/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230824.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, August 24, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 170

                            Headlines

3M CO: Study Links Forever Chemicals to Testicular Cancer Risk
ADIDAS AMERICA: Hussein Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Court Tosses Madriz's Appeal in Stockholder Suit
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Class Action Over Stock Conversion Plan
AMERICAN FIRST: Files 9th Cir. Appeal in Andrade Suit

APPLE INC: 9th Cir. Dismisses Appeals on Settlement Terms Objection
APPLE INC: iOS 15 Degraded iPhone 7 Performance, Margolis Says
ARC AUTOMOTIVE: Class Action Over Airbag Inflators Ongoing
ARC ONE PROTECTIVE: Faces Pasteur Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
AUTOZONERS LLC: Contreras Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices

AVOCADO MATTRESS: False Advertising Class Action Dismissed
BEEEPERMD LLC: Gibson Sues Over Mobile Testers' Unpaid Wages
BISHOP OF CHARLESTON: 4th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Nestler
BOB COCHRAN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Voight Suit Alleges
BOB'S RED: Hayden Sues Over Flaxseed Products' Misleading Label

CANADA: Class Action Over Immigration Policy Pending
CHATTANOOGA HEART: Faces Two Class Actions Over Data Breach
CHURCH & DWIGHT: Agrees to Settle Dry Shampoo Class Suit for $2.5M
DELTA AIR: Settlement Claim Form Submission Deadline Set Sept. 15
DISCOVER PRODUCTS: Underpays Customer Service Reps, Harris Says

ECO BRITE: Patino Sues Over Biometric Data Retention
EOS ENERGY: Faces Houck Suit Over Share Price Drop
EROS INT'L: $25MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 28
FEDEX GROUND: Removes Bruno Suit to C.D. California
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Class Action Over Bailout Scandal Ongoing

FLORIDA: Seeks Dismissal of Transgender Treatment Class Action
FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Engines
GAP INC: Faces Class Action Over WARN Act Violations
GAP INC: Removes Bourgeois Suit to District of New Hampshire
GENWORTH LIFE: Hauser Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Access

GOODYEAR TIRE: Hull Seeks Proper Wages Following Kronos Outage
HARVARD MEDICAL: Defendants Added in Morgue Mishandling Suit
HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Shares Hit Lowest Level Amid Wildfire Scrutiny
HCA HEALTHCARE: Faces Hinds Suit Over Data Breach
HOME DEPOT: $72.5MM Class Settlement in Utne Suit Wins Prelim. Nod

HUNTER BUSINESS: $450K Settlement in D'Angelo Suit Gets Final Nod
INSURANCE CORP: Liable for Damages in Class Action, Court Rules
JOCKEY INTERNATIONAL: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Suit Says
KIMMICO INC: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Bonner Claims
KLAUSSNER HOME: Faces Class Action Over WARN Act Violations

LADY JANE'S HAIRCUTS: Kennedy Sues Over Stylists' Unpaid Wages
M.A.C. COSMETICS: Removes Byrd Suit to C.D. California
MARY BLACK: October 2 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
MDL 2873: Bliven Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
MDL 2873: Exposure to PFAS Caused Sickness, Fitzgerald Says

MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic PFAS Caused Cancer, Daniels Says
MDL 2873: Williams Suit Alleges Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
MDL 2873: Zenz Suit Alleges Exposure to PFAS Caused Cancer
MEDTRONIC INC: Harris Hits Defective Implantable Cardiac Devices
MERCURY AUTO: Averts Workers' Overtime Class Action in Florida

MINNEAPOLIS RAGSTOCK: Hussein Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois
MOHAMMAD REZA VAZIRI: Lalabekyan Sues Over False Imprisonment
MORGANS SHOES: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MOTIVE ENERGY: Knight Sues Over Field Workers' Unpaid Overtime
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Shabazz Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania

NEW YORK, NY: Efforts to Improve Safety at City Jails Not Enough
NEWTON RUNNING: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NIPPON EXPRESS: Aranda Files Suit in D. Nevada
NORTHLAND RESOURCES: Dec. 15 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
NORTHTOWN CAPITAL: Barragan Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Texas

