---

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

              Thursday, July 27, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 150

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Brown Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Byrd Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Copeland Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Heun Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Knight Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama

3M COMPANY: Lewis Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
3M COMPANY: Pechilis Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: York Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
ACTION LAB: Rogers Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Court Tosses Wiley Bid for Class Certification

APPLIED DIGITAL: Rosen Law Investigates Possible Securities Suit
BLUEGRASS LENDING: Neville Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
BOOHOO.COM USA: Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set Nov. 2
BOSELLI INVESTMENTS: Rodriguez Asks Court to Approve Class Notice
BOSELLI INVESTMENTS: Suit Seeks to Strike Bid to Decertify Class

BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: 11th Cir. Requests Refined Class Definition
CALIFORNIA: Estrada Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
CARL BAXMEYER: Suit Seeks to Certify Portage Manor Residents Class
COWBOY BRAZILIAN: Class Cert Bid Response in Firestone Due July 31
EPOCH TIMES: Settles Facebook Video Info Sharing Class Action

FIRSTSOURCE SOLUTIONS: Promotes Services Via Robocalls, Mosier Says
FOOD CONCEPTS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
FOUNDERS GROUP: Cheng Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 4th Cir.
GATEHOUSE MEDIA: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Class Cert Reply
GENERAL MOTORS: Riley Seeks Class Certification

GENERAL MOTORS: Riley Seeks Oral Argument & Hearing
GRADY PERRY: Court Tosses Tucker's Bid for Class Certification
HARBORSTONE CREDIT: Garcia Class Settlement Gets Initial Approval
HOWARD MEMORIAL: Sept. 5 Extension to File Class Cert Bid Sought
JAG HEALTHCARE: Pogras Sues Over Nursing Assistants' Unpaid OT

JOHNS HOPKINS: Hit With Class Action Lawsuit Following Data Breach
JOSEPH J. DANIELLE: McDaniel Suit Alleges Fraudulent Tax Filing
JOYY INC: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action
JUST ENERGY: Ernst and Young Canada to Pay $1.5M in Class Action
LAKELAND WEST: Diogu Files Appeal in FDCPA Suit to 5th Circuit

LEPRINO FOODS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 15
LIFE SCIENCE: Angeles Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website
MCALISTER'S FRANCHISOR: Pratt Sues Over Deceptive Call Order Prices
MODERN BROKERS: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 10, 2024
NATIONAL GENERAL: Court Junks Stipulation to File Exhibits

NEXTCURE INC: Underwriters Win Dismissal of Investor Class Action
OREGON: State Files Petition for Writ of Mandamus in Maney Suit
PEOPLECONNECT INC: Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal
PETIT POT: Deadline to File Class Cert Bid Extended to Dec. 5
PIGEON FREIGHT: Ogdon Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Truck Drivers

PNC BANK: Failed to Timely Provide Lien Release
PRO CUSTOM: Underpays Sales Representatives, Munoz Suit Claims
PROTERRA INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept. 12
QUONTIC: Sapan Seeks to Certify Class Action
RESTORATION HOLDINGS: Krausslach Seeks Class Certification

SAGINAW COUNTY, MI:  Asks Court to Lift June 21, 2023 Order
SHARED IMAGING: Class Action & PAGA Settlement Gets Initial OK
SYSCO CORP: Producers Object Deal Allowing Burford to Claim Control
TEAM ENTERPRISES: Bid to Dismiss Cipolla Suit Tossed
TMX FINANCE: Kolstedt Data Breach Suit Seeks Class Certification

UNION BANK AND TRUST: Scott Files Suit in D. Nebraska
USLM FINANCIAL: Sends Unsolicited Marketing Calls, Quintero Says
VERITAS FUNDING: Sapan Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
WICHITA, KS: Suit Seeks to Maintain Exhibits 14, 15 Under Seal
WILSON SUPPLEMENTS: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

XCEL ENERGY: Agrees to Settle Natural Gas Antitrust Suit for $12M
XPONENTIAL FITNESS: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims
ZUFFA LLC: Must Oppose Bloom Class Cert Bid by Oct. 30

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Brown Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
David William Brown, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM,
INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-02990-RMG (D.S.C., June 23,
2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during the Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with
hypothyroidism, and Graves disease as a result of exposure to the
Defendants' AFFF products.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
          Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
          Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
          AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
          17 East Main Street, Suite 200
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Phone: (850) 202-1010
          Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
                 baylstock@awkolaw.com
                 jwitkin@awkolaw.com


3M COMPANY: Byrd Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard W. Byrd, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-03030-RMG (D.S.C., June 26, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during the Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and diagnosed with testicular cancer,
and hyperthyroidism as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
          Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
          Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
          AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
          17 East Main Street, Suite 200
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Phone: (850) 202-1010
          Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
                 baylstock@awkolaw.com
                 jwitkin@awkolaw.com


3M COMPANY: Copeland Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Corey Antwon Copeland, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM,
INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-02984-RMG (D.S.C., June 23,
2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during the Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with
hyperthyroidism as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
          Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
          Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
          AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
          17 East Main Street, Suite 200
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Phone: (850) 202-1010
          Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
                 baylstock@awkolaw.com
                 jwitkin@awkolaw.com


3M COMPANY: Heun Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Heun, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-02988-RMG (D.S.C., June 23, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during the Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with Graves disease
as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
          Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
          Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
          AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
          17 East Main Street, Suite 200
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Phone: (850) 202-1010
          Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
                 baylstock@awkolaw.com
                 jwitkin@awkolaw.com


3M COMPANY: Knight Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
-----------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Michael Knight, et al., v. 3M Company, et
al., Case No. 01-CV-2023-901988.00 was removed from the Circuit
Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County, Alabama, to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama on July 11, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00903-NAD.

The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other the Defendants
liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing,
and/or selling aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and/or
firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") that Plaintiffs allege were used
in firefighting activities, thereby causing injury to the
Plaintiffs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
          Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
          Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
          ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
          2160 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Phone: 205-328-9200
          Facsimile: 205-328-9456

The Defendant is represented by:

          M. Christian King, Esq.
          Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq.
          W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq.
          Wesley B. Gilchrist, Esq.
          LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C.
          The Clark Building
          400 North 20th Street
          Birmingham, AL 35203-3200
          Phone: (205) 581-0700
          Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com
                 hprater@lightfootlaw.com
                 lradney@lightfootlaw.com
                 wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com


3M COMPANY: Lewis Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
----------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Billy James Lewis, et al., v. 3M Company, et
al., Case No. 01-CV-2023-901662.00 was removed from the Circuit
Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County, Alabama, to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama on June 14, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-03307-RMG.

The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other the Defendants
liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing,
and/or selling aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and/or
firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") that Plaintiffs allege were used
in firefighting activities, thereby causing injury to the
Plaintiffs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
          Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
          Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
          ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
          2160 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Phone: 205-328-9200
          Facsimile: 205-328-9456

The Defendant is represented by:

          M. Christian King, Esq.
          Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq.
          W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq.
          Wesley B. Gilchrist, Esq.
          LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C.
          The Clark Building
          400 North 20th Street
          Birmingham, AL 35203-3200
          Phone: (205) 581-0700
          Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com
                 hprater@lightfootlaw.com
                 lradney@lightfootlaw.com
                 wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com


3M COMPANY: Pechilis Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Pechilis, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-03309-RMG (D.S.C., July 11, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
lymphoma cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
          Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
          GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          270 West Main Street
          Sayville, NY 11782
          Phone: 631-600-0000
          Facsimile: 631-543-5450

               - and -

          Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
          Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
          Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
          ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
          2160 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Phone: 205-328-9200
          Facsimile: 205-328-9456


3M COMPANY: York Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
David York, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-03310-RMG (D.S.C., July 11, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
          Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
          GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          270 West Main Street
          Sayville, NY 11782
          Phone: 631-600-0000
          Facsimile: 631-543-5450

               - and -

          Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
          Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
          Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
          ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
          2160 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Phone: 205-328-9200
          Facsimile: 205-328-9456


ACTION LAB: Rogers Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Tom Rogers, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Petitioner v. Action Lab Entertainment, Bryan
Seaton, Respondents, Case No. 1:22-cv-00159 was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on
July 11, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01248-CB to the
proceeding.

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

Action Lab Entertainment -- https://actionlabcomics.com/ -- is an
American publisher of comic books, known primarily for the
publication of the all-ages fantasy title Princeless, as well as a
wide range of titles from all genres.[BN]

The Petitioner is represented by:

          Michael S. Katz, Esq.
          LOPEZ MCHUGH LLP
          6 Wyndham Way
          Lancaster, PA 17601
          Phone: (215) 285-7716
          Email: mkatz@lopezmchugh.com

The Respondents are represented by:

          Stuart C. Gaul, Jr., Esq.
          Bernstein-Burkley, P.C.
          601 Grant Street, Ste. 9th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: (412) 456-8139
          Fax: (412) 456-8135
          Email: sgaul@bernsteinlaw.com


AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Court Tosses Wiley Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MONA WILEY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN
FINANCIAL NETWORK, INC., Case No. 8:22-cv-00244-CJC-DFM (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney entered an order denying the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The Court said, "In sum, the major focus of the litigation in this
case will be on issues and defenses unique to the Plaintiff, not on
the class's claims. See Hanon, 976 F.2d at 508. the Plaintiff is
not a typical representative of the class and cannot adequately
protect the class's interests as Rule 23(a) requires."

In this putative class action, the Plaintiff Wiley alleges the
Defendant American Financial Network, Inc. violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act. Before the Court is the Plaintiff's motion
for class certification. For the following reasons, the Plaintiff's
motion is denied.

The Defendant is a mortgage banker that makes telemarketing calls
to offer consumers its lending services.

In her Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant called
her three times without her consent even though her phone number
was on the NDNCR. Specifically, she alleges the Defendant called
her on November 10, 2021, around 1:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m., and that
she informed the Defendant's agent on one of those calls "that she
was not interested in the Defendant's services and disconnected the
call."

American Financial provides finance services. The Company offers
loan for buying homes.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 3, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44si5vJ at no extra charge.[CC]


APPLIED DIGITAL: Rosen Law Investigates Possible Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Applied Digital Corporation (NASDAQ: APLD)
resulting from allegations that Applied Digital may have issued
materially misleading business information to the investing
public.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=17336 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On June 23, 2023, Applied Digital disclosed in
an SEC filing that "its Audit Committee has conducted an internal
investigation into a threat, but not a formal assertion, of a
sexual harassment claim by Regina Ingel, its Chief Marketing
Officer, based on a personal relationship between Ms. Ingel and Wes
Cummins, the Company's CEO. Based on information obtained through
the investigation, the Audit Committee determined that the
relationship between the parties was consensual and the allegations
of workplace harassment are unfounded. The Board has reaffirmed Mr.
Cummins' role as CEO of the Company and will consider any
additional actions that may be appropriate with respect to this
matter."

On this news, Applied Digital's stock fell $1.58 per share, or
16.34%, to close at $8.09 on June 23, 2023.

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

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]

BLUEGRASS LENDING: Neville Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN MATTHEW NEVILLE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLUEGRASS LENDING GROUP, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-18088-TKW-ZCB (N.D. Fla., July 11,
2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant placed telemarketing text
messages to consumers with numbers registered on the Do Not Call
Registry without obtaining prior express written consent. The
Plaintiff and Class members have no relationship with the
Defendant, have no account with it, have never provided any phone
number to it, and have never agreed for it to send any type of
communication. As a result, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered
damages, says the suit.

