/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230818.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, August 18, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 166

                            Headlines

3M CO: Residents to Launch Suit Over PFAs Chemicals in New Jersey
4602 4626 GREENPOINT: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
AC DISASTER: Underpays Disaster Recovery Specialists, Shepard Says
AERCAP HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
AETNA MEDICAID: Palmer Suit Seeks Agents' Unpaid Overtime Wages

ALEGRIA PRODUCTIONS: Carter Alleges Sexual Assault at Pride Event
AMC NETWORKS: Discloses Personal Info to Meta, Buckley Says
AMERICA'S TEST: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Adams Suit
AMERITAS HOLDING: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Colston Alleges
AMROCK LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Coppola Claims

ANTRA INC: Jama Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations in E.D. Va.
APELLIS PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
BECTON DICKINSON: Investors' Class Action Can Proceed
BOSTON MARKET: Tejeda Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
BYTEDANCE INC: Rodriguez Sues Over CapCut App Users' Privacy Issue

CANADA: May Face Suit Over Health-Related Issues of Cannabis Use
CELI NAILS: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, Lopez Says
CHERISH PRODUCTIONS: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Unpaid Wages
CHERISH PRODUCTIONS: Sears Seeks Unpaid Wages, Reimbursements
COUNTRY CLUB AT OTTERKILL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, McCree Says

CYPRESS BAYSHORE: Tenants Sue Over Cancer-Causing Chemicals
DISCOVERY HOUSE: Fails to Provide Timely Meal Breaks, Jenkins Says
DNF ASSOCIATES: Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss FDCPA Class Action
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arriola Alleges
EOS ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Business Statements

ESSILORLUXOTTICA SA: Monopolizes Eyewear Market, Fathmath Says
FEDERAL ENVELOPE: Illegally Collects Fingerprints, Pearl Suit Says
FLORIDA HEALTH: Dipierro Sues Over Unprotected Health Info
FRANKLIN MINT: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Harris Suit Alleges
FRESENIUS MEDICAL: Underpays Registered Nurses, Schuman Claims

FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Suit
HAYWARD HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 2
HENRY FORD: Tabbs Sues Over Failure to Protect Patients' Info
HERITAGE VALLEY: Bowen Sues Over Patients' Unprotected Health Info
HOAG MEMORIAL: Appeals Remand Order in Davis Suit to 9th Circuit

HOTEL PIERRE: Fails to Properly Pay Hotel Staff, Serrano Alleges
HUB CYBER: Faces Green Suit Over Alleged Drop in Share Price
HUMANA INC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Murphy Suit Says
ILLINOIS: Faces NIFLA Class Suit Over Life-Affirming Organizations
ISLAND FEDERAL: Charges Multiple Overdraft Fees, Wykle Suit Says

JAG PAVING: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Rivera Suit Alleges
JAZEERA RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Melendez Alleges
JOYY INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
JRCRUZ CORP: Thomas Appeals Court Order to N.Y. Appellate Division
LENOVO UNITED: Augustine Sues Over Third Party Access to Info

LIVE NATION: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
MASSACHUSETTS: Parole Board Faces Discrimination Class Action
METROSPEEDY OPERATIONS: Fails to Pay Drivers' OT Wages, Roman Says
MICROSOFT CORP: Intercepts Internet Browsing Data, Saeedy Says
NATIONAL CARWASH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Maurer Alleges

NEVADA: Takes Private Property Without Notice, Raymond Alleges
NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR: Faces Class Suit Over Privacy Breach
NORDSTROM INC: Online Store Inaccessible to Blind, Herrera Says
NORTH MAIN: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages under FLSA, Rosado Says
NUZ ENTERPRISES: Ceropin Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages

ODOO INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kayed Suit Alleges
PARTY CITY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 2
PARTY CITY: Execs Hid Liquidity Woes Before Bankruptcy, Suit Says
PARTY CITY: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action in S.D. Tex.
PATRIOT ERECTORS: Appeals Final Judgment in Davila Suit to 5th Cir.

PEACOCK TV: Shapiro Sues Over Disclosure of Personal Info
PELHAM COUNTRY CLUB: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lewis Suit Alleges
PENSION BENEFIT: White et al. Sue Over MOVEit Data Breach
PRECISION ANESTHESIA: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Dillon Says
PRIME HYDRATION: Faces False Advertising Class Action in Calif.

PRIMECARE MEDICAL: Steadman Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Nurses
RTX CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 2
RTX CORPORATION: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Civil Rights Class Action to Proceed
SASKATCHEWAN: Lawyers Argue Over Boarding Schools Suit Process

SEPHORA USA: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Hussein Suit Alleges
SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Sauer Appeals Case Dismissal Order
SPARC GROUP: Montes Appeals Case Dismissal Order
STERILIZATION SERVICES: Faces Class Action Over Toxic Air Emissions
SUNRISE FLOOR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Grande Alleges

SUTTON TRANSPORT: Hodges Sues Over Biometric Collection and Storage
SYNEOS HEALTH: Faces Securities Suit Over 77% Stock Price Drop
TACOS LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Herrera Class Suit Says
TECOMET INC: Faces Wallin Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
TEMASEK HOLDINGS: O'Keefe Sues Over Misappropriation of Funds

TESLA INC: Faces Class Action Over Misleading EV Range Estimates
TETHER LTD: New York Judge Tosses Suit Over Token's Value
TRCU COFFEE: Rosas Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Restaurant Staff
TRINITY PACKAGING: Robertson Appeals Order Denying Settlement OK
U.S. SPECIAL SERVICE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Says

ULTA BEAUTY: Faces Qualls Labor Suit Over COVID-19 Screenings
UNIFI AVIATION: Fuller Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
UNITED STATES: Scotts Valley Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling
WAYFAIR LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Counts Suit Alleges
WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action Over Phony Bank Accounts

WELSPUN PIPES: Sanford Law Appeals Sanctions in Vines Suit
WIRELESS ICENTER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Diaz Alleges
WLCC II: Faces Day Suit Over Illegal Collection Practices
YALE-NEW HAVEN: Must Face ERISA Class Action, Judge Rules
YELLOW CORP: Faces Class Action Over Inadequate Notice of Layoffs

[*] Lawmakers Pursue Tort Reform as Alternative to Class Action

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Faces Personal Injury Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CarParts.com's Subsidiaries Faces Damage Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Has 900 Pending Exposure Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Defends 251 Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Estimates $5.3MM Net Liability

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Paid $7MM to Settle Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Group Reports $412MM Net A&E Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enviri Corp. Has 17,259 Pending PI Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ESAB Corp. Logs 14,764 Unresolved Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Faces 590 New PI Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graybar Has $2.5MM Insurance Receivable at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: International Paper Has $111MM in Claims Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Defends 501 Cases at July 2
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Defends 1,465 Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Tech. Defends Exposure Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Faces 200 PI Lawsuits as of June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Has 915 Active Cases as of June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Defends 260 PI Claims As of June 30


                            *********

3M CO: Residents to Launch Suit Over PFAs Chemicals in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Euronews Green reports that toxic chemicals leaked into their
drinking water supplies more than 30 years ago. Now residents want
compensation.

Jersey residents could be the first in the British Isles to launch
legal action over toxic 'forever chemicals' polluting their water.

Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a large family of
human-made chemicals that don't occur in nature. They are known as
‘forever chemicals' because they don't break down in the
environment.

Like microplastics, there is virtually no escape from PFAS; they've
seeped into our blood, breastmilk, and almost all rainwater on
Earth.

But the Channel Island has been dealing with a particularly
egregious load of pollution for decades. Firefighting foam used on
the airport fire training ground in the early 1990s leaked into the
surrounding area and people's borehole water supplies.

Locals attribute a number of serious health conditions including
cancer to this source, and some are now considering collective
legal action.

The timeline of Jersey's forever chemicals scandal

When the foam was confirmed to be in drinking water in 1993, the
Government of Jersey stopped its use and offered to install new
bore holes for those affected.

In a new investigation into the issue, the BBC has spoken with
people who believe the ban came too late for their health. They
include 57-year-old Graeme Farmer, who lived in a cottage near the
training ground in the mid-1990s, and was diagnosed with blood
cancer five years ago.

"My parents… and I lived there for four years. We all went down
with cancer and we all seemed to have it within the same time
period," he told the broadcaster.

In 2005 the island's government signed a confidential deal with 3M,
the manufacturer of the foam, to secure £2.6m (around €3m)
towards the PFAS clean-up.

Under the terms of the agreement, it promised not to pursue any
legal claims against the company. Controversially, it also
committed the government to support the company if any citizen
pursued legal action.

The deal was kept secret from the public until a local journalist
obtained a leaked copy of the deal, and broke the story in 2021 --
prompting a fresh wave of outrage.

From magnets to lawsuits, here's how we can fix the forever
chemicals problem
Why are Jersey residents seeking compensation now?

In 2022, Jersey's government conducted a pioneering programme to
test the blood of people living near the airport for PFAS
compounds.

Of the 88 islanders tested, 70 per cent were found to have higher
threshold levels of PFHxS and 30 per cent had higher threshold
levels of PFOS in their blood - both PFAS compounds.

Having received their blood test results, Jersey residents are now
considering their legal options.

"Many of these people feel that they have health concerns arising
out of their exposure to PFAS chemicals and they may have some sort
of claim to receive compensation," Jersey Advocate Eleanor Colley
told the BBC.

Her law firm Viberts has spoken to some 10 islanders about pursuing
a financial compensation claim, which it is "in the early stages"
of investigating.

If it goes ahead, Colley believes this could be the first
collective action concerning PFAS in the British Isles. 3M recently
reached a $10.3 billion (EUR9.4bn) settlement to pay to test and
clean up the chemicals from water supplies across the US, without
admitting liability.

"Like everybody we'd like to see our health back," said Farmer.
"But that isn't possible -- that only leaves financial compensation
which everybody deserves."

"At this stage we are not sure who any potential defendant would
be, although it's likely to be a States of Jersey entity and
potentially the manufacturer of the chemicals," Colley added.

In response to the BBC's report, the Government of Jersey said:
"There is no international agreement about how to interpret blood
results, therefore it is difficult to reach conclusions on the
levels in the blood that has been tested.

"We have set up the Independent PFAS Scientific Panel, who will
examine, report, and make recommendations to the government on
agreed topics."

3M said in a statement: "We have and will continue to take action
consistent with our values -- including remediating PFAS, investing
in water treatment, and collaborating with communities." [GN]

4602 4626 GREENPOINT: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS MUNOZ, v. 4602 4626 GREENPOINT AVENUE LLC (DBA LOS VERDES NEW
YORK) and JAVIER QUESADA, Case No. 1:23-cv-05692 (E.D.N.Y., July
27, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime wage
compensation, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

The Defendants were required, under relevant New York State law, to
pay and compensate the Plaintiff at a minimum rate of $15.00 per
hour (the "minimum wage"); however, the Plaintiff was only
compensated at a rate of $10.00 per hour for 40 hours workweek, the
lawsuit claims. The Defendants were also required, under relevant
New York State law, to compensate the Plaintiff with overtime pay
at one and one-half the regular rate for work in excess of 40 hours
per work week. However, the Defendants only compensated the
Plaintiff at a rate of $10 per hr. plus $300 tips per week and
failed to pay the Plaintiff his lawful overtime pay for that period
from April 2020 until July 22, 2023, the lawsuit claims.

The Defendants' conduct allegedly extended beyond the Plaintiff to
all other similarly situated employees. The Defendants have
allegedly engaged in their unlawful conduct pursuant to a corporate
policy of minimizing labor costs and denying employees
compensation. The Defendants' unlawful conduct has been
intentional, willful, and in bad faith, and has caused significant
damage to the Plaintiff and the other class members, the lawsuit
added.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant at its offices at 46-26
Greenpoint Ave, Queens, NY 11104 from April 2020 until July 22,
2023, where his primary work duty was as a cook and a
delivery.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

AC DISASTER: Underpays Disaster Recovery Specialists, Shepard Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
LaRHONDA SHEPARD, for herself and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AC DISASTER CONSULTING LLC, a Texas Limited
Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-00760-P (N.D. Tex.,
July 21, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant to recover
Plaintiff's unpaid overtime and back wages, an additional equal
amount as liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was hired as a full-time, benefits-eligible Disaster
Recovery Specialist employee by the Defendant from June 17, 2020
until May 26, 2023. She asserts that Defendant failed and/or
refused to properly disclose or apprise her rights under the FLSA.

AC Disaster Consulting LLC operates as a nationwide emergency
management firm with its principal place of business located in
Arlington, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
          Angeli Murthy, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          8151 Peters Rd., Suite 4000
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) WORKERS
          Facsimile: (954)-327-3016
          E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com
                  amuthy@forthepeople.com

AERCAP HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Aug. 4
announced an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf
of shareholders of AerCap Holdings N.V. (NYSE: AER) resulting from
allegations that AerCap may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public, specifically as it
related to its exposure to the Russian market, and in particular
potential financial exposure resulting from escalating hostilities
in Ukraine.

SO WHAT: If you purchased AerCap 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=17599 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.

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]

AETNA MEDICAID: Palmer Suit Seeks Agents' Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
CRYSTAL PALMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AETNA MEDICAID ADMINISTRATORS LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01010 (D. Conn., July 28, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act,
and for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

Ms. Palmer worked for the Defendant as a call center agent from
approximately August 2016 until May 2022.

Aetna Medicaid Administrators LLC is a provider of managed health
care services, with its principal offices located at 151 Farmington
Ave., Hartford, Connecticut. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
         Albert J. Asciutto, Esq.
         SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
         One Towne Square, 17th Floor
         Southfield, MI 48076
         Telephone: (248) 355-0300
         E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
                 aasciutto@sommerspc.com

                 - and -
       
         Jeffrey S. Morneau, Esq.
         CONNOR & MORNEAU, LLP
         273 State Street, 2nd Floor
         Springfield, MA 01103
         Telephone: (413) 455-1730
         E-mail: jmorneau@cmolawyers.com

ALEGRIA PRODUCTIONS: Carter Alleges Sexual Assault at Pride Event
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRETT CARTER, CHRISTOPHER ADAMS, DANIEL AHN, DANIEL CHIU, JOHN SUN,
JOSEPH LEE, JOSHUA FRIEDMAN, TIMMY HOWARD, and WEICHIEH CHI on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated Plaintiffs
v. ALEGRIA PRODUCTIONS INC., AVANT GARDNER, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 521124/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., July 21, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendants for assault and battery; negligent
hiring, training and supervision; gross negligence; and violations
of the New York City Human Rights Law, New York State Human Rights
Law, and N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law.

On June 25, 2023, Defendants Avant Gardner and Alegria Productions
organized and hosted "Alegria Pride 2023." It was the fourth "mega
production" organized and promoted by Alegria Productions and held
at Avant Gardner, a large event space located at 140 Stewart Ave,
Brooklyn, New York.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were subjected to
unwarranted and intrusive sexual assault by the security guards
hired and supervised by Defendants upon entry. Many attendees were
touched repeatedly, sometimes without consent and sometimes despite
specifically refusing to consent, in their intimate areas, forced
to spread their legs for extensive periods of time, and made to
take off their pants and underwear, bare themselves, and show their
genitals and buttocks to the security and anyone else nearby. The
Defendants' security guards were rude, aggressive, and abusive, and
behaved in a way that would be unthinkable had attendees been
anything other than gay men. The abusive conduct did not stop at
the entrance. Even inside the venue, attendees were subject to the
continued abuse and mistreatment of security for instance when
using bathroom stalls. Lastly, after enduring all the abuse by
Defendants' staff, not to mention having paid over 200 dollars each
which was the price of entry, the Plaintiffs had hoped to be
treated to a magical experience consistent with prior performances
in past Alegria Pride events. But the Defendants failed to deliver
with respect to the sunrise closing ceremonies. Instead, the music
abruptly stopped and all the attendees were again, rudely herded
out into the streets at night, in an unceremonious and
disappointing end, asserts the suit.

The Plaintiffs and the proposed Class consists of all individuals
who attended Alegria Pride 2023. Upon information and belief, there
are about 7,500 individuals within the Class definition.

Alegria Productions is a production company which organizes and
operated the Alegria Pride 2023 event.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jacob Chen, Esq.
          DGW KRAMER LLP
          One Rockefeller Plaza, Ste. 1060
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (917) 633-6860
          Facsimile: (917) 633-6183
          E-mail: jchen@dgwllp.com

AMC NETWORKS: Discloses Personal Info to Meta, Buckley Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM BUCKLEY, individually and on behalf of all others
--similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMC NETWORKS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:23-cv-03630-JCS (N.D. Cal., July 21, 2023) arises from
the Defendant's violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act by
disclosing personally identifiable information -- including the
specific videos and video services Plaintiff and Class members'
requested and obtained -- to unrelated third parties without their
consent.

According to the complaint, AMC installed computer code on Shudder,
called the "Meta Tracking Pixel," which tracks and records
Plaintiff and Class members' private video consumption. Behind the
scenes of many key Shudder webpages -- and unbeknownst to video
viewers -- this code collects Plaintiff and Class members'
videoconsumption history and discloses it to Meta without their
consent. Meta, in turn, uses Plaintiff and Class members' video
consumption habits to build profiles on consumers and deliver
targeted advertisements to them, among other activities, the suit
alleges.

Mr. Buckley has visited the Shudder website on his Google Chrome
browser to watch videos, and at that time was logged into his
facebook.com account on that same Google Chrome browser during the
relevant time period.

AMC Networks, Inc, develops, owns, and operates Shudder.com, which
is used throughout California and the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
          Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  ndeckant@bursor.com
                  sbogdanovich@bursor.com

AMERICA'S TEST: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Adams Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
AMERICA'S TEST KITCHEN, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a
court order denying their motion to compel arbitration or, in the
alternative, dismiss the complaint in the lawsuit entitled Anca
Adams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. America's Test Kitchen, Inc., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 1:22-cv-11309-AK, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.

The lawsuit, which was removed from the Superior Court Division of
the Trial Court for Suffolk County, Commonwealth of Massachusetts
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, is
brought over the Defendants' alleged violation of the Video Privacy
Protection Act.

On Nov. 10, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration or, in the alternative, dismiss the complaint, which
the Court denied through an Order entered by Judge Angel Kelley on
June 30, 2023. The Court determined that there are still factual
issues to resolve in the case. Dismissal would be inappropriate at
this stage.

The appellate case is captioned Adams v. America's Test Kitchen,
Inc., et al., Case No. 23-1592, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on July 24, 2023. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee ANCA ADAMS, individually and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, is represented by:

            Joseph Henry Bates, III, Esq.
            Edwin Lee Lowther, III, Esq.
            Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
            Courtney Elizabeth Ross, Esq.
            CARNEY, BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
            519 W. 7th St.
            Little Rock, AR 72201
            Telephone: (501) 312-8500

                    - and -
            
            Elizabeth A. Ryan, Esq.
            BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
            176 Federal St., 5th Fl.
            Boston, MA 02110
            Telephone: (617) 439-6730

Defendants-Appellants AMERICA'S TEST KITCHEN, INC., et al. are
represented by:

            Frances Faircloth, Esq.
            Edward Robert McNicholas, Esq.
            ROPES & GRAY LLP
            2099 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Ste. 1200
            Washington, DC 20006
            Telephone: (202) 508-4788
                       (202) 508-4779

                    - and -
            
            Patrick T. Roath, Esq.
            ROPES & GRAY LLP
            800 Boylston St.
            Boston, MA 02199
            Telephone: (617) 235-4674

AMERITAS HOLDING: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Colston Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
AMBER COLSTON; WILLIS BRAMWELL; and ROSEANN BLESSING, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
AMERITAS HOLDING COMPANY; THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF AMERITAS
HOLDING COMPANY; THE AMERITAS 401(K) RETIREMENT PLAN COMMITTEE; and
JOHN DOES 1- 30, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-03137-CRZ (D. Neb.,
July 28, 2023) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that during the Class
Period, the Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plan, breached the
duties they owed to the Plan, to the Plaintiffs, and to the other
participants of the Plan by, inter alia, failing to objectively and
adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio with due care to
ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost
and performance.

The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of
participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the
fiduciary duty of prudence, Their actions were contrary to actions
of a reasonable fiduciary and cost the Plan and its participants
millions of dollars, the suit asserts.

AMERITAS HOLDING COMPANY operates as a holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, offers life insurance,
investments, retirement plans, and public financing services. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
          2933 North Front Street
          Harrisburg, PA 17110
          Telephone: (717) 233-4101
          Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
          Email: donr@capozziadler.com

               - and -

          Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
          312 Old Lancaster Road
          Merion Station, PA 19066
          Telephone: (610) 890-0200
          Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
          Email: markg@capozziadler.com

AMROCK LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Coppola Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
LENNY COPPOLA and CHERYL ACCARDI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMROCK, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-11639 (D. Mass., July 21, 2023) is a collective
and class action brought by representative Plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of the proposed Collective and Classes,
arising from the Defendant's alleged unlawful labor policies and
practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Massachusetts Labor Law, and the New Hampshire Minimum Wage Law.

Plaintiffs Coppola and Accardi were employed by Amrock as
Appraisers from August 26, 2013 to February 28, 2023 and from July
7, 2012 to August 9, 2020, respectively. They assert that they
consistently worked over 40 hours per week without receiving
premium overtime pay for all hours worked. They bring this suit to
remedy the Defendant's failure to pay all wages due and for
recordkeeping failures, in addition to injunctive relief.

Amrock, LLC, is a national provider of title insurance, property
valuations and settlement services in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Farva Jafri, Esq.
          JAFRI LAW FIRM
          50 Evergreen Row
          Armonk, NY 10504
          Telephone: (800) 593-7491
          E-mail: farva@jafrilawfirm.com

               - and -

          Rachel M. Haskell, Esq.
          Jessica Cahill, Esq.
          Brendan Sweeney, Esq.
          Christopher Q. Davis, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER Q. DAVIS, PLLC
          80 Broad Street, Suite 703
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (646) 430-7930
          Facsimile: (646) 349-2504
          E-mail: rhaskell@workingsolutionsnyc.com
                  jcahill@workingsolutionsnyc.com
                  bsweeney@workingsolutionsnyc.com
                  cdavis@workingsolutionsnyc.com

ANTRA INC: Jama Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations in E.D. Va.
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMA JAMA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ANTRA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-00997 (E.D. Va., July 27, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum
wages, failure to provide wage statement, failure to provide wage
notice, and unlawful wage deductions.

Plaintiff Jama was employed by the Defendant as a software
developer from approximately September 21, 2021 to July 22, 2022.

Antra, Inc., is a provider of IT consulting, services, and
products, with its principal office located at 21000 Atlantic
Blvd., Ste. 300, Sterling, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Zev Antell, Esq.
         Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
         BUTLERCURWOOD, PLC
         140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
         Richmond, VA 23219
         Telephone: (804) 648-4848
         E-mail: zev@butlercurwood.com
                 craig@butlercurwood.com

                 - and -
       
         Timothy Coffield, Esq.
         COFFIELD PLC
         106-F Melbourne Park Circle
         Charlottesville, VA 22901
         Telephone: (434) 218-3133
         Facsimile: (434) 321-1636
         E-mail: tc@coffieldlaw.com

                 - and -
       
         Matthew T. Sutter, Esq.
         SUTTER & TERPAK, PLLC
         7540 Little River Turnpike, Suite A
         Annandale, VA 22003
         Telephone: (703) 256-1800
         Facsimile: (703) 991-6116
         E-mail: matt@sutterandterpak.com

APELLIS PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Apellis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: APLS)
resulting from allegations that Apellis may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Apellis 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=17734 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 July 17, 2023, the American Society of
Retina Specialists issued a press release highlighting concerns
with Syfovre, Apellis Pharmaceuticals' new eye-disease drug. The
release indicated that physicians have reported cases of eye
inflammation in patients treated with the drug, including six
instances of occlusive retinal vasculitis, a potentially blinding
type of inflammation that blocks blood flow through the vessels
that feed the retina.

On this news, the price of Apellis' stock fell by $32.04 per share,
or 37.92%, to close at $52.46 on July 17, 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]

BECTON DICKINSON: Investors' Class Action Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------
Ben Miller, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Becton,
Dickinson & Co. investors, who sued the company for allegedly
misleading them about defects in its infusion pumps, can pursue
their case as a class action, the US District Court for the
District of New Jersey said.

The class includes any investor who bought or sold shares or
options of the medical device manufacturing company's stock from
November 5, 2019 to February 5, 2020, Judge Stanley R. Chesler said
in his Aug. 3 order.

The court allowed the class to include options traders, finding
that the plaintiffs had demonstrated that they were harmed by
showing the impact of price. [GN]

BOSTON MARKET: Tejeda Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Tejeda, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Boston Market Corporation d/b/a Boston Market, Boston
Chicken of AZ LLC d/b/a Boston Market, John Doe Corporations I-XX
d/b/a Boston Market, Krupa Patel and Jane Doe Patel, a married
couple, and Jignesh Pandya and Jane Doe Pandya, a married couple,,
Case No. 2:23-cv-01497-JJT (D. Ariz., July 27, 2023) sues the
Defendant for failing to pay minimum and overtime wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and Arizona Minimum Wage Act.

The Defendants are allegedly engaged in the regular practice of
paying paychecks otherwise owed to the Plaintiff, the Collective
Members, and the Class Members late or not at all.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all
similarly-situated current and former employees of the Defendants
who worked in any of Defendants' Boston Market restaurant locations
in Arizona who did not receive at least the minimum wage, did not
receive any paycheck at all, or received late payment of a paycheck
in a given workweek, from May 2023 through the present. The
Plaintiff and the Collective Members are entitled to compensation
for the full applicable minimum wage at an hourly rate, to be
proven at trial, plus liquidated damages, together with interest,
reasonable attorney's fees, and costs, says the suit.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants and worked many of
Defendants' Boston Market locations in Arizona at various times
between 1997 until June 30, 2023. He worked as an assistant manager
for the Defendants, earning an hourly rate of $20.