ONEMAIN GENERAL: Estrada Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
OPC KICKS LLC: Hussein Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois
OPENAI INC: Faces Privacy Class Action Suit in California
PATTERSON-UTI DRILLING: Ginn Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
PENNY NEWMAN GRAIN: Nares Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

PENSION BENEFIT: Cheng Sues Over Compromised Personal Information
PENSION BENEFIT: Hurtado Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
PENSION BENEFIT: Smith Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach
PENSION BENEFIT: Sued Over Failure to Implement Cybersecurity
PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

PORSCHE CARS: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Defective Taycans
POST BAGEL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hercules Alleges
PRECISION IMAGING: Hermann Files Suit in M.D. Florida
PRECOR INCORPORATED: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PRIORITY CONCEPTS: Connor Sues Over Unsolicited Calls and Messages

PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Mosqueda Claims
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Ortega Sues Over Failure to Secure Information
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Siflinger Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
QUALITY DRIVE AWAY: Gentry Suit Removed to C.D. California
R1 RCM INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Reynolds Suit Claims

RAREESSENCE LLC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RC BIGELOW: Court Certifies False Advertising Class Action
REAL KOSHER: Gurkov Sues Over Mislabeled Ice Cream Products
REALPAGE INC: Dempsey Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee
RECKER CONSULTING: Underpays Customer Service Reps, Lott Claims

REMAC LLP: Gonzalez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Molina Files Suit in S.D. New York
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Perkins Claims
RETROSPEKT LLC: Gonzalez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Lytle Sues Over Exposure of PII

SALMOS 23 V: Castano Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation
SOUTH32 LTD: Faces Class Suit Over Exposure to Coal Dust in Mines
SOWELL REALTORS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Turner Alleges
ST. CAMILLUS HEALTH: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Wieland Alleges
SUNRISE GROWERS: Faces Class Action Over Frozen Fruit Recall

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
TACO BELL: Removes Herrera Suit to District of New Jersey
TENAGLIA & HUNT: Lasky Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
TESLA INC: Porter Sues Over Electric Vehicles' False Ads
TILE INC: Faces Gordy Suit Over Privacy Rights Violations

TWIST BIOSCIENCE: Bleichmar Fonti & Auld Named Peters' Lead Counsel
UBS GROUP: Credit Suisse Equity Investors File Class Action
UBS GROUP: Faces Third Class Action Over Credit Suisse Takeover
ULTIMATE FIGHTING: Must Face MMA Fighters' Antitrust Class Action
UNITED ARTISTS: Faces Class Action Over ADA Violations

UNITED STATES: Faces Suit Over Failure to Prevent Prisoners' Abuse
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: Settles Price Fixing Suit for $13.5 Million
UPONOR INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Brown Suit Alleges
VICTORIA: Junior Doctors Win Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
WALTER KIDDE: Pons Sues Over False & Misleading Advertising

WELLS FARGO: Fries Sues Over Outdated Two Factor Authentication
WELLS FARGO: Wants Class Action Over Fake Job Interviews Tossed
WESTLAKE SERVICES: Klare Suit Removed to C.D. California
WHITE AID MEDICAL: Gousse Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
WILLIS TOWERS: Pitts Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime

WISECROWD INC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
X CORP: Martell Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
YELLOW FREIGHT: Moore Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice
ZOOT SQUAD: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ZUFFA LLC: Sanchez Suit Transferred to D. Nevada

ZURI PLASTIC SURGERY: J.F. Files Suit in S.D. Florida
[*] CANADA: Indigenous Lawsuits Resulted in Billions in Payouts
[*] Companies Face VPPA Class Action Privacy Litigation Risks
[*] Jones Day Attorneys Discusses Greenwashing Suits v. Airlines
[*] New SEC Cyberattack Reporting Rule to Expose Cos. to Lawsuits


                            *********

3M CO: Study Links Forever Chemicals to Testicular Cancer Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
PBS reports that Gary Flook served in the Air Force for 37 years,
as a firefighter at the now-closed Chanute Air Force Base in
Illinois and the former Grissom Air Force Base in Indiana, where he
regularly trained with aqueous film forming foam, or AFFF -- a
frothy white fire retardant that is highly effective but now known
to be toxic.