Bluegrass Lending Group, Inc. is a loan company, with its principal
place of business in Jefferson County, Kentucky. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         John Kauffman, Esq.
         LAWHQ, PC
         299 S. Main St. #1300
         Salt Lake City, UT 84111
         Telephone: (385) 285-1090
         E-mail: john.kauffman@lawhq.com

BOOHOO.COM USA: Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set Nov. 2
------------------------------------------------------------
topclassactions.com reports that Boohoo, PrettyLittleThing and
Nasty Gal agreed to a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve
claims that they used false sale prices to encourage consumer
purchases.

The settlement benefits consumers in any state other than
California who purchased products from Boohoo, BoohooMan or
PrettyLittleThing between April 1, 2016, and June 17, 2022, or from
Nasty Gal between Feb. 28, 2017, and June 17, 2022.

Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit accused Boohoo,
PrettyLittleThing and Nasty Gal of using inflated "original" prices
in order to make their sales look more attractive to shoppers. The
false sale prices allegedly gave consumers the false impression
that they were getting a good deal and made them more likely to
make purchases.

Boohoo, PrettyLittleThing and Nasty Gal are online clothing
retailers that sell fast fashion.

The retailers haven't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an
undisclosed sum to resolve the false sale price class action
lawsuit.

Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive one or
more $10 gift cards for use on Boohoo, PrettyLittleThing and Nasty
Gal websites. Class members will receive one gift card for each
website where they made a purchase. These gift cards include free
shipping, which is valued at $7.45 per gift card.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is Sept. 15, 2023.

The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Nov.
2, 2023.

No claim form is required to benefit from the settlement. Class
members who do not exclude themselves will automatically receive a
settlement gift card via email, which they can update on the
settlement website.

Who's Eligible
Consumers in any state other than California who purchased products
from Boohoo, BoohooMan or PrettyLittleThing between April 1, 2016,
and June 17, 2022, or from Nasty Gal between Feb. 28, 2017, and
June 17, 2022.

Potential Award
$10 gift cards

Proof of Purchase
N/A

Claim Form
N/A

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.

Exclusion and Objection Deadline
09/15/2023

Case Name
Habberfield, et al. v. Boohoo.com USA Inc., et al., Case No.
2:22-cv-03899-GW-JEM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California

Final Hearing
11/02/2023

Settlement Website
BoohooNationwidePricingSettlement.com

Claims Administrator
Boohoo/PrettyLittleThing/Nasty Gal Nationwide Pricing Class Action
Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 6188
Novato, CA 94948-6188
admin@BoohooNationwidePricingSettlement.com
855-482-3483

Class Counsel
Yasin M Almadani
ALMADANI LAW

Ahmed Ibrahim
AI LAW PLC

Defense Counsel
Ronald W Zdrojeski
Ian S Shelton
EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP [GN]

BOSELLI INVESTMENTS: Rodriguez Asks Court to Approve Class Notice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANA RODRIGUEZ,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, v.
BOSELLI INVESTMENTS LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00314-RMR-KLM (D. Colo.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order approving class
notice and directing class notice be sent to the certified class.

The case was filed in the Adams County District Court on October
26, 2020, and was certified as a class action by Judge Vasquez on
November 16, 2022.

The Defendant attempted to remove this case to federal court on
February 2, 2023. The Plaintiff objected to the removal and timely
filed a motion for remand to state court on March 6, 2023.

The Plaintiff has been waiting to request class notice until a
decision on the motion to remand, believing that a notice prior to
a determination on the permanent venue -- i.e., this Court or the
state court after remand—would be confusing to the class.
However, given the Defendant's filing of a motion to decertify on
June 30, 2023.

The Plaintiff further requests that she be ordered to provide
notice to the class within 21 days of receiving the class list.

Boselli Investments was founded in 1976. The Company's line of
business includes the retail sale of prepared foods and drinks for
on-premise consumption.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 3, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DidL6d at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander Hood, Esq.
          HOOD LAW OFFICE, PLLC
          1312 17th Street 1028
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (720) 381-4142
          E-mail: Alex@HoodLawPLLC.com

                - and -

          Brian D. Gonzales, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF
          BRIAN D.GONZALES,PLLC
          2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201
          Fort Collins, CO 80528
          Telephone: (970) 214-0562
          E-mail: bgonzales@coloradowagelaw.com

BOSELLI INVESTMENTS: Suit Seeks to Strike Bid to Decertify Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANA RODRIGUEZ,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, v.
BOSELLI INVESTMENTS LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00314-RMR-KLM (D. Colo.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order striking the motion
to decertify or, in the alternative, staying all proceedings,
including briefing on the motion to decertify, pending its
jurisdictional determination on the motion the remand.

The Plaintiff treats each factor in turn. First, the stay is in the
Plaintiff's interest because the Plaintiff is challenging
jurisdiction through her motion to remand and thus does not wish to
proceed to discovery or the merits prior to a decision on that
motion.

Second, there is no burden on the Defendant in waiting for the
motion for remand. Third, as evidenced by the motion to decertify,
the Court will be faced with substantive motions prior to its
jurisdictional determination if a stay is not entered.

The case was filed in the Adams County District Court on October
26, 2020, and was certified as a class action by Judge Vasquez on
November 16, 2022. The Defendant then failed in its attempted
appeal of the class certification order to the Colorado Court of
Appeals.

Boselli Investments was founded in 1976. The Company's line of
business includes the retail sale of prepared foods and drinks for
on-premise consumption.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander Hood, Esq.
          HOOD LAW OFFICE, PLLC
          1312 17th Street 1028
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (720) 381-4142
          E-mail: Alex@HoodLawPLLC.com

                - and -

          Brian D. Gonzales, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF
          BRIAN D.GONZALES,PLLC
          2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201
          Fort Collins, CO 80528
          Telephone: (970) 214-0562
          E-mail: bgonzales@coloradowagelaw.com

BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: 11th Cir. Requests Refined Class Definition
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Alex W. Karasik, and George J. Schaller at
duanemorris.com report that Duane Morris Takeaways: In Steinmetz et
al. v. Brinker International, Inc., No. 21-13146, 2023 U.S. App.
LEXIS 17539 (11th Cir. July 11, 2023), the Eleventh Circuit vacated
the district court's order certifying a nationwide class and
California-only class in a data breach case. In so doing, it
remanded the case with instructions to the district court to define
the phrase "who had their data accessed by cybercriminals" and to
analyze the viability of the California class.

For employers facing data breach claims in class actions, this
decision is instructive in terms of what reviewing courts consider
in certifying a class, especially when class definition terms or
phrases are broad.

Case Background

Defendant Brinker International, Inc, owner of Chili's restaurants,
faced a cyber-attack between March and April 2018, in which
customers' credit and debit cards were compromised. Id. at 2.
Hackers targeted Chili's restaurant systems and stole both customer
data and personally identifiable information, and posted that
information on an online market place for stolen payment data. Id.
at 2-3. Plaintiffs alleged that 4.5 million cards were accessed by
hackers. Id. at 3.

The three named plaintiffs – Shenika Theus, a Texas resident,
Michael Franklin, a California resident, and Eric Steinmetz, a
Nevada resident – alleged they used their cards at Chili's
restaurants between March and April in their respective states. Id.
at 3-4. After their visits, Theus and Franklin had unauthorized
charges on their cards requiring them to cancel their cards,
Steinmetz did not experience fraudulent charges. Id. at 3-4.

Plaintiffs moved to certify two classes, including a nationwide
class and California statewide class, seeking both injunctive and
monetary relief. Id. at 4. The district court certified the
nationwide class for negligence claims and a separate California
class under the state's unfair competition laws. Id. at 5. Brinker
appealed the district court's class certification orders. Id.

The Eleventh Circuit's Decision

The Eleventh Circuit held that Plaintiffs alleged a concrete injury
that was sufficient to establish Article III standing. Id. at 10.
Plaintiffs showed both a present injury – by alleging their
personal information was taken by hackers and put on the dark web
– and a substantial risk of future misuse through future misuse
of information associated with the hacked credit card. Id. at
9-10.

The Eleventh Circuit, however, vacated the district court's order
and found Franklin and Steinmetz could not meet the traceability
requirement for standing. Id. at 11. Franklin alleged two visits
outside the "at-risk timeframe" when Chili's was compromised in the
data breach and therefore his injury was not fairly traceable. Id.
Steinmetz similarly stated in responses to interrogatories and his
deposition that he visited Chili's on a date outside the affected
period and could not "fairly trace" any alleged injury to Brinker's
action. Id. at 12-13. For these reasons, the Eleventh Circuit
opined that Theus did meet traceability for standing purposes. Id.
at 13.

As to the class definitions at issue in the litigation, the
Eleventh Circuit ruled that the district court's phrase "data
accessed by cybercriminals" in both class definitions was too broad
and limited the class to "cases of fraudulent charges or posting of
credit information on the dark web." Id. at 15. The Eleventh
Circuit determined that the district could need to refine the class
definition to include those two categories only and then conduct a
new predominance analysis to include uninjured individuals who
simply had their data accessed. As a result of the problems with
the class definition, the Eleventh Circuit remanded the case. Id.
at 15-16. The Eleventh Circuit also remanded the case in light of
Franklin's lack of standing to determine the viability of the
California-based class. Id. at 16.

Implications For Employers

Employers confronted with class certification motions in data
breach lawsuits should take note that the Eleventh Circuit relied
on the broad phrase "data accessed by cybercriminals" in remanding
the district court's order.

Further, from a practical standpoint, employers should carefully
evaluate district court's class definitions for overbroad terms or
phrases when preparing an appeal.[GN]

CALIFORNIA: Estrada Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jaime Ignacio Estrada v.
Pffiefer et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00769-GSA (E.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion for
class certification.

The Plaintiff contends that the Court use its discretion to grant
Plaintiff class action certification, for there are dozen(s) of
inmates, if not hundreds of similar situated Plaintiffs that have
or are in the process of filing civil rights claim against the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).

CDCR is the penal law enforcement agency of the government of
California.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 5, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pM5TqH at no extra
charge.[CC]

 


CARL BAXMEYER: Suit Seeks to Certify Portage Manor Residents Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDY JOSEPH NOWAK, et
al., v. CARL H. BAXMEYER, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00589-DRL-SLC
(N.D. Ind.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(b)(2), certifying a Plaintiff
Class defined as:

   (a) All residents of Portage Manor; and

   (b) All residents who have involuntarily left Portage Manor
after
       being told by the Defendants, or a representative of the
       Defendants, that Portage Manor would close.

The Plaintiffs request certification for the purpose of declaratory
and injunctive relief to be issued by this Court. They file
herewith a supporting Brief.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 5, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44FZhZE at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kent Hull, Esq.
          HALL LAW FIRM
          238 S. Hawthorne Dr.
          South Bend, IN 46617
          Telephone: (574) 287- 3806
          E-mail: hkent507@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Carl H. Baxmeyer, Esq.
          ST. JOSEPH COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
          227 W. Jefferson, 7th Floor
          South Bend, IN 46601

                - and -

          Mark Root, Esq.
          ST. JOSEPH COUNTY COUNCIL
          227 W. Jefferson, 4th Floor
          South Bend, IN 46601

COWBOY BRAZILIAN: Class Cert Bid Response in Firestone Due July 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Firestone v. Cowboy
Brazilian Steakhouse, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-04020 (D.S.C.,
Filed Nov. 1, 2022), the Hon. Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks entered an
order granting motion for extension of time to file response/reply
as to motion to certify class:

  -- Response to Motion is due by July 31, 2023.

The nature of suit states Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC]

EPOCH TIMES: Settles Facebook Video Info Sharing Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Garcia at  news.bloomberglaw.com reports that the Epoch Times
Association Inc. has settled a proposed class action alleging it
shared information with Facebook about video views on its website
in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act, according to a
federal district court's order dismissing the case.

