/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230821.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, August 21, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 167

                            Headlines

ABC CORP: Agustin Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
ACADIA PHARMA: Marechal Suit Over Psycho-Meds sNDA Issue Ongoing
ACCREDITATION COMMISSION: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Says
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Case Management Conference Reset to August 24
ALDEYRA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Paice Class Suit Over Misinformation

ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Simon Antitrust Class Suit
ALLEGO INC: Chan Sues Over Illegal Wiretapping of Sales Calls
ALLSTATE INDEMNITY: Final OK of Settlement Deal in Free Sought
AMAZON WEB: Loses Bid to Dismiss Rivera Class Action
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hall Alleges

APPY PIE: Civil Standing Order Entered in Engineer.Ai Class Suit
ARMY AND AIR: Thompson Appeals Suit Dismissal to 7th Cir.
AT&T SERVICES: 9th Circuit Court Revives 401(k) Plan Class Suit
AXCESS FINANCIAL: Files 9th Cir. Appeal in Linton Class Action
BABA LOKENATH: Faces Licona Harassment Suit in E.D.N.Y.

BAE SYSTEMS: Cabrales Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
BAE SYSTEMS: Class Cert Bid Hearing in Cabrales Set for Oct. 2
BANCO POPULAR: Certification of Settlement Class Sought in Golden
BANK OF AMERICA: Milliken Sues Over Excessive Interest Charges
BATTAGLIA DISTRIBUTING: Jimenez Alleges Unfair Biometric Collection

BECTON DICKINSON: Faces Kabak Shareholder Suit Over Infusion Pump
BHP BILLITON: Pennington Bid for Class Certification Stayed
BIG MONSTER: Faces Birwari Suit Over Underpayment of Wages
BLACKBAUD INC: Settles Suits Over Data Breach Incident
BOSTON POST: Parties in Pichardo Seek to Stay Class Cert Briefing

BRIGHT HORIZONS: Parties Must Submit Proposed Class Cert Schedule
CALIFORNIA: MPC Seeks to File Portions of Exhibit 14 Under Seal
CAPRI NAILS: Li Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
CARBONITE INC: Consolidated Shareholder Suit in Utah Ongoing
CARBONITE INC: Feng Class Suit on Server Issue Ongoing

CARING FOR MONTANANS: Smith Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
CARNIVAL CRUISES: AG Sought to Intervene in Passengers COVID-9 Suit
CASSAVA SCIENCES: Faces Shareholder Suits Over False Statements
CASSAVA SCIENCES: Shareholder Slam SEC Filings in Texas Court
CASSAVA SCIENCES: Shareholder Suit Over Alzheimer Meds Ongoing

CASSAVA SCIENCES: Shareholder Suit Over Incentive Plan Ongoing
CERTEGY PAYMENT: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 29
CHANCELLOR SENIOR: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Reuschel Suit
CIRCLES OF CARE: Parties Must Confer on Class Cert Deadlines
CLAY LACY: Faces Martinez Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices

COLLECTION PROFESSIONALS: Court Stays McGrady Class Cert Bid
COMMONWEALTH HEALTH: Jarrow Suit Removed to D. New Mexico
CR FITNESS: Faces Meraz Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
CREATORS AGENCY: Sells Unregistered Securities, Garrison et al. Say
CREW AVIATION: Lawson Sues Over Non-remittance of Pay Deductions

DEL MONTE: Court Narrows Claims in Bryan Class Action
DEPUY SYNTHES: Faces Suit Over Dangers, Risks of Implant Devices
DEUTSCH IMPORTS: Collinson Sues Over Defective Glass Tiles
DIGITIAL TURBINE: Garfield Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
DOLLAR GENERAL: Conner Files ADA Suit in W.D. North Carolina

EDWARD D. JONES: Late-Filed Initial Disclosures Partly Stricken
ELEPHANT INSURANCE: Holmes Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit
EOS ENERGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due October 2
EPIC SHEET: Faces Lopez Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
FASTMED URGENT: Discloses Patients' Health Info, Rodriguez Says

FLO HEALTH: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Sept. 11
FLORIDA HEALTH: Borchers Sues Over Alleged Data Breach
FLORIDA REGIONAL: Wang Appeals Ruling in Peng Suit to 11th Cir.
FOLGERS COFFEE: Sept. 27 Extension to File Class Cert Reply Sought
GENERAL MOTORS: Bid for More Time to File Reply Denied as Moot

GEORGIA: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Dec. 15
GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER: Bid to File Documents Under Seal OK'd
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Williams Class Suit Over YouTube Ads
GOOGLE LLC: Joint Stipulation Extending Time to Seal Briefing OK'd
GOOGLE LLC: Plaintiffs Seek to File Class Cert Bid Under Seal

GSF USA: Solis Sues Over Unlawful Biometric Data Retention
HAPPY GROUP: Rusoff Seeks to Seal Class Cert Reply Docs
HCA HEALTHCARE: Nelson Sues Over Patients' Unprotected Health Info
HOMEADVISOR INC: Bid to Exclude Airquip Expert Opinions Partly OK'd
HOOKED UP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barrow Suit Alleges

HP INC: More Time to Depose Plaintiffs' Class Cert Expert Sought
HWS LLC: Hall Seeks Certification of Plaintiff Class
INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: Han Sues Over Fragrances' Price Monopoly
INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 17, 2024
INTERNI CUCINE: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages

INTEVAC INC: Settles Quiusky Labor Suit in California Court
IOWA: Hilson Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Prisoners
ISSUANCE INC: Standing Order for Newly Assigned Civil Cases Entered
JCF HOUSEMENTS: Faces Class Suit Over WARN Act Violations
JLM DECORATING: Martinez Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification

JOHN HANCOCK: Linhart Seeks to Certify Putative Class
JOHN HANCOCK: Linhart Seeks to File Portions of Docs Under Seal
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bid for Additional $32M Pelvic Mesh Suit Denied
JUDGE GROUP: Court Approves Class Settlement in Baez-Medina Suit
KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Plaintiffs Seeks Initial OK of Settlement

KROY LLC: Jones Seeks to Recover Proper Overtime Wages
LAML LLC: Parties  in Mabry Has Until Oct. 12 to Complete Mediation
LIVE NATION: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due October 3
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Lim Sues Officers Over Share Price Drop
LOS ANGELES, CA: Bid to Drop AG as Defendant in Bail Suit Denied

LOS ANGELES, CA: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to Feb. 12, 2024
LULIFAMA.COM LLC: Court Junks Pop Class Suit
LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Dismissal of Houser Class Suit Under Appeal
LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Voight Putative Class Suit in Louisiana
LUMICO LIFE: Fails to Secure Private Info, Miller Suit Alleges

M.A.C. COSMETICS INC: Maciel Suit Removed to N.D. California
MAIN EVENT: Does Not Properly Pay Restaurant Servers, McCall Says
MAMCO INC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due June 7, 2024
MARATHON OIL: Settlement Reached in Suit Over Royalty
MARS PETCARE: Class Certification Bid Hearing Set for Nov. 10

MASSACHUSETTS: Discriminates People With Mental Health Concerns
MAXIMUS FEDERAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bishop Alleges
MAXIMUS INC: Faces Bishop Suit Over Data Breach
MAXIMUS INC: Faces Buzzel Suit Over Data Breach
MAXIMUS INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Buzzell Alleges

MEDICAL SCANNING: Christensen Sues Over Data Privacy Violations
MEMORIAL HEALTH: Appeals Remand of Valladolid Suit to State Court
MERCEDES BENZ: Filing for Class Status Bid Due March 15, 2024
MH CONSULTANTS: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due May 7, 2024 in Olvera
MILLIMAN INC: Mattson Bid to Certify Class Partly OK'd

MITRE CORPORATION: Brown, et al., File Class Certification Bid
MONTREAL, QC: Faces Class Suit Over Extensive Flooding
MULVADI CORP: Prelim Approval of Class Settlement Sought in Corker
NCAA: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Vice Suit
NCH HEALTHCARE: McFalls Suit Sues Over Illegal Kickback Under FLSA

NEI GENERAL: Ruiz, et al., Seek to Certify Three Overlapping Classe
NEW JERSEY: Plaintiffs Seek Revised Class Cert. Order
NEW YORK, NY: General Pretrial Management Order Entered
NEW YORK, NY: Parties Seek Stay of Summary Judgment Filing
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Civil Standing Order Entered in Iannelli Suit

NPAS SOLUTIONS: Dickenson Appeals Once Again in Johnson TCPA Suit
OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Parties Must File Status Reports by August 18
OLO INC: Continues to Defend Federal Securities Class Suit in N.Y.
OUTSOURCE UTILITY: Plagakis Suit Removed to E.D. California
OVERLAKE HOSPITAL: Discloses Private Info to Meta, Nienaber Claims

OWENS AND MINOR: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to Sept. 15
PARKVIEW LOUNGE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kalagasidis Alleges
PEABODY ENERGY: Puerto Rico Municipalities Drop Class Suit
PEQUENOS GIGANTES: Fails to Pay Regular, OT Wages Under FLSA
PFIZER INC: Hickox Sues Over COVID-19 Vaccine's Deceptive Ads

PLUSHCARE INC: Class Settlement in Robbins Suit Gets Final Nod
PNS STORES: Appeals Final Judgment in Wellons Suit to 9th Circuit
POLISHED.COM INC: Oral Argument for Maschhoff Class Suit Not Set
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Faces Baker Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Landi Alleges

QUANTA SERVICES: Subsidiary Faces Benton Class Suit
QUICK BOX: Parties Seek to Defer Class Cert Ruling to August 31
QUONTIC BANK: Seeks Sept. 18 Extension to File Class Cert Bid
REALPAGE INC: Lauder Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee
RIBBON HOME: Williams Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Bid

RISING RIVER RESORT: Faces Class Suit Over RV Park Rent Hikes
ROHR INC: Court Junks Bid to Strike Fulimeni Expert Reports
RTX CORP: Faces Class Suit Over GTF Engines' Quality Control Issues
SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: DuPont Bid for Reconsideration Tossed
SANTA CLARA, CA: UNIFYSCC Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class

SCHENKER INC: Filing of Class Cert Bid in Wickham Due Nov. 20
SEABOARD CORP: Court Certifies Class in Pork Price-Fixing Suit
SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: PERS of Mississippi Files Securities Class Suit
SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Johnson FLSA Suit Transferred to C.D. California
ST MARY PARISH: La. Bid to Participate as Amicus Curiae Partly OK'd

ST. CLAIR COUNTY, IL: Miller Suit Seeks Proper Wages
ST. LOUIS, MO: To Pay $43,000 Each Protesters Over Misconduct
STANLEY BLACK & DECKER: Continues to Defend Rammohan Class Suit
SUBURBAN PROPANE: Dismissal of Consumer Class Suits Under Appeal
SUMO LOGIC: Michel Files Suit Over Merger with Francisco Partners

SWCA INCORPORATED: Roberts Suit Removed to D. New Mexico
SYGMA NETWORK: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due July 25, 2024
SYNEOS HEALTH: Affirms Dismissal of Securities Class Action Suit
SYNERGY AUTO: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, Lu Alleges
TAKARA SAKE: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due April 11, 2024

TARGET CORP: Parties Stipulate Extending Class Cert Deadlines
TAXACT INC: Kirkham Sues Over Sensitive Taxpayer Data Disclosure
TD BANK: 60-day Extension of Case Deadlines Sought in Nelipa Suit
TD BANK: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 31
TELEPHONE AND DATA: Continues to Defend Putative Stockholder Suit

TESLA INC: Corona Sues Over Deceptive EV Mileage Driving Range
TETHER LTD: Wins Anderson Class Suit Over Illegal USDT Stablecoin
TIVITY HEALTH: Court OK's Bid to Stay Proceedings in Strougo
TMX FINANCE: Bid to Certify Class in Kolstedt Denied w/o Prejudice
TOMPKINS COMMUNITY: Class Settlement in Mock Gets Initial Approval

TRAVEL GUARD: Seeks to Seal Portions of Class Cert. Opposition
TRUSTCO BANK: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Reset to Jan. 15, 2024
UNISYS CORP: Conditional Collective Status Sought in Brunswick
UNITED STATES: Elbert Bid for Attorney's Fees, Costs Partly OK'd
UNITED STATES: Omaha Widow Joins Suit Over Water Contamination

UNITED STATES: Parties Seek More Time for Class Cert Hearing
VESTRA LABS: Abercrombie Suit Removed to E.D. California
VIRGIN GALACTIC: Continues to Defend Lavin Class Suit in New York
VYSTAR CREDIT: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due June 21, 2024
WALMART INC: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Arrison Suit

WASHINGTON: Writ of Habeas Corpus Filed in Aiona Civil Rights Suit
WASTE CONNECTIONS: Subsidiaries Hit Over Noxious Odors from Sites
WEGMANS FOOD: Class Certification Bid Filing Extended to Oct. 2
WESTLAKE CORP: Caustic Soda Price-Fixing Suit in Quebec Stayed
WESTLAKE CORP: Caustic Soda Price-Rigging Suit Ongoing in NY Court

WISCONSIN ELECTRIC: Faces Munt ERISA Suit in WI Court
WORLDWIDE INDUSTRIES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due July 29, 2024
X-MODE SOCIAL: Egan Hits Sale of Geolocation Data
YATSEN HOLDING: Court Appoints Wong & Park as Lead Plaintiffs
YELLOW CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Layoffs Without Prior Notice

YELLOWSTONE LANDSCAPE: Mason Sues Over Landscapers' Unpaid OT
YUMMYEARTH: Asks Court to Impose Terminating Sanctions v. Marino

                            *********

ABC CORP: Agustin Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Ewer Donaldo Lopez Agustin, individually and on behalf of all other
employees similarly situated v. ABC CORP. (REAL NAME UNKNOWN) D/B/A
PHIL'S II SUB SHOP, PHIL ARCURI AND MENY PEREZ, Case No.
3:23-cv-04010 (D.N.J., July 26, 2023), is brought alleging pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New Jersey Wage
and Hour Law ("NJWHL" hereinafter), that they are entitled to
recover from the Defendants: unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages,  prejudgment and post-judgment interest;
and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Defendants did not count or compensate the Plaintiff for
minimum wages or overtime wages according to state and federal
laws. The Defendants committed the following alleged acts
knowingly, intentionally and willfully. While employed by the
Defendants, the Plaintiffs were not exempt under federal and state
laws requiring employers to pay employees overtime. The Defendants
did not provide Plaintiff and other employees with written notices
about the terms and conditions of their employment upon hire in
relation to their rate of pay, regular pay cycle and rate of
overtime pay, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was hired as a general restaurant support staff, from
March 2023 to June 22, 2023.

The Defendants' operate the restaurant, ABC Corp. (real name
unknown) d/b/a PHIL'S II SUB SHOP, (hereinafter "PHIL'S").[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yongjin Bae, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Fax: (718) 353-6288
          Email: ybae@hanglaw.com


ACADIA PHARMA: Marechal Suit Over Psycho-Meds sNDA Issue Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, that in April 19, 2021, a purported
stockholder of the company filed a putative securities class action
complaint captioned "Marechal v. Acadia Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,"
(Case No. 21-cv-0762) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California against the company and certain of its
current executive officers.

On September 29, 2021, said court issued an order designating lead
plaintiff and lead counsel. On December 10, 2021, lead plaintiff
filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint generally alleges
that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose that the materials
submitted in support of its supplemental new drug application
(sNDA) seeking approval of "pimavanserin" for the treatment of
hallucinations and delusions associated with dementia-related
psychosis contained statistical and design deficiencies and that
the FDA was unlikely to approve the sNDA in its current form. The
amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other
relief. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint
on February 15, 2022.

On September 27, 2022, the court issued an order denying
defendants' motion to dismiss. Defendants filed their answer to the
amended complaint on October 19, 2022, and filed a motion for
reconsideration on October 25, 2022. On February 2, 2023, the Court
issued an order denying the motion for reconsideration. On March
17, 2023, the Court issued a scheduling order, setting an August
21, 2023, deadline for lead plaintiff to file a motion for class
certification, and setting a fact-discovery cutoff of December 15,
2023.

Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company based in
San Diego, California focused on the development and
commercialization of innovative medicines to address unmet medical
needs in central nervous system disorders and rare diseases.


ACCREDITATION COMMISSION: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIN FOWLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff v.
ACCREDITATION COMMISSION FOR EDUCATION IN NURSING, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-03403-AT (N.D. Ga., August 1, 2023) seeks to
redress Defendant's unlawful, willful and wanton failure to protect
the personal identifiable information ("PII") of the Plaintiff and
the Class.

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, between February 6,
2023 and February 27, 2023, an unknown actor gained access to the
Defendant's inadequately protected computer systems. Due to the
Defendant's negligence, cybercriminals obtained everything they
need to commit identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial and
personal lives of thousands of individuals.

For the rest of their lives, Plaintiff and the Class Members will
have to deal with the danger of identity thieves possessing and
misusing their PII. Plaintiff and Class Members will have to spend
time responding to the Breach and are at an immediate, imminent,
and heightened risk of all manners of identity theft as a direct
and proximate result of the Data Breach, says the suit.

The Plaintiff and Class Members have incurred and will continue to
incur damages in the form of, among other things, identity theft,
attempted identity theft, lost time and expenses mitigating harms,
increased risk of harm, damaged credit, deprivation of the value of
their PII, loss of privacy, and additional damages.

ACCREDITATION COMMISSION FOR EDUCATION IN NURSING, INC. is one of
three program accrediting agencies for nursing education in the US
and its territories. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James M. Evangelista
          EVANGELISTA WORLEY LLC
          500 Sugar Mill Road, Suite 245A
          Atlanta, GA 30350
          Telephone: (404) 205-8400
          Facsimile: (404)205-8395
          Email: jim@ewlawllc.com


ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Case Management Conference Reset to August 24
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL GONZALEZ, et al.,
v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-07423-JSC (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order
granting in part and denying in part the County Defendants' motion
to amend their answer:

     The County Defendants are granted leave to amend their answer
to
     plead the affirmative defenses of res judicata and
exhaustion.

     The County Defendants shall file their amended answer by July
28,
     2023.

     In light of the parties' stipulation regarding deposition
dates
     and further meet and confer scheduled for August 15, 2023, the

     Court resets the August 3, 2023, case management conference
for
     August 24, 2023, at 1:30 p.m.

The Plaintiffs filed this action in November 2019 alleging they are
subject to unlawful, inhumane, and unconstitutional treatment at
the Santa Rita Jail. Over the following three and a half years,
Plaintiffs filed five amended complaints and Defendants moved to
dismiss each version of the complaint.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47ky0y5 at no extra charge.[CC]

ALDEYRA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Paice Class Suit Over Misinformation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aldeyra Therapeutics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, that in July 31, 2023, a purported stockholder
filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts, against the company and certain
current and former officers, captioned Juliana Paice v. Aldeyra
Therapeutics, Inc., et al. (No. 23-cv-11737).

The lawsuit alleges violations by the defendants of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule
10b-5.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made false or misleading
statements or failed to disclose certain information concerning the
New Drug Application (NDA) for and the prospects of ADX-2191 for
the treatment of primary vitreoretinal lymphoma. The lawsuit seeks,
among other things, compensatory damages on behalf of herself and
all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the
company's securities between March 17, 2022, and June 20, 2023, as
well as attorneys' fees and costs.

Aldeyra Therapeutics, Inc., together with its wholly-owned
subsidiaries is a clinical-stage biotechnology company devoted to
discovering innovative therapies designed to treat immune-mediated
diseases.


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Simon Antitrust Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Align Technology Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 4, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Simon antitrust class suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

On June 5, 2020, a dental practice named Simon and Simon, PC doing
business as City Smiles brought an antitrust action in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of
itself and a putative class of similarly situated practices seeking
monetary damages and injunctive relief relating to the Company's
alleged market activities in alleged clear aligner and intraoral
scanner markets.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint and added VIP Dental Spas as a
plaintiff on August 14, 2020.

A jury trial is scheduled to begin in this matter on June 29, 2024.


The Company believes the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and
it intends to vigorously defend itself.

Align Technology manufactures Invisalign brand clear tooth
aligners, which are generally used to straighten teeth.[BN]


ALLEGO INC: Chan Sues Over Illegal Wiretapping of Sales Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOELLEN CHAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALLEGO, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-11781 (D. Mass., Aug.8, 2023) alleges that the Defendant
violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act by wiretapping
communications of sales representatives and potential customers of
companies who contract with Defendant.

Companies employ the Defendant, Allego, a third party, to provide
sales optimization services. Part of the suite of services offered
by Allego is the recording of sales calls to create sales team
training programs and to attempt to improve future sales calls with
the use of AI. The communications made during the sales calls are
routed through the servers of and are used by Allego to, among
other things, secretly observe, record, and analyze telephonic
communications in real time. Allego collects this information
without the knowledge or consent of either the sales associate or
the person on the other end of the sales call, says the suit.

Headquartered in Waltham, Massachusetts, Allego, Inc. is a Delaware
company that primarily offers sales optimization software and
applications focused on sales, customer service, marketing, and
analytics. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Joel D. Smith, 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: jsmith@bursor.com

ALLSTATE INDEMNITY: Final OK of Settlement Deal in Free Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAPHNE NOBLE FREE, V.
ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, Case No. 9:20-cv-00190-MJT (E.D. Tex.),
the Plaintiff moves the court for entry of an order granting final
approval of class action Settlement filed with the Court on January
26, 2023.

The lawsuit arises out of Allstate's alleged refusal to comply with
Texas law and its contractual obligation to pay full contractual
benefits for Plaintiff's total fire loss -- and all those similarly
situated, covered by an insurance policy issued by Allstate.

Allstate Indemnity provides insurance products and services.

A copy of the Court's order
the Plaintiff's motion
the Defendant's motion

dated July 25, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3QwSOMC at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark C. Sparks, Esq.
          Jane S. Leger, Esq.
          Tripp Jones, Esq.
          THE FERGUSON LAW FIRM, LLP.
          3155 Executive Blvd.
          Beaumont, TX 77705
          Telephone: (409) 832-9700
          Facsimile: (409) 832-9708
          E-mail: mark@thefergusonlawfirm.com
                  jleger@thefergusonlawfirm.com
                  tjones@thefergusonlawfirm.com

                - and -

          Mike Love, Esq.
          MIKE LOVE & ASSOCIATES, L.L.C.
          202 E. Lufkin Ave.
          Telephone: (936) 632-2000
          Facsimile: (936) 632-2005
          E-mail: mikelove@texaslawoffice.com

AMAZON WEB: Loses Bid to Dismiss Rivera Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AVELARDO RIVERA and
YASMINE ROMERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00269-JHC
(W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John H. Chun entered an order denying
Amazon's motion to dismiss:

  -- First, the Court notes that Amazon's Service Terms are not
     incorporated by reference in the SAC and were instead
submitted
     by Amazon via a declaration, so it is unclear whether the
Court
     can even consider them.

  -- But even if it could, the Court is not convinced that Amazon's

     inclusion of a catch-all provision requiring its customers to

     comply with the law generally is enough to satisfy its legal
     obligations under BIPA.

  -- Amazon could program Rekognition so that it will not run
unless
     and until it provides BIPA-compliant notice and obtains
     BIPA compliant consent from end users, either through
ProctorU’s
     interface or otherwise.

The Plaintiffs Avelardo Rivera and Yasmine Romero are citizens and
residents of Illinois who took multiple remote tests while
attending two colleges in Illinois in 2019–2020.

Amazon Web is a subsidiary of Amazon that provides on-demand cloud
computing platforms and APIs to individuals, companies, and
governments, on a metered, pay-as-you-go basis.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3s9P1Lj at no extra charge.[CC]

AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hall Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
WYETH HALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 2:23-cv-01145 (W.D. Wash., Aug. 2, 2023) seeks to recover from
the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff Hall was employed by the Defendant as a virtual customer
service representative.

AMAZON INC. offers online shopping services. The Company retails
products such as television, computers, shoes, jewellery, books,
toys, video games, grocery, clothing, and other products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael C. Subit, Esq.
          FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS LLP
          705 Second Avenue, Suite 1200
          Seattle, Washington 98104
          Telephone: (206) 682-6711
          Facsimile: (206) 682-0401
          Email: msubit@frankfreed.com

               - and -

          Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
          Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
          Michael J. Anderson, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4620
          Email: crodriguez@bm.net
                 apiazza@bm.net
                 manderson@bm.net

APPY PIE: Civil Standing Order Entered in Engineer.Ai Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ENGINEER.AI CORPORATION,
v. APPY PIE LLC, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-05376-HDV-JEM (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Hernan D. Vera entered an order:

  -- The Plaintiff shall promptly serve the complaint in
accordance
     with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and shall comply with
     Local Rule 5-3 with respect to all proofs of service.

  -- Any defendant, including any "Doe" or fictitiously named
     defendant, not served within 90 days after the case is filed
     shall be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

  -- The Court is committed to fostering the development of new and

     Diverse lawyers in the legal community. Consequently, the
Court
     strongly encourages litigants to provide opportunities for
less
     experienced lawyers or lawyers whose identities and/or
     backgrounds further the diversity of the legal profession to
     conduct hearings before the Court, particularly where they
     contributed significantly to the underlying motion.

  -- The Court expects that everyone in the courtroom be treated
with
     dignity and respect at all times.

  -- The Court hears status conferences and scheduling conferences
on
     Thursdays at 10:00 a.m. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
     Procedure 16(b) and 26(f), the Court will issue an Order
Setting
     a Scheduling Conference.

  -- Unless otherwise ordered, no later than 14 days before the
     Scheduling Conference, counsel shall file a Joint Rule 26(f)
     Report.

  -- All discovery matters are referred to the assigned Magistrate

     Judge. Proposed protective orders must also be submitted to
the
     Magistrate Judge.

  -- Counsel in putative class actions shall commence litigation
     promptly and begin discovery immediately so that the motion
for
     class certification can be filed expeditiously.

  -- No party may file more than one motion pursuant to Federal
Rule
     of Civil Procedure 56, regardless of whether such motion is
     denominated a motion for summary judgment or summary.
     adjudication.

Northwestern Mutual is a mutual life insurance company organized by
a special act of the Wisconsin Legislature in 1857.

Appy Pie is an application development platform that enables users
to create mobile applications.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qwnRO7 at no extra charge.[CC]

ARMY AND AIR: Thompson Appeals Suit Dismissal to 7th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------
LINDA THOMPSON is taking an appeal from court orders in the lawsuit
entitled Linda Thompson, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Army and Air Force Exchange
Service, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-02799-SMY, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

The case was originally filed in the Third Judicial Circuit Court
for Madison County, under Case No. 2022LA001292, and was removed to
the Southern District of Illinois on December 2, 2022.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendant knowingly or recklessly failed to comply
with the Fair and Accurate Transactions Act ("FACTA") by disclosing
certain credit and debit card account information of the Plaintiff
and other customers on printed purchase receipts at its stores.

On Jan. 3, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case
for lack of jurisdiction, which the Court granted through an Order
entered by Judge Staci M. Yandle on Jan. 19, 2023. The case was
dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, all pending
motions were terminated as moot, and the Clerk of Court was
directed to close the case. A motion to remand the case filed by
Plaintiff Linda Thompson was also denied.

The Plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend judgment which was
also denied by the Court on June 29, 2023.

The appellate case is captioned Linda Thompson, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. Army and Air Force
Exchange Service, Case No. 23-2447, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on July 26, 2023. [BN]

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

            William M. Sweetnam, Esq.
            KEOGH LAW, LTD.
            55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3390
            Chicago, IL 60603
            Telephone: (312) 374-3408
            Facsimile: (312) 726-1093
            E-mail: Wsweetnam@keoghlaw.com

                    - and -

            Roy C. Dripps, Esq.
            ARMBRUSTER, DRIPPS, ET AL.
            51 Executive Plaza Court
            Maryville, IL 62062
            Telephone: (618) 208-0320
            Facsimile: (800) 927-1529
            E-mail: royd@adwblaw.com

Defendant-Appellee ARMY AND AIR FORCE EXCHANGE SERVICE is
represented by:

            Taylor Pitz, Esq.
            DOJ-Civ
            1100 L. St. NW
            Washington, DC 20002
            Telephone: (202) 305-5200
            E-mail: taylor.n.pitz@usdoj.gov

AT&T SERVICES: 9th Circuit Court Revives 401(k) Plan Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille of Bloomberg Law reports that a class of 245,000
people covered by AT&T Services Inc.'s 401(k) plan revived their
lawsuit over fees and public disclosures when the Ninth Circuit on
August 4, 2023 said a plan's recordkeeping contract can qualify as
a prohibited transaction under ERISA.

AT&T's decision to amend its existing recordkeeping contract with
Fidelity Workplace Services to incorporate new brokerage and
investment advisory services amounts to a prohibited transaction
between a plan and an interested party, the US Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit said. The Employee Retirement Income Security
Act's prohibited transaction rules are "broad" and "unambiguous,"
and they encompass "arm's-length service transactions". [GN]

AXCESS FINANCIAL: Files 9th Cir. Appeal in Linton Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
AXCESS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. has filed an appeal in the lawsuit
entitled Lakisha Linton, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Axcess Financial Services, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01832-CRB, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from Alameda County Superior Court to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, alleges that
Axcess has operated an illegal "rent-a-bank" scheme whereby it has
charged California residents high interest rates on loans while
evading state usury laws.

On April 21, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to join an indispensable party, or in the alternative, to
require that Plaintiff obtain joinder.

On May 1, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to
the Alameda County Superior Court.

On June 30, 2023, Judge Charles R. Breyer issued an order denying
as moot the Motion to Dismiss; and granting the Motion to Remand.

On July 7, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion for leave to file a
motion for reconsideration, which the Court denied through an Order
entered by Judge Charles R. Breyer on July 17, 2023.

The appellate case is captioned Lakisha Linton v. Axcess Financial
Services, Inc., Case No. 23-80066, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 27, 2023. [BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent LAKISHA COLE LINTON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

            Zachariah P. Dostart, Esq.
            James T. Hannink, Esq.
            DOSTART HANNINK, LLP
            4225 Executive Square, Suite 600
            La Jolla, CA 92037
            Telephone: (858) 623-4200

Defendant-Petitioner AXCESS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. is represented
by:

            Scott M. Pearson, Esq.
            Benjamin G. Shatz, Esq.
            MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
            2049 Century Park, E, Suite 1700
            Los Angeles, CA 90067
            Telephone: (310) 312-4283
                       (310) 312-4383

BABA LOKENATH: Faces Licona Harassment Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------
DELI TEPEPA LICONA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BABA LOKENATH LAUNDROMAT INC. (D/B/A BABA
LOKENATH LAUNDROMAT), TAPAN MODAK, SAJIB MODAK, and GAYATRI MODAX,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-05638 (E.D.N.Y., July 26, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendants for unpaid minimum wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and for violations of the
New York Labor Law; and for being subjected to sex discrimination,
sexual harassment, hostile work environment based on sex,
retaliation, wrongful discharge/constructive discharge under the
New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights
Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as laundromat attendant at
Baba Lokenath Laundromat Inc. and Lokenath Laundromat Inc. from
approximately July 2014 until January 10, 2023.

Baba Lokenath Laundromat Inc. owns, operates, and controls a
Laundromat situated in Corona, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs is represented by:

          Catalina Sojo, Esq.
          CSM LEGAL, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620

BAE SYSTEMS: Cabrales Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FEDERICO CABRALES,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. BAE
SYSTEMS SAN DIEGO SHIP REPAIR, INC., a California corporation; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-02122-AJB-DDL (S.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying
the following class and pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure ("FRCP"), Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3):

   "All current and former non-exempt employees of the Defendant in

   the State of California at any time within the period beginning

   four (4) years prior to the filing of this action and ending at
the
   time this action is certified."

Alternatively, the Plaintiffs move to certify the following
subclasses:

   -- Minimum Wage Security Subclass: all non-exempt employees
working
      at the BAE shipyards located in California from October 26,
      2017, through March 30, 2020, who were required to go
through
      a security screening.

   -- Overtime Security Subclass: all non-exempt employees working
at
      the BAE shipyards located in California from October 26,
2017,
      through March 30, 2020, who were required to go through a
      security screening and who worked a shift longer than 8 hours
in
      a workday and/or more than 40 hours in a workweek.

   -- Rounding Minimum Wage Subclass: all non-exempt employees
working
      at the BAE shipyards located in California during the Class
      Period, whose time punches were rounded.

   -- Rounding Overtime Subclass: all non-exempt employees working
at
      the BAE shipyards located in California during the Class
Period,
      whose time punches were rounded and who worked shifts longer

      than 8 hours in a workday and/or more than 40 hours in a
      workweek.

   -- Overtime Regular Rate of Pay Subclass: all non-exempt
employees
      working at the BAE shipyards located in California during the

      Class Period, who received overtime pay in the same workweek
as
      additional remuneration, including shift differentials and
other
      forms of non-discretionary pay, other than regular or
overtime
      earnings.

   -- Meal Break Subclass: all non-exempt employees working at the
BAE
      shipyards located in California during the Class Period, who

      worked one or more shifts longer than five hours.

   -- Second Meal Break Subclass: all non-exempt employees working
at
      the BAE shipyards located in California during the Class
Period,
      who worked one or more shifts longer than ten hours.

   -- Rest Break Subclass: all non-exempt employees working at the
BAE
      shipyards located in California during the Class Period, who

      worked one or more shifts of 3.5 hours or longer.

   -- Reimbursement Cellphone Subclass: all non-exempt employees
      working at the BAE shipyards located in California during the

      Class Period, who were not reimbursed for the cost of using
      their personal cell phones for workrelated purposes.

   -- Reimbursement Personal Protective Gear and Tools/Equipment:
all
      nonexempt employees working at the BAE shipyards located in
      California during the Class Period, who were not reimbursed
for
      the cost of purchasing personal protective gear and tools for

      work-related purposes.

   -- Wage Statement Subclass: all non-exempt direct hire employees

      working at the BAE shipyards located in California during the

      Class Period, who received wage statements from October 26,
2020
      through August 31, 2021 that did not include a line item
showing
      total hours worked.

The Plaintiffs also move the Court for an order:

   (1) certifying the derivative claims for failure to timely pay
all
       wages due to discharged and quitting employees, waiting time

       penalties, failure to furnish accurate itemized wage
statements
       (due to unpaid overtime, minimum wages, and meal and rest
       period premiums), and unfair business practices;

   (2) appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives; and

   (3) appointing Matern Law Group, PC as class counsel.

BAE Systems provides non-nuclear ship repair, modernization,
conversion, and overhaul services.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3s9DVG7 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Dalia Khalili, Esq.
          Matthew W. Gordon, Esq.
          Kiran Prasad, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Ave 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (424) 532-8868

BAE SYSTEMS: Class Cert Bid Hearing in Cabrales Set for Oct. 2
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cabrales v. Bae Systems
San Diego Ship Repair, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-02122 (S.D.
Cal., Filed Dec. 23, 2021), the Hon. Judge Anthony J. Battaglia
entered an order setting briefing schedule to certify class:

   -- Responses are due by:              Aug. 10, 2023

   -- Replies are due by:                Aug. 17, 2023

   -- Sur-replies will not be accepted

   -- Motion Hearing is set for:         Oct. 2, 2023

The nature of suit states Labor Relations.

Bae Systems provides non-nuclear ship repair, modernization,
conversion, and overhaul services.[CC]

BANCO POPULAR: Certification of Settlement Class Sought in Golden
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARNOLD GOLDEN, v. BANCO
POPULAR DE PUERTO RICO, Case No. 3:20-cv-00095-RM (D.V.I.), the
Plaintiffs move for an order:

  -- granting certification of the settlement class; and

  -- final approval of the class action settlement, payment of fees

     and costs to Class Counsel and Liaison Counsel, and payment of
a
     service award to the Class Representative.

Banco Popular is a commercial bank in Puerto Rico.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 25, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OP6YaC at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Korey A. Nelson, Esq.
          Leila Abu-Orf, Esq.
          BURNS CHAREST LLP
          365 Canal Street, Suite 1170
          New Orleans, Louisiana 70130
          Telephone: (504) 799-2845
          E-mail: knelson@burnscharest.com
                  labuorf@burnscharest.com

                - and -

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
          KALIEL PLLC
          1875 Connecticut Avenue NW
          Washington, D.C. 20009
          Telephone: (202) 150-4783
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
                  sgold@kalielpllc.com

                - and -

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com




BANK OF AMERICA: Milliken Sues Over Excessive Interest Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
AUSTIN MILLIKEN, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA N.A., Defendant,
Case No. 3:23-cv-03709-LJC (N.D. Cal., July 26, 2023) arises from
the Defendant's violations of the Truth in Lending Act and the
California Unfair Competition Law by wrongfully imposing excessive
interest charges on their cardholders including Plaintiff.

According to the complaint, Bank of America offers credit cards
with variable rates affected by increases in the Prime Rate, a
third-party index. Since March 2022, the Defendant has increased
the interest rates on its credit card offerings at least ten times.
Specifically, the Defendant has repriced and recalculated daily
interest charges imposed on Plaintiff and the Classes of
cardholders before the Prime Rate index has actually increased and
imposed these rate increases on cardholders' protected balances,
says the suit.

As a result, millions of the Defendant's cardholders have been
charged and paid excessive interest on transactions that should
never have endured those interest rate increases, the suit claims.

Bank of America N.A. is a banking institution in the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben M. Harrington, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
          E-mail: benh@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Shayne C. Stevenson, Esq.
          Breanna Van Engelen, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: shaynes@hbsslaw.com
                  breannav@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Knoll D. Lowney, Esq.
          Claire Tonry, Esq.
          SMITH & LOWNEY, PLLC
          2317 E. John Street
          Seattle, WA 98112
          Telephone: (206) 860-2883
          Facsimile: (206) 860-4187
          E-mail: knoll@smithandlowney.com
                  claire@smithandlowney.com

BATTAGLIA DISTRIBUTING: Jimenez Alleges Unfair Biometric Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BERNARDO JIMENEZ, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated v. BATTAGLIA DISTRIBUTING CORPORATION, Case No.
2023LA000797 (Ill. Cir., July 31, 2023) sues over alleged
recording, collecting, and/or storage of biometric data, in
violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant collects and stores its
employees' fingerprints and requires all the employees to clock-in
and clock-out by scanning their fingerprints into a
fingerprint-scanning machine. 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
the specific purpose and length of term for which their biometric
data would be collected, stored, and/or used, the suit contends.

The Defendant also 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. Likewise, the
Defendant never provided the 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 Defendant also did
not disclose to the Plaintiff, class members, or the public its
written retention schedule and guidelines for permanently
destroying employee biometric data, added the Plaintiff.

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

Battaglia Distributing distributes and supplies food products.[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

BECTON DICKINSON: Faces Kabak Shareholder Suit Over Infusion Pump
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, that in, that in February 27, 2020, a putative
class action captioned "Kabak v. Becton, Dickinson and Company, et
al.," Civ. No. 2:20-cv-02155 (SRC) (CLW), now captioned
"Industriens Pensionsforsikring v. Becton, Dickinson and Company,
et al.," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey against the company and certain of its officers.

The complaint, which purports to be brought on behalf of all
persons (other than defendants) who purchased or otherwise acquired
the company's common stock from November 5, 2019 through February
5, 2020, asserts claims for purported violations of Sections 10 and
20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks,
among other things, damages and costs.

The complaint alleges that defendants concealed certain material
information regarding Alaris (TM) infusion pumps, allegedly
rendering certain public statements about the company's business,
operations and prospects false or misleading, thereby allegedly
causing investors to purchase stock at an inflated price. After an
initial without prejudice dismissal, the plaintiff filed amended
pleadings, which the company in turn moved to dismiss. Ultimately,
the court permitted certain aspects of the case to proceed. An
answer with affirmative defenses was thereafter filed on October 3,
2022. The court has also permitted claims to be asserted on behalf
of option holders. Discovery has commenced and plaintiff's motion
for class certification was filed on January 17, 2023. That motion
is fully briefed and under review by the court.

Becton, Dickinson and Company, also known as BD, is a multinational
medical technology company that manufactures and sells medical
devices, instrument systems and reagents.