Boston Market is an American fast casual restaurant chain.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
          Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
          BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC
          Phoenix, AZ 85060
          Telephone: (480) 382-5176
          Facsimile: (480) 304-3805
          E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com
                  chris@bendaulaw.com

BYTEDANCE INC: Rodriguez Sues Over CapCut App Users' Privacy Issue
------------------------------------------------------------------
EVELIA RODRIGUEZ; ERIKKA WILSON; AND A.N., a minor, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
BYTEDANCE, INC.; BEIJING DOUYIN INFORMATION SERVICE CO. LTD. F/K/A
BEIJING BYTEDANCE TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD.; BYTEDANCE LTD.; BYTEDANCE
PTE. LTD.; BEIJING BYTEDANCE TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD.; and TIKTOK, INC.
F/K/A MUSICAL.LY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-04953 (N.D.
Ill., July 28, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the California
Comprehensive Data Access and Fraud Act, the California Unfair
Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, the
Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act, the Right of Privacy
under the California Constitution, and state consumer protection
statutes and for intrusion upon seclusion and restitution/unjust
enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to protect the privacy
of the data of users of their CapCut app and violate their privacy
rights. The CapCut app facilitates the collection of a wide range
of private information from users, including their biometric
information. The privacy concerns with respect to the CapCut app
are particularly significant. First, the CapCut app is ultimately
owned by a China-based company, which has a legal obligation to
share information with the Chinese government under binding Chinese
law and which, in fact, is in business with China state-owned
entities. Second, the app has been aggressively promoted by
Defendant TikTok, Inc. As a result, the app has rapidly grown in
popularity among both users and nonusers of the TikTok app alike,
and the Defendants have gained access to the private and personal
information of millions of users of the app, says the suit.

ByteDance, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of ByteDance Ltd.,
with its principal place of business in Palo Alto, California.

Beijing Douyin Information Service Co. Ltd., formerly known as
Beijing ByteDance Technology Co. Ltd., is a privately held company
headquartered in Beijing, China.

ByteDance Ltd. is a technology company, headquartered in Beijing,
China.

ByteDance Pte. Ltd. is a private limited company headquartered in
Singapore.

Beijing ByteDance Technology Co. Ltd. was a subsidiary of ByteDance
Ltd., headquartered in Beijing, China.

TikTok, Inc., formerly known as Musical.ly, Inc., is a social media
application company, with its principal place of business in Culver
City, California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Steve W. Berman, Esq.
         HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
         1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
         Seattle, WA 98101
         Telephone: (206) 623-7292
         Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
         E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

                 - and -
       
         Jeannie Evans, Esq.
         HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
         455 N. Cityfront Plaza Dr., Suite 2410
         Chicago, IL 60611
         Telephone: (708) 628-4962
         Facsimile: (708) 628-4952
         E-mail: jeannie@hbsslaw.com

                 - and -
       
         Douglas G. Smith, Esq.
         AURELIUS LAW GROUP LLC
         77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4500
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Telephone: (312) 451-6708
         E-mail: dsmith@aureliuslawgroup.com

CANADA: May Face Suit Over Health-Related Issues of Cannabis Use
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Stevens at businessofcannabis.com reports that the Canadian
Federal government's failure to facilitate research into the
potential health issues associated with cannabis consumption.

According to Toronto-based newspaper The Globe and Mail, the former
Canadian Health Minister has said the lack of research following
recreational cannabis legalisation in 2018 was a ‘big
disappointment'.

"The big disappointment coming out of the legalisation project is
that governments and researchers have not stepped up in the way
that we had hoped after legalisation to do a lot of that research,"
Anne McLellan, who was part of the task force responsible for
laying the groundwork for legalisation said.

READ MORE: First Month of Maryland Cannabis Sales Reach Over $80
million

She continued that she had hoped the government would incentivise
private sector parties to conduct research into the effects of
cannabis consumption which had been largely restricted during
prohibition.

With the last study into cannabis sales and consumption published
by Health Canada in 2013, Ms McLellan argued that the government
could 'potentially' face a class action lawsuit.

Despite this, she stipulated that any such lawsuit could yet be
years away, so ample time is available for the government to
rectify the situation. [GN]

CELI NAILS: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, Lopez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA SARMIENTO LOPEZ and NANCY YANZA, v. CELI NAILS AND SPA INC.,
LEXI NAILS AND SPA INC., and JIA CHEN, Case No. 1:23-cv-06528
(S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2023) is a class action seeking to recover
unpaid minimum and overtime wages, and spread-of-hours pay,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law,
and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act.

The Plaintiffs regularly worked up to 66 hours per workweek as nail
technicians at the Nail Salons. Throughout their employment, the
Defendants allegedly paid the Plaintiffs on day rates that failed
to compensate them for regular hours worked at the statutory
minimum wage rate and overtime pay for hours worked over forty per
workweek. The Defendants also allegedly failed to provide
Plaintiffs with wage notices at their time of hiring and when their
wage rates changed; and accurate wage statements with each payment
of wages, says the suit.

The Plaintiffs bring the claims on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated Nail Salon Workers employed by the Defendants in
the three years prior to the filing of this action.

The FLSA Collective consists of persons who, during their
employment with the Defendants, fell into the category of
non-managerial Nail Salon Workers.

Ms. Sarmiento was employed by the Defendants as a nail technician
at Lexi Nails from January 2020 through February 2021, and  at Celi
Nails from April 2021 through January 2023.

Ms. Yanza was employed by the Defendant as a nail technician at
Celi Nails from November 2021 through January 2023.

Celi Nails is a nail salon.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Louis Pechman, Esq.
          Gianfranco J. Cuadra, Esq.
          Camille A. Sanchez, Esq.
          PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
          488 Madion Avenue-17th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 583-9500
          E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
                  cuadra@pechmanlaw.com
                  sanchez@pechmanlaw.com

CHERISH PRODUCTIONS: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
insurancejournal.com reports that a delivery driver in
Massachusetts has filed a proposed class action against a grocery
delivery company and grocery chain for allegedly misclassifying
drivers as independent contractors and not paying minimum wage,
overtime wages or employee expenses.

The lawsuit comes as there is new reporting that technology
companies will renew their effort to get a gig worker
classification and benefits proposal on the ballot in the state.

Thayer Sears has brought the claim against Cherish Productions,
LLC, an Ohio-based firm doing business as Grocery Runners since
2015. The company employs delivery drivers in Massachusetts who are
dispatched through a mobile phone application to deliver on behalf
of retail stores to customers at their homes and businesses. The
suit also names Roche Bros., a local retail grocery chain that
utilizes the Grocery Runners platform.

Sears worked for Grocery Runners from December of 2022 to April of
2023.

The suit claims that under Massachusetts law, Grocery Runners must
treat its drivers as employees, including paying minimum wage,
overtime pay and certain expenses. However, the suit alleges,
Grocery Runner pays runners either a flat rate of $200 per day or a
set rate per delivery. The suit maintains that drivers often work
45 hours per week or more but do not receive any overtime pay for
hours worked over 40 per week.

Because Grocery Runners classifies them as independent contractors,
the drivers pay for certain job expenses "normally borne by
employers," including expenses for their vehicles, gas, phone, and
data plan, according to the complaint.

In light of the expenses that Grocery Runners drivers bear in order
to perform their jobs, drivers' hourly wages sometimes fall below
the Massachusetts minimum wage, the suit claims.

Grocery Runners issued weekly "invoices" that the suit claims do
not accurately record the time worked by delivery drivers and show
that the drivers did not receive full payment of customer tips.

Effective January 1, 2023, the minimum wage in Massachusetts is
$15.00 per hour, while the minimum hourly rate for workers who
provide services to customers and who make more than $20 a month in
tips is $6.75.

The suit alleges violations of Massachusetts and federal labor laws
and seeks certification of a class of drivers along with
restitution of the alleged unpaid wages and tips, and damages.

Grocery Runners has not yet replied to a request for comment or
answered the complaint, which was filed in federal district court
on July 21.

Ballot Question

Transportation and delivery network companies including Uber, Lyft,
DoorDash and Instacart were dealt a setback in the state last year
when the state's high court rejected their ballot proposals that
sought to both cement their app-based drivers' status as
independent contractors and shield themselves from liability for
lawsuits stemming from their workers' actions.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ordered the two proposals
removed from the November ballot on the grounds that they
overreached in addressing two separate policy issues when state law
requires subjects of a ballot referendum to be related. The court
said the proposals not only fail the related subject test but also
are presented in a way that could be confusing for voters.

The courier and rideshare companies' proposal had promised they
would provide a minimum level of compensation and benefits to
app-based drivers without their employees being classified as
employees, which would entitle them to a fuller menu of benefits
and protections.

The battle is not over. Bloomberg reported that the Massachusetts
Coalition for Independent Work, backed by tech giants, has
announced it will try again to get a measure on gig worker
classification on the 2024 ballot.[GN]

CHERISH PRODUCTIONS: Sears Seeks Unpaid Wages, Reimbursements
-------------------------------------------------------------
THAYER D. SEARS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHERISH PRODUCTIONS, LLC d/b/a GROCERY
RUNNERS and ROCHE BROS. INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-11629-PGL (D. Mass., July 21, 2023) arises from the
Defendants' violations of the Massachusetts General Law and the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay minimum wage and
overtime premium to Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals,
and failing to reimburse them for all work-related expenses.

According to the complaint, the Defendants misclassified all
delivery drivers as independent contractors when they are actually
employees for the purposes of the Massachusetts wage laws.

Plaintiff Thayer Sears is an adult resident of Natick,
Massachusetts. He worked as a delivery driver for Defendants from
approximately December 2022 to March or April of 2023.

Cherish Productions, LLC, d/b/a Grocery Runners, is a merchandise
delivery company that employs delivery drivers who are dispatched
through a mobile phone application to deliver products from Roche
Brothers and other retail stores to customers at their homes and
businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raymond Dinsmore, Esq.
          HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC
          One Monarch Place, Suite 1340
          Springfield, MA 01144
          Telephone: (413) 785-1400
          E-mail: rdinsmore@hayberlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
          Matthew W. Thomson, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
                  mthomson@llrlaw.com

COUNTRY CLUB AT OTTERKILL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, McCree Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL P. McCREE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE COUNTRY CLUB AT OTTERKILL,
LLC; JOSEPH BETRO; ERIN PASCUAL; and JOHN DOES, Defendants, Case
No. 7:23-cv-06508 (S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2023) seeks to recover from
the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff McCree was employed by the Defendants as an executive
chef.

The Country Club at Otterkill is a Private Golf Club located in
Campbell Hall, NY also known as the Hudson Valley region of upstate
NY. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Echevarria, Esq.
          ECHEVARRIA LAW, PLLC
          P.O. Box 1053
          Warwick, NY 10990
          Telephone: (845) 544-7644
          Email: Jennifer@EchevarriaLawPLLC.com

CYPRESS BAYSHORE: Tenants Sue Over Cancer-Causing Chemicals
-----------------------------------------------------------
Caroline Reinwald at wisn.com reports that residents in a Glendale
apartment complex have filed a class action lawsuit against the
complex owners after elevated levels of a toxic, cancer-causing
chemical were discovered inside.

In July, the North Shore Health Department issued an emergency
evacuation order for six units in Building 3 of the Lydell
apartment complex after unsafe levels of trichloroethylene were
discovered inside.

According to the lawsuit filed, Lydell's owners, Cypress Bayshore
Residential, LP., "knew Building 3 presented a higher risk for TCE
exposure than other areas of the Lydell development."

The lawsuit alleges Cypress knew about the risks because of testing
done in 2021 on the historic landfill site, before construction on
the luxury apartments started.

"You have the (Department of Natural Resources) recommending that
before buildings are occupied, that testing is completed. You also
have an email indicating that occupancy was going to be done before
testing was going to be performed for economic reasons," said
Michael Cerjak, a founder and attorney for Barton Cerjak S.C.
Documents obtained by WISN 12 News show the owners hired an outside
firm to test for TCE. However, they did not get to Building 3 until
June, after people moved in.

Selamani Ngaruko is one of the tenants listed in the lawsuit. He
said he lived in Building 3 at the newly-constructed luxury
apartments for two months, before the complex informed him in June
about the TCE levels.

"I think being exposed to something like that and not have been
informed upfront when I moved in, should have been something, that
I feel, should have been told to me," Ngaruko said. "I feel now my
health is in jeopardy down the road."

Kate Vlahoulis is another tenant listed in the lawsuit. She sent
WISN 12 News a written statement.

"In my view, the health and safety of my family, and the health and
safety of all the residents of our building at The Lydell, has been
needlessly and recklessly endangered. I'm deeply concerned about my
family's exposure to a toxin and the potential for long-term health
effects. This should never have happened in the first place," the
statement said. "For nearly three months, my family and I lived
there, used the elevators and stairwells, and breathed in harmful
vapors, while management downplayed the situation and told us not
to worry. Ultimately, we made the decision to leave as soon as we
could in order to protect our family. I believe The Lydell's owner
Cypress needs to be held accountable for its actions. I also
believe that we need to change the law so that a situation like
this never happens to anyone ever again."

The lawsuit also accuses Cypress of downplaying tenants' TCE
exposure risk.

In one email, dated June 14, a spokesperson for Cypress asked an
environmental firm testing for TCE to re-write a proposed letter to
tenants that does not "make it sound like the [tenants] have had a
month-long exposure to the plague."

The lawsuit goes on to accuse Cypress of misleading tenants, by
saying the levels of TCE discovered in Building 3 were"'not a big
deal' and that government officials were 'blowing the situation out
of proportion.'"

For residents like Ngaruko who do not live in the evacuated units,
but still reside in Building 3, Lydell's owners offered to move
residents to other apartments within the Lydell complex, or give
them $500 to move elsewhere.

"If you take the agreement and you take the $500, you are going to
give up your claim to make any claim now or in the future, if you
develop any adverse health care consequences," Cerjak said. "I
think that's a scary proposition in a situation like this."

"I wouldn't feel safe relocating (to another Lydell apartment),
knowing what I know now," Ngaruko said.

In response to WISN 12 news, Cypress Bayshore Residential said it
is reviewing the allegations in the lawsuit and is not ready to
respond at this time.

Glendale's mayor, Bryan Kennedy, said the city issued a temporary
occupancy permit for the Lydell Apartments, which sit on an old
landfill site, but air quality is not part of city building
inspections and oversight.

"The city oversees the structure. We come in and we check the
plumbing and the electrical and make sure that the balconies are
all safe. The fire department goes in and they check to make sure
that the fire systems are working, the sprinklers are working. We
sign off on all of that," said Bryan Kennedy, Glendale's mayor.
"The DNR would sign off on whether or not they were meeting the
requirements for mitigating whatever contamination might have been
below the surface."

The DNR told WISN 12 News it does not have the authority to grant
or take away occupancy.

"Would it be accurate for us to say there is a gap that isn't being
covered in this process," WISN 12 News investigative reporter
Caroline Reinwald asked.

"Yeah, absolutely. We're going to put in place, for our permitting,
before we do a final signoff, we're going to look at, 'Has the DNR
signed off?' Because we can say the building is structurally sound,
but it's up to that contractor to make sure they've done the air
quality testing or, in some cases, water quality testing, whether
they've done their storm-water management system, and those are all
signed off by the state. Those should be complete before a project
is actually deemed complete," Kennedy said. "So we're going to have
to work more closely with the state to make sure that something
like this doesn't happen."[GN]

DISCOVERY HOUSE: Fails to Provide Timely Meal Breaks, Jenkins Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM JENKINS, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. THE DISCOVERY HOUSE LLC, a California limited
liability company, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV17920
(Cal. Super., July 31, 2023) sues the Defendant for failing to
provide timely meal breaks, and failing to reimburse for required
business expenses, in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendant allegedly failed to maintain a policy and practice
that always provides its employees with timely, uninterrupted
30-minute meal breaks. The Defendant also allegedly required the
Plaintiff and Class Members to use their personal phones throughout
their work shifts to communicate with other employees regarding
work without providing any reimbursement.

The Plaintiff also sues the Defendant for failing to pay all wages
and penalty wages due on separation; failing to produce payroll
records and personnel file; and for unlawful and unfair business
practices.

The class claims in this action are brought pursuant to Code of
Civil Procedure seeking recovery for unpaid missed meal period
penalty pay, unreimbursed business expenses, statutory and waiting
time penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief, interest,
and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and proposed Class Members also
seeks injunctive relief and restitution of all benefits the
Defendant has received from their unlawful actions. The Plaintiff
worked as an hourly, non-exempt employee of the Defendant until
August 2020.

Discovery House is an addiction treatment center in Southern
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
          KOUL LAW FIRM
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 761-5484
          Facsimile: (818) 561-3938
          E-mail: nazo@koullaw.com

DNF ASSOCIATES: Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss FDCPA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Gibb, writing for Accounts Recovery, reports that a District
Court judge in Maryland has granted a defendant's motion to dismiss
a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act class action after the
defendants were accused of attempting to collect on unpaid debts
without having the proper licenses to do so in the state. For
anyone who has seen complaints against debt buyers, not having the
proper license is a very frequent claim made by plaintiffs.

A copy of the ruling in the case of Bittinger v. DNF Associates can
be accessed by clicking here.

The plaintiffs defaulted on credit card debts that were purchased
by the defendants. The defendants hired a collection law firm to
file lawsuits against the plaintiffs to recover the unpaid debts.
The lawsuits caused the plaintiffs to suffer damages including
mental anguish, emotional distress, difficulty sleeping, elevated
stress levels, and extreme nervousness.

The plaintiffs filed suit, alleging the defendants are not licensed
under Maryland's Consumer Loan Law and Maryland's Sales Finance
Company Licensing Law, and thus were not authorized to engage in
any activity associated with attempting to collect on debts from
individuals within the state of Maryland.

In seeking to have the suit dismissed, the defendants argued they
are not required to have either license.

The Consumer Loan Law applies to anyone "in the business of making
loans" which is not what the defendants did. The defendants
purchased defaulted loans, they did not make new loans to the
plaintiffs, noted Judge Theodore F. Chuang of the District Court
for the District of Maryland.

The Sales Finance Company Licensing Law, meanwhile, applied to
retail credit transactions, among others, and the plaintiffs
contend the defendants are engaged int he business of acquiring or
investing in retail credit account transactions. But, after a
lengthy review of the legislative history of the law and other
cases invoking similar claims, Judge Chuang noted that the Maryland
Collection Agency Licensing Act checklist includes debt buying
activities whereas the Sales Finance Company checklist does not.
"Considering the historical understanding of sales finance
companies, the General Assembly's separate licensing regime for
debt buyers in the MCALA. and the Commissioner's reinforcement of
that separate arrangement, the Court concludes that the legislature
did not intend for companies such as the Unlicensed Debt Buyer
Clients to be subject to the SFCLL's licensing requirement," Judge
Chuang wrote. [GN]

DOMINO'S PIZZA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arriola Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS ARRIOLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. DOMINO'S PIZZA, LLC; and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:23-cv-01358 (C.D. Cal., July 28,
2023) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay
minimum wages, provide accurate wage statements, and to pay wages
due upon termination of employment.

Plaintiff Arriola was employed by the Defendants as a truck
driver.

DOMINO'S PIZZA, LLC owns and operates fast food restaurants. The
Company delivers pizza and other fast food items. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aashish Y. Desai, Esq.
          Adrianne De Castro, Esq.
          DESAI LAW FIRM, P.C.
          3200 Bristol St., Suite 650
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (949) 614-5830
          Facsimile: (949) 271-4190
          Email: aashish@desai-law.com
                 adrianne@desai-law.com

EOS ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Business Statements
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP reminds investors that a shareholder filed a class
action against Eos Energy Enterprises, Inc. (NASDAQ: EOSE) on
behalf of persons and entities that purchased or acquired EOS
securities between May 9, 2022 and July 27, 2023. Eos claims it
designs, develops, manufactures, and markets zinc-based energy
storage solutions for utility-scale, microgrid, and commercial &
industrial ("C&I") applications.

For more information, submit a form, email Aaron Dumas, Jr., or
give us a call at (800) 350-6003.

What is this Case About: Eos Energy Enterprises, Inc. (EOSE) Made
Misleading Statements Regarding its Financial Prospects

According to the complaint, Eos was originally incorporated in
Delaware in June 2019 as a special purpose acquisition company
named B. Riley Principal Merger Corp. II ("B. Riley"). Upon the
completion of the business combination of B. Riley and Eos Energy
Storage, LLC on November 16, 2020, the Company changed its name to
Eos Energy Enterprises, Inc.

On July 27, 2023, during market hours, Iceberg Research ("Iceberg")
published a report titled "62% Of $Eose's Backlog Is With
Financially Distressed Bridgelink Whose Renewable Energy Assets
Were Foreclosed And Auctioned Off In May." Therein, Iceberg alleged
that, while the fate of Eos "rests on its touted 2.2 GWh energy
storage system backlog, which EOS valued at $535 million at the end
of March 2023," the backlog "is fake." On this news, the Company's
stock price fell $0.83 per share, or 23.9%, to close at $2.65 per
share on July 27, 2023. That same day, after the market closed, Eos
attempted to address the statements made by Iceberg. On this news,
the Company's stock price fell $0.39 per share, or 14.7%, to close
at $2.26 per share on July 28, 2023.

The complaint alleges that during the class period defendants
failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Bridgelink Commodities,
LLC is connected to a group whose assets were seized by a creditor
and sold in an auction; (2) as such, Bridgelink's commitment and
ability to purchase Eos products was not as secure as Eos had led
investors to believe; (3) consequently, Eos's backlog was
overstated; and (4) such overstatement negatively impacts Eos's
ability to secure a loan from the Department of Energy.

What Now: Similarly situated shareholders may be eligible to
participate in the class action against Eos Energy Enterprises,
Inc. Shareholders who want to act as lead plaintiff for the class
should contact the firm. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be
eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can
remain an absent class member. For more information, click here.

All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.

About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this
matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins
LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the
attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping
shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance
structures, and hold company executives accountable for their
wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over
$1 billion for shareholders.

To be notified if a class action against Eos Energy Enterprises,
Inc. settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives
engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today.

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

Contact:
Aaron Dumas, Jr.
Robbins LLP
5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]

ESSILORLUXOTTICA SA: Monopolizes Eyewear Market, Fathmath Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ISHA FATHMATH, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ESSILORLUXOTTICA S.A., et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-03626 (N.D. Cal., July 21, 2023) arises from the
Defendants' anticompetitive and unfair business practices in
violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Cartwright Act, and the
California Unfair Competition Law.

This class action for damages and equitable relief arises from
EssilorLuxottica and other Defendants' unlawful conduct in the
non-contact-lens consumer eyewear market. The Defendants have
entered into unlawful agreements to fix the price of consumer
eyewear at supra-competitive rates. Spefically, EssilorLuxottica
serves as the instigator and primary enforcer of a national
price-fixing scheme in the consumer eyewear market with Defendants
Frames for America, Inc., For Eyes Optical Company, Inc., Costa Del
Mar, Inc., Oakley, Inc, the Fashion Houses, the Competing Eyewear
Entities, and other entities. EssilorLuxottica has formed exclusive
licensing agreements and sales agreements with its horizontal
competitors in the consumer eyewear market to manipulate and
artificially inflate the price of eyewear by as much as 1000
percent for Defendants' collective financial benefit. To further
this price-fixing scheme, EssilorLuxottica, through its vision
benefits subsidiary EyeMed, has also formed anticompetitive
agreements with thousands of American eyecare providers to unfairly
channel millions of consumers into purchasing the conglomerate's
over-priced eyewear, alleges the suit.

The Plaintiff and millions of other consumers have suffered losses
as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' alleged unlawful
conduct and are entitled to relief including but not limited to
actual damages, treble damages, equitable relief, and reasonable
costs and attorneys' fees.

EssilorLuxottica S.A. sells and distributes consumer eyewear brands
in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Merriman, Esq.
          HILGERS GRABEN PLLC
          655 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 369-6232
          E-mail: mmerriman@hilgersgraben.com

               - and -

          Alec Schultz, Esq.
          HILGERS GRABEN PLLC  
          1221 Brickell Avenue, Suite 900
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 630-8304
          E-mail: aschultz@hilgersgraben.com

               - and -

          Hadyn Pettersen, Esq.
          HILGERS GRABEN PLLC
          1320 Lincoln Mall, Suite 200
          Lincoln, NE 68508
          Telephone: (402) 356-5574
          E-mail: hpettersen@hilgersgraben.com

FEDERAL ENVELOPE: Illegally Collects Fingerprints, Pearl Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
LARRY PEARL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FEDERAL ENVELOPE COMPANY, Defendant, Case
No. 2023LA000796 (Ill. Cir. Ct., DuPage Cty., July 28, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendant for violation of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA).

According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the BIPA by
collecting and storing its employees' fingerprints without (1)
notifying employees the practice is taking place; (2) informing
employees of how the practice is implemented; (3) obtaining written
consent from the employees to collect and store their biometric
data; (4) maintaining their employees' biometric data in a
sufficiently secure manner; and (5) maintaining a publicly
available disclosure of how the biometric data will be handled and
destroyed. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on
behalf of class members to obtain statutory damages and injunctive
relief.