Lawrence Czarnionka, a paying subscriber to the Epoch Times,
brought the lawsuit against the media company in the US District
Court for the Southern District of New York because he said the
Epoch Times shared his video-watching information with Facebook,
now known as Meta Platforms Inc. [GN]

FIRSTSOURCE SOLUTIONS: Promotes Services Via Robocalls, Mosier Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LEON MOSIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIRSTSOURCE SOLUTIONS USA LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:23-cv-01343-JJH (N.D. Ohio, July 11, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant placed pre-recorded
telemarketing calls to consumers' telephone numbers without
obtaining prior express written consent. As a result, the Plaintiff
and the Class suffered damages in the form of annoyance, nuisance,
and invasion of privacy, occupied phone memory, and disturbed the
use and enjoyment of consumers' phones, says the suit.

Firstsource Solutions USA LLC is a company that offers medical
assistance and debt collection solutions, headquartered in
Louisville, Kentucky. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Brian T. Giles, Esq.
         GILES & HARPER, LLC
         7243 Beechmont Avenue,
         Cincinnati, OH 45230
         Telephone: (513) 379-2715
         E-mail: Brian@gilesharper.com

                 - and -
       
         Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
         KAUFMAN P.A.
         237 South Dixie Highway, Floor 4
         Coral Gables, FL 33133
         Telephone: (305) 469-5881
         E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com

FOOD CONCEPTS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Timothy Firestone and
Lyric Richardson, v. Food Concepts, LLC and Armelindo Conte, Case
No. 2:22-cv-04020-BHH (D.S.C.), the Defendants ask the Court to
enter an order granting consent motion for extension of time to
file responsive pleading to motion for conditional class
certification.

This matter was initially filed by the Plaintiff Firestone as a
Collective Action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA). After consulting with the Defendants' counsel, the
Plaintiffs' counsel filed an Amended Complaint to add the Plaintiff
Lyric Richardson and to name the appropriate limited liability
entity as a defendant.

Food Concepts specializes in powdered and dehydrated food and
beverage products specifically designed for institutional food
service.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 5, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3K21976 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brett M. Ehman, Esq.
          BRETT M. EHMAN
          2971 West Montague Avenue
          Suite 203
          North Charleston, SC 29418
          Telephone: (843) 225-3607
          E-mail: brett@ehmanlaw.com

FOUNDERS GROUP: Cheng Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 4th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
XUNHUI CHENG, et al. are taking an appeal from court orders denying
their motion to compel and motion to certify class in the lawsuit
entitled Xunhui Cheng, et al., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Dan Lui, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-01726-JD, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of South Carolina.

This stockholders class action lawsuit fully captioned as Xunhui
Cheng and Kelin Cai, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Dan Liu; Founders Group International, LLC;
Founders National Golf, LLC; Founders Aberdeen, LLC; Founders
Development, LLC; Founders BRGC, LLC; Founders GCC, LLC; Founders
Golf
Management, LLC; Founders IWGC, LLC; Founders RHGC, LLC; Founders
Tradition, LLC; Founders Wild Wing, LLC; Atlantic Development
Company, LLC; Atlantic Coast Funding, LLC; Wild Wing Land and
Development, LLC; Offshore Captain, LLC; D & C International
Holdings, LLC; Founders Bluewater, LLC; and Founders Events, LLC,
Case No. 2020CP2601911 was originally filed on March 12, 2020, in
the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas, Horry County, and was
removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina on May 1, 2020.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action against the Defendants for
alleged operation of a Ponzi Scheme that utilized incoming
investment funds received in exchange for new investment contracts
sold to fund payments owed to existing investors, and also to fund
the high current operating costs of the Company, including the
highly compensated sales staff and senior management team, led by
Defendant Dan Liu and Xue Xuili.

On Oct. 14, 2022 and Nov. 4, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to
compel and motion to certify class, respectively.

On June 16, 2023, the Court denied the Plaintiff's motions through
an Order entered by Judge Joseph Dawson, III.

The appellate case is captioned Xunhui Cheng v. Dan Lui, Case No.
23-212, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit, filed on June 29, 2023. [BN]

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

            Reese Boyd, Esq.
            DAVIS & BOYD LLC
            P.O. Box 70517
            Myrtle Beach, SC 29572
            Telephone: (843) 839-9800

                    - and -
            
            Gene McCain Connell, Jr., Esq.
            KELAHER, CONNELL & CONNOR, PC
            P.O. Drawer 14547
            Surfside Beach, SC 29587
            Telephone: (843) 238-5648

                    - and -
            
            Anthony Scordo, III, Esq.
            LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY SCORDO, PC
            1425 Pompton Avenue
            Cedar Grove, NJ 07009
            Telephone: (973) 837-1861

Defendants-Respondents DAN LUI, et al. are represented by:

            Thomas Edward Lydon, III, Esq.
            MCANGUS, GOUDELOCK & COURIE, LLP
            1320 Main Street
            P.O. Box 12519
            Columbia, SC 29211
            Telephone: (803) 227-2292

                    - and -
            
            Susan Pardue MacDonald, Esq.
            NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP
            3751 Robert M. Grissom Parkway
            Pinnacle Corporate Center
            Myrtle Beach, SC 29577
            Telephone: (843) 448-3500

                    - and -
            
            Cory Manning, Esq.
            NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP
            1320 Main Street
            Columbia, SC 29206
            Telephone: (803) 255-5524

                    - and -
            
            Benjamin Rush Smith, III, Esq.
            NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP
            1320 Main Street
            Columbia, SC 29206
            Telephone: (803) 799-2000

GATEHOUSE MEDIA: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Class Cert Reply
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN EWALT, et al., v.
GATEHOUSE MEDIA OHIO HOLDINGS II, INC., d/b/a THE COLUMBUS
DISPATCH, Case No. 2:19-cv-04262-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(A), for an extension to file a reply in
support of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification,
Appointment of Class Representatives, and Appointment of Class
Counsel.

The Plaintiffs' lead counsel has been out of the country since June
17 and won't return to the office until July 5.

Additionally, the Plaintiffs' primary drafter recently adopted a
baby and has had limited availability to work on the reply.

Further, the Plaintiffs recently disclosed Dr. Larry Chiagouris as
an expert. Although GateHouse appears to have retained Dr.
Chiagouris as an expert back in January 2022, GateHouse didn’t
disclose him as an expert until June 14, 2023—the day before
GateHouse filed its 82-page opposition to the Motion for Class
Certification.

The Plaintiffs requested that GateHouse provide dates for his
deposition during the week of July 17 and that GateHouse consent to
an extension until one week after the date for his deposition for
the Plaintiffs to file their reply in support of their Motion for
Class Certification.

The Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on May
11, 2023. A few days later, GateHouse's counsel reached out and
requested a 45-day extension to respond.

Gatehouse Media is in the Investment Holding Companies, except
Banks business.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 29, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44KI2pV at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Todd H. Neuman, Esq.
          Rick L. Ashton, Esq.
          Jeffrey R. Corcoran, Esq.
          ALLEN STOVALL NEUMAN & ASHTON LLP
          10 W. Broad St., Ste. 2400
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 221-8500
          Facsimile: (614) 221-5988
          E-mail: neuman@aksnlaw.com
                  ashton@asnalaw.com
                  corcoran@asnalaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael J. Zbiegien, Jr., Esq.
          Lynn Rowe Larsen, Esq.
          Daniel H. Bryan, Esq.
          James D. Abrams, Esq.
          Jonathan Olivito, Esq.
          TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
          200 Public Square, Suite 3500
          Cleveland, OH 44114-2302
          Telephone: (216) 241-2838
          Facsimile: (216) 241-3707
          E-mail: mzbiegien@taftlaw.com
                  llarsen@taftlaw.com
                  dbryan@taftlaw.com
                  jabrams@taftlaw.com
                  jolivito@taftlaw.com

GENERAL MOTORS: Riley Seeks Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOM RILEY, et al.,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 6:22-cv-00499-RBD-EJK (M.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for
class certification:

   "All consumers who purchased or leased a Class Vehicle in
Florida,
   whether said vehicle was purchased new or used, inclusive of all

   such consumers residing anywhere in the United States."

   Excluded from the Class are:

   a. Special equipment optioned vehicles;

   b. Consumers who own or leased Class Vehicles whose paint
issues
      were not on the hood and/or roof;

   c. U.S District Court judges, magistrate judges of any U.S.
      District Court, judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
      Eleventh Circuit, and U.S. District Court Personnel having
any
      involvement with administration and/or adjudication of this
      lawsuit;

   d. Class counsel and their employees; and Employees of the
      Defendant.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as Class
Representatives, and for Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC as Class
Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g).

The Plaintiff contends that the proposed class satisfies the
ascertainability requirement. Here, the Class definition relies
solely on objective criteria: the purchase or lease of a Class
Vehicle in Florida. Class members can be easily identified from the
Defendant's records which includes the name and addresses of the
class members. See Section II, supra.

The case involves a serious and uniform issue with the paint on the
Class Vehicles, which the Defendant, through its paint executive,
Sarah Hodapp, admits is a defect.

General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Taylor C. Bartlett, Esq.
          W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., Esq.
          Jeanie S. Sleadd, Esq.
          HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
          2224 1st Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 326-3336
          Facsimile: (205) 326-3332
          E-mail: taylor@hgdlawfirm.com
                  lewis@hgdlawfirm.com
                  jeanie@hgdlawfirm.com

GENERAL MOTORS: Riley Seeks Oral Argument & Hearing
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOM RILEY, et al.,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 6:22-cv-00499-RBD-EJK (M.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiffs request oral argument and an evidentiary hearing on the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The issues are complex and given the expansive record, the Court
would be assisted in evaluating the merits of the Plaintiffs'
Motion by hearing oral argument. To the extent that the Court gives
any weight to the Defendant's expert, Dr. Guyer, the Plaintiffs
also request that he be present to present his testimony and be
exposed to cross-examination.

General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Taylor C. Bartlett, Esq.
          W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., Esq.
          Jeanie S. Sleadd, Esq.
          HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
          2224 1st Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 326-3336
          Facsimile: (205) 326-3332
          E-mail: taylor@hgdlawfirm.com
                  lewis@hgdlawfirm.com
                  jeanie@hgdlawfirm.com

GRADY PERRY: Court Tosses Tucker's Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FREDRICK TUCKER, v. WARDEN
GRADY PERRY, et al, Case No. 1:21-cv-00073 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon.
Judge William L. Campbell, Jr. entered an order denying the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification and dismissing Defendant
Emily Pugh without prejudice.

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Defendant Emily Pugh be
dismissed from this action without prejudice for failure to effect
service of process pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Although the
Report and Recommendation advised the parties that any objections
must be filed within 14 days of service, no objections have been
filed.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44ur4wo at no extra charge.[CC]


HARBORSTONE CREDIT: Garcia Class Settlement Gets Initial Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIO PAREDES GARCIA, v.
HARBORSTONE CREDIT UNION, Case No. 3:21-cv-05148-LK (W.D. Wash.),
the Hon. Judge Lauren King entered an order granting the
Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement, on behalf of following Class for purpose of settlement:


   "All individuals who resided in the United States at the time
they
   applied for a loan from Harborstone Credit Union, and for whom

   Harborstone obtained a credit report, and whose applications
were   
   declined at any time between January 26, 2018, and August 31,
2021   
   for the reason that they had a tax identification number because
  
   they were not permanent residents of the United States."