BHP BILLITON: Pennington Bid for Class Certification Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pennington, et al., v. BHP
Billiton Petroleum (Fayetteville) LLC, et al., Case No.
4:20-cv-00178 (E.D. Ark., Filed Feb. 21, 2020), the Court entered
an order staying the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification:

  -- The Defendants are to file their motion for summary judgment
on
     or before Friday, August 18, 2023.

  -- The Plaintiffs will have until Friday, September 1, 2023, to
     submit a response to the motion.

  -- The Defendants will have until Friday, September 8, 2023, to
     submit a reply.

The nature of suit states Diversity-Other Contract.

Bhp Billiton was founded in 1988. The Company's line of business
includes operating oil and gas field properties.[CC]


BIG MONSTER: Faces Birwari Suit Over Underpayment of Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH BIRWARI and JUTHAMAT BIRWARI, on behalf of themselves and
those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BIG MONSTER SUSHI LLC,
RUNGRUEANG KAMRAITHONG, JOHN DOE CORP. 1-10, and JOHN DOE 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00323 (D. Haw., Aug. 3, 2023) seeks to
recover unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
analogous Hawaiian wage and hour law stemming from Defendant's tip
theft and failure to pay overtime practices.

Plaintiff Joseph Birwari worked for Defendants as a cook while
Plaintiff Juthamat Birwari worked for Defendants as a server during
the relevant time period. Both Plaintiffs routinely worked in
excess of 40 hours per work week but were not paid overtime at one
and a half times their hourly rate for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per work week. In addition, the Defendants unlawfully
retained tips earned by employees working in tipped positions, such
as servers, say the Plaintiffs.

Big Monster Sushi LLC and Rungrueang Kamraithong own and operate a
Sushi and Thai restaurant known as Big Monster Sushi and Thai and
several food trucks on the island of Kauai. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

           Andrew Barna, Esq.
           DAYE LAW LLLC
           2200 Main Street, Suit #517
           Wailuku, HI 96793
           Telephone: (808) 495-8880
           E-mail: ab@hawaiidayelaw.com

                   - and -

           Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
           Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
           CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
           100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
           Minneapolis, MN 55401
           Telephone: (612) 339-7300
           Facsimile: (612) 336-2940
           E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
                   pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com

                   - and -

            Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
            THE LYON FIRM, LLC
            2754 Erie Avenue
            Cincinnati, OH 45208
            Telephone: (513) 381-2333
            Facsimile: (513) 766-9011
            E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com

BLACKBAUD INC: Settles Suits Over Data Breach Incident
------------------------------------------------------
Blackbaud, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, that in March 9, 2023, the company reached a settlement
with the SEC in connection with 19 putative consumer class action
cases, 17 in U.S. federal courts (which have been consolidated
under multi district litigation to a single federal court) and 2 in
Canadian courts, all alleging harm from a May 2020 ransomware
attack where in July 16, 2020.

This settlement fully resolves the previously disclosed SEC
investigation of the Security Incident and is further described in
the SEC Order. Under the terms of the SEC Order, the company agreed
to cease-and-desist from committing or causing any violations or
any future violations of the Exchange Act and part of the SEC
Order, the company also agreed to pay, and has paid, a civil
penalty in the amount of $3.0 million., the company contacted
certain customers to inform them about this.

In May 2020 Blackbaud discovered and stopped a ransomware attack,
preventing a cybercriminal from blocking system access and fully
encrypting files. The cybercriminal removed a copy of a subset of
data from the self-hosted environment but no data went beyond the
cybercriminal, was or will be misused, or will be disseminated or
otherwise made available publicly.

The plaintiffs in these cases, who generally purport to represent
various classes of individual constituents of customers, generally
claim to have been harmed by alleged actions and/or omissions in
connection with the security incident and assert a variety of
common law and statutory claims seeking monetary damages,
injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees, and other related
relief. To date, Blackbaud received a consolidated, multi-state
Civil Investigative Demand issued on behalf of 49 state Attorneys
General and the District of Columbia and a separate Civil
Investigative Demand from the office of the California Attorney
General relating to the Security Incident.

Blackbaud is a software provider exclusively dedicated to powering
social impact, serving the nonprofit and education sectors,
companies committed to social responsibility and individual change
makers, built to accelerate impact in fundraising, nonprofit
financial management, digital giving, grantmaking, corporate social
responsibility and education management.


BOSTON POST: Parties in Pichardo Seek to Stay Class Cert Briefing
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pichardo, et al., v.
Boston Post Food Corp. et al, Case No. 1:22-cv-09157-JPO
(S.D.N.Y.), the Parties have agreed to stipulate to a 216(b)
conditional collective and request to stay the briefing on the
Plaintiff's motion for conditional collective certification, while
the Parties finalize the scope of the conditional collective.

In the event that the Parties are unable to agree on a collective
stipulation, the Parties have agreed to the following briefing
schedule on the Plaintiff's motion for conditional collective
certification:

    -- the Defendants' Opposition:         Aug 11, 2023

    -- The Plaintiff's Reply               Aug. 25, 2023

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 21, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DM0i72 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th street, Eighth floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 465-1180
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com

BRIGHT HORIZONS: Parties Must Submit Proposed Class Cert Schedule
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHELSEA RUTTER,
individually and behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BRIGHT
HORIZONS FAMILY SOLUTIONS, INC. d/b/a BRIGHT HORIZONS CHILDREN'S
CENTERS, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00233-TL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon.
Judge Tana Lin entered an order striking the current case schedule
and orders the parties to submit a new proposed schedule within 14
days of the Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss.

Bright Horizons is a United States–based child-care provider.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 24, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Kufppk at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
          Toby J. Marshall, Esq.
          Elizabeth A. Adams, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Telephone: (206) 816-6608
          Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
          E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
                  tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com
                  eadams@terrellmarshall.com

                - and -

          David Seligman, Esq.
          Juno Turner, Esq.
          Valerie Collins, Esq.
          TOWARDS JUSTICE
          PO Box 371680, PMB 44465
          Denver, CO 80237-5680
          Telephone: (720) 441-2236
          E-mail: david@towardsjustice.org
                  juno@towardsjustice.org
                  valerie@towardsjustice.org

The Defendant is represented by:

          Derek Bishop, Esq.
          Rebecca Schach, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          One Union Square
          600 University Street, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101.3122
          Telephone: (206) 623-3300
          Facsimile: (206) 447-6965
          E-mail: debishop@littler.com
                  rschach@littler.com

CALIFORNIA: MPC Seeks to File Portions of Exhibit 14 Under Seal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re California Gasoline Spot Market
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:20-cv-03131-JSC (N.D. Cal.),
Non-party Marathon Petroleum Corporation File an administrative
motion to file under seal portions of Exhibit 14 to joint
opposition to class certification.

Accordingly, Marathon requests that the Court grant its sealing
request on the grounds that it has satisfied the compelling reasons
standard, its request is narrowly tailored and limited to the
particular portion of Exhibit 14 that contains its
competitively-sensitive information, and there is no less
restrictive alternative that would protect Marathon's competitive
standing.

The Defendants take no position as to the information that Marathon
seeks to seal.

A copy of Marathon's motion dated July 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qteUoM at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for Non-Party Marathon Petroleum Corporation, are:

          Rasha Gerges Shields, Esq.
          Danielle R. Leneck, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          555 South Flower Street, 50th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 489-3939
          Facsimile: (213) 243-2539
          E-mail: rgergesshields@jonesday.com
                  dleneck@jonesday.com

CAPRI NAILS: Li Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEQUAN LI, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, v. CAPRI NAILS & ECO SPA
INC. d/b/a Capri Nails & Spa, NY CAPRI NAILS & SPA INC d/b/a Capri
Nails & Spa, SUNGJUN AN a/k/a Sung Jun An a/k/a Eric An, HEEKYOUNG
AN a/k/a Heek Young An, and JAEWOO KIM a/k/a Jae Woo Kim a/k/a
Darry Kim a/k/a Siri Kim, Case No. 2:20-cv-06296-KAM-ST (E.D.N.Y.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   (1) certifying action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of
the
       Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

   (2) appointing the Plaintiff DEQUAN LI to be class
representative;

   (3) appointing Troy Law, PLLC and its attorneys John Troy, Aaron
B.
       Schweitzer, and Tiffany Troy to be class counsel;

   (4) permitting the Plaintiff to circulate a notice of class
action
       by direct mail to class members and by publication; and

   (5) granting such other and further relief as the Court shall
deem
       just and proper.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' order dated July 27, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/452AcJ5 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          Aaron B. Schweitzer, Esq.
          Tiffany Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 110
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324
          E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com

CARBONITE INC: Consolidated Shareholder Suit in Utah Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Open Text Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in August 3, 2023, that in September 24, 2021,
a class action complaint alleging violations of federal securities
laws was filed in the United States District court, District of
Utah, by Marc Richfield against the company and certain officers of
the company under case 2:21-cv-00561-BSJ.

In August 1, 2019, prior to its acquisition of Carbonite, Inc., one
of its purported stockholder filed a putative class action
complaint against Carbonite, its former Chief Executive Officer,
Mohamad S. Ali, and its former Chief Financial Officer, Anthony
Folger, in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts captioned "Ruben A. Luna, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Carbonite, Inc., Mohamad S.
Ali, and Anthony Folger" (Case No. 1:19-cv-11662-LTS).

The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
complaint generally alleges that the defendants made materially
false and misleading statements in connection with Carbonite's
Server Backup VM Edition, and seeks, among other things, the
designation of the action as a class action, an award of
unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses, including
counsel fees and expert fees, and other relief as the court deems
appropriate.

In November 21, 2019, the district court consolidated the pending
securities actions, appointed a lead plaintiff, and designated a
lead counsel. The defendants moved to dismiss the Securities
Actions in March 10, 2020. In October 22, 2020, the district court
granted with prejudice the defendants' motion to dismiss. In
November 20, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to
the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. In
December 21, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit issued a decision reversing and remanding the Securities
Actions to the district court for further proceedings. The parties
have completed discovery and defendants have filed a motion for
summary judgment.

OpenText offers Information Management products and services that
manage the creation, capture, use, analysis and lifecycle of
structured and unstructured data. In December 24, 2019, it acquired
Carbonite Inc., a provider of cloud-based subscription backup,
disaster recovery and endpoint security.


CARBONITE INC: Feng Class Suit on Server Issue Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Open Text Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in August 3, 2023, that in August 23, 2019, a
securities complaint was filed in the in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts captioned "William Feng,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Carbonite, Inc., Mohamad S. Ali, and Anthony Folger (Case No. 1:19-
cv-11808-LTS).

The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
complaint generally alleges that the defendants made materially
false and misleading statements in connection with Carbonite's
Server Backup VM Edition, and seeks, among other things, the
designation of the action as a class action, an award of
unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses, including
counsel fees and expert fees, and other relief as the court deems
appropriate.

In November 21, 2019, the district court consolidated the pending
securities actions, appointed a lead plaintiff, and designated a
lead counsel. The defendants moved to dismiss the Securities
Actions in March 10, 2020. In October 22, 2020, the district court
granted with prejudice the defendants' motion to dismiss. In
November 20, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to
the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. In
December 21, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit issued a decision reversing and remanding the Securities
Actions to the district court for further proceedings. The parties
have completed discovery and defendants have filed a motion for
summary judgment.

OpenText offers Information Management products and services that
manage the creation, capture, use, analysis and lifecycle of
structured and unstructured data. In December 24, 2019, it acquired
Carbonite Inc., a provider of cloud-based subscription backup,
disaster recovery and endpoint security.


CARING FOR MONTANANS: Smith Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
VICTORIA SMITH is taking an appeal from a court order in her
lawsuit entitled Victoria Smith, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Health Service Care
Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00050-SPW, in
U.S. District Court for the District of Montana.

This case was originally styled as Victoria Smith, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Caring for Montanans,
Inc. formerly known as: Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana,
Inc., Health Service Care Corporation, John Does 1-10, Case No.
DV-56-02022-0000170-D in the MT 13th Judicial District Court,
Yellowstone Co. The nature of suit was stated as Insurance.

On May 23, 2022, Defendant Health Service Care Corporation filed a
notice of removal of the case to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Montana.

On August 18, 2022, Defendant Caring for Montanans, Inc. f/k/a Blue
Cross and Blue Shield of Montana, Inc. was dismissed without
prejudice, from the case.

On May 31, 2022, Health Service filed a motion to dismiss.

On June 26, 2023, Judge Susan P. Watters adopted in part and
rejected in part the findings and recommendations entered by
Magistrate Judge Kathleen L. DeSoto regarding the motion to
dismiss. The case was dismissed without prejudice.

The appellate case is captioned Victoria Smith v. Health Service
Care Corporation, et al., Case No. 23-02627, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 26, 2023.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Victoria Smith Mediation Questionnaire was due on
August 2, 2023;

   -- Appellant Victoria Smith opening brief is due on September
25, 2023;

   -- Appellee Health Service Care Corporation answering brief is
due on October 24, 2023; and

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

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

            Maxwell E. Kirchhoff, Esq.
            Jory C. Ruggiero, Esq.
            WESTERN JUSTICE ASSOCIATES PLLC
            303 West Mendenhall Street
            Bozeman, MT 59715
            Telephone: (406) 587-1900

Defendants-Appellees HEALTH SERVICE CARE CORPORATION, et al. are
represented by:

            Daniel J. Auerbach, Esq.
            BROWNING KALECZYC BERRY & HOVEN
            100 W. Railroad St.
            Missoula, MT 59802
            Telephone: (406) 728-1694

                    - and -

            Martin J. Bishop, Esq.
            REED SMITH, LLP
            10 S. Wacker Drive, 40th Floor
            Chicago, IL 60606
            Telephone: (312) 207-1000

CARNIVAL CRUISES: AG Sought to Intervene in Passengers COVID-9 Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Byrne of ABC.net reports that a group of passengers from
the COVID-affected Ruby Princess cruise have taken their battle for
compensation to Canberra, after being excluded from a class action
because they booked under United States conditions, which included
a waiver on class actions.

When the Ruby Princess docked and dropped its passengers in Sydney
on March 19, 2020, it marked a pivotal moment in the arrival of the
global pandemic in Australia.

Twenty-eight of the passengers who travelled on the cruise died
with COVID-19, with 660 others contracting the virus.

The ship had sailed from Sydney to New Zealand and back in March
2020.

A special commission of inquiry later found New South Wales Health
made serious mistakes in managing the disembarkation, including
classifying the ship low risk, but stopped short of apportioning
specific blame, or making recommendations.

The class action, which was heard over five weeks in Sydney last
year, is considering a claim there was a breach of duty of care,
and a failure to take appropriate measures to warn and protect
passengers from the risk of infection.

It also alleged breaches of Australia's consumer law, including
engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct.

In its case, Carnival Cruises, the owner of Ruby Princess, claimed
the risks could not be avoided.

A number of those hoping to sue the cruise company were excluded
from the class action because they had signed the US contract and
were subject to a waiver on class actions.

On August 3, 2023 their lawyers told the High Court the waiver is
unenforceable under Australian consumer law, which voids any terms
that are unfair.

But the cruise company is arguing the Australian law does not
extend to a law of a place outside Australia.

The waiver does not prohibit individuals from attempting to sue the
company.

'The contract is being forced by one party'
Former nurse Susan Karpik, a Canadian citizen, is heading the class
action.

Ms Karpik said the company failed in its duty to take reasonable
care of passengers aboard the ill-fated cruise.

Her lawyer, Justin Gleeson, told the High Court a section of
Australian Consumer Law made a term of a consumer contract void if
it was unfair.

He argued that in carrying out business in Australia, Carnival
submitted to Australian laws and the term of the US contract
waiving the right to engage in class action was unfair.

"There were 2,600 people on the same vessel, experiencing the same
cruise," Mr Gleeson said.

"It is perfectly acceptable to Princess to accept a class action
claim from 1,700 [Australian] passengers.

"What did Princess do to prove a legitimate interest to accept they
could exclude 700 other people from that action? They did
nothing."

Mr Gleeson went on to explain the waiver clause was unfair because
it limited the rights of passengers to sue the carrier, but placed
no such limit on litigation options for the carrier.

"A barrier has been erected to prevent passengers engaging in
litigation when there is no equivalent barrier for the carrier," he
said.

"Before the service has been provided or a dispute has happened …
before the passenger has any option to consider pursuing class
action, their decision has been made for them.

"The contract is being forced by one party onto another."

The cruise line's lawyers argued in their submission when a
contract provided for the resolution of disputes in a forum other
than an Australian court, and pursuant to a law that upholds the
validity of a class action waiver, there is "no imbalance caused to
those rights under the contract by the class action waiver
clause".

The Commonwealth attorney-general is seeking to intervene in favour
of Ms Karpik.

The hearing will continue on August 4, 2023. [GN]

CASSAVA SCIENCES: Faces Shareholder Suits Over False Statements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cassava Sciences, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended January 28, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 4, 2023, that since November 4, 2021, four
shareholder derivative actions were filed alleging, among other
things, that the individual defendants exposed the company to
unspecified damages and securities law liability by causing it to
make materially false and misleading statements, in violation of
the U.S. securities laws and in breach of their fiduciary duties to
the company.

Two were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Texas, one in Texas state court (Travis County District Court)
and one in the Delaware Court of Chancery. On July 5, 2022, the
three federal court actions were consolidated into a single
action.

Cassava Sciences, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries discover
and develop proprietary pharmaceutical product candidates with
efforts on disorders of the nervous system.


CASSAVA SCIENCES: Shareholder Slam SEC Filings in Texas Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cassava Sciences, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended January 28, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 4, 2023, that in November 4, 2021, a
shareholder derivative action was filed, purportedly on behalf of
the company, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Texas, asserting claims under the U.S. securities laws and state
fiduciary duty laws against certain named officers and the members
of the company's board of directors.

This complaint relies on the allegations made in Citizen Petitions
that were submitted to (and subsequently denied by) FDA. The
complaint alleges, among other things, that the individual
defendants exposed the company to unspecified damages and
securities law liability by causing it to make materially false and
misleading statements, in violation of the U.S. securities laws and
in breach of their fiduciary duties to the company.

Cassava Sciences, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries discover
and develop proprietary pharmaceutical product candidates with
efforts on disorders of the nervous system.


CASSAVA SCIENCES: Shareholder Suit Over Alzheimer Meds Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cassava Sciences, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended January 28, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 4, 2023, that between August 27, 2021 and
October 26, 2021, four putative class action lawsuits were filed
alleging violations of the federal securities laws by the company
and certain named officers.

The complaints rely on allegations contained in Citizen Petitions
submitted to FDA and allege that various statements made by the
defendants regarding the Alzheimer's medication "simufilam" were
rendered materially false and misleading. The Citizen Petitions
were all subsequently denied by FDA. These actions were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The
complaints seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief
on behalf of a purported class of purchasers.

In June 30, 2022, a federal judge consolidated the four class
action lawsuits into one case and appointed a lead plaintiff and a
lead counsel. Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint
on August 18, 2022 on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of
the company's securities between September 14, 2020 and July 26,
2022. On May 11, 2023, the court dismissed with prejudice
plaintiffs' claims against (deceased) defendant Nadav Friedmann,
PhD, MD, but otherwise denied defendants' motion to dismiss.
Defendants filed an answer to the consolidated amended complaint on
July 3, 2023.

Cassava Sciences, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries discover
and develop proprietary pharmaceutical product candidates with
efforts on disorders of the nervous system.


CASSAVA SCIENCES: Shareholder Suit Over Incentive Plan Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cassava Sciences, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended January 28, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 4, 2023, that in August 19, 2022, a shareholder
derivative action was filed, purportedly on behalf of the company,
in the Delaware Court of Chancery, asserting claims under state
fiduciary duty laws against certain named officers and members of
the company's board of directors.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by approving the 2020
Cash Incentive Bonus Plan in August 2020.

The complaints seek unspecified compensatory damages and other
relief. On January 6, 2023, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint. Defendants filed a partial answer to the amended
complaint on March 10, 2023, and moved to partially dismiss the
amended complaint on March 14, 2023. Defendants' motion to dismiss
remains pending.

Cassava Sciences, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries discover
and develop proprietary pharmaceutical product candidates with
efforts on disorders of the nervous system.


CERTEGY PAYMENT: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 29
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Young v. Certegy Payment
Solutions, LLC et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-11037 (D. Mass., Filed June
22, 2021), the Hon. Judge Indira Talwani entered an order adopting
the amended proposed Scheduling Order as follows:

   -- Any depositions of designated experts         Sept. 15, 2023
      shall be completed by:

   -- Plaintiff's motion for class                  Sept. 29, 2023
      certification shall be filed by:

   -- Defendants' opposition shall be               Oct. 27, 2023
      filed by:

   -- Plaintiff may file a reply in                 Nov. 17, 2023
      support of class certification no
      later than:

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Certegy Payment is a specialty credit reporting agency based in
Tampa, Florida.[CC]


CHANCELLOR SENIOR: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Reuschel Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NANCY REUSCHEL as
Executrix of the Estate of Louise McGraw, deceased; and LORETTA
HOLCOMB as Executrix of the Estate of Charlotte Rogers, deceased;
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CHANCELLOR
SENIOR MANAGEMENT, LTD., Case No. 5:22-cv-00279 (S.D.W. Va.), the
Hon. Judge Frank W. Volk entered an order granting the Plaintiffs'
motion for leave to modify scheduling order as follows:

    Date                  Case Event Relating to Class
Certification

  Aug. 7,2023             Deadline for written fact discovery
related
                          to class certification.

  Sept. 6, 2023           Deadline for fact witness depositions
                          related to class certification.

  Sept. 6, 2023           Deadline for the Plaintiffs to serve
expert
                          reports supporting class certification

  Sept. 15, 2023          Deadline to serve motion for class
                          certification

  Oct. 11, 2023           Deadline for the Defendants to depose
the
                          Plaintiffs expert witnesses on class
                          Certification

  Oct. 11, 2023           Deadline for the Defendants to serve
expert
                          reports supporting class Certification

  Oct. 30, 2023           Deadline for response to motion for class

                          certification.

  Dec. 1, 2023            Deadline for the Plaintiffs to depose the

                          Defendants' expert witnesses on class
                          certification

  Dec. 7, 2023            Deadline for the Plaintiffs reply
supporting
                          their motion for class certification.

Chancellor is a dynamic company that develops, owns, and operates
properties that provide seniors with housing and health care
options.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QzcCPy at no extra
charge.[CC] 


CIRCLES OF CARE: Parties Must Confer on Class Cert Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Landini, et al., v.
Circles of Care, Inc., Case No. 6:23-cv-01405 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing to confer regarding
deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise
the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report.

The deadlines should include a deadline for:

    (1) disclosure of expert reports - class action, the Plaintiff
and
        the Defendant;

    (2) discovery - class action;

    (3) motion for class certification;

    (4) response to motion for class certification; and

    (5) reply to motion for class certification.

Circles of Care provides health care services such as psychiatric
diagnostic medical and inpatient treatment services. [CC]

CLAY LACY: Faces Martinez Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
DIANA MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved
Employees; Plaintiff v. CLAY LACY AVIATION, INC., a California
Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
23VECV03224 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 26, 2023) arises
from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor policies and practices
in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to provide employment
records, failure to pay overtime and double time, failure to
provide rest and meal periods, failure to pay minimum wage, failure
to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage
statements, failure to pay reporting time wages, failure to pay
split shift wages, failure to pay all wages earned on time, failure
to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation, failure to
reimburse necessary, business-related expenses, and failure to
provide notice of paid sick time and accrual.

Representative Plaintiff worked for the Defendants with the job
title of service technician and ramp agent from December 20, 2021
until present day.

Clay Lacy Aviation, Inc. is an aircraft management, private air
charter, and fixed-based provider operating in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
          Melissa Robinson, Esq.
          Cathy Gonzalez, Esq.
          HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
          801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 696-2306
          Facsimile: (818) 696-2307  
          E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com
                  melissa@hbklawyers.com
                  cathy@hbklawyers.com

COLLECTION PROFESSIONALS: Court Stays McGrady Class Cert Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as McGrady v Collection
Professionals, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00100 (D. Wyo., Filed May
3, 2022), the Hon. Judge Kelly H Rankin entered an order
conditionally staying class certification in place until the
parties hold their scheduled mediation.

  -- Should the mediation be unsuccessful, the stay will be lifted
and
     the Defendants' response to the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
     Certification will be due August 28, 2023.

  -- An in person hearing on the Motion will be held September 25,

     2023, at 1:00 PM before Judge Scott Skavdahl in Casper,
Wyoming.

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

Collection Professionals provide complete credit card and debt
collection services along with online payment solutions to
organizations.[CC]

COMMONWEALTH HEALTH: Jarrow Suit Removed to D. New Mexico
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Michelle Jarrow, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. COMMONWEALTH HEALTH PHYSICIAN
NETWORK d/b/a GREAT VALLEY CARDIOLOGY and SCRANTON CARDIOVASCULAR
PHYSICIAN SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 23-cv-2669 was removed from the
Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania, to the
United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania July 26, 2023, and assigned Case No.
3:23-cv-01237-MEM.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"), the HIPAA
Privacy Rule and HIPAA Security Rule. The Complaint alleges that
these violations stem from Defendant's "failure to use reasonable
measures to protect Plaintiff's and all other class members'
Personal Information and not complying with applicable industry.
standards" and that "Defendant's violations of HIPAA Privacy and
Security Rules and Section 5 of the FTCA constitutes negligence per
se."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650
          Radnor, PA 19087

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael S. Friedman, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          1601 Cherry Street, Suite 1350
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Phone: (267) 319-7802
          Fax: (215) 399-2249
          Email: michael.friedman@jacksonlewis.com


CR FITNESS: Faces Meraz Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------
MONICA MERAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CR FITNESS CORAL SPRINGS, LLC d/b/a CRUNCH
CORAL SPRINGS, Defendant, Case No. 0:23-cv-61489-XXXX (S.D. Fla.,
Aug. 3, 2023) alleges claims against the Defendant for violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff Meraz accuses the Defendant of violating TCPA by engaging
in unsolicited text messaging to consumers that have registered
their telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry.

Since at least on or about June 2023, Defendant continues to harass
Plaintiff with unsolicited text message advertisements on
Plaintiff's cellular telephone. Plaintiff registered her cellular
telephone number on the National Do-Not-Call Registry on or about
2010, says the suit.

Headquartered in Florida, CR Fitness Coral Springs operates a
state-of-the-art gym located in Coral Springs' Atlantic Shopping
Center. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                   - and -

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

CREATORS AGENCY: Sells Unregistered Securities, Garrison et al. Say
-------------------------------------------------------------------
EDWIN GARRISON, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CREATORS AGENCY, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:23-cv-00139-NDF (D. Wyo., Aug. 3, 2023) arises out of
the Defendant's deceptive offer and sale of unregistered
securities, which constitute violations of the Securities and
Exchange Acts, the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act,
and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs file this Complaint on behalf of themselves, and all
other similarly situated US and non-US FTX consumers, against
Defendant, "Influencer" who promoted, assisted in, and/or actively
participated in FTX Trading LTD d/b/a FTX's ("FTX Trading") and
West Realm Shires Services Inc. d/b/a FTX US's offer and sale of
unregistered securities.

The Defendant admittedly endorsed and promoted the sale of the FTX
YBAs and did not disclose, in any of his YouTube and other social
media posts, that it was paid hundreds of thousands and/or millions
of dollars by FTX and profited from the sale of FTX YBAs, in clear
violation of SEC, FTC and various federal and state regulations,
says the suit.

Headquartered in Tokyo, Japan, Creators Agency is a talent
management firm and digital ad network which promoted FTX. The firm
is organized and existing under the laws of the State of Wyoming.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

             Alex Freeburg, Esq.
             FREEBURG LAW LLC
             PO Box 3442
             Jackson, WY 83001
             Telephone: (307) 200-9720
             E-mail: alex@tetonattorney.com

                     - and -

             Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
             Joseph M. Kaye, Esq.
             THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
             Continental Plaza
             3250 Mary Street, Suite 202
             Coconut Grove, FL 33133
             Telephone: (305) 740-1423
             E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com
                     joseph@moskowitz-law.com
                     rejane@moskowitz-law.com

                     - and –

             David Boies, Esq.
             Alex Boies, Esq.
             Brooke Alexander, Esq.
             BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
             333 Main Street
             Armonk, NY 10504
             Telephone: (914) 749–8200
             E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com

CREW AVIATION: Lawson Sues Over Non-remittance of Pay Deductions
----------------------------------------------------------------
TOM LAWSON and JOHN HENDERSON, on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated participants, Plaintiffs v. CREW AVIATION, LLC,
CLYDE F. ENSOR III, and TIMOTHY LEE PEACE, Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-00374-BJB (W.D. Ky., July 25, 2023) is a class action for
breaches of fiduciary duty and prohibited transactions under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act against the Defendants for
deduction of benefit contributions from employee paychecks, failure
to properly remit those withholdings to the 401(k) Profit Sharing
Plan, failure to remit employer's 401(k) contributions, use of
those amounts withheld for purposes related to the operation of the
business or personal gain, and failure to adequately monitor other
fiduciaries.

Plaintiffs Tom Lawson and John Henderson, like other similarly
situated employees, participated in the Plan offered by Defendants
through their employment with Crew Aviation LLC.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have caused to withhold
from Lawson's paycheck an amount to be determined for deposit into
his 401(k) Retirement Account under the Plan, and have caused to
withhold from Henderson's paycheck an amount to be determined for
deposit into his 401(k) Retirement Account under the Plan without
forwarding those witholdings to Plaintiffs' custodial trustee for
the 401(k) Plan.

Crew Aviation, LLC is a Kentucky company in the business and
charter jet industry, and provides private jet management services.
Crew Aviation is both the sponsor to and administrator of the Plan,
and fiduciary to plan participants and Plaintiffs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Claire W. Bushorn, Esq.
          THE BUSHORN FIRM, LLC
          810 Sycamore Street
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 827-5771
          Facsimile: (513) 725-1148
          E-mail: cbushorn@thebushornfirm.com

DEL MONTE: Court Narrows Claims in Bryan Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KERSTINE BRYAN, v. DEL
MONTE FOODS, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00865-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Maxine M. Chesney entered an order granting in part and
denying in part Del Monte's motion to dismiss:

   1. To the extent Bryan seeks injunctive relief, the motion is
      Granted.

   2. To the extent Bryan asserts in Count V claims under the laws
of
      states other than California or Oregon, the motion is
granted.

   3. To the extent Bryan asserts claims based on any unidentified

      product, the motion is granted.

   4. To the extent Bryan asserts a claim for Unjust Enrichment,
the
      motion is granted.

   5. In all other respects, the motion is denied As Del Monte has
not
      shown leave to amend necessarily would, in all respects, be
      futile, Bryan's request for such leave is hereby GRANTED. If

      Bryan wishes to file a First Amended Complaint to cure the
      above-noted deficiencies, she shall do so no later than
August
      25, 2023.

Del Monte argues Bryan's Unjust Enrichment claim fails, for the
asserted reason that "California does not recognize a separate
cause of action for unjust enrichment."

Del Monte is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of
business in California.

Bryan, a "citizen of Oregon," alleges she purchased, "at retailers
throughout Oregon,” fruit cups manufactured by Del Monte,
specifically, "Mango Chunks and Peach Chunks," and that she did so
in reliance on an assertedly false and misleading statement made on
their respective front labels.

Specifically, Bryan alleges that in purchasing the fruit cups, she
saw and relied on the phrase "fruit naturals," with a bolded
emphasis on "naturals," which she understood to mean the products
"contained only natural ingredients."

Del Monte Foods is an American food production and distribution
company.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DWxcBL at no extra charge.[CC]

DEPUY SYNTHES: Faces Suit Over Dangers, Risks of Implant Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNW Group of Yahoo! Finance reports that an important development
in a proposed class action on behalf of all individuals who were
surgical recipients of the DePuy Attune Total Knee Arthroplasty
(TKA) Implant which prematurely failed or is in the process of
failing or have the Device implanted.

A. Background

The proposed class proceeding filed with the Ontario Superior Court
of Justice on January 12, 2022, identified as Lyon v DePuy Synthes
Companies et al., Court File No. CV-22-00088312-00CP (the "Lyon
lawsuit"), will be discontinued effective November 1, 2023.

The Lyon lawsuit alleges negligence by DePuy Synthes Companies,
Synthes (Canada) Ltd., DePuy Orthopaedics Inc. and Johnson &
Johnson Inc. in the design, constructing, manufacturing,
inspecting, testing, and marketing of the ATTUNE Knee System total
knee replacement implant devices used in patient knee replacement
operations and their failure to warn patients and/or surgeons and
other healthcare providers of the inherent dangers and risks in
using its Device.

The Defendants deny these allegations.

B. The Proposed Class

The proposed class proceeding advanced claims on behalf of putative
class members defined as all persons:

C. Implications on Limitation Periods

Persons who believe that they come within the defined proposed
classes above, SHOULD TAKE NOTICE THAT applicable and remaining
limitation periods, if any, for bringing a claim which were
"tolled" (i.e. paused) as of January 12, 2022, will resume running
on the date of Discontinuance on November 1, 2023. On the expiry of
the limitation period a person's right to sue may be extinguished.
Such persons should take notice that the limitation period for
bringing a claim, if there is any time left within it, will
recommence running on the date of Discontinuance on November 1,
2023. If those persons do not commence their own actions within the
applicable limitation period(s), then they may be prohibited from
pursuing any claims they may have against the Defendants.

D. Action Required

As a result, surgical recipients of the DePuy Attune Total Knee
Arthroplasty (TKA) Implant which prematurely failed or is in the
process of failing or have the Device implanted wishing to claim
compensation should seek legal advice and must commence their
individual actions before their respective limitation period(s)
expire. Failure to do so may restrict one's ability to pursue a
claim for compensation.

E. Contact for Further Information

Do not call the Courthouse with any questions about this Notice.
For further information regarding this proposed class proceeding
and Notice of Intent to Discontinue, please visit
https://www.gluckstein.com/class-actions/depuy-attune-knee-system-class-action
or contact:

SOURCE Gluckstein Lawyers [GN]

DEUTSCH IMPORTS: Collinson Sues Over Defective Glass Tiles
----------------------------------------------------------
Adam Collinson and Kathie Collinson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. DEUTSCH IMPORTS, LLC d/b/a GLAZZIO
TILES, and CCA GLOBAL PARTNERS, INC. d/b/a PROSOURCE WHOLESALE,
Case No. 1:23-cv-04870 (N.D. Ill., July 26, 2023), is brought
against the Defendants for manufacturing, advertising, marketing,
distributing, and selling defective glass tiles (the "Products") to
Plaintiffs and Class members.

On November 30, 2021, Plaintiffs ordered 160 square feet of a style
of the Products called VIC 1912 Wilde Haze, part of the Victorian
Icon Collection, at a cost of $3,814.52 from Prosource's location
in Naperville, Illinois. Plaintiffs were falsely informed by
Prosource's agents and employees that the Products were made in
Italy, when they were actually made in China. At no time were
Plaintiffs informed of any limitations on ordinary uses for the
Products, that the manufacturer of the Products considered the
Products to be made with a "delicate" backing, which deteriorates
when installed with cement-based mortar, or that the Products were
not compatible with cement-based mortar for shower installations.

The Plaintiffs hired Winchell Woodworking and Remodeling
("Winchell"), a tile installation expert, and Plaintiffs had the
Products installed in their bathroom during a bathroom renovation
in the Summer 2022. Winchell installed the Products in late June
2022, using installation materials from Custom Building Products
("Custom"). Winchell used FlexBond Premium Crack Prevention Thin
set Mortar for the installation of the Products in the shower due
to their exposure to water. The reason this mortar is appropriate
for use in this context is to prevent cracking that occurs when
other methods of installation are used in wet environments.

Within days of completion of the installation, Plaintiffs noticed
that the tiles installed using the mortar began to display
discoloration, due to separation of the decorative backing visible
through the glass tile, and the backing itself was deteriorating.
Plaintiffs notified Defendants immediately after discovering the
issue on July 6, 2022. Glazzio incorrectly cast blame on the
installation, denied that the Products were defective, and refused
to cover the costs of replacement.

As a result of the defective Products, Plaintiffs need to replace
all of the tile in their bathroom, which will require significant
renovations, including substantial costs in materials and labor.
Plaintiffs also suffered losses as a result of the initial delivery
and installation costs that were wasted, including shipping costs
to receive the Products, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are married and reside in Illinois.

Glazzio manufactured and distributed the Products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
          Sharon A. Harris, Esq.
          Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Blake, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 440-0020
          Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
          Email: tom@attorneyzim.com
                 sharon@attorneyzim.com
                 matt@attorneyzim.com
                 jeff@attorneyzim.com
          Web: www.attorneyzim.com


DIGITIAL TURBINE: Garfield Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT GARFIELD, derivatively on behalf of DIGITIAL TURBINE, INC.
and individually on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated stockholders of DIGITAL TURBINE, INC., Plaintiff v. MOHAN
S. GYANI, JEFFREY KARISH, MOLLIE V. SPILMAN, MICHELLE STERLING, AND
WILLIAM G. STONE III, Defendants, and DIGITIAL TURBINE, INC.,
Nominal Defendant, Case No. 2023-0755 (Del. Ch., July 25, 2023)
asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract
against certain members of Digital Turbine's Board of Directors and
asserts a claim for unjust enrichment against William G. Stone III,
Digital Turbine's chief executive officer and a member of the
Board.

This action arises from the Board's alleged abuse of the authority
entrusted to it under the Company's stockholder-approved 2020
Equity Incentive Plan. In 2020, the Board adopted and the Company's
stockholders approved the Plan. Subject to certain specified
conditions and limitations, the Plan authorized the Board to grant
up to 12,000,000 shares of Digital Turbine common stock as equity
awards to the Company's employees, non-employee directors, and
consultants. In order to curb excessive compensation, the Plan
imposed an annual limit on the amount of awards that could be
granted to an individual participant. Specifically, the Plan
provided that no individual "shall be granted an Award or Awards in
any Fiscal Year in which the combined number of Shares underlying
such Award(s) exceeds 500,000 Shares." When the Board sought
stockholder approval of the Plan, the Board touted the limit as
reflective of "the Company's continued commitment to strong
corporate governance practices in the interest of its
stockholders," says the suit.

In May 2023, the Board's Compensation and Human Capital Management
Committee granted Stone four equity awards under the Plan covering
an aggregate of 827,135 shares. In granting the Stone Awards, the
Compensation Committee exceeded the Limit by 327,135 shares. By
granting the Stone Awards in violation of the Plan's express terms,
the Compensation Committee exceeded the scope of authority
entrusted to it by Digital Turbine's stockholders while unjustly
enriching Stone. As a result of the above misconduct, the Company
and its stockholders have been harmed, the suit claims.

Plaintiff Garfield has continuously owned shares of Digital Turbine
common stock since 2016.

Based in Austin, Texas, Digital Turbine is an independent mobile
growth platform service provider for advertisers, publishers,
carriers, and device original equipment manufacturers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian E. Farnan, Esq.
          Michael J. Farnan, Esq.
          FARNAN LLP
          919 North Market Street, 12th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 777-0300
          E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
                  mfarnan@farnanlaw.com

               - and -

          Steven J. Purcell, Esq.
          Robert H. Lefkowitz, Esq.
          Anisha Mirchandani, Esq.
          PURCELL & LEFKOWITZ LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10017

DOLLAR GENERAL: Conner Files ADA Suit in W.D. North Carolina
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dollar General
Corporation. The case is styled as Mary Conner, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Dollar General Corporation, Dolgencorp, LLC, Case No.
3:23-cv-00413-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C., July 10, 2023).

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

Dollar General Corporation -- https://www.dollargeneral.com/ -- is
an American chain of variety stores headquartered in
Goodlettsville, Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sanjay R. Gohil, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SANJAY R. GOHIL, PLLC
          2435 Plantation Center Drive, Suite 200
          Matthews, NC 28105
          Phone: (704) 814-0729
          Fax: (704) 814-0730
          Email: srg@gohillaw.com


EDWARD D. JONES: Late-Filed Initial Disclosures Partly Stricken
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD ANDERSON, RAYMOND
KEITH CORUM, and JESSE AND COLLEEN WORTHINGTON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EDWARD D. JONES & CO.,
L.P., Case No. 2:18-cv-00714-DJC-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Allison Claire entered an order granting in part and denying in
part the Defendant's motion to strike the Plaintiffs' late-filed
initial disclosures.

