORPORATION Defendants. OSCAR D. TERAN,
Plaintiff," Adversary Proceeding No. 20-03075-DM, in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco.

Oscar D. Teran filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 7 of the
Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. N.D. Cal.) which was assigned Case No.
10-31718-DM on May 10, 2010. In August 2020, he received his
discharge, and his case was closed not long after that. No party
sought a determination of the dischargeability of any of Teran's
debts.

In August 2020, Teran filed this adversary proceeding against
Navient alleging violations of discharge orders; seeking a
determination of the dischargeablility of debts that are outside
the scope of the so-called "student loan," and a relief under
California Civil Code, the California Consumer Credit Reporting
Agencies Act. Teran also alleged that he has brought this action on
behalf of himself and all persons similarly situated.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Dennis Montali of
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California
entered a Memorandum Decision on March 30, 2023 granting the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

Judge Montali found the potential classes number in the hundreds in
the Northern District of California alone, thousands in the Ninth
Circuit, and still more nationwide. Since Navient does not dispute
the numerosity of the proposed classes, Judge Montali is assured
that Teran satisfies this element in the Motion.

Judge Montali agreed with Teran that common questions of law and
fact span across class members: Did Navient know that the class
members' loans were discharged in bankruptcy; did Navient continue
to collect on those loans post-discharge; and did Navient report
those discharged loans to credit agencies with an outstanding
balance? The questions and answers are the same throughout, as are
the injuries associated with violation of bankruptcy discharges and
with the economic damages associated with either paying, or facing
penalties for not paying, discharged debts, ruled the Court.

The appellate case is captioned as Navient Solutions, LLC et al. v.
Teran, Case No. 3:23-cv-02821-TLT, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, San Francisco, filed on June
8, 2023.

Defendant-Appellant Navient Solutions, LLC is represented by:

          Joseph A. Florezak, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          77 Wacker Dr. #4100
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 849-8100

               - and -

          K. Elizabeth Sieg, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          800 East Canal St
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 775-1137
          E-mail: bsieg@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Payam Khodadadi, Esq.
          STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RAUTH
          660 Newport Center Dr Ste 1600
          Newport Beach, CA 92660

Plaintiff-Appellee Oscar D. Teran, on behalf of himself and all
those similarly situated, is represented by:

          David A. Searles, Esq.
          James A. Francis, Esq.
          John Soumilas, Esq.
          Jordan Mark Sartell, Esq.
          Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.
          FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
          E-mail: dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jsartell@consumerlawfirm.com  
                  lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Erika Angelos Heath, Esq.
          FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
          369 Pine Street, Suite 410
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (628) 246-1352
          Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
          E-mail: eheath@consumerlawfirm.com    

               - and -

          James Anthony Michel, Esq.
          2912 Diamond Street, Suite 373
          San Francisco, CA 94131
          Telephone: (415) 239-4949
          Facsimile: (415) 239-0156
          E-mail: attyjmichel@gmail.com  

NISSAN NORTH: Seeks Decertification in Sunroof Breakage Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Steinberg of Bloomberg Law reports that Nissan North America
Inc. challenged class certification in litigation by drivers who
say the panoramic sunroofs on certain Nissan and Infiniti models
are prone to shatter, telling a federal appeals court the
plaintiffs failed to show that there was a common defect.

Additionally, most class members lack standing to sue because very
few sunroofs break during the life of the vehicle, the automaker
said on June 14, 2023 in a brief to the US Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.

Drivers alleged that Nissan violated state consumer protection laws
by concealing the alleged risk, and breached implied warranties
because the alleged sunroof. [GN]



NOVOCURE LTD: Faces Class Suit Over Clinical Trial Data Omission
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shweta Watwe of Bloomberg Law reports that Oncology company
NovoCure Ltd.misled investors by withholding information about
clinical results of a new treatment, according to a newly filed
class action.

The company omitted critical contextual information about how well
its Tumor Treating Fields treatment worked compared to conventional
treatments, according to a complaint filed on June 19, 2023 in the
US District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On January 5, NovoCure announced that patients who'd received the
treatment showed "clinically meaningful improvement in overall
survival over standard therapies alone," causing the stock price to
rise, according to the complaint. Shares jumped 68% on high volume
the day. [GN]

OLIVERI & ASSOCIATES: Settles Smith FDCPA Class Suit for $415,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Oliveri & Associates agreed to pay
$415,000 to resolve claims it attempted to collect debts secured by
liens before those debts became due.

The settlement benefits individuals who had a continuing lien
placed on their property by Oliveri & Associates where the company
attempted to collect amounts that accrued after the lien filing
after Sept. 9, 2017.

Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim the firm violated the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Maryland
Consumer Protection Act with continuing liens. These liens were
officially outlawed by Maryland's Supreme Court in March 2021.

Oliveri & Associates LLC, now known as Oliveri & Larsen, is a law
firm based in Annapolis, Maryland, that primarily deals in real
estate and business law.

Oliveri & Associates hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a
$415,000 settlement to resolve the debt-collection class action
lawsuit.

Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive an
equal share of the net settlement fund. Payments will vary
depending on the number of participating class members and the net
settlement fund after deductions. No payment estimates are
available.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is July 11, 2023.
The final approval hearing for the debt-collection settlement is
scheduled for Aug. 10, 2023.

No claim form is required to benefit from the settlement, but class
members can update their addresses on the settlement website to
ensure they receive their checks.

Who's Eligible
Individuals who had a continuing lien placed on their property by
Oliveri & Associates where the company attempted to collect amounts
that accrued after the lien filing after Sept. 9, 2017

Potential Award
TBD

Proof of Purchase
N/A
Exclusion Deadline
07/11/2023

Case Name
Smith, et al. v. Oliveri & Associates LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-02598-GLR, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland

Final Hearing
08/10/2023

Settlement Website
ContinuingLienSettlement.com

Claims Administrator
Smith v Oliveri & Associates LLC
c/o Settlement Administrator
PO Box 23680
Jacksonville, FL 32241

Class Counsel
Matthew Skipper
Jeffrey Kahntroff
SKIPPER LAW LLC

Courtney Weiner
LAW OFFICE OF COURTNEY WEINER PLLC

Elizabeth Morris
ADAMS MORRIS & SESSING

Defense Counsel
Robert M Gittins
ECCLESTON & WOLF PC [GN]

OLYMPIA TRUST: Appellate Court Upheld Denying Trustee Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Langton of Investment Executive reports that a proposed class
action against Olympia Trust Co. over its alleged role in the
Fortress Real syndicated mortgage debacle has once again been
rejected.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an effort to overturn a
Superior Court of Justice decision from August 2022. That decision
dismissed a proposed class action against Olympia Trust on behalf
of investors who lost money in a syndicated mortgage investment
scheme involving Fortress Real Capital Inc. and Fortress Real
Developments Inc.

Olympia Trust was a trustee for certain investors who used their
self-directed registered accounts to participate in the scheme.

In its decision, the court noted that the syndicated mortgage
design "was allegedly a sham." Investors allegedly lost a combined
$442.2 million to the scheme, although the proposed class action
sought to cover a subset of investors who lost money.

The motion judge calculated the proposed suit would apply to
approximately 2,750 to 3,250 investors who used registered savings
accounts with Olympia Trust, with an average loss per class member
at $25,000 (which would represent around $75 million).

However, the lower court judge dismissed the motion seeking to
certify the proposed class action, ruling that its claims for
breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and
negligence could not succeed.

"Olympia Trust was not a gatekeeper. It was not a guardian angel.
It ought not be made a scapegoat," the lower court said in its
original ruling.

On appeal, the plaintiff sought to narrow the proposed class action
on behalf of the investors in one specific project and its three
syndicated mortgages, claiming breach of trust and fiduciary duty.

The appeal court again rejected the claim, ruling that the motion
judge did not err in dismissing the original action.

"In my view, the motion judge's reasoning and conclusion reveals no
error," it said in its decision.

"While there may be differing views on the scope of a 'duty to
minimize' the possibility of investments from the registered
savings plans in non-qualifying properties, the text, context and
purpose of this provision makes clear that it is a duty owed by
trustees to the CRA, not to investors," the court said in its
decision.

Additionally, the appeal court noted that the motion judge found
the plaintiff's argument conflated the powers of the trustee with
its duties.

"In other words, while the agreements confer on the trustee the
power to decline to complete investment transactions, the
agreements do not impose duties on the trustee to ensure
[syndicated mortgage] investments are in qualified properties," it
said.

The appeal court also upheld the motion judge's conclusion that the
agreements between Olympia Trust and investor/lenders did not
create any "gatekeeping duties" on the company. [GN]

OREGON: Compelled to Make Gleim Ready for Deposition in Maney Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PAUL MANEY; GARY CLIFT; George NULPH; THERON HALL;
DAVID HART; SHERYL LYNN SUBLET, and FELISHIA RAMIREZ, a personal
representative for the ESTATE OF JUAN TRISTAN, individually, on
behalf of a class of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STATE
OF OREGON; KATE BROWN; COLETTE PETERS; HEIDI STEWARD; MIKE GOWER;
MARK NOOTH; ROB PERSSON; KEN JESKE; PATRICK ALLEN; JOE BUGHER; and
GARRY RUSSELL, Defendants, Case No. 6:20-cv-00570-SB (D. Or.),
Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Oregon:

   a. grants the Plaintiffs' motion for an order compelling the
      Defendants to make Kevin Gleim, former Special Projects
      Attorney at the Office of the Governor, available for
      deposition; and

   b. denies the Defendants' motion for a protective order
      barring Gleim's deposition.

Plaintiffs Paul Maney, Gary Clift, George Nulph, Theron Hall, David
Hart, and Sheryl Lynn Sublet, adults in custody ("AIC") at Oregon
Department of Corrections ("ODOC") institutions, along with
Felishia Ramirez, the personal representative for the Estate of
Juan Tristan, filed a motion for an order compelling former
Governor rown, former Oregon Health Authority Director Allen,
several ODOC officials, and the State of Oregon to make Gleim,
former Special Projects Attorney at the Office of the Governor,
available for deposition. The Defendants filed a motion for
protective order, seeking to bar Gleim's deposition. All parties
have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Section 636.

The Plaintiffs filed the class action in April 2020, alleging that
the Defendants failed to protect AICs in ODOC's custody from the
heightened risk that COVID-19 presented in the custodial setting. A
jury trial is scheduled to begin in July 2024.

In May 2020, in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, the
Plaintiffs filed a motion for temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction to require the Defendants to reduce the AIC
population at each ODOC facility, appoint an expert to effectuate
the rapid downsizing of those facilities, require the Defendants to
provide safe and non-punitive housing separation of AICs in each
ODOC facility based on their COVID-19 infection status, require the
Defendants to create and enforce procedures to reduce the risk of
COVID-19 transmission in ODOC facilities consistent with public
health guidance, and immediately implement new procedures to bring
ODOC in compliance with expert guidance and appoint an independent
monitor to ensure such compliance. Following an evidentiary
hearing, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion.

In August 2020, the Defendants filed a motion for partial summary
judgment arguing, that qualified immunity bars the Plaintiffs'
Eighth Amendment claims and discretionary immunity bars their
negligence claims. Following oral argument, the Court denied the
Defendants' motion with respect to qualified immunity but granted
the motion in part with respect to discretionary immunity and
entered partial summary judgment on Plaintiffs' negligence claims.

In July 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint arguing that they cannot be
held liable under the Eighth Amendment for Governor Brown's
discretionary exercise of her constitutional clemency powers and
that none of the remaining allegations state a claim against
Governor Brown. Following oral argument, the Court denied the
Defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to the Plaintiffs' claim
against Governor Brown, holding that the Plaintiffs alleged
sufficient facts that a causal connection exists between the
Plaintiffs' alleged injuries and Governor Brown's involvement in
implementing and overseeing ODOC's policies, and that Governor
Brown knew or reasonably should have known the consequences of her
actions or inaction.

In April 2022, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to certify
two classes of Plaintiffs: (a) the "damages" class, with respect to
Plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference and negligence
claims, defined as "all adults incarcerated in Oregon Department of
Corrections facilities who: (1) were incarcerated on or after Feb.
1, 2020; (2) while incarcerated, tested positive or were otherwise
diagnosed with COVID-19; and (3) if they became incarcerated after
Feb. 1, 2020, tested positive or were otherwise diagnosed with
COVID-19 at least fourteen days after they entered Oregon
Department of Corrections custody;" and (b) the "wrongful death"
class, with respect to Plaintiffs' wrongful death claims, defined
as "estates of all adults incarcerated at Oregon Department of
Corrections facilities continuously since Feb. 1, 2020, who died
during the Wrongful Death Class period, and for whom COVID-19
caused or contributed to their death."

The Defendants sought permission to appeal the Court's class
certification opinion, but the Ninth Circuit denied Defendants'
request in May 2022. On April 10, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed the
motion to compel at issue and the Defendants responded with their
motion for protective order on April 17, 2023. Judge Beckerman
heard oral argument on the motions on May 24, 2023.

The Plaintiffs move to compel the deposition of Gleim, who was an
attorney in Governor Brown's office during the relevant time
period. During a recent deposition, Nathaline Frener, ODOC's former
Assistant Director of Correctional Services, testified that she
spoke with Gleim all the time, every day for the purpose of
determining, assessing, and implementing Governor Brown's early
release program. Frener testified that Gleim was the primary person
designated to implement that program in the Governor's office. The
Plaintiffs seek to depose Gleim regarding the early release program
and the processes involved in implementing that program.

The Defendants object to any deposition of Gleim, on the grounds
that his testimony is irrelevant, privileged, and not proportional
to the needs of the case.

Judge Beckerman finds that Gleim's testimony is relevant to the
Plaintiffs' claims and proportional to the needs of the case.
Governor Brown is a named defendant in the class action litigation,
and the Plaintiffs allege that she was deliberately indifferent to
protecting members of the class from COVID-19 exposure. Although
the Plaintiffs are not directly challenging Governor Brown's early
release decisions, the information she and others received in
connection with the early release program, as well as her decision
to close two ODOC institutions during the pandemic, is relevant to
her knowledge of whether the population density at ODOC
institutions allowed for adequate distancing to protect AICs from
the spread of COVID-19. Those facts are relevant to the Plaintiffs'
claims that Governor Brown and the other defendants knew of, but
disregarded, an excessive risk to AICs' health and safety.

Gleim's testimony is also proportional to the needs of the case. At
the time Plaintiffs moved for class certification, the "damages
class" consisted of over 3,600 AICs who were infected with COVID-19
while in ODOC custody and the "wrongful death" class consisted of
45 AICs who died because of COVID-19. This is not the case of a
single AIC seeking to depose high-level state officials to prove an
individual claim for relief.