The Court also entered an order:

   1. Appointing Mario Paredes Garcia to serve as Class
      Representative;

   2. appointing Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC as Class Counsel;

   3. preliminarily approving Amended Settlement Agreement and the

      terms, including the amount of the Settlement Fund to be used
to
      provide monetary awards to the Settlement Class Members;

   4. preliminarily approving the Service Award payment of $5,000
to
      the Class Representative;

   5. preliminarily approving the attorneys' fees and costs payment
of
      $150,000;

   6. appointing Simpluris as Settlement Administrator, which shall

      fulfill the Settlement Administration functions, duties, and

      responsibilities of the Settlement Administrator as set forth
in
      the Amended Agreement and this Order;

   7. preliminarily approving the payment of costs for Settlement
      Administration, up to $25,000; and

   8. approving the form and content of the English language
Amended
      Settlement Notice to the Amended Settlement Agreement;

Accordingly, as discussed on the record at the hearing and pursuant
to the parties' Amended Settlement Agreement and proposed notice,
the Court orders the following notice schedule:

                Deadline                         Event

  Deadline to mail Notices of Settlement      July 24, 2023

  Deadline for the Plaintiff's Motion for     August 23, 2023
  Final Approval and Attorneys' Fees and
  Costs

  Deadline for Class Members to postmark      September 22, 2023
  objections and exclusion requests

  Deadline for parties to file response to    October 2, 2023
  Class Member objections

  Final Approval Hearing                      November 6, 2023

Mr. Paredes Garcia is a noncitizen resident of Gig Harbor who was
granted protected status under the Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrivals (DACA) program. Harborstone is a Washington-based credit
union with a majority of its branches located in Pierce County.

On April 22, 2020, after previously being granted an auto loan from
Harborstone, Mr. Paredes Garcia submitted a second auto loan
application that Harborstone denied because his DACA documentation
was "not acceptable for financing."

Prior to the denial, Harborstone conducted a "hard" credit pull of
Mr. Paredes Garcia's consumer credit score, resulting in a
six-point drop in his score.

Harborstone offers financial services. Their services include auto
loans, home loans, credit cards, checking accounts, and savings
accounts.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 3, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46Q8QHl at no extra charge.[CC]

HOWARD MEMORIAL: Sept. 5 Extension to File Class Cert Bid Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BONITA MARTIN, ET AL., On
Behalf Of Themselves & All Others Similarly Situated, V. HOWARD
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Case No. 4:23-cv-04030-SOH (W.D. Ark.), the
Plaintiffs Bonita Martin, Bill Roberts & Pamela Garza ask the Court
to enter an order modifying the Final Scheduling Order to extend
the deadline to file a motion for class certification by 60 days,
up to and including September 5, 2023.

On April 20, 2023, the Court issued its Initial Scheduling Order,
which stated that the Court's standard deadline for a motion for
class certification was 90 days after the parties' Initial
Scheduling Order.

Howard Memorial is a critical access hospital located in Nashville,
Arkansas. It provides comprehensive patient-focused care in a
variety of settings.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 5, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NZkW8e at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
          Courtney E. Ross, Esq.
          519 West 7th Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 312-8500
          E-mail: rpulliam@cbplaw.com
                  cross@cpblaw.com

                - and -

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          E-mail: gary@lcllp.com

JAG HEALTHCARE: Pogras Sues Over Nursing Assistants' Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
MADISON POGRAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JAG HEALTHCARE INC., Defendant, Case No. CV
23 982166 (Ohio Ct. Comm. Pl., July 11, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages and failure
to pay wages on a semimonthly basis in violation of the Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a State Tested Nursing
Assistant in Orville, Ohio location from approximately August 2021
through June 22, 2023.

JAG Healthcare Inc. is an operator of nursing homes and short-term
rehabilitation facilities, with its principal place of business in
Cuyahoga County, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
         Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
         NILGES DRAHER LLC
         7034 Braucher St., N.W., Suite B
         North Canton, OH 44720
         Telephone: (330) 470-4428
         Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
         E-mail: hnilges@ohlaborlaw.com
                 sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com

JOHNS HOPKINS: Hit With Class Action Lawsuit Following Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sydney Halleman at  highereddive.com reports that the class action
suit comes as hacking incidents at healthcare firms grow as more
companies and health systems pivot to electronic health records.
From 2010 to 2022, 385 million patient records were exposed due to
data breaches, according to federal records.

Filed on July 7 by Pamela Hunter -- a client of the hospital -- the
lawsuit alleges that the health system was aware of the
"substandard" condition of its information systems, and broke its
implied covenant of good faith by not maintaining adequate security
protocols.

Johns Hopkins' data breach occurred through a vulnerability in its
MOVEit file transfer software. The MOVEit breach affected several
government agencies, including the U.S. Department of Energy, and
was attributed to Russian-linked ransomware group Cl0p. In
February, the HHS warned that Cl0p was responsible for breaches at
healthcare organizations, including an attack at Tennessee-based
Community Health Systems.

Although Johns Hopkins was aware of the data breach in May, the
class action suit alleges that Hunter did not receive notice -- or
was even aware that the system stored her personal health data --
until after receiving a letter dated June 24. Although HIPAA
requires that hospitals notify individuals of a data breach
"without reasonable delay" and no later than 60 days following the
discovery, the lawsuit claims that plaintiffs lost time dealing
with potential consequences of the breach, and were given
insufficient details regarding the stolen data.

"Plaintiff and the Class Members remain, even today, in the dark
regarding what data was stolen, the particular malware used, and
what steps are being taken to secure their PHI/PII and financial
information going forward," the lawsuit states.

Last year, the healthcare industry was the most common victim of
third-party breaches as hospitals struggled to recover from the
COVID-19 pandemic, according to a report from cyber intelligence
firm Black Kite. The industry's poor cybersecurity protocols,
combined with its interconnected health information systems, makes
healthcare the highest risk sector for third-party vendor breaches,
according to the report.

HCA Healthcare reported a data security incident that may have
affected more than 11 million patients.[GN]

JOSEPH J. DANIELLE: McDaniel Suit Alleges Fraudulent Tax Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
DEVIN MCDANIEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JOSEPH J. DANIELLE LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-02651 (E.D. Pa., July 11, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendant for fraudulent filing of information returns in
violation of the Internal Revenue Code.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a driver from
approximately June 2022 until approximately October 2022.

Joseph J. Danielle LLC is a transportation services provider, with
its principal place of business located at 710 Trainer Street,
Chester, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Peter Winebrake, Esq.
         Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
         WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
         715 Twining Road, Suite 211
         Dresher, PA 19025
         Telephone: (215) 884-2491
         E-mail: mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com

JOYY INC: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an
investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of JOYY Inc. (NASDAQ: YY) resulting from allegations
that JOYY may have issued materially misleading business
information to the investing public.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=17590 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On May 31, 2023, JOYY announced their first
quarter 2023 unaudited financial results. The average mobile
monthly active users ("MAUs") of Likee decreased by 27.4% to 44.9
million from 61.8 million in the corresponding period of 2022,
primarily due to reduced spending on user acquisition via
advertisement. The Average mobile MAUs of Hago decreased by 36.5%
to 5.9 million from 9.3 million in the corresponding period of
2022, primarily due to reduced spending on user acquisition via
advertisement. The net revenue was a reported $583.6 million,
compared to $623.8 million in the corresponding period of 2022.

On this news, the price of JOYY's American Depository Shares
("ADS") fell $2.07 per ADS, or 7.82%, to close at $24.39 on May 31,
2023.

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

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

Contact Information:

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

JUST ENERGY: Ernst and Young Canada to Pay $1.5M in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ernst & Young LLP has agreed to pay CAD $1.5 million to settle a
class action lawsuit over its role in the stock price collapse of
Just Energy. The lawsuit alleged that EY Canada signed off on
disclosure documents over a period of two years that contained
misrepresentations. As part of the settlement agreement, EY Canada,
which served as the auditor of Just Energy, does not admit any
wrongdoing or liability.

As part of the settlement, EY Canada will "respond to requests" to
provide information relevant to the ongoing litigation against two
former executives of the company, who deny all allegations against
them. The announcement follows the censure earlier this year by the
US Public Company Accounting Oversight Board of an EY Canada
auditor for deficiencies related to the 2019 audit of Just Energy.


Martin Lundie, CPA, CA, who retired as a partner at EY Canada in
2022, was fined $65,000 and barring from being associated with a
registered public accounting firm. The lengthy, 17-page PCAOB
order, states that Mr. Lundie, the engagement partner in 2019,
"authorized the issuance of EY Canada's audit reports expressing
unqualified opinions on Just Energy's financial statements and the
effectiveness of Just Energy's internal control over financial
reporting." Mr. Lundie did not admit to or deny the audit
watchdog's findings.

Canadian energy retailer the subject of widespread scrutiny
Just Energy, which is based in Mississauga, Ontario, is a Canadian
energy retailer whose shares previously traded on the TSX and NYSE.
As reported by Canadian Accountant, the company has a history on
both sides of the border for deceptive sales practices, which
resulted in several million dollars of penalties imposed by
reguators.

The company's finances were previously criticized by prominent
forensic accountants Al Rosen of Accountability Research
Corporation and Anthony Scilipoti of Veritas Investment Research.
Its founder and executive chair, Rebecca MacDonald, "has been
accused of falsifying her credentials and her biography," according
to Wikipedia. EY Canada named MacDonald named Ernst and Young's
Ontario Entrepreneur of the Year in 2003.

The settlement is another win for Siskinds LLP, which partnered
with Berger Montague (Canada) PC, also based in Toronto. Siskinds
specializes in class action lawsuits against accounting firms whose
audits of companies have been investigated. In recent years it has
won settlements in relation to Sino-Forest (Ernst & Young),
Buckingham Securities (Miller Bernstein), and Valeant
Pharmaceuticals (PricewaterhouseCoopers). The law firm launched a
class action lawsuit this month against cannabis company Canopy
Growth and auditor KPMG.

In a 2018 article in the Globe and Mail's Report on Business,
reporter Bruce Livesey wrote: "Siskinds often sues auditors. And
why not? Since 2015, Canadian auditing firms have collectively
shelled out more than half a billion dollars in settlements and
judgments for failing to warn investors about various frauds and
accounting irregularities."

The settlement is subject to the approval of the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice.  A hearing to approve the settlement will be held
on October 31, 2023.

By Canadian Accountant staff. Top image: iStock, EY Tower in
downtown Toronto. [GN]

LAKELAND WEST: Diogu Files Appeal in FDCPA Suit to 5th Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs DIOGU KALU DIOGU, II, et al., filed an appeal in the
lawsuit entitled DIOGU KALU DIOGU II, LL.M., as next friends of
DKKD III and NMKD, minor children; DIOGU KALU DIOGU II, LL.M., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. LAKELAND WEST CAPITAL 41, LLC, and ADAM MCKEE; MR. JEFF LEVA;
MS. SANDY DASIGENIS; LILLIAN POETKER; dba FORECLOSURE NETWORK OF
TEXAS; and KIM E. LEWINSKI, ESQ; BRADLEY E. RAUCH, ESQ; MICHAEL J.
DURRSCHMIDT, ESQ; and HIRSCH & WESTHEIMER, PC; and EVA SHAFIR
ENGLEHART and MARC DOUGLAS MYERS and KEVIN M. EPSTEIN UNITED STATES
TRUSTEE, Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-03299, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston.

On September 27, 2022, attorney Diogu Kalu Diogu II filed a pro se
claim in the Court on behalf of himself and his two 13-year-old
minor children against Defendants in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas.

Previously, Plaintiff filed a claim against Defendants in Fort Bend
County, which was later removed to the District Court, for an
application to enjoin foreclosure. The Plaintiffs then filed for
Chapter 13 bankruptcy on November 2, 2021, in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas captioned In re
Diogu Kalu Diogu, II, Bk. No. 2133581 (Bankr. S.D. Tex., filed Nov.
2, 2021). Accordingly, Judge Sim Lake dismissed the case seeking to
enjoin foreclosure on November 16, 2021.  