  -- The court agrees that attempting to cure the prejudice by
     noticing third party depositions would place an undue burden
on
     the Defendant, as discovery is continuing, and deadlines are
     approaching.

  -- The Plaintiffs assert that three of the late-disclosed
witnesses,
     Mr. Paul, Mr. Malone and Mr. McCoy, were identified to rebut
     EDJ's Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses' recent testimony in mid-June
that
     EDJ financial advisors did not make recommendations to clients

     regarding transfer to advisory accounts, testimony that
     contradicted EDJ's own training materials and representations
to
     the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

  -- The Plaintiffs argue that each of these individuals "are
former
     EDJ advisors" known to the Defendant, and that the Defendants
are
     in control of much of the relevant information with respect to

     these individuals (e.g., training documents). Though the
     Defendant asserts that these witnesses are not truly rebuttal

     witnesses, the court is persuaded that the Plaintiffs
identified
     the specific need for these witnesses at the class
certification
     stage only recently, such that these witnesses should be
     permitted for rebuttal purposes only.

The case was filed on March 30, 2018. The Plaintiffs are pursuing a
putative class-action lawsuit limited to a single claim for alleged
breach of fiduciary duty by EDJ financial advisors with respect to
the individual clients with whom they worked.

According to operative Third Amended Complaint ("TAC"), EDJ
breached a purported fiduciary duty each time a FA allegedly
recommended a fee-based advisory account to a "buy and hold"
investor who was in a commission-based account without first
conducting a suitability analysis as to account type during
client-specific, one-on-one meetings.

Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. is a financial services firm
headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, United States.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ox76KS at no extra charge.[CC]



ELEPHANT INSURANCE: Holmes Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER HOLMES, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss his lawsuit entitled
Christopher Holmes, et al., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Elephant Insurance
Company, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00487-JAG, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
filed this class action complaint against the Defendants for
violation of the Drivers' Privacy Protection Act, negligence, and
negligence per se. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged
negligence and omissions which led to the unauthorized access of
consumers' highly sensitive personally identifiable information
(PII) on its systems. Specifically, the Defendants failed to: (1)
maintain adequate cybersecurity systems, (2) comply with
cybersecurity guidelines, and (3) train its employees on reasonable
security measures, leaving the information an unguarded target for
theft and misuse. As a result of the Defendants' failure to prevent
the data breach, the Plaintiff and the proposed Class have suffered
and will continue to suffer damages, including increased risk of
fraud and identity theft, monetary losses, anxiety, and emotional
distress, says the suit.

On Oct. 14, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim and for lack of jurisdiction, which the
Court granted through an Order entered by Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.
on June 26, 2023.

Judge Gibney held that the Plaintiffs lack the standing to bring
claims for monetary damages and for declaratory and injunctive
relief because they have not adequately pleaded facts to establish
an injury-in-fact or traceability.

The appellate case is captioned Christopher Holmes v. Elephant
Insurance Company, Case No. 23-1782, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on July 28, 2023. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants CHRISTOPHER HOLMES, et al., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

            Kate Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
            Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
            LOCKRIDGE, GRINDAL & NAUEN, PLLP
            100 Washington Avenue, South
            Minneapolis, MN 55401
            Telephone: (612) 339-6900

                    - and -

            Michael Anderson Berry, Esq.
            ARNOLD LAW FIRM
            865 Howe Avenue
            Sacramento, CA 95825
            Telephone: (916) 777-7777

                    - and -

            Kevin Biniazan, Esq.
            Jeffrey A. Breit, Esq.
            BREIT BINIAZAN, PC
            600 22nd Street
            Virginia Beach, VA 23451
            Telephone: (757) 622-6000

                    - and -

            Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
            Patricia Camille Guerra, Esq.
            CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD
            110 Laurel Street
            San Diego, CA 92101
            Telephone: (619) 238-1811

                    - and -

            Lee Floyd, Esq.
            Justin Matthew Sheldon, Esq.
            BREIT BINIAZAN, PC
            2100 East Cary Street
            Richmond, VA 23223
            Telephone: (703) 517-3514
                       (804) 351-9170

                    - and -

            Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
            MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
            227 West Monroe Street
            Chicago, IL 60606
            Telephone: (866) 252-0878

                    - and -

            Steven Tobin Webster, Esq.
            WEBSTER BOOK, LLP
            300 North Washington Street
            Alexandria, VA 22314
            Telephone: (888) 987-9991

Defendants-Appellees ELEPHANT INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. are
represented by:

            Benjamin Franklin Dill, Esq.
            MCANGUS GOUDELOCK & COURIE
            3901 Westerre Parkway
            Richmond, VA 23233
            Telephone: (804) 944-2992

                    - and -

            Richard Haggerty, Esq.
            Claudia Drennen McCarron, Esq.
            MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC
            426 West Lancaster Avenue
            Devon, PA 19087
            Telephone: (267) 930-4770

                    - and -

            Mark Charles Nanavati, Esq.
            SINNOTT, NUCKOLS & LOGAN, PC
            13811 Village Mill Drive
            Midlothian, VA 23114
            Telephone: (804) 378-7600

EOS ENERGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due October 2
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, P.A. of KSLA reports that the filing of a class
action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of securities of Eos Energy
Enterprises, Inc. (NASDAQ: EOSE, EOSEW) between May 9, 2022 and
July 27, 2023, 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 Eos 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 Eos class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=18041 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) Bridgelink Commodities, LLC
("Bridgelink") 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) as such, Eos's backlog was
overstated; (4) such overstatement negatively impacts Eos's ability
to secure a loan from the Department of Energy; and (5) 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. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

To join the Eos class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=18041 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.

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 [BN]

EPIC SHEET: Faces Lopez Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
JAMES LOPEZ, an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EPIC SHEET METAL, a California
corporation; and, DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. CVRI2303774 (Cal. Super., Riverside Cty., July 25, 2023) arises
from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor and practices in
violation of the California Labor Code and the California Business
and Professions Code.

The Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of the Class, seeks
relief against Defendants, for their practices of violating
applicable state laws, including: (1) failure to pay all wages
(including minimum, regular, overtime, and double time
compensation); (2) failure to provide meal periods or compensation
in lieu thereof; (3) failure to authorize or permit rest breaks or
provide compensation in lieu thereof; (4) failure to reimburse
business expenses; (5) failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements; (6) failure to pay all wages due upon separation of
employment; and (7) violations of California's quota laws.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt hourly
employee during the Class Period. His job duties at ESM included a
sundry of warehouse duties based on production and quotas in which
he and putative class members are assigned or required to perform
at a specified productivity speed, or perform a quantified number
of tasks, or to handle or produce a quantified amount of material.

Epic Sheet Metal owns and operates sheet metal manufacturing and
servicing centers throughout California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jose R. Garay, Esq.
          JOSE GARAY, APLC
          249 E. Ocean Blvd. #814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (949) 208-3400
          Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
          E-mail: jose@garaylaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher A. Olsen, Esq.
          OLSEN LAW OFFICES, APC
          3465 Camino del Rio S., Ste. 330
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 550-9352
          Facsimile: (619) 923-2747

FASTMED URGENT: Discloses Patients' Health Info, Rodriguez Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JACKELYN RODRIGUEZ, individually, and for all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FASTMED URGENT CARE, P.C., Defendant, Case
No. 5:23-cv-403 (E.D.N.C., July 25, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendant for negligence, invasion of privacy, and  violations
of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the North Carolina
Electronic Surveillance Act.

The Plaintiff brings this action to redress Defendant's
highly-offensive practice of placing computer code on its FastMed
website and MyChart portal that intercepts both the characteristics
and the contents of communications about individual patients' past,
present, and future medical conditions, concerns, symptoms,
appointments, providers, treatments, medications, bills, and
insurance, and transmits this data to Meta for analysis and,
thereafter, puts this data to commercial uses benefitting both
Defendant and Meta without providing notice to, or receiving
consent from, the users of FastMed's web properties.

The Plaintiff has been a patient of FastMed and has used the
FastMed website and MyChart portal to facilitate and inform her
medical care and treatment decisions since approximately 2015.

FastMed Urgent Care, P.C. is an integrated healthcare
provider/payer system based in Raleigh, North Carolina that
operates nearly 200 medical clinics in North Carolina, Florida,
Texas, and Arizona.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq.
          Corey M. Stanton, Esq.
          GIBBONS LAW GROUP, PLLC
          14045 Ballantyne Corporate Place, Suite 325
          Charlotte, NC 28277
          Telephone: (704) 612-0038
          Facsimile: (704) 612-0038
          E-mail: phil@gibbonslg.com
                  corey@gibbonslg.com

               - and -

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
          Michael J. Casas, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          222 W. Adams Street, Suite 2020
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  tbecvar@stephanzouras.com
                  mcasas@stephanzouras.com

               - and -

          David J. Cohen, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          604 Spruce Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 873-4836
          E-mail: dcohen@stephanzouras.com

FLO HEALTH: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Sept. 11
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERICA FRASCO, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FLO HEALTH,
INC., GOOGLE, LLC, FACEBOOK, INC., APPSFLYER, INC., and FLURRY,
INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00757-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the
Court to enter an order modifying the scheduling order and setting
procedures for class certification briefing:

   1. The deadline for the expert discovery cut-off shall be
extended
      from July 25, 2023, to September 1, 2023.

   2. The deadline for Plaintiffs to file the motion for class
      certification shall be extended from August 10, 2023, to
      September 11, 2023.

   3. The Defendants' opposition to class certification shall be
filed
      by October 30, 2023.

   4. The Plaintiffs’ reply in support of the motion for class
      certification shall be filed by November 30, 2023.

   5. Dispositive motions and Daubert motions shall be filed by
April
      4, 2024.

   6. Oppositions to dispositive motions and Daubert motions shall
be
      filed by May 2, 2024.

   7. Replies to dispositive motions and Daubert motions shall be
      filed by May 16, 2024.

   8. The Pretrial Conference shall be rescheduled from August 8,
2024
       to October 24, 2024.

   9. The start of trial shall be rescheduled from August 26, 2024,
to
      November 12, 2024.

Flo Health provides women's health mobile application services.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 25, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Qzl9C6 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christian Levis, Esq.
          Amanda Fiorilla, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
          E-mail: clevis@lowey.com
                  afiorilla@lowey.com

                - and -

          Carol C. Villegas, Esq.
          Michael P. Canty, Esq.
          David Saldamando, Esq.
          Danielle Izzo, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: cvillegas@labaton.com
                  mcanty@labaton.com
                  dsaldamando@labaton.com
                  dizzo@labaton.com

                - and -

          Diana J. Zinser, Esq.
          John A. Macoretta, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
          2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
          E-mail: dzinser@srkattorneys.com
                  jmacoretta@srkattorneys.com
                  jkodroff@srkattorneys.com

                - and -

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Alexis M. Wood, Esq.
          Kas L. Gallucci, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
                  alexis@consumersadvocates.com
                  kas@consumersadvocates.com

                - and -

          Kent Morgan Williams, Esq.
          WILLIAMS LAW FIRM
          1632 Homestead Trail
          Long Lake, MN 55356
          Telephone: (612) 940-4452
          E-mail: williamslawmn@gmail.com

                - and -

          William Darryl Harris, II, Esq.
          HARRIS LEGAL ADVISORS LLC
          605 N High Street, Suite 146
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 504-3350
          Facsimile: (614) 340-1940
          E-mail: will@harrislegaladvisors.com

                - and -

          James M. Wagstaffe, Esq.
          Frank Busch, Esq.
          WAGSTAFFE, VON LOEWENFELDT,
          BUSCH & RADWICK LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 725
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 357-8900
          Facsimile: (415) 357-8910
          E-mail: wagstaffe@wvbrlaw.com
                  busch@wvbrlaw.com  
The Defendants are represented by:

          Ashley Rogers, Esq.
          Christopher Chorba, Esq.
          Lauren Blas, Esq.
          Joseph R. Rose, Esq.
          Abigail A. Barrera, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 2100
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 698-3100
          Facsimile: (214) 571-2900
          E-mail: ARogers@gibsondunn.com
                  CChorba@gibsondunn.com
                  LBlas@gibsondunn.com
                  JRose@gibsondunn.com
                  ABarrera@gibsondunn.com

                - and -

          Benjamin Sadun, Esq.
          Brenda R. Sharton, Esq.
          DECHERT LLP
          One International Place
          100 Oliver Street
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 728-7100
          Facsimile: (617) 426-6567
          E-mail: brenda.sharton@dechert.com
                  benjamin.sadun@dechert.com

                - and -

          Benedict Y. Hur, Esq.
          Simona Agnolucci, Esq.
          Eduardo E. Santacana, Esq.
          Tiffany Lin, Esq.
          WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER
          One Front Street, 34th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 858-7400
          Facsimile: (415) 858-7599
          E-mail: BHur@willkie.com
                  SAgnolucci@wilkie.com
                  ESantacana@wilkie.com
                  TLin@wilkie.com

                - and -

          Ann Marie Mortimer, Esq.
          Samuel A. Danon, Esq.
          John J. Delionado, Esq.
          Jason J. Kim, Esq.
          HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
          550 S. Hope St., Suite 2000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 532-2000
          Facsimile: (213) 532-2020
          E-mail: AMortimer@HuntonAK.com
                  sdanon@HuntonAK.com
                  jdelionado@HuntonAK.com
                  KimJ@HuntonAK.com

FLORIDA HEALTH: Borchers Sues Over Alleged Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------
DAWN BORCHERS, on behalf of herself individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLORIDA HEALTH SCIENCES
CENTER, INC. d/b/a TAMPA GENERAL HOSPITAL, Defendant, Case No.
8:23-cv-01728-MSS-AEP (M.D. Fla., Aug. 3, 2023) arises out of the
recent data breach that took place between May 12 and May 30, 2023
and was discovered on May 31, 2023 and alleges claims against the
Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied
contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and for
violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act,
the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996,
and the Federal Trade Commission Act.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint against Defendant for its
failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally
identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part
of its regular business practices, including, but not limited to,
names, dates of birth, addresses, phone numbers, Social Security
numbers, and medical and health insurance information, which is
protected health information, as defined by the HIPAA.

Moreover, Plaintiff claims that the Defendant failed to include in
its Notice Letter the reason why it took Defendant nearly three
weeks to detect the Data Breach, the dates of Defendant's
investigation, the details of the root cause of the Data Breach,
the vulnerabilities exploited, why it took approximately two months
to inform impacted individuals after Defendant detected the Data
Breach, and the remedial measures undertaken to ensure such a
breach does not occur again, says the suit.

Florida Health Sciences Center, Inc. d/b/a Tampa General Hospital
is a Florida-based private, non-profit hospital headquartered in
Tampa, Florida. As one of the largest hospitals in the state,
Florida Health Sciences Center, Inc. employs more than 8,000
workers serving patients in a “dozen counties with a population
in excess of four million.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                  - and -

          John J. Nelson, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
          402 W Broadway, Suite 1760
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (858) 209-6941
          Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
          E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com

FLORIDA REGIONAL: Wang Appeals Ruling in Peng Suit to 11th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
HELING WANG, et al., are taking an appeal from a court order in the
lawsuit entitled TINA PENG and LIN FU, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, v. NICHOLAS A. MASTROINNI II;
FLORIDA REGIONAL CENTER, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company;
HARBOURSIDE FUNDING GP, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company;
and HARBOURSIDE PLACE, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company,
the Defendants, and HARBOURSIDE FUNDING, LP, a Florida Limited
Partnership, the Nominal Defendant, Case No. 9:20-cv-80102-AMC
(S.D. Fla.).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
initiated this derivative and putative class action in January
2020. In January 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint
(SAC), which alleges that under the control and direction of
Defendant Mastroianni, Defendants engaged in numerous unlawful
commercial practices that harmed Plaintiffs, the Funding
Partnership, and the Putative Class Members, including by breaching
fiduciary duties owed to the Funding Partnership, Plaintiffs, and
the Putative Class Members, and breaching the parties' EB-5 Loan
Agreement.

Specifically, says the complaint, Defendants Mastroianni and
Richard Yellen created a group of companies to perpetrate a
fraudulent scheme by which they obtained $99,500,000 from a group
of immigrant investors for the purpose of funding a construction
loan that was to have been repaid when it matured more than two
years ago but had no intention of keeping their promise to repay.
Thus, when the loan matured, the Defendants used the money they
obtained for the loan to buy an equity interest in one of their
companies in which the immigrant investors (including Plaintiffs
Peng and Fu) have no rights and no ability to recover the money
that was stolen from them.

On February 1, 2023, a hearing was held before Judge Aileen M.
Cannon on Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Class Settlement.

On February 6, 2023, Judge Cannon entered an order denying the
Motion for Settlement, and another motion that was filed under
seal.

The appellate case is captioned Ting Peng, et al. v. Heling Wang,
et al., Case No. 23-12446, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on July 26, 2023. [BN]

Interested Parties-Appellants HELING WANG, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

            John K. McDonald, Esq.
            COZEN O'CONNOR
            1650 Market St., Ste. 2800
            Philadelphia, PA 19103
            Telephone: (215) 665-2146

                    - and -

            David Stahl, Esq.
            COZEN O'CONNOR
            200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 3000
            Miami, FL 33131
            Telephone: (305) 358-5001

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

            Anisha Carla Atchanah, Esq.
            Robert C.L. Vaughan, Esq.
            KIM VAUGHAN LERNER, LLP
            312 SE 17th St., Ste. 300
            Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
            Telephone: (954) 527-1115

                    - and -

            Andre Y. Bates, Esq.
            Jeffrey L. Fazio, Esq.
            Yi Yao, Esq.
            DEHENG LAW OFFICES
            7901 Stoneridge Dr., Ste. 208
            Pleasanton, CA 94588

Defendants-Appellees NICHOLAS A. MASTROIANNI, II, et al., are
represented by:

            David P. Ackerman, Esq.
            AKERMAN, LLP
            777 S. Flagler Dr., Ste. 1100 W
            West Palm Beach, FL 33401
            Telephone: (561) 838-4100

                    - and -

            Richard G. Haddad, Esq.
            Gabriela S. Leon, Esq.
            William Moran, Esq.
            OTTERBOURG STEINDLER HOUSTON & ROSEN, PC
            230 Park Ave., Fl. 29
            New York, NY 10169
            Telephone: (212) 905-3620

                    - and -

            Eleni Sevasti Kastrenakes, Esq.
            AKERMAN LLP
            1251 Avenue of the Americas, Fl. 37
            New York, NY 10020

FOLGERS COFFEE: Sept. 27 Extension to File Class Cert Reply Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: FOLGERS COFFEE MARKETING LITIGATION
Case No. 4:21-md-02984-BP (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to enter an order granting their request a brief extension until
September 27, 2023 to file their Reply to the Defendants'
opposition to Class Certification, as well as oppositions to the
Defendants' four Motions to Exclude the Plaintiffs' respective
experts.

On March 22, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class
Certification.

On July 17, 2023, the Defendants filed their Opposition to the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

In addition to the significant amount of responsive pleading
required to address the Defendants' July 17, 2023, filings,
pursuant to the current Scheduling Order, the Defendants will be
filing their responsive pleading to the Plaintiff Marcia Nupp's New
York Complaint no later than July 24, 2023, requiring any
opposition by the Plaintiff to be filed by August 23, 2023.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion
dated July 20, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/43UINw3 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Tim E. Dollar, Esq.
          DOLLAR BURNS & BECKER, L.C.
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 876-2600
          Facsimile: (816) 221-8763
          E-mail: timd@dollar-law.com

                - and -

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          Scott G. Braden, Esq.
          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
          1350 Columbia St., Ste. 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 762-1900
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com
                  sbraden@carlsonlynch.com
                  kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com

                - and -

          Lubna M. Faruqi, Esq.
          Timothy J. Peter, Esq.
          Lisa T. Omoto, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: lfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                  tpeter@faruqilaw.com
                  lomoto@faruqilaw.com

                - and -

          Bonner C. Walsh, Esq.
          WALSH PLLC
          1561 Long Haul Road
          Grangeville, ID 83530
          Telephone: (541) 359-2827
          Facsimile: (866) 503-8206
          E-mail: bonner@walshpllc.com

GENERAL MOTORS: Bid for More Time to File Reply Denied as Moot
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Riley, et al., v. General
Motors, LLC, Case No. 6:22-cv-00499 (M.D. Fla., Filed March 9,
2022), the Hon. Judge Embry J. Kidd entered an order on motion for
extension of time to file response / reply order:

  -- Denying as moot the Defendant's motion for an extension of
the
     deadline for the Defendant's opposition to class
certification;

  -- Denying as moot the Defendant's Short Form Discovery Motion to

     Compel the Plaintiff Ambrose to Sit for a Deposition Before
the
     August Deadline for GM's Opposition to Class Certification.

As both Motions were premised on deposing the Plaintiff Ambrose,
and in light of the Court's Order terminating Ambrose as a party,
both Motions are moot.

The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Property
Damage Product Liability.

General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company.[CC]

GEORGIA: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Dec. 15
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as The Georgia Advocacy
Office, et al., v. State of Georgia, et al., Case No.
1:17-cv-03999-MLB (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Michael L. Brown
entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to amend the
Scheduling Order.

The Scheduling Order dated February 2, 2023, is amended as
follows:

   1) To require Initial Expert Reports by Sept. 1.

   2) To require Rebuttal Expert Reports by Sept. 22.

   3) To complete Expert discovery by Oct. 31.

   4) To file Dispositive Motions by Dec. 15.

   5) To file Class Certification Motion by Dec. 15.

   6) To file Oppositions to filed Motions by Jan. 15.

   7) To file Replies in Support of Motions by Jan. 31.

Georgia is a southeastern U.S. state whose terrain spans coastal
beaches, farmland and mountains.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ywazh3 at no extra charge.[CC]

GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER: Bid to File Documents Under Seal OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA M. MOORE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS (US) LLC; PFIZER INC.,
Case No. 4:20-cv-09077-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey S.
White entered an order granting the Defendants' administrative
motion to file under seal documents accompanying their opposition
to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

       Document                    Portions to Be Filed Under Seal


  Defendants' Opposition to      Page 3: line 28
  Plaintiff's Motion for Class   Page 4: lines 1-3, 4-5, 6-7,
  Certification                  12, 13-15, 16-17, 19-20, 21-23,
27-28
                                 Page 5: lines 1, 3-4, 5-6
                                 Page 10: lines 27-28
                                 Page 11: lines 1-2, 3-4, 8-10,
11-12,
                                 15-16, 17-19, 22-23, 24-26
                                 Page 14: lines 17-18
                                 Page 17: lines 3-4, 4-5
                                 Page 20: lines 18, 20, 21

  Defendants' Motion to          Page 3: lines 22-23
  Exclude Plaintiff’s Expert     Page 7: lines 5-6, 12-13, 17-18,
19-
  Anton Toutov                   20 Page 9: lines 7-9
                                 Page 10: lines 10-11, 14-15,
20-23,
                                 24, n.3
                                 Page 11: lines 1, 4-5, 8-9, 11-13

                                 Page 13: lines 2-3, 8-11, 14-15

  Excerpts from the transcript   Page 57: lines 13-25
  of the deposition of Angela    Page 58: lines 1-2
  Eppler (Harrington Decl.       Page 59: lines 1-23
  Ex. 3)                         Pages 65 to 68: lines 1-25
                                 Page 153: lines 1-21
                                 Page 155: lines 3-25
                                 Page 156: lines 1-8, 24-25
                                 Page 157: lines 1-25
                                 Page 158: lines 1-10
                                 Page 159: lines 19-25
                                 Page 160: lines 1-2
                                 Page 161: lines 15-25
                                 Pages 162 to 163: lines 1-25

A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45pJBtZ at no extra charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Matthew F. Williams, Esq.
          Christina Guerola Sarchio, Esq.
          Jacqueline Harrington, Esq.
          DECHERT LLP
          One Bush Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104-4446
          Telephone: (415) 262-4500
          Facsimile: (415) 262-4555
          E-mail: matthew.williams@dechert.com
                  christina.sarchio@dechert.com
                  jacqueline.harrington@dechert.com

GOOGLE LLC: Faces Williams Class Suit Over YouTube Ads
------------------------------------------------------
Anne Bucher of Top Class Actions reports that Google LLC is facing
a class action lawsuit alleging it inflates purported views for
businesses' YouTube ads and shows the ads on "questionable"
websites.

"If a video advertisement autoplays for a bot on an unlisted
webpage, does anyone hear it?" the YouTube class action lawsuit
asks. According to Google, they do, and they charge advertisers
hefty amounts for the privilege of autoplaying their advertisements
into the void."

Plaintiffs Dashawn Williams and Devon Holmes say they each paid
Google to run ads for their businesses, but if they had known that
Google's representations about the qualities of YouTube ads was
inaccurate, they would not have paid for Google's services.

YouTube class action says Google misrepresents ad characteristics,
overcharges advertisers

The class action lawsuit explains Google charges advertisers for
its "TrueView" video ads, promising that the YouTube ads must be
skippable and audible. Google also promises the YouTube ads cannot
be played simply by a user's passive scrolling.

"However, this is not true: many of the TrueView advertisements
are, in fact, displayed as muted, auto-playing videos either
'out-stream' or obscured on independent sites," the class action
lawsuit says.

Google allegedly charges a premium price for the YouTube ads,
promising that the ads will run on high-quality sites before the
main video content, and that advertisers will only pay for ads that
are not skipped.

The plaintiffs point to a recent report by ad campaign analytics
firm Analytics, which found Google violates its promises for
TrueView YouTube advertisements approximately 80% of the time.

They filed the YouTube class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves
and a proposed class of advertisers who paid for TrueView in-stream
ads. They seek to force Google to issue refunds for alleged
overpayments for the YouTube ads.

A class action lawsuit filed last year alleged that Google and
YouTube violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by
collecting, storing and using YouTube users' biometric facial data
without their knowledge or consent.

What do you think about the allegations in this class action
lawsuit? Tell us your thoughts in the comments!

The plaintiffs are represented by John J. Nelson and Greg M.
Klinger of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC and
Kristen Lake Cardoso, Jeff Ostrow, Jonathan M. Streisfeld and
Daniel Tropin of Kopelowitz Ostrow PA.

The YouTube ads class action lawsuit is Dashawn Williams, et al. v.
Google LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-03685, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California. [GN]

GOOGLE LLC: Joint Stipulation Extending Time to Seal Briefing OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Google RTB Consumer Privacy
Litigation, Case No. 4:21-cv-02155-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Yvonne Gonzalez Roger entered an order extending time to seal
briefing in connection with the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification:

   1. The deadline for any response to an Administrative Motion to

      Seal is extended from 4 days after the filing of the motion
to
      18 days after the filing of the motion.

   2. The deadline for any response to an Administrative Motion to

      Consider Whether Another Party's Materials Should Be Sealed
is
      extended from 7 days after the filing of the motion to 21
days
      after the filing of the motion.

   3. The deadline for any response to a designating party's filing
in
      support of sealing is extended from 4 days after the filing
of
      the response to the Administrative Motion to Consider Whether

      Another Party's Materials Should Be Sealed to 18 days after
such
      filing.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Onxwye at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq.
          Jonathan Levine, Esq.
          Bethany Caracuzzo, Esq.
          PRITZKER LEVINE LLP
          1900 Powell Street, Suite 450
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 692-0772
          Facsimile: (415) 366-6110
          E-mail: ecp@pritzkerlevine.com
                  jkl@pritzkerlevine.com
                  bc@pritzkerlevine.com

                - and -

          Joe Cotchett, Esq.
          Nanci Nishimura, Esq.
          Brian Danitz, Esq.
          Jeffrey G. Mudd, Esq.
          Karin B. Swope, Esq.
          COTCHETT PITRE & McCARTHY
          840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697-6000
          Facsimile: (650) 597-0577
          E-mail: POmalley@cpmlegal.com
                  nnishimura@cpmlegal.com
                  BDanitz@cpmlegal.com
                  JMudd@cpmlegal.com
                  KSwope@cpmlegal.com

                - and -

          David A. Straite, Esq.
          Corban Rhodes, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT LLC
          485 Lexington Avenue. 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 993-1000
          E-mail: dstraite@dicellolevitt.com
                  crhodes@dicellolevitt.com
                  Julwick@dicellolevitt.com

                - and -

          James Ulwick, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT LLC
          Ten North Dearborn St., 6th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-7900
          Facsimile: (312) 253-1443
          E-mail: Julwick@dicellolevitt.com

                - and -

          Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
          Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
          BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
          7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 914-2001
          Facsimile: (858) 914-2002
          E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com
                  ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael G. Rhodes, Esq.
          Whitty Somvichian, Esq.
          Aarti G. Reddy, Esq.
          Reece Trevor, Esq.
          Anupam S. Dhillon, Esq.
          Robby L.R. Saldaña, Esq.
          Khary J. Anderson, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          3 Embarcadero Center, 20th floor San
          Francisco, CA 94111-4004
          Telephone: (415) 693-2000
          Facsimile: (415) 693-2222
          E-mail: rhodesmg@cooley.com
                  wsomvichian@cooley.com
                  areddy@cooley.com
                  rtrevor@cooley.com
                  adhillon@cooley.com
                  rsaldana@cooley.com
                  kjanderson@cooley.com

GOOGLE LLC: Plaintiffs Seek to File Class Cert Bid Under Seal
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANIBAL RODRIGUEZ, SAL
CATALDO, JULIAN SANTIAGO, and SUSAN LYNN HARVEY individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated, v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No.
3:20-cv-04688-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order granting administrative motion to file under seal Portions
of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Google is an American multinational technology company focusing on
artificial intelligence, online advertising, search engine
technology, cloud computing, computer software, quantum computing,
e-commerce, and consumer electronics.

A copy of the Plaintiffs motion dated July 20, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44ORlWk at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Boies, Esq.
          Mark C. Mao, Esq.
          Beko Reblitz-Richardson, Esq.
          James Lee, Esq.
          Rossana Baeza, Esq.
          Alison L. Anderson, Esq.
          M. Logan Wright, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
          333 Main Street
          Armonk, NY 10504
          Telephone: (914) 749-8200
          E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com
                  mmao@bsfllp.com
                  brichardson@bsfllp.com
                  jlee@bsfllp.com
                  rbaeza@bsfllp.com
                  alanderson@bsfllp.com
                  mwright@bsfllp.com

                - and -

          Bill Carmody, Esq.
          Shawn J. Rabin, Esq.
          Steven M. Shepard, Esq.
          Alexander Frawley, Esq.
          Ryan Sila, Esq.
          Amanda K. Bonn, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 336-8330
          E-mail: bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com
                  srabin@susmangodfrey.com
                  sshepard@susmangodfrey.com
                  afrawley@susmangodfrey.com
                  rsila@susmangodfrey.com
                  abonn@susmangodfrey.com

                - and -

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Ryan J. McGee, Esq.
          Michael F. Ram, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 222-4736
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
                  rmcgee@forthepeople.com
                  mram@forthepeople.com

GSF USA: Solis Sues Over Unlawful Biometric Data Retention
----------------------------------------------------------
HUGO SOLIS, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GSF USA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2023LA000788 (Ill. Cir., Dupage Cty., July 26, 2023) is a class
action brought by the Plaintiff to obtain statutory damages and
other equitable relief from the Defendant under the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and class members were
required to provide Defendant with their personalized biometric
indicators and the biometric information derived therefrom as past
and present employees of Defendant. Specifically, the Defendant
collects and stores its employees' fingerprints and requires all
the employees to clock-in and clock-out by scanning their
fingerprints into a fingerprint-scanning machine.

The complaint asserts that Defendant violated the law because
Plaintiff and class members have not been notified where their
fingerprints are being stored, for how long Defendant will keep the
fingerprints, and what might happen to this valuable information.

GSF USA, Inc. is an international cleaning solutions 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

HAPPY GROUP: Rusoff Seeks to Seal Class Cert Reply Docs
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN RUSOFF, et al.,
v. THE HAPPY GROUP, INC., et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-08084-AMO (N.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs file administrative motion to consider
whether material Filed in support of the Plaintiffs' class
certification reply brief should be sealed.

  -- The Plaintiffs designated "Attorney's Eyes Only" sales data
     produced by IRI, a third-party market research company, in
     response to a subpoena served in this litigation, pursuant to
the
     Protective Order.

  -- Mr. Weir is one of the Plaintiffs' expert witnesses and
portions
     of his rebuttal declaration, set forth in Section II(A) above,

     describe this data.

Happy Group is a mobile application development company.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 21, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Kwebd4 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

                - and -

          Aubry Wand, Esq.
          THE WAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          100 Oceangate, Suite 1200
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (310) 590-4503
          E-mail: awand@wandlawfirm.com

HCA HEALTHCARE: Nelson Sues Over Patients' Unprotected Health Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
JANNA NELSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HCA HEALTHCARE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-00744 (M.D. Tenn., July 25, 2023) is a class action brought
by the Plaintiff against Defendant for negligence, negligence per
se, and breach of implied contract, seeking an award of monetary
damages and injunctive and declaratory relief, resulting from the
Defendant's failure to adequately protect their highly sensitive
private information.

The Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory
relief in this action, arising from the Defendant's failure to
safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected
health information of patients to hospitals and physician groups
that it owns and operates, resulting in unauthorized access to its
information systems around June 2023. The Defendant's exposure of
that private information, has caused widespread injury and damages
to Plaintiff and similarly situated patients, says the suit.

HCA Healthcare, Inc., a Nashville, Tennessee-headquartered company,
is a healthcare organization made up of 182 hospitals and more than
2,300 ambulatory care centers in 20 U.S. states and the United
Kingdom.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexandra M. Honeycutt, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
           GROSSMAN, PLLC
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (866) 252-0878
          E-mail: ahoneycutt@milberg.com

               - and -

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY &
           AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
                  jalperstein@carellabyrne.com

               - and -

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (953) 525-4100
          E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com

HOMEADVISOR INC: Bid to Exclude Airquip Expert Opinions Partly OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Airquip, Inc. v.
HomeAdvisor, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-01849-PAB-KLM (D.
Colo.), the Hon. Judge Philip A. Brimmer entered an order granting
in part and denying in part the HomeAdvisor, Inc.,
IAC/InterActiveCorp, Angi HomeServices, Inc., and CraftJack, Inc.'s
Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert Opinions.

  -- The Defendants' motion to Strike the Testimony of Basil
Imburgia
     is denied as moot.

  -- The Plaintiffs' motion to strike the Proffered Testimony of
     Defendants' Experts: Carlos Hidalgo, Dr. Itamar Simonson,
Jessie
     Stricchiola, and Louis G. Dudney is granted in part and denied
in
     part.

  -- The Plaintiffs shall file Mr. Imburgia's supplemental report
     updating his damages calculations within 60 days of the entry
of
     the order.

The Plaintiffs Airquip, Inc., Kelly DaSilva, Nicole Gray, Charles
Costello, Bruce Filipiak, Josh Seldner, Anthony Baumann, Kourtney
Ervine, Hans Hass, Iva Haukenes, Brad and Linda McHenry, and Lisa
LaPlaca bring this class action suit on behalf of themselves and a
proposed class of similarly situated home service professionals
against the defendants.

HomeAdvisor is an online marketplace that helps connect home
service professionals with homeowners in need of home improvement
services.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3s3R6IH at no extra charge.[CC]


HOOKED UP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barrow Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS BARROW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HOOKED UP TOWING AND RECOVERY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00642-JHR-KRS (D.N.M., August 1, 2023)
is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff
and the class minimum wages, and overtime compensation for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff Barrow was employed by the Defendant as a tow-truck
driver.

HOOKED UP TOWING AND RECOVERY, INC. operates as a tow truck
company, with office at Flora Vista, New Mexico. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75254
          Telephone: (214) 489-7653
          Facsimile: (469) 319-0317
          Email: marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com
                 rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com

HP INC: More Time to Depose Plaintiffs' Class Cert Expert Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOBILE EMERGENCY HOUSING
CORP., and TRACK RAT ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a PERFORMANCE AUTOMOTIVE
& TIRE CENTER, and DAVID JUSTIN LYNCH, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. HP INC. d/b/a/ HP COMPUTING
AND PRINTING INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No.
5:20-cv-09157-SVK (N.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulate and agree as
follows:

   -- Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1 and 6-2 and subject to the

      approval of the Court, that the deadline for deposing the
      Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Maronick, will be extended to August
21,
      2023.

The current deadline for HP to depose the Plaintiffs' class
certification expert is July 27, 2023.

The Plaintiffs produced documents and data relied upon by their
expert, Dr. Thomas J. Maronick, on July 17, 2023, pursuant to a
subpoena served by HP, and HP will require additional time to
review the documents and data prior to deposing Dr. Maronick.

The parties seek to extend the deadline to depose Dr. Maronick for
the purpose of permitting Dr. Maronick's deposition to be taken on
August 21, 2023.

HP Inc. is an information technology company known for its personal
computers and printers.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3saSmcX at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark L. Javitch, Esq.
          JAVITCH LAW OFFICE
          3 East 3rd Ave. Ste. 200
          San Mateo, CA 94401
          Telephone: (650) 781-8000
          Facsimile: (650) 648-0705
          E-mail: mark@javitchlawoffice.com

                - and -

          Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 440-0020
          Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
          E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Samuel Liversidge, Esq.
          Ilissa Samplin, Esq.
          Joseph R. Rose, Esq.
          Sean Howell, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229-7000
          Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
          E-mail: sliversidge@gibsondunn.com
                  isamplin@gibsondunn.com
                  jrose@gibsondunn.com
                  showell@gibsondunn.com

HWS LLC: Hall Seeks Certification of Plaintiff Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARNESE HALL, et al. On
Her Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
HWS, LLC t/a HENRY'S WRECKER SERVICE (Individually), et al., Case
No. 8:22-cv-00996-PJM (D. Md.), the Plaintiff moves the Court
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c), for an order certifying class
defined as follows:

   "All persons whose vehicles, between March 23, 2019, and July
21,
   2023, were nonconsensually/trespass towed by Henry’s Wrecker
   Service from a private Parking Lot in Montgomery County,
Maryland,
   where Henry’s charged or was paid a fee."

   Excluded from the Class are those individuals who now are or
have
   ever been Henry's, Foulger-Pratt or Wheaton executives and the
   spouses, parents, siblings and children of all such
individuals.

HWS offers professional towing, recovery, and specialized
transportation to municipal, state and federal agencies.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47zo97N at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard S. Gordon, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Carney, Esq.
          GORDON, WOLF & CARNEY, CHTD.
          11350 McCormick Road
          Executive Plaza 1, Suite 1000
          Hunt Valley, MD 21031
          Telephone: (410) 825-2300
          Facsimile: (410) 825-0066
          E-mail: rgordon@GWCfirm.com
                  bcarney@GWCfirm.com

INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: Han Sues Over Fragrances' Price Monopoly
---------------------------------------------------------------
YOSH HAN, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS & FRAGRANCES, INC.;
GIVAUDAN SA; GIVAUDAN FRAGRANCES CORPORATION; GIVAUDAN FLAVORS
CORPORATION; GIVAUDAN ROURE (UNITED STATES) INC.; UNGERER & COMPANY
INC.; CUSTOM ESSENCE INC.; SYMRISE AG; SYMRISE INC.; SYMRISE US
LLC; DSM-FIRMENICH AG; FIRMENICH INC.; and AGILEX FLAVORS &
FRAGRANCES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-04147 (D.N.J., Aug.
2, 2023) alleges violation of the Sherman Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants agreed
to restrain trade by artificially stabilizing and increasing
prices, artificially restricting output, and allocating the market.
Defendants' agreement increased fragrance and fragrance ingredient
prices above competitive levels. Price trends of fragrance
ingredients cannot be explained by other economic factors. For
instance, the price trend of petroleum, a key raw material from
which 95 percent of synthetic fragrance ingredients are derived,
does not account for fragrance ingredient price trends -- Fragrance
prices stabilized at an increased level starting in 2018 despite
decreasing petroleum prices.

As a direct result of the Defendants' anticompetitive and unlawful
conduct, the Plaintiff and Class members paid artificially inflated
prices for fragrances and fragrance ingredients during the Class
Period from January 1, 2018 through the present and thus suffered
antitrust injury to their business or property, says the suit.

INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS & FRAGRANCES, INC. is a corporation that
produces flavors, fragrances, and cosmetic actives, which it
markets globally. It is headquartered in New York City and has
creative, sales, and manufacturing facilities in 44 different
countries. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lin Y. Chan, Esq.
          Katherine Lubin Benson, Esq.
          Jules A. Ross, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000

               - and -

          Jason Lichtman, Esq.
          Emily N. Harwell, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500

INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 17, 2024
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Edward Pena v.
International Medical Devices, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:22-cv-03391-SSS-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sunshine S. Sykes
entered an order setting the deadlines for the Plaintiff's motion
for class certification:

                      Event                        Deadline

  Last Date to Hear Motion to Amend              Sept. 1, 2023
  Pleadings or Add Parties

  Deadline for the Plaintiff to File             Jan. 17, 2024
  Motion for Class Certification and
  Any Class Certification Expert Report

  Deadline for the Defendant to File             Jan. 31, 2024
  Opposition to Class Certification and
  Any Class Certification Expert Report

  Deadline for the Plaintiff to File Reply       Feb. 7, 2024
  in Support of Motion for Class
  Certification and Any Class
  Certification Rebuttal Expert Report

  Class Certification Hearing                    March 8, 2024

International Medical offers modern integrated solutions in the
fields of clinical chemistry, hematology, immunology and
microbiology.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ko3qK1 at no extra charge.[CC]

INTERNI CUCINE: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARLON LOPEZ, CHRIS S. VALDIVIA BENAVIDEZ, PERLA MIRANDA, and
KATERINE ESPINO on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs v. INTERNI CUCINE AMERICA LLC, a Florida
Limited Liability Company, and MARCO MASET, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 6:23-cv-01409 (M.D. Fla., July 26, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendants for damages and other relief
for unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, and damages resulting from
retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida
Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiffs and those similarly situated are sui juris adult
individuals who are current or former employees of Defendants and
who worked for Defendants as laborers or installers within the five
years preceding the filing of this complaint. The Plaintiffs assert
that they were subjected to the same pay practices and policies of
Defendants. Specifically, the Defendants routinely and regularly
failed to compensate them for all hours worked in violation of the
FLSA's overtime and minimum wage provisions, says the Plaintiffs.

Interni Cucine is a company that designs, creates, and installs
custom-made kitchens, bathrooms, and closets designed and produced
in Italy for commercial and private customers throughout the
U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Nathaly Saavedra, Esq.
          P. Brooks LaRou, Esq.
          PEREGONZA THE ATTORNEYS, PLLC
          5201 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 290
          Miami, FL 33126
          Telephone: (786) 650-0202
          Facsimile: (786) 650-0200
          E-mail: nathaly@peregonza.com
                  brooks@peregonza.com

INTEVAC INC: Settles Quiusky Labor Suit in California Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Intevac Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended July 1, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2023, that the parties in case captioned
"Quiusky v. Intevac, Inc., et al." reached a settlement resolving
the case. The court approved the settlement in November 2022 and
payment on the claims was made on January 20, 2023.

In July 2020, Robin Quiusky, a former contract employee who worked
for Itevac via a staffing agency alleged that the company failed to
provide rest and meal breaks, pay overtime and reimburse business
expenses for non-exempt California employees. The former employee
subsequently added class action claims to his original complaint.

Intevac, Inc. is into the design and development of
high-productivity, thin-film processing systems for high-volume
manufacturing of substrates with precise thin-film properties, such
as for the hard disk drives and display cover panels.


IOWA: Hilson Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Prisoners
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL HILSON and BRENT
SMITH, petitioners and all those similarly situated, v. The State
of Iowa, Beth Skinner, Director, IDOC, Shawn Howard, WARDEN OF NCF,
and Jeremy Larson, SOTP Director, Case No. 4:23-cv-00252-RGE (S.D.
Iowa), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a
class of:

   "all similarly situated prisoners in the Iowa Department of
    Corrections (IDOC) at the Newton Correctional Facility (NCF) in

    Newton, Iowa."

Iowa is a state in the upper Midwestern region of the United
States, bordered by the Mississippi River to the east and the
Missouri River and Big Sioux River to the west.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 21, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OhJUQw at no extra
charge.[CC]

ISSUANCE INC: Standing Order for Newly Assigned Civil Cases Entered
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NOVATION SOLUTIONS, INC.
v. ISSUANCE, INC., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00696-WLH-KS (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wesley L. Hsu entered a standing order as
follows:

   1. Service of Order

      Counsel for the plaintiff must immediately serve the Order on

      all parties, including any new parties to the action. If this

      case was removed from state court, the defendant that removed

      the case must serve the Order on all other parties.

   2. Pro Se Litigants

      Only individuals may represent themselves. A corporation or
      other entity must be represented by counsel. If counsel seeks
to
      withdraw, counsel must advise the entity of the dire
      consequences of failing to obtain substitute counsel before
      seeking withdrawal−i.e., a plaintiff entity's case will be

      dismissed or a defendant entity will default.

   3. Presence of Lead Trial Counsel

      Lead trial counsel shall attend all proceedings set by this
      Court, including scheduling, settlement, and pretrial
      conferences, as well as trials. Lead trial counsel must be
      prepared to address and resolve all matters within the scope
of
      the proceeding.

   4. Mandatory Chambers Copies

      Motions, Pleadings, and Trial Documents. The parties must
      provide one (1) Mandatory Chambers Copy only of Motions for
      Summary Judgment filings and the 26(f) Report.

   5. Magistrate Judge Referral for All Discovery Matters

      All discovery matters are referred to the assigned United
States
      Magistrate Judge.

Issuance is a deal marketing platform that connects, engages, and
matches digital securities issuers with interested investors.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QIIjG2 at no extra charge.[CC]

JCF HOUSEMENTS: Faces Class Suit Over WARN Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Wanda Southerland of Elk Valley Times reports that five employees
have filed a collective action and class action complaint against
JCF Housements Manufacturing LLC, JCF Huntsville, LLC, JCF Lebanon,
LLC, JCF Living, LLC, JCF Residences Development Company, LLC,
Fayetteville CRE, LLC, John Fitzmaurice, individually as trustee of
JF Irrevocable trust; Julie Fitzmaurice, individually and as
trustee of Julie Fitzmaurice Trust, Ryan Fitzmaurice, Richard Jones
and John Does 1-10. The complaint was filed July 10, 2023, in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
Winchester Division, according to the Chattanooga office. The
plaintiffs are being represented by Langston & Lott, PLLC,
headquartered in Booneville, Mississippi.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury on the nine counts of the
complaint. Count one is violation of federal WARN act - May 2022
layoff. Federal law, known as the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act or WARN Act, offers protection to workers, their
families and communities by requiring employers to provide notice
60 days in advance of plant closings, mass layoffs and/or sale of a
business.

Count 2 is violation of federal WARN Act - August 2022 layoff;
count three is violation of federal WARN Act - November 2022
layoff; Count four is violation of federal WARN Act - March 2023
layoff; count five is failure to pay overtime wages pursuant to 29
U.S.C. . Sections 207(a); Count six is breach of contract - failure
to pay wages, fringe benefits, bonuses and accrued paid time off;
Count seven: breach of contract - failure to pay mileage
reimbursement and accrued paid time off; Count eight: piercing the
corporate veil - enterprise liability. The complaint states, "the
JCF Defendants should be treated as one entity for purposes of
liability. Because the separateness of the entities was not
recognized in practice, the Court should not recognize it now."

Count nine: piercing the corporate veil - individual liability. The
complaint states the directors and officers of the JCF defendants
also do not observe the separateness of the entities and used such
funds for routine household expenses, personal expenses such as
private airfare and vacation rental fares, paid vacation for a son
who is also a high-ranking employee, and built a home without
paying for labor or materials provided by JCF Living and JCF
Housements. "As such, John Fitzmaurice, Julie Fitzmaurice, Ryan
Fitzmaurice, and Richard Jones should be held jointly and severally
liable for any of the debts of the JCF Defendants," the complaint
states.

The names and addresses of the defendant in the complaint are
limited liability companies formed under the laws of the state of
Delaware, according to court records, are as follows:

JCF Housements Manufacturing, LLC, the company's principal office
address is 63 East Park Drive, Fayetteville, Tennessee. The
principal office address for JCF Huntsville, LLC, JCF Lebanon, LLC,
JCF Lebanon Hill, LLC, JCF Living, LLC, JCF Residences Development
Company, LLC, Fayetteville CRE, LLC, are all listed as 2210 Spedale
Court, Spring Hill, Tennessee, according to court records.

Defendant John Does 1-10 are individuals and entities whose true
name, identity, and/or capacity are unknown to the plaintiffs at
this time, according to the complaint. It also states the court has
jurisdiction over each of the defendants "because its principal
place of business is located in this state and a substantial
portion of the events giving rise to this litigation occurred in
this state."

JCF Living, LLC, is a self-proclaimed "vertically integrated
development and offsite construction company." According to its
website, the company "develops income producing rental communities
throughout the Southeastern United States." These communities
contain residences that are termed "Housements." JCF Housements
Manufacturing, LLC ("JCF Housements") is the manufacturing arm of
JCF Living and wholly owned by JCF Living. The principal place for
JCF Housements, 63 East Park Drive, Fayetteville, is the location
for the factory where the "housements" were built. The building was
purchased by another entity wholly owned by JCF Living -
Fayetteville CRE, LLC, according to the complaint.

JCF Living opened its facility in early 2020 and began hiring
employees to assist with the manufacturing of housements. The
complaint states most employees who assisted with the manufacturing
of the homes were employed by JCF Housements. At its peak in the
first half of 2021, the complaint states JCF Living and JCF
Housements employs in excess of 200 employees.

Sometime in 2021 three employees who assisted with the
manufacturing of the homes "were forced by leadership at JCF Living
and JCF Housements to begin travelling to three separate job sites
where the "Housements" modular homes would be installed and
finished. These three sites were located in Huntsville, Alabama,
Lebanon, Tennessee, and Franklin, Tennessee. The employees, who
were stationed in Fayetteville, Tennessee, were forced to travel in
their personal vehicles to these three construction sites.

"For approximately one year beginning in early 2021, Plaintiffs,
and all other employees who assisted in the manufacturing of these
homes, would travel in their personal vehicles to any of these
three sites. Plaintiffs, and all other similarly situated
employees, were paid for their travel time to the facilities, but
they were not paid for their travel time from the facilities," the
complaint states.

Housements required the plaintiffs and all other similarly situated
employees to clock out before making the drive back from the sites,
according to the complaint.
For approximately one year, the plaintiffs and all other similarly
situated employees, were not paid overtime for the time they spent
traveling back from the sites, according to the complaint, adding,
the time travelling ranged from approximately 30 minutes per
employee to an hour and a half per employee, depending upon which
site the employee worked at that day.

"Moreover, JCF Housements and JCF Living adopted a company policy
in which the plaintiffs and the other similarly situated employees
were paid mileage at the standard IRS rate for their travel to and
from the three sites," the complaint states. In reliance on this
company policy, plaintiffs and all other similarly situated
employees used their personal vehicles to travel to and from the
three sites and were paid some amount for the use of their
vehicles, but the amounts paid were not in accordance with the
company's policy of paying mileage at the standard IRS rate.
Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees, are owed
additional reimbursement for the mileage they travelled to and from
the three sites at the standard rate set by the IRS.

At the Franklin site, the locations in Huntsville and Lebanon were
community development sites that contained the termed "Housements."
These sites were constructed for the purpose of ultimately leasing
to tenants. These sites, named "Virtuoso Living" and "JCF New
Monrovia" in Huntsville and "109 Living" in Lebanon are listed as
assets on the JCF Living website.

The third location, however, is nothing more than a personal
residence for John, Julie, and Ryan Fitzmaurice, according to the
complaint. The third location is located at 5477 Leipers Creek Road
in Franklin, Tennessee. The property was purchased on Nov. 1, 2021,
by Julie Fitzmaurice as trustee of Julie Fitzmaurice Trust
Agreement dated Feb. 7, 2005, for $2,000,000, according to the
complaint.

The complaint states after purchasing the property, John and Julie
Fitzmaurice had a home constructed on the property using materials
purchased by JCF Living and JCF Housements. Moreover, the labor for
the construction of the property was performed by employees of JCF
Living and JCF Housements, the complaint says. After the home's
construction was completed, the complaint states that Julie
Fitzmaurice, as trustee of Julie Fitzmaurice Trust Agreement,
executed a quitclaim deed on Nov. 16, 2022, divesting her property
interests to John Fitzmaurice, as trustee of the JF Irrevocable
Trust dated Oct. 22, 2022. After acquiring the property for
$2,000,000 and building a home on the property using JCF Living and
JCF Housements' materials and labor, the home is now listed for
sale for $6,975,000, the complaint states.

Near the middle of 2021, JCF Housements and JCF Living began
conducting layoffs, which were done in waves beginning around May
of 2021 and ending on June 16, 2023, the complaint states.

Three waves of layoffs, each involving at least 50 employees, took
place at the Fayetteville location around May 30, 2022, Aug. 22,
2022, and Nov. 21, 2022. The complaint states that none of the
employees who were laid off during the three different timeframes
received any advance notice nor were they provided any severance.

The complaint says JCG Living and JCF Housements continued to
conduct layoffs well into 2023 and around March 24, 2023, another
plaintiff was laid off, as well as at least 50 employees.

The last layoff occurred on June 16, 2023, according to the
complaint, when CEO and "owner" of JCF Living, John Fitzmaurice,
sent an email to all "JCF Factory and Corporate Employees"
notifying them that all employees - other than those working at New
Monrovia in Huntsville - would be laid off effective immediately.

The complaint states that many of the employees who remained
employed from April through June 2023 haven't received payment for
the hours they worked. "These unpaid wages were acknowledged in the
June 16 email sent by John Fitzmaurice," the complains states. "Mr.
Fitzmaurice claims he is working "earnestly . . . to obtain funding
for unpaid expenses including back pay for payroll to whom it is
owed through their termination date." Despite, leadership at JCF
Living and JCF Housements knowledge of these unpaid wages, the debt
still remains unpaid, the complaint states.

According to the complaint, JCF Living and JCF Housements adopted a
company policy where all employees would be entitled to their
unused vacation pay or paid time off (PTO). Despite adopting this
policy, the employees were not paid their unused vacation pay or
PTO at termination, and according to the complaint, are owed their
unused vacation pay or PTO.

"As the preceding allegations make clear, JCF Living and JCF
Housements has created an employment mess," the complaint states.
[GN]

JLM DECORATING: Martinez Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISRAEL MARTINEZ, on behalf
of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, v. JLM DECORATING, INC., and JLM DECORATING NYC
INC., and COSMOPOLITAN INTERIOR NY CORPORATION, and MOSHE GOLD,
individually, and JOSAFATH ARIAS, individually, Case No.
1:20-cv-02969-RA-SN (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:

   (1) Certifying the New York Labor Law (NYLL) claims for relief
in
       the Plaintiffs' complaint as a class action with respect to
the
       following:

       "Current and former non-managerial employees, who at any
time
       from April 10, 2014, through the present, performed any
manual
       work, including but not limited to, painting and renovation

       work, for the Defendants, in New York, and who were paid on
an
       hourly basis;"

   (2) Appointing Plaintiff Israel Martinez as Class
Representative;

   (3) Appointing Borrelli & Associates, P.L.L.C. as Class
Counsel;

   (4) Requiring the Defendants, within 14 days of the Court's
Order,
       to produce a computer-readable data file containing the
names,
       last known mailing addresses, all known home and mobile
       telephone numbers, and all known email addresses for all
       putative class members who worked for the Defendants at any

       point from April 10, 2014, to the present;

   (5) Permitting the Plaintiffs to disseminate notice of this
action
       in the form attached to the Declaration of Andrew C. Weiss,

       Esq. as Exhibit P, via regular mail, and permitting a
sixty-day
       opt-out period; and

   (6) Granting any other further relief that the Court deems just
and
       proper.

The Plaintiffs are Juan Carlos Benites, Rafael Brito, Harold Pena,
and Rodrigo Rojas.

JLM is a full-service painting, wallcovering & decorative firm
performing in the Tri-State and Florida commercial markets.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 26, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OQBMrK at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew C. Weiss, Esq.
          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 248-5550
          Facsimile: (516) 248-6027

JOHN HANCOCK: Linhart Seeks to Certify Putative Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA LINHART, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, v. JOHN HANCOCK LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY (U.S.A.) and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No.
2:20-cv-02117-TJH-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff Linhart will move
the Court for an order:

   a) certifying the putative class;

   b) appointing her as class representative; and

   c) appointing John P. Bjork of Sperling & Slater, LLC,
Christopher
      R. Pitoun of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, and David S.
      Klevatt of Klevatt & Associates, LLC as lead class counsel.

The proposed class here contains hundreds of putative class members
all with virtually identical claims, including Plaintiff, who is
both typical and an adequate representative of their interests.
Common evidence will prove that Defendant violated California
Insurance Code sections 10113.71 and 10113.72.

Specifically, the Defendant violated the Statutes through its
adoption of a blanket practice of lapsing for non-payment of
premium hundreds of life insurance policies issued prior to January
1, 2013, without first providing the policyowner an opportunity to
designate a third-party to receive notice of such pending lapses.

John Hancock provides insurance products and financial services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 28, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QABM04 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq.
          Abigail D. Pershing, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 920
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (213) 330-7150
          E-mail: christopherp@hbsslaw.com
                  abigailp@hbsslaw.com

                - and -

          David S. Klevatt, Esq.
          KLEVATT & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4500
          Chicago, IL 60601-1604
          Telephone: (312) 782-9090
          E-mail: dklevatt@insurancelawyer.com

                - and -

          Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
          John P. Bjork, Esq.
          SPERLING & SLATER, LLC
          55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3200
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 224-1500
          E-mail: jvanek@sperling-law.com
                  jbjork@sperling-law.com

JOHN HANCOCK: Linhart Seeks to File Portions of Docs Under Seal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA LINHART, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, v. JOHN HANCOCK LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY (U.S.A.) and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No.
2:20-cv-02117-TJH-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order  permitting her to file under seal portions of
certain documents and references, either because they are
designated as "Confidential" by one of the parties in this action
or because they contain information that must be redacted pursuant
to Local Rule 5.2-1, found in the concurrently submitted:

    (i) Plaintiff's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support
of
        Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Class Certification and
        Appointment of Class Representative and Class Counsel.

   (ii) Exhibits 5, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 18 to the Declaration of
        Christopher R. Pitoun in Support of Plaintiff’s Renewed
Motion
        for Class Certification and Appointment of Class
        Representative and Class Counsel.

John Hancock is a Boston-based insurance company.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 28, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KDG1EF at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq.
          Abigail D. Pershing, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 920
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (213) 330-7150
          E-mail: christopherp@hbsslaw.com
                  abigailp@hbsslaw.com

                - and -

          David S. Klevatt, Esq.
          KLEVATT & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4500
          Chicago, IL 60601-1604
          Telephone: (312) 782-9090
          E-mail: dklevatt@insurancelawyer.com

                - and -

          Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
          John P. Bjork, Esq.
          SPERLING & SLATER, LLC
          55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3200
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 224-1500
          E-mail: jvanek@sperling-law.com
                  jbjork@sperling-law.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bid for Additional $32M Pelvic Mesh Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
Miklos Bolza of Yahoo! News reports that a request by the law firm
behind a landmark class action against Johnson & Johnson over
defective pelvic mesh implants for a further cut of a $300 million
settlement has been shut down.

Justice Michael Lee declined a bid by Shine Lawyers for an
additional $32 million, saying that this would mean the amount left
over for women affected by the mesh products was unreasonable.

"The settlement, cannot be characterised as a good one from the
perspective of group members, whatever belated attempts are made to
put lipstick on a pig (or, perhaps more fairly, on a passably
attractive sow)," the Federal Court judge said.

With the three women leading the class action being awarded between
$555,000 and $1.2 million in damages, the thousands of remaining
women, referred to as group members, would only be given a fraction
of that from the $300 million settlement, especially given Shine's
sought-after legal cut.

"In blunt terms, the group members, rather than those who were
acting as their representatives, were now going to be left holding
the bag," Justice Lee said.

The law firm has already been paid $82 million out of the
settlement proceeds for running the 11-year-long class action. The
$32 million relates to interest paid by Shine after seeking
external financing to run the lawsuit.

In March this year, Justice Lee approved the settlement but said it
was "borderline" in terms of reasonableness.

On August 3, 2023 he said that giving a further $32 million to
Shine would make the settlement "less than reasonable".

"Borderline means borderline. The settlement got a grudging and
hesitant pass, not a credit," he said.

The ASX-listed law firm had paid $45 million in dividends to its
shareholders since 2016 rather than keeping this money as a
"buffer" for any additional expenses, the court found.

Shine had not acted prudently and reasonably, failing to take
necessary steps to secure better sources of financing or to
maximise recovery for the affected women, the judge said.

The firm can still apply to the court for a lower amount of
interest, but will have to again explain why further costs should
be taken from women who have "suffered greatly".

"Marriages and lives have been irreparably damaged and some ruined.
The pain and anguish of the women who made representations opposing
the settlement was palpable and moving," Justice Lee wrote.

The judge did not find that Shine acted contrary to its legal
duties.

In an ASX statement, the law firm said the $32 million in interest
was a "necessary cost" of running the class action.

Further submissions will be prepared and given to the court as
Shine seeks to recover these amounts.

Managing director Simon Morrison said the firm was proud to have
stayed in the fight and procure the $300 million settlement in one
of the "longest running medical device class actions in Australian
legal history".

Johnston & Johnston and its subsidiary Ethicon aggressively fought
claims its vaginal mesh and tape implants were defective, taking
the case all the way to the High Court.

After the medical firm failed to overturn findings its devices
could cause significant injury to those implanted with them, it
agreed to settle the proceeding. [GN]

JUDGE GROUP: Court Approves Class Settlement in Baez-Medina Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YANIRA BAEZ-MEDINA,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. THE
JUDGE GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-03534-ER (E.D. Pa.), Court
Entered an order approving class settlement as follows:


  -- The parties agreed to settle Baez and the Opt-in the
Plaintiffs'
     claims for a gross amount of $175,00:

     (1) a service award1 for Named the Plaintiff Baez of $5,000;

     (2) the Plaintiffs' counsel’s attorneys' fees up to 40
percent of
         the Gross Settlement Amount, or $70,000;

     (3) the Plaintiffs' counsel's out-of pocket litigation costs
and
         expenses up to $11,979.94; and

     (4) After subtracting these costs from the Gross Settlement
         Amount, the resulting Net Settlement amount is $88,020.06

The Plaintiff Yanira Baez-Medina, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, brings this action against her former
employer, Judge Group, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), and Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA").

The Judge Group is a professional services firm specializing in
technology, talent, and learning solutions.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at at no extra charge.[CC]



KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Plaintiffs Seeks Initial OK of Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Raul Martinez and Philippe
Vieux, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. Knight Transportation, Inc. Which Will Do Business In California
As Arizona Knight Transportation, Inc.; and Does 1 through 20, Case
No. 5:21-cv-00572-MEMF-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to enter an order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(e) and 29
U.S.C. section 216(b):

   1. Preliminarily certifying under Rule 23(e) of the Federal
Rules
      of Civil Procedure, the proposed Settlement Class, which
      includes the following individuals:

      "All persons who are or have been employed by Knight
      Transportation, Inc. as employee over-the-road drivers who
were
      California residents or assigned to work out of a location in

      California from April 6, 2016 through the date of Preliminary

      Approval;"

   2. Preliminarily appointing Raul Martinez and Philippe Vieux as
the
      Class Representatives for settlement purposes;

   3. Preliminarily appointing Jonathan M. Lebe, Shigufa Saleheen,
and
      Brielle D. Edborg of Lebe Law, APLC as Class Counsel for
      settlement purposes;

   4. Preliminarily approving the class action settlement based
upon
      the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement of Class
Action
      and Private Attorneys General Act Claims;

   5. Appointing Rust Consulting as the third-party settlement
      administrator for mailing notices and otherwise administering

      the Settlement;

   6. Approving the proposed Class Notice, and directing that it be

      disseminated to the proposed Settlement Class and PAGA Class
as
      provided in the Settlement; and

   7. Scheduling a final fairness hearing to consider final
approval
      of the Settlement, entry of a proposed final judgment, the
      Plaintiff’s Motion for Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and
Costs, and
      the Class Representatives' Service Awards.

The Plaintiffs' claims stem from Knight's alleged failure to pay
minimum and overtime wages, meal and rest period violations,
failure to reimburse necessary business expenses, failure to
provide accurate and itemized wage statements, failure to pay all
wages due upon separation of employment, and violation of Unfair
Competition Law.

Under the Settlement, Knight has agreed to pay a nonreversionary
Maximum Gross Settlement Amount (GSA) of $1,100,000.00 to resolve
the Plaintiff', PAGA Class members', and Settlement Class members'
claims on a class and collective basis.

The settlement provides substantial recovery on Knight's alleged
wage and hour violations. The average payment to Settlement Class
Members is estimated at approximately $434.62, a favorable result
considering the formidable defenses that the Plaintiffs faced on
their claims.

The principal terms of the Settlement are summarized below:

   -- Maximum Settlement Amount:           $1,100,000.00

   -- Minus Court-approved                 $366,666.67
      attorney's fees (one-third):

   -- Minus Court-approved costs           $25,000
      (up to):  

   -- Minus Court-approved Enhancement     $10,000
      Payments:

   -- Minus settlement administration      $14,000
      costs (up to):

   -- Net Settlement Amount:               $684,333.33

   -- Minus Amount paid to LWDA:           $75,000

   -- Total Amount Paid to                 $609,333.33
      Settlement Class:

Knight Transportation is a truckload carrier offering dry van,
refrigerated, intermodal and brokerage services.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 20, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KnnFaw at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

KROY LLC: Jones Seeks to Recover Proper Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KROY LLC d/b/a BUCKEYE BUSINESS PRODUCTS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01512 (N.D. Ohio, Aug.3, 2023)
arises from the Defendant's employee overtime wage compensation
practices that allegedly violated the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 and Ohio law.

Plaintiff Jones was employed by Defendant from approximately 2014
to July 2023 as a non-exempt employee. He regularly worked more
than 40 hours in a single workweek. However, the Defendant failed
to pay Plaintiff for all hours, including overtime and non-overtime
hours, worked as a result of Defendant’s time editing and/or
rounding practices and/or policies, says the suit.

Kroy, doing business as Buckeye Business Products, Inc., is a
Nevada for-profit limited liability company headquartered in
Cleveland, Ohio.  It is a label manufacturer, whose products
include, among other things, thermal transfer labels, direct
thermal labels, thermal transfer ribbons, color thermal labels,
freezer grade labels, and auto apply labels. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

             Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
             Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
             SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
             50 Public Square, Suite 1900
             Cleveland, OH 44113
             Telephone: (216) 912-2221
             Facsimile: (440) 846-1625
             E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
                     rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com

                     - and -

             Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
             SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
             11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 310
             Strongsville, OH 44136
             Telephone: (216) 912-2221
             Facsimile: (440) 846-1625
             E-mail: kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com

LAML LLC: Parties  in Mabry Has Until Oct. 12 to Complete Mediation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mabry v. LAML, LLC et al.,
Case No. 1:23-cv-05468-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Valerie
Caproni entered an order:

  -- Denying the Plaintiffs motion Court adjourn the Court ordered

     mediation until after class-wide discovery is completed,
and/or
     the Court rules on the Plaintiff's motion(s) for
     conditional/class certification.

  -- The Defendants' request to extend the deadline to complete
     initial discovery and mediation, is granted.

  -- The deadline to complete the discovery described in the
Court's
     July 14, 2023 Order, is adjourned to September 11, 2023.

  -- The parties shall have until October 12, 2023, to complete
     mediation.

Per the Court's July 14, 2023 Order, this case is referred to the
Court-annexed mediation program, which shall be completed prior to
a Rule 16 discovery conference. The Court encourages the parties to
take mediation seriously; in the Court's experience, FLSA cases
benefit from early and meaningful participation in mediation.

The Plaintiff alleges that she worked for the Defendants as a
bartender and that the Defendants, among other things, failed to
pay her for all hours that she worked, including overtime hours,
and paid her at the incorrect hourly rate.

The Plaintiff asserts claims against the Defendants, on behalf of
herself and other similarly situated bartenders and busboys, for

   (1) unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards

       Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL");

   (2) failure to pay the minimum wage as required under the
       NYLL;

   (3) failure to pay the spread of hours premium under the NYLL;

   (4) late payment of wages under the NYLL; and

   (5) failure to provide proper wage notices and statements as
       required by NYLL section 195.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45plo6R at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael DiGiulio, Esq.
          D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
          JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
          32 Broadway, Suite 601
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 688-5640
          Facsimile: (212) 688-2548
          E-mail: www.jk-llp.com

LIVE NATION: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due October 3
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP of Businesswire reports that a shareholder filed a
class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. (NYSE: LYV)
securities between February 23, 2022 and July 28, 2023. Live Nation
is live entertainment company and concert and ticketing platform
operating in 48 countries.

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

What is this Case About: Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. (LYV)
Misled Investors Regarding its Anticompetitive Conduct

According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants
failed to disclose that: (1) Live Nation engaged in anticompetitive
conduct, including charging high fees and extended contracts with
talent, and retaliated against venues; and (2) as a result, Live
Nation was reasonably likely to incur regulatory scrutiny and face
fines, penalties, and reputational harm. As a result of defendants'
wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the
market value of the Company's securities, the class members have
suffered significant losses and damages.

What Now: Similarly situated shareholders may be eligible to
participate in the class action against Live Nation Entertainment,
Inc. Shareholders who want to act as lead plaintiff for the class
must file their motion for lead plaintiff by October 3, 2023. 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 Live Nation Entertainment,
Inc. settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives
engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch on August 3, 2023.

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

LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Lim Sues Officers Over Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------
BANDOL LIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EDWARD HIGHTOWER and ADAM KROLL, Defendants,
Case No. 4:23-cv-01454 (N.D. Ohio, July 26, 2023) is a federal
securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and a proposed
class consisting of all persons and entities that acquired
Lordstown securities during the period from August 4, 2022 through
and including June 26, 2023, pursuing claims against Defendants
Hightower and Kroll, who were Lordstown Motors' two most senior
officers during the Class Period, for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint relates that during the Class Period, the Defendants
repeatedly made and/or caused Lordstown to make false and/or
misleading statements about Lordstown's relationship with Hon Hai
Technology Group suggesting, or in some instances, representing
that Hon Hai Technology Group was working cooperatively with
Lordstown when in fact, the partnership had stalled soon after the
execution of the 2022 joint venture agreement and quickly soured.
Due to Hon Hai Technology Group's breach of the agreement,
Lordstown executed a second agreement with Hon Hai Technology to
replace the original agreement in an attempt to salvage the
relationship.

As the investing public would only learn fully after the Class
Period, Lordstown believed throughout the Class Period that Hon Hai
Technology was acting in bad faith, failing to live up to its
commercial and financial commitments to the Company, and even
working in direct competition with Lordstown despite Hon Hai
Technology's purported commitment to the Company. Specifically, Hon
Hai Technology failed to provide Lordstown access to design data,
never participated in budget or timeline negotiations for the
project, and generally failed to meaningfully engage with the
Company even on the most basic items. Lordstown knew but failed to
disclose that the financial life of the Company was imperiled by
its strained relationship with Hon Hai Technology and if the
partnership failed, the Company faced bankruptcy, says the suit.

On June 27, 2023, before the market opened, Lordstown revealed in a
court filing that, contrary to Lordstown's Class Period
representations, the partnership had long been in jeopardy and Hon
Hai Technology's conduct toward Lordstown had been anything but
cooperative. Lordstown filed litigation against Hon Hai Technology
and several of its subsidiaries in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the District of Delaware alleging Hon Hai Technology's fraud, bad
faith, and failure to live up to its commercial and financial
commitments to the Company.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.54 per share, over
21%, to close at $2.29 per share on June 27, 2023. As a result of
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions and the precipitous decline
in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and
other class members have suffered significant losses and damages,
the suit asserts.

Lordstown Motors Corp. is an automotive company founded for the
purpose of developing, engineering, manufacturing, and selling
light duty electric vehicles targeted for sale to fleet
customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
  
          Scott D. Simpkins, Esq.
          CLIMACO WILCOX PECA & GAROFOLI CO, LPA
          55 Public Square, Suite 1950
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 621-8484
          E-mail: sdsimp@climacolaw.com

               - and -

          Ira M. Press, Esq.
          Lauren K. Molinaro, Esq.
          KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
          250 Park Avenue, Suite 820
          New York, NY 10177
          Telephone: (212) 371-6600
          E-mail: ipress@kmllp.com
                  lmolinaro@kmllp.com

               - and -

          Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 914-5007
          E-mail: fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com

LOS ANGELES, CA: Bid to Drop AG as Defendant in Bail Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hillel Aron of Courthouse News Service reports that a judge
declined on August 1, 2023 to remove California Attorney General
Rob Bonta as a defendant in a class action challenging the use of
prearraignment cash bail in Los Angeles.

Filed this past November, the lawsuit seeks to block both the LA
Police Department and LA County Sheriff's Department from using
cash bail to hold arrestees in jail prior to arraignment, their
first chance to appear before a judge. The named plaintiffs in the
case comprise six Angelenos who had been jailed within a five-day
period before the complaint was filed. Lead plaintiff Phillip
Urquidi was 25 and homeless when he was arrested on suspicion of
vandalism and held on $20,000 bail.

Each of the men were held according to a "bail schedule," a formula
for determining a cash bail. Urquidi claims the use of the bail
schedule is unconstitutional since it unfairly forces poor people
to spend up to five additional days -- the amount of time it can
take to see a judge -- in jail. During that time, the plaintiffs
say, arrestees often lose their jobs, stop taking psychiatric
medication or can't take care of sick relatives.

While LA Superior Court Judge Lawrence Riff agreed in May to
temporarily block the use of prearraignment cash bail for
nonviolent, low-level crimes, the injunction did not apply to those
who were already out on bail, on probation or subject to an arrest
warrant.

The ruling has drawn criticism, including some from unlikely
sources. This month, the rapper 50 Cent posted a news report on the
ruling to Instagram, commenting: "LA is finished watch how bad it
gets out there.”

Judge Riff gave the parties 60 days to come up with a new system
for how people should be treated in the days between arrest and
arraignment. A hearing on those negotiations is scheduled for Aug.
7.

But two weeks ago, LA County's courts announced a plan of their
own: a new bail schedule largely in line with Riff's ruling -- zero
cash bail for "non-violent, non-serious felonies and misdemeanors."
The court also devised a system for trying to ensure that certain
arrestees are monitored in some way.

Under the plan, which is set to take effect on Oct. 1, most
arrestees will be released right away "on their own recognizance."
Some arrestees -- "persons arrested for certain crimes which pose a
greater risk to the public" -- will be sent to a magistrate judge
who will work out "non-financial pre-arraignment release terms and
conditions" in order to "reduce the risk to the public and victim
safety and the likelihood of the arrestee returning to court." For
example, the arrestee could be signed up for text message reminders
about court appearances, or given an electronic monitoring
bracelet.

The decision by the courts to implement a new prearraignment bail
system represents something of a monkey wrench for the Urquidi
lawsuit. On July 1, 2023 Judge Riff suggested that the plaintiffs
may be planning to file an amended complaint that takes into
account the new bail schedule.

Bonta had not been named as a defendant in the original complaint
but was later added at the the behest of the other defendants.
Bonta demurred, arguing his office has nothing to do with bail
schedules or cash bail. More recently, he argued the new bail
schedule meant that the "landscape" of the case had "fundamentally
shifted."

"The new bail schedules raise significant uncertainties about the
relief available in this case, including whether some or all of the
case is moot," Bonta wrote.

Bonta wanted the hearing on the demurrer continued, a move that
drew no objection from the other parties but nevertheless failed to
win over Judge Riff.

"We have an operative complaint," he said. "We have a preliminary
injunction in place. We have an abeyance period coming to an end.
And we have a trial date. Delaying forward progress in the case...
just does not seem like the right act of case management from the
court."

A curious feature of the case has been that none of the defendants
have showed much interest in speaking up for the use of
prearraignment cash bail. That likely reflects the political
beliefs of elected officials in the city and county -- most of them
oppose cash bail. Instead, the lawyers for the city and county have
spent much of the proceedings trying to argue that they shouldn't
be there at all. They don't make the laws, they've argued, or set
the bail schedule. It was those arguments that led to Bonta being
joined to the case, with Judge Riff's acquiesce. Bonta's demurrer
thus faced long odds.

Deputy Attorney General Christina Lopez dialed in remotely on
August 1, 2023's hearing where she presented a familiar argument to
the judge: Bonta had nothing to do with setting bail in Los
Angeles.

"There's no claim that the the attorney general has any power over
the superior court," said Lopez. "The AG is duty bound to enforce
all the laws of California. We do not have the discretion to decide
a law is unconstitutional and not enforce it."

The plaintiffs in the case had never particularly wanted Bonta as a
defendant. But the city and county have argued that their hands are
tied: if they don't enforce the system of cash bail, which was
drawn up by the Legislature, they themselves could be held liable
by the state attorney general.

This issue led to what has become a familiar occurrence in the
proceedings: a hypothetical question from Judge Riff.

"Let's say, hypothetically, somehow a law got passed that said that
persons of Asian descent may not go west of Fairfax Boulevard after
5 p.m.," Riff said. "And the attorney general were to learn that
the sheriff of LA County is enforcing that law. Could the AG direct
the sheriff, 'Don't enforce that law, it's unconstitutional'?"

"I believe the answer is yes," said Rowley Rice, an attorney for
the plaintiffs. "The California Constitution does give the attorney
general broad enforcement power as top law enforcement official."

A lawyer for the county agreed. "The attorney general has the power
to override the bail schedule," he said.

Lopez disagreed, and said the idea that Bonta was somehow the
sheriff's "boss" was a "novel proposition."

The normally loquacious Riff overruled the demur, offering little
explanation.

"The demur is based on the proposition that the operative complaint
fails to state facts against the attorney general," he said. "The
court concludes it does state facts against the attorney general."

The next hearing in the case is scheduled for on August 76, 2023.
The issue of prearraignment cash bail in Los Angeles is still very
much a live one. And a bench trial in the Urquidi suit is currently
scheduled to start in October 2024. [GN]

LOS ANGELES, CA: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to Feb. 12, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMMY NEWMAN and ANTONIO
RINCON, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-03467-CAS-PD
(Court),
Hon. Judge Christina A. Synder entered an order amending scheduling
Order to continue discovery cutoff, trial, and all scheduling order
deadlines:

  -- Last day to file motion for class             Feb. 12, 2024
     Certification:

  -- Deadline to file Reply papers in              March 25, 2024
     Support of motion for class
     Certification:

  -- Deadline to file Opposition to                March 11, 2024
     Motion for class certification:

  -- Class Certification Hearing:                  April 8, 2024

A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rRAunb at no extra charge.[CC]


LULIFAMA.COM LLC: Court Junks Pop Class Suit
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALIN POP, v. LULIFAMA.COM
LLC, MY LULIBABE, LLC, LOURDES HANIMIAN, TAYLOR MACKENZIE GALLO
A/K/A TEQUILA TAYLOR, ALEXA COLLINS, ALLISON MARTINEZ, CINDY PRADO,
GABRIELLE EPSTEIN, HALEY PALVE A/K/A HALEY FERGUSON, LEIDY AMELIA
LABRADOR, and PRISCILLA RICART, Case No. 8:22-cv-02698-VMC-JSS
(M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Virginia Hernandez Covington entered an
order as follows:

   (1) Lulifama.com LLC, My LuliBabe, LLC, and Lourdes Hanimian's
       Motion to Dismiss Complaint is granted.

   (2) the Defendants Priscilla Ricart, Taylor Gallo, and Allison
       Martinez's Motion to Dismiss Complaint is granted.

   (3) Counts I, II, and III are dismissed with prejudice as to
       the Defendants Lulifama.com LLC, My LuliBabe, LLC, Lourdes
       Hanimian, Priscilla Ricart, Taylor Gallo, Allison Martinez,

       Leidy Amelia Labrador, Cindy Prado, and Alexa Collins.