Federal Envelope Company is a paper and forest products company
headquartered in Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
         William H. Beaumont, Esq.
         BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
         107 W. Van Buren, Suite 209
         Chicago, IL 60605
         Telephone: (773) 831-8000
         E-mail: rlc@beaumontcostales.com
                 whb@beaumontcostales.com

FLORIDA HEALTH: Dipierro Sues Over Unprotected Health Info
----------------------------------------------------------
ANGELICA DIPIERRO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FLORIDA HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER, INC. d/b/a
TAMPA GENERAL HOSPITAL, a Florida corporation, Defendant, Case No.
177989818 (Fla. Cir., 13th Judicial, Hillsborough Cty., July 21,
2023) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence,
negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and violation of the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, seeking an award
of monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief,
resulting from Defendant's failure to adequately protect the
Plaintiff's personally identifiable information and protected
health information.

According to the complaint, on May 31, 2023, the Defendant detected
unusual activity in its computer systems and ultimately determined
that an unauthorized third party accessed its network and obtained
certain files from its systems between May 12 and May 30, 2023. As
a result of the data breach, which Defendant failed to prevent, the
private information of Defendant's patients, including Plaintiff
and the proposed Class members, were stolen, including their names,
addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, Social Security numbers,
health insurance information, medical record numbers, patient
account numbers, dates of service and/or limited treatment
information used by Defendant for its business operations, the suit
asserts.

The Defendant's failure to protect patients' private information
has harmed and will continue to harm over one million of
Defendants' patients, causing Plaintiff to seek relief on a class
wide basis, claims the suit.

Florida Health Sciences Center, Inc. is a Tampa,
Florida-headquartered private not-for-profit hospital.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

FRANKLIN MINT: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Harris Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FRANKLIN MINT FEDERAL CREDIT UNION (FMFCU), Case No.
2:23-cv-02933-JMY (E.D. Pa., July 31, 2023) alleges that due to
FMFCU's impermissibly inadequate data security, the personal
identifying information of the Plaintiff and 140,963 similarly
situated persons were exfiltrated by unauthorized access by
cybercriminals on June 28, 2023.

The Plaintiff contends that the cybercriminals who perpetrated the
Breach are part of the Clop crime group. The exfiltrated data
included individuals' names and Social Security numbers. As
evidenced by the Data Breach, FMFCU inadequately maintained its
network, platform, software, and technology partners -- rendering
these easy prey for cybercriminals. Then, after the Data Breach,
FMFCU failed to provide timely notice to the affected the Plaintiff
and Class Members -- thereby exacerbating their injuries. FMFCU
deprived Plaintiff and Class Members of the chance to take speedy
measures to protect themselves and mitigate harm, the Plaintiff
claims.

Even when FMFCU finally notified Plaintiff and Class Members of
their PII's exfiltration, FMFCU failed to adequately describe the
Data Breach and its effects, the Plaintiff adds.

The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered -- and will continue
to suffer -- from the loss of the benefit of their bargain,
unexpected out-of-pocket expenses, lost or diminished value of
their PII, emotional distress, and the value of their time
reasonably incurred to mitigate the fallout of the Data Breach.

The Plaintiff seeks remedies including compensatory damages, treble
damages, punitive damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs,
and injunctive relief -- including improvements to FMFCU's data
security systems, future annual audits, and adequate credit
monitoring services funded by FMFCU.

Mr. Harris is a natural person and resident and citizen of
Pennsylvania. He has no intention of moving to a different state in
the immediate future.

FMFCU has provided financial products and services to its members
in the greater Philadelphia region and beyond since 1970.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          K. Clancy Boylan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN PHILADELPHIA, PLLC
          2005 Market Street, Suite 350
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 446-9795
          Facsimile: (215) 446-9799
          E-mail: cboylan@forthepeople.com

                - and -

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Marcio W. Valladares, Esq.
          Ra O. Amen, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 North Franklin Street 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
          E-mail: JYanchunis@forthepeople.com
                  MValladares@forthepeople.com
                  Ramen@forthepeople.com

FRESENIUS MEDICAL: Underpays Registered Nurses, Schuman Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT SCHUMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE HOLDINGS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-05731 (E.D.N.Y., July 28, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the New York Labor Law.

Mr. Schuman was employed by Fresenius as a registered nurse (RN) at
Fresenius' dialysis clinic in Centereach, New York from
approximately October 2019 until October 2022.

Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. is an owner and operator of
dialysis clinics, with its headquarters in Waltham, Massachusetts.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
         Dana Cimera, Esq.
         FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER LLP
         28 Liberty St., 30th Floor
         New York, NY 10005
         Telephone: (212) 300-0375

                 - and -
       
         Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
         Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
         JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
         11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
         Houston, TX 77046
         Telephone: (713) 352-1100
         Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
         E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                 adunlap@mybackwages.com

                 - and -
       
         Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
         BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
         11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
         Houston, TX 77046
         Telephone: (713) 877-8788
         E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

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

FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Frontier Communications Parent, Inc. (NASDAQ: FYBR)
resulting from allegations that Frontier Communications may have
issued materially misleading business information to the investing
public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Frontier Communications 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=17738 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 July 14, 2023, The Wall Street Journal
issued an article entitled "I Was Really Sick, And I Didn't Know
From What", which discussed illnesses affecting telecoms workers
who have been exposed to toxic lead.

On this news, Frontier Communications stock declined by $1.93 per
share, or 11.9%, to close at $14.31 on July 14, 2023.

On July 17, 2023, The Wall Street Journal released an article
entitled "Environmental Groups Ask Epa To Shield Public From
Abandoned Lead Cables", which discussed how environmental groups
were requesting that the EPA respond to the reports that telecom
companies such as Frontier Communications were leaving toxic lead
cables around the country.

On this news, Frontier Communications stock fell a further $2.26,
or 15%, to close at $12.05 on July 17, 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.[GN]

HAYWARD HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 2
----------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of
common stock of Hayward Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: HAYW) between March
2, 2022 and July 27, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than October 2, 2023.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Hayward securities during the Class
Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Hayward class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=17699 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. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 2, 2023. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

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. 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.

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Hayward Holdings and its
management had engaged in a channel-stuffing scheme designed to
artificially boost Hayward Holdings' short-term sales and earnings;
(2) Hayward Holdings had flooded its channel partners with
inventory that they did not want or need at a level that far
outpaced then-existing consumer demand; (3) Hayward Holdings'
channel partners were suffering from an inventory glut as a result
of the channel-stuffing scheme that would require a massive
de-stocking in the second half of 2022; (4) Hayward Holdings'
channel-stuffing scheme had cannibalized future sales, materially
impairing Hayward Holdings' ability to sell to its customers; (5)
the demand for pool equipment had slowed down, which, combined with
flooding channel partners with more inventory, led to an inventory
glut and the need for these channel partners to reduce inventory
levels; and (6) as a result of the above, Hayward Holdings'
projected 2022 financial results were not achievable and lacked a
reasonable basis in fact. When the true details entered the market,
the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the Hayward class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=17699 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.

No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

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

HENRY FORD: Tabbs Sues Over Failure to Protect Patients' Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRIANA TABBS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Henry Ford Health System, Defendant, Case
No. 2:23-cv-11758-GCS-CI (D. Mich., July 21, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se,
breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary
duty, breach of confidence, declaratory relief, and violation of
Michigan's Data Breach Prompt Notification Law.

This class action arises from the recent targeted cyberattack and
data breach on Henry Ford's network that resulted in unauthorized
access to highly sensitive patient health information and personal
data. The Plaintiff brings this class action against Henry Ford for
its failure to secure and safeguard her and approximately 168,000
other patients' personally identifiable information(PII) and
personal health information(PHI). Henry Ford concedes that the PHI
and PII potentially accessed in the data breach includes: "name,
gender, date of birth, age, lab results, procedure type, diagnosis,
date of service, telephone number, medical record number and/or
internal tracking number," says the suit.

As a result, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered ascertainable
losses in the form of the loss of the benefit of their bargain,
out-of-pocket expenses, and the value of their time reasonably
incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack, emotional
distress, and the imminent risk of future harm caused by the
compromise of their sensitive personal information, the suit
claims.

Henry Ford Health System is an integrated, not-for-profit health
care organization in Metro Detroit, Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Melvin Hollowell, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM
          950 W. University Drive, Ste 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          E-mail: ssa@millerlawpc.com
                  epm@millerlawpc.com
                  mbh@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
          Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq.
          SHUB & JOHNS LLC
          Four Tower Bridge
          200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (610) 477-8380
          E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com
                  bjohns@shublawyers.com
                  sholbrook@shublawyers.com

HERITAGE VALLEY: Bowen Sues Over Patients' Unprotected Health Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
TIFFANIE BOWEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HERITAGE VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-01320-CB (W.D. Pa., July 21, 2023) is a
class action brought against the Defendant on behalf of the
Plaintiff and similarly situated patients affected on the HVHS's
unauthorized disclosure of their sensitive protected health
information to Meta Platforms, Inc. in violation of the
Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act

According to the complaint, between approximately July 2018 and May
2023, HVHS procured and embedded an invisible 1x1 tracking pixel on
its website and subpages, which then deployed on each website
visitor's Internet browser for the purposes of intercepting and
disclosing website visitor's electronic communications with HVHS's
website to Meta. When HVHS intentionally embedded the Meta Pixel on
its website, and without its patients' knowledge or consent, HVHS
shared with Meta every patient's interaction with its website. Meta
then aggregated this data across all websites in order to build a
dossier of that patient's activity, labeled with the patient's IP
address, and matched to the patient's Facebook and/or Instagram
account, says the suit.

As described throughout the complaint, HVHS did not reasonably
protect, secure, or store Plaintiff and Class Members' PHI, but
rather intentionally and knowingly granted Meta access to
confidential information that it knew or should have known was
unlawful, the suit asserts.

Heritage Valley Health System, Inc. provides healthcare, emergency
care, paediatrics and surgical services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
          Patrick D. Donathen, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Ave., 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
                  nickc@lcllp.com
                  patrick@lcllp.com

HOAG MEMORIAL: Appeals Remand Order in Davis Suit to 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN is taking an appeal from a
court order granting the Plaintiff's motion to remand in the
lawsuit entitled Kelly Davis, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hoag Memorial Hospital
Presbyterian, Defendant, Case No. 8:23-cv-00772-CJC-ADS, in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
alleges that Hoag conspires with Facebook to intercept
communications containing personally identifiable information,
protected health information, and related confidential information.
Hoag removed the case to the District Court under the federal
officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1). When it
removed the case, Hoag noted that it is related to another case
before the District Court, Doe v. Hoag Memorial Hospital
Presbyterian, Case No. SACV 23-04444-CJC (ADSx) ("Doe"), in which
Hoag made the same arguments regarding applicability of the federal
officer removal statute under similar circumstances. The day before
Hoag removed this case, the Court granted a motion to remand in
Doe, explaining that the federal officer removal statute did not
apply.

On May 19, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to
Orange County Superior Court, which the Court granted through an
Order entered by Judge Cormac J. Carney. on June 23, 2023.

Judge Carney helds that Hoag has not shown that it acted under the
direction of a federal officer or agency. Further, mere compliance
with federal regulations, even if the regulation is highly detailed
and even if the private firm's activities are highly supervised and
monitored, does not fall within the scope of Section 1442(a). Thus,
while the Meaningful Use program may subject private entities like
Hoag to some degree of government control, simply complying with a
law or regulation is not enough to bring a private person within
the scope of the statute.

In short, Hoag has established only that it is subject to "highly
detailed" regulations and that its activities are highly supervised
and monitored. That is not sufficient to invoke federal officer
removal. Therefore, the Plaintiff's motion to remand was granted.
The action was remanded to the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Orange.

The appellate case is captioned Kelly Davis v. Hoag Memorial
Hospital Presbyterian, Case No. 23-55649, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 24, 2023.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Mediation
Questionnaire was due on July 31, 2023;

   -- Appellant Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian opening brief
is due on September 19, 2023;

   -- Appellee Kelly Davis answering brief is due on October 19,
2023; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellee KELLY DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

            Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq.
            BURSOR & FISHER, PA
            1990 N. California Boulevard, Suite 940
            Walnut Creek, CA 94596

Defendant-Appellant HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN is
represented by:

            Dyanne J. Cho, Esq.
            Teresa Carey Chow, Esq.
            BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
            11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
            Los Angeles, CA 90025
            Telephone: (310) 979-8418
                       (310) 820-8800

                  - and -

            Alexander Vitruk, Esq.
            BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
            999 3rd Avenue, Suite 3900
            Seattle, WA 98104
            Telephone: (206) 566-7092

HOTEL PIERRE: Fails to Properly Pay Hotel Staff, Serrano Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
YELIAN SERRANO SUAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOTEL PIERRE, LLC t/a NOTEBOOK
HOTEL, SECRET GARDEN MIAMI BEACH HOTEL, and BEROURIA ABERGEL,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-22827 (S.D. Fla., July 28, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff and Class members were employed by the Defendants to
perform maintenance work at their hotels.

Hotel Pierre, LLC is the owner and operator of Notebook Hotel
located at 216 43rd Street, Miami Beach, Florida.

Secret Garden Miami Beach Hotel is a hotel owner and operator,
located at 4210 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Jonathan S. Minick, Esq.
         JONATHAN S. MINICK, P.A.
         169 E. Flagler St., Suite 1600
         Miami, FL 33131
         Telephone: (786) 441-8909
         Facsimile: (786) 523-0610
         E-mail: E-mail: jminick@jsmlawpa.com

HUB CYBER: Faces Green Suit Over Alleged Drop in Share Price
------------------------------------------------------------
DUSTIN GREEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HUB CYBER SECURITY LTD. f/k/a HUB CYBER
SECURITY (ISRAEL) LTD.; EYAL MOSHE; HUGO GOLDMAN; UZI MOSCOVICH;
ZEEV ZELL; MOSHE RAINES; MANISH AGARWAL; and MOTI FRANKO,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-06668 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2023) is a
federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and a
class consisting of all: (a) Legacy HUB stockholders who acquired
the Company's common stock through Legacy HUB's merger (the
"Merger") with Mount Rainier Acquisition Corp. ("Mount Rainier");
(b) Mount Rainier investors who acquired the Company's securities
pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents (as defined
below) issued in connection with the Merger; and/or (c) persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Mount Rainier or
U.S.-listed HUB securities between March 23, 2022 and June 13,
2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act") and
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act").

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the reports submitted
by the Defendants to the Securities and Exchange Commission were
negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements
of material fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make
the statements made not misleading and were not prepared in
accordance with the rules and regulations governing their
preparation.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations,
and compliance policies. As of the time this Complaint was filed,
HUB's stock was trading significantly below its Initial Closing
Price and continues to trade below its initial value from the
Merger, damaging investors, says the suit.

As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions,
and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

HUB CYBER SECURITY LTD. f/k/a HUB CYBER SECURITY (ISRAEL) LTD.
offers a broad portfolio of cybersecurity services and solutions
worldwide, including managed services, compliance, and confidential
computing. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
         Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
         James M. LoPiano, Esq.
         POMERANTZ LLP
         600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 661-1100
         Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
         Email: ahood@pomlaw.com
                jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                jlopiano@pomlaw.com

HUMANA INC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Murphy Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS HERRERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HUMANA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
HUD-L-002669-23 07/28/2023 (N.J. Sup., Hudson Cty., July 28, 2023)
alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's
website, https://www.humana.com/, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the
Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

Humana Inc. operates as a managed health care company. The Company
offers coordinated health care through health maintenance
organizations, point-of-service plans, and administrative services
products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Zemel, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW LLC
          660 Broadway
          Paterson, NJ 07514
          Telephone: (862) 227-3106
          Email: dz@zemellawllc.com

ILLINOIS: Faces NIFLA Class Suit Over Life-Affirming Organizations
------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FAMILY AND LIFE ADVOCATES; WOMEN'S HELP
SERVICES D/B/A 1ST WAY LIFE CENTER & FOCUS WOMEN'S CENTER; ROCKFORD
FAMILY INITIATIVE; RELEVANT PREGNANCY OPTIONS CENTER; and PRO-LIFE
ACTION LEAGUE, on behalf of themselves and their clients v. KWAME
RAOUL, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of
Illinois, Case No. 3:23-cv-50279 (N.D. Ill., July 27, 2023) seeks
to protect the right of life-affirming pregnancy help ministries to
continue their meaningful and important work of providing
compassionate and competent advice, care, and support to the
thousands of women facing difficult or untimely pregnancies across
the State of Illinois each year.

The State of Illinois enacted Senate Bill 1909 (SB1909), which
amended the Deceptive Business Practices Act with new provisions
targeting life-affirming organizations' alleged "unfair methods of
competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices."

SB1909 subjects the Plaintiffs to investigations, subpoenas, fines,
injunctions, and even dissolution because of the pro-life content
and viewpoint of their speech and because they are life-affirming
organizations. SB1909 further subjects them to civil liability.
Despite the obvious benefit that life-affirming organizations like
the Plaintiffs provide to their community, SB1909 threatens to
silence all religious and pro-life speech on the issues of
pregnancy, motherhood, and abortion with which the State disagrees.
If not for SB1909, the Plaintiffs and their agents, including their
staff and volunteers, would freely engage in protected speech,
without hesitancy or fear of government punishment. Instead, the
Plaintiffs are unable to freely publish or display their desired
outreach materials without fear of government penalty, the
Plaintiffs claim.

The Plaintiffs are currently suffering ongoing harm because of
SB1909. Specifically, SB1909 infringes on the Plaintiffs' rights
under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment by chilling,
deterring, and restricting the Plaintiffs' protected speech. To
prevent imminent and irreparable harm to these essential
constitutional rights, the Plaintiffs ask for this Court's
immediate intervention to declare SB1909 unconstitutional and
enjoin its enforcement.

Plaintiff National Institute of Family and Life Advocates is a
non-profit membership organization comprised of a network of both
medical and non-medical centers providing pro-life information
services to women in unplanned pregnancies.

Women's Help Services is a Christian organization that empowers
women by providing them with information and education for prenatal
development, child birthing, parenting, and child development.

Defendant Kwame Raoul is the Attorney General of Illinois. He is
authorized to enforce SB1909, which his office drafted, at his
personal direction.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter Breen, Esq.
          Michael G. McHale, Esq.
          Thomas L. Brejcha, Esq.
          Joan M. Mannix, Esq.
          B. Tyler Brooks, Esq.
          THOMAS MORE SOCIETY
          309 W Washington St, Ste 1250
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 782-1680
          E-mail: tbrejcha@thomasmoresociety.org
                  pbreen@thomasmoresociety.org
                  jmannix@thomasmoresociety.org
                  mmchale@thomasmoresociety.org
                  tbrooks@thomasmoresociety.org

ISLAND FEDERAL: Charges Multiple Overdraft Fees, Wykle Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK WYKLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ISLAND FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case
No. 2:23-cv-05722 (E.D.N.Y., July 28, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for breach of contract and breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and
violations of New York General Business Law.

The case arises from the Defendant's routine practice of assessing
multiple overdraft fees and insufficient funds fees on an item. The
Defendant misleadingly and deceptively misrepresents its fee
practices including, upon information and belief, in its
take-it-or-leave-it form adhesion contract. Had the Plaintiff and
Class members known they could be charged the above-described
deceptive fees, they would have attempted to avoid incurring such
fees, says the suit.

Island Federal Credit Union is a credit union with its principal
place of business in Suffolk County, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         James J. Bilsborrow, Esq.
         WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
         700 Broadway
         New York, NY 10003
         Telephone: (212) 558-5500
         E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com

                 - and -
       
         Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
         Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq.
         Winston S. Hudson, Esq.
         JOHNSON FIRM
         610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300
         Little Rock, AR 72201
         Telephone: (501) 372-1300
         E-mail: chris@yourattorney.com
                 tyler@yourattorney.com
                 winston@yourattorney.com

JAG PAVING: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Rivera Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EDGAR RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated who were employed by JAG PAVING CORP. and/or any
other entities affiliated with, controlling, or controlled by JAG
PAVING CORP, ERNESTINE REYES, individually, and LORENA LUGO,
individually v. JAG PAVING CORP. and/or any other entities
affiliated with, controlling, or controlled by JAG PAVING CORP.,
ERNESTINE REYES, individually, and LORENA LUGO, individually, Case
No. 2:23-cv-04032 (D.N.J., July 27, 2023) seeks to recover
statutory wage and overtime payments pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law, the New
Jersey State Wage Payment Law, and the New Jersey State Prevailing
Wage Act.

The Plaintiff and the members of the putative class worked on
numerous privately financed projects and publicly financed projects
pursuant to contracts with various government entities. The Public
Works Projects were undertaken and performed by the Corporate
Defendant in accordance with the terms and conditions of certain
"Public Works Contracts" entered into with the Government Entities
between July 27, 2017, and the present, the lawsuit says.

The Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay the Plaintiffs
at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all of his
overtime worked in a work week. The Defendants willfully failed to
pay Plaintiffs the statutorily required overtime compensation for
the time he worked in excess of 40 hours a week for the Defendants
on both the New Jersey Public Works Projects and on the Private
Projects, the lawsuit claims.

The Defendants willfully paid the Plaintiffs less than the
prevailing rates of wages and supplemental benefits to which the
Plaintiffs were entitled for the labor which the Plaintiffs
furnished to the Defendants on the sites of the Public Work, the
lawsuit adds.

The Plaintiff was employed full time as a paving laborer performing
paving related work for the Defendants from 2012 through June
2023.

Jag Paving is a contractor that is providing a wide range of
services for all your paving needs.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
          Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (201) 687-9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
          E-mail: Aglenn@JaffeGlenn.com
                  Jjaffe@JaffeGlenn.com

JAZEERA RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Melendez Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
NORIS MELENDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JAZEERA RESTAURANT INC.; and "JOHN DOE",
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-05694 (E.D.N.Y., July 27, 2023) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cook.

JAZEERA RESTAURANT INC. operates a restaurant located at 37 West
John Street, Hicksville, New York 11801. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

JOYY INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Aug. 4
announced 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]

JRCRUZ CORP: Thomas Appeals Court Order to N.Y. Appellate Division
------------------------------------------------------------------
LATISHA THOMAS is taking an appeal from a court order entered April
12, 2023 in her lawsuit entitled LATISHA THOMAS, AIESHAI LONDON and
JAY SIMMONS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. JRCRUZ CORP., Defendant, Case No.
511297/2020 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., June 30, 2020).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this is an
action brought by the Plaintiff to recover unpaid prevailing wages,
daily overtime and supplemental benefits which she and the members
of the putative Class were entitled to receive for work, including
weekend, evening and holiday work, they performed pursuant to
contracts entered into between Defendants and public entities,
including, but not limited to, New York City Department of
Transportation ("DOT") and New York City Department of Design and
Construction ("DDC") which required payment of prevailing wages.

Jrcruz Corp. is a New Jersey-based heavy construction company.

Plaintiffs are former construction flaggers who worked for
Defendant on public projects on New York City roadways. Throughout
their employment with Defendant, Plaintiffs were not paid the
applicable prevailing rate of wages or supplemental benefits for
all hours that they worked on water main, sewer and other public
works projects on New York City roadways, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs also bring claims for Defendants' failure to provide
proper wage notices pursuant to New York Labor Law.

The appellate case is captioned Latisha Thomas et al vs. JRCRUZ
Corp. et al., Case No. 23-06144, in the Second Judicial Department
of New York Appellate Division, filed on July 24, 2023. [BN]

Defendants-Respondents JRCRUZ CORP., et al., are represented by:

            Casey Jonathan Rahn, Esq.
            733 3rd Ave. Fl. 15,
            New York, NY 10017

LENOVO UNITED: Augustine Sues Over Third Party Access to Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Brown at news.bloomberglaw.com reports that Lenovo
United States Inc. must face a proposed class action alleging it
installed code on its website that allowed a third-party to record
user activities in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy
Act.

Plaintiff Ophelia Augustine provided sufficient foundation at the
pleading stage for her claim that Lenovo intercepted her
communications without her consent, and that the third-party
provider of the code, Quantum Metric Inc., took an independent role
in the interception, Judge M. James Lorenz of the US District Court
for the Southern District of California said in rejecting Lenovo's
bid for dismissal of the lawsuit. [GN]

LIVE NATION: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), on Aug. 4 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, captioned Donley v.
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-cv-6343, on
behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. ("Live Nation" or the "Company")
(NYSE: LYV) securities between February 23, 2022 and July 28, 2023,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").

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

If you suffered a loss on your Live Nation investments or would
like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your
loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at
www.glancylaw.com/cases/Live-Nation-Entertainment-Inc-1/. You can
also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com or
visit our website at www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your
rights.

On November 18, 2022, The New York Times reported that the DOJ had
opened an antitrust investigation into Ticketmaster and Live Nation
after the ticketing platform's systems crashed during a
highly-anticipated presale for Taylor Swift tickets. The ensuing
chaos of disappointed "Swifties" highlighted Live Nation's power
over the live music industry, exacerbating complaints that the
Company has "constrained competition and harmed consumers."

On this news, Live Nation's stock price fell $5.64, or 7.8%, to
close at $66.21 per share on November 18, 2022, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

Then, on February 23, 2023 at 3:30 p.m. Eastern time, NPR reported
that, following Congressional hearings, the Senate Judiciary
Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust, and Consumer Rights
wrote to the DOJ, presenting evidence that "Live Nation is harming
America's music industry." The letter cited issues with Live
Nation's pricing models and fees, increasingly long contracts with
competitors, and retaliatory behavior against artists and venues
that don't want to work with it. The senators "encourage[d]" the
DOJ to take action if it found Live Nation had "walled itself off
from competitive pressure at the expense of the industry and
fans."

On this news, Live Nation's stock price fell $7.71, or 10.1%, to
close at $68.78 per share on February 24, 2023, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

Then, on July 28, 2023 at 3:13 p.m. Eastern time, Politico reported
that the DOJ "could file an antitrust lawsuit against [Live Nation
and Ticketmaster] by the end of the year, according to three people
with knowledge of the matter." Politico further reported that the
DOJ complaint is expected to allege that "the entertainment giant
is abusing its power over the live music industry."