Subsequently, Judge David R. Jones converted Plaintiff Diogu Kalu
Diogu II's bankruptcy case into a Chapter 7 case. The Chapter 7
case and an adversary proceeding between Lakeland and Diogu Kalu
Diogu II are still pending before Judge Jones.

In the instant case, Plaintiffs seemingly contest the actions of
the Defendants in the associated bankruptcy proceedings. Plaintiffs
contend that Defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act (FDCPA) and that their conduct was negligent. Particularly,
Plaintiffs assert that Defendants' prior claims were time-barred.
Beyond these claims of unfair debt collection attempts, Plaintiffs
also raise arguments that due to Defendants' actions, Plaintiff
Diogu Kalu Diogu II suffered a stroke which resulted in the
remaining Plaintiffs suffering emotional pain and having a ruined
perfect attendance record at their school.

Pending before the Court were Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, and
Plaintiffs' Motion for an Extension of Time, Motion to Dismiss,
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Motion Requesting an Oral
Argument and Objecting to Motions. Additionally, pending were
Defendants' Motion for Referral to the Bankruptcy Court,
Plaintiffs' Emergency Motions for a Hearing, and Defendants' Motion
to Stay Discovery.

Based on a thorough review of the motions, United States Magistrate
Judge Sam S. Sheldon recommended the Motion for Referral to the
Bankruptcy Court be GRANTED and all other pending motions be
REFERRED to the Bankruptcy Court.

According to Magistrate Judge Sheldon, the present case is clearly
related to the two pending bankruptcy proceedings. The Defendants
accurately point out the many times Plaintiffs reference the
bankruptcy proceedings. The Plaintiffs' claims go far beyond a mere
tangential relation, as they argue that Defendants' conduct in the
ongoing bankruptcy cases violates the FDCPA. Thus, the instant case
should be automatically referred to the bankruptcy.

Magistrate Judge Sheldon directed the Clerk of court to send copies
of the Memorandum and Recommendation to the respective parties
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and General Order
2002-13.

The appellate case is captioned as Diogu v. Lakeland West Capital
41, L.L.C., Case No. 23-20322, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit, filed on July 7, 2023.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Diogu Kalu Diogu, II, LLM, as next friend DKKD,
III, minor child and on behalf of themself and all others similarly
situated, as next friend NMKD, minor child and on behalf of
themself and all others similarly situated, appears pro se.

Defendants-Appellees Lakeland West Capital 41, L.L.C., et al., are
represented by:

          Michael James Durrschmidt, Esq.
          HIRSCH & WESTHEIMER, P.C.
          1415 Louisiana Street
          Wedge International Tower
          Houston, TX 77002-2728

LEPRINO FOODS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 15
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dominguez v. Leprino Foods
Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-01018 (E.D. Cal., Filed Aug. 12, 2022),
the Hon. Judge Ana De Alba entered am order modifying class action
schedule as follows:

   1. The non-expert class certification discovery cutoff is
continued
      to November 28, 2023.

   2. The Plaintiff's deadline to file his Motion for Class
      Certification is continued to December 15, 2023.

   3. The Defendant's deadline to file its Opposition to the Motion

      for Class Certification is continued to February 9, 2024.

   4. The Plaintiff's deadline to file his Reply in Support of
Motion
      for Class Certification is continued to March 8, 2024.

   5. The hearing on the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification
is
      continued to March 29, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 10
(EPG)
      before United States Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean.

The nature of suit states Labor Litigation.

Leprino Foods is an American company with headquarters in Denver,
Colorado that produces cheese, lactose, whey protein and sweet
whey.[CC]

LIFE SCIENCE: Angeles Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website
----------------------------------------------------------------
JENISA ANGELES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LIFE SCIENCE INSTITUTE, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:23-cv-05932-JLR (S.D.N.Y., July 11, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 and the New York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
healthycell.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues include, but not limited to: (a)
the website's images and other non-text elements lack
alternative-text; (b) the website includes empty links without
text; (c) the website's embedded link for the shopping cart does
not specify its purpose; and (d) the website's embedded and
drop-down links are not compatible with the screen-reader, says the
suit.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.

Life Science Institute, LLC is an online retail company doing
business in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Patrick W. Gallagher, Esq.
         MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
         225 Broadway, 39th Floor
         New York, NY 10007
         Telephone: (212) 595-6200
         Facsimile: (212) 595-9700
         E-mail: pgallagher@mizrahikroub.com

MCALISTER'S FRANCHISOR: Pratt Sues Over Deceptive Call Order Prices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY PRATT and JOHN PALMER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MCALISTER'S FRANCHISOR SPV
LLC and FOCUS BRANDS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-03055-MLB
(N.D. Ga., July 11, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants
for violation of the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act, breach of
contract, and unjust enrichment.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in deceptive
and untruthful pricing practices on customers consummating
telephone-based food orders. To appeal to consumers in a crowded
food marketplace, McAlister's Franchisor has promised its customers
food items at appealing menu prices on its website, app, and
in-store. Those prices are false for consumers who place call-in
orders because all call-in orders incur an additional three percent
service fee that is not disclosed to consumers until after the
purchase is complete. The Plaintiffs seek damages and, among other
remedies, injunctive relief that allows consumers to fairly decide
whether they will pay McAlister's' call-in order food prices, says
the suit.

McAlister's Franchisor SPV LLC is a restaurant operator, with its
principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia.

Focus Brands LLC is the parent company of McAlister's Franchisor
SPV LLC based in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         R. Brent Irby, Esq.
         IRBY LAW, LLC
         2201 Arlington Avenue South
         Birmingham, AL 35205
         Telephone: (205) 936-8281
         E-mail: brent@irbylaw.net

                 - and -
       
         Trey J. Malbrough, Esq.
         THE MALBROUGH FIRM LLC
         Age Herald Building
         2107 Fifth Avenue North, Suite 301
         Birmingham, AL 35203
         Telephone: (205) 701-0707
         E-mail: trey@tmbfirm.com

MODERN BROKERS: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 10, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHANEL KERSWILL, v. MODERN
BROKERS OF AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 8:22-cv-01131-CEH-AAS (M.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell entered an amended
case management and scheduling order as follows:

  Deadline to disclose expert reports regarding
  class certification:

      the Plaintiff:                                  Oct. 26,
2023

      the Defendant:                                  Nov. 29,
2023

  Discovery cut off for class certification           Dec. 27,
2023
  This deadline is not a bifurcation of
  discovery, rather it provides a cut off
  for discovery being used to support or
  oppose the anticipated motion for class
  certification:

  Deadline for moving for class certification,        Jan. 10,
2024
  if applicable. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c):

  Deadline for responding to motion for               Jan. 31,
2024
  class certification:

  Deadline for replying to motion for class           Feb. 14,
2024
  Certification:

  Disclosure of Expert Reports

       the Plaintiff:                                 Jan. 5, 2024

       the Defendant:                                 Jan. 5, 2024

       Rebuttal:                                      Feb. 2, 2024

  Discovery Deadline                                  Mar. 1, 2024

  Dispositive Motions, Daubert, and                   Apr. 1, 2024
  Markman Motions:

  Meeting In Person to Prepare Joint                  July 12,
2024
  Final Pretrial Statement:

  Joint Final Pretrial Statement:                     Jul. 23,
2024

  Final Pretrial Conference Date:                     Aug. 20,
2024

Modern Brokers is a largest solar panel broker in the United
States.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 3, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DeKI3D at no extra charge.[CC]

NATIONAL GENERAL: Court Junks Stipulation to File Exhibits
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Edd King et al v. National
General Insurance Company et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-00313 (N.D.
Cal., Filed Jan. 22, 2015), the Hon. Judge Donna M Ryu entered an
order denying stipulation seeking leave to file exhibits cited in
the parties' Joint Discovery Letter ("JDL") regarding the
production of policyholder data for California Good Driver policies
written for Integon National Insurance Company ("INIC").

  -- The court will rule on the Plaintiffs' 298 Administrative
motion
     to consider whether another party's material should be sealed

     once the Defendants have filed a statement and/or declaration
in
     support of that motion, which is due today on July 5, 2023.

  -- The Plaintiffs' motion to compel the production of
policyholder
     data for policies written on INIC's behalf by ClearSide
General
     Insurance Services, LLC ("ClearSide") and Stonewood Insurance

     Services, Inc. ("Stonewood") is granted because the data falls

     within the broad scope of discovery and the Defendants do not

     raise any burden arguments.

  -- The parties appear to dispute whether, as a legal and factual

     matter, the withheld policyholder data was written by agents
as
     opposed to brokers and whether the policies are subject to the

     statutory cross-offer requirement.

The nature of suit states Contract - Recovery of Overpayment &
Enforcement of Judgment.[CC]

NEXTCURE INC: Underwriters Win Dismissal of Investor Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martina Barash at news.bloomberglaw.com reports that NextCure
Inc.'s statements about a clinical trial for a cancer drug don't
support proposed class claims of security fraud, a federal court in
New York said in throwing out the suit.

A number of the challenged statements weren't actionable and the
others weren't shown to be misleading, Judge Laura Taylor Swain
said for the US District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

Banks that underwrote the pharmaceutical company's initial and
secondary public offerings are also off the hook.[GN]

OREGON: State Files Petition for Writ of Mandamus in Maney Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
STATE OF OREGON filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the
lawsuit styled 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, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Oregon, Eugene.

The Plaintiffs filed this class action in April 2020 alleging that
other states and experts widely viewed the release of adults in
custody at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic as critical to
preventing the spread of the virus in prisons, but that the
Defendants did not engage in meaningful population reduction
measures. Governor Brown is a named defendant in this class action
litigation, and the Plaintiffs allege that she was deliberately
indifferent to protecting members of the class from COVID-19
exposure.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge
Stacie F. Beckerman entered an order on June 7, 2023, (i) granting
the Plaintiffs' motion to compel the deposition of Kevin Gleim,
former Special Projects Attorney at the Office of the Governor;
(ii) denying the Defendants' motion for protective order barring
the deposition; and (iii) directing the Defendants to make Gleim
available for a deposition, not to exceed two hours, at a time and
location convenient to Gleim.

The Court held that Gleim's testimony is relevant to the
Plaintiffs' claims and proportional to the needs of the case.

The appellate case is captioned In re: State of Oregon, et al v.
USDC-ORP, et al, Case No. 23-70127, filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, on July 7, 2023.

On June 27, 2023, Judge Beckerman signed an Order granting
Defendants' June 23, 2023 motion for a stay pending disposition of
petition for writ of mandamus, and STAYING the Court's order
requiring Defendants to make former Governor Kate Brown available
for a two-hour deposition, pending resolution of Defendants'
petition for writ of mandamus.[BN]

Defendant-Petitioner STATE OF OREGON is represented by:

          Robert A. Koch, Esq.
          OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          1162 Court Street, NE
          Salem, OR 97301
          Telephone: (503) 378-4402

PEOPLECONNECT INC: Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALICIA NOLEN, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. PEOPLECONNECT, INC.,
a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-09203-EMC (N.D. Cal.),
PeopleConnect requests that the Court grant its motion for leave to
file under seal the following documents:

  -- An unredacted copy of PeopleConnect's Opposition to the
     Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Class Certification;

  -- An unredacted copy of Declaration by Lindsey Toivola;

  -- An unredacted copy of Declaration by Michael Lambard; and

  -- An unredacted copy of Declaration by Nathan Knutzen.

PeopleConnect seeks to seal narrowly-tailored portions of the
Opposition because the brief contains sensitive, confidential
information, including quotations from and descriptions of the same
confidential information.