Furthermore, although the Plaintiffs have deposed other witnesses
about the early release program, at least one witness has pointed
to Gleim as a key figure in the administration of that program and
one of ODOC's primary contacts in the Governor's office.

For all these reasons, Judge Beckerman finds that the benefits of
Gleim's deposition outweigh its burden or expense. However, in the
interest of proportionality and acknowledging the number of
depositions the Defendants have accommodated to date, she limits
the deposition to two hours.

For these reasons stated, the Plaintiffs' motion to compel the
deposition of Gleim is granted, the Defendants' motion for
protective order barring the deposition is denied, and the
Defendants are ordered to make Gleim available for a deposition,
not to exceed two hours, at a time and location convenient to
Gleim.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/muku9hrs from Leagle.com.


OVERHILL FARMS: Rivera Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE CONCEPCION RIVERA, an individual on behalf of himself, all
aggrieved employees, and the State of California as a Private
Attorneys General, Plaintiff v. OVERHILL FARMS, INC., a Nevada
corporation, and JOBSOURCE HUNTINGTON PARK, a California
corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
23STCV13024 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 8, 2023) seeks
civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act, California
Labor Code arising from the Defendants' unlawful labor policies and
practices.

The Plaintiff alleges Defendants' violations of the law by (1)
failing to pay wages, including overtime wages; (2) failing to pay
minimum wage; (3) failing to provide timely meal breaks; (4)
failing to rest periods, potable water and adequate restroom
facilities; (5) failing to pay wages due upon termination; (6)
failing to provide safe working conditions; (7) failing to provide
place of employment that is safe and healthful; (8) failing to
reimburse for required business expenses; (9) failing to provide
accurate itemized wage statements.

Plaintiff Rivera began working for Defendant in 2019 and continued
until September 27, 2022 as an hourly, non-exempt employee.

Overhill Farms, Inc. is a food manufacturing company and JobSource
Huntington Park is an employment agency in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
          KOUL LAW FIRM
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 761-5484
          Facsimile: (818) 561-3938
          E-mail: nazo@koullaw.com

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian, Esq.
          Garen Majarian, Esq.
          MAJARIAN LAW GROUP, APC
          18250 Ventura Blvd.
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609-0807  
          Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
          E-mail: sahagii@aol.com  
                  garen@majarianlawgroup.com

PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Solomon Sues Over Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------
SAM SOLOMON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC., BARRY MCCARTHY,
ELIZABETH F. CODDINGTON, and JILL WOODWORTH, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-04279 (E.D.N.Y., June 9, 2023) is a federal securities
class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that
purchased or otherwise acquired Peloton securities between May 10,
2022 and May 10, 2023, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover
damages caused by 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, against the Company and certain of its top officials.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) the seat posts for certain of the Company's Peloton Bikes were
prone to break or otherwise detach during use, rendering them
unsafe for users; (ii) as a result, the Company was likely to
recall millions of Peloton Bikes; (iii) accordingly, Peloton
overstated its efforts to enhance the safety of its products,
understated its estimated future returns, and downplayed the
Company's need to book additional reserves for future product
recall expenses; (iv) all the foregoing, once revealed, was likely
to negatively impact the Company's business and financial results
and reputation; and (v) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On May 11, 2023, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission issued
a product recall affecting roughly 2.2 million Peloton Bikes,
stating that "the bike's seat post assembly can break during use,
posing fall and injury hazards to the user."

On this news, Peloton's Class A common stock price fell $0.67 per
share, or 8.9%, to close at $6.86 per share on May 11, 2023. As a
result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the suit.

Peloton Interactive Inc. operates an interactive fitness platform
in North America and internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          James M. LoPiano, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP  
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  jlopiano@pomlaw.com

PENTAGON FEDERAL: Faces Class Action Suit Over CIPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tori Guidry of The National Law Review reports that a class action
was filed against Pentagon Federal Credit Union (PenFed), Verisk
Analytics, and Lead Intelligence, Inc. on June 16, 2023 alleging
CIPA violations equating to OVER $5 MILLION!

Essentially, the allegations come down to PenFed used Jornaya
(owned by Verisk who acquired 100% of Lead Intelligence) on its
home financial services website which recorded real time
communications including "private, sensitive information."
Additionally, and where the issue lies, PenFed is alleged to have
allowed Verisk and Lead Intelligence to USE this private
information in real time without the consumer's consent.

The examples of the private information collected given in the
complaint are the consumer's first and last name, zip code, email
address, phone number, annual income, monthly housing payment
amount, property value, credit score, IP address, etc. While some
of these are clearly just for record purposes and some of these are
public information, I believe this complaint will still pass muster
and make it past the pleadings stage based on the low bar for
stating a claim.

As you may recall, alleging "highly sensitive personal data" has
been enough in the past to survive a motion to dismiss.

We will keep an eye on this one to see if this court will find
using LeadiD from Jornaya will be considered a CIPA violation. [GN]

PERK INDUSTRIES: Keegan Class Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Brian Keegan, Plaintiff v. Daniel P. Minahan, Perk
Industries Inc., and Innovative Health Labs Inc., Defendants, Civil
Action No. 23-60501-Civ-Scola (S.D. Fla.), Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz,
II, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing the complaint
without prejudice.

In this action, Keegan seeks redress on behalf of himself and a
putative nationwide class of consumers for injuries resulting from
the Defendants' alleged fraud in advertising, marketing, and
distributing Boner Bears, a purportedly efficacious and natural
herbal remedy for erectile dysfunction ("ED").

Per Keegan, the Defendants are lying to consumers about the nature
of Boner Bears and its constituent ingredients. The Defendants sell
Boner Bears as a natural solution for ED, claiming, for example,
that it contains a proprietary blend of organic ingredients
designed to increase performance in the sack. To that end, the
Boner Bears label denies the presence phosphodiesterase ("PDE")
inhibitors, which are pharmaceuticals commonly used to treat ED.
However, in reality, the product contains a substantial dose of a
PDE inhibitor known as tadalafil.

Keegan is a citizen of New Jersey who suffers from medical
conditions that prohibit him from ingesting tadalafil. In July
2022, he purchased Boner Bears in reliance on the Defendants' claim
that the product contained only natural ingredients. Upon consuming
the product, however, he experienced a headache, dizziness, and
blurred vision. Because tadalafil is meant to be used only by
prescription, and under the supervision of a physician, Keegan
claims that the Defendants are essentially "drug traffickers" who
are fraudulently dosing consumers like him with what is in fact a
controlled drug.

Minahan, a Florida citizen, is the alleged leader of the enterprise
by which Boner Bears is manufactured and sold to the United States
consumer public. He owns and operates the Perk Industries, a
Delaware Corporation based in Florida that, according to Keegan,
fraudulently petitioned the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to
grant a trademark for the Boner Bears mark as an herbal dietary
supplement. Boner Bears are manufactured and prepared to be shipped
to consumers at Innovative Health Labs Inc.'s premises in Fort
Lauderdale, Florida.

Based on the foregoing allegations, Keegan brings a single count of
common law fraud against the three Defendants, relying on the Class
Action Fairness Act (28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2)) to bring his
claim on behalf of a putative class of all United States residents
who purchased Boner Bears during the six years preceding the filing
of the case.

In response, the Defendants move to dismiss, or alternatively to
strike certain portions of, Keegan's complaint pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(f), respectively. In
moving to dismiss, they submit that Keegan's claim fails to comply
with the heightened fraud pleading standard of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 9(b), that the complaint is a shotgun pleading,
that Keegan's claims for treble damages and attorney's fees must be
dismissed, and that the class action allegations must be dismissed
because they are defective on their face.

Judge Ruiz explains that Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure requires a party alleging fraud to state with
particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. It
is satisfied if the complaint sets forth (1) precisely what
statements were made in what documents or oral representations or
what omissions were made, and (2) the time and place of each such
statement and the person responsible for making (or, in the case of
omissions, not making) same, and (3) the content of such statements
and the manner in which they misled the plaintiff, and (4) what the
defendants obtained as a consequence of the fraud.

Keegan's allegations fail to meet Rule 9(b)'s particularity
requirements, Judge Ruiz holds. To begin, he finds that most of
Keegan's allegations as to the "what" -- i.e., the false statements
or omissions allegedly made by the Defendants -- are deficient in
multiple ways, including that Keegan rarely provides the precise
statements allegedly made by the Defendants. Where Keegan comes
closest to meeting the standard of Rule 9(b) is with the allegation
that the Boner Bears label fails to disclose the presence of
tadalafil among the product's ingredients. However, various other
defects in his pleading further prevent him from meeting the
particularity requirement of Rule 9(b).

Taking the allegation that the Boner Bears label fraudulently fails
to disclose the presence of tadalafil as an example, the complaint
fails to tie this omission to any one Defendant's conduct.
Moreover, the allegations that Keegan highlights in his response to
the motion to dismiss only address the Defendants' general roles in
the purported scheme. Finally, Keegan's failure to tailor his
pleading to set forth the Defendants' alleged misconduct with
specificity, in turn, leaves them without fair notice of other
important aspects of the claim against them, such as when they made
the misrepresentations or whether they knew the misrepresentations
were false.

In short, Judge Ruiz concludes that Keegan's complaint is subject
to dismissal without prejudice for failure to plead fraud with the
requisite specificity under Rule 9(b). For the reasons, he grants
the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to
state a cause of action for fraud, dismissing the complaint without
prejudice. Because Keegan's sole claim for common law fraud fails
on threshold grounds, the Court need not and does not reach the
additional issues raised by the Defendants' motion, such as whether
the complaint is a shotgun pleading or whether certain portions of
it should be struck pursuant to Rule 12(f).

Additionally, as Keegan has not requested leave to amend, nor
indicated any inclination to do so, Judge Ruiz dismisses his
complaint without leave to amend.  Finally, the Clerk is directed
to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/r448vj5b from Leagle.com.


PETERBOROUGH, ON: Settlement Hearing in Privacy Suit Set Aug. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
PTBO Today reports that Major legal news has been reported by the
Peterborough Regional Health Centre.

A proposed settlement has been reached in a class action related to
inappropriate access to health records by former employees between
2011 and early 2012.

A court hearing will be held on August 30th at 8:30 a.m. to
determine whether the settlement will be approved.

If approved by the court, the settlement will make compensation
available to eligible class members up to a total of $988,550, with
up to $650 to each class member who submits a valid claim. A class
member includes any individual, or representative of an estate of
an individual, who was notified in 2011 or 2012 by PRHC that their
health records were inappropriately accessed.

In a statement, hospital officials say they take patient privacy
very seriously, and have a zero-tolerance policy with respect to
inappropriate access to medical records.

No admission of liability is made and none of the allegations have
been proven in court. [GN]

PHARMERICA CORP: Fails to Secure Private Info, Marallo Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
TANDRIA MARALLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PHARMERICA CORPORATION and RESCARE, INC.,
d/b/a BRIGHTSPRING HEALTH SERVICES, Defendants, Case No.
3:23-CV-00298-CHB (W.D. Ky., June 9, 2023) arises from the
Defendants' failure to secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and
approximately 5,815,591 other individuals' personally identifying
information and personal health information.

Plaintiff Marrallo alleges claims against the Defendants for
negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract,
and unjust enrichment. Among other things, the Defendants breached
their duty to exercise reasonable care in safeguarding, securing,
and protecting the PII/PHI in their possession, custody, or
control, says the Plaintiff.

PharMerica provides pharmacy services across a broad range of
healthcare markets. The company is headquartered in Louisville, KY.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Matthew L. White, Esq.
            Mark K. Gray, Esq.
            GRAY & WHITE LAW
            2301 River Road Suite 300
            Louisville, KY 40206
            Telephone: (502) 210-8942
            Facsimile: (502) 618-4059
            E-mail: mwhite@grayandwhitelaw.com
                    mgray@grayandwhitelaw.com

                    - and -

            Ben Barnow, Esq.
            Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq.
            BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
            205 West Randolph Street, Ste. 1630
            Chicago, IL 60606
            Telephone: (312) 621-2000
            Facsimile: (312) 641-5504
            E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
                    aparkhill@barnowlaw.com

PLACE FOR ROVER: Settles Misclassification Class Action for $18M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that dog-walking app Rover agreed to pay
$18 million as part of a settlement to resolve claims it
misclassified California workers as independent contractors instead
of employees.

The settlement benefits individuals who performed at least one pet
care service through Rover's online platform in California between
Nov. 1, 2018, and Feb. 7, 2023.

According to the class action lawsuit, Rover classified California
workers as independent contractors despite these workers qualifying
for employee classification under California labor laws. As a
result of this purported misclassification, workers were allegedly
denied fair wages and other benefits.

Rover is an app that connects pet owners to pet caretakers who
offer walking, home visits, boarding and other services.

Rover hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $18 million
settlement to resolve the misclassification class action lawsuit.

Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive a cash
payment. Payment amounts will vary depending on the number of days
worked during the class period. No payment estimates are available
on the settlement website.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 22, 2023.

The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for July
19, 2023.

No claim form is required to benefit from the settlement. Class
members who do not exclude themselves will automatically receive a
settlement payment.

Who's Eligible
Individuals who performed at least one pet care service through
Rover's online platform in California between Nov. 1, 2018, and
Feb. 7, 2023

Potential Award
Varies

Proof of Purchase
N/A


Exclusion Deadline
06/22/2023

Case Name
Sportsman v. A Place for Rover Inc. d/b/a Rover, Case No.
19-cv-03053-WHO, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California
Final Hearing
07/19/2023

Settlement Website
SportsmanSettlement.com

Claims Administrator
Settlement Administrator
PO Box 26170
Santa Ana, CA 92799
info@SportsmanSettlement.com
833-207-6917

Class Counsel
Steven Tidrick
THE TIDRICK LAW FIRM LLP

Defense Counsel
John LeCrone
DAVID WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP [GN]

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Class Certification Denial in Cagle Suit Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CAGLE v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, A23A0403
(Ga. App.), the Court of Appeals of Georgia, Fourth Division,
affirms the trial court denial of Cagle's motion for class
certification.

Portfolio Recovery Associates (PRA) sued Westley Cagle to collect
payment on an allegedly delinquent credit card debt. Cagle filed an
answer and counterclaims, asserting a class action on behalf of
similarly situated debtors that PRA had sued. Following a hearing,
the trial court denied Cagle's motion for class certification.
Cagle now appeals, contending the trial court erred in finding that
he failed to satisfy the numerosity requirement for class
certification and in addressing the underlying merits of his
claims.