In sum, the Court finds that Mr. Pop cannot properly state a claim
for unjust enrichment based on the allegations set forth in the
complaint. The Court finds that amendment would be futile, and
Count II is dismissed with prejudice as to both the Luli Fama and
Influencer the Defendants.

Mr. Pop has not, and cannot, allege that as a consumer, he had any
fiduciary-like relationship with either the Luli Fama or Influencer
the Defendants. He did not have a contractual relationship with
either group that would trigger a duty to disclose.

The action arises from the allegedly deceptive and misleading
promotion of Luli Fama products. Mr. Pop alleges that the Luli Fama
the Defendants and the Influencers' "very profitable and very
illegal" advertising practices led him to purchase "Luli Fama
products" that were "of an inferior quality, compared with the
expectations [he] had and the price he paid."

Luli Fama is a "swimwear designer, manufacturer, and reseller that
came to fame with the rise of Instagram."

A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rSAxPI at no extra charge.[CC]



LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Dismissal of Houser Class Suit Under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lumen Technologies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 1, 2023, that the plaintiffs in the
case captioned Houser et al. v. CenturyLink, et al. appealed the
dismissal of the putative shareholder class suit.

Lumen and certain Lumen Board of Directors members and officers
were named as defendants in a putative shareholder class action
lawsuit filed on June 12, 2018 in the Boulder County District Court
of the state of Colorado, captioned Houser et al. v. CenturyLink,
et al.

The complaint asserted claims on behalf of a putative class of
former Level 3 shareholders who became CenturyLink, Inc.
shareholders as a result of its acquisition of Level 3. It alleged
that the proxy statement provided to the Level 3 shareholders
failed to disclose various material information of several kinds,
including information about strategic revenue, customer loss rates,
and customer account issues, among other items.

The complaint seeks damages, costs and fees, rescission, rescissory
damages, and other equitable relief.

In May 2020, the court dismissed the complaint. Plaintiffs appealed
that decision, and in March 2022, the appellate court affirmed the
district court's order in part and reversed it in part. It then
remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and the Company filed a
motion to dismiss. The court granted its motion to dismiss and the
plaintiffs have appealed that dismissal.

Lumen Technologies, Inc. doing business as CenturyLink, Inc. is a
telecommunications company that provides telephone and data
communication services, including telephone, television, and high
speed internet services, to residential and commercial consumers
in Clark County, Nevada and throughout many other parts of the
United States.[BN]


LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Voight Putative Class Suit in Louisiana
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lumen Technologies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 1, 2023, that the Company faces the
Voigt putative class suit in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Louisiana.

On March 3, 2023, a purported shareholder of Lumen filed a putative
class action complaint captioned Voigt v. Lumen Technologies, Inc.,
et al., Case 3:23-cv-00286-TAD-KDM, in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Louisiana.

The complaint alleges that Lumen and certain of its current or
former officers violated the federal securities laws by omitting or
misstating material information related to Lumen's expansion of its
Quantum Fiber business.

The complaint seeks money damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and
other relief.

Lumen Technologies, Inc. doing business as CenturyLink, Inc. is a
telecommunications company that provides telephone and data
communication services, including telephone, television, and high
speed internet services, to residential and commercial consumers
in Clark County, Nevada and throughout many other parts of the
United States.[BN]


LUMICO LIFE: Fails to Secure Private Info, Miller Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL MILLER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LUMICO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-06797 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 3., 2023) arises from the
Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard personal
identifiable information (PII) of more than 1,300 individuals.

Prior to and through May 30, 2023, Defendant allegedly shared the
PII of Plaintiff and Class Members, unencrypted, with its
third-party service provider, NTT Data Services. NTT shared the PII
of Plaintiff and Class Members, unencrypted, with Pension Benefits
Information, LLC (PBI), ostensibly to perform regulatory compliance
and operational support services.

On or before June 19, 2023, Defendant learned of a data breach
involving the "MoveIT" secure file transfer application, which PBI
used. Moreover, the PII was compromised due to Defendant's
negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and the failure to
protect the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members, including the
failure to encrypt the PII and the failure to include that entities
with which Defendant shared the PII maintained it in encrypted
form, says the suit.

Lumico Life Insurance Company is a Missouri corporation with a
principal place of business in Armonk, NY. It sells life insurance,
including term life policies and whole life policies. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

              Jonathan M. Sedgh, Esq.
              MORGAN & MORGAN 850 3rd Ave, Suite 402
              Brooklyn, NY 11232
              Telephone: (212) 738-6839
              Facsimile: (813) 222-2439
              E-mail: jsedgh@forthepeople.com

                      - and -

              Patrick A. Barthle II, Esq.
              MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX
              BUSINESS DIVISION 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
              Tampa, FL 33602
              Telephone: (813) 223-5505
              E-mail: pbarthle@ForThePeople.com

                      - and -

              Ryan D. Maxey, Esq.
              MAXEY LAW FIRM, P.A.
              107 N. 11th St. #402
              Tampa, FL 33602
              Telephone: (813) 448-1125
              E-mail: ryan@maxeyfirm.com

M.A.C. COSMETICS INC: Maciel Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Ignacio Maciel, Ruth Torres, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated persons v. M.A.C.
COSMETICS INC., a New York corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Case No. CGC-22-599387 was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of San Francisco, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California July 26,
2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-03718.

The Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), adding
new factual allegations and three new causes of action for failure
to provide accurate wage statements, failure to pay minimum wages
and overtime, and failure to provide final pay upon separation in
violation of the California Labor Code.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jennifer B. Zargarof, Esq.
          Julianne G. Park, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue
          Twenty-Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Phone: +1.213.612.2500
          Fax: +1.213.612.2501
          Email: jennifer.zargarof@morganlewis.com
                 julianne.park@morganlewis.com


MAIN EVENT: Does Not Properly Pay Restaurant Servers, McCall Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY MCCALL on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAIN EVENT ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-04892 (N.D. Ill., July 26, 2023) arises from the
Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and other employees at the
mandated minimum wage rate for all hours worked in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

The Plaintiff says he worked for the Defendant in Warrenville,
Illinois as a server and was paid less than the federal minimum
wage. He worked from approximately August 2021 to February 2022. He
added that he was paid an hourly rate below the minimum wage of
approximately $7.00 per hour.

Main Event Entertainment, Inc. operates a nationwide chain of
sports and entertainment restaurants under the trade name "Main
Event" across the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL L. FRADIN
          8401 Crawford Avenue, Suite 104
          Skokie, IL 60076
          Telephone: (847) 644-3425
          Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
          E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com

               - and -

          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          HODGES & FOTY, LLP
          2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com

               - and -

          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          The Heritage Building, Suite 250
          34555 Chagrin Boulevard
          Moreland Hills, OH 44022
          Telephone: (216) 696-5000
          Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
          E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  lori@lazzarolawfirm.com

MAMCO INC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due June 7, 2024
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alejandro A. Morales v.
Mamco, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00823-SSS-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Sunshine S. Sykes entered a scheduling order regarding
the parties' joint 26(f) report and Class certification motion and
hearing deadlines:

                Event                              Deadline

  Last Date to Hear Motion to Amend               Sept. 1, 2023
  Pleadings or Add Parties

  Deadline for the Plaintiff to File Motion       June 7, 2024
  for Class Certification and Any Class
  Certification Expert Report

  Deadline for the Defendant to File              June 21, 2024
  Opposition to Class Certification and
  Any Class Certification Expert Report

  Deadline for the Plaintiff to File Reply        June 28, 2024
  in Support of Motion for Class
  Certification and Any Class
  Certification Rebuttal Expert Report
  Class Certification Hearing                     July 26, 2024

Mamco provides construction services.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44YqyXW at no extra charge.[CC]



MARATHON OIL: Settlement Reached in Suit Over Royalty
-----------------------------------------------------
Marathon Oil Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
Quarterly Period Ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that it was named in a
lawsuit alleging improper royalty deductions in certain Oklahoma
operations, and after plaintiffs lost their attempt to certify a
class action, a settlement was reached, and in the first quarter of
2023 such settlement was approved by the court and paid.

Marathon Oil is an oil and gas company based in Houston Texas.


MARS PETCARE: Class Certification Bid Hearing Set for Nov. 10
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMARA MOORE, GRETA L.
ERVIN, RAFF ARANDO, NICHOLS SMITH, RENEE EDGREN, and CYNTHIA WELTON
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. MARS
PETCARE US, INC.; ROYAL CANIN U.S.A., INC.; and HILL'S PET
NUTRITION, INC., Case No. 3:16-cv-07001-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the
Parties stipulate and seeks proposed Order re briefing and Hearing
schedule for Motion for class Certification and Daubert Motion:

           Deadline                        Amended Pretrial
Schedule

  the Plaintiffs' (1) Reply in Support          August 11, 2023
  of Class Certification, (2) Daubert
  Motions, and (3) Oppositions to
  Daubert Motions

  the Defendants' (1) Replies to Daubert        September 15, 2023

  Oppositions, and (2) Oppositions to
  Daubert Motions

  the Plaintiffs' Replies to Daubert            September 29, 2023

  Oppositions

  Class Certification Hearing & Daubert         November 10, 2023
  Motion Hearing                                or November 17,
2023]

  Further Case Management Conference            December 8, 2023
  Statement

  Further Case Management Conference            December 15, 2023

  -- The Court entered its partial Case Management Schedule at the

     initial Case Management Conference, as confirmed by the Civil

     Minutes filed on February 19, 2021.

  -- The matter is currently calendared to come on for hearing on
     October 6, 2023, for a Class Certification and Daubert Motion

     Hearing.

  -- The parties are in the midst of briefing these matters with a

     current deadlines of: July 24, 2023 for the Plaintiffs'

     (1) Replies in Support of Class Certification,

     (2) Daubert Motions, and

     (3) Oppositions to Daubert Motions; August 14, 2023 for the
         Defendants' (1) Replies to Daubert Oppositions and (2)
         Oppositions to Daubert Motions; and August 24, 2023 for
the
         Plaintiffs' Replies to Daubert Oppositions.

Mars Petcare provides pet care products.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 20, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DFxyNb at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael L. McGlamry, Esq.
          Kimberly J. Johnson, Esq.
          Caroline G. McGlamry, Esq.
          POPE MCGLAMRY, P.C.
          3391 Peachtree Road, NE, Suite 300
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Telephone: (404) 523-7706
          Facsimile: (404) 524-1648
          E-mail: mmcglamry@pmkm.com
                  mikemorrill@pmkm.com
                  kimjohnson@pmkm.com
                  carolinemcglamry@pmkm.com

                - and -

          Lynwood P. Evans, Esq.
          Edward J. Coyne III, Esq.
          Jeremy M. Wilson, Esq.
          Luke C. Tompkins, Esq.
          WARD AND SMITH, P.A.
          127 Racine Drive
          Wilmington, NC 28403
          Telephone: (910) 794-4800
          Facsimile: (910) 794-4877
          E-mail: lpe@wardandsmith.com
                  ejcoyne@wardandsmith.com
                  jw@wardandsmith.com
                  LCTompkins@wardandsmith.com

                - and -

          Daniel Shulman, Esq.
          SHULMAN & BUSKE PLLC
          126 North Third Street, Suite 401
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 870-7410
          Facsimile: (612) 870-7462
          E-mail: dan@shulmanbuske.com

                - and -

          Ellen M Carey, Esq.
          FORDE & O'MEARA LLP
          191 North Wacker Drive, Ste 31st Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 641-1441
          E-mail: ecarey@fordellp.com

                - and -

          Michael A. Kelly, Esq.
          Matthew D. Davis, Esq.
          WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY & SCHOENBERGER
          650 California Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108-2615
          Telephone: (415) 981-7210
          Facsimile: (415) 391-6965
          E-mail: mkelly@walkuplawoffice.com
                  mdavis@walkuplawoffice.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael Fredrick Tubach, Esq.
          Hannah Y. Chanoine, Esq.
          Gerard Savaresse, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. N. Kopczynski, Esq.
          Anna Schneider, Esq.
          Richard B. Goetz, Esq.
          Justine M. Daniels, Esq.
          Amy Laurendeau, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3305
          Direct: (415) 984-8876
          Office: (415) 984-8700
          Facsimile: (415) 984-8701
          E-mail: mtubach@omm.com
                  hchanoine@omm.com
                  gsavaresse@omm.com
                  jkopczski@omm.com
                  aschneider@omm.com
                  rgoetz@omm.com
                  jdaniels@omm.com
                  alaurendeau@omm.com

                - and -

          Jeffrey E. Faucette, Esq.
          SKAGGS FAUCETTE LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Office: (415) 295-1197
          Facsimile: (415) 433-5994
          E-mail: jeff@skaggsfaucette.com

                - and -

          Stephen D. Raber, Esq.
          Joseph Bushur, Esq.
          Campbell Curry-Ledbetter, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
          725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Office: (202) 434-5000
          Facsimile: (2020 434-5029
          E-mail: sraber@wc.com
                  jbusher@wc.com
                  ccurry-ledbetter@wc.com

MASSACHUSETTS: Discriminates People With Mental Health Concerns
---------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Becker of WBUR reports that the Massachusetts parole board
is facing a class-action lawsuit alleging that the board
discriminates against people with mental disabilities. The suit
contains new statistics about the number of people incarcerated in
Massachusetts with mental health concerns.

The suit, filed by attorneys from three mental health and
prisoners' rights groups, alleges that the parole board does not
consider the challenges incarcerated people with mental
disabilities face in seeking probation, in violation of state and
federal civil rights laws.

It says those with mental disabilities face numerous obstacles,
including: difficulty navigating the parole process; being
ineligible for programs to improve their chances of parole; often
receiving punishment as a result of behavior that leads to a
disciplinary record and jeopardizes parole opportunities; and not
always being provided with timely legal counsel for the parole
process.

"The Board's ongoing failure to consider the interplay between
these factors and a person's mental disability has a direct,
discriminatory impact on parole outcomes," the suit reads.

The parole board declined to comment on the pending litigation. In
a statement, a spokesperson said the board is "deeply committed to
ensuring that its practices and policies are fair, equitable, and
just for all incarcerated individuals, including those with
disabilities and mental health challenges."

The complaint says that in Massachusetts prisons, 41% of male
inmates and 79% of female inmates in 2022 had an open mental health
case. Overall, half the people in the custody of the state
Department of Correction at the end of last year had an open mental
health case, according to public records cited in the filing.

The complaint claims the parole board is ignoring a 2017 state
Supreme Judicial Court ruling that said the board cannot deny equal
access to parole to incarcerated people with disabilities.

"The Board has essentially ignored the Court's instructions," the
lawsuit alleges. "It has not meaningfully modified outdated
procedures and methodology and, instead, has continued to conduct
business as usual — effectively denying incarcerated persons with
mental disabilities fair consideration for parole."

The suit outlines the cases of three plaintiffs, all men identified
only as "John Doe," who have been in prison for decades and denied
parole multiple times. In the case of "John Doe 1 or JD 1," the
suit said he has been denied parole because he was disciplined for
his mental disabilities.

According to the suit, in response to mental health crises, the
Department of Correction often punished JD 1 with solitary
confinement, restricted access to phone calls or visits, or removed
privileges such as television or recreation time.

"The impact of this punitive and non-therapeutic approach is
profound, as the Board regards any accumulation of [disciplinary
reports] in a negative light," the suit said, regardless of whether
the punished behavior was the result of an underlying mental health
condition, exacerbated in prison.

Given the large number of prisoners with mental illness or
cognitive disabilities, the suit suggests hundreds of incarcerated
people could be helped by a ruling from the court.

The lawsuit asks the court to issue an injunction so the parole
board updates its policies, to screen all people incarcerated in
prisons and jails for mental disabilities and to collaborate with
state agencies and nonprofits on parole release plans. [GN]

MAXIMUS FEDERAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bishop Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID BISHOP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAXIMUS FEDERAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-01019 (E.D. Va., August 1, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated patients'
sensitive information, including full names dates of birth,
addresses, contact information, driver's license numbers, and
Social Security numbers, ("personally identifiable information" or
"PII") and medical and health insurance information, which is
protected health information ("PHI", and collectively with PII,
"Private Information") as defined by the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant failed to
adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members Private
Information, and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly
sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted Private
Information was compromised due to the Defendant's negligent and
careless acts and omissions and their utter failure to protect
patients' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained the
Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information because of its
value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and
Class Members. The present and continuing risk to victims of the
Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes, the
Plaintiff says.

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

MAXIMUS FEDERAL SERVICES, INC. provides health and human care
services. The Company provides consulting, child support,
education, business, and workforce services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lee A. Floyd, Esq.
          Sarah G. Sauble, Esq.
          BREIT BINIAZAN, PC
          2100 E. Cary Street, Suite 310
          Richmond, VA 23223
          Telephone: (804) 351-9040
          Facsimile: (757) 670-3939
          Email: Lee@bbtrial.com
                 Sarah@bbtrial.co

               - and -

          David K. Lietz, Esq.
          Milberg Coleman Bryson, Esq.
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
          5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW
          Washington, D.C. 20015-2052
          Telephone: (866) 252-0878
          Facsimile: (202) 686-2877
          Email: dlietz@milberg.com

MAXIMUS INC: Faces Bishop Suit Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------
Maximus, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2023, that in August 1, 2023, a purported
class action captioned "Bishop v. Maximus Federal Services," Case
No. 1:23-cv-01019 was filed against Maximus Federal Services, Inc.
(a wholly-owned subsidiary of Maximus, Inc.) in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia arising out of the
cybersecurity incident involving "MOVEit," a file transfer
application used by many organizations to transfer data.

The plaintiff, who purports to represent a nationwide class of
individuals, alleges, among other things, that the company's
negligence resulted in the compromise of the plaintiff's personally
identifiable information and protected health information.

Maximus, a Virginia corporation established in 1975, is an operator
of government health and human services programs and provider of
technology solutions to governments.


MAXIMUS INC: Faces Buzzel Suit Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------
Maximus, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2023, that in August 2, 2023, a purported
class action captioned "Buzzell v. Maximus," Case No. 1:23-cv-01028
was filed against Maximus, Inc. and Maximus Federal Services, Inc.
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
arising out of the cybersecurity incident involving "MOVEit," a
file transfer application used by many organizations to transfer
data.

The plaintiff, who purports to represent a nationwide class of
individuals, alleges, among other things, that the company's
negligence resulted in the compromise of the plaintiff's personally
identifiable Information and protected health information.

Maximus, a Virginia corporation established in 1975, is an operator
of government health and human services programs and provider of
technology solutions to governments.


MAXIMUS INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Buzzell Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
LINDEN BUZZELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAXIMUS, INC.; and MAXIMUS FEDERAL SERVICES,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01028 9 (E.D. Va., August 2,
2023) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to
properly secure the Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally
identifiable information ("PII") and personal health information
("PHI").

According to the complaint, Maximus uses MOVEit Transfer ("MOVEit")
to exchange files and data between servers, systems and
applications. Maximus claims that, on May 30, 2023, it "detected
unusual activity in [its] MOVEit environment," and that MOVEit's
developer disclosed the following day that unauthorized parties had
exploited a vulnerability in the software to gain access to the
files of multiple MOVEit users.

Maximus could have prevented the recent Data Breach had it
implemented adequate vendor screening, and maintained adequate data
security measures and protocols in order to secure and protect
Plaintiff's and Class Members' data. As a result of Maximus's
negligence and breach of duties, Plaintiff and Class Members are in
danger of imminent harm in that their PII and PHI, which is still
in the possession of third parties, will be used for fraudulent
purposes, the suit alleges.

MAXIMUS, INC. provides program management and consulting services
to state and local governments throughout the United States. The
Company's services are designed to make government operations more
efficient and cost effective while improving the quality of the
services provided to program beneficiaries. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
          Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
          Casey S. Nash, Esq.
          J. Patrick McNichol, Esq.
          KELLY GUZZO, PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424-7572
          Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
          Email: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
                 aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
                 casey@kellyguzzo.com
                 pat@kellyguzzo.com

               - and -

          John W. Barrett, Esq.
          BAILEY GLASSER LLP
          209 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 345-6555
          Email: jbarrett@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Bart D. Cohen, Esq.
          Lawrence J. Lederer, Esq.
          BAILEY GLASSER LLP
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 274-9420
          Email: bcohen@baileyglasser.com
                 llederer@baileyglasser.com

               - and

          William "Billy" Peerce Howard, Esq.
          THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM, PLLC
          401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2340
          Truist Place
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 500-1500
          Email: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com

MEDICAL SCANNING: Christensen Sues Over Data Privacy Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT CHRISTENSEN; and MARTHA RUSSELL, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MEDICAL SCANNING
CONSULTANTS, P.A. D/B/A CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING D/B/A RAYUS
RADIOLOGY AND DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES HOLDINGS, INC. D/B/A RAYUS
RADIOLOGY, Defendant, Case No. 0:23-cv-02272-JRT-DTS (D. Minn.,
August 1, 2023) seeks to address the Defendants' illegal, and
widespread practice of disclosing Plaintiffs' and Class Members'
confidential personally identifiable information ("PII") and
protected health information ("PHI") (collectively referred to as
"Private Information") to third parties, including Meta Platforms,
Inc. d/b/a Meta ("Facebook") and other third parties (the
"Disclosure") in violation of the Tennessee Wiretapping and
Electronic Surveillance Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and other Class Members
who used the Defendants' Website thought they were communicating
only with their trusted healthcare provider. Unbeknownst to the
Plaintiffs and Class Members, however, the Defendants have embedded
a Tracking Pixel, such as the Facebook Tracking Pixel (the
"Facebook Pixel"), on their Online Platforms, surreptitiously
forcing Plaintiffs and Class Members to transmit to Facebook and
other third parties every click, keystroke, and intimate detail
about their medical treatment. Operating as designed and as
implemented by Defendants, the Pixel allows the Private Information
that the Plaintiffs and Class Members submit to Defendants to be
unlawfully disclosed to Facebook and other third parties alongside
the individual's IP address and unique and persistent Facebook ID
("FID").

Despite willfully and intentionally incorporating the Tracking
Pixel and likely CAPI into their Website and servers, the
Defendants have never disclosed to the Plaintiffs or Class Members
that they shared their sensitive and confidential communications
and Private Information with Facebook and other likely third
parties. The Plaintiffs and Class Members were unaware that their
Private Information was being surreptitiously transmitted to
Facebook as they communicated with their healthcare provider via
the Online Platforms, or stored on the Defendants' servers to be
later transmitted to Facebook so it could be used for targeted
advertising and marketing purposes, says the suit.

MEDICAL SCANNING CONSULTANTS, P.A. operates in the health care
industry. The Company provides health care services including
medical centers, scanning, and consultation. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian C. Gudmundson, 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
          Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
                 michael.laird@zimmreed.com
                 rachel.tack@zimmreed.com

               - and -

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

MEMORIAL HEALTH: Appeals Remand of Valladolid Suit to State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MEMORIAL HEALTH SERVICES is taking an appeal from a court order
granting the Plaintiff's motion to remand the lawsuit entitled
Michelle Valladolid, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Memorial Health Services,
Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-03007-MWF-AS, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the Los Angeles County of Superior Court to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
alleges three state-law claims against the Defendant for (1)
violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (Cal. Pen.
Code Section 631); (2) violations of the Confidentiality of Medical
Information Act (Cal. Civ. Code Section 56.10); and (3) invasion of
privacy under the California Constitution.

On May 17, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to
Los Angeles Superior Court, which the Court granted through an
Order entered by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald on June 27, 2023.

Judge Fitzgerald concluded that the Defendant fails to demonstrate
that the complaint concerns conduct it engaged in while "acting
under" a federal officer or agency for purposes of the
federal-officer removal statute. The Defendant has failed to
demonstrate that it is carrying out or assisting the Government
with a traditional duty or task that the National Coordinator would
otherwise do itself. None of the relevant factors appear to suggest
that the Defendant is acting under a federal officer or agency as
required to invoke the federal-officer removal statute. Therefore,
removal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)) is improper. Accordingly,
the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this non-diverse
action containing purely state-law claims and must remand this
action to the Los Angeles Superior Court.

The appellate case is captioned Michelle Valladolid v. Memorial
Health Services, Case No. 23-55668, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 28, 2023.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Memorial Health Services Mediation Questionnaire
was due on August 4, 2023;

   -- Appellant Memorial Health Services opening brief is due on
November 6, 2023;

   -- Appellee Michelle Valladolid answering brief is due on
December 4, 2023; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellee MICHELLE VALLADOLID, 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 MEMORIAL HEALTH SERVICES is represented by:

            Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq.
            BAKER HOSTETLER LLP
            1801 California Street
            Denver, CO 80202
            Telephone: (303) 764-4013

MERCEDES BENZ: Filing for Class Status Bid Due March 15, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOEY SCHIMMEL, v. MERCEDES
BENZ USA, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-04973-FLA-AS (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha entered an order approving
further stipulation to extend deadlines pending mediation:

       Description of Event                     New Deadline

  -- Fact discovery cutoff                    Feb. 13, 2024

  -- Deadline to file motion for class        March 15, 2024
     certification

  -- Deadline for expert discovery            Aug. 12, 2024

  -- Deadline to hear other Motions           Sept. 6, 2024

  -- Deadline to complete settlement          Sept. 23, 2024
     conference

Mercedes-Benz is a Mercedes-Benz Group-owned distributor for
passenger cars in the United States, headquartered in Sandy
Springs, Georgia.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 18, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4567WES at no extra charge.[CC]

MH CONSULTANTS: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due May 7, 2024 in Olvera
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BETSY SANCHEZ OLVERA, et
al., v. MH CONSULTANTS, INC., d/b/a MANUFACTURED HOUSING
CONSULTANTS and CORELOGIC CREDCO, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00746-K
(N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Ed Kinkeade entered an order as
follows:

   1. All motions requesting leave to join parties or to amend
      pleadings shall be filed by October 11, 2023.

   2. Plaintiffs shall file their Motion for Class Certification by

      May 7, 2024.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 25, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ow1uAd at no extra
charge.[CC]


MILLIMAN INC: Mattson Bid to Certify Class Partly OK'd
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOANNA P. MATTSON, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. MILLIMAN,
INC., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00037-TSZ (W.D. Wash.), the Court
entered an order denying in part and granting in part as follows:

    (a) The unredacted version of the Plaintiff's motion for class

        certification, docket no. 86, shall remain under seal.

    (b) The version of the Declaration of Charles H. Field to which

        Exhibits 1–10 are attached, docket no. 87, shall remain
under
        seal.

    (c) the Defendants do not object to the unsealing of Exhibits
1–3
        and 5–9.

    (d) The Court declines the Defendants' request to "strike"
        Exhibits 4 and 10.

The parties' joint motion to modify the case schedule is granted as
follows:


  -- Bench Trial Date                               April 1, 2024

  -- Disclosure of expert testimony                 Sept. 8, 2023
     under FRCP 26(a)(2):

  -- All motions related to discovery               Sept. 28, 2023
     must be filed by:

  -- All remaining discovery                        Nov. 3, 2023
     completed by:

  -- All dispositive motions                        Nov. 9, 2023
     must be filed by and noted
     on the motion calendar no later
     than the fourth Friday thereafter:

Milliman, Inc. provides investment advisory services. The Company
offers research, management, financial, and consulting services.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44YZ2t4 at no extra charge.[CC]

MITRE CORPORATION: Brown, et al., File Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON L. BROWN, PETER A.
YOUNG, NINA DANIEL, RUSSELL S. CRABTREE, KIMBERLY L. NESBITT and
ERIN N. WHEELER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. THE MITRE CORPORATION, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
MITRE CORPORATION, THE INVESTMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE MITRE
CORPORATION and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 1:22-cv-10976-DJC (D.
Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying class action on behalf of:

      "All persons, except the Defendants and their immediate
family
      members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the
MITRE
      Corporation Tax Sheltered Annuity Plan and/or the Qualified
      Retirement Plan (QRP Plan), at any time between June 22,
2016,
      through the date of judgment;"

   2. appointing them as representatives of the proposed class;
and

   3. appointing them as counsel for the Class.

Mitre is an American not-for-profit organization with dual
headquarters in Bedford, Massachusetts, and McLean, Virginia.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 26, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/440StVP at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MONTREAL, QC: Faces Class Suit Over Extensive Flooding
------------------------------------------------------
Rene Bruemmer of Montreal Gazette reports that hundreds of western
Notre-Dame-de-Grace residents who were inundated during the July 13
storm are accusing Montreal of hiding behind "climate change
rhetoric" to avoid responsibility for inadequate infrastructure
they say has plagued their sector for decades.

They're calling on the city to conduct public studies to determine
what led to extensive flooding, and to carry out the work needed to
protect them.

And they're threatening to launch a class-action lawsuit that could
top $20 million.

"When we ask for help, they tell us it was an exceptional rainfall
caused by the uncontrollable impact of climate change," said
Marie-Maude Grenier, whose Fielding Ave. basement filled with eight
inches of water, forcing her family to do 180 hours of demolition,
cleaning and rebuilding work so far.

"But how is it that in a quadrant of roughly 600 residences, the
majority were flooded, while next door there were no problems? It
was the same rain that dropped everywhere."

The day after 85 millimetres of rain fell on parts of Montreal,
city spokesperson Philippe Sabourin said "there is no city in the
world that can handle the amount of rain Montreal received in a
two-hour span." The city reported at the time that 130 homes were
flooded.

N.D.G. resident Ilana Grostern counters that a quick search shows
flooding has been an issue in the area for more than 70 years. In
1950, residents started "Operation Noah" to try to deal with
inundations in the Chester Ave. area. In the 1970s, a huge water
retention basin was built beneath Gilbert Layton Park to cope with
overflows.
Now, she says, the city has been putting the blame on residents,
saying they need to install backflow valves and sump pumps.

"Six hundred residences were affected, not the 130 the city
claimed," she said at a news conference on August 2, 2023. It was
held beside a building on Coronation Ave. where residents were
without power until July 31 because seven feet of water in the
garage destroyed the electrical system, along with several cars.

"What we take issue with more than anything else is this climate
change rhetoric that the city is invoking in order to absolve
itself of a very long-standing responsibility to its constituents
to maintain an effective infrastructure that protects us," Grostern
said. "Why are only our homes flooded? Why are other homes not
touched at all?"

The hard-hit quadrant is between Connaught and Coronation Aves. and
between Fielding Ave. and Côte-St-Luc Rd. On average, insurance
payouts for those with coverage have come in at $30,000 per
property, said Grostern. She has started a Facebook page called H4_
Basement Flooding with more than 300 members to share information
and spur a class-action suit.
Councillor Despina Sourias, who is filling in for vacationing
borough mayor Gracia Kasoki Katahwa, said in an email to the
Montreal Gazette on August 2, 2023: "My heart goes out to the
citizens affected by the torrential rains of July 13. . . . Our
teams carried out all the necessary checks on the condition of the
sewage infrastructure that is under the borough's responsibility.
Our services confirm that the catch basins in the area are in good
condition."

The city's water department will carry out an analysis of the
sector in terms of flooding, and the state of the sewer system on
each street, Sourias said.

"I saw first-hand the extent of the damage during my door-to-door
visits in the area. I can tell you that I understand how frustrated
citizens affected by flooding can be."

The borough is being proactive in trying to adapt to extreme
weather events, constructing rain gardens, permeable soils and
vegetated valleys, she said.

Stephanie Valenzuela, a Cote-des-Neiges—Notre-Dame-de-Grace
councillor with opposition party Ensemble Montreal, said she and
her colleague Sonny Moroz filed a motion last October calling for
studies to identify water drainage problems and plans to fix them.
The motion was adopted in council, "but since then there has been
no movement," she said.
For these residents, "it's become a routine, a nightmare that
happens regularly," Valenzuela said. Climate change means the
problem will become even more frequent "due to a lack of investment
in our infrastructure, and in the need to adapt and to make our
city more resilient."

Morris Weiss, who bought his house in Côte-des-Neiges on Clinton
Ave. in 1991 and has been flooded numerous times, said N.D.G.
residents could be in for a long battle.

Soon after he purchased, his basement filled with four feet of
water because the streets in the neighbourhood slope toward his
home, flooding him and his neighbours. He installed backflow valves
and a sump pump, to no avail, as the street in front of his home
repeatedly turned into a lake. Water once came in so quickly, it
covered the crib his guests were using for their baby. Thankfully,
they awoke in time.

Weiss and his neighbours implored the city multiple times for the
issue to be fixed, only to be told it would cost too much, he said.
He fought an 11-year court battle with the city before having to
give it up.

His basement used to have two bedrooms and a kids' playroom. Now
it's a concrete floor, with the Gyprock walls cut out four feet
high to prepare for the next flood.

His daughter, Pearl, said she wakes in a panic every time it rains,
thinking she will have to once again run over to unclog the sewers
in front of her parents' home.

"My parents have cried and begged and gone to war for 30 years,"
she said, accompanied by her family and numerous neighbours at the
news conference.

"Nothing happens."

rbruemmer@postmedia.com [GN]

MULVADI CORP: Prelim Approval of Class Settlement Sought in Corker
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRUCE CORKER d/b/a RANCHO
ALOHA; COLEHOUR BONDERA and MELANIE BONDERA, husband and wife d/b/a
KANALANI OHANA FARM; ROBERT SMITH and CECELIA SMITH, husband and
wife d/b/a SMITHFARMS, and SMITHFARMS, LLC on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated, v. Mulvadi Corporation, Case No.
2:19-cv-00290-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting preliminary approval of the proposed
settlement, directing notice to the Settlement Class, and setting a
schedule for the remaining steps towards final approval.

Pursuant to the Court's order of July 13, 2023, the motion is
amended to reflect the Order Approving Trustee's Settlements,
entered yesterday in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Hawaii in Mulvadi's bankruptcy proceedings. That Order is attached
to this memorandum as Exhibit A.

Mulvadi was formed in 1997 to provide the unique flavors of Kona,
Hawaii to the world.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 20, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DFxAEN at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Nathan T. Paine, Esq.
          Daniel T. Hagen, Esq.
          Joshua M. Howard, Esq.
          KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL
          701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 223-1313

                - and –

          Jason L. Lichtman, Esq.
          Daniel E. Seltz, Esq.
          Andrew Kaufman, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013-1413
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500

NCAA: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Vice Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIO VICE, et al., v.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2004-1, et al., Case No.
1:23-cv-06287-PGG-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses
entered an order regarding general pretrial management as follows:

  -- All pretrial motions and applications, including those related
to
     scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or
for
     judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary

     judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23)

     must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this
Court's
     Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's

     website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses.

  -- Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must
be
     initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery
set
     by the Court.

  -- Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting
     discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need
for
     such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil
Rule
     37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices.
It
     is the Court's practice to decide discovery disputes at the
Rule
     37.2 conference, based on the parties' letters, unless a party

     requests or the Court requires more formal briefing.

National Collegiate is a company that owns several Delaware trusts
that pool multiple private student loans together.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/455vJW2 at no extra charge.[CC]

NCH HEALTHCARE: McFalls Suit Sues Over Illegal Kickback Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
LAUREN MCFALLS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated and the Proposed Rule 23 Class, v. NCH HEALTHCARE SYSTEM,
INC., and NAPLES COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00572
(M.D. Fla., July 31, 2023) alleges two counts under the Fair Labor
Standards Act's Minimum Wage provision:

    (1) Illegal kickback of wages that bring the wage paid to
        Plaintiff and those similarly situated below the minimum
        wage, because the Defendants actually took back wages that

        they had paid; and

    (2) Failure to pay the minimum wage free and clear because
        the Defendants demanded at least $5,000 of wages back from

        the Plaintiff and those similarly situated if they were to

        leave their jobs before two years.

The Defendants allegedly require all nurses in the purported
fellowship to sign a training repayment agreement provision
("TRAP") that charges nurses a $5,000 "program fee" if they dare to
leave Defendants' hospital before working for two years. The $5,000
"debt" is only forgiven if the nurse remains employed with the
Defendants for at least two years. The $5,000 fee is well beyond
what nurses are able to afford, as it was almost ten percent of Ms.
McFalls' annual salary, the Plaintiff contends.

The Defendants allegedly use the TRAP to prohibit nurses from
leaving regardless of the circumstance. Despite grueling work
conditions, including understaffing and missing mandatory breaks
and lunch, the Defendants requires nurses to pay thousands of
dollars if they leave. The Defendants follow through on their
threats by sending collection agencies after nurses who dare to
leave. The effect of the TRAP is to penalize nurses and keep them
stuck in their jobs despite poor working conditions. This violates
state and federal law, undermines nurses' bargaining power, and
deprives other healthcare providers of qualified nurses at a time
when competent and qualified nurses are sorely needed across
Florida and the United States, says the suit.

Ms. McFalls, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, seeks to hold Defendants accountable for their conduct
and seeks all available damages, remedies, and penalties under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act, Florida Antitrust Act, and the Florida Declaratory
Judgment Statute.

Plaintiff McFalls was employed by the Defendants as a nurse from
May 2021 to April 2022 and resided in Florida during this time.

NHC is a hospital system with dozens of locations throughout
Collier County and Southwest Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
          Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
          Pamela G. Levinson, Esq.
          Jeffrey Newsome, Esq.
          VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
          400 N Ashley Drive, Suite 1900
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (352) 753-8600
          E-mail: jvarnell@vandwlaw.com
                  bwarwick@vandwlaw.com
                  plevinson@vandwlaw.com
                  jnewsome@vandwlaw.com
                  ckoerner@vandwlaw.com

                - and -

          Juno Turner, Esq.
          David H. Seligman, Esq.
          Valerie Collins, Esq.
          TOWARDS JUSTICE
          Denver, CO 80237-5680
          Telephone: (720) 441-2236
          E-mail: juno@towardsjustice.org
                  david@towardsjustice.org
                  valerie@towardsjustice.org

                - and -

          Anna P. Prakash, Esq.
          Joshua R. Cottle, Esq.
          Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4700 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          Facsimile: (612) 215-6870
          E-mail: aprakash@nka.com
                  jcottle@nka.com
                  helland@nka.com

NEI GENERAL: Ruiz, et al., Seek to Certify Three Overlapping Classe
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE C. RUIZ, CRUZ EDUARDO
RUIZ, and LUKASZ ZAJKOWSKI, Individually and on Behalf of All
Similarly-Situated Employees, v. NEI GENERAL CONTRACTING, INC.,
DELTA DRYWALL AND FRAMING LLC, JOSEF RETTMAN AND DAVID ADAM
VILLANUEVA, Case No. 1:21-cv-11722-WGY (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs
file a motion for class certification and appointment of class
representatives and class counsel, pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Plaintiffs move the Court to certify three overlapping classes
under Massachusetts wage and hour laws as described in their
Memorandum filed in support of this Motion.

The Plaintiffs simultaneously request the Court appoint the Named
Plaintiffs as representatives for each class and Chip Muller, Esq.
of Muller Law, LLC as class counsel.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Court should grant their motion so
that all similarly-situated former employees of the Defendants can
participate in the action to vindicate their rights and receive
payment of damages rightfully owed to them under Massachusetts wage
and hour laws.

NEI provides a full spectrum of general contracting and
construction management services to residential, commercial and
institutional clients.

A copy of Plaintiffs' motion dated July 26, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3s4Mgux at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Chip Muller, Esq.
          MULLER LAW, LLC
          47 Wood Avenue
          Barrington, RI 02806
          Telephone: (401) 256-5171
          Facsimile: (401) 256-5178
          E-mail: chip@mullerlaw.com 


NEW JERSEY: Plaintiffs Seek Revised Class Cert. Order
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as C.P., individually and on
behalf of F.P., a minor child, et al., v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION; ANGELICA ALLEN-McMILLAN, Acting Commissioner of
Education, in her official capacity, Case No. 1:19-cv-12807-NLH-MJS
(D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for a revised order pursuant
to Rule 60 with respect to the Motion to Clarify filed by certain
co-counsel on July 10, 2023.