On this news, Live Nation's stock price fell $7.60, or 7.8%, to
close at $89.33 per share on July 28, 2023, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Live Nation engaged in anticompetitive conduct,
including charging high fees and extended contracts with talent,
and retaliated against venues; (2) that, as a result, Live Nation
was reasonably likely to incur regulatory scrutiny and face fines,
penalties, and reputational harm; and (3) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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

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

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

MASSACHUSETTS: Parole Board Faces Discrimination Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Marino, writing for This Week in Worcester, reports that a new
lawsuit claims the Massachusetts Parole Board consistently denies
equal access to parole to incarcerated people with disabilities.
The Parole Board allegedly systematically deprives individuals with
mental health disabilities of the opportunity to effectively
present their case for parole.

Three plaintiffs, all identified as John Doe, are named as
plaintiffs. The complaint also seeks to establish class-action
status on behalf of incarcerated individuals in Massachusetts "with
mental health conditions, cognitive challenges, and other mental
disabilities."

The complaint, filed in June in Suffolk County Superior Court,
claims that parole in Massachusetts is "significantly diminished or
denied entirely," due to the Parole Board's "ongoing failure to
provide the accommodations necessary to ensure meaningful access to
the parole process and fair consideration for parole by the
Board."

Title Two of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) "and
parallel state provisions prohibit the Defendant from engaging in
practices that effectively deny equal access to parole to
incarcerated people with disabilities," according to the
complaint.

It also claims the Parole Board defies a 2017 Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court (SJC) decision in Crowell vs. Massachusetts Parole
Board. According to the Harvard Law Review, the SJC ruled in
Crowell that "that the ADA requires that the Parole Board (the
Board) reasonably modify its policies to accommodate incarcerated
persons with disabilities."

The complaint says the Parole Board maintains its discriminatory
policies and practices in at least 12 ways the Parole Board fails
to comply with or is inadequate in its responsibilities under ADA
and Crowell, which include:

-- Failed to establishing procedures to screen for mental
disabilities;
-- Failed to identify and making available reasonable
accommodations;
-- Assigning counsel in a timely manner, or at all;
-- Unfairly penalizing parole candidates for conduct, appearance,
and/or presentation caused by their disability during parole
hearings;
-- Failed to provide assistance in developing a release plan and
identifying post-release programming before a parole hearing;
-- Failed to ensure professional evaluation of mental conditions;
-- Failed to consider how mental disabilities can affect a
candidate's conduct, disciplinary history, and/or ability to access
prison programming, work, or educational opportunities during
incarceration;
-- Failed to consider how a candidate's disability could affect
behavior during parole hearings (which can last three hours) and on
parole;
-- Failed to coordinate with the Department of Corrections to
ensure access to rehabilitative and educational programs the Board
may determine are needed;
-- Failed to coordinate with Departments of Mental Health, Public
Health, and Developmental Services to ensure candidates qualified
for parole with specific services do not remain incarcerated
because services are not available or available but not offered
(due to the Board's failure to coordinate); and
-- Failed to consider the availability of "risk reduction programs
designed to reduce recidivism" that could allow the parole
candidate with mental disabilities to safely reenter the community,
as the SJC required in Crowell.

The three plaintiffs in the case are:

   * A 58-year-old man incarcerated for 38 years who has been
eligible for parole since 2004;
   * A 42-year-old man incarcerated for 22 year and eligible for
parole since 2016; and
   * A 65-year-old man incarcerated for 43 years an eligible for
parole since 2004.

This is the second time since December 2021 the Parole Board has
been accused of violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

On December 17, 2021, the U.S. Attorney's office for the District
of Massachusetts announced a settlement with the Massachusetts
Parole Board. The Department of Justice alleged that the Parole
Board discriminated against parolees and prospective parolees with
Opioid Abuse Disorder by requiring they take the prescription drug
Vivitrol, the brand name for Naltrexone manufactured by Alkermes,
instead of requiring they comply with their health care provider's
recommended treatment. The Parole Board was not required to take
responsibility or admit wrongdoing in the settlement, but was
required to write and implement a new policy under monitoring by
the Department of Justice. [GN]

METROSPEEDY OPERATIONS: Fails to Pay Drivers' OT Wages, Roman Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN ROMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. METROSPEEDY OPERATIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-06520
(S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2023) alleges that the Defendant misclassified
the Delivery Drivers as "independent contractors," and failed to
pay overtime premiums for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
within a workweek, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
New York Labor Law.

The Defendant allegedly failed to record or compensate Delivery
Drivers' for off-the-clock hours worked; unlawfully deducted
business expenses; unlawfully withheld gratuities; failed to
provide wage notices at the time of hiring; failed to provide
accurate wage statements on each payday that includes the
information required by the NYLL, including the actual number of
hours worked during the pay period; and failed to maintain proper
recordkeeping practices, all in violation of the NYLL.

As a Delivery Driver, Mr. Roman spent at least 25% of his time
engaged in physical labor, which included loading and unloading
hundreds of pre-packaged meals in and out of a minivan or SUV and
carrying such pre-packaged meals into homes, apartment buildings,
or commercial buildings, many without elevator service.

The Collective is made up of all persons who are or have been
employed by the Defendants as Delivery Drivers anywhere in the
United States within the period of the past three years from this
action's filing date through the date of the final disposition of
this action. The Class(es) are made up of all persons who are or
have been employed by the Defendant as Delivery Drivers in New York
State within the period of six years prior to the filing date.

The Plaintiffs seek relief for the Collective under the FLSA and
for the Classes pursuant to the applicable provisions of the NYLL.

Mr. Roman was a Delivery Driver with MetroSpeedy from October 2021
until October 2022.

MetroSpeedy is a technology-based delivery company that provides
on-demand, same day, or scheduled delivery services of small to
medium-sized packages for businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Q. Davis, Esq.
          Rachel M. Haskell, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER Q. DAVIS
          80 Broad Street, Suite 703
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (646) 430-7930
          Facsimile: (646) 349-2504

MICROSOFT CORP: Intercepts Internet Browsing Data, Saeedy Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
NOAH SAEEDY, VISHAL SHAH, TINA WILKINSON, and M.S., individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Washington Corporation, Defendant, Case
No. 2:23-cv-01104 (W.D. Wash., July 21, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for intrusion upon seclusion, violation of
the right to privacy, conversion, restitution/unjust enrichment, as
well as violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,
the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the California Unfair Competition
Law, the Washington Privacy Act, and the Washington Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant programmed Versions 90,
92, 93, and earlier and later versions of Microsoft Edge browser to
surreptitiously intercept, collect and send to Defendant a wide
range of private data relating to Plaintiffs and other users'
Internet browsing activities, Internet searches, and online
shopping behavior, including while in "private" browsing mode. As
this private data is intercepted and collected, it is associated
with unique user identifiers that Defendant assigns to users,
and/or cookies -- small text files containing unique data by which
to identify a user's device -- that it installs on users' devices.
Upon intercepting and receiving the private user data, unique user
identifiers, and cookies from Edge, Defendant then links or binds
the private user data to individual users though the unique user
identifiers and cookies, says the suit.

The Defendant intercepts, collects, and sends users' keyword search
terms, URLs, and unique user identifiers and cookies to the
SmartScreen and Bing servers without their actual or implied
consent. The Defendant fails to conspicuously present its flawed
and deficient privacy statement and terms of use to users and thus
these electronic documents have no legal effect, the suit asserts.

Microsoft Corporation is an American multinational technology
corporation headquartered in Redmond, Washington.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alexander A. Baehr, Esq.
          SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC
          315 Fifth Avenue S., Suite 1000
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 676-7000
          E-mail: alexb@summitlaw.com

               - and -

          Ekwan E. Rhow, Esq.
          Marc E. Masters, Esq.
          Barr Benyamin, Esq.
          BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM,
           DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW, PC
          1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-2100
          E-mail: erhow@birdmarella.com
                  mmasters@birdmarella.com
                  bbenyamin@birdmarella.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Rotter, Esq.
          Raymond D. Sulentic, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: jrotter@glancylaw.com
                  kwolke@glancylaw.com
                  prajesh@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Glenn A. Danas, Esq.
          Yana Hart, Esq.
          Katelyn M. Leeviraphan, Esq.
          CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.  
          22525 Pacific Coast Highway
          Malibu, CA 90265
          Telephone: (213) 788-4050
          Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
          E-mail: gdanas@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  kleeviraphan@clarksonlawfirm.com

NATIONAL CARWASH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Maurer Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARK MAURER, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL CARWASH SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00916-FJS-DJS (N.D.N.Y., July 27, 2023) seeks to
recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.

Plaintiff Maurer was employed by the Defendant as a laborer.

NATIONAL CARWASH SOLUTIONS, INC. is a service and systems provider
to the North American car wash industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550

NEVADA: Takes Private Property Without Notice, Raymond Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN RAYMOND, KYONG 'GINA' RAYMOND, and CHASE HYON individually
and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. ZACH CONINE, in
his official capacity as NEVADA STATE TREASURER & ADMINISTRATOR OF
THE NEVADA UNCLAIMED PROPERTY PROGRAM, NEVADA STATE TREASURER'S
OFFICE, and DANIELLE ANTHONY, in her official capacities as DEPUTY
TREASURER OF UNCLAIMED PROPERTY, NEVADA STATE TREASURER'S OFFICE,
Case No. 2:23-cv-01195 (D. Nev., July 27, 2023) alleges that
Nevada's Nevada Uniform Unclaimed Property Act (NUUPA) is
unconstitutional because it does not require the Defendants to
provide notice to property owners prior to or after depriving them
of their private property.

The Defendants' enforcement of Nevada's NUUPA, in their official
capacities, violated and continues to violate private property
owners' guaranteed rights under the United State Constitution,
including the rights provided under the Fifth Amendment (Takings
Clause) and the Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process Clause), the
Plaintiffs contend.

The NUUPA is designed to reunite people with their property, but
the Defendants allegedly use the NUUPA to take private property
from people and businesses without meeting the basic threshold
requirements under the U.S. Constitution for escheatment and
without the requisite notice and due process of law required by the
U.S. Constitution.

The Plaintiffs and putative class members have had their property
seized without notice, sometimes sold, and generally mishandled by
the custodial Defendants, the lawsuit asserts.

The Defendants acted intentionally to generate revenue for the
State, but these funds were neither authorized tax levies nor funds
rightfully belonging to the State. Instead, the Defendants
abdicated their duties to return this property to its rightful
owners. The Defendants' failure to comply with the requirements of
the Due Process Clauses of the United States Constitution, has
resulted in and will continue to result in substantial monetary
losses to the Plaintiffs and putative class members, the lawsuit
further asserts.

The Plaintiffs and all similarly situated persons are entitled to
and hereby seek a return of their property from the account set up
to pay NUUPA claims, and, if necessary, the Nevada State General
Fund, because it was seized in violation of the Plaintiffs'
guaranteed right to Due Process of Law as afforded by the United
States Constitution.
The Plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction barring the Defendants
from enforcing the NUUPA and thereby violating their guaranteed
right to Due Process as afforded by the United States
Constitution.

Mr. Raymond lived in the Las Vegas, Nevada metropolitan area from
2004 through 2014 and from 2020 to the present. Mr. Raymond has had
a vehicle registered with the Nevada Division of Motor Vehicles and
paid taxes on that motor vehicle.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Krista J. Nielson, Esq.
          William M. Fischbach, Esq.
          Elliot C. Stratton, Esq.
          TIFFANY & BOSCO P.A.
          10100 W. Charleston Blvd., Ste. 220
          Las Vegas, NV 89135
          Telephone: (702) 258-8200
          Facsimile: (702) 258-8787
          E-mail: knielson@tblaw.com
                  wmf@tblaw.com
                  ecs@tblaw.com

                - and -

          Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
          Laura C. Fellows, Esq.
          David Bodenheimer, Esq.
          PAUL LLP
          601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Telephone: (816) 984-8100
          Facsimile: (816) 984-8101
          E-mail: Rick@PaulLLP.com
                  Laura@PaulLLP.com
                  David@PaulLLP.com

                - and -

          Jonathan Greiner, Esq.
          Christopher Ross, Esq.
          GREINER & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          401 Austin Highway, Suite 110
          San Antonio, TX 78209
          Telephone: (210) 829-6529
          Facsimile: (210) 829-5528
          E-mail: chris@greinerattorneys.com
                  jon@greinerattorneys.com
                  service@greinerattorneys.com

NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR: Faces Class Suit Over Privacy Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
vocm.com reports that Buckingham Law has launched a class-action
lawsuit against Newfoundland and Labrador Health Services and NL
Fertility Services for a privacy breach one month ago.

The breach in question happened on July 4. The clinic sent an email
to people who had availed of a provincial subsidy to travel out of
province for fertility services.

Those on the email were not blind copied, meaning the names of
everyone on the list were visible. In total, 116 patients were
affected.

Buckingham says those involved in the breach have called it
"devastating and a violation."

He explains that while some patients were quite open about what
they were going through, many were dealing with their fertility
journey in a very private and confidential manner.

He says the situation has placed additional strain on patients
already going through a stressful time. He says people have
cancelled some of their treatments while others have put their
fertility journey on hold because of it.[GN]

NORDSTROM INC: Online Store Inaccessible to Blind, Herrera Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS HERRERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NORDSTROM, INC., Defendant, Case No.
HUD-L-002668-23 (N.J. Super., Hudson Cty., July 28, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendant for alleged violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and for declaratory
relief.

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,
https://www.nordstrom.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)
fail to accurately describe the contents of graphical images, (b)
fail to properly label title, (c) fails to distinguish one page
from another, (d) contain multiple broken links, (e) contain
headings that do not describe the topic or purpose, and (f) contain
text that is not read.

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.

Nordstrom, Inc. is an American luxury department store chain
headquartered in Seattle, Washington. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Daniel Zemel, Esq.
         Zemel Law LLC
         660 Broadway
         Paterson, NJ 07514
         Telephone: (862) 227-3106
         E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com

NORTH MAIN: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages under FLSA, Rosado Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
GUILLERMINA ROSADO v. NORTH MAIN FOOD MARKET CORP (DBA NORTH MAIN
FOOD MART), and EDDIE PERALTA, individually, Case No. 1:23-cv-05680
(E.D.N.Y., July 27, 2023) is a class action seeking to recover
unpaid minimum wage and overtime wage compensation pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants were required, under relevant New York State law, to
pay and compensate the Plaintiff at a minimum rate of $15.00 per
hour; however, the Plaintiff was only compensated at a rate of
$10.32 per hour, the lawsuit asserts.

Accordingly, the Defendants employed the policy and practice of
disguising the Plaintiffs' actual duties in payroll records to
avoid paying the Plaintiffs at the minimum wage rate and to enable
them to pay the Plaintiff at the lower tip-credited rate by
designating them waitresses instead of non-tipped employees.

The Plaintiff's work schedule was from 2:00 P.M. until 11:00 P.M.,
Monday to Sunday, for approximately 63 hours per week. She did not
work at her own convenience but was required to report to work in
accordance with a work schedule devised by the Defendants.
Moreover, once scheduled for a shift, the Plaintiff did not come
and go at her pleasure but rather was controlled by the Defendant,
the lawsuit claims.

The Plaintiff also brings this action under the Wage Theft
Prevention Act for the Defendants' failure to provide written
notice of wage rates. The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages,
liquidated damages, spread of hours pay, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to
the FLSA and NYLL.

The Plaintiff Rosado was employed by the Defendant from October
2022 until June 27, 2023, where her primary work duty was as a
waitress, but also did other chores such as cleaning and cooking
for over 20% of her workday.

NORTH MAIN FOOD MARKET CORP is a grocery company in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

NUZ ENTERPRISES: Ceropin Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ana Ceropin, Keyly Ceropin on behalf of themselves and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Nuz Enterprises Ltd.
d/b/a Lakewood Bakery, Bryant Caceres and Danny Caceres,
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-05563 (E.D.N.Y., July 22, 2023) is
brought by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants arising from
alleged unlawful labor policies and practices in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs seek to recover from the Defendants: (i)
compensation for wages paid at less than the statutory minimum
wage, (ii) unpaid wages for overtime work for which they did not
receive overtime premium pay as required by law, (iii) compensation
for the Defendants' violations of the "spread of hours"
requirements; and (iv) liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA; and
(v) statutory damages for the Defendants' violation of the NYLL's
Wage Theft Prevention Act.

Plaintiff Ana Ceropin was employed at Nuz Enterprises, Ltd. d/b/a
Lakewood Bakery from approximately April 28, 2019, until April 15,
2022 as a packer and in maintenance.

Plaintiff Keylyt Ceropin was employed by Defendants from December
2021 until December 2022 as a dispatcher, and to deliver bread to
the drivers.

Nuz Enterprises Ltd. owns and operates the Lakewood Bakery
restaurant located in Farmingdale, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Samuel, Esq.
          THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM
          1441 Broadway Suite 6085
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 563-9884

ODOO INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kayed Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
OMAR KAYED; JESUS PRADO; and SPENCER CARR, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ODOO, INC.;
and ODOO, S.A., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-03728 (N.D. Cal., July
27, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as sales
representatives.

ODOO SA provides a range of easy to use business applications. The
Company develops software to boost company's sale, integrate
project services, streamline inventory and purchase operations,
manage finance, and automate marketing. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
          Molly J. Frandsen, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          One California Street, 12th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 638-8800
          Facsimile: (415) 638-8810
          Email: jsagafi@outtengolden.com
                 mfrandsen@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Melissa L. Stewart, Esq.
          Julio Sharp-Wasserman, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
          Email: mstewart@outtengolden.com
                 jsharp-wasserman@outtengolden.com

PARTY CITY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 2
----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP
(www.JohnsonFistel.com) announces the filing of a class action
lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Party City
Holdco Inc. (NYSE: PRTY) (OTC: PRTYQ) between November 8, 2022 and
June 9, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you are
a shareholder who incurred losses during this period, you have
until October 2, 2023, to move the court to become a lead plaintiff
in this action.

If you would like more information and want to join the class
action please click or copy and paste the following link:

https://www.johnsonfistel.com/investigations/party-city-stock-news

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants: (1) affirmatively misrepresented that its capital
resources "will be adequate to meet our liquidity needs for at
least the next 12 months"; (2) omitted that there was substantial
doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern;
(3) downplayed the nature and extent of the Company's then existing
liquidity problems; (4) omitted that the Company's existing credit
facilities were insufficient to satisfy its operational needs and
that it was unable to obtain additional loans in the normal course
of business and ; (5) omitted that there was a material weakness in
its internal control over financial reporting. When the true
details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in
directing the class-action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a
law firm of its choice to litigate the class-action lawsuit. An
investor's ability to share any potential future recovery of the
class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

There is no cost or obligation to you.

Johnson Fistel, LLP is a shareholder rights law firm representing
individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative
and securities class action lawsuits. For more information, visit
their website http://www.johnsonfistel.com.[GN]

PARTY CITY: Execs Hid Liquidity Woes Before Bankruptcy, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martina Barash at news.bloomberglaw.com reports that Party City
Holdco Inc.'s CEO and chief financial officer signed off on SEC
filings that misrepresented its financial health, an owner of the
bankrupt retailer's stock alleges.

"Party City was well aware of its liquidity problems and lending
shortfalls" before it filed a 10-Q form with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in November 2022, shareholder Ryan Shulman says
in a proposed class action. He filed the suit in the US District
Court for the District of New Jersey. [GN]

PARTY CITY: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action in S.D. Tex.
------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Redmond, writing for NJBiz, reports that Woodcliff
Lake-based Party City Holdco Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
for allegedly misleading shareholders regarding the company's
financial health ahead of filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection.

Announced Aug. 3, the complaint accuses the bankrupt retailer of
securities fraud and seeks to recover losses on behalf of investors
who were "adversely impacted" between November 2022 and June 2023.
According to the suit, Party City reportedly mispresented that it
had adequate capital resources to meet liquidity needs for the next
12 months, as well as "omitted there was substantial doubt about
the company's ability to continue as a going concern."

Additionally, Party City allegedly "downplayed the nature and
extent" of its "then-existing liquidity problems," omitted that its
existing credit facilities were insufficient to satisfy operational
needs and was unable to obtain additional loans in the normal
course of business, according to the suit.

The retailer was also accused of not informing stockholders "that
there was a material weakness in its internal control over
financial reporting."

The action comes as Party City reportedly adjusts its plan to exit
bankruptcy after struggling to meet financial projections.
Recently, the retailer revised its year-over-year growth rate
forecast for comparable store sales down to -8.4% from -2.5%.

After filing for Chapter 11 relief in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the Southern District of Texas in January, Party City entered into
a restructuring agreement with a bondholder group to reduce its
$1.67 billion debt load.

Additionally, the company secured $150 million in
debtor-in-possession financing to support operations, as well as
court approval to keep its 800-plus stores open.

In July, the company modified a key deal with lenders, giving them
the option to be repaid in second-lien notes instead of cash. They
can also purchase new notes in addition to equity, rather than just
buying the stock, the outlet reported.

Altogether, Party City plans to issue $232 million of new debt
backed by the company's assets, with interest to be paid in-kind or
in cash, at a 12% rate.

While Party City's balloon manufacturing and retail business,
Anagram, was not part of the bankruptcy proceedings, the company is
reportedly in talks with debt holders about spinning off the unit,
Bloomberg reported, citing confidential sources.

Following the expected completion of reorganization in the second
quarter of 2023, Party City plans to emerge as a non-publicly
reporting company. However, the company's lawyers reported in June
that it hadn't met certain benchmarks related to its
restructuring.

Then, in a June 9 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC), Party City revealed that its longtime auditor,
Ernst & Young LLP, resigned due to a disagreement over the
retailer's decision to not include a going concern warning in its
Q3 2022 report.

"The company strongly disagrees with EY's assertions in its
resignation letter to the extent that they inaccurately imply that
the company refused to make any required disclosures under the
federal securities laws," Party City said in the filing.

A few weeks later, the SEC asked Party City to retain documents and
data in connection with an "ongoing investigation" by the
regulator, according to Bloomberg.

Additional details about the nature of the probe weren't disclosed,
the outlet reported.

Party City did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
[GN]

PATRIOT ERECTORS: Appeals Final Judgment in Davila Suit to 5th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PATRIOT ERECTORS, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order in the
lawsuit entitled Candelario Davila, et al., on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Patriot Erectors,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-884, in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Texas.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
filed a complaint against the Defendant for its failure to
compensate them and all others similarly situated employees the
required minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

On July 27, 2022, Patriot filed a Notice of Settlement.

On September 2, 2022, Patriot filed a Motion to Dismiss, and the
case was dismissed against Candelario Davila on September 6, 2022.
An order was also entered restyling the case as ROBERT WHITE, on
behalf of himself and a class of those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. PATRIOT ERECTORS LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-CV-00884-SH.

White alleges that Patriot did not pay him overtime required by the
FLSA. Although styled as a collective action, the claims tried
pertain only to White, Patriot's former production manager.

On June 20, 2023, the Court, in its discretion, found that White is
entitled to compensation in the form of liquidated damages in an
amount equal to his unpaid overtime compensation. The Court awarded
White $40,575.68 in uncompensated overtime and $40,575.68 in
liquidated damages, for a total award of $81,151.36, as well as
attorney's fees and costs. Judge Susan Hightower also entered final
judgment in the case.

The appellate case is captioned Davila v. Patriot Erectors, Case
No. 23-50524, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, filed on July 24, 2023. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees CANDELARIO DAVILA, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

            Kell Asher Simon, Esq.
            LAW OFFICES OF KELL A. SIMON
            501 N. IH-35
            Austin, TX 78702
            Telephone: (512) 695-4618

Defendant-Appellant Patriot Erectors, LLC is represented by:

            Andrea M. Johnson, Esq.
            KANE RUSSELL COLEMAN & LOGAN, P.C.
            5151 San Felipe Street
            Houston, TX 77056
            Telephone: (713) 425-7433

PEACOCK TV: Shapiro Sues Over Disclosure of Personal Info
---------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT SHAPIRO, COREY AMUNDSON, AND TANYA MARSHALL, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PEACOCK
TV LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:23-cv-06345 (S.D.N.Y., July 21, 2023)
arises from the Defendant's knowing disclosure of Plaintiffs'
personally identifiable information(PII) to a third-party without
Plaintiffs' consent in violation of the Video Privacy Protection
Act.

The Plaintiffs are subscribers of Defendant's website,
peacocktv.com, which offers, among other things, a wide array of
pre-recorded audio visual materials and services. When Plaintiffs
requested or obtained specific video materials or services on
Defendant's Website, the Defendant knowingly disclosed Plaintiffs'
PII to Facebook (aka Meta) without notifying Plaintiffs and without
their consent, says the suit.

Peacock TV LLC is engaged in the business of the rental, sale, or
delivery of prerecorded audio visual materials.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Todd S. Garber, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKENSHIP, FREI-PEARSON
           & GARBER, LLP
          One North Broadway Suite 900
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 298-3281
          E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com

               - and -

          Caleb Marker, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          6420 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1080
          Los Angeles, CA 90048
          Telephone: (310) 752-9387
          E-mail: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey J. Harrington, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          80 South 8th Street, Suite 1100
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 341-0400
          E-mail: jeffrey.harrington@zimmreed.com

PELHAM COUNTRY CLUB: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lewis Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
KAMEIKA LEWIS; ANN PEARLINA BROWN; ADRIAN WILLIAMS, and MYANA
BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. PELHAM COUNTRY CLUB, Defendant, Case No.
7:23-cv-06500 (S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2023) is an action against the
Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
spread-of-hours pay, and provide accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as golf caddies.