The record shows that in 2000, Cagle opened a credit-card account
with Sears National Bank. And in 2003, Sears sold its entire
credit-card portfolio to Citibank, N. A., and so Citibank then
became the creditor on Cagle's account despite him never applying
for an account with Citibank. Nonetheless, by Dec. 2011, Cagle was
unable to pay all of the balance owed, and his account became
delinquent.

PRA is a company that purchases defaulted debts from various
creditors and then attempts to collect that debt from those account
holders. In 2012, it purchased Cagle's debt from Citibank, and on
Sept. 13, 2013, it filed a lawsuit in the Magistrate Court of
Talbot County against him to collect the debt, which it claimed
totaled $1,696.17. And with its complaint, PRA filed an affidavit
from one of its records custodians, who stated that a review of the
relevant records confirmed the delinquent balance on Cagle's
account.

Initially, Cagle failed to timely answer, and the magistrate court
entered a default against him. But on Oct. 29, 2013, he filed an
answer and a class-action counterclaim, alleging PRA sued him
without investigating his debt and that the form affidavit claiming
his account was reviewed was deceptive. And with his answer, Cagle
also filed a motion to open the default, which the trial court
granted the following day. Additionally, he moved to transfer the
case to the superior court, which the magistrate court granted,
agreeing with him that the claims exceeded its jurisdiction.

A lengthy discovery period then ensued. But by April 2017, neither
party was satisfied with the other's responses, and so both parties
filed motions to compel. Then, on April 24, 2017, Cagle filed a
motion to extend the class-certification deadline. After more
delays, the trial court held a hearing on July 9, 2018, and
ultimately, on Nov. 23, 2020, it ordered Cagle to supplement his
discovery responses and further define what he meant by the "form
affidavit" referenced in his counterclaim. But in supplemental
responses to PRA's discovery requests (served on Dec. 23, 2020),
Cagle objected to many of the requests and otherwise responded that
he had been unable to locate any responsive documents to many of
the requests.

Nevertheless, on March 8, 2021, Cagle filed a motion for class
certification. Specifically, he moved for certification of a class
defined as follows: All Georgia citizens who, within the applicable
statute of limitations preceding the filing of this counterclaim to
the date of the class certification, have been sued by PRA and
where PRA submitted a form affidavit or declaration attesting to
facts about the underlying debt even though the affiant did not
have the requisite personal knowledge or review the relevant
records.

In his motion, Cagle claimed PRA filed over 39,500 lawsuits to
collect debts in Georgia during the class period and that a
sampling of those cases showed it routinely used the form affidavit
referenced above. In support, he attached a list that included
2,000 of the case captions of actions filed by PRA and six of the
form affidavits, which he asserted exemplified PRA's use of
misleading information.

PRA filed a response, and the trial court held a hearing on the
matter. Then, on Dec. 6, 2021, the trial court denied Cagle's
motion for class certification, ruling that he failed to provide
any evidence or proof towards the numerosity requirement, and so it
need not consider the other elements of class certification. The
appeal follows.

The Court of Appeals notes that a class action is an exception to
the usual rule that litigation is conducted by and on behalf of the
individual named parties only, and consistent with its exceptional
nature, a class action is permitted only in the limited
circumstances described in OCGA Section 9-11-23. And the party
seeking to represent a class bears the burden of proving that class
certification is appropriate, which first entails establishing that
the prerequisites of OCGA Section 9-11-23(a) have been satisfied,
those being (1) numerosity, (2) commonality, (3) typicality, and
(4) adequacy.

Additionally, in reviewing the trial court's order granting or
denying class certification, the Court of Appeals will consider the
factual findings as adopted by the trial court and affirm them
unless clearly erroneous and will review the conclusions of law for
an abuse of discretion. But needless to say, any exercise of that
discretion must comport with the statutory requirements.

Bearing these guiding principles in mind, the Court of Appeals
turns to Cagle's claims of error.

Cagle first contends the trial court erred in finding that he
failed to satisfy the numerosity requirement for class
certification.

The Court of Appeals disagrees. It finds that Cagle's evidence in
support of the numerosity requirement consisted of an affidavit
from his legal counsel, claiming PRA had filed over 39,500 lawsuits
in Georgia to collect debts during the class period. And this
affidavit included a list with 2,000 case captions of actions filed
by PRA and six of the form affidavits. But as the trial court aptly
noted in its order, Cagle failed to provide any evidence the six
form affidavits contained misleading information or that the
affiants had no knowledge regarding the accounts, or if the
affiants had not reviewed them (as he alleged), or if the debtors
suffered any damages because of PRA using such affidavits. Given
these circumstances, Cagle failed to satisfy the numerosity
requirement, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
denying his motion for class certification on this ground.

Cagle also contends the trial court erred in addressing the
underlying merits of his claims. Nevertheless, given that Cagle
failed to satisfy the numerosity requirement in OCGA Section
9-11-23(a), the Court of Appeals need not address this argument.

For all these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirms the trial
court's denial of Cagle's motion for class certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3spmhnm7 from Leagle.com.


PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MD: Loses Renewed Bid to Toss Frazier Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT FRAZIER, et al., individually and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. PRINCE
GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND, et al., Defendants, Civil No. 22-1768
PJM (D. Md.), Judge Peter J. Messitte of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland denies the Plaintiffs' Motions for
Reconsideration, as well as the County's renewed request to dismiss
their complaint.

The putative class action has been brought by current and former
detainees charged with crimes in Prince George's County, Maryland
against Defendants Prince George's County, individual Prince
George's County officials, and Maryland state court judges sitting
in Prince George's County. It challenges the process by which
pretrial release determinations are accomplished in Prince George's
County.

In its Memorandum Opinion dated Jan. 24, 2023, the Court granted in
part and denied in part the Motions to Dismiss of the County and of
the Judge Defendants. It dismissed all claims of Plaintiffs
Frazier, Hernandez, Davis, D.P., Sharp, and Worthington, who were
no longer being held as of the date of its Opinion (the "Released
Plaintiffs"), as well as the claims for monetary damages of the
remaining "Detained Plaintiffs" (Butler, Williams, and
Laguan-Salinas). The Court preserved the claims of the Detained
Plaintiffs against all remaining Defendants for prospective
equitable relief.

On Feb. 21, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration
Under Rule 54(b) and the Judge Defendants filed a Motion for
Clarification and Reconsideration or, in the Alternative, to
Substitute Defendant Proper Parties, both of which have been fully
briefed.

With leave of court, on April 28, 2023, the County filed a Revised
Pretrial Release Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), then requested
dismissal of the case based on its view that the new process
resolved Plaintiffs' concerns and therefore rendered this lawsuit
moot. The Plaintiffs argue that the new process remains
constitutionally deficient.

Any individual, including the Plaintiffs, who is arrested in Prince
George's County is entitled to receive a prompt bail review hearing
before a judge of the District or the Circuit Courts of the County.
According to the Plaintiffs, while the judge initially decides
whether pretrial release or detention of the defendant is
appropriate, in reality actual release of the individual occurs
only when the Pretrial Division of the County determines that the
individual satisfies certain eligibility criteria. And, the
Plaintiffs contend, the Pretrial Division is in practice making the
release decisions on its own, based on vague and arbitrary factors,
and, in any event, is taking too long to make its decisions. All
the while the individual detainee remains in custody. As indicated,
the Plaintiffs persist in their challenge to the constitutionality
of the recently revised Pretrial Release SOP.

In their Motion for Reconsideration, the Plaintiffs seek to
reinstate their claims for monetary damages against the County on
the grounds that quasi-judicial immunity is an individual defense
not available to municipalities. They cite case law to the effect
that, as a rule, a municipality is not entitled to absolute
immunity under Section 1983.

The Supreme Court has long directed courts to determine immunity
from suit based on the function an entity performs, not merely the
formal name of the entity. In this circumstance, Prince George's
County appears to be functioning as a county in name only: in fact,
its involvement in the pre-trial release process constitutes
nothing less than the extension of a judicial function. Nothing in
the suit suggests that the Pretrial Division is refusing to
implement a bail judge's decision. From all appearances, the
Pretrial Division resembles the many court employees who have
previously been afforded judicial immunity for carrying out a
judge's order.

Moreover, the judges have never issued an immediate, unconditional
release order for the Plaintiffs that the Pretrial Division has
ignored. The Pretrial Division, from all that appears, seeks only
to apply criteria consistent with the judges' directives.

For all these reasons, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration
is denied.

Turning to the Judge Defendants' Motion for Clarification and
Reconsideration or, in the Alternative, to Substitute Defendant
Proper Parties, the Judge Defendants make a number of requests in
their Motion for Reconsideration. First, they seek clarification
about whether the Judges who conducted the bail hearings for the
now-dismissed Released Plaintiffs have been dismissed as
Defendants. The short answer is that they have not.

Second, the Judge Defendants suggest that any basis for class
certification is now void because the Court has denied the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The Court did deny the
Motion, but the denial was explicitly without prejudice and was
made with the clear understanding that the Plaintiffs could renew
their Motion for Class Certification after the Court had resolved
any Motions for Reconsideration. Third, the Judge Defendants seek
clarification as to whether the Court dismissed the claims against
them in their personal capacities, leaving only the official
capacity claims. The Court did just that. The claims against the
Judge Defendants will move forward only in their official
capacities.

Fourth, the Judge Defendants argue that the Court erred in applying
the Ex Parte Young exception to their potential liability for
equitable relief because the facts alleged here do not establish
that a "special relationship" existed between them and Plaintiffs.
But the requirement for a "special relationship" is much less
stringent than the Judge Defendants claim; it is enough to suggest
that "some connection" exists between the two. Finally, the Judge
Defendants re-argue their original points about justiciability,
mootness, and failure to state a claim. But they raise no new
authority suggesting why the Court's treatment of these issues in
its Memorandum Opinion on the Motions to Dismiss should, on
reconsideration, be deemed erroneous.

For all these reasons, the Judge Defendants' Motion for
Clarification and Reconsideration or, in the Alternative, to
Substitute Defendant Proper Parties is denied.

On April 28, 2023, the County filed with the Court the updated
Pretrial Release SOP. Changes appear to include: a requirement that
release eligibility determinations be made within 10 business days
of the bail judge's referral for release; that the Pretrial
Division provide written notice to the bail judge within 10
business days of the judge's order of any issues it may be having
with obtaining the information needed to make an appropriate
eligibility determination; and, further, what appears to be a
commitment by the Pretrial Division to verify any eligibility
changes within 10 to 15 business days.

Judge Messitte holds that such changes as included in the new SOP
may or may not be ameliorative at least in some respects. But he is
not prepared to dismiss the case based on the County's submission
alone. The Plaintiffs will have the opportunity to file an Amended
Complaint that addresses the updated policy with specificity so
that the Defendants can respond to a current rather than outdated
process. Accordingly, the County's renewed request to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' Complaint is denied.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Messitte denies (i) the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration Under 54(b); (ii) the Judge
Defendants' Motion for Clarification and Reconsideration or, in the
Alternative, to Substitute Defendant Proper Parties; and (iii) the
County's request to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint.

Within 20 days from the date of the Order, the Plaintiffs may file
an Amended Complaint that addresses the County's updated Pretrial
Release SOP.

Within 30 days from the date of the Order, the counsel for the
parties will submit a Joint Proposed Scheduling Order to the Court
that includes a timetable for discovery as well as a proposed
briefing schedule to address, if appropriate, any Amended Motion
for Class Certification that Plaintiffs might choose to file.

The Clerk of Court is directed to update the caption of this case
to reflect that the sole remaining Plaintiffs are Christopher
Butler and Miramba Williams.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2023 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3mrbaavh from Leagle.com.


PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Faces Class Suit Over MOVEit Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Brown of Bloomberg Law reports that Progress Software
Corp. failed in its duty to protect sensitive information in
connection with a data breach of the MOVEit cloud-hosting and
file-transfer services it provides to government agencies and
private companies, a new proposed federal class action said.

The MOVEit attack, allegedly carried out by a criminal hacking
group known as Clop, has resulted in the theft of data from dozens
of organizations and government agencies in the US and Europe.
Notable victims include oil giant Shell PLC and British Airways,
along with banks, manufacturing firms, and universities.

Shavonne Diggs, Brady Bradberry, and Christina Bradberry alleged in
the newly filed lawsuit that Progress failed to implement adequate
security measures, monitor its network, properly train its
employees, or provide timely notice of the incident.

Information exposed in the breach included names, addresses, Social
Security numbers, birthdates, demographic information, driver's
license numbers, and other personally identifiable information and
financial information, according to a complaint filed on June 20,
2023 in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Progress had not yet sent direct notice to those who were affected
by the breach, which may have begun in 2021 and was only discovered
in May 2023, it said.

The named plaintiffs were residents of Louisiana who received
notice of the breach from the state Department of Motor Vehicles, a
customer of Progress and a user of the company's secure
file-transfer services, it said.

The plaintiffs are now at increased risk of identity theft and
fraud, and will likely incur out-of-pocket expenses and lost time
responding to the incident, the complaint said.

The lawsuit brings claims of negligence, breach of third-party
beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment.

The plaintiffs are seeking actual damages, statutory damages,
equitable relief, restitution, disgorgement, attorneys' fees and
costs, lifetime credit-monitoring services, and injunctive relief.

Siri & Glimstad LLP represents the plaintiffs and the proposed
class.

The case is Diggs v. Progress Software Corp., D. Mass., No.
1:23-cv-11370, case filed 6/20/23.

To contact the reporter on this story: Christopher Brown in St.
Louis at ChrisBrown@bloombergindustry.com

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Rob Tricchinelli
at rtricchinelli@bloomberglaw.com; Maya Earls at
mearls@bloomberglaw.com [GN]

PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Secure Drivers' Info, Berry Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
JASON BERRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 2:23-cv-02089 (E.D. La., June 15, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
of 1999 and the Homeland Security Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to protect the
personal identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and
similarly situated citizens of the State of Louisiana who were or
have been issued a Louisiana Driver's License and/or Identification
Card though the Louisiana Department of Motor Vehicles. The
Plaintiff has learned that a data breach has occurred in the data
maintained by the State and/or Department of Motor Vehicles as a
result of a flaw in the Defendant's software, which breach has
exposed the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated to the
improper disclosure of their Social Security numbers and other
private and sensitive data. The Defendant was aware of the flaw in
its software, but failed to notify all potential victims and to
take affirmative action to notify its customers so that they could
inform impacted individuals. As a result of the Defendant's
negligence, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered damages, says the
suit.