The Plaintiffs include D.O. individually and on behalf of M.O., a
minor child; S.B.C., individually and on behalf of C.C., a minor
child; A.S., individually and on behalf of A.A.S., a minor child;
M.S., individually and on behalf of her minor child, H.S.; Y.H.S.,
individually and on behalf of his minor child, C.H.S.; E.M. on
behalf of her minor child, C.M.; M.M., individually and on behalf
of K.M.; L.G., individually and on behalf of her minor child, T.M.;
E.P., individually and on behalf of her minor child, Ea.P.; and on
behalf of ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 20, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47j1oo8 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Donald A. Soutar, Esq.
          COYLE & MORRIS LLP
          201 Littleton Road, Suite 210
          Morris Plains, NJ 07950
          Telephone: (973) 370-3218
          E-mail: dsoutar@coylemorris.com

               - and -

          Robert C. Thurston, Esq.
          THURSTON LAW OFFICES LLC
          433 River Road, Suite 1315
          Highland Park, NJ 08904

               - and -

          Thomas J. O'Leary, Esq.
          WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP
          Three Gateway Center
          100 Mulberry Street, 15th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102

               - and -

          Catherine Merino Resiman Judith A. Gran, Esq.
          REISMAN CAROLLA GRAN &ZUBA,LLP
          19 Chestnut Street
          Haddonfield, NJ 08033

               - and -

          Jeffrey I. Wasserman, Esq.
          WASSERMAN LEGAL LLC
          1200 Route 22 East, Suite 2000
          Bridgewater, NJ 08807

               - and -

          David R. Giles, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DAVID R. GILES
          34 Rynda Road
          South Orange, NJ 07079

               - and -

          John Rue, Esq.
          JOHN RUE &ASSOCIATES,LLC
          100 Overlook Center, 2nd Floor, #9211
          Princeton, NJ 08540

               - and -

          Denise Lanchantin Dwyer, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DENISE L. DWYER,LLC
          5 Duxbury Court
          Princeton Junction, NJ 08550

               - and -

          Gregory D. Little, Esq.
          EDUCATION LAW CENTER
          60 Park Place, Suite 300
          Newark, NJ 07102

The Defendants are represented by:

          Carolyn G. Labin, Esq.
          Matthew Lynch, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          Department Of Law and Public Safety
          Division Of Law
          25 Market Street
          Trenton, NJ 08625-0112

NEW YORK, NY: General Pretrial Management Order Entered
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as M.M., individually and on
behalf of N.F., v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Case No.
1:23-cv-06300-JMF-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses
entered an order regarding general pretrial management as follows:

  -- All pretrial motions and applications, including those related
to
     scheduling (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment
on
     the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or

     for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23), must be
made
     to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual

     Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at

     https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses.

  -- Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court
proceeding
     (including a telephonic court conference) or to extend a
deadline
     must be made in writing and in compliance with section 2(a) of

     Judge Moses's Individual Practices. Telephone requests for
     adjournments or extensions will not be entertained.

  -- In accordance with section 1(d) of Judge Moses's Individual
Practices,
     letters and letter motions are limited to four pages,
exclusive of
     attachments.

  -- Per the proof of service of the Summons and Complaint filed on

     July 24, 2023, the Defendant's deadline to answer or otherwise

     respond to the Complaint is August 14, 2023.

  -- The Court will hold an initial case management and scheduling

     conference on August 21, 2023.

New York City Department of Education is the department of the
government of New York City that manages the city's public school
system.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OTcfht at no extra charge.[CC]

NEW YORK, NY: Parties Seek Stay of Summary Judgment Filing
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Teagle, et al. v. City of
New York, et. Al, Case No. 1:19-cv-07211-DLI-TAM (E.D.N.Y.), the
parties submit a joint letter, pursuant to the Court's Individual
Rules, to request that the Defendants' time to file a pre-motion
for summary judgment conference letter be stayed until the Court
decides on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

On July 9, 2023, the parties informed the Court that all discovery
was complete. According to the case scheduling order, the parties
are required to file pre-motion for summary judgment conference
letters within 60 days of the close of discovery.

Specifically, the parties make this request because the Defendants
are unable to move for summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' class
claims when they have not been certified or defined.

New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 20, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43PBHst at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric Sanders, Esq.
          THE SANDERS FIRM, P.C.
          30 Wall St 8th floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 652-2782

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kami Z. Barker, Esq.
          THE CITY OF NEW YORK LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007-260
          Telephone: (212) 356-2440
          E-mail: kbarker@law.nyc.gov


NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Civil Standing Order Entered in Iannelli Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRUCE IANNELLI, v.
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No.
2:22-cv-07887-HDV-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Hernan D. Vera
entered a civil standing order as follows:

  -- The Plaintiff shall promptly serve the complaint in
accordance
     with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and shall comply with
     Local Rule 5-3 with respect to all proofs of service.

  -- Any defendant, including any "Doe" or fictitiously named
     defendant, not served within 90 days after the case is filed
     shall be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

  -- The Court is committed to fostering the development of new and

     Diverse lawyers in the legal community. Consequently, the
Court
     strongly encourages litigants to provide opportunities for
less
     experienced lawyers or lawyers whose identities and/or
     backgrounds further the diversity of the legal profession to
     conduct hearings before the Court, particularly where they
     contributed significantly to the underlying motion.

  -- The Court expects that everyone in the courtroom be treated
with
     dignity and respect at all times.

  -- The Court hears status conferences and scheduling conferences
on
     Thursdays at 10:00 a.m. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
     Procedure 16(b) and 26(f), the Court will issue an Order
Setting
     a Scheduling Conference.

  -- Unless otherwise ordered, no later than 14 days before the
     Scheduling Conference, counsel shall file a Joint Rule 26(f)
     Report.

  -- All discovery matters are referred to the assigned Magistrate

     Judge. Proposed protective orders must also be submitted to
the
     Magistrate Judge.

  -- Counsel in putative class actions shall commence litigation
     promptly and begin discovery immediately so that the motion
for
     class certification can be filed expeditiously.

  -- No party may file more than one motion pursuant to Federal
Rule
     of Civil Procedure 56, regardless of whether such motion is
     denominated a motion for summary judgment or summary.
     adjudication.

Northwestern Mutual is a mutual life insurance company organized by
a special act of the Wisconsin Legislature in 1857.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QvPWQh at no extra charge.[CC]

NPAS SOLUTIONS: Dickenson Appeals Once Again in Johnson TCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Interested Party JENNA DICKENSON filed an appeal in the lawsuit
entitled CHARLES T. JOHNSON, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NPAS SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 9:17-cv-80393-RLR, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff
Johnson filed this class action under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227. The named Plaintiff alleged
that NPAS (a collector of medical debts) had unlawfully used an
automatic telephone-dialing system to call his cell phone without
his consent.

NPAS agreed to settle the claims with Mr. Johnson and the putative
class. The settlement agreement required NPAS to pay $1.432 million
into a settlement fund to compensate participating class members.
Under the terms of the agreement, Mr. Johnson would receive $6,000
from the fund for serving as class representative. The remainder of
the funds, the other 99.58% -- minus the Plaintiffs' attorney's
fees and costs, would be distributed equally among the
participating class members. The parties submitted the proposed
settlement agreement to the district court for preliminary approval
under Rule 23, and the court gave its approval. At the same time,
the district court set a deadline for any class member to file a
claim for recovery or object to the settlement agreement.

More than 9,500 class members submitted claims for recovery,
resulting in an estimated recovery of approximately $80 per class
member. No class member opted out. Only one class member, Jenna
Dickenson, objected to the settlement agreement. The district court
overruled the objections and approved the settlement, concluding
that it was "in all respects fundamentally fair, reasonable,
adequate, and in the best interest of the class members."

Dickenson then appealed.

On appeal, a divided panel reversed the district court's approval
of the service award, concluding that two Supreme Court cases
prohibited it. The majority relied on Trustees v. Greenough, 105
U.S. 527 (1882), in which the Supreme Court held that a
plaintiff-creditor who sued to recover on behalf of himself and
other creditors could not receive an allowance for his "personal
services and private expenses." The majority also read Central
Railroad & Banking Co. v. Pettus, 113 U.S. 116 (1885), to confirm
this prohibition. Reasoning that the modern-day service award
functions as a "salary" (compensation for the lead plaintiff's
time) and a "bounty" (incentivizing named plaintiffs to lead class
actions), the majority held that Greenough and Pettus disallow it.

The partly concurring and dissenting opinion noted that courts have
granted service awards for decades; that the Third, Fourth, Sixth,
Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and D.C. Circuits have all approved of
service awards; and that even prior Eleventh Circuit precedent has
implicitly approved of service awards. Judge Martin further argued
that prohibiting service awards will require named plaintiffs to
"incur costs well beyond any benefits they receive from their role
in leading the class," and make potential plaintiffs "less willing
to take on the role of class representative in the future."

A petition for rehearing was filed and a member of the Court in
active service requested a poll on whether the case should be
reheard by the Court sitting en banc. A majority of the judges in
active service on the Court voted against granting rehearing en
banc. Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit denied the rehearing of
the
case en banc.

Judge Kevin Newsom concurred. He said, it has become customary for
the author of a panel opinion to file a "concurral" defending his
or her handiwork against a colleague's "dissental" when the full
Court declines to rehear a case en banc. Ordinarily, he'd be
inclined to do just that. The case, though, has been pending too
long already. The panel issued its decision in September 2020. .
.The parties and the bar are entitled to closure. Given  the
circumstances, Judge Newsom is content to let the panel opinion
speak for itself.

Judge William Holcomb Pryor, Jr., joined by Circuit Judges Charles
R. Wilson, Alberto Jordan, and Robin S. Rosenbaum, dissented from
the denial of rehearing en banc. He said, the panel majority
opinion fundamentally undermined class action law based on a
misinterpretation of two Supreme Court cases that long preceded
the
creation of the modern class action. No other circuit has gone down
this path. Given the panel majority opinion's novel reading of
these cases, the circuit split it occasioned, and the magnitude of
its likely impact, this case is more than worthy of en banc review.
Unfortunately, by denying rehearing en banc, our court has struck a
lasting blow to class actions as a device for righting wrongs in
this circuit.

The Eleventh Circuit remanded this case in part for the Court to
explain its fee award to class counsel, its denial of Dickensons
objections, and its approval of the settlement.

On December 16, 2022, Johnson sought and obtained a court order
staying the case pending the resolution of petitions for certiorari
to the United States Supreme Court.

On January 23, 2023, an order was entered by Judge Robin L.
Rosenberg dismissing/closing the case for administrative purposes.

Jenna Dickenson's appellate case filed on July 18, 2023, is
captioned as Charles Johnson v. Jenna Dickenson, et al., Case No.
23-12353, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Awaiting Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons was
due August 7, 2023 as to Appellant Jenna Dickenson; and

   -- Awaiting Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due
on or before August 21, 2023 as to Appellees Charles T. Johnson and
NPAS Solutions, LLC. [BN]

Interested Party-Appellant JENNA DICKENSON is represented by:

          John W. Davis, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOHN DAVIS
          3030 N Rocky Point Dr W Ste 150
          Tampa, FL 33607
          Telephone: (813) 533-1972

               - and -

          Eric Alan Isaacson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ERIC ALAN ISAACSON
          6580 Avenida Mirola
          La Jolla, CA 92037-6231
          Telephone: (858) 263-9581

Plaintiff-Appellee CHARLES T. JOHNSON, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          James L. Davidson, Esq.
          Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
          Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL, PLLC
          5550 Glades Rd Ste 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477

               - and -

          Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL, PLLC
          106 E 6th St Ste 913
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 322-3912   

Defendant-Appellee NPAS SOLUTIONS, LLC is represented by:

          Michael L. Ehren, Esq.
          Martin Barry Goldberg, Esq.
          Alan D. Lash, Esq.
          Lorelei J. Van Wey, Esq.
          LASH & GOLDBERG, LLP
          100 SE 2nd St Ste 1200
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 347-4040

               - and -

          Maura Kathleen Monaghan, Esq.
          Jacob W. Stahl, Esq.
          DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON, LLP
          66 Hudson Blvd
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 909-6000

OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Parties Must File Status Reports by August 18
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pauli v. Ollie's Bargain
Outlet, Inc., Case No. 5:22-cv-00279 (N.D.N.Y., Filed March 22,
2022), the Hon. Judge Miroslav Lovric entered an order directing
the Parties to file by Aug. 18, 2023, status reports advising and
recommending a date certain for the Court to set as a final
deadline for filing of the Class Certification motion.

  -- All other deadlines and schedules as set forth in Order,
remain
     in effect.

The suit alleges violation of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Ollie's Bargain is an American chain of discount closeout
retailers.[CC]


OLO INC: Continues to Defend Federal Securities Class Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------------
OLO Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ending June 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 1, 2023, that the Company continues to defend
itself from federal securities putative class suit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On September 26, 2022, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York asserting claims under the federal securities laws against the
Company and certain of its executive officers.

On December 21, 2022, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel on behalf of the putative class, following which the case
was captioned Steamship Trade Association of Baltimore -
International Longshoremen's Association Pension Fund v. Olo Inc.,
et al. (Case No.1:22-cv-08228-JSR).

On January 13, 2023, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
asserting claims on behalf of a putative class composed of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
securities between August 10, 2021 and August 11, 2022 (the
"Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint asserts a claim against
all defendants for alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b5 promulgated thereunder and a claim under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Mr. Glass and Mr.
Benevides as alleged controlling persons.

The Amended Complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and misleading statements concerning its business relationship with
the restaurant brand Subway and its publicly disclosed "active
locations" counts, and that these alleged false and misleading
statements caused losses and damages for members of the putative
class.

The Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, costs
and attorneys’ fees, and other unspecified relief that the Court
deems appropriate.

On February 3, 2023, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint.

On April 10, 2023, the Court issued a summary order denying its
motion to dismiss.

On July 25, 2023, however, the Court issued its full written
opinion on its motion to dismiss, which dismissed the allegations
in the Amended Complaint concerning its business relationship with
the restaurant brand Subway.

On July 26, 2023, the Court granted lead plaintiff leave to file a
second amended complaint by August 9, 2023.

The Company believes the case is without merit and  vigorously
defending this matter.

Olo Inc. is an open software as a service (SaaS) platform for
restaurants.

OUTSOURCE UTILITY: Plagakis Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Nicholas Plagakis, on behalf of the State of
California, and others similarly situated and aggrieved v.
OUTSOURCE UTILITY CONTRACTOR CORP., a California corporation; and
DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. BCV-23-101885 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Kern,
to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California July 26, 2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-at-00627.

In his Complaint, Plaintiff brings a single claim for alleged
violation of the PAGA, Cal. Labor Code Sections 2698, predicated on
alleged violations of various employment laws, including: Failure
to Keep Accurate Records pursuant to Labor Code, and applicable
Wage Orders; Failure to Produce Records pursuant to Labor Code;
Meal Period Violations pursuant to Labor Code section 512 and
applicable Wage Orders; Rest Period Violations Labor Code and
applicable Wage Orders; Minimum and Overtime Wage Violations
pursuant to Labor Code and applicable Wage Orders; Statutory Wage
Violations pursuant to Labor Code; Refusal to Make Payment pursuant
to Labor Code; Standard Conditions of Labor Violations pursuant to
Labor Code; Business Expense Violations pursuant to Labor Code and
applicable Wage Orders; Wage Statement Violations pursuant to Labor
Code;  Unlawful Deductions pursuant to Labor Code; Seating
Violations pursuant to applicable Wage Orders, including section 12
of Wage Order 16; Sick Leave Violations pursuant to Labor Code
sections 245-248.5 and 233-234; Failure to Provide Supplemental
Paid Sick Leave pursuant to Labor Code; Failure to Pay Vested
Vacation/Paid Time Off pursuant to Labor Code; Untimely Payment of
Final Wages pursuant to Labor Code section 201 and 202; and
Unlawful Agreements/Unlawful Criminal History Inquiries pursuant to
Labor Code.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alejandro G. Ruiz, Esq.
          Randy R. Haj, Esq.
          Connor L. Kridle, Esq.
          PAYNE & FEARS LLP
          4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Phone: (949) 851-1100
          Facsimile: (949) 851-1212
          Email: agr@paynefears.com
                 rrh@paynefears.com
                 clk@paynefears.com


OVERLAKE HOSPITAL: Discloses Private Info to Meta, Nienaber Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
JACQ NIENABER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OVERLAKE HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant,
Case No. 2:23-cv-01159 (W.D. Wash., Aug. 3, 2023) seeks redress
against the Defendant's illegal and widespread practice of
disclosing Plaintiff’s and Class Members' confidential personally
identifiable information and protected health information to third
parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Meta, alleging claims
against the Defendant for negligence, invasion of privacy, breach
of confidence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and
for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and the Washington Consumer
Protection Act.

The Defendant owns and controls the website
https://www.overlakehospital.org, along with the Overlake Patient
Portal which can be accessed from its website. It allegedly
installed and implemented the Facebook Tracking Pixel and Facebook
Conversions Application Programming Interface on its Website, which
secretly enable the unauthorized transmission and disclosure of
Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information as it is
communicated to Defendant.

Headquartered in Bellevue, Washington, Overlake is one of the
largest nonprofit hospital systems in the country, operating a
349-bed hospital and over 1,300 affiliated providers on its medical
staff, including more than 300 physicians and advanced-practice
providers who are employed by the organization. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Andrew A. Lemmon, Esq.
            MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
            16212 Reitan Road NE
            Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
            Telephone: (985) 783-6789
            E-mail: alemmon@milberg.com

                    - and -

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

                    -and -

            Terence R. Coates, Esq.
            Jonathan T. Deters, Esq.
            MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
            119 E. Court St., Ste. 530
            Cincinnati, OH 4502
            Telephone: (513) 651-3700
            Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
            E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com
                     dgould@msdlegal.com

                     - and -

            Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
            Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
            CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
            100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
            Minneapolis, MN 55401
            Telephone: (612) 339-7300
            Facsimile: (612) 336-2940
            E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
                    pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com

                    - and -

            Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
            THE LYON LAW FIRM
            2754 Erie Ave.
            Cincinnati, OH 45208
            Telephone: (513) 381-2333
            Facsimile: (513) 766-9011
            E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com

OWENS AND MINOR: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to Sept. 15
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Eurico Mancilla v. Owens
and Minor Distribution, Inc. et al, Case No. 5:23-cv-01179-RGK-MAR
(C.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order continuing deadline to file
motion for class certification to Sept. 15, 2023.

Owens & Minor provides medical and surgical equipments.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/452ExMb at no extra charge.[CC]

PARKVIEW LOUNGE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kalagasidis Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOS KALAGASIDIS, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PARKVIEW LOUNGE LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 612232/2023 (N.Y., Sup., Nassau Cty., August 1, 2023)
seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid compensation, including
gratuities, plus interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.

Plaintiff Kalagasidis was employed by the Defendant as a staff.

PARKVIEW LOUNGE LLC is engaged in the hospitality industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PEABODY ENERGY: Puerto Rico Municipalities Drop Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Peabody Energy Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, that on November 22, 2022, the Municipalities
of Puerto Rico filed a class action complaint for damages against
several major energy fuel producers, including Peabody Energy. On
April 21, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal dismissing all claims against the company without
prejudice.

This lawsuit represents the latest in a series of lawsuits that
have been brought in both state and federal court around the United
States, generally seeking to impose liability on the energy fuel
producers for the effects allegedly caused by climate change.

Many of these lawsuits have been brought on behalf of governmental
entities (counties, cities, and towns) by plaintiff law firms on a
contingent fee arrangement. The causes of action in the Puerto Rico
lawsuit include public and private nuisance, liability for failure
to warn, consumer fraud, antitrust and claims under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Peabody Energy Corporation engages in the direct and brokered
trading of coal and freight-related contracts.


PEQUENOS GIGANTES: Fails to Pay Regular, OT Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Monzon and other similarly situated individuals v. Pequenos
Gigantes Adult Day Care Inc., and Dayana Araujo, individually, Case
No. 1:23-cv-22845 (S.D. Fla., July 31, 2023) seeks to recover
unpaid regular and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff drove a passenger van, and his duties consisted of
driving patients to and from the adult day care center Pequenos
Gigantes Adult Day Care. The Plaintiff was promised a wage rate of
$12.50 an hour per day, or $500.00.00 weekly, plus meals at
lunchtime. During his first week of employment, the Plaintiff was
required to receive training. The Plaintiff worked four days from
6:00 AM to 5:00 PM, a total of 42 hours. The Plaintiff has deducted
two hours of lunchtime. In the second week, the Plaintiff worked
the same schedule, and he completed only 28 hours. On Wednesday,
July 19, 2023, the Plaintiff requested to be paid for his first
week of employment. The Plaintiff was told that he was not entitled
to be paid for training time. However, after his complaint,
business owner Dayana Araujo fired the Plaintiff using a pretextual
reason, the Plaintiff asserts.

At the time of his termination, the Plaintiff was not paid for his
work and services. The Defendant Dayana Araujo told the Plaintiff
that he was supposed to pay her $325.00 for meals provided, $100.00
for a drug test, and $100.00 for an alcohol test. Dayana Araujo
requested the Plaintiff to pay the Defendants a total of $525.00.
The Defendants never paid the Plaintiff for his hours worked at any
rate, not even at the minimum wage rate, as required by law, the
lawsuit claims.

Plaintiff Jesus Monzon was employed by the Defendant as driver from
July 10, 2023, to January 19, 2023, or 2 weeks.

Pequenos Gigantes is an adult day care center for seniors and
persons with disabilities.[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

PFIZER INC: Hickox Sues Over COVID-19 Vaccine's Deceptive Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
LISA HICKOX, individually on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated; Plaintiff v. PFIZER, INC., a New York
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-06436 (S.D.N.Y., July 25, 2023) is a consumer class action
against the Defendants for common law fraud, intentional
misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment,
and violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the
False Advertising Law, and the Unfair Competition Law arising from
the deceptive advertising Pfizer perpetuated for its COVID-19
Vaccine, and its COVID-19 Bivalent booster.

According to the complaint, Pfizer deliberately misrepresented the
efficacy, benefits, risk and approval level of the products through
its uniform marketing and advertising scheme. In reality, the
findings Pfizer used to obtain approval from the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration for the products failed to adhere to legitimate
testing protocol and wholly lacked data integrity, says the suit.

As a direct and proximate result of Pfizer's violations of the
CLRA, Plaintiff and members of the Plaintiff Class received doses
of the products they otherwise would not have chosen. Indeed,
quantified evidence of profits Pfizer made at the expense of
unsuspecting consumers already exists, the suit alleges.

The Plaintiff is a Northern District of California resident who
received doses of the products in 2021 and 2022.

Pfizer, Inc. is an American multinational pharmaceutical and
biotechnology corporation headquartered at The Spiral in Manhattan,
New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shalini Dogra, Esq.
          DOGRA LAW GROUP PC
          2219 Main Street, Unit 239
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (747) 234-6673
          Facsimile: (310) 868-0170
          E-mail: shalini@dogralawgroup.com

PLUSHCARE INC: Class Settlement in Robbins Suit Gets Final Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH ROBBINS and TIFFANY
SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. PLUSHCARE, INC. and PLUSHCARE OF CALIFONRIA, INC., A.P.C., Case
No. 3:21-cv-03444-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney
entered a final approval order and judgment as follows:

   -- The Court appoints Alexis M. Wood and Kas L. Gallucci of the
Law
      Offices of Ronald A. Marron, as Class Counsel for the
Settlement
      Class.

   -- The Court designates the Plaintiffs Sarah Robbins and
      Tiffany Smith as the Class Representatives.

   -- The Court has considered and finds Class Counsel and the
Class
      Representatives have adequately represented the Class. the
      Plaintiffs, by and through their counsel, have investigated
the
      pertinent facts and law, and have evaluated the risks
associated
      with continued litigation, class certification, trial, and/or

      appeal.

   -- Angeion Group is finally appointed to continue to serve as
the
      Settlement Administrator as provided in the Settlement
      Agreement.

   -- The Action is hereby dismissed with prejudice and without
costs
      as against the Defendants and the Released Parties.

On March 17, 2023, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
proposed class action settlement agreement between the parties.

The Court also provisionally certified a Settlement Class for
settlement purposes, approved the procedure for giving notice and
forms of Notice, and set a final approval hearing to take place on
July 21, 2023.

The Settlement Class is defined as:

   "all Persons who, from January 10, 2020, to August 30, 2022,
   enrolled in an automatically renewing Monthly Subscription with

   PlushCare, and who, during that time period, were charged and
paid
   one or more Monthly Subscription payment. Excluded from this
   definition are: (1) any Judge or Magistrate presiding over this

   Action and members of their families; (2) the Defendants, the
   Defendants' subsidiaries, parent companies, successors,
   predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendants or its
parents
   have a controlling interest and their current or former
officers,
   directors, agents, attorneys, and employees; (3) Persons who
   properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from
the
   class; and (4) the legal representatives, successors or assigns
of
   any excluded Persons."

   Settlement Class Members who exclude themselves from the
   Settlement, pursuant to the procedures set forth in Paragraph
5.4
   of the Settlement, shall no longer thereafter be Settlement
Class
   Members and shall not be bound by the Settlement and shall not
be
   eligible to make a claim for any benefit under the terms of the

   Settlement.

PlushCare provides online health care services. The Company offers
diagnosis, treatment, and prescribed medication services via phone.


A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OMLQlF at no extra
charge.[CC] 


PNS STORES: Appeals Final Judgment in Wellons Suit to 9th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PNS STORES, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a final judgment
entered in the lawsuit entitled S. Wellons, et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PNS
Stores, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-02913-RSH-DEB,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff
Wellons filed a putative class action on Jan. 19, 2018, in the San
Diego County Superior Court alleging wage and hour claims under
state law against BLSI, an Ohio corporation. Six days later,
Wellons filed a First Amended Complaint replacing BLSI with PNS, a
California corporation. PNS and BLSI are affiliated corporations
owned by Big Lots, Inc., an Ohio corporation. Both PNS and BLSI
operate stores under the name "Big Lots" in several states,
including California.

On May 26, 2023, District Judge Robert S. Huie granted a motion to
approve Settlement of PAGA Claim filed by Wellons.

On July 26, 2023, Judge Huie (i) granted in part and denied in part
a motion for attorneys fees; (ii) granted in part and denied in
part a motion to file documents under seal; and (iii) denied
Plaintiffs ex-parte motion as moot. On the same day, Judge Huie
entered final judgment in this case.

The appellate case is captioned S. Wellons, et al. v. PNS Stores,
Inc., et al., Case No. 23-55665, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 28, 2023.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Big Lots Stores, Inc. and PNS Stores, Inc.
Mediation Questionnaire was due on August 4, 2023;

   -- Appellants Big Lots Stores, Inc. and PNS Stores, Inc. opening
brief is due on November 6, 2023;

   -- Appellees C. Arredondo, S. Davis, T. Deforeest, W. Duba, S.
Hall, G. Kilgore, N. Lopez, S. Mejia, T. Seltzer, S. Sharma, J.
Smith, K. Toft, C. Tolliver, M. Viramontes, M. Walters, L. Warner,
S. Wellons, D. Williams, and J. Wright answering brief is due on
December 6, 2023; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellees S. WELLONS, et al., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

            David J. Gallo, Esq.
            LAW OFFICES OF DAVID J. GALLO
            12702 Via Cortina, Ste. 500
            Del Mar, CA 92014
            Telephone: (619) 509-3652

Defendants-Appellants PNS STORES, INC., et al. are represented by:

            Cory D. Catignani, Esq.
            VORYS SATER SEYMOUR AND PEASE, LLP
            4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 700
            Newport Beach, CA 92660
            Telephone: (949) 526-7904

                    - and -

            Daniel J. Clark, Esq.
            VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE, LLP
            52 E. Gay Street
            Columbus, OH 43215
            Telephone: (614) 464-6436

POLISHED.COM INC: Oral Argument for Maschhoff Class Suit Not Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Polished.com Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K/A Report for the
fiscal period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2023, that the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York has not yet set
date for the oral argument of Maschhoff putative shareholder class
suit.

On October 31, 2022, a putative shareholder class action was filed
against Polished.com Inc. (the "Company") and certain of its
current and former officers and directors, as well as certain
underwriters of the Company's 2020 initial public offering (the
"IPO").  

The action was commenced in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York court and is captioned Ryan
Maschhoff v. Polished.com Inc., et al., No. 1:22-cv-06606.  The
complaint asserts violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as well as Sections 10(b) and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 arising from alleged misstatements and omissions made in
certain of the Company's SEC filings made in connection with the
IPO.  On or about December 20, 2022, plaintiffs filed a motion for
the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel.  

Although that motion is fully briefed, to date, oral argument has
yet to be scheduled.

POLISHED.COM INC. f/k/a 1847 Goedeker Inc. operates as an online
consumer goods retailer.[BN]

PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Faces Baker Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
ERICA BAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-11777-NMG (D. Mass, Aug. 3, 2023) alleges claims
against Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, unjust
enrichment, and for violations of the Illinois Personal Information
Protection Act, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act, and the Federal Trade Communication Act.

The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of herself and all
other individuals, totaling more than 37 million people and 550
organizations, who had their sensitive personal identifiable
information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) -- as
defined by the Health Insurance HIPPA) -- accessed and hacked by
malicious, unauthorized third parties that accessed and removed the
PII and PHI from Defendant's systems as early as May 27, 2023. It
has been reported by organizations using the Defendant's MOVEit
software that were affected by the Breach that PII and PHI were
stolen, including name, address, SSN, and birthdate.

The Defendant violated HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules and Section
5 of the FTC Act by failing to use reasonable measures to protect
Plaintiff's and the class members' PII and PHI and not complying
with applicable industry standards. The Defendant's conduct was
particularly unreasonable given the nature and amount of PII and
PHI it obtains and stores, and the foreseeable consequences of a
data breach involving PII and PHI including, specifically, the
substantial damages that would result to Plaintiff and the other
class members, says the suit.

Headquartered in Burlington, Massachusetts, Progress Software
Corporation is a Delaware corporation offers both solutions and
products, including MOVEit, which provides secure collaboration and
automated file transfers of sensitive data and advanced workflow
automation capabilities without the need for scripting. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Randi Kassan, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300
          E-mail: rkassan@milberg.com

                   - and -

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

                  - and -

          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE, PC
          1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205
          Minneapolis, MN 55413
          Telephone: (612) 594-5933
          Facsimile: (612) 584-4470
          E-mail: emdrake@bm.net

                  - and –

          Mark B. DeSanto, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE, PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: mdesanto@bm.net

PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Landi Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVE LANDI, RICHARD E. HURLEY, and NILA HURLEY, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE
CORPORATION; PENSION BENEFIT INFORMATION, LLC, dba PBI RESEARCH
SERVICES; and THE BERWYN GROUP, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-03839 (N.D.
Cal., July 31, 2023) alleges that the Defendants failed to provide
adequate security to protect the Plaintiffs' and Class Members'
personal identifiable information (PII) from being compromised,
including by unauthorized access, disclosure, theft, and
exfiltration.

In May 2023, a group of Russian hackers known by the name "Clop" or
"C10p" found a security flaw in the widely used file transfer
software MOVEit, which was being used by the Defendants PBI and
Berwyn to transmit the PII of millions of people. Because of this
flaw, the Russian hackers were able to steal an enormous of trove
of Americans' PII, including the PII of the Plaintiffs and millions
of other pensioners and beneficiaries of the California Public
Employees' Retirement System ("CalPERS") and California State
Teachers' Retirement System ("CalSTRS").

The Data Breach was a direct and proximate result of Defendants'
failure to implement appropriate security measures, failure to
conduct adequate security testing and stress testing to discover
vulnerabilities in the MOVEit software , and breach of their
express promises and guarantees concerning the reliability and
security of the MOVEit software and the PBI Defendants' digital
infrastructure, the Plaintiffs assert.

Despite PBI Defendants becoming aware of the Data Breach no later
than May 27, 2023, the PBI Defendants did not inform CalPERS that
there had been a data security incident affecting their members'
PII until June 4, 2023, the Plaintiffs claim.

As a result of Defendants' acts and omissions, the Plaintiffs and
Class Members' PII in the form of full names, social security
numbers, dates of birth, and zip codes were allegedly accessed and
stolen by unauthorized third parties. Reporting and communications
from CalPERS and CalSTRS have indicated that the PII of some of
their members' former and current employers, spouses, domestic
partners, and children were also accessed and stolen.

The Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit as a class action, on behalf of
themselves and a nationwide class and California subclass of all
others similarly situated, for negligence, declaratory relief, and
violations of the California's Consumer Privacy Act ("CCPA"),
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and Customer Records Act ("CRA").

Plaintiff Steve Landi has been a citizen of California, residing in
San Francisco County. Mr. Landi's retirement benefits are managed
and controlled by CalPERS.

Plaintiff Richard Hurley has been a citizen of California, residing
in Contra Costa County. Mr. Hurley's retirement benefits are
managed and controlled by CalSTRS.

Progress Software owns MOVEit.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Niall P. Mccarthy, Esq.
          Andrew F. Kirtley, Esq.
          Owais M. Bari, Esq.
          Gia Jung, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
          San Francisco Airport Office Center
          840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697-6000
          Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
          E-mail: akirtley@cpmlegal.com
                  nmccarthy@cpmlegal.com
                  obari@cpmlegal.com
                  gjung@cpmlegal.com

                - and –

          Matthew Righetti, Esq.
          RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C.
          The Presidio of San Francisco
          220 Halleck Street, Suite 220
          San Francisco, CA 94129
          Telephone: (415) 983-0900
          E-mail: matt@righettilaw.com

                - and –

          Edward J. Wynne, Esq.
          George R. Nemiroff, Esq.
          WYNNE LAW FIRM
          80 E. Sir Francis Drake Blvd., Suite 3G
          Larkspur, CA 94939
          Telephone: (415) 461-6400
          Facsimile: (415) 461-3900
          E-mail: Ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com
                  Gnemiroff@wynnelawfirm.com

QUANTA SERVICES: Subsidiary Faces Benton Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Quanta Services, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2023, that its former subsidiary Telecom
Network Specialists (TNS) was named in the case captioned "Lorenzo
Benton v. Telecom Network Specialists, Inc., et al." where in June
2006, plaintiff Lorenzo Benton filed a class action complaint in
the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, alleging
various wage and hour violations.

In September 2022, the court issued a final ruling awarding
attorneys' fees and costs to plaintiffs in the amount of
approximately $17.3 million.

Benton represents a class of workers that includes all persons who
worked on certain TNS projects, including individuals that TNS
retained through numerous staffing agencies. The plaintiff class in
this matter is seeking damages for unpaid wages, penalties
associated with the failure to provide meal and rest periods and
overtime wages, interest and attorneys' fees. In January 2017, the
trial court granted a summary judgment motion filed by the
plaintiff class and found that TNS was a joint employer of the
class members and that it failed to provide adequate meal and rest
breaks and failed to pay overtime wages. During 2019 and 2020, the
parties filed additional summary judgment and other motions, and a
bench trial on liability and damages was held. Liability and
damages have been determined by the trial court, with the amount of
liability for TNS, including interest through the date of the trial
court's orders, determined to be approximately $9.5 million.
Separately, in 2022, the court issued a final ruling awarding
attorneys' fees and costs to plaintiffs in the amount of
approximately $17.3 million.

Quanta continues to contest its liability and the damages
calculations asserted by the plaintiff class in this matter and
believes the court's decisions on these matters are not supported
by controlling law and that attorneys' fees would only be
recoverable by the plaintiff class in the event Quanta's appeal of
the trial court's rulings on liability and damages is
unsuccessful.

Additionally, in November 2007, TNS filed cross complaints for
indemnity and breach of contract against the staffing agencies,
which employed many of the individuals in question. In December
2012, the trial court heard cross-motions for summary judgment
filed by TNS and the staffing agencies pertaining to TNS's demand
for indemnity. The court denied TNS's motion and granted the
motions filed by the staffing agencies; however, the California
Appellate Court reversed the trial court's decision in part and
instructed the trial court to reconsider its ruling. In February
2017, the court denied a new motion for summary judgment filed by
the staffing companies and has since stated that the staffing
companies would be liable to TNS for any damages owed to the class
members that the staffing companies employed.

Quanta Services, Inc. is a provider of comprehensive infrastructure
solutions for the electric and gas utility, renewable energy,
communications, pipeline and energy industries in the United
States, Canada, Australia and select other international markets.

QUICK BOX: Parties Seek to Defer Class Cert Ruling to August 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEANNE TAN, an individual,
on behalf of herself and all persons similarly situated, v. QUICK
BOX, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01082-LL-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the
Parties file a joint motion for deferring Rulings on the
Plaintiff's motion for class Certification pursuant to Civil rule
7.2.

The parties believe that the Quick Box mediation and the
discussions and any mediation between the Plaintiff and the
Konnektive Parties will be most productive before a ruling on the
Motion for Class Certification.

The Plaintiff, the Quick Box Parties, and the Konnektive Parties
agree to the relief requested by this Joint Motion. The parties
request that any ruling on the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification be deferred until August 31, 2023

A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/454n0Dr at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Kneupper, Esq.
          Alexander Cyclone Covey, Esq.
          KNEUPPER & COVEY
          17011 Beach Boulevard, #900
          Huntington Beach, CA 92647
          E-mail: kevin@kneuppercovey.com
                  cyclone@kneuppercovey.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher B. Queally, Esq.
          Ryan M. Poteet, Esq.
          Damon W.D. Wright, Esq.
          GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
          5 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Facsimile: (949) 474-2060
          E-mail: cqueally@grsm.com
                  rpoteet@grsm.com
                  dwright@grsm.com

QUONTIC BANK: Seeks Sept. 18 Extension to File Class Cert Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL SAPAN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. QUONTIC BANK;
QUONTIC BANK HOLDINGS CORPORATION; Case No. 8:22-cv-00849-CJC-ADS
(C.D. Cal.), the Defendants request a brief continuance of the
currently schedule Opposition, Reply and Hearing date on the
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification to allow for Quontic to
retain new counsel and to avoid prejudice.

To avoid prejudice to Quontic, Quontic requests a continuance of
approximately 30 days of the currently scheduled Opposition (July
31, 2023), Reply (August 7, 2023) and Hearing date (August 21,
2023) on the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification to allow
Quontic to retain and substitute in new counsel.

To avoid prejudice to any party, the Defendants seek only an
approximately 30 days continuance of the currently scheduled dates
related to the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.

The Defendants propose the following:

   -- The Defendants' Opposition continued from July 31, 2023, to
      August 28, 2023;

   -- The Plaintiff's Reply continued from August 7, 2023, to
      September 4, 2023;

   -- Hearing Date on the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification
      continued from August 21, 2023, to September 18, 2023.

Quontic is a U.S.-based digital bank headquartered in Astoria, New
York City.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 27, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QEIwKv at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Reichman, Esq.
          Justin Prato, Esq.
          PRATO & REICHMAN, APC
          8555 Aero Drive, Suite 303
          San Diego, CA 92123
          Telephone: (619) 683-7971
          E-mail: chrisr@prato-reichman.com
                  justinp@prato-reichman.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Stephen C. Mazzara, Esq.
          GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP
          777 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2000
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5818
          Telephone: (213) 415-7200
          Facsimile: (213) 415-7299
          E-mail: smazzara@goldbergsegalla.com

REALPAGE INC: Lauder Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as MIA LAUDER AND RACHEL MEREDITH, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. REALPAGE,
INC.; GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LP; BH MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
LLC; CAMPUS ADVANTAGE, INC.; CARDINAL GROUP HOLDINGS LLC; CA
VENTURES GLOBAL SERVICES, LLC; UNIVERSITY HOUSE COMMUNITIES GROUP,
LLC; TIMBERLINE REAL ESTATE VENTURES LLC; B.HOM STUDENT LIVING LLC;
JOHN DOES 1- 10, Defendants, Case No. 6:23-cv-01025, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon
to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on
July 26, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Tennessee assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-00757 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs challenge an unlawful agreement among Lessor
Defendants of student housing properties to artificially inflate
the prices of student housing across the United States, including
near college campuses. The Plaintiffs file this complaint over the
Defendants' alleged misconduct in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act as well as various state antitrust statutes.

RealPage, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Richardson, Texas. RealPage provides software and services to the
residential real estate industry.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Keith A. Ketterling, Esq.
          STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C.
          209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 227-1600
          Facsimile: (503) 227-6840
          E-mail: kketterling@stollberne.com

RIBBON HOME: Williams Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAMARIA LYNN WILLIAMS, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. RIBBON
HOME, INC. f/k/a, ACHIEVE, INC., Case No. 8:22-cv-02873-JLB-JSS
(M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   A. Striking the Defendant's Answer and Affirmative Defenses so
      Plaintiff may then apply for a Clerk's Default and,
eventually
      for a Default Judgment from the Court;

   B. Extend Plaintiff's deadline to file a Motion for Class
      Certification until 120 days after Plaintiff either obtains a

      default judgment, or is able to obtain sufficient discovery
from
      Defendant to support a well-briefed Motion for Class
      Certification.