That information includes, among other things: (1) internal
functions and operations of Classmates.com, including information
concerning PeopleConnect-internal marketing, advertising, and
production decisions; (2) the processes through which PeopleConnect
acquires yearbooks, including via agreements with third parties;
and (3) confidential statistics regarding user interactions with
the Website and details concerning the design and capabilities of
PeopleConnect's data systems.

PeopleConnect is a digital platform that helps to reunite people
with their friends, background checking and customer care
services.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 5, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43xYJUF at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Debbie L. Berman, Esq.
          Wade A. Thomson, Esq.
          Benjamin T. Halbig, Esq.
          Kate T. Spelman, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          353 North Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 222-9350
          Facsimile: (312) 527-0484
          E-mail: dberman@jenner.com
                  wthomson@jenner.com
                  bhalbig@jenner.com
                  kspelman@jenner.com

PETIT POT: Deadline to File Class Cert Bid Extended to Dec. 5
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID FARIS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PETIT POT INC.,
Case No. 2:23-cv-01955-JFW-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order granting his application to extend class
certification deadline:

             Event                      Current           Proposed

                                        Deadline          Deadline

  -- Class Certification Motion        July 14, 2023     Dec. 5,
2023

The requested extension willnot affect the deadlines set for in the
July 3, 2023 Scheduling and Case Management Order. Indeed, the
requested extension will require the Plaintiff to file a motion for
class certification immediately after the deadline for the Parties
to complete mediation (if the case does not settle) and well in
advance of the January 22, 2024, deadline for hearing motions.

The Plaintiff filed his Complaint on March 16, 2023. Counsel for
the Defendant was served with a copy of the Complaint on March 16,
2023 and executed a Waiver of Service of Summons on March 23,
2023.

Pursuant to the Court's standing order, the Plaintiff's class
certification motion is due 120 days from the date he served the
Complaint, or July 14, 2023.

On June 27, 2023, after being granted an extension to respond to
the discovery, the Defendant served only boilerplate form
objections, as well as an objection that the discovery is "improper
because the Plaintiff served his [discovery] in violation of
F.R.C.P. 25(d)(1) and there is no stipulation or court order
exempting the Plaintiff's requirement to comply with F.R.C.P.
26(d)(1)."

On June 23, 2023, the Plaintiff also served a Rule 30(b)(6)
deposition notice. The deposition was noticed to take place on July
5, 2023, but, as of the date of the preparation of this
Application, the Defendant has not produced any witnesses and has
not indicated when its witnesses will be available.

Petit Pot brings renowned French dessert traditions to the Bay
Area. The company's services mainly focus on offering organic and
gluten free rice pudding.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lisa T. Omoto, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1060
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (424) 256-2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
          E-mail: lomoto@faruqilaw.com

PIGEON FREIGHT: Ogdon Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Truck Drivers
---------------------------------------------------------------
KYLE OGDON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PIGEON FREIGHT SERVICES INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-04458 (N.D. Ill., July 11, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for unlawful deductions and failure to
reimburse for business expenses in violation of the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act, failure to pay minimum wages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and for unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a truck driver from
approximately December 2020 to October 2022.

Pigeon Freight Services Inc. is a transportation services provider,
with its principal place of business located in Lansing, Illinois.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Bradley Manewith, Esq.
         LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
         500 Lake Cook Rd., Suite 350
         Deerfield, IL 60015
         Telephone: (617) 994-5800
         Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
         E-mail: bmanewith@llrlaw.com

                 - and -
       
         Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
         Olena Savytska, Esq.
         Mel Gonzalez, Esq.
         LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
         729 Boylston Street, Ste. 2000
         Boston, MA 02116
         Telephone: (617) 994-5800
         Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
         E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
                 osavytska@llrlaw.com

PNC BANK: Failed to Timely Provide Lien Release
-----------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey at classaction.org reports that an Illinois
consumer has filed a proposed class action lawsuit that alleges PNC
Bank failed to deliver his release of lien and certificate of title
by the contractual deadline after he paid off his vehicle loan.

The 12-page lawsuit says that though PNC is contractually required
to mail or deliver a release of security interest and certificate
of title at no cost within 21 days after a borrower pays off a
vehicle loan, the bank directed him to a third-party website that
charged him a fee for providing proof of a lien release.

According to the suit, when the plaintiff purchased a new
Volkswagen Golf from an Illinois dealership in 2015, he entered
into a contract managed by PNC wherein he agreed to pay the
dealership $500.85 per month for 84 months.

In 2022, after paying off his vehicle loan months earlier, the
plaintiff inquired about his release of lien and certificate of
title at a PNC location in Illinois, the case relays. A PNC
employee informed him that the documents had been "lost in the
mail" and directed him to third-party website
VehicleTitleMyWay.com, where he could obtain a lien release letter
for a $26 fee, the complaint explains.

Despite PNC's obligation to provide the documents at no cost, the
filing says that the plaintiff paid the $26 fee to acquire the lien
release letter through the website and later had to pay $50 to the
Illinois Department of Motor Vehicles to obtain a replacement title
for his vehicle.

The lawsuit looks to represent any owners of vehicles titled in
Arkansas, Alaska, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Delaware,
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, Vermont, West Virginia or Wyoming from
whom PNC received payment to satisfy its security interest in their
vehicle within the past four years and to whom the bank failed to
mail or deliver a release of security interest or certificate of
title by the statutory deadline. [GN]

PRO CUSTOM: Underpays Sales Representatives, Munoz Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID MUNOZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRO CUSTOM SOLAR D/B/A MOMENTUM SOLAR, LLC,
and ARTHUR SOURITZIDIS, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-05291
(E.D.N.Y., July 11, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation,
failure to provide proper wage notices, failure to provide accurate
wage statements, and retaliation.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a sales
representative/canvasser in South Plainfield, New Jersey from in or
about February 2022 until June 2022.

Pro Custom Solar, doing business as Momentum Solar, LLC, is a
provider of renewable energy services based in New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Julia M. Sands, Esq.
         HAMRA LAW GROUP
         1 Linden Place, Suite 207
         Great Neck, NY 11201

PROTERRA INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept. 12
--------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer & Holzer, LLC informs investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Proterra Inc. ("Proterra" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: PTRA). The lawsuit alleges Proterra made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose material adverse facts, including: (i) Proterra repeatedly
stated the $523 million of cash on its balance sheet meant Proterra
had abundant liquidity and financial stability; and (ii) Proterra's
new Greer, South Carolina factory would continue to improve
production efficiency and gross margins.

If you bought shares of Proterra between August 2, 2022 and March
15, 2023, and you suffered a significant loss on that investment,
you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting
Marshall Dees, Esq. at mdees@holzerlaw.com or Joshua Karr, Esq.
at  jkarr@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832
or you may visit the firm's website at
www.holzerlaw.com/case/proterra/ to learn more.

The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the
case is September 12, 2023.

Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law
firm for 2021 and 2022, dedicates its practice to vigorous
representation of shareholders and investors in litigation
nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative
litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys
have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of
dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate
misconduct. More information about the firm is available through
its website,  www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the
firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this
promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney
responsible for its content. 

CONTACT:

Marshall Dees, Esq.
(888) 508-6832 (toll-free)
mdees@holzerlaw.com [GN]

QUONTIC: Sapan Seeks to Certify Class Action
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL SAPAN, individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. QUONTIC, et.
al., Case No. 8:22-cv-00849-CJC-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order certifying the case as a class action.

The Plaintiff's motion seeks certification of the class since all
requirements of subsections (a) and (b)(3) are met in this case.
The class numbers in the hundreds of thousands, the claims are
common, the named plaintiff is typical, and the representation by
the named plaintiff and counsel are more than adequate, the
Plaintiff contends.

Quontic is a U.S.-based digital bank.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Reichman, Esq.
          Justin Prato, Esq.
          PRATO & REICHMAN, APC
          3675 Ruffin Road, Suite 220
          San Diego, CA 92123
          Telephone: (619) 886-0252
          E-mail: Jmprato@gmail.com

RESTORATION HOLDINGS: Krausslach Seeks Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEREMY KRAUSSLACH, On
behalf of Himself and All other similarly situated, v. RESTORATION
HOLDINGS, INC. and TODD FRANK, Case No. 2:22-cv-00441-WCG (E.D.
Wis.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to
Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to
certify him as the class representative, and the Previant Law Firm
S.C. as class counsel, for the following two opt-out classes:

   "All hourly employees employed by the Defendant Restorative
   Holdings at any of its Wisconsin franchise locations who, during

   the time period of August 12, 2020, to the present, either (a)
   punched in before his or her handwritten start times, and the
   quarter hour nearest to the punch in time is earlier than the
   quarter hour nearest to the handwritten start time; or (b)
punched
   out after his or her handwritten end time, and the quarter hour

   nearest to the punch out time is later than the quarter hour
   nearest to the handwritten end time."

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 5, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46R2eZb at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yingtao Ho, Esq.
          THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C.
          310 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW
          Milwaukee, WI 53203
          Telephone: (414) 271-4500
          Facsimile: (414) 271-6308
          E-mail: yh@previant.com

SAGINAW COUNTY, MI:  Asks Court to Lift June 21, 2023 Order
-----------------------------------------------------------
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 Defendants ask the
Court to enter an order lifting the stay entered on June 21, 2023:


   1. On October 26, 2020, this Court issued an order granting
class
      certification in this case.

   2. On April 28, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the

      Sixth Circuit vacated this Court's class certification
ruling.
      The Sixth Circuit determined that the Plaintiff lacked
standing
      to sue all but one the Defendant in this case, and that the
      Plaintiff's lack of standing to sue most Counties required
the
      Court to vacate the certified class."

   3. At this time, there is no certified class, and it is
undisputed
      that the Plaintiff lacks standing to sue all the Defendants
      other than Gratiot County.

   4. On June 21, 2023, the Court issued an Order staying this
case.

Saginaw County contains three cities, 27 townships and five
incorporated villages.

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Theodore W. Seitz, Esq.
          Kyle M. Asher, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
          201 Townsend Street, Suite 900
          Lansing, MI 48933
          E-mail: kasher@dykema.com
                  tseitz@dykema.com

                - and -

          Matthew T. Wise, Esq.
          GORDON REES SCULLY
          37000 Woodward, Ste. 225
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
          E-mail: mwise@grsm.com

                - and -

          Charles A. Lawler, Esq.
          CLARK HILL
          212 E. Grand River Avenue
          Lansing, MI 48906-4328
          E-mail: clawler@clarkhill.com

                - and -

          Michael G. Brady, Esq.
          Matthew T. Nelson, Esq.
          WARNER NORCROSS + JUDD LLP
          1500 Warner Building
          150 Ottawa Avenue NW
          Grand Rapids, MI 49503
          E-mail: mnelson@wnj.com

                - and -

          Frank J. Krycia, Esq.
          Peter C. Jensen, Esq.
          MACOMB COUNTY CORPORATION
          COUNSEL
          1 South Main Street, 8th Floor
          Mt. Clemens, MI 48043
          E-mail: frank.krycia@macombgov.org

                - and -

          Allan C. Vander Laan, Esq.
          CUMMINGS MCCLOREY DAVIS & ACHO
          2851 Charlevoix Dr. SE, Suite 327
          Grand Rapids, MI 49546
          E-mail: avanderlaan@cmda-law.com

SHARED IMAGING: Class Action & PAGA Settlement Gets Initial OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MONICA RANGER, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. SHARED IMAGING,
LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00401-KJN (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Kendall
J. Newman entered an order that:

   1. The Plaintiff's unopposed motion for provisional class
      certification and preliminary approval of settlement is
granted.