Progress Software Corporation is a software company with its
principal place of business in Burlington, Maine. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Jack E. Truitt, Esq.
         Michelle Mayne Davis, Esq.
         Kaylin K. Storey, Esq.
         Lou Anne Milliman, Esq.
         THE TRUITT LAW FIRM
         1321 Ochsner Boulevard, Suite 200
         Covington, LA 70433
         Telephone: (985) 327-5266
         Facsimile: (985) 327-5252
         E-mail: mail@truittlaw.com

R&B CORP: Hamilton Sues Over Improper Disclosure of Personal Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN HAMILTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. R&B CORPORATION OF VIRGINIA D/B/A CREDIT
CONTROL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-00076-RBS-LRL
(E.D. Va., June 15, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant
for negligence, unjust enrichment, and invasion of privacy -
intrusion upon seclusion.

The Plaintiff brings this class action against the Defendant for
its failure to properly secure and safeguard protected health
information (PHI) and personally identifiable information (PII)
stored within its network following a data breach from March 2,
2023 to March 7, 2023. The Defendant also failed to timely notify
the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data
breach. As a result, the PII and PHI of the Plaintiff and Class
members were compromised and damaged through access by and
disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party, says the
Plaintiff.

R&B Corporation of Virginia, doing business as Credit Control
Corporation, is a debt collection agency, with its principal place
of business located at 11821 Rock Landing Drive, Newport News,
Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Devon Munro, Esq.
         MUNRO BYRD, P.C.
         120 Day Avenue SW, First Floor
         Roanoke, VA 24016
         Telephone: (540) 283-9343
         Facsimile: (540) 328-9290
         E-mail: dmunro@trialsva.com

                 - and -
       
         Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
         Mary Kate Dugan, Esq.
         COHEN & MALAD, LLP
         One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
         Indianapolis, IN 46204
         Telephone: (317) 636-6481
         E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
                 mdugan@cohenandmalad.com

                 - and -
       
         J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
         Andrew E. Mize, Esq.
         STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
         The Freedom Center
         223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
         Nashville, TN 37203
         Telephone: (615) 254-8801
         Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
         E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
                 amize@stranchlaw.com

                 - and -
       
         Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
         TURKE & STRAUSS, LLP
         613 Williamson St., Suite 201
         Madison, WI 53703
         Telephone: (608) 237-1775
         Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
         E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com

REDSTONE CREDIT: Settles Overdraft Class Action Lawsuit for $3.7M
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Strozniak of Credit Union Times reports a preliminary
agreement is expected to be approved by a federal judge in October
for a $3.7 million overdraft fee class action lawsuit settlement
with Alabama's largest credit union.

The $7.6 billion Redstone Federal Credit Union (RFCU) in Huntsville
agreed to settle the lawsuit earlier this year that allegedly
claimed members were wrongfully charged overdraft and
non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees from 2014 to 2021, according to
court filings in the U.S. District Court in Huntsville.

The lawsuit alleged that RFCU violated its own account agreement by
charging members overdraft (OD) fees based on available balances
instead of actual balances. Additionally, the credit union
allegedly charged multiple overdraft and NSF fees on transactions
that were previously rejected, according to the lawsuit.

RFCU said it agreed to the proposed settlement to avoid the burden
of risk, expense and disruption of its business operations
associated with further litigation.

The credit union also said it does not in any way acknowledge,
admit or concede to the allegations made in the lawsuit, and
disclaims and denies any fault or liability, or any charges of
wrongdoing that have been or could have been asserted in the
lawsuit, court filings showed.

RFCU members are expected to receive a monetary payment based on
the amount they were charged in OD and NSF fees, under the terms of
the proposed settlement. Current members are expected to receive
credit on their account and former members are expected to receive
a check payment.

The approximate number of members and former members that are
expected to receive a credit or check payment was not disclosed in
court documents.

Subject to the court's approval, the plaintiffs of the lawsuit --
Tamela Hampton, Beverly Macon and Savannah Garner -- may each
receive a "service award" of $10,000. In addition, attorneys
Jeffrey D. Kaliel and Sophia Goren Gold of Washington, D.C. will
receive 33.3% or $1,232,100 of the $3.7 million settlement, plus
"reasonable litigation costs," according to the proposed
settlement. [GN]

RHAPSODY INTERNATIONAL: Attorneys' Fees in Class Action Discussed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wystan M. Ackerman of The National Law Review reports that a recent
Ninth Circuit decision clarified that the benefit to the class is
the "touchstone for determining the reasonableness of attorneys'
fees in a class action." Under this decision, the fee should not be
based on the maximum potential class recovery (as some courts have
held for many years), or a lodestar amount that bears no
relationship to the actual class recovery. It will be interesting
to see how this decision impacts settlement negotiations in
putative class actions in the Ninth Circuit and beyond.

In Lowery v. Rhapsody International, Inc., -- F.4th --, 2023 WL
3857499 (9th Cir. June 7, 2023), a putative class action was filed
against a music streaming service, Rhapsody, on behalf of copyright
owners whose music was played on the service without a license.
About 98% of the putative class members accepted a settlement that
was negotiated with the National Music Publishers Association
outside of this case, leaving a small number of putative class
members remaining. A settlement of this putative class action was
negotiated early in the case. Under the terms of the settlement,
putative class members were required to make claims to receive
compensation, and the total amount potentially available was $20
million. But because so few claims were made (in large part because
of the prior settlement), Rhapsody paid only $52,841.05 to the
putative class. The plaintiffs' attorneys nevertheless claimed $2.5
million in fees on a lodestar basis. A magistrate judge recommended
a fee award of $860,000 but the district judge rejected that and
awarded $1.7 million. These numbers surprise me given what the
opinion says about how the settlement was reached early in the
case, with most of the efforts focused on negotiating the
settlement, not litigation activities. But the opinion doesn't
delve into how those large lodestar numbers were reached.

The Ninth Circuit reversed, instructing the district court on
remand to determine the "actual value to the class members and then
award attorneys' fees proportional and reasonable to the benefit
received by the class." The court explained that "courts must
consider the actual or realistically anticipated benefit to the
class -- not the maximum or hypothetical amount -- in assessing the
value of a class action settlement." While a lodestar cross-check
was appropriate, where the lodestar amount "will greatly exceed 25%
of the value of the settlement … that is a major red flag that
signifies that lawyers are being overcompensated and that they
achieved only meager success for the class." The court emphasized
that "[t]he key factor in assessing the reasonableness of
attorneys' fees is the benefit to the class members." The court
noted that there may be some circumstances where other factors come
into play, such as civil rights cases or even some copyright cases
where there is a societal benefit or "substantial nonmonetary
relief."

This is arguably something of a sea change for class action
settlements. For many years, courts have regularly approved
attorneys' fee awards based on the maximum potential recovery. Some
judges or commentators might assume that this will simply result in
plaintiffs' attorneys accepting lower compensation in lower value
cases. But such deals are never easy to negotiate. The plaintiffs'
bar tries to get the same or better hourly rates as the defense
bar. Will defendants be forced to pay more because that is the only
way a settlement can be reached? Or will defendants force more
cases through class certification, summary judgment or trial? Or
will there be more settlements that include no agreement on the
fee, instead having the court decide the fee on a disputed
application? That can be risky for the defendant, but maybe not so
much now in the Ninth Circuit. Will nonmonetary relief be
negotiated and relied upon more often in seeking settlement
approval? In my mind, all of these may happen depending on the
circumstances of the case. [GN]

RIVER NORTH TRANSIT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Lewis Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RHONDA LEWIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. RIVER NORTH TRANSIT, LLC, d/b/a VIA
TRANSPORTATION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00741 (E.D. Wis.,
June 9, 2023), arises out of the Defendant's alleged violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Lewis was employed as a driver by the Defendant from on
or about February 2022 but she was misclassified by the Defendant
as an independent contractor. Throughout her employment, Plaintiff
worked more than 40 hours. However, the Defendant willfully failed
to properly pay overtime compensation at a rate of time-and-a-half
for hours worked more than 40 in a workweek by Plaintiff and the
Collective Class based on their misclassification as independent
contractors, says the Plaintiff.

River North Transit, LLC is a company that aims to provide
transport services to passengers to or from non-emergency medical
appointments such as routine doctors' visits, methadone clinic
appointments, dialysis appointments, and the like. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Jay Forester, Esq.
           FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
           400 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 700
           Dallas, TX 75201
           Telephone: (214) 210-2100
           Facsimile: (214) 346-5909
           E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com

RIVERA INC: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Pacheco Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CARMELO PACHECO, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated v. RIVERA, INC. COZY DINER, a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No.
23CV01569 (Cal. Super., June 14, 2023) alleges that Defendants
failed to properly pay overtime wages and minimum wages for all
hours worked pursuant to the California Labor Code and applicable
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to provide all meal
and rest breaks to which they were entitled, failed to timely pay
all wages upon termination of employment, failed to provide
accurate wage statements, failed to reimburse necessary
business-related expenses, and failed to adhere to other related
protections afforded by the Labor Code.

The Plaintiff and the other class members worked over eight hours
in a day, and/or 40 hours in a week during their employment with
the Defendants. However, the Defendants did not record the
Plaintiff and the other class members' actual hours worked and
intentionally and willfully failed to pay all overtime wages owed
to the Plaintiff and the other class members and failed to pay
one-and-one half times the regular hourly rate for overtime hours,
the lawsuit claims.

The Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages included, requiring
Plaintiff and the other class members to perform work
off-the-clock, i.e, during purported meal periods. This
off-the-clock work included requiring Plaintiff and the other class
members to provide services, such as cooking, preparing food, and
cleaning tables, for Defendants during purported meal periods, the
lawsuit says.

The Defendants also implemented time rounding practices that at
times resulted in the underpayment of wages to the Plaintiff and
the other class members, including minimum and overtime wages, the
lawsuit adds.

The Plaintiff and the other class members did not receive all rest
periods or payment of one (1) additional hour of pay at their
regular rate of compensation when a rest period was missed,
shortened, taken late, and/or interrupted.

Plaintiff Pacheco was employed by the Defendant from November 2017
to October 2022 as a non-exempt, hourly-paid employee. During his
employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiff was employed as a
Cook/Line Prep at 1695 Mangrove Ave., Chico, CA 95926.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan M. Genish, Esq.
          Miriam Schimmel, Esq.
          Joana Fang, Esq.
          BLACKSTONE LAW, APC
          8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 745
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 622-4278
          E-mail: jgenish@blackstonepc.com
                  mschimmel@blackstonepc.com
                  jfang@blackstonepc.com

ROBLOX CORP: Settles Online Gaming Purchases' Class Suit for $10M
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Roblox agreed to pay $10 million as
part of a settlement to resolve claims that it took advantage of
children by allowing them to make excessive purchases, then
deleting any related content in a cover-up.

The settlement benefits individuals who had a Roblox account before
May 11, 2023, who had content on the Roblox platform moderated and
removed by Roblox.

According to the Roblox class action lawsuit, the online gaming
platform -- which caters primarily to children -- takes advantage
of children by allowing them to make purchases and then deleting
the content under the guise of content moderation. Parents are
allegedly unable to seek refunds for the deleted content.

Roblox is an online gaming platform that allows users to create and
play games created by other users. The platform reportedly has 66.1
million daily active users as of March 31, 2023.

Roblox hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $10 million
settlement to resolve the class action lawsuit.

Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive a
share of the net settlement fund.

Exact amounts will vary depending on the amount class members spent
on items in Roblox.
Class members whose settlement share is more than $10 can opt to
receive their settlement benefit as a cash payment. All other class
members and those who do not opt to receive a cash payment will
receive their share of the settlement as a Roblox account credit.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is Aug. 10, 2023.

The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for
Sept. 27, 2023.

In order to receive a cash payment, class members must submit a
valid claim form by Aug. 10, 2023. No claim form is required for
class members who wish to receive a Roblox credit instead of a cash
payment.

Who's Eligible

Individuals who had a Roblox account before May 11, 2023, who had
content on the Roblox platform moderated and removed by Roblox.
Potential Award
Varies

Proof of Purchase
N/A

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

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

Claim Form Deadline
08/10/2023

Case Name
Doe v. Roblox Corp., Case No. 3:21-cv-03943-WHO, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California

Final Hearing
09/27/2023

Settlement Website
RobloxSettlement.com

Claims Administrator
833-371-4373

Class Counsel
Rafey S Albanian
Yaman Salahi
Solange Hilfinger-Pardo
EDELSON PC

March S Reich
Courtney E Maccarone
LEVI & KORINSKY LLP

Defense Counsel
Anthony J Weibell
Carmen Sobczak
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI [GN]

ROCKET MORTGAGE: Seeks Decertification in Appraisal Practices' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Volkova of National Mortgage News reports that After the
nation's top court ruled in favor of Rocket Mortgage, the
Detroit-based company asked the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit in early June to decertify a class action suit
that questions the lender's appraisal practices more than a decade
ago. The mortgage lender is also requesting for the court to
overturn a $9.7 million judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.

The initial lawsuit filed in 2012 claims that Quicken Loans, now
Rocket, used inflated appraisal values of 2,769 properties
refinanced from 2004 to 2009 in West Virginia. By doing so, the
lender created a situation where borrowers faced a greater
likelihood of having an "upside down" mortgage, in which the
principal is higher than the value of the property.

It allegedly did so by sharing borrowers' estimates of their
property values with its affiliated title and valuation company
Title Source, now Amrock. In court documents, Rocket claims that
this was "a common practice that was entirely consistent with
appraisal standards at the time" and that the rules regarding
contact between lenders and appraisers changed after 2009. [GN]

ROERS COS: Faces Class Suit Over Housing Complexes' Toxic Fumes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yash Roy of Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that forced to
evacuate three months ago over the presence of dangerous vapors, a
still-displaced resident of an affordable housing complex is taking
the landlord to court.  

Attorney Michael Cerjak, on behalf of Community within the Corridor
East Block resident Tiffany Bowen, filed a class action suit on
June 14, 2023 alleging that the developer failed to disclose and
misrepresented the contamination at the site. Cerjak said he
expected to add additional tenants to the suit.

"These people need justice," Deborah Henry-Young, whose daughter
Xiomara Young lives at CWC, told the Journal Sentinel. "These
people do not care. They didn't tell them about the contamination
and stuck them in hotels for three months where they can't cook or
take care of their kids and now they're kicking them out in two
weeks. Where are these people going to go?"

More than 150 residents were displaced on March 25 after the
Department of Natural Resources received test results that showed
parts of the building had unacceptable levels of TCE, or
trichloroethylene.

The lawsuit alleges that building developers allowed residents to
move in months before the recommended testing to ensure that the
site's Vapor Mitigation System was removing the carcinogen had
occurred so that developers could benefit from a federal tax
credit. After moving into the residence in February, Bowen and her
son reported headaches and nausea that led them to call paramedics
to their home twice, the suit says.