Flook volunteered at his local fire department, where he also used
the foam, unaware of the health risks it posed. In 2000, at age 45,
he received devastating news: He had testicular cancer, which would
require an orchiectomy followed by chemotherapy.

Hundreds of lawsuits, including one by Flook, have been filed
against companies that make firefighting products and the chemicals
used in them.

And multiple studies show that firefighters, both military and
civilian, have been diagnosed with testicular cancer at higher
rates than people in most other occupations, often pointing to the
presence of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS,
in the foam.

But the link between PFAS and testicular cancer among service
members was never directly proven -- until now.

A new federal study for the first time shows a direct association
between PFOS, a PFAS chemical, found in the blood of thousands of
military personnel and testicular cancer.

Using banked blood drawn from Air Force servicemen, researchers at
the National Cancer Institute and Uniformed Services University of
the Health Sciences found strong evidence that airmen who were
firefighters had elevated levels of PFAS in their bloodstreams and
weaker evidence for those who lived on installations with high
levels of PFAS in the drinking water. And the airmen with
testicular cancer had higher serum levels of PFOS than those who
had not been diagnosed with cancer, said study co-author Mark
Purdue, a senior investigator at NCI.

"To my knowledge," Purdue said, "this is the first study to measure
PFAS levels in the U.S. military population and to investigate
associations with a cancer endpoint in this population, so that
brings new evidence to the table."

In a commentary in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives,
Kyle Steenland, a professor at Emory University's Rollins School of
Public Health, said the research "provides a valuable contribution
to the literature," which he described as "rather sparse" in
demonstrating a link between PFAS and testicular cancer.

More studies are needed, he said, "as is always the case for
environmental chemicals."

Not 'just soap and water'
Old stocks of AFFF that contained PFOS were replaced in the past
few decades by foam that contains newer-generation PFAS, which now
also are known to be toxic. By congressional order, the Department
of Defense must stop using all PFAS-containing foams by October
2024, though it can keep buying them until this October. That's
decades after the military first documented the chemicals'
potential health concerns.

A DoD study in 1974 found that PFAS was fatal to fish. By 1983, an
Air Force technical report showed its deadly effects on mice.

But given its effectiveness in fighting extremely hot fires, like
aircraft crashes and shipboard blazes, the Defense Department still
uses it in operations. Rarely, if ever, had the military warned of
its dangers, according to Kevin Ferrara, a retired Air Force
firefighter, as well as several military firefighters who contacted
KFF Health News.

"We were told that it was just soap and water, completely
harmless," Ferrara said. "We were completely slathered in the foam
-- hands, mouth, eyes. It looked just like if you were going to
fill up your sink with dish soap."

Photos released by the Defense Visual Information Distribution
Service in 2013 show personnel working in the foam without
protective gear. The description calls the "small sea of fire
retardant foam" at Travis Air Force Base in California
"non-hazardous" and "similar to soap."

"No people or aircraft were harmed in the incident," it reads.

There are thousands of PFAS chemicals, invented in the 1940s to
ward off stains and prevent sticking in industrial and household
goods. Along with foam used for decades by firefighters and the
military, the chemicals are in makeup, nonstick cookware,
water-repellent clothing, rugs, food wrappers, and a myriad of
other consumer goods.

Known as "forever chemicals," they do not break down in the
environment and do accumulate in the human body. Researchers
estimate that nearly all Americans have PFAS in their blood,
exposed primarily by groundwater, drinking water, soil, and foods.
A recent U.S. Geological Survey study estimated that at least 45
percent of U.S. tap water has at least one type of forever chemical
from both private wells and public water supplies.

Health and environmental concerns associated with the chemicals
have spurred a cascade of lawsuits, plus state and federal
legislation that targets the manufacturers and sellers of
PFAS-laden products. Gary Flook is suing 3M and associated
companies that manufactured PFAS and the firefighting foam,
including DuPont and Kidde-Fenwal.