   2. For purposes of settlement only, the Rule 23 class is
      provisionally certified, plaintiff Monica Ranger is appointed

      class representative, and John Stralen and Joshua H. Watson
of
      Clayeo C. Arnold are appointed class counsel.

   3. ILYM Group, Inc. is appointed Claims Administrator for this
      class action settlement.

   4. The Settlement Agreement is preliminarily approved as fair,
      reasonable, and adequate.

   5. 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 shall follow the deadlines:

Deadline for defendant to provide to         30 Days from the date
of
Settlement Administrator all required        this order.
information about the putative Class
Members.

Deadline for mailing of Class Notices by     10 business days after

Claims Administrator.                        Receipt of the Class
Data
                                             List.

Last day for plaintiff to request final      October 30, 2023
approval of the settlement agreement,
attorneys’ fees, and incentive award,
and submit Settlement Administrator’s
declaration.

Fairness Hearing Date (Courtroom 25).        December 5, 2023


The Plaintiff has worked for defendant Shared Imaging part-time
from January 2019 through the present as a nuclear medicine
technologist "safely conducting positron emission tomography (PET)
scans" for Kaiser health physicians. She alleges that due to the
nature of the work, including defendant's setting of her work
schedule and her patients’ inefficiencies, it was impossible for
her to take meal or rest breaks despite regularly working 13+ hour
shifts.

She also alleges defendant failed to pay overtime wages and
required her to use her personal phone for business purposes
without compensation. She alleges these allegations are common to
the class and to all aggrieved workers under the Private Attorneys
General Act (PAGA).

The Settlement Agreement proposes deducting from the $768,000 gross
settlement amount the following:

   (a) A class representative incentive award of up to $10,000;

   (b) Class counsel’s attorney’s fees not to exceed 25% of the
total
       settlement amount;

   (c) Class counsel’s litigation costs not to exceed $20,000;

   (d) Settlement administrator costs not to exceed $15,000; and

   (e) A PAGA payment of $24,000 to be paid to the Labor Workforce
and
       Development Agency (LWDA), out of an overall PAGA award of
       $32,000.

Shared Imaging is a hospital & health care company specializing in
multi-vendor service solutions.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 5, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Oifn6j at no extra charge.[CC]

SYSCO CORP: Producers Object Deal Allowing Burford to Claim Control
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland at cookcountyrecord.com reports that weeks after food
distribution giant Sysco apparently ended its contentious battle
with lawsuit funder Burford over control of Sysco's antitrust class
action against poultry producers over alleged chicken price-fixing,
those chicken producers have stepped forward to block the handover,
assering it amounts to "invalid champerty."

In early June, Sysco and Burford requested full dismissal of all
their litigation regarding a dispute over the amount of control
Burford should have over Sysco's potential settlement with poultry
producers accused of a years-long price-fixing conspiracy. Burford
had won an international arbitration ruling holding the financier
-- through subsidiaries Glaz, Posen Investments and Kenosha
Investments -- had the contractual right to stop Sysco from
settling, but Sysco argued the "multibillion dollar litigation
funding firm" exceeded its limited settlement consent rights.

According to court records, Burford had invested at least $140
million into Sysco's lawsuit, and was hoping for a much bigger
return on that investment than they would have received from
Sysco's potential settlement.

On June 18. Sysco sought to leave the class action altogether,
substituting in its place Carina Ventures. According to a motion
filed July 12 in federal court in Chicago, the defendant poultry
producers called Carina "a newly-created Burford affiliate" --
formed June 12 -- and said the one-page motion for substitution
"raises more questions than it answers, injecting unnecessary
complexity into this already complicated case and forcing the
resolution of difficult legal and factual questions on an
incomplete record."

The filing puts the defendants in a similar position to that Sysco
maintained since March 8, hoping to keep Sysco involved in
settlement negotiations absent outside influence. But the motion to
reject substitution strikes a stronger chord, saying allowing
Carina to become an actual plaintiff could be construed as "invalid
champerty" because Carina, especially as a new corporate entity,
has no legal interest in the collusion litigation or any of the
plaintiff or defendant parties.

Champerty is a legal concept, long frowned upon, if not outlawed,
in much of America's legal system, by which people who otherwise
have no interest in a lawsuit, provide money to take control of a
lawsuit, with no goal other than claiming a financial cut of any
judgment or settlement.

The chicken producers have asked the judge to deny the substitution
outright, or at least to put consideration of that requeston hold
pending discussion about discovery and a supplemental briefing.

As part of the motion to oppose, the poultry producers referenced
Scott Gant, of Boies Schiller, the firm that was Sysco's outside
counsel, but also represents Burford in its own antitrust lawsuits.
In a September 2022 email regarding potential settlement of the
antitrust lawsuit with producers, Burford Chief Investment Officer
Jonathan Molot said Gant told him the proposed offers were too
low.

"(Gant) believes Sysco is proceeding to settle these cases at this
level based entirely on their business considerations and not on
the merits of the suits or what could be recovered if the cases
were to proceed," Molot wrote. "He said that because they are his
client, he doesn't feel it is his place to second-guess their
business judgment about the true costs to them as a business matter
from leaving the disputes outstanding."

The defendants alleged "Sysco has sold its claims in five different
antitrust cases -- broilers, pork, beef, turkey and Keurig -- to
Carina" and said they "do not know the financial arrangements
between Sysco, Burford, Carina and the other parties to the
original agreements" or "what consideration was exchanged for Sysco
to agree to hand over its role as a plaintiff in multiple class
action cases to Carina."

Substitution motion hearings regarding pork and beef lawsuits are
set for Aug. 21 in Minnesota federal court, the poultry defendants
said, adding their belief those producers have had a chance to
start learning a bit more about the Sysco-Carina relationship and
how it will affect litigation.

"Sysco and Carina have identified no reason why this substitution
would facilitate the conduct of this litigation or otherwise assist
the Court in managing it -- and in fact, there are good reasons to
think that the substitution will make this case even harder to
manage," the defendants said. "Granting this motion risks a
situation where Sysco has been removed as a plaintiff, only for
Carina to later be held incapable of pressing Sysco's claims
because of an invalid assignment. As such, the Motion should be
denied."

Mountaire Farms is represented by ArentFox Schiff, of Chicago and
Ann Arbor, Mich., and Rose Law Firm, of Chicago and Little Rock,
Ark.

Perdue Farms is represented by Venable, of Washington, D.C., and
Falkenberg Ives, of Chicago.

Koch Foods and JCH Foods are represented by Armstrong Teasdale, of
Chicago.

Foster Farms is represented by Mayer Brown, of Washington, D.C.

Simmons Foods is represented by Shook Hardy & Bacon, of Chicago and
Kansas City, Mo., and Conner & Winters, of Fayetteville, Ark.

House of Raeford is represented by Vedder Price, of Chicago, and
Jordan Price Wall Gray Jones & Carlton, of Raleigh, N.C.

Claxton Poultry Farms is represented by Vaughan & Murphy, of
Atlanta, and Wintston & Strawn, of Chicgao.

Wayne Farms is represented by Proskauer Rose, of Washington, D.C.,
New York and Los Angeles.

O.K. Foods is represented by Kutak Rock, of Fayetteville and Omaha,
Neb., and MoloLamken, of Chicago.

Harrison Poultry is represented by Eversheds Sutherland, of
Atlanta, and Amundsen Davis, of Chicago.

Case Foods is represented by Joseph D. Carney & Associates, of
Avon, Ohio; Miller Shakman Levine & Feldman, of Chicago; D. Klaw
Law, of Bel Air, Calif.; and Paul Bunder, of Fairview Park, Ohio.

Tyson Foods is represented by Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider, of
Washington, D.C., Hartford, Conn., and New York; and Lipe Lyons
Murphy Nahrstadt Pontikis, of Chicago.

Pilgrim's Pride is represented by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan, of Washington, D.C., Atlanta and Chicago.

Mar-Jack Poultry is represented by Edward C. Konieczny, of Atlanta;
and Smith, Gambrell & Russell, of Atlanta and Chicago.

Sanderson Farms is represented by Proskauer Rose, of Chicago,
Washington, New York and Los Angeles.

Agri Stats, the industry publication whose internal data is sentry
to the price-fixing allegations, is represented by Hogan Lovells,
of Washington, D.C., and Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, of
Chicago. [GN]

TEAM ENTERPRISES: Bid to Dismiss Cipolla Suit Tossed
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FELICIA CIPOLLA, ALEXIS
WOOD, BERNADETTE BLANCHARD, SHIRIN LESSAN, DENNIS FISHER, and JAMIE
ARIAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. TEAM ENTERPRISES, LLC, NEW TEAM LLC, doing business as TEAM
ENTERPRISES, Case No. 3:18-cv-06867-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
William Alsup entered an order denying the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the fourth amended complaint, and denying in part and
granting in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

   -- Trial shall take place on:                 Jan. 22, 2024

   -- Final pretrial conference on:              Jan. 17, 2024

The Defendants challenge subject-matter jurisdiction on the grounds
that the new complaint does not adequately allege a
five-million-dollar amount in controversy sufficient for
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.

Specifically, defendants argue plaintiffs' jurisdictional statement
is facially deficient because it only provides an estimated amount
of 1,800 class members and states they have an "average hourly rate
of at least $30 per hour". As to the factual challenge, both
parties agree that the amount in controversy must have been met at
the time of the original complaint, but both now also rely on
experts who estimate damages based on class-wide data that was not
available at the time of the original complaint.

The Defendants' expert says at most only $3,109,848 can be
recovered while plaintiffs' expert says $5,872,500 can be
recovered.

In this wage-and-hour putative class action, the Defendants move to
dismiss plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs in turn move for class
certification. The motion to dismiss is denied and the motion for
class certification is denied in part and granted in part.

Team Enterprises was founded in 2010. The company's line of
business includes providing plumbing, heating, air-conditioning,
and similar work.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 3, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pS8qQ4 at no extra charge.[CC]

TMX FINANCE: Kolstedt Data Breach Suit Seeks Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAVANNAH KOLSTEDT, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. TMX FINANCE
CORPORATE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-00076-RSB-CLR (S.D.
Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the
proposed classes:

  -- Nationwide class

     "All individuals whose PII was accessed and/or acquired in the

     data incident that is the subject of the Notice of Data Breach

     that the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff and Class Members on
or
     around March 30, 2023;" and

  -- Georgia Residents Class:

     "All residents of Georgia whose PII was accessed and/or
acquired
     in the data incident that is the subject of the Notice of Data

     Breach that the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff and Class
Members
     on or around March 30, 2023."

The litigation commenced by the Plaintiff as a putative class
action seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for its failure to
properly secure and safeguard personal identifiable information
(PII) of more than 4.8 million individuals, including, but not
limited to, name, date of birth, passport number, driver's license
number, federal/state identification card number, tax
identification number, social security number and/or financial
account information, and other information such as phone number,
address, and email address.

The Defendant provides consumer credit products under the TitleMax
(TM), TitleBucks (TM), and InstaLoan (TM) brands. In the course of
its business, the Defendant obtained the PII of the Plaintiff and
Class Members who sought consumer loans from the Defendant.

On or before February 3, 2023, the Defendant learned of a data
breach on its network that occurred on or around February 3, 2023
to February 14, 2023 (the "Data Breach")

The Defendant determined that, during the Data Breach, an unknown
actor accessed and/or acquired the PII of the Plaintiff and Class
Members. On or about March 30, 2023, nearly two months later, the
Defendant sent the Plaintiff and Class Members a Notice of Data
Breach.