PELHAM COUNTRY CLUB is a family-oriented Club with first-rate
recreational, social and dining facilities. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170
          Telephone: (212) 392-4772
          Email: Doug@lipskylowe.com

PENSION BENEFIT: White et al. Sue Over MOVEit Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
DIANE WHITE, SABELA PORTILLO, and REBECCA IDDINGS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PENSION
BENEFIT INFORMATION, LLC d/b/a PBI RESEARCH SERVICES and PROGRESS
SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 0:23-cv-02254 (D. Minn.,
July 28, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, invasion of privacy, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiffs and similarly situated customers stored within the
Defendants' MOVEit Transfer and MOVEit Cloud software following a
data breach on or about May 27, 2023. The Defendants also failed to
timely notify the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals
about the data breach. As a result, the PII of the Plaintiffs and
Class members were compromised and damaged through access by and
disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties.

Pension Benefit Information, LLC, doing business as PBI Research
Services, is a pension management services provider, with its
principal place of business at 333 S. 7th Street, Suite 2400,
Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Progress Software Corporation is a software company, with its
principal place of business located at 15 Wayside Road, Suite 4,
Burlington, Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
         June P. Hoidal, Esq.
         Michael J. Laird, Esq.
         Rachel K. Tack, Esq.
         ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
         1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Telephone: (612) 341-0400
         E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
                 june.hoidal@zimmreed.com
                 michael.laird@zimmreed.com
                 rachel.tack@zimmreed.com

                 - and -
       
         Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
         Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq.
         Laura Edmondson, Esq.
         THE JOHNSON FIRM
         610 President Clinton Ave., Suite 300
         Little Rock, AR 72201
         Telephone: (501) 372-1300
         E-mail: chris@yourattorney.com
                 tyler@yourattorney.com
                 ledmondson@yourattorney.com

PRECISION ANESTHESIA: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Dillon Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE DILLON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRECISION ANESTHESIA BILLING, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 23C1776 (Fla. Cir., Davidson Cty. July 31,
2023) is an action against the Defendant regarding the cyberattack
and data breach involving the personally identifiable information
of the Plaintiff and the Class.

According to the complaint, on May 2023, an unknown and
unauthorized criminal actor gained access to the Defendant's
network and infiltrated the customer names, social security
numbers, dates of birth, bank account numbers, patient medical
information, telephone numbers and other data provided to the
Defendant.

As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and the Class suffered
injury and ascertainable losses in the form of the present and
imminent threat of fraud and identity theft, loss of the benefit of
their bargain, out of pocket expenses, loss of value of their time
reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the
attack, and the loss of, and diminution in, value of their personal
information.

PRECISION ANESTHESIA BILLING, LLC is engaged as a healthcare
billing service provider. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Gerard Stranch, IV
          Stranch, Jennigs & Garvey, PLLC
          The Freedom Center
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          Facsimile: (615) 225-5419
          Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com

              - and -

          Andrew Shamis, Esq.
          Christopher Berman
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1 st Ave., Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299

                - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          20900 NE 30 th Ave., Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (786) 289-9471
          Facsimile: (305) 975-3320
          Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com

PRIME HYDRATION: Faces False Advertising Class Action in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Steinberg, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that sports
drink maker Prime Hydration LLC was hit with a proposed class suit
alleging it deceptively markets a hydration product containing PFAS
as healthful.

The lawsuit in the US District Court for the Northern District of
California joins a growing number of consumer suits over PFAS in
various types of products, including clothing and cosmetics.

Prime Hydration Grape Sports Drink is prominently labeled and
marketed as a product with antioxidants, electrolytes, and vitamins
to "refresh, replenish, and refuel," California resident Elizabeth
Castillo alleges. [GN]


PRIMECARE MEDICAL: Steadman Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Nurses
----------------------------------------------------------------
JANIQUE STEADMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRIMECARE MEDICAL, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-02041-MJM (D. Md., July 28, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
wages and failure to pay all wages earned in violation of the
Maryland Wage and Hour Law.

Ms. Steadman worked for PrimeCare as a licensed practical nurse
(LPN) at Baltimore County Detention Center in Baltimore County,
Maryland, from approximately November 2019 until October 2021.

PrimeCare Medical, Inc. is a healthcare services provider based in
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
         Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
         Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
         JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
         11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
         Houston, TX 77046
         Telephone: (713) 352-1100
         Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
         E-mail: tjones@mybackwages.com
                 mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                 adunlap@mybackwages.com

                 - and -
       
         Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
         BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
         11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
         Houston, TX 77046
         Telephone: (713) 877-8788
         E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

RTX CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 2
--------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP on Aug. 3 announced
the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of RTX Corporation f/k/a Raytheon Technologies
Corporation (NYSE: RTX) between February 8, 2021 and July 25, 2023,
both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you are a shareholder
who incurred losses during this period, you have until October 2,
2023, to move the court to become a lead plaintiff in this action.

If you would like more information and want to join the class
action please click or copy and paste the following link:

https://www.johnsonfistel.com/investigations/rtx-raytheon

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose,
among other things, that: (1) the GTF engines had been affected
from at least 2015-2020 by a quality control issue; (2) this
quality control issue would require RTX to recall and reinspect
many of its GTF engines, affecting customers and harming its
business; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.

A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in
directing the class-action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a
law firm of its choice to litigate the class-action lawsuit. An
investor's ability to share any potential future recovery of the
class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

There is no cost or obligation to you.

Johnson Fistel, LLP is a shareholder rights law firm representing
individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative
and securities class action lawsuits. For more information, visit
their website http://www.johnsonfistel.com.

Contact:

Johnson Fistel, LLP
Jim Baker, 619-814-4471
Investor Relations
jimb@johnsonfistel.com

or

Frank Johnson, 619-309-4405
fjohnson@johnsonfistel.com [GN]

RTX CORPORATION: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of RTX Corporation f/k/a Raytheon Technologies
Corporation (NYSE: RTX) between February 8, 2021 and July 25, 2023,
both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for RTX investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the RTX class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=17866 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.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose,
among other things, that: (1) the GTF engines had been affected
from at least 2015-2020 by a quality control issue; (2) this
quality control issue would require RTX to recall and reinspect
many of its GTF engines, affecting customers and harming its
business; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 2,
2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=17866 or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. 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. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.

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

SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Civil Rights Class Action to Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------
Joe Rivano Barros, writing for Mission Local, reports that an
Francisco officials have dropped the vast majority of cases
stemming from the Dolores hill bomb, in which police arrested 117
people, 83 of them minors, during an operation targeting the annual
skateboarding event.

District Attorney Brooke Jenkins announced on Aug. 4 that she is
discharging most of the cases against adults swept up in the mass
arrests during the Dolores Park hill bomb, with the possibility of
filing charges at a later date.

"Misdemeanor citations presented to our office for failure to
disperse and inciting a riot will be discharged at this time," the
DA's office wrote in a statement. "The misdemeanor citations
presented to my office for inciting a riot and failure to disperse
are being discharged because we can not prove beyond a reasonable
doubt to a jury the guilt of any specific individuals cited."

On July 28, Katherine Miller, the Chief Juvenile Probation Officer
for San Francisco, said that the cases against juveniles were
largely being dismissed, too, confirming earlier reporting by
Mission Local.

"The Juvenile Probation Department has reached out to all
parents/guardians of the 81 youth cited for refusing to disperse,
inciting a riot and conspiracy charges related to the hill bomb
event, to inform them that we are closing out their citations with
no additional action," Miller said. The Juvenile Probation
Department handles misdemeanors against juveniles.

Of the 117 people arrested that day, 113 were encircled in a
kettling action by police officers; those adults and teenagers will
see their cases discharged, pending further investigation. Two
additional teenagers face charges of assault against an officer and
resisting arrest from earlier in the day, and the charging status
of the other two adults -- also arrested earlier that day -- was
not clear.

One of the adults who had their case discharged may still face a
felony gun charge, which is awaiting further DNA analysis.

The investigation into "vandalism, property crime, and other
crimes" from that day is ongoing, the DA's office said, meaning
that individuals could be re-charged at a later date, if evidence
shows they took part in other alleged crimes that day, like
graffiti or assaults against officers.

And the Juvenile Probation Department may also bring allegations at
a later date, if they receive evidence of other wrongdoing. "At
this time, the police are continuing their investigation to
identify individuals who participated in other related incidents
that day (such as vandalism and battery)," Miller wrote in an
email. "We are awaiting further information from the police."

Class action lawsuit in the works
The announcement is not impacting a class-action civil rights
lawsuit against the city, according to Rachel Lederman, a protest
attorney who has met with dozens of parents, teenagers, and
arrested adults. Lederman said on Aug. 4 that a lawsuit would be
filed in federal court, alleging civil rights violations and
unlawful arrest.

"We are definitely proceeding with a lawsuit for civil rights
violations, which we are planning to file as a class action, so
that it potentially includes everyone that was arrested on 17th
Street," said Lederman. "The police department created the class by
sealing everyone into that block, so that they were all treated as
a mass, without any individual basis for each arrest, as the
constitution requires."

The police response led to allegations of misconduct, pledges to
investigate departmental policy, and promises to sue the city:
Parents arriving that night to pick up their children were met with
stone-faced walls of police officers. They saw their teenagers held
on the street for hours in the dark, zip-tied one by one, and
transported to Mission Station nearby, where they were released
well into the night.

The last child was released at 4:15 a.m. Several teenagers urinated
on themselves and had panic attacks, according to those arrested,
and others had circulation to their hands cut off from the tight
restraints.

The class action lawsuit, Lederman added, could be dropped
altogether -- if the city were to "acknowledge the police's
wrongful conduct," compensate the arrested, drop all charges, and
destroy arrest records.

"Then, maybe we could work all this out," she said.

DA can file charges later, but evidence may be tainted
Lederman, for her part, said any attempt to use fingerprints and
mugshots obtained during the mass arrest to match the teenagers and
young adults to crimes that day might, itself, be illegal -- and
thus could be challenged in court.

"That identifying information was seized unlawfully, because the
whole mass arrest was illegal," she said. "The kids, in particular,
were detained for this long period of time in order for them to
take their thumbprints at the station -- that's the only reason
they didn't write them a ticket and release them to their parents
on the street."

The San Francisco Police Department has voluminous body camera
footage from the dozens of officers patrolling the park that day, a
small portion of which it showed at a Police Commission meeting
last month. At that meeting, the police showed video of people
throwing a metal can, a glass bottle, and two fireworks at
officers.

Social media footage also shows hill bomb participants tagging a
Muni tram, and graffiti was seen on Mission High School and several
buses nearby. A Muni spokesperson estimated the damage to vehicles
at $70,000.

It was the largest mass arrest of teenagers in at least six years,
according to Police Chief Bill Scott, coming after years of serious
injuries and one death at the skateboarding event, which sees
skaters from across the Bay Area "bomb" the hill by going as fast
as possible down a two-block stretch of Dolores Street.

The DA has a year to file misdemeanor charges. Jenkins, in her
statement, said that while she believed police had "probable cause
to act to disperse the group," the mass arrests were likely too
indiscriminate to hold up in court.

"The evidence does not clearly show which specific individuals were
inciting a riot, heard the dispersal orders, and refused to comply
with dispersal orders," her statement read.

That is in line with the accounts of teenagers themselves, many of
whom said that they were walking home or passing through the
Mission when police corralled them, ordering them one way and then
the other before eventually trapping them between lines of officers
and arresting them.

The DA's statement noted that prosecutors would be hard-pressed to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any one individual caught up
in the mass arrest had heard dispersal orders and willfully
remained on-site. [GN]

SASKATCHEWAN: Lawyers Argue Over Boarding Schools Suit Process
--------------------------------------------------------------
aura Sciarpelletti at CBC News reports that the lawyers from two
competing class action suits were in a Saskatoon courtroom. There
they argued at length about the best way to represent Metis
survivors of the Ile-a-la-Crosse boarding school.

Survivors and intergenerational survivors of the school filled the
Court of King's Bench courtroom, many dressed in orange - a
reminder of the suffering children went through at the school.

Legal representatives and plaintiffs said survivors deserve
compensation and recognition for physical, sexual and emotional
abuse they endured at the boarding school. It operated in the
Ile-a-la-Crosse community, about 460 kilometres north of Saskatoon,
from the 1860s to the 1970s.

Ile-a-la-Crosse students were denied the Indian Residential School
settlements that others received, on the basis that the school was
run by the Roman Catholic Church with no federal funding.

One of the lawsuits discussed in court is over 17 years old. The
other lawsuit was filed in 2022 and is looking to have the older
suit stayed and its plaintiffs brought into the latest suit's
fold.

Neither has been certified as a class ac

Lawyer Tony Merchant says both lawsuits should go forward
Tony Merchant and the Merchant Law Group head up the nearly
two-decade old Aubichon class action. Many Ile-a-la-Crosse boarding
school survivors argue the suit has stalled.

The newest class action was filed by Wandell Phillips law firm and
is known as the Gardiner action. Both suits are looking to sue the
provincial and federal governments for the school's harm to
survivors.

Louis Gardiner is a Metis survivor of the boarding school and a
member of the newer lawsuit. He said survivors are getting old and
dying, and are looking for closure now.

"We have to start moving on this. We want action. We want closure.
People like elders that are in their 80s . . . they want to put
closure to this and enjoy life at least and there's peace,"
Gardiner said.

Tony Merchant said that both lawsuits should move forward. He does
not think his should be stayed.

But Justice Naheed Bardai said the point of class actions is to
have just one lawsuit.

Jeffrey Brick, Crown counsel for the Government of Saskatchewan,
said the province is not taking a stance on what the judge decides,
but does not want to take on two similar cases at the same time. He
said having both Aubichon and Gardiner suits proceed "makes no
sense."

Merchant argued that if Aubichon is stayed, the plaintiffs who have
died since will not have any reward for their estate. He said the
Gardiner class action does not expressly include claims for people
who have died since 2005.

"The problem is their plan will cut out all the people who died,
and the provincial government has been resistant to settling these
cases," Merchant told reporters following court proceedings.

But Margaret Waddell, counsel for the Gardiner class action, said
that is not the case.

"We said it and the government of Saskatchewan lawyer agreed that
it really does cover that. But if there's any concern, and if the
judge wants that little loophole to be clarified, we simply need to
add a couple of words to the claim and an amendment to say that
it's brought on behalf of the estates as well as the living people.
It's easily done," said Waddell.

                Claims of Lack of Communication

During the court proceedings, Bardai said he is concerned that
Merchant has not communicated with his clients. Merchant responded
by saying he is not obligated to communicate with his Aubichon
clients. Bardai disagreed with Merchant's stance.

Merchant also said he was doing work in the background and had a
strategy that he hadn't shared with his clients.

Duane Favel, mayor of Ile-a-la-Crosse and a survivor plaintiff in
the Gardiner class action, agreed with Bardai that Merchant's lack
of communication with his clients is concerning.

"Very little progress has been made over 17 years, when there's all
kinds of class actions being resolved across the country that are
similar to the Ile-a-la-Crosse case. There's no words to say in
terms of how frustrated our survivors are," said Favel.

Favel said there are about only 700 Ile-a-la-Crosse boarding school
survivors left. He said its important they are represented by the
Wandell Phillips law firm and not Merchant Law Group. He said they
gave Merchant a chance for 17 years, and were under the impression
that the class action was moving forward and was certified.

"There was no communication with the survivors, with the steering
committee. I've been on this steering committee since 2005. I've
never had a conversation with Merchant. He's never been at our
table," Favel said.

"In the last three years, with the help of he Metis
Nation-Saskatchewan, we've invited Merchant to come and have a
conversation with us several times. And he didn't come to the table
to talk to the people he's supposedly representing."

Justice Naheed Bardai said he will deliver his decision on the
class actions at a later date.[GN]

SEPHORA USA: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Hussein Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMAYA HUSSEIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SEPHORA USA, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-04992 (N.D. Ill.,
July 31, 2023) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for
its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website, www.sephora.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

On July 1, 2023, and again on July 9, 2023, the Plaintiff visited
the Defendant's website, to purchase a fragrance. Despite her
efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience
like that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a
variety of features and accommodations, which effectively barred
the Plaintiff from having an unimpeded shopping experience.
Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase the "Glossier You
Fragrance." Because of the Defendant's denial of full and equal
access to and enjoyment of the good, benefits and services of the
Website, the Plaintiff has suffered an injury in fact due to her
inability to purchase her desired fragrance, which is a concrete
and particularized injury, and is a direct result of Defendant's
conduct, the Plaintiff alleges.

Despite this direct harm and frustration, the Plaintiff intends to
attempt to access the Website in the future to purchase products
and services the Website offers, and more specifically the
"Glossier You Fragrance," if remedied, the Plaintiff adds.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumer.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
cannot use a computer without the assistance of screen-reading
software. The Plaintiff is, however, a proficient NVDA
screen-reader user and uses it to access the Internet.

The Defendant is a company that owns and operates www.sephora.com,
offering features which should allow all consumers to access the
goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of
such goods and services throughout the United States, including the
State of Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com

SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Sauer Appeals Case Dismissal Order
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Cheryl Sauer filed an appeal from the District Court's
Order dated June 22, 2023 entered in the lawsuit styled CHERYL
SAUER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and DOES 1-10
Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:22-cv-01584-JGB-KK, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Riverside.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against the
Defendants to stop its practice of falsely advertising and selling
solar power system monitoring services, and to obtain redress for a
class of consumers who were misled by Defendants within the
applicable statute of limitations period. The Defendants allegedly
advertised to consumers that its solar power systems were
accompanied by a system monitoring plan that was free of charge in
violation of the California False Advertising Law and the Unfair
Competition Law.

The Plaintiff and other consumers similarly situated were exposed
to these advertisements. The Defendants misrepresented and falsely
advertised and represented to Plaintiff and others similarly
situated by failing to disclose in either their advertisements or
the contract itself that Defendants would require Plaintiff and
others similarly situated to pay for the labor to replace certain
components of the monitoring system. The Defendants'
misrepresentations to Plaintiff and others similarly situated
induced them to purchase Defendants' products. The Defendants took
advantage of Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers unfairly
and unlawfully, says the suit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit was removed from
the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, to the
U.S. District Court for Central District of California on Sept. 8,
2022.

On December 9, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
Plaintiff's first amended complaint.

On June 22, 2023, the Court entered an Order (1) GRANTING
Defendants' motion to dismiss; and (2) vacating the June 26, 2023
hearing by Judge Jesus G. Bernal. The Court GRANTED SolarEdge
Technologies' motion and DISMISSED all of Plaintiff's claims
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Cheryl Sauer Mediation Questionnaire was due on
July 27, 2023;

   -- Appellant Cheryl Sauer opening brief is due on September 18,
2023;

   -- Appellees Does and SolarEdge Technologies, Inc. answering
brief is due on October 18, 2023; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant CHERYL SAUER, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Adrian Bacon, Esq.
          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD FRIEDMAN, PC
          21031 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 340
          Woodland Hills, CA 91364
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741

Defendant-Appellee SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. is represented by:

          Matthew David Powers, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP
          Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 984-8898

SPARC GROUP: Montes Appeals Case Dismissal Order
------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Shawnna Montes filed an appeal from the District Court's
Order dated June 22, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled Shawnna
Montes, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v.
SPARC GROUP LLC d/b/a Aeropostale, Case No. 2:22-cv-00201-TOR, in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington,
Spokane.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on October 10, 2022, the
complaint is brought under the Washington Consumer Protection Act
on behalf of Washington consumers who purchased falsely discounted
clothing and accessories on the Aeropostale website and, due to
Aeropostale's fraud, paid more than they otherwise would have
paid.

Allegedly, Aeropostale perpetrated a massive false discount
advertising scheme across nearly all of its Aeropostale-branded
products and sales channels (i.e., on Aeropostale website and in
its brick-and-mortar stores). Specifically, Aeropostale advertised
perpetual or near perpetual website-wide and store-wide "sales" and
percentage-off discounts--typically 50% to 70% off--from
Aeropostale's self-created list prices for its products in order to
trick its customers and the general public into thinking that its
products were "on sale." Aeropostale represented its list prices,
which were advertised on its website with a slash-through (and
which were printed on the product tags affixed to the items it
sold), to be the "regular" and normal selling prices of the items.
The list prices functioned as reference prices to which the
advertised discounts were applied.

On March 10, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case
which the Court granted with prejudice on June 22, 2023 through an
Order entered by Judge Thomas O. Rice.

The appellate case is captioned as Shawnna Montes v. SPARC Group,
LLC, Case No. 23-35496, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 21, 2023.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Shawnna Montes Mediation Questionnaire was due on
July 28, 2023;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by August 21, 2023;

   -- Transcript is due on September 18, 2023;

   -- Appellant Shawnna Montes opening brief is due on October 30,
2023;

   -- Appellee SPARC Group, LLC answering brief is due on November
29, 2023; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant SHAWNNA MONTES, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

         Che Corrington, Esq.
         Daniel Hattis, Esq.
         HATTIS & LUKACS
         11711 SE 8th Street, Suite 120
         Bellevue, WA 98005
         Telephone: (425) 233-8633

              - and -

         Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
         DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, PC
         5 Greentree Centre, Suite 410
         525 Route 73 North
         Marlton, NJ 08054
         Telephone: (856) 797-9951

              - and -

         Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq.
         HATTIS & LUKACS
         936 Woodlawn Drive
         Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
         Telephone: (805) 233-8062

Defendant-Appellee SPARC GROUP, LLC is represented by:

         Meegan Brooks, Esq.
         Stephanie Sheridan, Esq.
         BENESCH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN & ARONOFF, LLP
         100 Pine Street, Suite 3100
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Telephone: (628) 600-2266

              - and -

         Farron Curry, Esq.
         SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, PC
         1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3400
         Seattle, WA 98101
         Telephone: (206) 407-1571

STERILIZATION SERVICES: Faces Class Action Over Toxic Air Emissions
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Napoli Shkolnik, along with Local Counsel Wampler, Carrol, Wilson &
Sanderson, PLLC, filed a class action lawsuit in the Shelby County,
Tennessee State Court on August 2, 2023, seeking compensation for
injuries suffered by the South Memphis community due to exposure to
the toxic emissions from local medical sterilization facility.

Since 1979, Sterilization Services of Tennessee-located in a dense
residential area of south Memphis-has been emitting dangerous
amount of Ethylene Oxide into the air. Ethylene Oxide has been a
known human carcinogen for decades. As a result, the immediately
surrounding community has been and continued to be at an increased
risk of developing certain cancers (including breast cancer,
lymphoma, stomach cancer, and leukemia), experiencing serious
fertility issues and birth injuries, and other devastating health
problems.

Late last year, the EPA began to publish information to impacted
communities-including Memphis-about the most unsafe facilities
using Ethylene Oxide. Sterilization Services of Tennessee is one of
roughly two dozen to have been red flagged as the most dangerous in
the United States, with current exposure levels twenty times the
EPA's maximum acceptable risk level. Even more alarmingly, these
emissions were approximately 100 times higher during periods of the
1980s and continue to be a devastating public health burden on the
community.

Paul Napoli remarked "Defendants' use and emission of Ethylene
Oxide creates an unreasonably high degree of risk to those who
live, pray, and work and the surrounding area. We are taking action
on behalf of the impacted South Memphis community to recover for
the decades of damage inflicted on the men, women, and children
breathing in these toxic emissions from the Defendants' facility."

                  ABOUT NAPOLI SHKOLNIK

Napoli Shkolnik is a national litigation firm providing
representation to persons in class action lawsuits and complex
commercial cases, as well as victims of environmental contamination
disasters, aviation accidents, defective prescriptions drugs and
medical devices, asbestos-related illnesses, and other serious
personal injury matters.[GN]

SUNRISE FLOOR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Grande Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
JOSE GRANDE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUNRISE FLOOR SYSTEMS, LLC; and DOES 1
through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV18075 (Cal. Sup.,
Los Angeles Cty., July 31, 2023) is an action against the Defendant
for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide
meals and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements.

Plaintiff Grande was employed by the Defendant as a floor cleaner.

SUNRISE FLOOR SYSTEMS, LLC was founded in 1990. The Company's line
of business includes providing asphalt tile, carpeting, linoleum,
and resilient flooring installation and services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael H. Boyamian, Esq.
          BOYAMIAN LAW, INC.
          550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
          Glendale, CA 91203-1922
          Telephone: (818) 547-5300
          Facsimile: (818) 547-5678
          Email: michael@boyamianlaw.com

SUTTON TRANSPORT: Hodges Sues Over Biometric Collection and Storage
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JEREMY HODGES, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated v. SUTTON TRANSPORT, INC., Case No. 2023LA000803
(Ill. Cir., July 31, 2023) sues over alleged recording, collection,
and/or storage of biometric data, in violation of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant required certain
employees to scan their fingerprints in order to clock in and out
at Defendant jobsites. Thus, the Defendant caused the biometric
data from employees' fingerprints to be recorded, collected, and
stored. The Defendant did not inform in writing either the
Plaintiff or class members that their biometric data was being
recorded, obtained, collected, and/or stored, and did not inform in
writing the specific purpose and length of term for which their
biometric data would be collected, stored, and/or used. The
Defendant did not obtain the Plaintiff's or class members' written
consent to record, collect, obtain, and/or store the Plaintiff's
and class members' biometric data. Also, the Defendant never
provided Plaintiff with the requisite statutory disclosures nor an
opportunity to prohibit or prevent the collection, storage or use
of Plaintiff’s unique biometric identifiers and/or biometric
information, the suit claims.

The Plaintiff is an individual subject to the same
fingerprint-storing practices as other Defendant's employees.