Congress has prodded the Department of Defense to clean up military
sites and take related health concerns more seriously, funding site
inspections for PFAS and mandating blood testing for military
firefighters. Advocates argue those actions are not enough.

"How long has [DoD] spent on this issue without any real results
except for putting some filters on drinking water?" said Jared
Hayes, a senior policy analyst at the Environmental Working Group.
"When it comes to cleaning up the problem, we are in the same place
we were years ago."

On a mission to get screening
The Department of Veterans Affairs does not recommend blood testing
for PFAS, stating on its website that "blood tests cannot be linked
to current or future health conditions or guide medical treatment
decisions."

But that could change soon. Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.), co-chair of
the congressional PFAS Task Force, in June introduced the Veterans
Exposed to Toxic PFAS Act, which would require the VA to treat
conditions linked to exposure and provide disability benefits for
those affected, including for testicular cancer.

"The last thing [veterans] and their families need to go through is
to fight with VA to get access to benefits we promised them when
they put that uniform on," Kildee said.

Evidence is strong that exposure to PFAS is associated with health
effects such as decreased response to vaccines, kidney cancer, and
low birth weight, according to an expansive, federally funded
report published last year by the National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine. The nonprofit institution recommended
blood testing for communities with high exposure to PFAS, followed
by health screenings for those above certain levels.

It also said that, based on limited evidence, there is "moderate
confidence" of an association between exposure and thyroid
dysfunction, preeclampsia in pregnant women, and breast and
testicular cancers.

The new study of Air Force servicemen published July 17 goes
further, linking PFAS exposure directly to testicular germ cell
tumors, which make up roughly 95 percent of testicular cancer
cases.

Testicular cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among young
adult men. It is also the type of cancer diagnosed at the highest
rate among active military personnel, most of whom are male, ages
18 to 40, and in peak physical condition.

That age distribution and knowing AFFF was a source of PFAS
contamination drove Purdue and USUHS researcher Jennifer Rusiecki
to investigate a possible connection.

Using samples from the Department of Defense Serum Repository, a
biobank of more than 62 million blood serum specimens from service
members, the researchers examined samples from 530 troops who later
developed testicular cancer and those of 530 members of a control
group. The blood had been collected between 1988 and 2017.

A second sampling collected four years after the first samples were
taken showed the higher PFOS concentrations positively associated
with testicular cancer.

Ferrara does not have testicular cancer, though he does have other
health concerns he attributes to PFAS, and he worries for himself
and his fellow firefighters. He recalled working at Air Combat
Command headquarters at Joint Base Langley-Eustis in Virginia in
the early 2010s and seeing emails mentioning two types of PFAS
chemicals: PFOS and perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA.

But employees on the base remained largely unfamiliar with the
jumble of acronyms, Ferrara said.

Even as the evidence grew that the chemicals in AFFF were toxic,
"we were still led to believe that it's perfectly safe," Ferrara
said. "They kept putting out vague and cryptic messages, citing
environmental concerns."

When Ferrara was working a desk job at Air Combat Command and no
longer fighting fires, his exposure likely continued: Joint Base
Langley-Eustis is among the top five most PFAS-contaminated
military sites, according to the EWG, with groundwater at the
former Langley Air Force Base registering 2.2 million parts per
trillion for PFOS and PFOA.

According to the EPA, just 40 parts per trillion would "warrant
further attention," such as testing and amelioration.

The Defense Department did not provide comment on the new study.

Air Force officials told KFF Health News that the service has
swapped products and no longer allows uncontrolled discharges of
firefighting foam for maintenance, testing, or training.

"The Department of the Air Force has replaced Aqueous Film Forming
Foam, which contained PFAS, with a foam that meets Environmental
Protection Agency recommendations at all installations," the Air
Force said in a statement provided to KFF Health News.

Both older-generation forever chemicals are no longer made in the
U.S. 3M, the main manufacturer of PFOS, agreed to start phasing it
out in 2000. In June, the industrial giant announced it would pay
at least $10.3 billion to settle a class-action suit.

Alarmed over what it perceived as the Defense Department's
unwillingness to address PFAS contamination or stop using AFFF,
Congress in 2019 ordered DoD to offer annual testing for all
active-duty military firefighters and banned the use of PFAS foam
by 2024.