The lawsuit comes a week after the city's Health Department and DNR
sent a letter to residents informing them they would not be able to
move in before January 2024. After the letter was sent, CWC
cancelled a scheduled meeting with residents and issued voluntary
lease terminations to residents with a deadline to sign by June 16,
2023. The meeting was rescheduled for June 14, 2023.

The termination includes $5,000 in compensation, residents would
also be signing away their rights to sue the developers in the
future. If residents sign, they would also lose their current
temporary housing on June 27. CWC has been footing the bill for the
displaced residents' housing.

While CWC media representative Phil Trewyn declined to comment on
what would happen if residents do not sign, the developer told
residents on June 14, 2023 night that their leases would be
terminated no matter what on June 27. At the meeting, CWC only
provided information on the remediation effort and did not answer
questions about the voluntary lease terminations.

Most residents do not know where they will live in two weeks after
their leases are terminated.

"They had nothing to say," resident Breana Weakley told the Journal
Sentinel. "I lost my job because they kept moving me around, and I
had to take time off. Now, I am going to be homeless on June 27
because they don't care about us. They do not have anything for us
and they do not care about us."

Trewyn told the Journal Sentinel that the terminations were sent
because the builders did not believe it was possible for residents
to return until much later than they had expected. The builders are
required to undertake a testing report that includes a vapor test
conducted during winter. Regulators refer to this testing process
as "commissioning."

The builder blames the delayed re-entry and decision to move toward
lease termination on what it terms a "new testing requirement," an
assertion the DNR disputes.

"It's convenient to use the DNR as a scapegoat," DNR Remediation
and Redevelopment Program Director Christine Sieger told the
Journal Sentinel. "These are industry standards that they should
have known. Commissioning occurs over multiple iterations including
one in the winter months. We never received, and still have not
received, a commissioning plan that the department approves of."

Displaced resident Martinx Martinez said tenants feel that "they
have no choice" but to accept the settlement from CWC since they
need the money to find a new place. If he signs the lease
termination his housing at the Extended Stay in Wauwatosa will end
on June 27, and he is worried about finding housing in three
weeks.

"My job is now an hour and fifteen-minute bus ride away," Martinez
told the Journal Sentinel. "From CWC it was only 15 minutes so I'm
losing money and have to work fewer shifts since it's harder to get
to work. I need the money to get a new house, but how am I going to
find a place so quickly?"

Community within the Corridor was built on a redeveloped industrial
site at West Center and North 32nd Streets.

According to the DNR's Sieger, the current trajectory of
remediation of TCE at the complex is insufficient and the
department is requesting that the builder provide an additional
remediation report within the next 60 days for additional measures
to lower the level of TCE.

TCE is a colorless liquid and carcinogen that is used in factories
to clean metal and is also an ingredient in adhesives, paint
removers and spot removers, according to the Centers for Disease
Control & Prevention.

Exposure to TCE can cause dizziness, headaches, sleepiness,
confusion, nausea, unconsciousness, liver damage and death. Some
residents have reported these symptoms.
"I'm not signing lease termination," Tonya Hill told the Journal
Sentinel. "I had no health problems before I moved into CWC in
November. After, I kept having to go to the hospital and had an
infection in my whole body. I had rashes, felt nauseous, could not
concentrate and my daughter was the same. When my doctor heard
about the TCE, he said that could explain what was happening to
me."

The testing of the site that led to the initial evacuation order
revealed that some parts of the building had more than double the
legal limit for TCE of 6.3 micrograms per cubic meter, while the
laundry room area of the east block had 60 times the legal limit of
TCE.

The timeline between the first day that residents moved into
Community within the Corridor in October and the date they were
evacuated in late March is also raising questions.

The required sequence of required vapor tests didn't begin until
February, more than four months after the first residents moved in
and despite recommendations by the DNR that no occupancy be allowed
before the required testing.

The Cerjak lawsuit alleges CWC moved residents into the building in
late 2022 in order to qualify for federal tax credits in the 2022
calendar year and in order to generate rental income sooner.

Martinez moved into CWC in December and said that at the time it
felt a little odd for his application to be approved so quickly
since he had only applied a few weeks before moving in.

"It's crazy that they knew something was wrong and they just let us
move in," resident Latoya Martin told the Journal Sentinel. "We
found out afterward that they were lying and hadn't done the
testing they needed to."

Now that the building is empty, the current remediation work
focuses on upgrading the site's Vapor Mitigation System that
removes the carcinogen from the site.

The testing plan that CWC now blames for the lease terminations has
been a point of contention between the developers and the DNR since
January.

On Jan. 23, DNR Hydrogeologist Jane Pfeiffer wrote to the
developers that the DNR was not approving the testing plan that was
submitted. Pfeiffer informed CWC that the plan did not adequately
sample indoor spaces and she "strongly recommended" that they not
move any people into the building until all three stages of
commissioning were completed.

CWC then provided an updated report that the DNR provided comments
on. According to Sieger, a revised plan was never submitted, and
CWC is yet to submit a commissioning report that has been
approved.

During the back and forth on the commissioning plan, Pfeiffer also
asked for updates from the developers on the occupancy of the
building.

K. Singh Engineering Principal Engineer Robert Reineke, whose
company was hired by CWC for work at the site, wrote to Pfeiffer in
February that "we're hoping to perform commissioning next week…
occupancy dependent on results."

Trewyn, the CWC spokesman, wrote to the Journal Sentinel that
residents were allowed to move into the units in October.

The Department of Neighborhood Services issued a temporary
occupancy certificate for the property, but they contend they were
not aware of the DNR's recommendation.

"At no time in this process was DNS made aware by the developer
that there were environmental hazards at the property," a DNS media
representative wrote to the Journal Sentinel.

On March 23, CWC provided the first round of commissioning data
that showed that the level of TCE in some parts of the building
exceeded the legal limit. Three days prior, the DNR's Pfeiffer had
contacted Reineke about the test results, and Reineke had informed
her that they had been received and were being tabulated for the
DNR.

During this period, Pfeiffer also repeatedly asked developers if
people had moved into the building. On the same day the results
were provided, developers informed DNR that the site did have
occupancy.

Two days later, Milwaukee's health department issued an evacuation
notice. [GN]

RXO LAST: Bid to Compel Class List in Muniz Suit Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUSTIN MUNIZ, MOHAMMED BELAABD, NELSON QUINTANILLA,
JOSE DILONE, and VICTOR AMARO, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RXO LAST MILE, INC.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 4:18-11905-TSH (D. Mass.), Judge
Timothy S. Hillman of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs'
motion to compel the class list.

The Plaintiffs bring the action, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, against RXO. The Plaintiffs are delivery
drivers, who contracted with RXO, a federally authorized freight
forwarder, to deliver appliances and other large consumer goods for
RXO's retail clients. They allege that RXO misclassified them as
independent contractors and unlawfully deducted wages from their
pay in violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act, M.G.L. c. 149,
Sections 148 and 150.

The Court previously granted the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the
class. However, the parties cannot agree on who is in the class nor
on the proper method of notice. The Defendant has refused to give
the Plaintiffs' counsel -- the class administrator, per the Court's
order -- the requested class list. The Plaintiffs moved to compel
the list.

Following certification, the parties were unable to agree on the
wording of class notice and the Court was forced to devise
appropriate notice. The Plaintiffs have since moved for partial
summary judgment. However, in the meantime, the parties have again
come to an impasse over class notice.

The class is limited, among other things, to contractors who worked
for RXO "full-time in Massachusetts." The parties agree that at
least some of the class members delivered some portion of the goods
and/or originated some portion of their days outside of
Massachusetts. The Plaintiffs contend that class notice should be
sent to everyone on the list RXO created during discovery in
response to an interrogatory from plaintiffs which included the
modifier "in Massachusetts."

The Defendant contends that the term "in Massachusetts" must be
interpreted narrowly considering choice of law concerns and have
articulated such a definition and refuse to send the information of
anyone on the list who it deems outside of the class. The
Plaintiffs object to the interpretation on two grounds: first, they
argue that class notice should be sent to everyone on the list, and
that individual member's recovery can be determined later, second,
they argue that defendant's choice of law concerns is overblown.

The Court issued an order requesting additional briefing on the
interpretation of "in Massachusetts," but noted that it rejected
the Defendant's original position. The Plaintiffs sent additional
briefing, putting forward three different possible interpretations
of the term "in Massachusetts." The Defendant rejected them,
arguing that they were not valid interpretations and reemphasized
the choice of law issues. However, it did not offer any alternative
interpretations.

Finally, the Court notes that the Defendant is engaged in similar
litigation in Connecticut where the Plaintiffs are represented by
their counsel in this litigation. The Plaintiffs' counsel represent
that a similar impasse is facing the Connecticut litigation.

First, the Plaintiffs frame the dispute in terms of class notice
and argue that the methodology for sending out notice only needs to
be the best practicable under the circumstances.

Judge Hillman says unlike in a products liability class action, the
possible universe of class members is known -- the Defendant has
records of everyone who signed a contract with RXO, another
requirement of membership in the class. Thus, he sees no value in
clarifying the meaning of "in Massachusetts" after class notice is
given. In doing so, it considers the Defendant's concerns about
double recovery, choice of law issues, and the most natural meaning
of the words.

Second, the Defendant expresses concerns that a broader definition
will lead to double recovery for some individuals who might qualify
for both the Connecticut and the Massachusetts classes. The counsel
for both parties has been conferring to minimize the chances of
duplicate notice. Nothing in the Court's order should prevent
counsel from continuing to work together to prevent duplicative
notice to the Massachusetts and Connecticut classes, Judge Hillman
says. And no individual can recover as a member of both classes.

Third, despite a relatively broad reach, not everyone with a
tenuous business connection to Massachusetts is covered by
Massachusetts' wage laws. That said, Judge Hillman holds that
choice of law concerns should inform -- not dictate -- the
interpretation of "in Massachusetts" in the class certification
order.

Fourth, the Defendant takes the position that "in Massachusetts"
qualifies "full-time." Because "full-time" is defined by a set of
three criteria, it argues that the phrase "in Massachusetts"
qualifies each criterion. The class certification order defines
full-time as: Personally making deliveries [(a)] at least 80
percent of the days RXO LM assigns routes to the contractor [(b)]
for at least three months and [(c)] who average performing
deliveries for XPO at least four days a week during that time
span.

Judge Hillman says the Defendant's definition fails to comport with
common sense. Under that definition, the Patriots do not play "in
Massachusetts." After all, they only play eight or nine games in a
given season at Foxborough (that is, 47%-53% of the season). The
Court cannot allow a definition that seems plainly calculated to
limit the class as much as possible.

Judge Hillman notes that it is advisable that class notice is
issued to the class before the Court issues a summary judgment
order. Therefore, the Court will not issue its summary judgment
order until class notice has been actually distributed.

However, Judge Hillman is cognizant that the litigation has gone on
for nearly five years and does not wish to stall its progress.
Accordingly, the Defendant has 14 days to provide the Plaintiffs
with a notice list consistent with the definition of "in
Massachusetts," and the Plaintiffs have 14 days after receiving the
information to issue class notice to the putative class and will
notify the Court on the docket when they have done so. In
accordance with the class notice devised by the Court, the summary
judgment order will issue 45 days after class notice is issued by
the Plaintiffs.

For these reasons, Judge Hillman grants the Plaintiffs' motion to
compel the class list in part and denies it in part.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2023 Order & Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bdh5ufk3 from Leagle.com.


SAGINAW COUNTY, MI: Fox Files Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS A. FOX, for himself
and all those similarly situated, v. COUNTY OF SAGINAW, et al.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-11887-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order certifying the following class under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3):

   "All persons and entities that owned real property in the
following
   counties, whose real property, during the relevant time period,
was
   seized through a real property tax foreclosure, which was worth

   and/or which was sold at tax auction for more than the total tax

   delinquency and were not refunded the value of the property in
   excess of the delinquent taxes owed: Alcona, Alpena, Arenac,
Bay,
   Clare, Crawford, Genesee, Gladwin, Gratiot, Huron, Isabella,
   Jackson, Lapeer, Lenawee, Macomb, Midland, Montmorency, Ogemaw,

   Oscoda, Otsego, Presque Isle, Roscommon, Saginaw, Sanilac, St
   Clair, Tuscola, and Washtenaw."

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to:

   -- appoint the Plaintiff and Additional Class Representatives
set
      forth in Exhibit 1 as Class Representatives; and

   -- appoint E. Powell Miller and Philip L. Ellison as Class
Counsel.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 1, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42NKLgW at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
          Christopher D. Kaye, Esq.
          Gregory A. Mitchell, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          950 W University Drive, Ste 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
                  ssa@millerlawpc.com
                  cdk@millerlawpc.com
                  gam@millerlawpc.com

                - and -
          Philip L. Ellison, Esq.
          OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL, PLC
          Hemlock, MI 48626
          Telephone: (989) 642-0055
          E-mail: pellison@olcplc.com

                - and -

          Matthew E. Gronda, Esq.
          St. Charles, MI 48655
          Telephone: (989) 249-0350
          matt@matthewgronda.com

SEQUOIA CAPITAL: Siskind Sues for Fraud, Misappropriation of Funds
------------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN SISKIND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SEQUOIA CAPITAL OPERATIONS, LLC, Thoma
Bravo, LP, Paradigm Operations LP, Prager Metis CPAs, LLC, and
Armanino, LLP, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-22144 (S.D. Fla., June
9, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of
those who fell victim to the fraud perpetrated by Sam Bankman-Fried
through his cryptocurrency exchange company FTX Trading Ltd.

Sequoia and Paradigm were beneficiaries of the comingling of
customer assets between FTX and crypto-trading firm called Alameda
Research. Recent bankruptcy filings show that Clifton Bay
Investments LLC, a Delaware entity controlled by Bankman-Fried for
the purpose of managing "his" private investments, invested $50
million and committed to invest an additional $50 million in
Sequoia Capital Fund, L.P., a fund managed and controlled by
Sequoia.

According to the complaint, the manner of holding, and segregation
of, customer assets at FTX have been revealed to be materially
false and misleading. In truth, Bankman-Fried and Alameda
misappropriated customer assets for their own personal use,
proprietary trading purposes, and to cover investment losses, among
other misuses. The Defendants knew that FTX's public
representations were false, and that FTX made a number of material
omissions in soliciting Class Members' deposits but Defendants
remained silent and, worse, fueled Bankman-Fried's fraud, says the
suit.