The lawsuit is brought against Defendant for violation of the WARN

Act.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 28, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OUn435 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Main No.: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                  bhill@wfclaw.com
                  mkimbrou@wfclaw.com

RISING RIVER RESORT: Faces Class Suit Over RV Park Rent Hikes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Randall Brink of RV Travel reports that another West Coast RV park
is being sued over the escalating issue of surging rents for RV
dwellers and the legal implications of long- versus short-term RV
park tenants, this time in Green, Oregon.

The class-action lawsuit, Mary Gilbert v. Rising River Resort LLC,
was filed by Troy Pickard of the Portland Defender law firm.

The lawsuit mirrors other recent legal disputes that hinge upon the
issues of whether or not rent increases exceed legal limits under
state and local tenant protection and rent control laws, and
whether RV park tenants are even protected by such laws and
ordinances.
As an example, in April of this year, the City of San Rafael,
California, settled a lawsuit, City of San Rafael v. Chessen, et
al. The lawsuit was brought by the City in December 2021 to enforce
its Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance. The RV Park of San
Rafael was acquired and managed by Harmony Communities of Stockton,
CA.

Back to the current lawsuit, in mid-2022, plaintiff Mary Gilbert
received a notice that her rent would go from $432 to $472 per
month, a 10% increase. Then, not long after, in October, she was
notified of another increase to $649 starting in December -- a
37.5% increase, making the total increase in rent for 2022 more
than 47%.

Legal question for RVers staying indefinitely in RV parks
Here lies the crux of the legal question for RVers staying
indefinitely in RV parks: Is Mary Gilbert, a long-term resident of
the Rising River Resort RV Park, and "those similarly situated"
members of the class, protected under the Oregon Revised Statutes
that apply to residential rental tenants? If so, then under
Oregon's Landlord and Tenant Law, ORS 90, landlords are allowed to
raise rent by up to 14.6%. Or is the resident of an RV park instead
a transient and not a tenant?

Jessica Nichols, director of operations for northern campgrounds of
Bluewater -- the company that recently acquired the RV resort --
told the Roseburg, Oregon News Review, "Rising River is a transient
campground not a mobile home park. As a campground the rates
fluctuate. They (guests) don't sign a yearly lease or anything like
that," Nichols said. "They have an agreement that they apply so
they may stay for an extended period of time."

Troy Pickard, a 13-year veteran of tenant law, disagrees.
"Generally speaking, once a tenant has lived somewhere for more
than 30 days, then they would be covered by the landlord tenant
law."

What's an unfair increase in RV space rent?
Reasonable people may disagree on what constitutes an unfair
increase in RV space rent. Some will argue that monthly rent of
$430 or even $649 is reasonable for a well-kept waterfront RV park
like Rising River RV Resort and River House.

Another issue at the core of every such rent dispute is the
question of private RV park property owners' rights to set rents
and fees at levels that provide a reasonable return on their
considerable investment in infrastructure and upkeep. Undoubtedly
on August 3, 2023, there is the question of what the RV site rental
market will bear. However, with the ever-increasing numbers of
people who live in RVs as housing of last resort, even the rent
increases allowed by the Oregon state statute become a financial
burden.

The rising controversy: transient or tenant?
On the one hand, some RV parks like the predictable cashflow of
long-term monthly tenants as an offset to the unpredictable and
often seasonal itinerant RV park trade. But on the other hand, some
states declare tenants of certain duration, e.g., those remaining
for 30 days or more, as tenants like mobile homeowners renting
space.

This case will turn upon the Oregon courts' view of the difference.
[GN]

ROHR INC: Court Junks Bid to Strike Fulimeni Expert Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHANIEL MORGAN, an
individual; MICHAEL BEVAN, an individual; individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ROHR, INC., a
corporation; HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND, d/b/a COLLINS AEROSPACE; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, Case No. 3:20-cv-00574-GPC-AHG (S.D.
Cal.), Hon. Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel entered an order denying the
Defendants' motion to strike Expert Reports prepared by Teresa
Fulimeni and preclude testimony.

  -- The Court strikes Fulimeni's Second Report, because it is
     superseded by the Third Report. The Plaintiffs are ordered to

     file a new version of Fulimeni's Third Report without the
     impermissible assumption regarding auto-deducted meal periods
on
     or before July 31, 2023.

  -- However, the Court finds the Defendants' other objections
without
     merit. the Defendants argue that Fulimeni assumes that all
     employees that cut their meal breaks short or took their meal

     breaks late, or not at all, did so at the Defendants’
direction
     rather than their own choice. Fulimeni's deposition clearly
shows
     that her findings did not intend to make a showing about
employee
     choice; she simply analyzed the data.

The Plaintiffs brought this class action to recover unpaid
compensation resulting from the Defendants' allegedly improper
payroll practices and policies. On April 12, 2022, Magistrate Judge
Allison H. Goddard issued a scheduling order, which provided a
November 28, 2022, deadline for initial expert disclosures and a
December 19, 2022 deadline for rebuttal/supplemental expert
disclosures.

Rohr is an aerospace manufacturing company.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DRB32Z at no extra charge.[CC]


RTX CORP: Faces Class Suit Over GTF Engines' Quality Control Issues
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP of Businesswire reports that a shareholder filed a
class action on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded RTX Corporation securities between
February 8, 2021 and July 25, 2023. RTX purports to be "an
aerospace and defense company that provides advanced systems and
services for commercial, military and government customers
worldwide." One of its four primary business segments is Pratt &
Whitney, described as "among the world's leading suppliers of
aircraft engines for commercial, military, business jet and general
aviation customers."

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

What is this Case About: RTX Corporation (RTX) Misled Investors
Regarding the GTF Engines' Quality Control Issues

According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants
failed to disclose that: (1) the GTF engines produced by Pratt &
Whitney had been affected from at least 2015-2020 by a quality
control issue; and (2) this quality control issue would require RTX
to recall and reinspect many of its GTF airplanes, affecting
customers, and harming its business.

On July 25, 2023, Reuters released an article entitled "RTX shares
tumble on Pratt & Whitney airliner engine problem." On this news,
RTX's share price fell $9.91 per share, or 10.2%, to close at
$87.10 on July 25, 2023.

What Now: Similarly situated shareholders may be eligible to
participate in the class action against RTX Corporation.
Shareholders who want to act as lead plaintiff for the class must
file their motion for lead plaintiff by October 2, 2023. 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 RTX Corporation settles or
to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in
wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch on August 6, 2023.

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

SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: DuPont Bid for Reconsideration Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELE BAKER, et al., v.
SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE PLASTICS CORP., et al., Case No.
1:16-cv-00917-LEK-DJS (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Daniel J. Stewart
entered an order:

  -- Denying E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company's (DuPont) Motion
for Reconsideration; and

  -- Denying Saint-Gobain's request for the Court to impose
     attorney's fees on DuPont.

Although DuPont clearly disagrees with this Court's analysis and
exercise of its discretion over discovery, a Motion for
Reconsideration is not a proper vehicle for re-arguing theories.
Accordingly, the request for reconsideration is denied.

As for Saint-Gobain's request for costs and fees, Local Rule 7.1(i)
provides that "a party who presents vexatious or frivolous motion
papers or fails to comply with this Rule is subject to discipline
as the Court deems appropriate, including sanctions and the
imposition of costs and attorney's fees to the opposing party."

The Defendant DuPont seeks reconsideration of this Court's prior
Discovery Order, insofar as it denied DuPont's request to conduct
certain Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of Saint-Gobain representatives.

SaintGobain has opposed the Motion for Reconsideration, and
requests that the Court impose costs and fees on DuPont for
vexatious conduct.

Saint-Gobain is a producer of engineered high performance polymer
products.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DSkrIB at no extra charge.[CC]

SANTA CLARA, CA: UNIFYSCC Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as UNIFYSCC, an
unincorporated California association on behalf of employees in
Santa Clara County, et al., v. SARA H. CODY, in her official
capacity as the Santa Clara County Public Health Officer, Case No.
5:22-cv-01019-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an
order:

   1. Certifying pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule

      23(b)(1)(a) and (b)(3) the following Class:

      "All individuals who:

      1) work or worked for the County and/or are or were subject
to
         its vaccine policies and orders, including the Risk Tier
         System;

      2) were forced by the County to choose between taking the
         vaccine to maintain their jobs and/or their employment-
         related benefits or being placed on unpaid leave;

      3) are, or have been, classified as working in high risk jobs

         pursuant to the County's Risk Tier System; and

      4) received, or will receive, a religious exemption from the

         County between August 5, 2021, and September 27, 2022.

   2. appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and

   3. appointing Advocates for Faith and Freedom and Wolf
Haldenstein
      Adler Freeman & Herz LLP as Co-Class Counsel.

All the prerequisites and requirements for class certification are
met and therefore certification is warranted.

The Plaintiffs include TOM DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated; MARIA RAMIREZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated; and ELIZABETH BALUYUT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated.

The Defendants include JAMES WILLIAMS, in his official capacity as
the County Counsel of Santa Clara County; JEFFREY SMITH, in his
official capacity as the County Executive of Santa Clara County;
and SANTA CLARA COUNTY.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Qu3wU3 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rachele R. Byrd, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          750 B Street, Suite 1820
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-4599
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
          E-mail: byrd@whafh.com

                - and -

          Robert H. Tyler, Esq.
          Mariah Gondeiro, Esq.
          ADVOCATES FOR FAITH & FREEDOM
          25026 Las Brisas Road
          Murrieta, California 92562
          Telephone: (951) 600-2733
          Facsimile: (951) 600-4996
          E-mail: btyler@faith-freedom.com
                  mgondeiro@faith-freedom.com

SCHENKER INC: Filing of Class Cert Bid in Wickham Due Nov. 20
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC WICKHAM, v. SCHENKER,
INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-00946-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth
Labson Freeman entered a case management order as follows:

   (1) The presumptive limits on discovery set forth in the Federal

       Rules of Civil Procedure shall apply to this case unless
       otherwise ordered by the Court.

   (2) The deadline for joinder of any additional parties, or other

       amendments to the pleadings, is sixty days after entry of
this
       order unless stated otherwise below.

   (3) The deadline for the parties to meet, confer, and submit a
       stipulation and order setting all deadlines not set by the
       Court below, including discovery cut-offs and expert
disclosure
       deadlines, is July 27, 2023.

   (4) All disputes with respect to disclosures or discovery are
       referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge.

   (5) Unless previously ordered or stipulated, the parties shall
meet
       and confer further in order to reach an agreement on an ADR

       process within 10 days of the date of this Order.

   (6) The parties shall comply with the Court’s standing orders,

       which are available on the Court's website and in the
Clerk’s
       Office.

The Court further ordered that the following schedule and deadlines
shall apply to this case:

            Event                          Date or Deadline

  Last Day to Request Leave to Amend       60 Days from Date
  the Pleadings per F.R.Civ.P 15           of this Order

  Last Day File Motion Class               Nov. 20, 2023
  Certification

  Last Day to Hear Dispositive Motions     July 24, 2025

  Final Pretrial Conference                Oct. 23, 2025

  Trial                                    Dec. 8, 2025

Schenker provides transportation and logistics services.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rYQ54D at no extra charge.[CC]

SEABOARD CORP: Court Certifies Class in Pork Price-Fixing Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Seaboard Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending July 1, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 1, 2023, that the motion of plaintiffs to
certify the classes of pork price-fixing antitrust class suits is
granted by the Minnesota District Court.

On June 28, 2018, twelve indirect purchasers of pork products filed
a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota (the "Minnesota District Court") against
several pork processors, including Seaboard Foods LLC and Agri
Stats, Inc., a company described in the complaint as a data sharing
service.

The complaint also named Seaboard Corporation as a defendant.
Additional class action complaints with similar claims on behalf of
putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers were later filed
in the Minnesota District Court, and three additional actions by
standalone plaintiffs (including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico)
were filed in or transferred to the Minnesota District Court. The
consolidated actions are styled In re Pork Antitrust Litigation.

The complaints allege, among other things, that beginning in
January 2009, the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise,
maintain, and stabilize the price of pork products in violation of
U.S. antitrust laws by coordinating output and limiting production,
allegedly facilitated by the exchange of non-public information
about prices, capacity, sales volume and demand through Agri Stats,
Inc.

The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect
purchasers also assert claims under various state laws, including
state antitrust laws, unfair competition laws, consumer protection
statutes, and common law unjust enrichment.

The relief sought in the respective complaints includes treble
damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs
and attorneys' fees.

On October 16, 2020, the Minnesota District Court denied the
defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaints, but the
Minnesota District Court later dismissed all claims against
Seaboard Corporation without prejudice.

On March 3, 2023, the Minnesota District Court granted the
Plaintiffs' Motions to Certify the Classes with respect to all
three classes.

Seaboard Corporation operates as a diverse agribusiness and
transportation company worldwide. The company's Pork division
produces and sells fresh pork products, such as loins,
tenderloins,
and ribs, as well as frozen pork products to further processors,
food service operators, grocery stores, distributors, and retail
outlets. Seaboard Corporation was founded in 1918 and is
headquartered in Merriam, Kansas.


SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: PERS of Mississippi Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF MISSISSIPPI, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SEAGATE
TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS PLC, WILLIAM DAVID MOSLEY, and GIANLUCA ROMANO,
Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-03711-EJD (N.D. Cal., July 26, 2023)
is a securities class action on behalf of all persons or entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Seagate common stock between
September 15, 2020 and October 25, 2022, inclusive, pursuing claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder.

Throughout the Class Period, Seagate repeatedly assured investors
that the Company "continually monitor and remain in compliance with
all the rules and regulations" imposed by U.S. regulators. Seagate
also stated that it "conducts full and rigorous export control
assessments to ensure compliance with trade laws and regulations."
Despite the imposition of trade restrictions, Seagate reported
significant growth in hard disk drives sales during the Class
Period, which it attributed to, among other things, superior
execution and significant and growing demand for HDDs. As a result
of these representations, the price of Seagate common stock traded
at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period, says
the suit.

Following the end of the Class Period, on April 19, 2023, after the
market closed, U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and
Security announced that it had imposed a $300 million civil penalty
against Seagate for violating the ban on HDD sales to Huawei -- the
largest standalone administrative resolution in the agency's
history. According to the BIS order, through its investigation, BIS
determined that between August 2020 and September 2021, Seagate
sold 7.4 million HDDs to Huawei, which were valued at more than
$1.1 billion. Making matters worse, throughout 2021, after
Seagate's competitors had already stopped selling HDDs to Huawei,
Seagate "repeatedly authorized extending lines of credit to Huawei
totaling more than $1 billion dollars," which further fueled sales
to Huawei, benefiting both Huawei's alleged criminal activity and
the Chinese Communist Party, the suit further claims.

As a result of Defendants' alleged actions detailed herein,
Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses
and damages.

The Plaintiff is a pension fund established for the benefit of the
current and retired public employees of the State of Mississippi.
The Plaintiff purchased shares of Seagate common stock at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

Seagate Technology Holdings PLC is an American data storage
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 819-3470  
          E-mail: jonathanu@blbglaw.com

               - and -

          Hannah Ross, Esq.
          Avi Josefson, Esq.
          Scott R. Foglietta, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 554-1400
          Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
          E-mail: hannah@blbglaw.com
                  avi@blbglaw.com
                  scott.foglietta@blbglaw.com

SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Johnson FLSA Suit Transferred to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Brandon Johnson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Siemens Industry, Inc., Case No.
3:23-cv-00667 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on July 26, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-06031-HDV-PVC to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Acts.

Siemens AG -- http://www.siemens.com/-- is a German multinational
technology conglomerate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brielle Edborg, Esq.
          Shigufa Kazi Saleheen, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
          LEBE LAW APLC
          777 South Alameda Street, 2nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90021
          Phone: (213) 444-1973
          Email: Brielle@lebelaw.com
                 Shigufa@lebelaw.com
                 jon@lebelaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          September Rea, Esq.
          Armida Derzakarian, Esq.
          POLSINELLI LLP
          2049 Century Park East Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 556-1801
          Fax: (310) 556-1802
          Email: srea@polsinelli.com
                 aderzakarian@polsinelli.com

               - and -

          Christopher William Decker, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK AND STEWART PC
          400 South Hope Street Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 239-9800
          Fax: (213) 239-9045
          Email: christopher.decker@ogletree.com

               - and -

          Jessica H. Thomas, Esq.
          Lauren H. Zeldin, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK AND STEWART PC
          191 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 4800
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Phone: (404) 881-1300
          Fax: (404) 870-1732
          Email: jessica.thomas@ogletreedeakins.com
                 lauren.zeldin@ogletreedeakins.com


ST MARY PARISH: La. Bid to Participate as Amicus Curiae Partly OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLAUDE BOUDREAUX, ET AL.,
v. SCHOOL BOARD OF ST MARY PARISH, ET AL., Case No. e
6:65-cv-11351-RRS-CBW (W.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Robert R.
Summerhays entered an order granting in part and denying in part
the State of Louisiana's Motion for Leave to Participate as Amicus
Curiae.

  -- The School Board's Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Ruling

     denying the Board's Motion to Amend Protective Order is
denied.

  -- All deadlines in the parties' Plan of Work are extended 60
days
     from issuance of this Ruling.

The Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's denial of the
Defendant's Motion to Amend Protective Order was not clearly
erroneous or contrary to law.

On August 31, 1965, five African-American students attending public
schools in St. Mary Parish filed suit for injunctive relief against
the St. Mary Parish School Board and its superintendent, alleging
that the Defendants were maintaining racially segregated schools in
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.

After the case was reopened, the Court formally certified the case
as a class action and modified the class definition as follows:

   "(1) All Black students currently enrolled or who will in the
   future enroll in schools operated by the St. Mary Parish School

   Board; (2) all Black students who previously attended the
foregoing
   schools and would remain eligible to attend such schools, but
for
   the fact they were expelled from such schools due to
discriminatory
   policies of the St. Mary Parish School Board; and (3) the
custodial
   biological or custodial adoptive parents of the foregoing
   students."

A copy of the Court's order dated July 24, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43T9iBW at no extra charge.[CC]


ST. CLAIR COUNTY, IL: Miller Suit Seeks Proper Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Bradley Miller, Kayla Kilpatrick, and Blake Bumann, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. St.
Clair County Emergency Management Administration, Defendant, Case
No. 3:23-cv-02597 (S.D. Ill., July 26, 2023) is a collective action
against Defendant, on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all others
similarly situated, for unpaid overtime compensation, and related
penalties and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs Miller, Bumann, and Kilpatrick worked for St. Clair
County EMA as telecommunicators for the period of three years prior
to the commencement of this action to the present.

St. Clair County EMA is an Illinois-government agency responsible
for the disaster preparedness of the unincorporated areas of the
County.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Philip E. Oliphant, Esq.
          Edward Rolwes, Esq.
          Hannah Strong, Esq.
          THE CRONE LAW FIRM, PLC
          88 Union Avenue, Suite 1400
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 737-7740
          Facsimile: (901) 474-7926
          E-mail: poliphant@cronelawfirmplc.com
                  erolwes@cronelawfirmplc.com
                  hstrong@cronelawfirmplc.com

ST. LOUIS, MO: To Pay $43,000 Each Protesters Over Misconduct
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brent Solomon of KSDK reports that Seven dozen people who accused
St. Louis police of violating their rights following downtown
protests in 2017 are now picking up their settlement checks. The
city agreed to pay the plaintiffs nearly $5 million. The protests
followed the acquittal of former police officer Jason Stockley.

People who were around at that time won't soon forget the protests,
chaos, and violence that occurred after the officer who fatally
shot Anthony Lamar Smith was cleared of murder charges. When
protests broke out, activists said, police violated their civil
rights.

"I was told that everyone was under arrest and to get on the
sidewalk," said Nicole Warrington, who had never been arrested
before.

She was there to document how police were interacting with
activists, Warrington said. Her charge was later dropped.

The memories of what she says happened that night are crystal
clear.

"The sound of the batons. There were officers lining wall to wall .
. ." Warrington said. "The batons were just beating, and the
officers were all saying in unison, 'Move back. Move back.' I think
I will always remember the sound of all of those batons hitting the
ground. They were pushing us all into the center of the
intersection, so there's no way to get out."

"Once we saw the videos, we knew that what the police did was
wrong," attorney Javad Khazaeli said.

Khazaeli sued the city on their behalf.

"At first we filed 12 different lawsuits for 14 different people,
and slowly, we started realizing there were close to 100 people.
So, we turned this into a class action [lawsuit]."

In the settlement agreement, the city denied any wrongdoing:

"Neither this Settlement Agreement, nor any of its terms and
provisions, nor any of the negotiations connected with it, shall be
construed as an admission or concession by the Defendant City, or
any current, former, or future employee, agent, or officer of
Defendant City, of any legal violations, any legal requirements, or
any failure to comply with any applicable law."

On August 4, 2023, 5 On Your Side was there as some of the 84
people who filed suit came to pick up their checks.

"I would hope that moving forward, people are allowed to use their
voices as we're supposed to be able to do here -- as citizens.
There needs to be some basic protection of our rights and basic
recognition of each other's humanity," Warrington said.

Each plaintiff is receiving an average of $43,000 after attorney
fees.

Before the settlement, the city told 5 On Your Side it would not
comment on pending litigation. Now that the case is settled, a
spokesperson said the city's stance, cited in that settlement
agreement, still stands. [GN]

STANLEY BLACK & DECKER: Continues to Defend Rammohan Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending July 1, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Rammohan class suit in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.

On March 24, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit titled Naresh
Vissa Rammohan v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:23-cv-00369-KAD, was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Connecticut against the Company and certain of
the Company's current and former officers and directors.

The complaint was filed on behalf of a purported class consisting
of all purchasers of Stanley Black & Decker common stock between
October 28, 2021 and July 28, 2022, inclusive.

The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 based on allegedly
false and misleading statements related to consumer demand for the
Company's products amid changing COVID-19 trends and macroeconomic
conditions. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and an award of
costs and expenses.

The Company intends to vigorously defend this action in all
respects.

Stanley Black is a global manufacturer of, inter alia, hand tools,
power tools, and outdoor products for consumer and commercial
customers, as well as engineered fastening systems for industrial
customers.[BN]


SUBURBAN PROPANE: Dismissal of Consumer Class Suits Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Suburban Propane Partners, L.P. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report
for the quarterly period ended June 24, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission in August 3, 2023, that in April
12, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New
York dismissed the consumer statute and breach of contract suits
the company was facing. The plaintiff has filed an appeal to the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

The complaint alleged a number of claims under various consumer
statutes and common law in New York and Pennsylvania regarding
pricing offered to electricity customers in those states. After the
court granted summary judgment in favor of the partnership on the
remaining counts and the complaint was dismissed in full.

Suburban Propane Partners, L.P. is a publicly traded Delaware
limited partnership principally engaged, through its operating
partnership and subsidiaries, in the retail marketing and
distribution of propane, renewable propane, renewable natural gas,
fuel oil and refined fuels, as well as the marketing of natural gas
and electricity in deregulated markets and producer of and investor
in low-carbon fuel alternatives.


SUMO LOGIC: Michel Files Suit Over Merger with Francisco Partners
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH MICHEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUMO LOGIC, INC., RAMIN SAYAR, and STEWART
GRIERSON, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-03665-BLF (N.D. Cal., July
25, 2023) is a putative class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities
and Exchange Commission Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, which
arose in connection with the solicitation of public stockholders of
Sumo Logic to vote in favor of a merger transaction pursuant to
which Sumo Logic merged into an affiliate of Francisco Partners
Management, L.P. in exchange for $12.05 per share in cash.

On February 9, 2023, Sumo Logic announced that its board of
directors had approved the sale of the Company to Francisco
Partners, pursuant to a merger agreement. On April 5, 2023,
Defendants caused a materially false and misleading definitive
proxy statement on Schedule 14A to be filed with the SEC and
disseminated to Sumo Logic stockholders, including Plaintiff, in
alleged violation of the federal laws.

In preparing and approving the projections, Defendants utilized a
material assumption that they knew was entirely unreasonable and
completely inconsistent with Sumo Logic's recent financial
performance and their own genuine expectations for the Company's
performance. Specifically, Defendants prepared the projections
assuming a decline in revenue growth to just 14 percent for fiscal
year 2024. The Defendants knew that preparing the projections
assuming a decline in revenue growth to just 14 percent in fiscal
year 2024 was entirely unreasonable and completely inconsistent
with Sumo Logic's recent financial performance and their own
genuine expectations for the Company's performance, says the suit.

The special meeting of Sumo Logic stockholders to vote on the
merger was held on May 10, 2023. 84,039,824 of the 124,088,187
outstanding shares of Sumo Logic common stock voted to approve the
Merger. As a result of the materially false and misleading proxy,
shareholders were misled when they voted to approve the unfair
Merger, which closed on May 12, 2023, the suit alleges.

Sumo Logic, Inc. provides cloud-based software-as-a-service
solutions with its principal executive offices in Redwood City,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David E. Bower, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
          600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170
          Culver City, CA 90230
          Telephone: (213) 446-6652
          Facsimile: (212) 202-7880
          E-mail: dbower@monteverdelaw.com

               - and -

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          Miles D. Schreiner, Esq.
          Jonathan T. Lerner, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
          The Empire State Building
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 971-1341
          Facsimile: (212) 202-7880
          E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
                  mschreiner@monteverdelaw.com
                  jlerner@monteverdelaw.com

SWCA INCORPORATED: Roberts Suit Removed to D. New Mexico
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Christopher Roberts, individually and for
others similarly situated v. SWCA, INCORPORATED, Case No.
D-117-CV-2023-00200 was removed from the First Judicial District
Court in and for Rio Arriba County, New Mexico, to the United
States District Court for the District of New Mexico July 26, 2023,
and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00627.

This lawsuit arises out of Plaintiff's employment with SWCA.
Plaintiff alleges that he was denied unpaid wages under the New
Mexico Minimum Wage Act ("NMMWA"). Specifically, Plaintiff contends
that SWCA paid him and other workers "on a day rate basis" without
paying "them overtime wages in violation of the NMMWA," and "daily
per diems" without including those "per diems in calculating their
regular rate of pay for overtime purposes."[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Douglas (Trey) Lynn, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          2415 E. Camelback Road, Suite 800
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Phone: 602.778.3700
          Fax: 602.778.3750
          Email: trey.lynn@ogletree.com


SYGMA NETWORK: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due July 25, 2024
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mudrich v. The Sygma
Network, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-04932 (S.D. Ohio, Filed Oct 1,
2021), the Hon. Judge Chelsey M. Vascura entered a scheduling order
as follows:

  -- Motion for Extension of Time Fact               June 25, 2024

     discovery due:

  -- Motion for Class Certification due:             July 25, 2024

Dispositive motions due 90 days after ruling on the Plaintiffs
motion for class certification, or August 23, 2024, if a motion for
class certification is not filed.

Expert disclosures due 45 days after a ruling on any dispositive
motions.

The suit alleges violation of Fair Labor Standards Act.

Sygma Network is a food service supplier that specializes in
serving large, national restaurant chains, including Wendy's.[CC]


SYNEOS HEALTH: Affirms Dismissal of Securities Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP of JD Supra reports that on July 24, 2023,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed
the dismissal of claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a biopharmaceutical
company (the "Company") and certain of its officers and directors.
San Antonio Fire & Police Pension Fund v. Syneos Health Inc., 2023
WL 4688178 (4th Cir. 2023). Plaintiffs alleged that the Company
misled investors about its projected growth following its merger
with another company. The Fourth Circuit held that plaintiffs
failed to adequately allege scienter, and that they also failed to
allege that the alleged misstatements were material, stating that
"not every financial disappointment is actionable under federal
law."

The Company specialized in assisting biopharmaceutical companies
conduct clinical trials as part of the Food and Drug
Administration's approval process. In 2018, the Company merged with
a private company that provided commercialization services for
approved drugs. Plaintiffs alleged that the Company misled
investors when it described its projected post-merger growth in its
press release, earnings calls, and proxy materials because they did
not disclose that the counterparty to the merger had not executed
several significant sales contracts that would drive that growth.
The district court held that plaintiffs failed to prove scienter,
and that the Company had provided sufficient disclaimers as to not
make any misrepresentations material. Reviewing the district court
order de novo, the Fourth Circuit affirmed.

With respect to plaintiffs' Section 10(b) claim, the Court rejected
plaintiffs' argument that defendants must have known about the
importance of the sales contract to the commercial business based
on the due diligence conducted prior to the merger. To adequately
allege scienter, plaintiffs' allegations must support a strong
inference of both that defendants knew that the sales contract
information was relevant, and also that they omitted that
information with the intent to mislead plaintiffs, or at least with
a reckless disregard for the risk that leaving out the information
would render the projections misleading. The existence of due
diligence meetings alone, however, was insufficient to make such a
showing. First, the Court noted that plaintiffs' allegations were,
at most, that defendants should have known about the status and
significance of the sales contracts of the commercial business, and
thus were negligent in not learning these facts in the due
diligence process. But plaintiffs must plead, at a minimum,
recklessness. Second, even if the Court were to assume knowledge,
plaintiffs still failed to allege the intent (or reckless to a
risk) to mislead investors where the due diligence meetings took
place in May, and there were still seven months left to sign the
sales contracts during the year.

With respect to plaintiffs' Section 14(a) claim, the Court held
that because the Company included specific warnings in their proxy
materials tailored to address the exact complaints that plaintiffs
brought, any omission about the Company's lack of sales contracts
was immaterial. Specifically, the Court found that the proxy
materials contained specific statements related to plaintiffs'
alleged misrepresentations including that "assumptions underlying
their projections were uncertain and potentially flawed," and that
the post-merger growth projections were based on "pipeline
discussions' with customers rather than finalized deals," as well
as other specific warnings about the risk and competition of the
commercialization services business. Accordingly, the Court
concluded that the Company's inclusion of cautionary language in
the proxy materials negated plaintiffs' arguments that these
omissions were material.

Finally, having affirmed dismissal of the Section 10(b) claims, the
Court dismissed plaintiffs' control-person liability claims under
Section 20(a). Accordingly, the Second Circuit affirmed the
district court's decision. [GN]

SYNERGY AUTO: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, Lu Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BRIGITTE K. LU and other similarly situated individuals v. SYNERGY
AUTO DEALS LLC, STEEVE VIRGILE, FRANTZ DERALUS, individually, Case
No. 0:23-cv-61465 (S.D. Fla., July 31, 2023) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime and minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff seeks liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable
Attorney's fees on behalf of Plaintiff and all other current and
former employees similarly situated to Plaintiff and who worked for
the Defendants during one or more weeks on or after June 2023,
without being adequately compensated.

The Plaintiff's duties consisted of making outbound calls to set up
appointments between the potential buyers and the car dealer. She
had a mandatory schedule, and she worked five days per week an
average of 10 hours daily, or 50 hours weekly. She did not take
bonafide lunchtime hours. In her last week of employment, the
Plaintiff worked seven days per week or 70 hours for the week.
Within her eight weeks of employment, the Plaintiff was paid only
twice. The Defendants paid the Plaintiff irregularly and on partial
payments. The remaining balance was always carried forward to the
next payment period, the Plaintiff claims.

The Plaintiff was not in agreement with the lack of payment for
commissions earned, and she complained several times to the owners
of the business, Steeve Virgile, and Frantz Deralus, but they never
fixed the problem. On June 30, 2023, the Plaintiff was forced to
leave her employment because she was working too many hours and she
was not being paid minimum wages, overtime hours, and her
commissions, as agreed. At the time of her resignation, the
Defendants allegedly refused to pay Plaintiff her unpaid wages and
commissions earned, says the Plaintiff.

Synergy Auto is a used automobile dealership.[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

TAKARA SAKE: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due April 11, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as COLBY TUNICK, v. TAKARA
SAKE USA INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00572-TSH (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Thomas S. Hixson entered a case management order as follows:

  Deadline to Seek Leave to Amend Pleadings           Nov. 26,
2023

  Deadline to Move for Class Certification            Apr. 11,
2024

  Deadline to File Opposition to Class                June 10,
2024
  Certification Motion

  Deadline to File Reply in Support of Class          Aug. 9, 2024
  Certification Motion

  Hearing on Class Certification Motion               Oct. 3, 2024

  Close of Fact Discovery                             Mar. 6, 2025

  Disclosure of Expert Witnesses                      Apr. 3, 2025

  Disclosure of Rebuttal Expert Witnesses             May 15, 2025

  Close of Expert Discovery                           June 12,
2025

  Deadline to File Dispositive Motions                July 10,
2025

  Hearing on Dispositive Motions                      Aug. 14,
2025

  Exchange of Pretrial Disclosures                    Oct. 16,
2025

  Deadline to File Pretrial Documents                 Oct. 30,
2025

  Deadline to File Oppositions to                     Nov. 6, 2025
  Motions in Limine

  Pretrial Conference                                 Nov. 20,
2025

  Final Pretrial Conference                           Dec. 18,
2025

Takara Sake manufactures alcoholic beverages. The Company
specializes in producing sake, as well as plum, mirin, shochu, and
JPOP.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 24, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qqyLVt at no extra charge.[CC]

TARGET CORP: Parties Stipulate Extending Class Cert Deadlines
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY DAVIS, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, v. TARGET CORPORATION,
Case No. 2:23-cv-00089-JFM (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge John F.
Murphy entered an order the Parties stipulate extending deadlines
set in the Court's March 28, 2023, Order for briefing on the
Plaintiff's anticipated motion for class certification:

   a. The Plaintiff shall file any motion for class certification
no
      later than October 4, 2023.

   b. The Defendant shall file a response to any motion for class
      certification no later than October 18, 2023.

   c. Affirmative expert reports in support of a motion for class
      certification, if any, shall be served no later than August
4,
      2023. Responsive expert reports, if any, shall be served no
      later than September 5, 2023.

On March 28, 2023, the Court issued an Order directing the
Plaintiff to file his motion for class certification no later than
August 4, 2023, and requiring disclosure of any affirmative expert
reports to be used in support of class certification no later than
June 9, 2023, with any responsive reports due July 7, 2023.

Since the Court's Order, the Parties have actively engaged in
discovery. The Plaintiff responded to the Defendant's initial
discovery questionnaire and produced documents.

Due to the Parties' ongoing discovery disputes and because the
Defendant has not yet produced any documents, the Plaintiff is not
able to complete discovery that it would need to move for class
certification by the current deadline, including the potential
preparation of an expert report and taking deposition of defense
witnesses.

Target is an American retail corporation headquartered in
Minneapolis, Minnesota.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 20, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Yl07J9 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          Deirdre Aaron, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491
          E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
                  daaron@winebrakelaw.com

                - and -

          Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          Krysten Connon, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (267) 256-9973
          E-mail: ssb@llrlaw.com
                  kconnon@llrlaw.com

                - and -

          Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419-1008
          E-mail: msalas@flsalaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jacqueline R. Barrett, Esq.
          Patrick F. Hulla, Esq.
          Jessica L. Barranco, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          1735 Market Street, Suite 3000
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 995-2820
          Facsimile: (215) 995-2801
          E-mail: jacqueline.barrett@ogletree.com

TAXACT INC: Kirkham Sues Over Sensitive Taxpayer Data Disclosure
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES KIRKHAM, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TAXACT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 230702464
(Pa. Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty., July 25, 2023) is a class action
brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
Pennsylvania residents against TaxAct for sharing sensitive
taxpayer data with Meta Platforms, Inc. and Google LLC and its
affiliates without their knowing and voluntary consent in violation
of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control
Act.

According to the complaint, the confidential tax return information
TaxAct unlawfully intercepted, disclosed, disseminated, and
transmitted to third-parties, including Meta and Google, included
taxpayers' full names, email, country, state, city, zip codes,
phone numbers, gender, date of birth, first names of dependents,
buttons that were clicked, names of text-entry forms that the
taxpayer navigated to (both of which could indicate, for example,
whether taxpayers were eligible for certain deductions of
exemptions), web browser used, year of return, and website
referral, if any.

Plaintiff Kirkham used TaxAct's online tax preparation and filing
services in 2021.

TaxAct, Inc. focuses on providing individuals and businesses with
solutions to prepare and file taxes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James P. Goslee, Esq.
          Michael Coren, Esq.
          Eric S. Pasternack, Esq.
          COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C.
          Two Commerce Square, Suite 2900
          2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 567-3500
          Email: jgoslee@cprlaw.com
                 mcoren@cprlaw.com
                 mcoren@cprlaw.com

TD BANK: 60-day Extension of Case Deadlines Sought in Nelipa Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nelipa et al. v. TD Bank,
N.A., Case No. 1:21-cv-01092-LDH-RER (E.D.N.Y.), the Parties
jointly request a 60-day extension of the current case deadlines.

This is the parties' fourth request to extend deadlines related to
discovery and class certification. There is no current trial date.


The proposed class action involves Accountholder's claims that TD
Bank did not credit their accounts for unauthorized transactions as
required under Regulation E. As a large financial entity, TD Bank
retains information about various accountholder issues in several
different databases for varying purposes.

TD Bank is an American national bank and the United States
subsidiary of the multinational TD Bank Group.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 25, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4459QEW at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel A. Schlanger, Esq.
          SCHLANGER LAW GROUP LLP
          80 Broad St Ste 1301
          New York, NY 10004

                - and -

          Blythe H. Chandler, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 N 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          Facsimile: (206) 319-5450

The Defendant is represented by:

          Martin C. Bryce, Jr., Esq., Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL, LLP
          601 13th Street,NW Ste.1000
          South Washington, DC 20005

TD BANK: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 31
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nelipa v. TD Bank, N.A.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-01092 (E.D.N.Y., Filed March 1, 2021), the Hon.
Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. entered an order on motion for
extension of time to complete Discovery 1 -- Terminate Deadlines
and Hearings:

  -- Granting motion for extension of time to complete Discovery
by
     October 3, 2023.

  -- Motion for Class Certification is due Oct. 31, 2023.

TD Bank is an American national bank and the United States
subsidiary of the multinational TD Bank Group.

The nature of suit states Banks and Banking -- Breach of
Contract.[CC]

TELEPHONE AND DATA: Continues to Defend Putative Stockholder Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Telephone and Data Systems Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the putative stockholder
class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

On May 2, 2023, a putative stockholder class action was filed
against TDS and US Cellular and certain current and former officers
and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

The Complaint alleges that certain public statements made between
May 6, 2022 and November 3, 2022 (the "potential class period")
regarding US Cellular's business strategies to address subscriber
demand violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of stockholders who
purchased TDS equity securities during the potential class period
and demands unspecified monetary damages. TDS is unable at this
time to determine whether the outcome of this action would have a
material impact on its results of operations, financial condition,
or cash flows.

TDS intends to contest plaintiffs' claims vigorously on the
merits.

Telephone and Data Systems, Inc., is a diversified
telecommunications company providing high-quality communications
services to customers with approximately 5.1 million wireless
connections and 1.2 million wireline and cable connections at
December 31, 2017.  TDS conducts all of its wireless operations
through its majority-owned subsidiary, United States Cellular
Corporation (U.S. Cellular).  As of December 31, 2017, TDS owned
83% of the combined total of the outstanding Common Shares and
Series A Common Shares of U.S. Cellular and controlled 96% of the
combined voting power of both classes of U.S. Cellular common
stock.  TDS provides broadband, video, voice and hosted and
managed services, through its wholly-owned subsidiary, TDS
Telecommunications LLC (TDS Telecom).  TDS was incorporated in
1968 and changed its state of incorporation from Iowa to Delaware
in 1998.








TESLA INC: Corona Sues Over Deceptive EV Mileage Driving Range
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Corona and Cabanillas & Associates, P.C., on behalf of
themselves and the general public, Plaintiffs v. Tesla, Inc., a
Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-03902 (N.D. Cal.,
Aug. 3, 2023) seeks public injunctive relief arising from the
Defendant's unlawful, unfair and deceptive business practice of
misrepresenting to consumers the mileage driving range of its
electric vehicles in violation of the California's Unfair
Competition Law and the New York's General Business Law.