Sutton Transport is a Midwest trucking company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
          William H. Beaumont, Esq.
          BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
          107 W. Van Buren, Suite 209
          Chicago, IL 60605
          Telephone: (773) 831-8000
          E-mail: rlc@beaumontcostales.com
                  whb@beaumontcostales.com

SYNEOS HEALTH: Faces Securities Suit Over 77% Stock Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBERS AND PIPEFITTERS, JOURNEYMEN, LOCAL
No. 38 DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. SYNEOS HEALTH, INC., ALISTAIR
MACDONALD, MICHELLE KEEFE, and JASON MEGGS, Case No. 1:23-cv-06548
(S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2023) is a securities class action on behalf of
the Plaintiff and all purchasers of Syneos common stock between
September 9, 2020, and November 3, 2022, inclusive, seeking to
pursue remedies against Syneos and certain of the Company's current
and former senior executives under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

During the Class Period, the Defendants claimed that Syneos's
business was booming as the Company lapped weak pandemic-era
results. For example, during a November 2020 industry conference
presentation, the Defendant Meggs represented that Syneos was
poised for growth based on "record" customer order flows and that
Syneos's new business "pipeline really starts to shape up nicely
into quarter 4 and into 2021."

Unbeknownst to investors, however, these and similar statements
made by the Defendants during the Class Period were materially
false and misleading when made. Syneos's business development
capabilities had been critically impaired by recent workforce
reductions and leadership and operational changes, as well as labor
force turmoil caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the lawsuit
alleges.

As a result of the Defendants' Class Period misrepresentations, the
price of Syneos stock soared, reaching all-time highs of more than
$100 per share by December 2021.

Then, on February 17, 2022, Syneos announced deeply disappointing
financial results for the fourth quarter of 2021. As a result, the
Company set apart $3.9 billion from its backlog of expected new
business and reported alarmingly low book-to-bill ratios.
Subsequently, on April 29, 2022, the Company announced the abrupt
departure of the Defendant Macdonald as CEO of the Company.
Defendant Meggs would follow his departure less than a year later.

As a result of these revelations, the price of Syneos stock
declined to a low of less than $23 per share, more than 77% below
the Class Period high, causing the Plaintiff and the Class to
suffer hundreds of millions of dollars in losses and economic
damages under the federal securities laws, the suit alleges.

Syneos is a multinational clinical research organization that helps
biopharmaceutical companies test and develop their products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
          Francisco J. Mejia, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
          & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  bcochran@rgrdlaw.com
                  fmejia@rgrdlaw.com

TACOS LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Herrera Class Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yuli A. Herrera and other similarly situated individuals v. El
Senor De Los Tacos 2 LLC, El Senor De Los Tacos LLC, Sam Rifaie,
and Teresa Delgado Sanchez, individually, Case No. 8:23-cv-01705
(M.D. Fla., July 31, 2023) seeks to recover overtime compensation
under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of
the Plaintiff and all other current and former employees similarly
situated to Plaintiff and who worked more than 40 hours during one
or more weeks on or after March 2022 without being adequately
compensated.

The Plaintiff worked a different number of hours every day, but she
worked between 75 and 80 hours, or an average of 75 hours weekly.
She was not able to take bonafide lunchtime. The Plaintiff was paid
for all her working hours but at her regular rate. The Plaintiff
did not clock in and out, but a lead co-worker was in charge of
signing timesheets for her, and the Defendants were able to track
the number of hours worked by the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated individuals. The Defendants knew about the number of hours
the Plaintiff worked, the suit says.

On July 19, 2023, the Defendant Sam Rifaie allegedly fired the
Plaintiff due to discriminatory reasons. The Plaintiff is in the
process of filing her Charge Of Discrimination with the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission.

The Plaintiff also seeks liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable
attorney's fees.

Plaintiff Yuli A. Herrera was employed by the Defendants as a
non-exempted, full-time, hourly restaurant employee from March 14,
2022, to July 19, 2023, or 70 weeks. The Plaintiff's wage rate was
$12.00 an hour plus tips.

El Senor is a Mexican restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

TECOMET INC: Faces Wallin Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH WALLIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TECOMET, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-01005-NJ (E.D. Wis., July 28, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages and failure
to pay an agreed-upon wage in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee in the position of machinist working at its
Kenosha, Wisconsin location since June 2023.

Tecomet, Inc., is a medical device manufacturer, with a principal
place of business located at 115 Eames Street, Wilmington,
Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         James A. Walcheske, Esq.
         Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
         David M. Potteiger, Esq.
         WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
         235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
         Brookfield, WI 53005
         Telephone: (262) 780-1953
         Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
         E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                 sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                 dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com

TEMASEK HOLDINGS: O'Keefe Sues Over Misappropriation of Funds
-------------------------------------------------------------
CONNOR O'KEEFE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TEMASEK HOLDINGS (PRIVATE) LIMITED, RIBBIT
CAPITAL, L.P., & ALTIMETER CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P., Defendants,
Case No. 3:23-cv-03655 (N.D. Cal., July 24, 2023) seeks damages for
Defendants' knowing and substantial assistance in furtherance of
fraud involving American entrepreneur Sam Bankman-Fried.

According to the complaint, through his cryptocurrency exchange,
FTX, Bankman-Fried preyed on naive, young investors, persuading
them to deposit hard-earned monies into accounts on the exchange,
promising them the funds would be safe and garner returns other
financial institutions could not provide. Both were allegedly
false. Bankman-Fried was in fact running a Ponzi scheme, whereby he
took in FTX customer funds, transferred those funds to entities he
separately owned, and then spent the money on things of unmatched
luxury, including a Formula One team, beachfront property in The
Bahamas, expensive cars, and private jets. Bankman-Fried swindled
more than $8 billion from FTX customers in this way, says the
suit.

Though FTX customers could not see that Bankman-Fried was
misappropriating their deposits on vice, vanity, and speculative
personal investments, Defendants had full view. Through diligence
on FTX and close ties with Bankman-Fried, Defendants learned that
FTX was operated as Bankman-Fried's personal piggy bank, that as
quickly as FTX customer funds flowed into FTX, they flowed back out
to other entities Bankman-Fried separately owned or controlled, and
that FTX lacked the most basic internal controls, such that the
enterprise was in fact a house of cards. But Defendants did not
care since, they, too, had money to make in the scheme, and their
interests aligned with Bankman-Fried's, the suit claims.

This action is a related action to the multidistrict litigation In
re: FTX Cryptocurrency Exchange Collapse Litigation, No.
1:23-md-3076 (S.D. Fla.), pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida before the Honorable K.
Michael Moore. This related action, which was originally filed in
the Southern District of Florida, O'Keeffe v. Sequoia Capital
Operations, LLC, et al., No. 1:23-cv-20700 (S.D. Fla.) is being
filed again before this Court in this District in order to address
the arguments Defendants Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited, Ribbit
Capital, L.P., and Altimeter Capital Management, L.P. raise
regarding whether the Transferee Court has jurisdiction over them
for these claims. The substantive allegations in both actions are
the same, and will be amended in a consolidated amended class
action complaint, once transferred to the Transferee Court and
consolidated into the FTX MDL.

Plaintiff O'Keefe held funds in both U.S. dollars and
cryptocurrencies in a yield-bearing account and/or other account on
the FTX platform.

Temasek Holdings is a global commercial investment company owned by
the Government of Singapore, with a portfolio valued at more than
$400 billion.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          Steven N. Williams, Esq.
          Christopher K.L. Young, Esq.
          Louis A. Kessler, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1000
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 500-6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
          E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
                  swillliams@saverilawfirm.com
                  cyoung@saverilawfirm.com
                  lkessler@saverilawfirm.com

               - and -

          James R. Swanson, Esq.
          Kerry J. Miller, Esq.
          Benjamin D. Reichard, Esq.
          C. Hogan Paschal, Esq.
          Monica Bergeron, Esq.
          FISHMAN HAYGOOD L.L.P.
          201 St. Charles Avenue, 46th Floor
          New Orleans, LA 70170-4600
          Telephone: (504) 586-5252
          Facsimile: (504) 586-5250
          E-mail: jswanson@fishmanhaygood.com
                  kmiller@fishmanhaygood.com
                  breichard@fishmanhaygood.com
                  hpaschal@fishmanhaygood.com
                  mbergeron@fishmanhaygood.com

TESLA INC: Faces Class Action Over Misleading EV Range Estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------
A group of Tesla owners in California are suing the EV maker in a
proposed class-action lawsuit, alleging the company exaggerated the
estimated driving ranges of its vehicles. It comes after a Reuters
investigation found that Tesla gave drivers "rosy" range estimates
and then created a "secret team" to cancel repair appointments
related to driving range issues. Yahoo Finance Senior Reporter Pras
Subramanian breaks down the story.

Video Transcript

Meantime, Tesla facing a class action lawsuit over its EV driving
ranges. Pras Subramanian is here with the details. So, Pras, we've
got another thorn in the side when it comes to Tesla, right?

PRAS SUBRAMANIAN: Yeah, you know, the next shoe dropping here after
that big Reuters report talking about how Tesla may have used an
algorithm to improve or show rosier range kind of display in the
car when actually you're getting a much less range. So now comes a
proposed class action lawsuit, where the plaintiffs are alleging
that Tesla breached vehicle warranties and engaged in fraud and
unfair competition.

The three plaintiffs allege that they got less range than
advertised. In fact, one said he lost 182 miles of range and only
got 92 miles of the day -- that day. Now, I've got to -- I've got
to say, though, EVs sort have a lot of a broad variance in range
when it comes to warm weather versus cold weather versus other
conditions, but for some reason Tesla, according to consumer
reports, has a very -- the widest range, widest disparity in range
across different conditions, basically getting much less than what
the EPA actually certified them to get.

So I think this is sort of an ongoing issue. Like you said, another
thorn in the side for Tesla. We'll see if they maybe try to dispose
of this lawsuit by settling or who knows, because I don't think
they're going to want to get into discovery and emails and -- you
know, they also had this diversion team, right? Where they actually
had a team in Las Vegas, where people complained about range. They
got sent to this team. They were -- got the complaint rid of and
they would bang a xylophone to -- kind of like a boiler room type
of fun activity there, so a lot going on in that report from
Reuters. So we'll see where this actually goes from a legal point
of view.

- Yeah. But I could see that even just anecdotally. I had my first
experience. I rented a Tesla while on vacation, and I could see the
difference in, like, you know, just the battery life And one day to
the next day after charging it, and just literally it was like
temperature it seemed like affected that. So I can see the issue.
Again, to your point, we'll see if this has legs, right?

PRAS SUBRAMANIAN: Yeah, a lot of people are so used to gas powered
cars and your range just sort of sticks with how much gas you have.
Actually, that does vary based on temperature, but EVs in
particular are a lot more because of the battery has to be cooled
or warmed before you use it, and that takes a lot of energy.

- All right. Thank you, Pras Subramanian.

PRAS SUBRAMANIAN: Thank you.

- All right. [GN]

TETHER LTD: New York Judge Tosses Suit Over Token's Value
---------------------------------------------------------
Solomon Odunayo, writing for TimesTabloid, reports that Chief Judge
Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District Of New York has demised a class action lawsuit against
Tether, the issuer of the world's largest stablecoin USDT and
Bifinex, its sister company.

According to a blog post on Tether's official website, the judge
issued a comprehensive and incisive 6-page decision that included
an order dismissing the class action lawsuit that lacks merit,
which was filed by Matthew Anderson and Shawn Dolifka against
Tether and Bitfinex companies in its entirety.

As the report further stated, the court correctly held that the
plaintiffs' complaint lacked any plausible allegation of injury
because it includes no facts showing that "USDT had a diminished
actual value at all."

The fact that the entirety of the class action suit was dismissed
at this very early stage of the proceedings implies that
plaintiffs' allegations were void of any legal merit, Tether
stated.

In a tweet after the favorable ruling, Tether spokesperson and CTO
Paolo Ardoino wrote:

"Tether and Bitfinex Win Comprehensive Legal Victory as U.S.
District Court Dismisses Class Action Lawsuit The Court correctly
held that plaintiffs' complaint lacked any "plausible allegations
of injury" because it includes no facts showing that "USDT had a
diminished actual value at all."

A Throwback to the Complaint Filed in 2021
It's worth noting that the complaint stems from a complaint filed
all the way back in 2021. At that time, Shawn Dolifka and Matthew
Anderson claimed that a statement that Tether was backed by US
Dollar was false.

The complaint read in part:

"Defendants did not maintain the same amount of reserves as Tether
tokens in circulation. At times, Defendants had no reserves
whatsoever. Further, these reserves did not contain U.S. dollars,
as Tether suggested, but were a mix of other assets, such as
overcollateralized loans and other undisclosed commercial paper."
[GN]

TRCU COFFEE: Rosas Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Restaurant Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RUPERTO ROSAS and ADRIANO GARCIA CASTRO, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TRCU COFFEE LLC
d/b/a EAST ONE COFFEE ROASTERS, and TOM CUMMINGS, Defendants, Case
No. 1:23-cv-05712 (E.D.N.Y., July 28, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

Mr. Rosas was employed as a dishwasher, porter, and cleaner in the
kitchen at East One Coffee Roasters from approximately January
2021, until August 31, 2021.

Mr. Castro was employed as a dishwasher, cleaning, and preparation
staff at East One Coffee Roasters from approximately September
2018, through September 11, 2021.

TRCU Coffee LLC, doing business as East One Coffee Roasters, is an
owner and operator of several restaurants, with a principal place
of business at 384 Court St., Brooklyn, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Michael Samuel, Esq.
         THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM
         1441 Broadway, Suite 6085
         New York, NY 10018
         Telephone: (212) 563-9884

TRINITY PACKAGING: Robertson Appeals Order Denying Settlement OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Claude Robertson filed an appeal from the Court's
Decision and Order dated July 5, 2023 entered in the lawsuit styled
CLAUDE ROBERTSON and JOHN SZALASNY, individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TRINITY PACKAGING
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-659, in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of New York.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, on May 21, 2019,
Robertson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a Collective Action Complaint against his former
employer, Trinity, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) alleging
that it willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"),
29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq. After the Defendant answered the
Complaint, District Judge Lawrence J. Vilardo, to whom the case was
previously assigned, referred the case to Magistrate Judge Jerimiah
J. McCarthy for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. Section
636(b)(1)(A) and (B).

On Dec. 27, 2019, Robertson and Szalasny, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed an Amended
Collective and Class Action Complaint alleging that the Defendant
willfully violated the FLSA, New York Labor Law, Sections 650 et
seq. and 190 et seq., and 12 NYCRR Section 142-1.1 et seq.
(collectively, the "NYLL").

On February 18, 2020, the case was reassigned to the Hon. John L.
Sinatra, Jr.

On May 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an "Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and for
Certification of Class for Settlement Purposes," which attached a
"Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release" proposing to settle
all NYLL class claims as well as all FLSA collective claims.

On June 21, 2022, Magistrate Judge McCarthy issued a Report and
Recommendation, recommending that the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion
be denied.

Neither party objected to the Report and Recommendation and the
time to do so has expired. A district court may accept, reject, or
modify the findings or recommendations of a magistrate judge. It
must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate
judge's recommendation to which a party objects. But neither 28
U.S.C. Section 636 nor Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 requires
a district court to review the recommendation of a magistrate judge
to which no objections are raised.

On July 5, 2023, Magistrate Judge McCarthy signed a DECISION AND
ORDER denying final approval of the Settlement.

The appellate case is captioned as Robertson v. Trinity Packaging
Corporation, Case No. 23-1043, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on July 19, 2023.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners Claude Robertson and John Szalasny,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
          Jersey City, NJ 07310
          Telephone: (877) 561-0000

Defendant-Respondent Trinity Packaging Corporation is represented
by:

          Vincent E. Polsinelli, Esq.
          NIXON PEABODY LLP
          677 Broadway
          Albany, NY 12207
          Telephone: (518) 427-2743

U.S. SPECIAL SERVICE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Says
------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. U.S. SPECIAL SERVICE CORPORATION; IVAN S.
SANTOS; NIDALIA ABDALLETIF; and JAMES G. ABDALLETIF, Defendants,
Case No. 6:23-cv-01451 (M.D. Fla., July 31, 2023) seeks to recover
from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Garcia was employed by the Defendants as a driver.

U.S. SPECIAL SERVICE CORPORATION is a company that specializes in
transporting prisoners between correctional facilities. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

ULTA BEAUTY: Faces Qualls Labor Suit Over COVID-19 Screenings
-------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY QUALLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ULTA BEAUTY, INC., Case No. 1:23-at-00630 (E.D. Cal.,
July 27, 2023) alleges that the Defendant implemented an illegal
policy requiring non-exempt distribution center workers to undergo
a symptom screening for COVID-19 before every shift without pay.

According to the complaint, the practice required the employees to
wait and submit to a COVID-19 symptom check prior to clocking-in
before every shift. After the Plaintiff and all other employees
underwent the COVID-19 symptom screenings they were also required
to wait in line to clock-in. They were not paid for this, despite
the fact that they had already started performing tasks on Ulta's
premises, at Ulta's direction, and primarily for Ulta's benefit,
when they were screened, the Plaintiff contends.

Accordingly, the time spent between undergoing the COVID-19
screening and clocking-in is compensable. These screenings were a
uniform practice and policy in all Ulta distribution center
locations. During every week of his employment, Mr. Qualls spent
5-6 minutes per day undergoing symptom screening and waiting in
line to clock-in. During any given week, Mr. Qualls worked 30
minutes of uncompensated time. Thus, because of the Defendant's
unlawful uncompensated COVID-19 symptom screenings, Mr. Qualls was
deprived of wages as required by the California Labor Code, the
lawsuit alleges.

By conservative calculations, this equates to a total of $817 and
$860 in uncompensated wages over the course of Mr. Qualls's
employment. The amount of uncompensated wages may be greater if Mr.
Qualls is entitled to overtime pay for the time spent during the
symptom screenings, between $1,225.50 and $1,290, the lawsuit
further claims.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated Ulta distribution center employees in California
to recover wages, overtime compensation, penalties, interest,
injunctive relief, damages, and reasonable attorney fees and costs
under Cal. Lab. Code sections 1194, 510, 201, 202, 203, 204, 218,
and 226 et seq.

Mr. Qualls was employed by Ulta as a material handler in its
Fresno, California distribution center location at 850 E. Central
Ave, Fresno, California from September 2020 through April 2022. His
job requirements included shipping, receiving, stocking, and
fulfilling orders.

Ulta is an American beauty store chain.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
          Luke Sironski-White, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  bscott@bursor.com
                  lsironski@bursor.com

UNIFI AVIATION: Fuller Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRYAN A. FULLER, JR., on behalf of himself and all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNIFI AVIATION, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
8:23-cv-01643 (M.D. Fla., July 21, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendant for Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals'
unpaid minimum wages and overtime in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.   

Plaintiff Fuller worked for UNIFI as an hourly non-exempt employee
at Tampa International Airport from approximately May 28, 2021
through approximately June 12, 2023. He asserts that he was not
paid by the Defendant the minimum wage for all hours worked, and
was not paid overtime for all of the hours he worked over 40 in a
workweek.

UNIFI AVIATION, LLC. is a Delaware limited liability company that
provides services at the Tampa International Airport in Tampa,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sam Y. Badawi, Esq.
          BADAWI LAW
          14505 University Point Place
          Tampa, FL 33613
          Telephone: (813) 508-8808
          Facsimile: (813) 644-7152
          E-mail: Sam@badawilaw.com

UNITED STATES: Scotts Valley Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff SCOTTS VALLEY BAND OF POMO INDIANS filed an appeal from
the District Court's Order and Memorandum Opinion dated September
30, 2022 entered in the lawsuit styled SCOTTS VALLEY BAND OF POMO
INDIANS v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR et al., Case
No. 1:19-cv-01544-ABJ, in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia.

On May 24, 2019, Plaintiff Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians
brought this action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
against the United States Department of the Interior; David L.
Bernhardt, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Interior;
Tara Sweeney, in her official capacity as Assistant Secretary for
Indian Affairs; and John Tahsuda, in his official capacity as
Principal Deputy to the Assistant for Indian Affairs.

The Plaintiff challenged a February 7, 2019 Indian Lands Opinion
(ILO) issued on behalf of the agency by the then-Principal Deputy
to the Assistant Secretary, John Tahsuda, which found that a parcel
of land in the City of Vallejo, California, would not qualify for
gaming under what is known as the "restored lands" exception in the
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). This decision rendered the
land ineligible for gaming purposes under the IGRA and brought an
end to Scotts Valley's efforts to acquire the land to establish a
casino.

The parties have each filed a motion for summary judgment. The
Plaintiff argued that the agency's decision was arbitrary,
capricious, and otherwise not in accordance with law in
contravention of the APA, and it requested that the Court remand
the ILO to the agency for reconsideration. The Defendants moved for
judgment in their favor on the grounds that the ILO is procedurally
sound, the agency followed its implementing regulations in
rendering the decision, and the regulations are based on
permissible interpretations of the underlying statutes.

On September 30, 2022, the Court entered an order GRANTING
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment with respect to the
question of whether the February 7, 2019 ILO was arbitrary and
capricious when considered in accordance with the Indian canon of
statutory construction, and DENYING the motion with respect to
whether Part 292, 25 C.F.R. Section 292, violates the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act or the Indian Reorganization Act, and whether the
agency's decision is a result of a flawed decision-making process.
The Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment was GRANTED with
respect to the questions of whether the agency exceeded its
statutory authority in issuing Part 292, whether it was lawful for
the then-Principal Deputy to the Assistant Secretary, John Tahsuda,
to issue the ILO, and whether the agency otherwise followed
appropriate procedures, but was DENIED with respect to whether the
ILO was arbitrary and capricious. The Court, therefore, remanded
the ILO to the agency for further proceedings.

Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration, which was DENIED on
May 8, 2023.

This appeal presents the following grounds upon which the
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was denied:

   -- Defendants exceeded their authority under the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act in the adoption of implementing regulations at 25
CFR Part 292.

   -- Defendants violated the Indian Reorganization Act in the
application of implementing regulations at 25 CFR Part 292 by
treating the Tribe's ILO request disparately compared to those made
by restored tribes prior to the adoption of the regulations;

   -- Defendants failed to faithfully apply their regulations at 25
CFR Part 292, and consider all evidence submitted by the Tribe
regarding the Tribe's request for an ILO that a specified parcel of
land in the City of Vallejo, California, is eligible for tribal
gaming if taken into trust by the United States for the Tribe;

   -- Defendant John Tahsuda, the signatory of the negative ILO on
the Tribe's request, did not hold delegated authority to render the
decision; and

   -- Defendants' negative decision on the Tribe's ILO request was
arbitrary and capricious for failing to comply with Defendants' own
2008 Guidance regarding the processing of such requests.

The appellate case is captioned as SCOTTS VALLEY BAND OF POMO
INDIANS v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR et al., Case
No. 23-5170, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit, filed on July 21, 2023.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians is
represented by:

          Patrick R. Bergin, Esq.
          Tim Hennessy, Esq.
          PEEBLES KIDDER BERGIN & ROBINSON LLP
          2020 L Street, Suite 250
          Sacramento, CA 95811
          Telephone: (916) 441-2700
          E-mail: pbergin@ndnlaw.com
                  thennessy@ndnlaw.com

               - and -

          Arlinda F. Locklear, Esq.
          4113 Jenifer Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20015
          Telephone: (202) 237-0933
          E-mail: alocklearesq@verizon.net

WAYFAIR LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Counts Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
KAYLA COUNTS; KAYLYNN MAJOR; and ERICA DUJARDIN, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WAYFAIR LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-11706 (D. Mass., July 28, 2023) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as customer service
representatives.

WAYFAIR LLC provides home improvement products online. The Company
offers furniture, home furnishings, rugs, outdoor, bed, bath,
lighting, kitchen, storage, kids, housewares, decor, decorative
accents, and other household goods. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kelsey Raycroft Rose, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          155 Federal Street, Suite 1502
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (857) 383-4903
          Facsimile: (857) 383-4928
          Email: KRose@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          8151 Peters Road, 4th Floor
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) WORKERS
          Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
          Email: AFrisch@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
          ASH LAW, PLLC
          402 W Liberty Street
          Ann Arbor, MI 48103-4388
          Telephone: (734) 234-5583
          Email: cash@nationalwagelaw.com

               - and -

          Oscar Rodriguez, Esq.
          HOOPER HATHAWAY, P.C.
          126 South Main St
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1903
          Telephone: (734) 662-4426
          Email: orod@hooperhathaway.com

WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action Over Phony Bank Accounts
--------------------------------------------------------
Gretchen Morgenson, writing for NBC News, reports that as a
longtime forensic accountant who helps consumer lawyers investigate
big financial institutions, Jay Patterson has made a point to do
business with a smallish local bank in his hometown of Little Rock,
Arkansas. So he was startled in June 2022 when he received a bank
statement from Wells Fargo showing $12 in an "Everyday Checking"
account in his name, an account he didn't know about and had never
opened.

Patterson immediately called Wells Fargo, a bank he has often
scrutinized in his work, and it closed the account. But he
continued to investigate, he said, learning troubling things that
even he, a finance expert, hadn't known regarding how banks collect
and disperse consumers' financial data.

Other consumers, in public complaints to regulators, have detailed
similarly mysterious Wells Fargo bank accounts, raising fresh
questions, experts say, about compliance and risk management at a
bank that has been rocked by scandals in recent years. In 2016,
Wells Fargo was found to have opened millions of unauthorized
accounts for existing customers to meet sales goals. Those woes
caused the ouster of John Stumpf, the chief executive of the bank
at the time.

Additional improprieties and systems failures have emerged at Wells
Fargo, the nation's fourth largest bank, requiring it to pay
billions in fines and penalties to regulators. The bank settled
allegations that it illegally repossessed military members' cars,
and it was found to have charged car owners for insurance they
didn't need and paused borrowers' home loan payments without their
approval during Covid.

Last December, Wells Fargo agreed to pay $3.7 billion to settle
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau allegations of consumer abuses
involving 16 million accounts. Amid the scandals, the Federal
Reserve Board, the nation's top financial regulator, took the
extraordinary step of capping Wells Fargo's asset size. That cap
remains in place.