Despite glaring red flags, and fraud that a proper due diligence
would have revealed, Defendants each invested in and promoted FTX.
Before deploying millions of dollars to legitimatize
Bankman-Fried's empire, Defendants had the opportunity to, and
indeed claimed they did, conduct due diligence that would have
shown that customer assets were being comingled, massive "loans"
were being given across FTX and Alameda, a complete lack of
internal controls existed, and that outright fraud was occurring.
Instead, using their stature and reputation, they promoted FTX and
Bankman-Fried to unsuspecting investors who went on to transact and
deposit fiat currency or digital assets in accounts with FTX
thinking that if Defendants are endorsing FTX it must be safe. But
Defendants actually or constructively knew, or were reckless in not
knowing, that Bankman-Fried's empire was a complete and utter sham,
the suit alleges.

Sequoia Capital Operations is a venture capital firm based in Menlo
Park, California, with approximately $85 billion in assets under
management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachel Wagner Furst, Esq.
          John R. Byrne, Esq.
          Francisco R. Maderal, Esq.
          MADERAL BYRNE & FURST PLLC
          2800 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1100
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 520-5690
          E-mail: rachel@maderalbyrne.com
                  john@maderalbyrne.com
                  frank@maderalbyrne.com

               - and -

          Marlene Goldenberg, Esq.    
          NIGH GOLDENBERG RASO & VAUGHN
          A:14 Ridge Square NW Third Floor
          Washington, D.C. 20016
          Telephone: (202) 792-7927
          E-mail: mgoldenberg@Nighgoldenberg.com

               - and -

          Daniel Nigh, Esq.
          NIGH GOLDENBERG RASO & VAUGHN
          1333 College Parkway, Suite 1049
          Gulf Breeze, FL 32563  
          E-mail: Dnigh@Nighgoldenberg.com

SIX FLAGS: Court Dismisses Class Suit Over Securities Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP of JD Supra reports that on June 2, 2023,
the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
dismissed a putative class action against an amusement park
operator and certain of its executives asserting claims under
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Okla.
Firefighters Pension & Ret. Sys. v. Six Flags Ent. Corp., -- F.
Supp. 3d -- , 2023 WL 3781645 (N.D. Tex. June 2, 2023). Plaintiff
alleged that the company made misrepresentation about its plans to
develop amusement parks in China. The Court held that plaintiff
lacked standing because it purchased shares too late to have relied
on any actionable misstatements and therefore dismissed the action
with prejudice. The Court also denied a motion to intervene by
another potential plaintiff that claimed to have purchased shares
earlier.

The Court previously dismissed this action, finding that plaintiff
failed to identify any actionable misrepresentations. As discussed
in our prior post, however, that decision was reversed in part by
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which
held that certain challenged statements made prior to October 2019
were sufficiently alleged at the pleadings stage to be actionable.
On remand, defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing
that plaintiff lacked standing because it only claimed to have
purchased company stock after October 2019, by which time, the
Fifth Circuit held, defendants had already made a corrective
disclosure.

The Court explained that the question of plaintiff's standing
turned on whether it could sufficiently allege that it reasonably
relied on actionable misstatements when it purchased stock after
the October 2019 corrective disclosure. Plaintiff argued that the
Fifth Circuit's determination that a corrective disclosure occurred
in October 2019 applied only with respect to statements regarding
the timeline for the company's amusement park openings, whereas
plaintiff claimed it relied on alleged misstatements regarding the
company's financial condition. After carefully reviewing the Fifth
Circuit's opinion, however, the Court determined that the Fifth
Circuit's "holding applies to all the alleged misrepresentations or
omissions on or before [October 2019], closing the purported class
period." The Court thus concluded that plaintiff could not have
reasonably relied on any alleged pre-October 2019 misstatements
when it made its post-October 2019 purchases. Moreover, the Court
held that plaintiff's lack of standing was a jurisdictional defect
that could not be cured either by amending its complaint or
substituting a new plaintiff, observing that "a plaintiff in line
at this Court without standing is too short to ride."

The Court also denied a motion by another entity to intervene and
substitute itself as lead plaintiff of the purported class. The
Court noted that the named plaintiff's lack of standing meant there
was no "case" or "controversy" in which the movant could intervene.
The Court also rejected the movant's argument that intervention was
permissible based on the supposed "class action" nature of the
lawsuit, noting that no class had ever been certified. As a result,
the movant was merely an "unnamed, independent third party." Thus,
the Court rejected movant's attempt to "manufacture Article III
jurisdiction" by casting itself as a "member" of a class that did
not exist. As the Court observed, "the ride … has left the
station." [GN]

ST. PAUL'S SENIOR: Faces Class Suit Over BIPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Andy Nghiem of Madison – St. Clair Record reports that a class
action lawsuit alleges St. Paul's Senior Community violates
employees' privacy under state law by requiring them to use a
fingerprint reader system to clock in and out of work.

Plaintiff Scotti Welp filed a class action lawsuit in the St. Clair
County Circuit Court against St. Paul's Senior Community, LLC.,
citing invasion of privacy, negligence and carelessness in
violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act
(BIPA).

According to the lawsuit, Welp is a former employee of St. Paul's
Senior assisted living community. He alleges that during his
employment, he was required to use a fingerprint reader system to
clock in and out of work.

The lawsuit states that BIPA requires that prior to collecting
biometric data, such as fingerprints, companies must inform
employees in writing that biometric data will be collected and
stored. It also states that employees must be informed in writing
why the biometric data is being collected and how long it will be
stored. Companies must also receive a written release from the
employee for the collection of biometric data.

Welp alleges the defendant invades the privacy of its employees by
collecting and storing their fingerprints without informed consent.
He claims the company never received a release from him allowing
the collection of his fingerprints, and he never authorized the
company to collect his fingerprints for this use.

The plaintiff is seeking monetary damages for himself and the
proposed class, plus court costs, interest, attorney fees and any
other relief the court deems proper. He is also asking the court to
issue an order requiring the defendant to cease the collection of
biometric data without informed written consent.

The plaintiff is represented by attorney Mark Hammervold of
Hammervold Law, LLC in Elmhurst.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 23LA0558 [GN]

STATEBRIDGE CO: Lopez FDCPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Ana Lopez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Statebridge Company, LLC, Case No.
2023-CH-04254, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on June 9, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-03660 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged abusive debt
collection practices or violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Statebridge Company, LLC provides custom, high touch special
servicing, and sub servicing for the mortgage industry. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

         Arthur C. Czaja, Esq.
         LAW OFFICE OF ARTHUR C. CZAJA
         7521 North Milwaukee Avenue
         Niles, IL 60714
         Telephone: (847) 647-2106
         E-mail: arthur@czajalawoffices.com

SUTHERLIN NISSAN: Fails to Properly Pay Mechanics, Cadenas Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
SANTIAGO CADENAS, SERGIO SERRANO, ANDRE WRIGHT, JOSE AYALA, and
JEFF SANTOS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. SUTHERLIN NISSAN ORLANDO, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 6:23-cv-01135 (M.D. Fla., June 15, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs worked for Sutherlin Nissan as automotive mechanics
and service technicians in Orange County, Florida within the last
four years.

Sutherlin Nissan Orlando, Inc., is an authorized dealership of
Nissan North America, Inc., with its principal place of business in
Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Kevin K. Ross-Andino, Esq.
         ECLAT LAW, PA
         307 Cranes Roost Boulevard # 2010
         Altamonte Springs, FL 32701
         Telephone: (407) 636-7004
         E-mail: kevin.ross@eclatlaw.com

SYCAMORE, IL: State Appeals Ruling in Unsafe Water Suit Discussed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Jaquins of Cook County Record reports that a state
appeals panel says an insurer must pay to help the city of Sycamore
replace derelict water mains, which had contaminated the city's
water supply.

Sycamore residents Jennifer Campbell and Jeremy Pennington filed a
putative class action complaint against the city alleging the
city's failure to maintain its water mains had harmed Sycamore's
residents by providing them with unsafe drinking water and damaging
equipment that used water in their homes.

Sycamore then filed a claim, demanding its insurers, LM Insurance
Corporation and Liberty Insurance Corporation, help cover their
defense and indemnify the city against the case.

Liberty denied coverage and filed an action for declaratory
judgment, asserting the policies it had issued to Sycamore didn't
provide coverage.

DeKalb County Circuit Judge Bradley Waller agreed with the
insurers, and granted Liberty judgment on the pleadings. Sycamore
appealed from that order. A three-justice panel from the Illinois
Second District Appellate Court reversed the DeKalb County judge's
ruling, and remanded for additional proceedings.

The appellate opinion was authored by Justice Mary Schostok on June
8. Justices Ann Jorgensen and Christopher Kennedy concurred in the
judgment.

On appeal, Sycamore argued the trial court erred in interpreting
the insurance contract between Liberty and Sycamore and determining
that Liberty did not owe a duty to cover the city.

Sycamore contended the pollution and lead exclusions in Liberty's
policies don't negate Liberty's duty to defend it in the underlying
lawsuit. Sycamore argued the pollution exclusion applies only to
"traditional environmental pollution," which it insisted is not
what the underlying complaint alleged.

The panel said the dispositive question is whether the iron, lead,
and bacteria that Sycamore allegedly distributed to its residents
constituted "traditional environmental pollution" or "pollution
harms as traditionally understood." The panel held it didn't.

Liberty alleged Sycamore didn't repair for decades century-old
water mains that sat in highly corrosive soils that ate away at the
iron water mains, "leading them to disintegrate and crumble
underground." The disintegrating water mains then led to iron,
bacteria, and lead being distributed to the Sycamore community.
There was no release, discharge or escape of a pollutant into the
ground that caused the groundwater to become contaminated. Rather,
the complaint alleged the water did not become contaminated until
it was already in Sycamore's water pipes. Although the complaint
alleged residents were harmed by pollutants, this is not equivalent
to asserting they were harmed by "traditional environmental
pollution," the panel said.

The panel further noted Liberty pointed to no cases in which
degrading water mains that cause lead, iron, and bacteria to be
distributed to the community constitute "traditional environmental
pollution."

The panel also addressed the trial court's determination that the
lead exclusion in the policies was a basis on which to award
Liberty judgment on the pleadings.

The underlying complaint alleged Sycamore had allowed its cast iron
mains to deteriorate, which allowed large amounts of iron
particulate to enter the city's water supply, which then entered
people's homes, staining tubs, dishes, and other personal items,
while also negatively impacting the taste and appearance of the
water. The complaint also asserted the iron interfered with
treatments the city adds to the water to protect residents.

Without this protection, lead from solder, joints, service lines,
and plumbing have contaminated water throughout Sycamore's system,
leading to high lead levels in homes. The complaint further alleged
the iron interacted with the chlorine treatments, allowing bacteria
to flourish. The "waterborne bacteria [then] seriously threatens
the health of the residents, allowing harmful—and possibly even
fatal—diseases."

The allegations don't suggest all the plaintiffs' problems arose
from exposure to lead, the panel found. If any one thing was the
cause of all the problems they suffered, the allegations suggest
the cause was iron, as that in turn caused the problems with the
lead and the bacteria. As the underlying complaint does not
indicate all of the problems arose from exposure to lead, the lead
pollution exclusion is not a basis on which to determine Liberty
did not owe Sycamore a duty to defend or indemnify.

Liberty also asked the panel to affirm on the alternate basis there
was never an occurrence in this case. Liberty pointed out the
insurance contract provided coverage only if there were an
"occurrence." The policies define "occurrence" as "an accident,
including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same
general harmful conditions." Illinois courts have defined
"accident" as an unforeseen occurrence, usually of an untoward or
disastrous character or an undesigned, sudden or unexpected event
of an inflictive or unfortunate character.

In arguing that Sycamore's actions constituted a "nonoccurrence"
that never triggered Liberty's duty to defend or indemnify, Liberty
pointed to the principle that the "natural and ordinary
consequences of an act do not constitute an accident." Liberty
asserted the natural and ordinary consequences of Sycamore's
decision to defer maintenance on its water mains for decades is
that those mains would deteriorate and cause problems for its
residents. Liberty insisted it owed no duty to defend or indemnify
Sycamore.

LM Insurance Corporation and Liberty Insurance Corporation were
represented by Matthew O. Sitzer, Matthew C. Wolfe, Kathleen M.
Ryan and Tara D. Kennedy, of Shook, Hardy & Bacon, of Chicago.

The city of Sycamore weas represented by attorneys Angela R.
Elbert, Paul Walker-Bright and Benjamin Boris, of Neal, Gerber &
Eisenberg, of Chicago. [GN]

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY: Settles Female Faculty Staff Labor Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Outten & Golden LLP reports that Outten & Golden LLP and Syracuse
University announced a class-action settlement to resolve
allegations of compensation discrimination raised by five female
faculty members. Under the settlement agreement, the University
will pay $3,713,000 to resolve the claims. This settlement does not
represent an admission of any liability on the part of Syracuse
University.

In a class action complaint filed on June 16, 2023, the five female
faculty members allege that the university-wide compensation and
promotion policies and practices had an adverse impact on them and
other female colleagues.

We are pleased that Syracuse has agreed to resolve the claims, and
the settlement will provide meaningful relief to our clients and
other female faculty," said Deirdre A. Aaron of Outten & Golden.

Syracuse University is committed "at all levels, across all faculty
and staff positions" to providing an equitable and supportive work
environment," says Senior Vice President for Academic Operations
Steve Bennett. We continue to work closely with academic leadership
to ensure salaries are commensurate with every faculty member's job
responsibilities, efforts and accomplishments, regardless of
gender."

CONTACTS: Adam T. Klein or Deirdre A. Aaron, Outten & Golden,
516.261.6080 or  @email.

About Outten & Golden LLP

Outten & Golden LLP focuses on advising and representing
individuals in employment, partnership, and related workplace
matters both domestically and internationally. The firm counsels
individuals on employment and severance agreements; handles complex
compensation and benefits issues (including bonuses, equity
agreements, and partnership interests); and advises professionals
(including doctors and lawyers) on contractual issues. It also
represents employees with a wide variety of claims, including
discrimination and harassment based on sex, sexual orientation,
gender identity and expression, race, disability, national origin,
religion, and age, as well as retaliation, whistleblower, and
contract claims. The firm handles class actions involving a wide
range of employment issues, including economic exploitation,
gender- and race-based discrimination, wage-and-hour violations,
violations of the WARN Act, and other systemic workers' rights
issues.  

Outten & Golden has nine practice groups: Executives &
Professionals, Financial Services, Sexual Harassment & Sex
Discrimination, Family Responsibilities & Disability
Discrimination, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender & Queer (LGBTQ)
Workplace Rights, Discrimination & Retaliation, Whistleblower
Retaliation, Class & Collective Actions, and WARN Act.    