On approximately July 27, 2023, public sources reported that Tesla
has engaged in a practice of inflating projections on its vehicle
dashboards for the driving range of its electric vehicles. Tesla
dashboard range meters indicate to drivers that its vehicles will
travel 350 to 400 or more miles on a full electric charge. However,
as the battery is depleted, the dashboard range meters mileage
projections drop at a rate faster than miles are actually driven,
resulting in an overall mileage range significantly less than
originally projected on the dashboard. Additionally, the public
source reports included allegations that Tesla had orchestrated a
practice to quash nationwide consumer complaints from this defect
and service appointment requests related to this mileage range
issue by creating an internal "Diversion Team" whose purpose was to
unilaterally cancel the service appointments of customers
complaining about the rate at which their car's driving range was
being depleted, says the suit.

Headquartered in Austin, Texas, Tesla, Inc. is Delaware corporation
that manufactures automotive vehicles. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

           David R. Markham, Esq.
           Maggie Realin, Esq.
           Lisa Brevard, Esq.
           THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
           888 Prospect Street, Suite 200
           La Jolla, CA 92037
           Telephone: (619) 399-3995
           Facsimile: (619) 615-2067
           E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com
                   mrealin@markham-law.com
                   lbrevard@markham-law.com
                          
                   - and -

            Catherine E. Anderson, Esq.
            GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP
            90 Broad Street, 2nd Floor
            New York, NY 10004
            Telephone: (212) 847-8315
            Facsimile: (646) 964-9620
            E-mail: canderson@gslawny.com

                    - and -

            Roosevelt N. Nesmith, Esq.
            LAW OFFICE OF ROOSEVELT N. NESMITH LLC
            363 Bloomfield Avenue, Suite 2C
            Montclair, NJ 07042
            Telephone: (973) 259-6990
            Facsimile: (866) 848-1368
            E-mail: roosevelt@nesmithlaw.com

TETHER LTD: Wins Anderson Class Suit Over Illegal USDT Stablecoin
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Encila of Bitcoinist reports that Tether has just
announced a key victory in its continuing legal conflict, marking a
crucial legal milestone. The company reported that the court had
officially dismissed a class action lawsuit involving its
extensively utilized USDT stablecoin.

This development indicates a favorable turn of events for Tether
and emphasizes the firm's dedication to maintaining its leadership
in the cryptocurrency sector.

According to the stablecoin issuer, US District Court for the
Southern District of New York Chief Judge Laura Taylor invalidated
a class action lawsuit Matthew Anderson and Shawn Dolifka brought
against Tether and Bitfinex due to a lack of "plausible allegations
of injury."

Dismissal Based On Lack Of Plausible Injury Claims
A "lack of plausible allegations of injury" describes a case in
which there is not enough believable testimony or evidence to
support the assertion that a person has suffered harm due to a
particular event or action.

Suppose a plaintiff's claims of suffering damage are not reasonable
by a court. In that case, it may impact the viability of a case
since they lack persuasive evidence and fail to demonstrate that
they have genuinely incurred any adverse effects.

Following this legal triumph detailed in the six-page judgment,
Tether and Bitfinex reaffirmed their commitment to upholding the
interests of their users and the community. The company executives
also affirmed their dedication to keeping their word and protecting
customers.

The stablecoin issuer stated in a blog post on their website:

"The entirety of the class action complaint being dismissed at this
very early stage of the proceedings punctuate the fact that
plaintiffs' claims were void of legal merit."

Tether Steady Performance
The plaintiffs failed to mention any price changes in the USDT that
would have impacted the value of their investment in their initial
filing.

Later, Tether maintained that the plaintiffs needed to demonstrate
a decline in the value of USDT to prove their case. A case based on
USDT's value does not appear plausible given that, despite slight
fluctuations, the stablecoin has maintained chiefly its $1.00 price
peg.

At the time of writing, Tether (USDT) was trading at $0.998671,
nearly unchanged in the 24-hour and weekly timeframe, data from
coin market tracker Coingecko shows.
The victory of Tether, the eleventh-largest Bitcoin holder in the
world, comes just after the company announced a net profit of $850
million for the second quarter.

Paolo Ardoino, the company's chief technical officer, revealed the
information and emphasized its importance as a "Good Friday" event
for Tether and Bitfinex. [GN]

TIVITY HEALTH: Court OK's Bid to Stay Proceedings in Strougo
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT STROUGO,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
TIVITY HEALTH, INC., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00165 (Court), the
Hon. Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr. entered an order granting
Tivity's Motion to Stay Proceedings:

  -- The case is stayed pending resolution of the proceedings in
the
     Sixth Circuit. Within seven days of disposition by the Sixth
     Circuit, the parties shall file a motion requesting that the
stay
     be lifted and that a status conference be held. With this
ruling,
     the Plaintiff's motion to ascertain status is denied as moot.

On June 7, 2023, the Court certified the following class:

   "All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common
stock
   of TivityHealth, Inc. between March 8, 2019, and February 19,
2020,
   inclusive."

   Excluded from theClass are Tivity Health, Inc., Donato Tramuto,
   Adam C. Holland, and Dawn Zier, members of their immediate
   families, and any entity of which the Defendant has a
controlling
   interest, and the legal representatives, heirs, predecessors,
   successors, or assigns of any excluded party.

Tivity Health is a provider of health improvement, fitness and
social engagement solutions.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 27, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3P32Nsd at no extra charge.[CC]


TMX FINANCE: Bid to Certify Class in Kolstedt Denied w/o Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kolstedt v. TMX Finance
Corporate Services, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-00076 (S.D. Ga., Filed
March 31, 2023), the Hon. Judge Christopher L. Ray entered an order
denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion to certify class,
and granting the plaintiff's unopposed motion to consolidate cases.


  -- The Court orders that Case Numbers 4:23-cv-78, -80, -81, -83,
-
     84, -85, -88, -89, -96, -97, -98, -99, -100, -102, -105, -108,
-
     113, -121, -124, -129, -134, and -168 are consolidated with
and
     into the instant case (Case Number 4:23-cv-76).

  -- Additionally, as stated during the July 25, 2023, hearing, the

     Court directs any attorney (or group of attorneys) for any
     Plaintiff(s) in this now-consolidated case who wish to be
     appointed interim class counsel to file a motion seeking such

     appointment (along with briefing as described by the Court
during
     the July 25, 2023, hearing) on or before August 15, 2023.[CC]

TOMPKINS COMMUNITY: Class Settlement in Mock Gets Initial Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STACY MOCK, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. TOMPKINS COMMUNITY
BANK, Case No. 3:22-cv-00995-BKS-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff Stacy
Mock, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) to:

   (1) Granting Preliminary Approval to the Settlement;

   (2) Certifying for settlement purposes the proposed Settlement
       Class, pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3);

   (3) Appointing the Plaintiff as Class Representative;

   (4) Approving the Notice Program and approve the form and
content
       of the Notices attached to the Agreement as Exhibits 1 and
2;

   (5) Approving and order the opt-out and objection procedures in
the
       Agreement;

   (6) Staying the Action against Tompkins Community Bank pending
       Final Approval of the Settlement;

   (7) Appointing Tyler Ewigleben of the Johnson Firm and Sophia
Gold
       of KalielGold PLLC as Class Counsel; and

   (8) Scheduling a Final Approval Hearing of the Settlement.

A copy of the Court's order the Plaintiff's motion dated July 24,
2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47koc7a
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          KALIELGOLD PLLC
          950 Gilman Street, Suite 200
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (202) 350-4783
          E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com
                  jkaliel@kalielpllc.com

                - and -

          Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq.
          JOHNSON FIRM
          610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 372-1300
          E-mail: tyler@yourattorney.com

TRAVEL GUARD: Seeks to Seal Portions of Class Cert. Opposition
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMIKA MILLER and JULIANNE
CHUANROONG, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and those
similarly situated, v. TRAVEL GUARD GROUP, INC., AIG TRAVEL, INC.,
and NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA., Case
No. 3:21-cv-09751-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants move the Court to
seal the following:

   (1) portions of the Defendants' Opposition to Class
Certification;

   (2) certain exhibits accompanying the Declaration of Matt Powers
in
       Support of the Defendants' Opposition;

   (3) certain exhibits accompanying the Declaration of Peter Kitt
in
       Support of the Defendants' Opposition,

   (4) certain exhibits accompanying the Declaration of Robert
       Gallagher in Support of the Defendants' Opposition, and

   (5) portions of the Motion to Exclude the Testimony and Opinions
of
       Gregory Fanoe.

Travel Guard provides insurance services. The Company offers travel
insurance plans and assistance programs.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 26, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QuG1KO at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Matthew D. Powers, Esq.
          Eric A. Ormsby, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3823
          Telephone: (415) 984-8700
          E-mail: mpowers@omm.com
                  eormsby@omm.com

TRUSTCO BANK: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Reset to Jan. 15, 2024
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Livingston v. Trustco
Bank, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01030 (N.D.N.Y., filed Sept. 2,
2020), the Hon. Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric entered an order
resetting the deadlines and schedules as follows:

  (a) The Defendant's Expert Disclosure              Oct. 7, 2023
      Deadline is:

  (b) Rebuttal Expert Disclosure                     Nov. 7, 2023
      Deadline is:

  (c) Mandatory Mediation shall be                   Nov. 7, 2023
      completed by:

  (d) All Discovery (including merits,               Dec. 15, 2023
      class, documentary, and all
      depositions) shall be completed by:

  (e) Any class certification motion                 Jan. 15, 2024
      shall be filed by:

  (f) Dispositive motions shall be                   Jan. 6, 2024
      filed by:

  (g) The parties shall file next                    Oct. 19, 2023

      detailed status reports by:

The parties are advised that these deadlines and schedules are
final and will not be extended.

The suit alleges violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act.

Trustco Bank specializes in residential mortgage lending.[CC]

UNISYS CORP: Conditional Collective Status Sought in Brunswick
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHAN BRUNSWICK,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals,
v. UNISYS CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-00289-JNP-JCB (D. Utah),
the Parties file a stipulated motion for conditional certification
and authorization of notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b)
seeking conditional certification under the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA") of a collective of employees for the purpose of
sending notice only.

  -- Physical Call Center Collective

     "All current and former Customer Service Representative
     employees, and/or other job titles performing the same or
similar
     job duties, who worked in a physical call center for Unisys
     Corporation at any time in the last three years."

  -- Remote Call Center Collective

     "All current and former Customer Service Representative
     employees, and/or other job titles performing the same or
similar
     job duties, who worked remotely for Unisys Corporation at any

     time in the last three years."


Unisys is an American multinational information technology services
and consulting company.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45oSrYR at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
          Zackary S. Kaylor, Esq.
          JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
          444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
          Saint Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (612)436-1800
          Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
          E-mail: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com
                  zkaylor@johnsonbecker.com
                - and-

          Jared D. Scott, Esq.
          Jacob W. Nelson, Esq.
          ANDERSON & KARRENBERG, PC
          50 West Broadway, Suite 600
          Salt Lake City, UT 84101-2035
          Telephone: (801) 534-1700
          E-mail: jscott@aklawfirm.com
                  jnelson@aklawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Andrew S. Rosenman, Esq.
          Lauren A. Shurman, Esq.
          Ruth Zadikany, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          71 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 782-0600
          E-mail: arosenman@mayerbrown.com
                  lshurman@mayerbrown.com
                  rzadikany@mayerbrown.com

UNITED STATES: Elbert Bid for Attorney's Fees, Costs Partly OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICH ELBERT, JEFF A.
KOSEK, REICHMANN LAND & CATTLE LLP, LUDOWESE A.E. INC., and MICHAEL
STAMER, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, RISK MANAGEMENT
AGENCY, and FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION, Case No.
0:18-cv-01574-JRT-TNL (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge John R. Tunheim
entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
Plaintiffs' motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs:

   1. The Plaintiffs shall recover from the Defendants attorneys'
fees
      in the amount of $256,945.00.

   2. The Plaintiffs shall recover from the Defendants costs in the

      amount of $1,119.00.

   3. The Court awards the Plaintiffs $256,945.00 in attorneys'
fees
      and $1,119 in costs because they are the prevailing party on
the
      most critical issues in this litigation and because the
      Defendants' position was not substantially justified both
during
      and prelitigation.

United States Department of Agriculture is the federal executive
department responsible for developing and executing federal laws
related to farming, forestry, rural economic development, and food.


A copy of the Court's order dated July 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OJWto7 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John D. Tallman, Esq.
          JOHN D. TALLMAN, PLLC
          4020 East Beltline Avenue
          Northeast, Suite 101,
          Grand Rapids, MI 49525

               - and -

          Markus C. Yira
          YIRA LAW OFFICE, LTD,
          P.O. Box 518
          Hutchinson, MN 55350

The Defendants are represented by:

          David W. Fuller, Esq.
          UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          300 South Fourth Street, Suite 600
          Minneapolis, MN 55415

UNITED STATES: Omaha Widow Joins Suit Over Water Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bella Caracta of Wowt reports that Poe Jr. took great pride in
being a Marine.

Although he didn't share much with his wife Lynnelle.

"He said sometimes, 'Lynn, they would have us thinking the
country's at war as part of the basic training,'" she said.

When nearly 300 people died in the Beirut bombing of 1983, he
survived.

What his wife said he couldn't survive is something he never
thought twice about.

"Of course, they weren't worried about drinking water. They had to
be worried about war," said Lynnelle Poe.

Eddie Poe Jr. lived at Camp Lejeune, N.C., in the early 80s during
the four decades the US government now admits water was
contaminated with cancer-causing chemicals.

Last year, Veterans Affairs doctors delivered the devastating news
to Poe: stage four lung cancer.

"It seemed like the sickness just took over," said his wife.

The same month as the diagnosis, President Joe Biden signed the
Camp Lejeune Justice Act of 2022. That allows families like Poe's
to take legal action against the government for harm caused by the
water contamination.

"The best trained fittest warriors in the world had come home with
headaches, numbness, dizziness, cancer," said Biden last year.

When TV ads flooded homes across America, Eddie and Lynnelle
started connecting the dots.
"You find out when it comes on TV. Well, he could have been getting
treated for this."

The U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs granted Poe disability in
March of this year. They determined the sickness was linked to his
service.

Poe's health declined quickly after that decision. He died last
month at the age of 60.

"What am I supposed to do now?" asked his wife.

Now she's joining tens of thousands of people seeking
compensation.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimates up to 1
million people may have been exposed to contaminated drinking water
at Camp Lejeune. The Congressional Budget Office calculated that
Camp Lejeune settlements will cost the US 6.1 billion dollars over
the next eight years.

The bipartisan law gave people two years to file a claim. There's
just one year left, with the deadline in August 2024.

"If you're still here, you need to fight for this. Don't turn that
down," said Poe. "So that's what I plan on doing. I've got to keep
advocating."[GN]

UNITED STATES: Parties Seek More Time for Class Cert Hearing
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AHMED, ABDUL, AMIR,
SIDDIQA, RAHMATULLAH, FATIMA, and MURSAL SADAT, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY; ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, in his official capacity as
Secretary of Homeland Security; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
SERVICES (USCIS); UR MENDOZA JADDOU, in her official capacity as
Director of USCIS; TED H. KIM, in his official capacity as
Associate Director of the Refugee, Asylum and International
Operations Directorate at USCIS, Case No. 4:23-cv-01892-JST (N.D.
Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order continuing the
Class Certification Hearing until September 11, 2023.

The Court set a hearing on Plaintiffs' Motions for Class
Certification and Classwide Preliminary Injunction, and Defendants'
Cross-Motion to Dismiss, for July 27, 2023, at 2:00 p.m.

The Parties have been engaging in settlement talks and believe they
would benefit from more time to negotiate.

United States Department of Homeland Security is the U.S. federal
executive department responsible for public security.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 25, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QxRIQI at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edward Hillenbrand, Esq.
          Michael F. Williams, Esq.
          Joseph A. D'Antonio, Esq.
          Morgan Lily Phoenix, Esq.
          Michael P. Quinn, Esq.
          Sanjay Nevrekar, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          555 South Flower Street, Suite 3700
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 680-8400
          E-mail: edward.hillenbrand@kirkland.com
                  mwilliams@kirkland.com
                  joseph.dantonio@kirkland.com
                  morgan.phoenix@kirkland.com
                  michael.quinn@kirkland.com
                  sanjay.nevrekar@kirkland.com

                - and -

          Richard Caldarone, Esq.
          Keren Zwick, Esq.
          Collen Cowgill, Esq.
          NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER
          224 S. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 660-1370
          Facsimile: (312) 660-1505
          E-mail: rcaldarone@heartlandalliance.org
                  kzwick@heartlandalliance.org
                  ccowgill@heartlandalliance.org

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian M. Boynton, Esq.
          William C. Peachey
          Yamileth G. Davila
          Alexander J. Halaska
          Richard G. Ingebretsen
          Ruth Ann Mueller
          OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION
          P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044
          Telephone: (202) 616-4848
          Facsimile: (202) 305-7000
          E-mail: richard.ingebretsen@usdoj.gov

VESTRA LABS: Abercrombie Suit Removed to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Breyonna Marie Abercrombie, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VESTRA LABS LLC; and
DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 34-2023-00336600 was removed
from the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
July 26, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-at-00710.

On June 6, 2023, the Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint
("FAC"). The FAC alleges 10 causes of action against Defendant,
alleging: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime
Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Permit Rest
Breaks; Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; Failure to Provide
Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Pay Wages Timely
During Employment; Failure to Pay All Wages Due Upon Separation of
Employment; Violation of Business and Professions Code; and (10)
Enforcement of Labor Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Benjamin M. Gipson, Esq.
          Hernandez, Esq.
          Ryan M. Estes, Esq.
          Jose Pomposo Barajas, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          2000 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-4704
          Phone: 310.595.3000
          Fax: 310.595.3300
          Email: ben.gipson@us.dlapiper.com
                 steve.hernandez@us.dlapiper.com
                 ryan.estes@dlapiper.com
                 jose.pomposo@us.dlapiper.com


VIRGIN GALACTIC: Continues to Defend Lavin Class Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Virgin Galactic Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending June 30, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend the Lavin class suit in the Eastern District of
New York.

On May 28, 2021, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company in the Eastern District of New York captioned Lavin v.
Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03070.

In September 2021, the Court appointed Robert Scheele and Mark
Kusnier as co-lead plaintiffs for the purported class. Co-lead
plaintiffs amended the complaint in December 2021, asserting
violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its current
and former officers and directors on behalf of a putative class of
investors who purchased the Company's common stock between July 10,
2019 and October 14, 2021.

The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company
and certain of its current and former officers and directors made
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose certain
information regarding the safety of the Company's ships and success
of its commercial flight program.

Co-lead plaintiffs seek damages, interest, costs, expenses,
attorneys' fees and other unspecified equitable relief.

The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint and, on
November 7, 2022, the court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants’ motion and gave the plaintiffs leave to file a
further amended complaint.

Plaintiffs’ filed a second amended complaint on December 12,
2022.

The second amended complaint contains many of the same allegations
as in the first amended complaint.

The defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on
February 24, 2023 and their motion was fully briefed as of May 23,
2023.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against this
matter.

Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. is an American spaceflight company
founded by Richard Branson and his British Virgin Group retains an
18% stake through Virgin Investments Limited. It is headquartered
in California, USA, and operates from New Mexico.


VYSTAR CREDIT: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due June 21, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANTA MERRELL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
MELISSA RANSOM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and ALL JAKD UP MOTORSPORTS, INC., v. VYSTAR CREDIT
UNION, Case No. 3:23-cv-00461-TJC-PDB (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge
Timothy J. Corrigan entered a case management and scheduling order
and referral to mediation:

  Deadline for providing mandatory initial           July 28, 2023
  disclosures.

  Deadline for moving to join a party or amend       Sept. 18,
2023
  the pleadings.

  Deadline for disclosing expert reports.

                  the Plaintiff:                     May 1, 2024

                  the Defendant:                     May 1, 2024

                  Rebuttal:                          May 17, 2024

  Deadline for moving for class certification.       June 21, 2024

  Deadline for filing dispositive and                July 19, 2024
  Daubert motions (Responses due 21 days after
  service unless otherwise ordered; summary
  judgment replies (limited to 7 pages) permitted
  14 days after service of a response)

  Deadline for completing discovery and filing       Aug. 9, 2024
  motions to compel.

  Mediation Deadline:                                Aug. 9, 2024

  Date and time of Class Certification and           Oct. 17, 2024
  Dispositive Motions hearing

  Deadline for filing the joint final pretrial       Dec. 12, 2024
  statement and all other motions including
  motions in limine.

  Date and time of the final pretrial conference.    Dec. 18, 2024

  Trial Term Begins                                  Jan. 6, 2025

VyStar is a member-owned financial cooperative that is
headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YnSUbm at no extra charge.[CC]

WALMART INC: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Arrison Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
WALMART INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the
lawsuit entitled Kathy Arrison, et al., on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Walmart Inc., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00481-SMB, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Arizona.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
allege that the Defendants implemented a companywide policy
requiring workers to undergo a mandatory COVID-19 screening each
shift. Workers were instructed to arrive before their scheduled
shift to complete the requisite questionnaire, screening, and body
temperature. The Defendants' workers continued to work through the
COVID-19 pandemic. The workers put in the time necessary to comply
with the Defendants' COVID-19 policies so that the Defendants'
store can remain in operation. However, the Defendants failed to
pay the workers for the time that the Defendants require them. As a
result, Walmart is unjustly enriched at the expense of its workers,
the suit says.

On Mar. 24, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class,
which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Susan M.
Brnovich on July 11, 2023. The Plaintiffs sought Rule 23 class
certification on behalf of a punitive class of Arizona non-exempt
Walmart associates alleging claims for unpaid wages under the
Arizona Wage Act and civil penalties for related record keeping
violations. The motion for Rule 23 class certification for the
proposed class and subclass was granted. Lear Werts LLP was
appointed as class counsel.

The appellate case is captioned Kathy Arrison, et al. v. Walmart
Inc., et al., Case No. 23-80065, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 26, 2023. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents KATHY ARRISON, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

            Todd C. Werts, Esq.
            LEAR WERTS LLP
            103 Ripley Street
            Columbia, MO 65201
            Telephone: (573) 875-1991

Defendants-Petitioners WALMART INC., et al. are represented by:

            Erin Norris Bass, Esq.
            Douglas Janicik, Esq.
            DENTONS US LLP
            2398 E. Camelback Road, Suite 850
            Phoenix, AZ 85016
            Telephone: (602) 508-3967
                       (602) 508-3970

                    - and -

            Mark David Harris, Esq.
            Shiloh Rainwater, Esq.
            PROSKAUER ROSE, LLP
            11 Times Square
            New York, NY 10036
            Telephone: (212) 969-3000

                    - and -

            Gregory William Knopp, Esq.
            Jonathan P. Slowik, Esq.
            PROSKAUER ROSE, LLP
            2029 Century Park, E, Suite 2400
            Los Angeles, CA 90067
            Telephone: (310) 557-2900
                       (310) 284-4588

WASHINGTON: Writ of Habeas Corpus Filed in Aiona Civil Rights Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
CALEB AIONA, et al. filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in
the lawsuit entitled Caleb Aiona, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Petitioners, v. PATRICK
GARRETT, WASHINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF, in his official capacity,
Respondent, Case No. 3:23-cv-01097-CL, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Oregon.

The Petitioners seek a writ of habeas corpus and immediate release
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2241 on the grounds that they are being
unlawfully held in custody of the Washington County Sheriff based
on a pending criminal prosecution in violation of their federal
constitutional rights.

The Petitioners filed a class complaint which alleges violations of
the right to counsel, due process liberty and the Eighth Amendment,
procedural due process by prosecution without counsel, and equal
protection and due process based on indigency. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners CALEB AIONA, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

            Fidel Cassino-DuCloux, Esq.
            Stephen R. Sady, Esq.
            Julie Vandiver, Esq.
            Jessica Snyder, Esq.
            Robert Hamilton, Esq.
            Michael Benson, Esq.
            Peyton E. Lee, Esq.
            Megha Desai, Esq.
            101 SW Main Street, Suite 1700
            Portland, OR 97204
            Telephone: (503) 326-2123
            Facsimile: (503) 326-5524
            E-mail: Fidel_Cassino-DuCloux@fd.org
                    Steve_Sady@fd.org
                    Julie_Vandiver@fd.org
                    Jessica_Snyder@fd.org
                    Robert_Hamilton@fd.org
                    Michael_Benson@fd.org
                    Peyton_Lee@fd.org
                    Megha_Desai@fd.org

WASTE CONNECTIONS: Subsidiaries Hit Over Noxious Odors from Sites
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Connections, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, that separate lawsuits seeking class action
status were filed against its subsidiary Louisiana Regional
Landfill Company (LRLC) and certain other company subsidiaries, the
Parish, and Aptim Corporation in Louisiana state court, and
subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana, before Judge Susie Morgan in New
Orleans.

The court later consolidated the claims of the putative class
action plaintiffs. These cases are still ongoing.

Beginning in December 2018, a series of 11 substantively identical
mass actions were filed in Louisiana state court against LRLC and
certain other Company subsidiaries, the Parish, and Aptim
Corporation. The claims of the mass action plaintiffs were removed
to and consolidated in federal court in the Eastern District of
Louisiana, also before Judge Susie Morgan.

The putative class actions and the Addison action assert claims for
damages from odors allegedly emanating from LRLC's JP Landfill. The
consolidated putative class action complaint alleges that the JP
Landfill released "noxious odors" into the plaintiffs' properties
and the surrounding community and asserts a range of liability
theories—nuisance, negligence (since dismissed), and strict
liability—against all defendants. The putative class is described
as all residents of Jefferson Parish who have sustained legally
cognizable damages as a result of odors from the JP Landfill, but
the complaint proposes to revise the geographic definition based on
further evidence. The putative class plaintiffs seek unspecified
damages for nuisance and unidentified property value diminution.
The Addison plaintiffs assert claims for nuisance, negligence, and
(with respect to the Parish) unconstitutional takings under the
Louisiana Constitution; on behalf of two plaintiffs, the Addison
complaint also asserts claims for wrongful death and survivorship.
The Court held an eight-day trial on general causation during
January and February 2022.

In November 29, 2022, the court issued a 45-page decision on the
general causation trial. The Court concluded that all putative
class and mass action plaintiffs established general
causation—specifically that emissions and gases from the JP
Landfill were capable of causing certain damages alleged by the
plaintiffs. The court held that it only needed to determine the
level of exposure necessary to result in injuries and that the
level existed somewhere offsite, and that it was not required to
delineate this level of exposure within a geographic area. The
court did, however, limit the time period for damages, to between
July 2017 and December 2019, and the types of alleged injuries for
which the plaintiffs are able to seek damages, to headaches,
nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, sleep disruption, dizziness,
fatigue, anxiety and worry, a decrease in quality of life, and loss
of enjoyment or use of property. The Addison plaintiffs' claims of
diminution of property value were put on a separate track from
these damages and not addressed.

The court has held several case management conferences since the
general causation decision to discuss how to proceed with the class
and mass action cases, and the Court has proposed trying certain
Addison plaintiffs' cases on the merits prior to class
certification being determined as to the putative class case. The
company has opposed that sequence by motion, and the court has
recognized its objection on the record. Subject to that objection,
the company jointly proposed a case management order with the
Addison plaintiffs that allows for fact and expert discovery on a
subset of 8-13 Addison plaintiffs who will proceed to trial. The
court adopted and so-ordered that case management order on April
17, 2023, under which trial was scheduled for September 2023.

In April 17, 2023, the company and the other defendants filed a
petition for a writ of mandamus from the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals challenging the April 17 case management order's sequencing
of a merits trial before class certification. The Defendants also
filed a motion to stay proceedings in the district court until the
Fifth Circuit issues a decision on the writ petition. On June 8,
2023, the Fifth Circuit stayed proceedings in the district court,
and oral argument was held on July 12, 2023. Following oral
argument, the Fifth Circuit clarified that its stay applies only to
the Addison action but has not yet issued a decision on the writ
petition.

The company has already obtained dismissal of approximately one
third of the original Addison plaintiffs, the number of which now
totals 544, and believes it has strong defenses to the merits of
the Addison action, including specific causation issues due to
other odor sources in the area. The company also believes it has
strong defenses to certification of the putative class actions,
although the court has not yet indicated when it will allow
certification to be briefed and decided, and sequencing of that
process may be affected by the Fifth Circuit's decision on the writ
petition.

Waste Connections is the third largest solid waste management
company in North America.


WEGMANS FOOD: Class Certification Bid Filing Extended to Oct. 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Loeper v. Wegmans Food
Markets, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-02044-MEM (M.D. Pa.), Hon. Judge
Malachi E. Mannion entered an amended scheduling order extending to
Oct. 2, 2023, deadline for Plaintiff's motion for class
certification under Rule 23.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OksJOn at no extra charge.[CC]



WESTLAKE CORP: Caustic Soda Price-Fixing Suit in Quebec Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Westlake Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, that beginning in October 2020, class action
proceedings were filed in Canada before the Superior Court of
Quebec as well as before the Federal Court.

These proceedings seek the certification or authorization of a
class action on behalf of all residents of Canada who purchased
caustic soda (including, in one of the cases, those who merely
purchased products containing caustic soda) from October 1, 2015
through the present or such date deemed appropriate by the court.
Defendants allegedly conspired to fix, raise, maintain and
stabilize the price of caustic soda, restrict domestic supply of
caustic soda and allocate caustic soda customers.

In December 10, 2021, the Superior Court of Quebec stayed its
proceedings until after a final certification decision is released
in the Federal Court proceedings.

Westlake operates as an integrated global manufacturer and marketer
of performance and essential materials and housing and
infrastructure products including residential construction,
flexible and rigid packaging, automotive products, healthcare
products, materials used in turbines to generate wind energy, water
treatment, coatings as well as other durable and non-durable
goods.


WESTLAKE CORP: Caustic Soda Price-Rigging Suit Ongoing in NY Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Westlake Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, that the company and other caustic soda producers were
named as defendants in multiple purported class action civil
lawsuits filed since March 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of New York.

The lawsuits allege the defendants conspired to fix, raise,
maintain and stabilize the price of caustic soda, restrict domestic
supply of caustic soda and allocate caustic soda customers. The
other defendants named in the lawsuits are Olin Corporation, K.A.
Steel Chemicals (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Olin), Occidental
Chemical Corporation d/b/a OxyChem, Shintech Incorporated and
Formosa Plastics Corporation, USA. Each of the lawsuits is filed on
behalf of the respective named plaintiff or plaintiffs and a
putative class comprised of either direct purchasers or indirect
purchasers of caustic soda in the U.S.

The plaintiffs in the putative class for such direct purchasers
seek $861 in single damages from the defendants, in addition to
treble damages and attorney's fees. The plaintiffs in the putative
class for such indirect purchasers seek approximately $500 in
single damages from the defendants, in addition to treble damages
(if permitted under applicable state law) and injunctive relief.
The defendants' joint motion to dismiss the direct purchaser
lawsuits was denied. The defendants' joint motion to dismiss the
indirect purchaser lawsuits was granted in part and denied in part.
Both groups of cases have proceeded to discovery.

Westlake operates as an integrated global manufacturer and marketer
of performance and essential materials and housing and
infrastructure products including residential construction,
flexible and rigid packaging, automotive products, healthcare
products, materials used in turbines to generate wind energy, water
treatment, coatings as well as other durable and non-durable
goods.


WISCONSIN ELECTRIC: Faces Munt ERISA Suit in WI Court
-----------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin Electric Power Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, that in May 2022, a putative class action
captioned "Munt, et al. v. WEC Energy Group, Inc., et al., was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Wisconsin - Milwaukee Division.

The plaintiffs allege that WEC Energy Group and others breached
their fiduciary duties with respect to the operation and oversight
of WEC Energy Group's Employee Retirement Saving Plan in violation
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as
amended.

The class is alleged to be participants in the plan from May 10,
2016 through the date of judgment. The complaint seeks injunctive
relief, damages, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. WEC Energy
Group is vigorously defending against the allegations made in this
lawsuit and intends to continue to do so.

Wisconsin Electric Power Company provided approximately 1.2 million
electric customers and 0.5 million natural gas customers. All of
the common stock of Wisconsin Electric Power Company is held by WEC
Energy Group, Inc.


WORLDWIDE INDUSTRIES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due July 29, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERTO CONTRERAS
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
WORLDWIDE INDUSTRIES CORP., Case No. 2:23-cv-00532-WSS (W.D. Pa.),
the Hon. Judge William S. Stickman IV entered a case management
order as follows:

  -- Amended pleadings & joinder of parties:        Nov. 13, 2023

  -- The Plaintiff's expert reports are to          April 30, 2024
     be served by:

  -- The Defendant's expert reports are to          May 30, 2024.
     be served by:

  -- Class expert depositions are to be             June 28, 2024
     completed by:

  -- Discovery shall close on:                      June 28, 2024

  -- Motion for Class Certification with            July 29, 2024
     brief in support is due by:

  -- Brief in opposition is due by:                 August 29,
2024

  -- Any reply brief is due by:                     September 12,
2024

Worldwide Industries was founded in 2001. The company's line of
business includes the wholesale distribution of industrial
machinery and equipment.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3s1xbd5 at no extra charge.[CC]



X-MODE SOCIAL: Egan Hits Sale of Geolocation Data
-------------------------------------------------
NORMA EGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. X-MODE SOCIAL, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-11651-DJC (D. Mass., July 25, 2023) arises from the
Defendant's alleged violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act
and the Massachusetts Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices Act
by first acquiring and tracking Plaintiff and other consumers'
precise geolocation data and other data through the use of spyware
called "XDK" and then profiting from that data by selling it to
others.

Egan is a resident of Somerville, Massachusetts. In January 2021,
she downloaded a third-party phone application designed to allow
users to know the location of their children or other family
members. At the time, Plaintiff believed that the geolocation data
generated by the App would be used solely by the third-party App
developer for App functionality. However, that was not the case:
the developer of the App later confirmed that it sold location data
to the Defendant when Plaintiff used the application. During that
entire time, the App tracked the geolocation of the Plaintiff and
her family. In turn, Defendant tracked Plaintiff's geolocation in
Massachusetts, and then sold that data for profit. The Plaintiff
suffered her primary injury in Massachusetts, says the suit.

X-MODE Social, Inc. is primarily a location data broker that
provides its customers amounts of precise geolocation data
collected from consumers' mobile devices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel D. Smith, 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: jsmith@bursor.com

               - and -

          Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10019  
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: jdiamond@bursor.com

YATSEN HOLDING: Court Appoints Wong & Park as Lead Plaintiffs
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NANCY MAESHIRO, et al., v.
YATSEN HOLDING LIMITED, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-08165-JPC-BCM
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order:

   1. Granting Wong and Park's motion for appointment as Lead
      Plaintiffs and for approval of selection of Lead Counsel;
and

   2. Denying the competing motions of Xu and Zhang.

Lead Counsel shall have the following duties and responsibilities
on behalf of the Lead the Plaintiffs and the putative class:

   (a) briefing and argument of motions;

   (b) coordination and supervision of discovery proceedings,
       including depositions;

   (c) coordination and supervision of pretrial preparation and the

       conduct of trial;

   (d) coordination and supervision of settlement negotiations;

   (e) coordination and supervision of any other matters concerning

       the prosecution, resolution, or settlement of this action.

Additionally, Lead Counsel shall have the responsibility of
receiving and disseminating court orders and notices to all the
Plaintiffs and serving as the contact point with the Defendants'
counsel, who may effect service of papers on all the Plaintiffs by
serving them upon Lead Counsel.

Nancy Maeshiro, represented by Scott+Scott, commenced this putative
class action on September 23, 2022, against Yatsen Holding Limited
(Yatsen or the Company), various Yatsen officers and directors, and
the underwriters of Yatsen's November 19, 2020 initial public
offering (IPO).

Yatsen is a Chinese company "engaged in the production and sale of
cosmetics and skincare products."

The Plaintiff alleges that these statements were false and/or
misleading, but were not fully corrected until a series of
disclosures were made in 2021 and 2022: First, on August 26, 2021,
during an analyst call discussing Yatsen's second-quarter results,
the Company's Chief Executive Officer (CEO) stated that the
performance of its "Perfect Diary" brand was deteriorating and that
Yatsen needed to "refocus and also to devote more resources to
continue the growth trend."

Yatsen Holding is a China-based holding company engaged in
production and sales of cosmetics and skincare products.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47nZenu at no extra
charge.[CC] 


YELLOW CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Layoffs Without Prior Notice
---------------------------------------------------------------
William Williams of Nashville Post reports that after recently
administering significant layoffs and now facing potential
bankruptcy, troubled Nashville trucking and logistics company
Yellow Corp. is battling a class-action lawsuit from four former
employees.

Filed in the United States District Court in the Middle District of
Tennessee, the four plaintiffs in the suit allege Yellow management
failed to provide proper notice (60 days) related to the layoffs
and as required by U.S. Department of Labor regulations.

An unknown number of Yellow employees were laid off in late July
(read here), with the company having previously been home to about
30,000 workers nationwide.

The plaintiffs — Ricky Adcock, Matthew Brewer, Michael Cottrell
and Johnny Martinez — have filed the suit on behalf of all Yellow
employees who had their jobs terminated on July 30.

The plaintiffs are seeking a court judgment including 60 days worth
of wages and benefits, litigation costs and attorneys' fees "to the
fullest extent" permitted under the federal WARN (Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification) Act, the lawsuit notes.

Nashville law firm Herzfeld, Suetholz, Gastel, Leniski and Wall is
representing the plaintiffs. Focused on workers' rights, the firm
was created earlier this year via a split with partners of longtime
Nashville law firm Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings (read here).

Though two additional lawsuits have been filed in Delaware related
to the Yellow layoffs, the suit involving the four former employees
is the only one brought by workers representing each of Yellow’s
four operating subsidiaries, Joe Leniski, a member of the firm,
emailed the Post.

"This lawsuit is a crucial step in protecting and enforcing the
rights of the Yellow workforce, which is still reeling from this
news," Leniski said. "Without exception, these layoffs were
entirely foreseeable, and the required notice should have been
provided for the benefit of these workers, their families, and the
communities in which they live."

Yellow officials could not be reached for comment regarding the
lawsuit. [GN]

YELLOWSTONE LANDSCAPE: Mason Sues Over Landscapers' Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
RODNEY MASON, individually and for others similarly situated v.
YELLOWSTONE LANDSCAPE, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00867 (M.D. Fla.,
July 25, 2023) arises from the Defendant's uniform jobsite pay
scheme by depriving Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members of
overtime wages for all overtime hours worked in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Mason worked for Yellowstone as a landscaper in and
around Houston, Texas from approximately January 2021 until August
2022. He asserts that Yellowstone violated, and is violating, the
FLSA by employing him and the Putative Class Members in a covered
enterprise for workweeks longer than 40 hours without paying such
employees overtime wages at rates not less than one and a half
times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked after 40 in a
workweek.

Yellowstone Landscape, Inc. is a commercial landscaping
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor
          P.O. Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          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

YUMMYEARTH: Asks Court to Impose Terminating Sanctions v. Marino
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER MARINO, v.
YUMMYEARTH, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-02739-VC (N.D. Cal.), YumEarth
moves the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 to
impose terminating sanctions against the Plaintiff for serially
failing to appear for her duly-noticed deposition, or in the
alternative, an order preventing the Plaintiff from offering any
evidence until she appears for her deposition.

The Defendant further moves the Court for monetary sanctions for
the Defendant's reasonable attorney's fees incurred in preparing
for the deposition and bringing this motion.

To date, those fees amount to $9,712.50.

YumEarth has sought to take the Plaintiff's deposition for more
than eight months since discovery opened in November 2022. The
Plaintiff has twice failed to appear for her own deposition, most
recently on July 11, 2023. The Defendant contend that the Court
should impose terminating sanctions.

YumEarth specializes in producing organic candies.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 26, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QuG1KO at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew Borden, Esq.
          David H. Kwasniewski, Esq.
          Tracy O. Zinsou, Esq.
          BRAUNHAGEY & BORDEN LLP
          351 California Street, 10th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 599-0210
          Facsimile: (415) 599-0210
          E-mail: borden@braunhagey.com
                  kwasniewski@braunhagey.com
                  zinsou@braunhagey.com


                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***