Patterson's case differs from the previous unauthorized accounts
mess at Wells Fargo in one important way: those involved existing
customers who had shared their personal information with the bank.
Patterson has never been a Wells Fargo customer and says he has
never given the bank access to his personal data.

Instead, Patterson's Wells Fargo account appears to be a case of
synthetic identity fraud -- when impostors create new identities
using a combination of real and fake personal information, such as
names, Social Security numbers, birth dates and drivers' license
numbers. They use these new identities to launder money, finance
terrorism or defraud financial institutions, government agencies or
individuals, according to a report by the Government Accountability
Office.

Banking regulations require financial institutions to verify
customers' identities before they open accounts to prevent fraud
and money laundering. But as often happens in synthetic identity
fraud, only some of the personal information used to open
Patterson's unauthorized Wells Fargo account was correct -- his
name, address and Social Security number. Other information -- date
of birth, email address and driver's license details -- were wrong.
Thousands of dollars flowed through the account before it was shut.
Patterson suffered no direct financial loss.

This erroneous information should have raised red flags at Wells
Fargo before the account was created, experts say.

"If financial institutions are not vetting customers' identities
thoroughly enough or as required under bank secrecy and anti-money
laundering laws, then they shouldn't be opening the bank account to
begin with," said Carla Sanchez-Adams, senior attorney at the
National Consumer Law Center, a consumer advocacy nonprofit in
Washington, D.C. "Banks that allow accounts to be opened through
synthetic identity theft are allowing fraud actors to use the
accounts for illicit activity."

It will be up to a jury to decide whether the bank met its legal
and regulatory responsibilities in the Patterson case, she added.

Amy Bonitatibus, a Wells Fargo spokeswoman, said in a statement
that allegations of unlawful activity by Wells Fargo are without
merit and that identity theft is a broad industry problem that the
bank is working to minimize.

"Wells Fargo invests hundreds of millions of dollars annually to
fight fraud and strengthen our ability to quickly combat against
criminal behavior," she said. "When we learn of fraudulent
activity, we take action and work to ensure there's no harm to the
consumer."

Patterson is not alone in having Wells Fargo allow a bogus account
to be opened in his name, complaints filed with the CFPB show.
During the period in which his Wells Fargo account was open, more
than 40 unidentified consumers notified the CFPB of similarly
mysterious accounts opened by the bank in their names. Some said
the bank notified them of the accounts.

"Over the past four months, I have placed multiple calls to Wells
Fargo asking them to close the account and to provide information
to me on the circumstances under which the account was opened,"
wrote one Colorado consumer in June 2022 who said Wells Fargo had
opened an unauthorized checking account in their name. "One of
Wells Fargo's representatives actually told me that if I wanted to
get any information from Wells Fargo, I should hire an attorney!"

Patterson, too, remains in the dark about who opened his mystery
account. "Wells Fargo would not tell me anything about this account
-- when it was opened, who opened it, what kind of money went
through it," Patterson told NBC News. "They did acknowledge it was
fraud in a letter a few weeks later."

It could not be determined how many unauthorized accounts like
Patterson's have cropped up at Wells Fargo. In the 2016 scandal,
bank employees opened 1.5 million bank accounts and 565,000 credit
card accounts that customers did not request. Wells Fargo says it
serves one in three U.S. households.

Investigating his unauthorized Wells Fargo account also introduced
Patterson to Early Warning Services LLC, a little-known Arizona
company owned by seven of the nation's largest banks, including
Bank of America, Capital One Financial, JPMorgan Chase and Wells
Fargo. Early Warning Services owns the Zelle Network payment system
and collects vast amounts of consumers' financial data to provide
identity verification services to banks when they open consumer
accounts.

Upon request, Early Warning will provide consumers with reports
showing granular details of their banking activities. Patterson
requested his record, which shows the phony Wells Fargo account was
opened in March 2022 and that roughly $5,000 flowed through it. The
Early Warning report, reviewed by NBC News, also shows three
outgoing payments on the account totaling $15,000 that were
returned for insufficient funds.

Returned transactions like these can damage a consumer's credit
standing and Patterson wonders if they penalized him. On Aug. 1,
Patterson sued Wells Fargo and Early Warning contending that they
stole his personal information and harmed him by reporting the
phony transactions as his. Early Warning appeared to verify
Patterson's erroneous personal data to Wells Fargo, the lawsuit
said, and Wells Fargo furnished transaction information from the
unauthorized account to Early Warning.

In a statement, a spokeswoman for Early Warning said the claims
asserted in the lawsuit "are completely baseless and without legal
merit and we intend to vigorously defend this matter."

Bonitatibus at Wells Fargo said: "The allegations of unlawful
activity in this complaint are without merit."

Patterson's lawsuit seeks class-action status. "Wells Fargo and
Early Warning talk a lot about information security and the
importance of protecting sensitive consumer data," said Theodore O.
Bartholow, III, Patterson's lawyer at Kellett & Bartholow in
Dallas. "The reality is that Wells Fargo and Early Warning are more
concerned about profiting from consumers' private information than
they are about protecting consumers' privacy."

Given his work as a forensic accountant, Patterson said he is
surprised the account was created. "How in the world can a bank
allow an account to be opened by someone who doesn't have all the
vital information that's correct? How did it even get through?" he
asked.

Meanwhile, his mystery account appears to have lived on, even after
Wells Fargo told him it was closed. Last October, three months
after the bank assured Patterson the account had been closed, he
received a postcard from Wells Fargo letting him know it had
changed the address on his accounts "in response to your request."
The new address? The same one Wells Fargo used for the unauthorized
account in the first place. [GN]

WELSPUN PIPES: Sanford Law Appeals Sanctions in Vines Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Respondent Sanford Law Firm and Josh Sanford filed an appeal from
the District Court's Order dated July 7, 2023 entered in the
lawsuit entitled ANTHONY VINES and DOMINIQUE LEWIS, each
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. WELSPUN PIPES, INC.; WELSPUN TUBULAR LLC; and WELSPUN
USA, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00509-SWW, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central.

The lawsuit was filed in April 2018 on behalf of Anthony Vines and
Dominique Lewis, who represented a class of workers at Welspun
Pipes Inc., accusing the company of underpaying the workers for
overtime hours they worked in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act. The case was settled in 2020 after Welspun agreed to pay
$211,666 to be divided among 160 people, and an additional $57,673
to be divided among another 74 people who comprised a second class
of employees who opted into the lawsuit after the settlement was
reached.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the settlement
in favor of the Plaintiffs resulted in a denial of $96,000 in fees
to their counsel, Sanford Law Firm, after U.S. District Judge Billy
Roy Wilson decided the fees were excessive and reduced the amount
to $1. He later raised the amount to $500 after a three-judge panel
on the 8th Circuit vacated the award in 2021 and remanded the
matter back to him.

Judge Wilson awarded the Sanford Law Firm $500 in attorney fees and
$2,790.87 in costs. In that order, Wilson wrote, "This case
continues to be drawn out because the Sanford Law Firm wants to be
paid for work it never performed and never intended to perform.
Additionally, the work SLF actually did perform was billed at
inflated hourly rates and far exceeded the number of reasonable
hours that should have been devoted to this case."

According to his September 2021 order, Wilson calculated a lodestar
of $14,056.50 which he reduced to $500 "based on SLF's egregious
conduct," and $2,790.87 in costs, a decision that was appealed.

A three-judge panel unanimously ruled on June 29, 2023 that Judge
Wilson did not abuse his discretion in the ruling, saying that
Wilson, "complied to the letter with our directive on how to
calculate an award of attorneys' fees and provided ample
justification for reducing the lodestar based on SLF's
unprofessional conduct."

On the heels of that June 29 Order, Judge Wilson issued the order
to Sanford Law Firm to appear July 19 at 2 p.m. before his court to
show cause "as to why it should not be held in contempt of court
and sanctioned under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. More
specifically, Rules 11(b)(1) and (b)(2), which relate to
"needlessly increas[ing] the cost of litigation" and certifying
that "legal contentions are warranted by existing law."

In his four-page order, Judge Wilson accused Sanford Law Firm of
drawing out the case in order to "be paid for work it never
performed and never intended to perform" and of billing work it did
perform at inflated rates and of exceeding the "reasonable" number
of billable hours "that should have been devoted to the case."

On July 7, 2023, Sanford Law Firm filed a motion to continue the
said July 19, 2023 show cause hearing which the Court denied on the
same day through an Order signed by Judge Wilson.

On July 21, an amended Order was entered by Judge Wilson finding
Mr. Sanford to be in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
11 and imposed the following sanctions: (1) Mr. Josh Sanford and
his firm are suspended from practicing in any FLSA cases in federal
court in the Eastern District of Arkansas for a term of two years.
After two years, Respondents may submit a request to lift the
suspension and provide supporting documentation regarding how Mr.
Sanford and SLF's practices have changed; (2) While Mr. Sanford and
SLF are suspended in the Eastern District of Arkansas, they must
provide to every other jurisdiction where they practice copies of
the June 29, 2023 show-cause order and this order. More
specifically, they must be filed in every pending case and any
future cases; and (3) Any attempt to circumvent this suspension by,
for example, associating other lawyers, will be closely examined
and Mr. Sanford is directed to advise any lawyers he associates of
this fact.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: Sanford Law Firm, et al.,
Case No. 23-2682, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit, filed on July 21, 2023.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants' brief, Addendum, and Appendix were due August 11,
2023;

   -- Amicus brief is due September 1, 2023; and

   -- Appellants' reply brief is due September 8, 2023.[BN]

Respondents-Appellants Sanford Law Firm and Josh Sanford are
represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Rosenzweig, Esq.
          300 Spring Building
          Little Rock, AR 72201-2421
          Telephone: (501) 372-5247

WIRELESS ICENTER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Diaz Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
IVAN M. DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. WIRELESS ICENTER LLC; and DAVID
J. CAMPO, Defendants, Case No. Case 0:23-cv-61467-XXXX (S.D. Fla.,
July 31, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages
and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Diaz was employed by the Defendants as a driver.

WIRELESS ICENTER LLC operates as a cellular telephone service
provider. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

WLCC II: Faces Day Suit Over Illegal Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
DAMIEN DAY, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WLCC II DBA ARROWHEAD ADVANCE, Defendant,
Case No. CACE-23-015992 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty.,
July 21, 2023) arises from the Defendant's violation of the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent an electronic
communication to Plaintiff in connection with the collection of the
consumer debt. The electronic communication was sent to Plaintiff
between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in the Plaintiff's time
zone. The Defendant did not have the Plaintiff's consent to
communicate with him between the said hours. As such, by
Defendant's act of sending the electronic communication, Defendant
violated the FCCPA, says the suit.

WLCC II, dba Arrowhead Advance, is a short-term loans company with
its principal place of business in Batesland, South Dakota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.  
          Shannon E. Gilvey, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 907-1136
          Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                  jen@jibraellaw.com
                  shannon@jibraellaw.com

YALE-NEW HAVEN: Must Face ERISA Class Action, Judge Rules
---------------------------------------------------------
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq., and Jeffrey R. Zohn, Esq., of Duane
Morris, disclosed that on July 28, 2023, Judge Michael P. Shea of
the U.S. District Court For The District Of Connecticut granted
class certification for current and former employees of Yale-New
Haven Hospital in Ruilova et al. v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, Inc.
et al., Case No. 3:22-CV-00111 (D. Conn. July 28, 2023). Plaintiffs
alleged that their retirement accounts were not appropriately
managed, which resulted in poor investment decisions and excessive
fees. Although many class action defendants are emboldened to fight
on every aspect of plaintiffs' claims, the Defendants in Ruilova
took a different approach. Prior to the Court granting
certification, Defendants stipulated to the certification of an
over 25,000-person class in order to streamline the litigation and
efficiently manage the litigation. Per Rule 23, the Court deemed
that the motion satisfied the requirements for class
certification.

Case History

In January 2022, Plaintiffs Kaity Ruilova and Eileen Brannigan
("Plaintiffs") filed a class action lawsuit against Yale-New Haven
Hospital, Inc. and its Board of Directors and Investment Oversight
Committee ("Defendants") alleging breach of fiduciary duty under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). Plaintiffs
sought to represent over 25,000 former and current employees that
participated in the Yale-New Haven ERISA Plan ("the Plan"). The
Plan had assets totaling approximately $1.66 billion.

The lawsuit alleged that Defendants failed to fully disclose the
expenses and risks of the Plan's investment options to
participants, allowed unreasonable expenses to be charged to
participants (at a rate around 33% higher than comparable plans),
and accepted high-cost and poorly-performing investments.
Plaintiffs sought to recover all losses resulting from each breach
of fiduciary duty.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss that the Court granted in part
and denied in part. The Court dismissed the claims made against the
Board of Directors because the Board of Directors was not a
fiduciary of the Plan. The Court denied the motion to dismiss as to
the claim alleging that the Plan incurred excessive recordkeeping
and administrative fees and the related failure-to-monitor claims.

While still denying that they are liable to Plaintiffs,
approximately four months later, Defendants struck a deal with
Plaintiffs to jointly file a stipulation to certify the class just
as Plaintiffs articulated in the Complaint. The Court certified the
class in a brief half page order one month later. Per its duty
under Rule 23, the Court analyzed the motion and determined that
Plaintiffs met the prerequisites for class certification.

Implications for Class Action Defendants

While a court certifying a class does not always make headlines,
this one is unique. Defendants proactively agreed to stipulate to
the certification of the class that Plaintiffs' counsel alleged in
the Complaint. The parties' conversations and thought processes
that led to this decision will never be known, but this strategy is
a good reminder to always assess the merits of plaintiffs' claims
and only attack the weakest aspects of the case. Doing more is a
waste of everyone's resources, may demonstrate a lack of good
faith, and could damage credibility in the eyes of the court.[GN]

YELLOW CORP: Faces Class Action Over Inadequate Notice of Layoffs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Campbell at transportdive.com reports that Yellow Corp.
failed to give its 30,000 workers a required 60 days' notice before
mass layoffs, a class-action lawsuit by a laid-off employee
alleges.

Dockworker Armando Rivera, a 25-year Yellow employee and
International Brotherhood of Teamsters shop steward at Yellow's
Bloomington, California terminal, filed the lawsuit against the
carrier and its subsidiaries in Delaware District Court.

Previously the third-largest LTL provider in the U.S., Yellow shut
down operations and is headed for liquidation.

Rivera was among about 600 employees at the Bloomington facility -
and thousands more workers elsewhere - who were laid off on or
about July 28 without the required notice, the complaint alleges.
The lawsuit seeks to create a legal class of plaintiffs and
attorneys plan to notify laid-off Yellow employees affected by the
layoffs.

The lawsuit seeks unpaid wages, salary, commissions, bonuses,
accrued holiday pay, accrued vacation pay, pension and 401(k)
contributions and other benefits the complaint says would have been
covered for 60 days under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act.

For class-action plaintiffs in New Jersey, which has a stricter
WARN law requiring 90 days' notice, the lawsuit also seeks
severance pay equivalent to one week of pay, plus an additional
four weeks of mandatory severance pay.

A Yellow spokesperson declined to comment on the lawsuit.

But in a July 30 letter to the Teamsters, the company said the
layoffs fell under  "unforeseeable business circumstances,"
"faltering company" and "liquidating fiduciary" exceptions to the
WARN Act. The letter was provided by the carrier as its WARN
notice, according to the Illinois Department of Commerce & Economic
Opportunity.

The outcome of the lawsuit, then, could depend on a court's
interpretation of those exceptions - and whether Yellow's looming
bankruptcy qualifies.

The Teamsters and Yellow have a separate lawsuit awaiting
settlement.

Yellow sued the union for $137 million in June, accusing leadership
of "unjustifiably blocking" the network overhaul the company
considered key to survival.

The company and union have pointed the finger at each other for the
carrier's demise, with Yellow blaming the union's intransigence for
the job losses, and the union arguing the carrier mismanaged its
business. [GN]

[*] Lawmakers Pursue Tort Reform as Alternative to Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Gleason, writing for Forbes, reports that in the days and
even hours leading up to Governor Ron DeSantis's (R-Fla.) spring
signing of House Bill 837, tort reform legislation that shortens
the statute of limitations for certain lawsuits and makes a number
of other changes, there was a reported "rush to the courthouse with
negligence lawsuits in advance of its effective date." The scramble
to file suits, noted the firm Holland & Knight, "suggests that HB
837 will curtail the overall tort liability confronted by all kinds
of companies operating in Florida."

Florida isn't the only state where tort reform was enacted in 2023.
Five weeks and a day before Governor DeSantis signed HB 837, Iowa
Governor Kim Reynolds (R) signed HF 161, legislation capping
noneconomic damages in medical malpractices lawsuits.

"Iowa joins the majority of U.S. states by enacting commonsense
medical malpractice reform that places a reasonable cap on
non-economic damages," Governor Reynolds said in her February 16
signing statement for HF 161. "Protecting our health care system
from out-of-control verdicts promotes access to care in communities
across our state and better positions us to recruit the best and
brightest physicians to Iowa."

The need for tort reform that limits unexpected legal costs for
employers while maintaining consumer safeguards is an ongoing topic
of debate in state legislatures. While business interests and trade
associations often advocate for tort reform, companies have also
developed a strategy for mitigating legal costs over the years,
with an approach that focuses on arbitration as an alternative to
class action and does not rely on legislative or regulatory action.
This development, however, has come with its own unintended
consequences that some now seek to address.

The Rise of Mass Arbitration
Though tort reform helps businesses limit the potential for
unexpected legal fees and penalties associated with class action
lawsuits, companies have found over the years that they can
mitigate prospective legal costs through forced arbitration
agreements. Forced arbitration allows companies to avoid the
courtroom through contractual language mandating that consumer
complaints be addressed through arbitration rather than class
action lawsuits or other legal action.

Mandatory arbitration clauses are a tool now used by most of the
largest companies. In fact, 81 of the businesses who comprise the
Fortune 100 prevent consumers from taking them to court with
contractual language mandating arbitration.

Digital terms of service agreements with forced arbitration clauses
are used by many companies today. More than 825 million separate
consumer arbitration agreements are now in existence. As of 2018,
approximately 7,000 arbitration cases were heard annually. Critics
of forced arbitration contend it leads to less favorable outcomes
for consumers, many of whom are unaware they've agreed to forced
arbitration.

"I would venture that every person living in the U.S. today has
unknowingly signed up for forced arbitration in some aspect of
their lives, whether it's through credit cards, cell phones,
long-term care or employment contracts," said Julia Duncan, senior
director of government affairs for the American Association for
Justice.

Arbitration arose as a preferable alternative to class action
lawsuits, one that has been effective in reducing unexpected legal
costs. Yet, although arbitration originated as an alternative to
mass legal action, businesses now face a new predicament with the
rise of mass arbitration, which many companies appear unable to
handle, or in some cases refuse to engage with the process
entirely.

Companies Shirk Mass Arbitration Process They Erected
Companies first pushed for forced arbitration as a way to avoid
class action lawsuits. This effort to avoid mass legal action
through mandatory arbitration has been followed by the rise of mass
arbitration. In an attempt to avoid the costs associated with mass
legal action, companies now find themselves grappling with
unexpected costs associated with mass arbitration.

In 2020, for example, 31,000 separate demands for arbitration were
issued by UberEats customers who argued Uber'sUBER +1.7% temporary
2020 policy of cancelling delivery fees for Black-owned restaurants
was racial discrimination. A New York state appeals court
subsequently denied Uber's request to get out of paying $92 million
in arbitration fees charged by the American Arbitration Association
(AAA) to handle the complaints from UberEats customers.

"While Uber is trying to avoid paying the arbitration fees
associated with 31,000 nearly identical cases, it made the business
decision to preclude class, collective or representative claims in
its arbitration agreement with its consumers," the appeals court
noted in its ruling. "AAA's fees are directly attributable to that
decision."

While companies are now having a difficult time living under the
forced arbitration regime they created, opponents of forced
arbitration have taken legislative action. In 2019, for example,
California lawmakers passed Assembly Bill 51, which prohibits
companies from forcing their workers to sign arbitration
agreements. AB 51, however, was subsequently struck down by the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on February 15, 2023, which ruled
that businesses can mandate that their employees and job applicants
sign arbitration agreements as a condition of employment.

California lawmakers have also passed legislation stipulating that
if an employer fails to pay their required portion of arbitration
fees or costs within 30 days past due, the business is in "material
breach" of the agreement. That deemed breach allows the matter to
be be resolved in civil court and through class action.

Critics of forced arbitration point to examples of companies
shirking the arbitration process that they helped erect and into
which they voluntarily forced complaints. Samsung, for example, is
refusing to pay arbitration fees related to motions for arbitration
filed by nearly 50,000 Samsung Galaxy users who claim their
biometric data was improperly used.

"For nearly a decade, Samsung has included a forced mandatory
arbitration provision and class action waiver in its terms and
conditions wielding it as a shield to successfully evade class
actions," noted the Galaxy users' motion to compel arbitration. The
motion added that "now, when tens of thousands of customers finally
level the playing field by simultaneously filing individual claims
in arbitration, Samsung refuses to honor its contract to arbitrate
and, worse, tells the arbitral forum that Samsung -- a company with
approximately $21 billion in net income last year -- will only
arbitrate if the individual consumers pay its fees."

Critics of forced arbitration point to substandard outcomes for
consumers. Businesses that have mandated arbitration over legal
action, meanwhile, are proving unable to handle the
responsibilities and cost associated with mass arbitration. Those
on all sides of this debate believe some form of response from
state officials is called for. There is bipartisan,
cross-ideological consensus that state legislative reforms to the
arbitration system that companies created is necessary.

While the benefits of some types of tort reform have become clearer
with the passage of time, evidence continues to mount that the
current forced arbitration regime, though it has become common, is
flawed and needs to be reformed. As more state lawmakers pursue
legislation seeking to ensure arbitration leads to better outcomes,
businesses, consumer groups, and stakeholder organizations will
likely be coming to the table with their own ideas. Even those who
differ over the preferred solution, after all, now agree that the
status quo is untenable. [GN]

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Faces Personal Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc. is subject to liabilities from claims alleging
personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company states, "Such claims result from indemnification
obligations undertaken in 1990 in connection with the sale of Riley
Stoker Corporation and the acquisition of Hercules in November
2008. Although Riley, a former subsidiary, was neither a producer
nor a manufacturer of asbestos, its industrial boilers contained
some asbestos-containing components provided by other companies.
Hercules, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Ashland, has
liabilities from claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure
to asbestos. Such claims typically arise from alleged exposure to
asbestos fibers from resin encapsulated pipe and tank products sold
by one of Hercules’ former subsidiaries to a limited industrial
market.

"To assist in developing and annually updating independent reserve
estimates for future asbestos claims and related costs given
various assumptions for Ashland and Hercules asbestos claims,
Ashland retained third party actuarial experts Gnarus. The
methodology used by Gnarus to project future asbestos costs is
based largely on recent experience, including claim-filing and
settlement rates, disease mix, open claims and litigation defense.
The claim experience of Ashland and Hercules are separately
compared to the results of previously conducted third party
epidemiological studies estimating the number of people likely to
develop asbestos-related diseases. Those studies were undertaken in
connection with national analyses of the population expected to
have been exposed to asbestos. Using that information, Gnarus
estimates a range of the number of future claims that may be filed,
as well as the related costs that may be incurred in resolving
those claims. Changes in asbestos-related liabilities and
receivables are recorded on an after-tax basis within the
discontinued operations caption in the Statements of Consolidated
Comprehensive Income (Loss)."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4zkx5eyj

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CarParts.com's Subsidiaries Faces Damage Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
CarParts.com, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary, Automotive Specialty
Accessories and Parts, Inc., and its wholly-owned subsidiary
Whitney Automotive Group, Inc. ("WAG"), are named defendants in
several lawsuits involving claims for damages caused by
installation of brakes during the late 1960's and early 1970's that
contained asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "WAG marketed certain brakes, but did not
manufacture any brakes. WAG maintains liability insurance coverage
to protect its and the Company's assets from losses arising from
the litigation and coverage is provided on an occurrence rather
than a claims made basis, and the Company is not expected to incur
significant out-of-pocket costs in connection with this matter that
would be material to its consolidated financial statements."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y75djfhp

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Has 900 Pending Exposure Suits at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company, at June 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022, had
approximately 900 lawsuits pending against former parent company E.
I. du Pont de Nemours (EID) alleging personal injury from exposure
to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "A small number of cases are pending outside of
the U.S. Most of the actions were brought by contractors who worked
at sites between the 1950s and the 1990s. A small number of cases
involve similar allegations by EID employees or household members
of contractors or EID employees. Finally, certain lawsuits allege
personal injury as a result of exposure to EID products.

"At June 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022, Chemours had accruals of
$35 related to these matters."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4y2zyeda


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Defends 251 Suits at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company has been named as a defendant in civil
actions alleging that certain talcum powder products that were sold
prior to 1996 were contaminated with asbestos and/or caused
mesothelioma and other cancers, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "As of June 30, 2023, there were 251 individual
cases pending against the Company in state and federal courts
throughout the United States, as compared to 248 cases as of March
31, 2023 and 227 cases as of December 31, 2022. During the three
months ended June 30, 2023, 57 new cases were filed and 54 cases
were resolved by voluntary dismissal or settlement. During the six
months ended June 30, 2023, 103 new cases were filed and 79 cases
were resolved by voluntary dismissal, settlement or dismissal by
the court. The value of the settlements in the periods presented
was not material, either individually or in the aggregate, to such
periods' results of operations.