Outten & Golden has offices in New York, San Francisco, and
Washington, D.C. [GN]

TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Dismissal of Crosby Tugs' Claims Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE ACTOS END-PAYOR ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No.
13-CV-9244 (RA) (SDA) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Ronnie Abrams of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York denies Crosby
Tugs' motion for an unconditional dismissal without prejudice.

Crosby Tugs has moved to dismiss its claims from the antitrust
litigation without prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(a)(2). Defendants Takeda Development Center Americas,
Inc., Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Limited, Takeda Pharmaceuticals
U.S.A., Inc., and Takeda America Holdings, Inc. (collectively, the
"Takeda Defendants") do not oppose Crosby Tugs' dismissal from the
case but urge the Court to either (1) condition dismissal on Crosby
Tugs' compliance with its discovery obligations, or (2) dismiss
with prejudice. Judge Abrams agrees.

Under Rule 41(a)(2), absent consent from the parties, an action may
be dismissed at the plaintiff's request only by court order, on
terms that the court considers proper. In this Circuit, there are
two lines of authority with respect to the circumstances under
which a dismissal without prejudice might be improper.

The first line indicates that such a dismissal would be improper if
the defendant would suffer some plain legal prejudice other than
the mere prospect of a second lawsuit. The second line of authority
indicates that the test for dismissal without prejudice involves
consideration of various factors, known as the Zagano factors,
including (1) the plaintiff's diligence in bringing the motion, (2)
any undue vexatiousness on the plaintiff's part, (3) the extent to
which the suit has progressed, including the defendant's efforts
and expense in preparation for trial, (4) the duplicative expense
of relitigation, and (5) the adequacy of the plaintiff's
explanation for the need to dismiss," citing Zagano v. Fordham
Univ., 900 F.2d 12, 14 (2d Cir. 1990)).

As an initial matter, the parties disagree about whether the Zagano
factors apply to the case. Judge Abrams says he need not decide
that question, however, because regardless of whether it considers
the Zagano factors, an unconditional dismissal without prejudice
would be unwarranted. He says the Takeda Defendants would plainly
suffer legal prejudice if they were unable to obtain discovery from
Crosby Tugs and Crosby Tugs were then able to remain an absent
class member.

Moreover, Judge Abrams says the Takeda Defendants need not
establish that the requested discovery would be necessary to prove
their claims -- only that some legal interest, claim, or argument
would be "impaired" by an unconditional dismissal. Finally, he says
the timing of the request underscores the prejudice to the Takeda
Defendants if Crosby Tugs were to remain a member of the putative
class while refusing to produce any discovery.

Taking into account the Zagano factors would not compel a different
conclusion. On one hand, the second and fourth factors fall in
favor of Crosby Tugs. As for the second factor, there is no
evidence of "undue vexatiousness" or an intent to harass on Crosby
Tugs' part. And with respect to fourth factor, the "duplicative
expense of relitigation" if Crosby Tugs were to remain an absent
class member -- assuming that such circumstances even count as
"relitigation" -- would be negligible.

On the other hand, the remaining three Zagano factors fall in favor
of the Takeda Defendants. As for the first factor, Crosby Tugs did
not exercise "diligence in bringing the motion," waiting until
months after a major discovery deadline before asserting that they
were "unable to make a production." With respect to the third
factor, although the suit has not yet progressed to summary
judgment briefing and no trial date has been set, the parties have
completed a substantial amount of discovery at significant cost to
the Takeda Defendants, given the complexity of this litigation.
Finally, with respect to the fifth factor, Crosby Tugs' explanation
for the need to dismiss is insufficient. Judge Abrams cannot
discern from this cryptic explanation whether Crosby Tugs' reason
for withdrawing as a named plaintiff is compelling. On balance, the
Zagano factors thus also weigh against an unconditional dismissal.

Accordingly, Judge Abrams denies Crosby Tugs' motion for an
unconditional dismissal without prejudice. Crosby Tugs was to file
a letter on June 28, 2023, indicating whether it seeks to condition
dismissal without prejudice upon compliance with its discovery
obligations, or dismissal with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is
directed to terminate the motion pending at ECF No. 425.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2023 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4j8wkrxf from
Leagle.com.


TALEN PIZZA: Allen Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unreimbursed Costs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RANDY ALLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TALEN PIZZA, INC. and TROY C. HAMILTON,
Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00873-SB (D. Ore., June 15, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendants for failure to reimburse
business expenses in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed as a delivery driver at Defendants'
Domino's store in Portland, Oregon from approximately August 2018
to September 2020.

Talen Pizza, Inc. is an operator of Domino's franchise stores in
Oregon. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Ashley A. Marton, Esq.
         Rebecca Cambreleng, Esq.
         CAMBRELENG & MARTON LLC
         3518 S. Corbett Avenue
         Portland, OR 97239
         Telephone: (503) 477-4899
         E-mail: ashley@workplacelawpdx.com
                 rebecca@workplacelawpdx.com

                 - and -
       
         Katherine Serrano, Esq.
         FORESTER HAYNIE
         400 North St. Paul Street, Ste. 700
         Dallas, TX 75201
         Telephone: (214) 210-2100
         E-mail: kserrano@foresterhaynie.com

TECH MAHINDRA: Appellate Court Revives Williams Discrimination Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wiessner of Reuters reports that a U.S. appeals court on
June 14, 2023 revived a lawsuit by a white former employee of
Indian IT services company Tech Mahindra Ltd's U.S. subsidiary,
alleging that the company discriminates against non-South Asian
workers.

A unanimous three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals said the judge who dismissed Lee Williams' 2020 proposed
class action applied the wrong standard in determining that he had
not adequately alleged a violation of federal civil rights law.

The judge had ruled that Williams failed to claim that he would not
have been fired but for his race. But the 3rd Circuit said that
because the case seeks class action status, Williams only had to
allege that Tech Mahindra had engaged in a "pattern or practice" of
race discrimination.

The court also said the judge must reconsider their ruling that the
lawsuit was untimely because Williams filed it more than four years
after he lost his job with Tech Mahindra.
Lawyers for the company, which has denied engaging in
discrimination, did not immediately respond to a request for
comment. Nor did lawyers representing Williams.

Williams filed the lawsuit in New Jersey federal court in 2020
accusing Tech Mahindra of violating Section 1981 of the Civil
Rights Act of 1866 by discriminating against workers who are not of
South Asian descent in hiring, promotions and terminations.

Williams says he was fired in 2015 for failing to meet sales goals
while South Asian workers with similar records kept their jobs. He
had previously asked to be added to a similar lawsuit in North
Dakota, but that case was sent to arbitration.

Tech Mahindra's U.S. subsidiary has more than 5,000 employees and
90% of them are South Asian, according to filings in the case.

U.S. District Judge Brian Martinotti in Newark dismissed the case
in 2021, saying Williams had not stated a claim for discrimination.
The judge also said Williams had waited too long to sue, and an
exception for plaintiffs who had previously sought to participate
in a separate class action did not apply.

Williams appealed and the 3rd Circuit on June 14, 2023 reversed
Martinotti's ruling. The panel said Martinotti failed to address
Williams' alternative claim that the window for him to file the
lawsuit should have been extended because he initially sought to
sue in North Dakota, which was the wrong forum because he was from
New Jersey.

The court remanded the case to Martinotti to consider that argument
and to apply the correct standard to determine whether Williams had
stated a claim under Section 1981.
The panel included Circuit Judges Peter Phipps, Joseph Greenaway
and Cheryl Krause.

The case is Williams v. Tech Mahindra Americans Inc, 3rd U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 21-1365.

For Williams: Mark Hammervold of Kotchen & Low

For Tech Mahindra: Kenneth Gage of Paul Hastings [GN]

THUNDER BAY, ON: Court Certifies Pinhole Leak Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Diaczuk of TBnewswatch.com reports that a $350-million class
action lawsuit against the city involving pinhole leaks in copper
water pipes will be moving forward, but the scope of the action is
yet to be determined.

A virtual hearing before Justice Paul Perell was held on June 14,
2023, where he acknowledged that the parties have agreed to move
forward on the negligence claim and for it to be certified as a
class action proceeding.

However, the parties disagreed on certifying a nuisance claim and
made arguments for and against it.

The class action involves the city adding sodium hydroxide to the
municipal water supply in 2018 in an effort to reduce lead levels.
It is alleged that the chemical eroded copper pipes and resulted in
some experiencing pinhole leaks.

Compensation in the amount of $350 million is being sought to cover
the cost of leaks in water pipes in residential properties. A
separate $350,000 lawsuit involving pinhole leaks was also filed by
St. Joseph's Care Group.

The city has denied it was negligent when it added sodium hydroxide
to the municipal water system.

While Perell was satisfied that the negligent claim can be
certified, he questioned whether or not claims of private nuisance
can be certified as it relates to this action.

"At the moment, it strikes me that the city's argument is the
better argument against certification," he said. "The reason is, if
the immunity provision of the Municipal Act applies, I think the
plaintiff has the more difficult side of the case to get outside of
the immunity provision. It does seem to apply in the immediate
case."

Perell was referring to a provision in the Municipal Act that
grants municipalities immunity from damage caused by water escaping
from city facilities or infrastructure, such as in the case of
sewage backups or broken water mains.

Erik Knutsen, counsel for the class action plaintiffs, argued that
the damage caused to the pipes was the result of the city adding
something to the water, not water escaping.
"If you look at the behaviour in this case, it isn't the water
escaping, and escape is the main word, from the city's facility,
they put something in the pipes that ate them from the inside out,"
he said. "The city didn't release the water that leaked. It cranked
up the pH 10 times the level we know eats the pipes."

The leaking pipes, Knutsen added, resulted in residential
properties sustaining damage and some not having access to water
for an extended period of time.

He also argued that the leaks occurred in pipes within residences,
not from municipal infrastructure, and therefore not part of the
immunity as defined under the Municipal Act.

Perell asked if it would make more sense for impacted residents to
pursue individual actions, as opposed to waiting for the class
action to move forward.

"You are going to have a very busy courthouse," Knutsen replied.
"You will have a nuisance about nuisance. There will be a lot of
claims showing up."

Lawrence Theall, counsel for the city, argued there are unique
circumstances regarding pinhole leaks and because liability is an
individual issue it would be better to look at claims individually
rather than as part of a class action.  

Perell will return at a later date with a decision on whether or
not the nuisance claim can be certified. The class action will then
move on to the discovery and Perell advised counsel not to sit
around and wait, as the decision on the nuisance certification will
likely not have significant bearing on the discovery phase. [GN]

TIVITY HEALTH: Stockholders Class in Strougo Suit Certified Again
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT STROUGO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TIVITY HEALTH, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00165 (M.D. Tenn.), Judge Waverly
D. Crenshaw, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, again certifies the
stockholders class and rules that the law firm Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP remains as the class counsel.

Acknowledging the proper analytical framework, the Court entered an
Order on June 7, 2022, granting Plaintiff Sheet Metal Workers Local
No. 33's Motion for Class Certification and certified the following
class: All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common
stock of Tivity Health, Inc. between March 8, 2019, and Feb. 19,
2020, inclusive. Excluded from the Class are Tivity Health, Inc.,
Donato Tramuto, Adam C. Holland, and Dawn Zier, members of their
immediate families, and any entity of which Defendant has a
controlling interest, and the legal representatives, heirs,
predecessors, successors, or assigns of any excluded party.

The Court also appointed the law firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP as the class counsel.

In deciding to certify the class, the Court limited its discussion
to the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b) and focused on
whether questions common to the class predominated. It was the only
factor contested by the Defendants.

After the Court issued its ruling, the Defendants sought permission
to appeal to the Sixth Circuit pursuant to Rule 23(f). In doing so,
they raised four issues in support of immediate appeal, all of
which pertain to the Court's analysis of the predominance factor
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). They did not
address the issue of whether the Plaintiff satisfied the
requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy
under Rule 23(a), nor did they raise any of those issues on appeal.
Nevertheless, the Sixth Circuit remanded the action to this Court
to address those factors, noting that it is axiomatic that
certification is proper only if the trial court is satisfied, after
a rigorous analysis, that the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) have been
satisfied.

On remand, the Court held a status conference during which the
parties confirmed that none of the Rule 23(a) factors were being
challenged by Defendants. Because of the directive on remand,
however, the Court ordered more fulsome briefing on the Rule 23(a)
factors, which has since been received. Based upon that filing and
the record as a whole, the Court finds that the Rule 23(a) for
class certification have been met. The Defendants do not dispute
that the Pension Fund and class counsel will adequately represent
the class.

Having conducted the rigorous analysis required by the Rule, Judge
Crenshaw is satisfied that each of the Rule 23(a) prerequisites for
class certification exists in the case. He has also found that Rule
23(b)'s predominance inquiry as has been met.

Accordingly, for these reasons, as well as those set forth in the
Court's prior Memorandum Opinion, Judge Crenshaw again certifies
the following class: All persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the common stock of Tivity Health, Inc. between March 8,
2019, and Feb. 19, 2020, inclusive. Excluded from the Class are
Tivity Health, Inc., Donato Tramuto, Adam C. Holland, and Dawn
Zier, members of their immediate families, and any entity of which
Defendant has a controlling interest, and the legal
representatives, heirs, predecessors, successors, or assigns of any
excluded party.

The law firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP will remain as the
class counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2023 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ytjyea3z from
Leagle.com.


UDEMY INC: Settlement Final OK Hearing in False Ads Suit on July 28
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Udemy agreed to a class action
lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it deceptively advertised
discounts on its educational courses.

The settlement benefits consumers who made purchases from Udemy.com
between Aug. 23, 2017, and April 21, 2023.

According to the class action lawsuit, Udemy deceptively advertised
its online educational courses at a discounted price. In reality,
these prices did not reflect what consumers actually paid for the
courses, the plaintiff contends.

Udemy is an online learning platform that offers courses on design,
coding, marketing, business and more.

Udemy hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an
undisclosed sum to resolve the price promotion class action
lawsuit.

Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive $4 for
each course they purchased from Udemy during the class period.
Claimants can receive payments for up to 10 classes, for a maximum
payment of $40.

The deadline for exclusion is July 21, 2023. The deadline for
objection is July 10, 2023.

The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for July
28, 2023.

In order to receive a settlement payment, class members must submit
a valid claim form by July 21, 2023.