TMX Finance was established in 1998 and is a Savannah,
Georgia-based consumer lender.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 3, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OghYh0 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Marcio W. Valladares, Esq.
          Ryan D. Maxey, Esq.
          Ra O. Amen, Esq.
          Seth Diamond, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX
          LITIGATION DIVISION
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
                  mvalladares@ForThePeople.com
                  rmaxey@ForThePeople.com
                  ramen@ForThePeople.com
                  sdiamond@forthepeople.com

UNION BANK AND TRUST: Scott Files Suit in D. Nebraska
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Union Bank and Trust
Company. The case is styled as Jeffrey Scott, Bonnie Scott,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Union Bank and Trust Company, Case No. 4:23-cv-03126 (D. Neb., July
11, 2023).

The nature if suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Property Damage.

Union Bank & Trust Company -- http://www.ubt.com/-- is a privately
owned, state chartered commercial bank headquartered in Lincoln,
Nebraska.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


USLM FINANCIAL: Sends Unsolicited Marketing Calls, Quintero Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN QUINTERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. USLM FINANCIAL, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
0:23-cv-61319-RS (S.D. Fla., July 11, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending unwanted
telephonic sales calls to the Plaintiff and similarly situated
consumers to sell its health and life insurance products. The
Defendant engages in cold calling consumers even if they have
registered their telephone numbers on the TCPA's National
Do-Not-Call Registry and utilizing an autodialer without consent.
The Defendant's unsolicited calls caused the Plaintiff and Class
members harm, including violations of their statutory rights,
trespass, annoyance, nuisance, invasion of their privacy, and
intrusion upon seclusion, says the suit.

USLM Financial, LLC is a private financial firm, headquartered in
Florida. [BN]

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

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

VERITAS FUNDING: Sapan Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL SAPAN, individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. VERITAS FUNDING,
LLC, Case No. 8:23-cv-00468-CJC-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff Paul
Sapan and the putative class move the Court pursuant to Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of civil Procedure for an order certifying the
case as a class action.

The Plaintiff's motion seeks certification of the class since all
requirements of subsections (a) and (b)(3) are met in this case.
The class numbers in the hundreds of thousands, the claims are
common, the named plaintiff is typical, and the representation by
the named plaintiff and counsel are more than adequate.

Veritas Funding offers mortgage lending and refinancing services.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher J. Reichman, Esq.
          Justin Prato, Esq.
          PRATO & REICHMAN, APC
          3675 Ruffin Road, Suite 220
          San Diego, CA 92123
          Telephone: (619) 683-7971
          E-mail: chrisr@prato-reichman.com
                  justinp@prato-reichman.com

WICHITA, KS: Suit Seeks to Maintain Exhibits 14, 15 Under Seal
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PROGENY, a program of
Destination Innovations, Inc., CHRISTOPHER COOPER, ELBERT COSTELLO,
MARTEL COSTELLO, and JEREMY LEVY, JR., on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, v. CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS, Case No.
6:21-cv-01100-EFM-ADM (D. Kan.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an Order maintaining Exhibit 14 and Exhibit 15 under seal.

The Plaintiffs filed Exhibit 14 and Exhibit 15 provisionally under
seal and now move to maintain that document under seal under D.
Kan. Rule 5.4.2(c).

Specifically, the exhibit contains deposition testimony that
mentions a non-party has been labelled as a gang member. The
deposition testimony also implicitly refers to that nonparty. The
parties' Protective Order explicitly categorizes information like
this --"personal and private information from and about parties and
non -- parties related to their presence on the Gang List" -- as
"Confidential Information."

The Plaintiffs seek to protect the privacy of the non-party
mentioned in Exhibit 14 and do not want to publicly share that he
has been labeled as a gang member because it could result in
serious injury to the non-party’s reputation. If the Court
restricts public access, it will adequately protect the
non-party’s reputation because he will not be publicly labeled as
a gang member because of this lawsuit -- a lawsuit that seeks to
help, not harm, people on the Gang List.

Similarly, the Plaintiff Progeny's Declaration names Progeny staff
members and youth leaders who are on the Gang List. the Plaintiff
Progeny does not want to take any risks with its members' privacy.


So, for the same reasons as Exhibit 14, the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to maintain Exhibit 15 under seal to protect the privacy of
the Progeny members and avoid harm to their reputations.

On June 30, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class
Certification.

Wichita is the most populous city in the U.S. state of Kansas and
the county seat of Sedgwick County.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 30, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OfPZhq at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

s          Mitchell F. Engel, Esq.
          Paul M. Vogel, Esq.
          Thomas J. Sullivanv
          Jordan C. Baehr, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
          2555 Grand Boulevard
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 474-6550
          E-mail: tsullivan@shb.com
                  mengel@shb.com
                  jbaehr@shb.com
                  pvogel@shb.com

                - and -

          Teresa A. Woody, Esq.
          KANSAS APPLESEED CENTER FOR
          LAW AND JUSTICE, INC.
          211 E. 8th Street, Suite D
          Lawrence, KS 66044
          Telephone: (785) 251-8160
          E-mail: twoody@kansasappleseed.org

                - and -

          Sharon Brett, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          FOUNDATION OF KANSAS
          10561 Barkely Street, Suite 500
          Overland Park, KS 66202
          Telephone: (913) 490-4100
          E-mail: sbrett@aclukansas.org

WILSON SUPPLEMENTS: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wilson Supplements,
LLC. The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Wilson Supplements, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-05938 (S.D.N.Y., July 11, 2023).

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

Wilson Supplements -- https://www.wilsonsupplements.com/ -- is your
source for bodybuilding and nutritional supplements.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ian Piasecki, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (347) 745-0445
          Email: ipiasecki@mizrahikroub.com


XCEL ENERGY: Agrees to Settle Natural Gas Antitrust Suit for $12M
------------------------------------------------------------------
topclassactions.com reports that Williams agreed to pay $12 million
as part of a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it
worked with other utility companies to overcharge Wisconsin
residents for natural gas.

The settlement benefits consumers and entities who purchased
natural gas in Wisconsin for industrial or commercial purposes
between Jan. 1, 2000, and Oct. 31, 2002.

The antitrust class action lawsuit claims Williams conspired with
CenterPoint, Xcel Energy and other utility companies to raise and
fix the price of natural gas. This allegedly caused Wisconsin
businesses to overpay for their natural gas services.

Williams is a natural gas company that handles around one-third of
the natural gas used each day by Americans.

Williams hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $12 million
settlement to resolve the antitrust class action lawsuit.

Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive a cash
payment based on the amount they paid for natural gas during the
settlement period. No payment estimates are available at this time.


The exclusion deadline was June 5, 2023. The objection deadline was
May 30, 2023.

The final approval hearing for the settlement was held June 30,
2023.

Class members have until July 26, 2023, to file a valid claim form
with the settlement. Class members who previously filed an accepted
claim in previous Wisconsin natural settlements in 2017, 2019 or
2020 do not need to file another claim.

Who's Eligible
Consumers and entities who purchased natural gas in Wisconsin for
industrial or commercial purposes between Jan. 1, 2000, and Oct.
31, 2002

Potential Award
Varies

Proof of Purchase
Documentation of natural gas purchases

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
07/26/2023

Case Name
Arandell Corp., et al. v. Xcel Energy Inc., et al., Case No.
3:07-cv-00076-jdp, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin

Final Hearing
06/30/2023

Settlement Website
NaturalGasAntitrustSettlement.com/Wisconsin

Claims Administrator
Natural Gas Claims Administrator
c/o A.B. Data, LTD.
PO Box 173068
Milwaukee, WI 53217-8091
info@NaturalGasAntitrustSettlement.com
800-429-7281

Class Counsel
Robert L Gegios
KOHNER MANN & KAILAS SC

Christopher G Hanewicz
PERKINS COIE LLP

Russell S Jones
POLSINELLI PC

Defense Counsel
Steven D Soden
SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP[GN]

XPONENTIAL FITNESS: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an
investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Xponential Fitness, Inc. (NYSE: XPOF) resulting
from allegations that Xponential Fitness may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=17334 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On June 26, 2023, market analyst Fuzzy Panda
Research issued a report entitled "Xponential Fitness (XPOF) --
"Abusive Franchisor That Is A House of Cards". The report alleged
that Xponential's CEO, Anthony Geisler, "has a long history of
misleading investors and business partners", including engaging in
pump and dump schemes. The report stated that he'd been previously
accused by former business associates of engaging in "scams" and
"illegal business practices", and alleged that he has even in the
past threatened others with a gun. In addition, the report alleged
that the company's financials are less healthy than it has
represented to investors, that it is likely violating its debt
agreements, and, contrary to Geisler's claim that Xponential has
"never closed a store", that there were many closed Xponential
locations.

On this news, Xponential's stpck fell $9.39 per share, or 37.40% to
close at $15.72 per share on June 27, 2023.

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

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]

ZUFFA LLC: Must Oppose Bloom Class Cert Bid by Oct. 30
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EVERETT BLOOM, JACK
GRAHAM, AND DAVE LINDHOLM, on behalf of themselves, and those
similarly situated, v. ZUFFA, LLC; ENDEAVOR STREAMING, LLC; and
ENDEAVOR GROUP HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00412-RFB-BNW (D.
Nev.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the
briefing schedule on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
as follows:

-- The Defendants' Opposition to the              Oct. 30, 2023
    Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
    Certification and Disclosure of
    Expert(s) and Expert Report(s)
    Relating to Class Certification
    will be due by:

-- The Plaintiffs' Reply Brief in                 Jan. 11, 2024
    Support of Class Certification
    and Rebuttal Expert Report(s)
    in Support of Class Certification
    will be due by:

The hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification shall
be 14 days after the Plaintiffs' Reply is filed, or as soon
thereafter as the Parties may be heard.

On May 25, 2022, the Court set a briefing schedule for the
Plaintiff Bloom's Motion for Class Certification, which set
deadlines of January 4, 2023, for the Plaintiff's Motion, March 3,
2023, for Zuffa's Opposition, and May 2, 2023, for the Plaintiff's
Reply.

On November 29, 2022, the Court granted the Plaintiff Bloom and
Zuffa's First Joint Stipulation to Continue Deadlines for Class
Certification by 90 days to allow additional time for discovery.

On March 14, 2023, the Court granted the Plaintiff Bloom and
Zuffa's Second Joint Stipulation to Continue Deadlines for Class
Certification by 60 days to allow time for additional discovery and
the Parties' private mediation on March 30, 2023.

Zuffa is an American sports promotion company specializing in mixed
martial arts.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 5, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Q1GILb at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Markman, Esq.
          MARKMAN LAW
          4484 S. Pecos Rd., Suite #130
          Las Vegas, NV 89121
          Telephone: (702) 843-5899
          Facsimile: (702) 843-6010
          E-mail: David@Markmanlawfirm.com

                - and -

          Seth A. Safier, Esq.
          Marie A. Mccrary, Esq.
          Hayley Reynolds, Esq.
          Anthony J. Patek, Esq.
          Kali Backer, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 336-6545
          Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
          E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com
                  marie@gutridesafier.com
                  hayley@gutridesafier.com
                  anthony@gutridesafier.com
                  kali@gutridesafier.com


The Defendants are represented by:

          J. Colby Williams, Esq.
          CAMPBELL & WILLIAMS
          710 South Seventh Street, Suite A
          Las Vegas, NV 89101
          Telephone: (702) 382-5222
          Facsimile: (702) 382-0540
          E-mail: jcw@cwlawlv.com

                - and -

          Susan K. Leader, Esq.
          Ali R. Rabbani, Esq.
          Stephanie V. Balitzer, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, 27th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 620-5700
          Facsimile: (310) 620-5899
          E-mail: susanleader@paulhastings.com
                  alirabbani@paulhastings.com
                  stephaniebalitzer@paulhastings.com


                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***