"A significant portion of the Company's costs incurred in defending
and resolving these claims has been, and the Company believes that
a portion of the costs will continue to be, covered by insurance
policies issued by several primary, excess and umbrella insurance
carriers, subject to deductibles, exclusions, retentions, policy
limits and insurance carrier insolvencies."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mr2j2t5j


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Estimates $5.3MM Net Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation has estimated its net
asbestos-related aggregate liability including related legal costs
to range between $5,300,000 and $9,700,000, net of insurance
recoveries, using actuarial parameters of continued claims for a
period of 38 years from June 30, 2023, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Columbus McKinnon states, "The Company has estimated its
asbestos-related aggregate liability that is probable and
estimable, net of insurance recoveries, in accordance with U.S.
generally accepted accounting principles approximates $6,890,000.
The Company has reflected the liability gross of insurance
recoveries of $8,081,000 as a liability in the Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2023. The recorded
liability does not consider the impact of any potential favorable
federal legislation. This liability will fluctuate based on the
uncertainty in the number of future claims that will be filed and
the cost to resolve those claims, which may be influenced by a
number of factors, including the outcome of the ongoing broad-based
settlement negotiations, defensive strategies, and the cost to
resolve claims outside the broad-based settlement program. Of this
amount, management expects to incur asbestos liability payments of
approximately $2,900,000 over the next 12 months. Because payment
of the liability is likely to extend over many years, management
believes that the potential additional costs for claims will not
have a material effect on the financial condition of the Company or
its liquidity, although the effect of any future liabilities
recorded could be material to earnings in a future period.

"A share of the Company's previously incurred asbestos-related
expenses and future asbestos-related expenses are covered by
pre-existing insurance policies. The Company had been engaged in a
legal action against the insurance carriers for those policies to
recover past expenses and future costs incurred. The Company came
to an agreement with the insurance carriers to settle its case
against them for recovery of a portion of past costs and future
costs for asbestos-related legal defense costs. The agreement was
finalized during the quarter ended September 30, 2020. The terms of
the settlement require the carriers to pay gross defense costs
prior to retro-premiums of 65% for future asbestos-related defense
costs subject to an annual cap of $1,650,000 for claims covered by
the settlement.

"Further, the insurance carriers are expected to cover 100% of
indemnity costs related to all covered cases. Estimates of the
future cost sharing have been included in the loss reserve
calculation as of June 30, 2023 and March 31, 2023. The Company has
recorded a receivable for the estimated future cost sharing in
Other assets in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet at June
30, 2023 in the amount of $8,081,000, which offsets its asbestos
reserves."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yj2m45dm

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Paid $7MM to Settle Asbestos Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc.,
is one of many defendants in a substantial number of lawsuits filed
throughout the U.S. by persons alleging bodily injury as a result
of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Crown Holdings states, "During the six months ended June 30, 2023,
the Company paid $7 to settle asbestos claims and pay related legal
and defense costs

"As of June 30, 2023, the Company's accrual for pending and future
asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was $213, including
$165 for unasserted claims. The Company determines its accrual
without limitation to a specific time period.

"It is reasonably possible that the actual loss could be in excess
of the Company's accrual. However, the Company is unable to
estimate the reasonably possible loss in excess of its accrual due
to uncertainty in the following assumptions that underlie the
Company's accrual and the possibility of losses in excess of such
accrual: the amount of damages sought by the claimant (which was
not specified for approximately 82% of the claims outstanding at
the end of 2022), the Company and claimant's willingness to
negotiate a settlement, the terms of settlements of other
defendants with asbestos-related liabilities, the bankruptcy
filings of other defendants (which may result in additional claims
and higher settlements for non-bankrupt defendants), the nature of
pending and future claims (including the seriousness of alleged
disease, whether claimants allege first exposure to asbestos before
or during 1964 and the claimant's ability to demonstrate the
alleged link to Crown Cork), the volatility of the litigation
environment, the defense strategies available to the Company, the
level of future claims, the rate of receipt of claims, the
jurisdiction in which claims are filed, and the effect of state
asbestos legislation (including the validity and applicability of
the Pennsylvania legislation to non-Pennsylvania jurisdictions,
where the substantial majority of the Company’s asbestos cases
are filed)."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yb5x8wdv

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Group Reports $412MM Net A&E Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enstar Group Limited has $412 million of net liabilities relating
to defendant A&E exposures, for the period ended June 30, 2023,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3v86u67a


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enviri Corp. Has 17,259 Pending PI Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Enviri Corporation is named as one of many defendants
(approximately 90 or more in most cases) in legal actions in the
U.S. alleging personal injury from exposure to airborne asbestos
over the past several decades, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "At June 30, 2023, has reported 17,259 pending
asbestos personal injury actions filed against the Company.  Of
those actions, 16,602 were filed in the New York Supreme Court (New
York County), 115 were filed in other New York State Supreme Court
Counties and 542 were filed in courts located in other states

"The complaints in most of those actions generally follow a form
that contains a standard damages demand of $20 million or $25
million, regardless of the individual plaintiff's alleged medical
condition, and without identifying any specific Company product.

"At June 30, 2023, 16,549 of the actions filed in New York Supreme
Court (New York County) were on the Deferred/Inactive Docket
created by the court in December 2002 for all pending and future
asbestos actions filed by persons who cannot demonstrate that they
have a malignant condition or discernible physical impairment. The
remaining 53 cases in New York County are pending on the Active or
In Extremis Docket created for plaintiffs who can demonstrate a
malignant condition or physical impairment.

"In view of the persistence of asbestos litigation in the U.S., the
Company expects to continue to receive additional claims in the
future. The Company intends to continue its practice of vigorously
defending these claims and cases. At June 30, 2023, the Company has
obtained dismissal in approximately 28,432 cases by stipulation or
summary judgment prior to trial."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mvzdsdpk

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ESAB Corp. Logs 14,764 Unresolved Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
ESAB Corporation, for the tree months ended June 30, 2023, has
recorded 14,764 unresolved asbestos-related claims, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Certain entities that became subsidiaries of
ESAB Corporation in connection with the Separation are the legal
obligor for certain asbestos obligations including long-term
asbestos insurance assets, long-term asbestos insurance
receivables, accrued asbestos liabilities, long-term asbestos
liabilities, asbestos indemnity expenses, asbestos-related defense
costs and asbestos insurance recoveries related to the asbestos
obligations from the Former Parent's other legacy industrial
businesses. As a result, the Company holds certain asbestos-related
contingencies and insurance coverages.

"These subsidiaries are each one of many defendants in a large
number of lawsuits that claim personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos from products manufactured or used with
components that are alleged to have contained asbestos. Such
components were acquired from third-party suppliers, and were not
manufactured by any of the Company's, or Former Parent's,
subsidiaries, nor were the subsidiaries, producers or direct
suppliers of asbestos. The manufactured products that are alleged
to have contained or used asbestos generally were provided to meet
the specifications of the subsidiaries' customers, including the
U.S. Navy. The subsidiaries settle asbestos claims for amounts the
Company considers reasonable given the facts and circumstances of
each claim. The annual average settlement payment per asbestos
claimant has fluctuated during the past several years while the
number of cases has steadily declined. The Company expects such
fluctuations to continue in the future based upon, among other
things, the number and type of claims settled in a particular
period and the jurisdictions in which such claims arise. To date,
the majority of settled claims have been dismissed for no payment.

"The Company has classified asbestos-related activity in Loss from
discontinued operations, net of taxes in the Consolidated and
Combined Condensed Statements of Operations. This is consistent
with the Former Parent's classification on the basis that, pursuant
to the purchase agreement from the Former Parent's Fluid Handling
business divestiture, the Former Parent retained its
asbestos-related contingencies and insurance coverages. However, as
the Former Parent did not retain an interest in the ongoing
operations of the business subject to the contingencies,
asbestos-related activity was classified as part of Loss from
discontinued operations, net of taxes in the Condensed Consolidated
Statements of Operations of the Former Parent.

"The Company has projected each subsidiary's future
asbestos-related liability costs with regard to pending and future
unasserted claims based upon the Nicholson methodology. The
Nicholson methodology is a standard approach used by experts and
has been accepted by numerous courts. Consistent with the Former
Parent, it is ESAB's policy to record a liability for
asbestos-related liability costs for the longest period of time
that ESAB management can reasonably estimate.

"The Company believes that it can reasonably estimate the
asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims that will
be resolved in the next 15 years and has recorded that liability as
its best estimate. While it is reasonably possible that the
subsidiaries will incur costs after this period, the Company does
not believe the reasonably possible loss or a range of reasonably
possible losses is estimable at the current time. Accordingly, no
accrual has been recorded for any costs that may be paid after the
next 15 years. Defense costs associated with asbestos-related
liabilities as well as costs incurred related to efforts to recover
insurance from the subsidiaries' insurers are expensed as
incurred.

"Each subsidiary has separate insurance coverage acquired prior to
Company ownership. The Company estimates the insurance assets for
each subsidiary based upon the applicable policy language, expected
recoveries and allocation methodologies, and law pertaining to the
affected subsidiary's insurance policies."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y5smu5f4

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Faces 590 New PI Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corporation, for the three months ended March 31, 2023,
has received 590 new claims and lawsuits that seeks to recover
damages for personal injury allegedly caused by exposure to
asbestos-containing products manufactured and/or distributed by our
heritage companies in the past, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Typically, these lawsuits have been brought
against multiple defendants in state and federal courts. While the
overall number of asbestos-related claims in which we or our
predecessors have been named has generally declined in recent
years, there can be no assurance that this trend will continue, or
that the average cost per claim to us will not further increase.
Asbestos-containing materials incorporated into any such products
were encapsulated and used as internal components of process
equipment, and we do not believe that significant emission of
asbestos fibers occurred during the use of this equipment.

"During both the three and six months ended June 30, 2023 the
Company incurred expenses (net of insurance) of approximately $4.3
million and $6.0 million, respectively, compared to $1.8 million
and $3.6 million, respectively, for the same periods in 2022 to
defend, resolve or otherwise dispose of outstanding claims,
including legal and other related expenses. These expenses are
included within SG&A in our condensed consolidated statements of
income.

"The Company had cash inflows (outflows) (net of insurance and/or
indemnity) to defend, resolve or otherwise dispose of outstanding
claims, including legal and other related expenses of approximately
$(11.7) million and $2.7 million, respectively, during the six
months ended June 30, 2023 and 2022, respectively.

"Historically, a high percentage of resolved claims have been
covered by applicable insurance or indemnities from other
companies, and we believe that a substantial majority of existing
claims should continue to be covered by insurance or indemnities,
in whole or in part."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mr4ch67s


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graybar Has $2.5MM Insurance Receivable at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Graybar Electric Company, Inc., is subject to various claims,
disputes, and administrative and legal matters incidental to past
and current business activities, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "We have in place insurance coverage for
litigation defense and claim settlement costs incurred in
connection with our asbestos claims.  We estimate the value of
probable insurance recoveries associated with our asbestos reserve
based on management's interpretations and estimates surrounding the
available or applicable insurance coverage.  We estimate the future
payments for litigation defense and claim settlement costs based on
our historical liabilities and current and projected caseloads.  At
June 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022, we had $2.5 million and $41.5
million of insurance receivables recorded in other current assets
and other non-current assets, respectively, and $2.5 million and
$41.5 million recorded in other current liabilities and other
non-current liabilities, respectively, related to our asbestos
litigation defense and claims settlement reserve.  

"Estimated loss contingencies are accrued only if the loss is
probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated.
With respect to a particular loss contingency, it may be probable
that a loss has occurred but the estimate of the loss is a wide
range.  If we deem an amount within the range to be a better
estimate than any other amount within the range, that amount will
be accrued.  However, if no amount within the range is a better
estimate than any other amount, the minimum amount of the range is
accrued.  While we believe that none of these claims, disputes,
administrative, and legal matters will have a material adverse
effect on our financial position, these matters are uncertain and
we cannot at this time determine whether the financial impact, if
any, of these matters will be material to our results of operations
in the period in which such matters are resolved or a better
estimate becomes available."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/23fbcr28



ASBESTOS UPDATE: International Paper Has $111MM in Claims Liability
-------------------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Company has been named as a defendant in
various asbestos-related personal injury litigation, in both state
and federal court, primarily in relation to the prior operations of
certain companies previously acquired by the Company, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

International Paper states, "The Company's total recorded liability
with respect to pending and future asbestos-related claims was $111
million, net of estimated insurance recoveries and $105 million,
net of estimated insurance recoveries as of June 30, 2023 and
December 31, 2022, respectively. While it is reasonably possible
that the Company may incur losses in excess of its recorded
liability with respect to asbestos-related matters, we are unable
to estimate any loss or range of loss in excess of such liability,
and do not believe additional material losses are probable."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4r9zu37r

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Defends 501 Cases at July 2
------------------------------------------------------------------
Minerals Technologies Inc., as of July 2, 2023, had 501 open
asbestos cases related to certain talc products previously sold by
Barretts Minerals Inc., which is an increase in volume from
previous years, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "These claims typically allege various theories
of liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict
liability and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive
damages, but most of these claims do not provide adequate
information to assess their merits, the likelihood that the Company
will be found liable, or the magnitude of such liability, if any.
We are unable to state an amount or range of amounts claimed in any
of these lawsuits because state court pleading practices do not
require the plaintiff to identify the amount of the claimed damage.
The Company's position, as stated publicly, is that the talc
products sold by Barretts Minerals Inc. are safe and do not cause
cancer.

"The Company records accruals for loss contingencies associated
with legal matters, including talc-related litigation, when it is
probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount of the
loss can be reasonably estimated. Amounts accrued for legal
contingencies often result from a complex series of judgments about
future events and uncertainties that rely heavily on estimates and
assumptions including timing of related payments. The ability to
make such estimates and judgments can be affected by various
factors, including whether damages sought in the proceedings are
unsubstantiated or indeterminate, the stage of the litigation, the
factual and legal matters in dispute, the ability to achieve
comprehensive settlements, the availability of co-defendants with
substantial resources and assets participating in the litigation,
and our evaluation of the unique attributes of each claim.

"While costs relating to the defense of talc-related cases has
increased concurrently with the volume, the majority of these costs
have historically been borne by Pfizer Inc. pursuant to the terms
of certain agreements entered into in connection with the Company's
initial public offering in 1992. The Company is entitled to
indemnification, pursuant to agreement, for liabilities arising
from sales prior to the initial public offering. The Company
continues to receive information with respect to potential costs
associated with the defense and/or settlement of talc-related cases
not subject to indemnification from Pfizer Inc. Although the
Company believes that the talc products are safe and that claims to
the contrary are without merit, Barretts Minerals Inc.
opportunistically settled certain talc-related cases in 2022 and
2023. In the third quarter of 2022, as a result of the settlements
and defense costs incurred to date, the Company reviewed its
estimates of the probability and amount of losses in connection
with its existing talc-related cases and recorded $31 million for
litigation costs to defend against, opportunistically settle, and
establish a reserve for claims associated with certain talc
products from Barretts Minerals Inc. In the second quarter of 2023,
the Company reviewed its estimates of the probability and amount of
losses in connection with its current talc-related cases and
recorded a charge of $13.9 million for litigation costs and to
restore its reserve.

"The broader litigation and regulatory environments for
talc-related claims continue to evolve. Given this ongoing
evolution, it is reasonably possible that the Company will incur a
loss for liabilities associated with future talc claims in excess
of the amount currently recognized. This risk is based on the
potential for new talc-related claims that could eventually be
filed against the Company together with their associated
disposition cost and related legal costs, taking into account the
portion of such hypothetical claims that may be subject to
indemnification by Pfizer Inc. These factors are unknown and may
vary depending upon, among other things, changes in the regulatory
and litigation environments for talc-related claims. Further, the
Company has announced that it will exit the talc business following
a strategic review of its operations and amidst the backdrop of the
escalating talc-related litigation environment. However, the effect
of an exit from the talc business on future litigation is unknown.
Accordingly, the Company is currently unable to provide an estimate
or range of the magnitude of the Company's potential loss related
to future talc claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4v54exm6

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Defends 1,465 Exposure Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc., at June 30, 2023, approximately
1,465 cases were outstanding for which they may be responsible for
any related liabilities, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Since inception in September 2001 through June
30, 2023, the amounts paid for settled claims and awards of
asbestos-related damages, including interest, were approximately
$68.3 million.  We do not have insurance coverage for the indemnity
and defense costs associated with the claims we face.

"In evaluating our potential asbestos-related liability, we have
considered various factors including, among other things, an
actuarial study of the asbestos related liabilities performed by an
independent actuarial firm, our settlement amounts and whether
there are any co-defendants, the jurisdiction in which lawsuits are
filed, and the status and results of such claims.  As is our
accounting policy, we consider the advice of actuarial consultants
with experience in assessing asbestos-related liabilities to
estimate our potential claim liability; and perform an actuarial
evaluation in the third quarter of each year and whenever events or
changes in circumstances indicate that additional provisions may be
necessary.  The methodology used to project asbestos-related
liabilities and costs in our actuarial study considered: (1)
historical data available from publicly available studies; (2) an
analysis of our recent claims history to estimate likely filing
rates into the future; (3) an analysis of our currently pending
claims; (4) an analysis of our settlements and awards of
asbestos-related damages to date; and (5) an analysis of closed
claims with pay ratios and lag patterns in order to develop average
future settlement values.  Based on the information contained in
the actuarial study and all other available information considered
by us, we have concluded that no amount within the range of
settlement payments and awards of asbestos-related damages was more
likely than any other and, therefore, in assessing our asbestos
liability we compare the low end of the range to our recorded
liability to determine if an adjustment is required.

"In accordance with our policy to perform an annual actuarial
evaluation in the third quarter of each year, an actuarial study
was performed as of August 31, 2022.  The results of the August 31,
2022 study included an estimate of our undiscounted liability for
settlement payments and awards of asbestos-related damages,
excluding legal costs, ranging from $68.8 million to $111.6 million
for the period through 2065.  The change from the prior year study,
which was as of August 31,2021, was a $7.9 million increase for the
low end of the range and an $11.4 million increase for the high end
of the range.  The increase in the estimated undiscounted liability
from the prior year study at both the low end and high end of the
range reflects our actual experience, our historical data and
certain assumptions with respect to events that may occur in the
future.

"Based upon the results of the August 31, 2022 actuarial study, in
September 2022 we increased our asbestos liability to $68.8
million, the low end of the range, and recorded an incremental
pre-tax provision of $18.5 million in earnings (loss) from
discontinued operations in the accompanying statement of
operations.  Future legal costs, which are expensed as incurred and
reported in earnings (loss) from discontinued operations in the
accompanying statement of operations, are estimated, according to
the August 31, 2022 study, to range from $53.2 million to $105.7
million for the period through 2065.  Total operating cash outflows
related to discontinued operations, which include settlements,
awards of asbestos-related damages and legal costs, net of taxes,
were $4.5 million and $9.5 million for the six months ended June
30, 2023 and 2022, respectively."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3fvwrd8b


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Tech. Defends Exposure Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------
Trane Technologies plc's wholly-owned subsidiaries, and its former
companies, have been named as defendants in asbestos-related
lawsuits in state and federal courts, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "In virtually all of the suits, a large number
of other companies have also been named as defendants. The vast
majority of those claims were filed against predecessors of Aldrich
and Murray and generally allege injury caused by exposure to
asbestos contained in certain historical products sold by
predecessors of Aldrich or Murray, primarily pumps, boilers and
railroad brake shoes. None of the Company's existing or
previously-owned businesses were a producer or manufacturer of
asbestos.

"On June 18, 2020, Aldrich and Murray filed voluntary petitions for
relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code to resolve equitably
and permanently all current and future asbestos related claims in a
manner beneficial to claimants and to Aldrich and Murray. As a
result of the Chapter 11 filings, all asbestos-related lawsuits
against Aldrich and Murray have been stayed due to the imposition
of a statutory automatic stay applicable in Chapter 11 bankruptcy
cases. In addition, at the request of Aldrich and Murray, the
Bankruptcy Court has entered an order temporarily staying all
asbestos-related claims against the Trane Companies that relate to
claims against Aldrich or Murray (except for asbestos-related
claims for which the exclusive remedy is provided under workers'
compensation statutes or similar laws). On August 23, 2021, the
Bankruptcy Court entered its findings of facts and conclusions of
law and order declaring that the automatic stay applies to certain
asbestos related claims against the Trane Companies and enjoining
such actions. As a result, all asbestos-related lawsuits against
Aldrich, Murray and the Trane Companies remain stayed.

"The goal of these Chapter 11 filings is to resolve equitably and
permanently all current and future asbestos-related claims in a
manner beneficial to claimants and to Aldrich and Murray through
court approval of a plan of reorganization that would create a
trust pursuant to section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code, establish
claims resolution procedures for all current and future
asbestos-related claims against Aldrich and Murray and channel such
claims to the trust for resolution in accordance with those
procedures. Aldrich and Murray intend to seek an agreement with
representatives of the asbestos claimants on the terms of a plan
for the establishment of such a trust.

"Prior to the Petition Date, predecessors of each of Aldrich and
Murray had been litigating asbestos-related claims brought against
them. No such claims have been paid since the Petition Date, and it
is not contemplated that any such claims will be paid until the end
of the Chapter 11 cases.

"From an accounting perspective, the Company no longer has control
over Aldrich and Murray as of the Petition Date as their activities
are subject to review and oversight by the Bankruptcy Court.
Therefore, Aldrich and its wholly-owned subsidiary 200 Park and
Murray and its wholly-owned subsidiary ClimateLabs were
deconsolidated as of the Petition Date and their respective assets
and liabilities were derecognized from the Company's Condensed
Consolidated Financial Statements. Amounts derecognized in the
second quarter of 2020 primarily related to the legacy
asbestos-related liabilities and asbestos-related insurance
recoveries and $41.7 million of cash.

"Upon deconsolidation in the second quarter of 2020, the Company
recorded its retained interest in Aldrich and Murray at fair value
within Other noncurrent assets in the Condensed Consolidated
Balance Sheet. In determining the fair value of its equity
investment, the Company used a market-adjusted multiple of earnings
valuation technique. As a result, the Company recorded an aggregate
equity investment of $53.6 million as of the Petition Date.

"Simultaneously, the Company recognized a liability of $248.8
million within Other noncurrent liabilities in the Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheet related to its obligation under the
Funding Agreements. The liability was based on asbestos related
liabilities and insurance related assets balances previously
recorded by the Company prior to the Petition Date."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5xtj82p5


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Faces 200 PI Lawsuits as of June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd.'s one of its subsidiaries was named as a defendant,
along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits arising out of the
subsidiary's manufacture and sale of heat exchangers, and
involvement in the construction and refurbishment of major
industrial complexes alleging bodily injury or personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.    

The Company states, "As of June 30, 2023, the subsidiary was a
defendant in approximately 200 lawsuits with a corresponding number
of plaintiffs.  For many of these lawsuits, we have not been
provided sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine
whether all or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the
subsidiary, the basis of any such claims, or the nature of their
alleged injuries.  The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold
in 1989.  In December 2021, the subsidiary and certain insurers
agreed to a settlement of outstanding disputes that provide the
subsidiary with cash.  An earlier settlement, achieved in September
2018, provided the subsidiary with cash and an annuity that begins
making payments in 2024.  Together with a coverage in place
agreement with certain insurers and additional coverage issued by
other insurers, we believe the subsidiary has sufficient resources
to respond to both the current lawsuits as well as future lawsuits
of a similar nature.  While we cannot predict or provide assurance
as to the outcome of these matters, we do not expect the ultimate
liability, if any, resulting from these claims to have a material
adverse effect on our condensed consolidated statement of financial
position, results of operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4che2ync


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Has 915 Active Cases as of June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation, as of June 30, 2023, was a
defendant in approximately 915 active asbestos cases involving
approximately 2,505 plaintiffs. The vast majority of these cases
involve multiple defendants, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "About 1,545, or approximately 62 percent, of
these plaintiff claims are currently pending in a jurisdiction
which permits filings with massive numbers of plaintiffs. At
December 31, 2022, U. S. Steel was a defendant in approximately 920
active asbestos cases involving approximately 2,510 plaintiffs.
Based upon U. S. Steel's experience in such cases, it believes that
the actual number of plaintiffs who ultimately assert claims
against U. S. Steel will likely be a small fraction of the total
number of plaintiffs.

"The amount U. S. Steel accrues for pending asbestos claims is not
material to U. S. Steel's financial condition. However, U. S. Steel
is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related
claims due to a number of uncertainties, including: (1) the rates
at which new claims are filed, (2) the number of and effect of
bankruptcies of other companies traditionally defending asbestos
claims, (3) uncertainties associated with the variations in the
litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, (4)
uncertainties regarding the facts, circumstances and disease
process with each claim and (5) any new legislation enacted to
address asbestos-related claims.

"Further, U. S. Steel does not believe that an accrual for
unasserted claims is required. At any given reporting date, it is
probable that there are unasserted claims that will be filed
against the Company in the future. The Company engages an outside
valuation consultant to assist in assessing its ability to estimate
an accrual for unasserted claims. This assessment is based on the
Company's settlement experience, including recent claims trends.
The analysis focuses on settlements made over the last several
years as these claims are likely to best represent future claim
characteristics. After review by the valuation consultant and U. S.
Steel management, it was determined that the Company could not
estimate an accrual for unasserted claims.

"Despite these uncertainties, management believes that the ultimate
resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect
on U. S. Steel's financial condition."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2x8y5mf2


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Defends 260 PI Claims As of June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
Univar Solutions Inc., as of June 30, 2023, had approximately 260
asbestos-related cases for which Univar has the obligation to
defend and indemnify; however, this number tends to fluctuate up
and down over time, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Historically, the vast majority of these
asbestos cases have been dismissed without payment or with a
nominal payment. While the Company is unable to predict the outcome
of these matters, it does not believe, based upon currently
available facts, that the ultimate resolution of any of these
matters will have a material effect on its overall financial
position, results of operations, or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ya9nu9bt



                            *********

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 ***