Who's Eligible
Consumers who made purchases from Udemy.com between Aug. 23, 2017,
and April 21, 2023

Potential Award
Up to $40

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

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

Claim Form Deadline
07/21/2023

Case Name
Williams v. Udemy Inc., Case No. 37-2023-00003666-CU-BT-NC, in the
California Superior Court for San Diego County

Final Hearing
07/28/2023

Settlement Website
PricePromotionSettlement.com

Claims Administrator
Udemy Settlement Administrator
PO Box 3868
Baton Rouge, LA 70821
info@PricePromotionSettlement.com

Class Counsel
Tood Carpenter
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP

Albert Pak
KELLER POSTMAN LLC

Defense Counsel
N/A [GN]

UINTAH BASIN: Hyatt Sues Over Compromised Patients' Health Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
DORIS HYATT, on behalf of herself individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UINTAH BASIN MEDICAL
CENTER, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00377-CMR (D. Utah, June 9,
2023) arises out of out of the recent data breach involving
Defendant, a non-profit hospital that provides healthcare for
Roosevelt and the entire Uintah Basin region of Utah.

The Plaintiff alleges claims against the Defendant for negligence,
negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment,
invasion of privacy, and for violations of the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and Section 5 of the FTC
Act. Moreover, Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all
persons whose private information was compromised as a result of
Defendant's failure to: (i) adequately protect the private
information of Plaintiff and Class Members; (ii) warn Plaintiff and
Class Members of Defendant's inadequate information security
practices; and (iii) effectively secure hardware containing
protected private information using reasonable and effective
security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents.

Uintah Basin Medical Center is a healthcare entity incorporated
under the state laws of Utah. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Charles H. Thronson, Esq.
            PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER
            201 S. Main, Suite 1800
            Post Office Box 11898
            Salt Lake City, UT 84111
            Telephone: (801) 532-1234
            Facsimile: (801) 536-6111
            E-mail: cthronson@parsonsbehle.com

                    - and -

            David K. Lietz, Esq.
            MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
            5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW
            Washington, DC 20015-2052
            Telephone: (866) 252-0878
            Facsimile: (202) 686-2877
            E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com

UNITED SERVICES: Leavitt Sues Over Suppressed Rights, Breached Duty
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ALLAN M. LEAVITT and J. DOE, 1-100, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED SERVICES
AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, A Texas Department of Insurance Regulated
Reciprocal Inter-insurance Exchange and Subsidiaries; GEICO
INDEMNITY COMPANY; THE COMMERCE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.; and J.
ROE, 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-11341-MRG (D. Mass., June
15, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for declaratory
relief; breach of contract; fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud,
attempt to commit fraud, and misrepresentation; negligent, willful,
wanton, and intentional interference with contractual relations;
aiding and abetting; breach of fiduciary duty; and violations of
the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act.

The case arises from the conduct of the Defendants in and during
the litigation commenced in 2013 where the Plaintiffs and Class
members aver Defendants suppressed their rights, breached duties
owed to the Class members, and/or participated in violating their
rights under contract or at law in that litigation, and a complaint
in equity. The source of the information and reasons or belief that
the Plaintiffs' and Class members' right to a declaration of law
was actually suppressed and that there was a conspiracy to suppress
their rights are found in the fact that they had a right to a
declaration of law and rights of due process and equal protection
and there is no declaration of law despite pleas for one. The
Plaintiffs and Class members were denied those rights, says the
suit.

United Services Automobile Association is a financial services
company, with its principal place of business located at 9800
Fredericksburg Road, San Antonio, Texas.

Geico Indemnity Company is an insurance company, with its principal
place of business at 5260 Western Avenue, Chevy Chase, Maryland.

The Commerce Insurance Company, Inc. is an insurance company, with
its principal place of business located at 211 Main Street,
Webster, Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         William J. Ruotolo, Esq.
         P.O. Box 111
         North Scituate, RI 02857
         Telephone: (401) 489-1051
         E-mail: williamjruotolo@gmail.com

UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Underpays Security Guards, Carlton Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
LAURA CARLTON and RUEBEN COTTON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNIVERSAL PROTECTION
SERVICE, LP d/b/a ALLIED UNIVERSAL SECURITY SERVICES, Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-01519 (D. Colo., June 15, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for unpaid wages in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Portal-to-Portal Act, the Colorado Wage
Claim Act, the Colorado Minimum Wage Act, and the Colorado Minimum
Wage Order Number.

Ms. Carlton and Mr. Cotton were employed by the Defendant as
security guard employees from October 2021 until July 2022 and from
April 2022 until May 2023, respectively.

Universal Protection Service, LP, doing business as Allied
Universal Security Services, is a security, and facility services
company headquartered in Santa Ana, California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Matthew R. McCarley, Esq.
         Katherine Serrano, Esq.
         FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
         400 N. St. Paul Street, Ste. 700
         Dallas, TX 75201
         Telephone: (214) 346-5909
         Facsimile: (214) 210-2100
         E-mail: mccarley@foresterhaynie.com
                 kserrano@foresterhaynie.com

UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE: Settles Class Suit Over Campus Shutdown
---------------------------------------------------------------
Randall Chase of Yahoo! Life reports that the University of
Delaware has agreed to pay $6.3 million to settle a lawsuit over
its campus shutdown in 2020 and the halting of in-person classes
because of the coronavirus pandemic.

According to court papers that were filed this month and signed by
the plaintiffs and university president Dennis Assanis, some 21,000
current and former students could receive cash reimbursements.

While agreeing to settle the case, the university continues to deny
all allegations of wrongdoing.

Court records indicate that the university reached an agreement in
principle in late April, less than a month after a federal judge
ruled that the case could proceed as a class action on behalf of
thousands of students who were enrolled and paid tuition in the
spring semester of 2020, when the campus was shut down.

Under the settlement, which is awaiting final court approval, the
university will pay $6.3 million into an escrow account overseen by
a settlement administrator. Of that amount, plaintiffs' attorneys
will receive $2.1 million in fees and up to $250,000 in
reimbursement for expenses. The five students who were named
plaintiffs in the lawsuit are entitled to payments of $5,000 each
as class representatives.

The remainder will be distributed equally among class members,
consisting of undergraduate and graduate students who paid any
tuition and fees for the spring 2020 semester and do not opt out of
the settlement. Class members will automatically receive their
reimbursements by check mailed to their last known mailing address.
They can update their address or opt to receive payments by Venmo
or PayPal by completing an election form on a settlement website
that will be established.

In a March ruling certifying the lawsuit as a class action, Judge
Stephanos Bibas rejected the university's argument that the
plaintiffs, who accused the school of breach of contract and unjust
enrichment, lacked standing to sue. The university also argued
unsuccessfully that it was impossible to know who actually paid
tuition because some students may have used outside sources like
scholarships.

"Those students, no less than students who paid out of their own
pockets, were parties to a contract that U. Delaware allegedly
breached," wrote Bibas, who noted that the only students excluded
from the class of plaintiffs would be those who received full
scholarships.

According to the ruling, more than 17,000 undergraduates were
enrolled at the University of Delaware in spring 2020, and the
university collected more than $160 million in tuition that
semester.

The plaintiffs argued that, before the pandemic, the school treated
in-person and online classes as separate offerings and charged more
for some in-person programs than it did for similar online classes.
They also noted that the university charged them fees for the gym,
student centers, and the health center, sometimes at higher rates
than those paid by online students, and that the school kept those
fees while denying them the services during the pandemic closure.

Bibas previously ruled that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged
that the school implicitly promised them in-person classes,
activities and services. [GN]

WEST VIRGINIA: Heard Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Hospital Staff
------------------------------------------------------------------
DOMINIQUE HEARD, AMANDA LUZADER, and KENNETH MIKLICH, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WEST
VIRGINIA UNITED HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY
HOSPITALS, INC., COMMUNITY HEALTH ASSOCIATION, D/B/A JACKSON
GENERAL HOSPITAL, UNITED HOSPITAL CENTER, INC., THE CHARLES TOWN
GENERAL HOSPITAL CORP. D/B/A JEFFERSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC.,
CAMDEN CLARK MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., CITY HOSPITAL, INC., POTOMAC
VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC., GRANT MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., REYNOLDS
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., THE WEST VIRGINIA, HEALTH CARE
COOPERATIVE, INC., BRAXTON COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., ST.
JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL OF BUCKHANNON, INC., WETZEL COUNTY HOSPITAL,
INC., WHEELING HOSPITAL, INC.; WVUHS HOME CARE, LLC, WEST VIRGINIA
UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS EAST, INC.; CAMDEN-CLARK HEALTH SERVICES,
INC., UNITED SUMMIT CENTER, INC., UNITED PHYSICIANS CARE, INC.;
CAMDEN-CLARK PHYSICIAN CORP., FAYETTE PHYSICIAN NETWORK, INC.,
THOMAS HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., PRINCETON, COMMUNITY HOSPITAL ASSN.,
INC., BARNESVILLE HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, INC., UNIONTOWN HOSPITAL,
INC., HARRISON COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC., WHEELING AMBULATORY
SURGERY CENTER, LLC, GARRETT COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., and
ALLIED HEALTH SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No.
5:23-cv-00230-JPB (N.D. W. Va., June 15, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the West Virginia's
Minimum Wage and Maximum Hour Standards.

Plaintiffs Heard, Luzader, and Miklich worked as a housekeeping
assistant, a laboratory assistant, and as an Environmental Services
Team Lead at West Virginia University Hospital in Morgantown, West
Virginia.

West Virginia United Health System, Inc. (WVUHS) is a health system
operating hospitals, clinics and associated facilities in West
Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Maryland.

West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc. is an affiliate of WVUHS
and a health care provider located in Morgantown, West Virginia.

Community Health Association, d/b/a Jackson General Hospital, is an
affiliate of WVUHS and a health care provider located in Ripley,
West Virginia.

United Hospital Center, Inc. is an affiliate of WVUHS and a health
care provider located in Bridgeport, West Virginia.

The Charles Town General Hospital Corp., d/b/a Jefferson Memorial
Hospital, Inc., is an affiliate of WVUHS and a health care provider
located in Ranson, West Virginia.

Camden Clark Memorial Hospital, Inc. is an affiliate of WVUHS and a
health care provider located in Parkersburg, West Virginia.

City Hospital, Inc. is an affiliate of WVUHS and a health care
provider located in Martinsburg, West Virginia.

Potomac Valley Hospital, Inc. is an affiliate of WVUHS and a health
care provider located in Keyser, West Virginia.

Grant Memorial Hospital, Inc. is an affiliate of WVUHS and a health
care provider located in Petersburg, West Virginia.

Reynolds Memorial Hospital, Inc. is an affiliate of WVUHS and a
health care provider located in Glen Dale, West Virginia.

The West Virginia Health Care Cooperative, Inc. is an affiliate of
WVUHS and a health care provider located in Summersville, West
Virginia.

Braxton County Memorial Hospital, Inc. is an affiliate of WVUHS and
a health care provider located in Gassaway, West Virginia.

St. Joseph's Hospital of Buckhannon, Inc. is an affiliate of WVUHS
and a health care provider located in Buckhannon, West Virginia.

Wetzel County Hospital, Inc. is an affiliate of WVUHS and a health
care provider located in New Martinsville, West Virginia.

Wheeling Hospital, Inc. is an affiliate of WVUHS and a health care
provider located in Wheeling, West Virginia.

WVUHS Home Care, LLC is an affiliate of WVUHS and a health care
provider located in Clarksburg, West Virginia.

West Virginia University Hospitals East, Inc. is an affiliate of
WVUHS and a health care provider located in Morgantown, West
Virginia.

Camden-Clark Health Services, Inc. is an affiliate of WVUHS and a
health care provider located in Parkersburg, West Virginia.

United Summit Center, Inc. is an affiliate of WVUHS and a health
care provider located in Morgantown, West Virginia.

United Physicians Care, Inc. is an affiliate of WVUHS and a health
care provider located in Shinnston, West Virginia.

Camden-Clark Physician Corp. is an affiliate of WVUHS and a health
care provider located in Parkersburg, West Virginia.

Fayette Physician Network, Inc. is an affiliate of WVUHS and a
health care provider located in Morgantown, West Virginia.

Thomas Health System, Inc. is an affiliate of WVUHS and a health
care provider located in South Charleston, West Virginia.

Princeton Community Hospital Assn., Inc. is an affiliate of WVUHS
and a health care provider located in Princeton, West Virginia.

Barnesville Hospital Association, Inc. is an affiliate of WVUHS and
a health care provider located in Barnesville, Ohio.

Uniontown Hospital, Inc. is an affiliate of WVUHS and a health care
provider located in Uniontown, Pennsylvania.

Harrison Community Hospital, Inc. is an affiliate of WVUHS and a
health care provider located in Cadiz, Ohio.

Wheeling Ambulatory Surgery Center, LLC is an affiliate of WVUHS
and a health care provider located in Bridgeport, Ohio.

Garrett County Memorial Hospital, Inc. is an affiliate of WVUHS and
a health care provider located in Oakland, Maryland.

Allied Health Services, Inc. is an affiliate of WVUHS and a health
care provider located in Morgantown, West Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Samuel B. Petsonk, Esq.
         PETSONK PLLC
         235 High Street, Ste. 512
         Morgantown, WV 26505
         Telephone: (304) 712-9858
         E-mail: sam@petsonk.com

                - and -

         Arthur R. Traynor, Esq.
         Lauren McDermott, Esq.
         MOONEY, GREEN, SAINDON, MURPHY & WELCH, P.C.
         1920 L Street, NW, Suite 400
         Washington, DC 20036
         Telephone: (202) 783-0010
         E-mail: atraynor@mooneygreen.com
                 lmcdermott@mooneygreen.com

WHOLE FOODS: Uses Sales Tax to Overcharge Customers, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Wilson of Supermarket News reports that a Whole Foods store in
New York City is being sued for allegedly using a sales tax to
overcharge customers.

The class action lawsuit, which has filed for over $5 million in
damages, claims the store still applied a tax on ready-to-eat,
ready-to-heat, and ready-to-cook meals, according to court
documents.

New York state law says that, in order for food to be tax exempt,
it must be sold unheated and in the same form, condition,
quantities, and packaging as is typical of retail food stores.
Additionally, if a food is prepared, packaged, and refrigerated by
the store but not arranged on a plate or in a "ready-to-eat"
format, it is also non-taxable.

According to court documents, one of the members of the class
action lawsuit bought green beans with capers and olives from the
Whole Foods deli counter back in October 2021 for $17.80. However,
the store allegedly applied an 8.875% sales tax.

The dish was prepared and packaged by the store and was not sold
heated or plated. The green beans were packaged in a plastic
container and were sold by the pound with a Whole Foods custom
label. The lawsuit says the purchase should have been tax exempt
under New York state law.

New York City's Department of Consumer Affairs has caught the store
abusing the tax in the past. [GN]


                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***