According to data provided by DoD, among more than 9,000
firefighters who requested the tests in fiscal year 2021, 96
percent had at least one of two types of PFAS in their blood serum,
with PFOS being the most commonly detected at an average level of
3.1 nanograms per milliliter.

Readings between 2 and 20 ng/mL carry concern for adverse effects,
according to the national academies. In that range, it recommends
people limit additional exposure and screen for high cholesterol,
breast cancer, and, if pregnant, high blood pressure.

According to DoD, 707 active and former defense sites are
contaminated with PFAS or have had suspected PFAS discharges. The
department is in the early stages of a decades-long testing and
cleaning process.

More than 3,300 lawsuits have been filed over AFFF and PFAS
contamination; beyond 3M's massive settlement, DuPont and other
manufacturers reached a $1.185 billion agreement with water utility
companies in June.

Attorneys general from 22 states have urged the court to reject the
3M settlement, saying in a filing July 26 it would not adequately
cover the damage caused.

For now, many firefighters, like Ferrara, live with anxiety that
their blood PFAS levels may lead to cancer. Flook declined to speak
to KFF Health News because he is part of the 3M class-action
lawsuit. The cancer wreaked havoc on his marriage, robbing him and
his wife, Linda, of "affection, assistance, and conjugal
fellowship," according to the lawsuit.

Congress is again trying to push the Pentagon. This year, Sen.
Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) reintroduced the PFAS Exposure Assessment
and Documentation Act, which would require DoD to test all service
members -- not just firefighters -- stationed at installations with
known or suspected contamination as part of their annual health
checkups as well as family members and veterans.

The tests, which aren't covered by the military health program or
most insurers, typically cost from $400 to $600.

In June, Kildee said veterans have been stymied in getting
assistance with exposure-related illnesses that include PFAS.

"For too long, the federal government has been too slow to act to
deal with the threat posed by PFAS exposure," Kildee said. "This
situation is completely unacceptable." [GN]

ADIDAS AMERICA: Hussein Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
SUMAYA HUSSEIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ADIDAS AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-04989 (N.D. Ill., July 31, 2023) is a civil rights action
brought by the Plaintiff against Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its website,
www.adidas.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable
by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in
violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer. The Plaintiff was injured when she attempted on July 1,
2023, and again on July 12, 2023, to access Defendant's website
from her home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but
encountered barriers that denied her full and equal access to
Defendant's online goods, content and services, says the suit.

Because Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and
visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff
seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's
corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's
website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, the suit asserts.

Adidas America, Inc. designs and markets apparel products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com

AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Court Tosses Madriz's Appeal in Stockholder Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE AMC ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS, INC. STOCKHOLDER
LITIGATION, Case No. 258, 2023 (Del.), Judge Collins J. Seitz, Jr.,
of the Supreme Court of Delaware dismisses the Appellant David D.
Madriz, Jr.'s interlocutory appeal from a stockholder class action
pending in the Court of Chancery.

On July 20, 2023, the Appellant filed this interlocutory appeal. A
proposed settlement has been submitted to the Court of Chancery for
approval.

In his appeal papers, Madriz identified June 27, 2023, as the date
of the interlocutory ruling he was appealing. A review of the Court
of Chancery docket did not reveal any court rulings or orders on
June 27, 2023. The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing
Madriz to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for
his failure to identify a court order subject to appellate review.

In his response to the notice to show cause, Madriz identifies a
June 27, 2023 telephone call he had with a Court of Chancery
employee regarding a document he had previously sent to the Court
of Chancery as the "De facto Interlocutory Order" on appeal.

Judge Seitz holds that Madriz's telephone calls with Court of
Chancery employees who are not judicial officers do not constitute
appealable interlocutory orders. Even if a telephone call with
court staff could constitute an appealable interlocutory order as
Madriz contends, the handling of the April 27, 2023 Letter does not
meet the strict standards for this Court's acceptance of an
interlocutory appeal under Supreme Court Rule 42. This appeal must
be dismissed. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 28, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5jpzs5bs from Leagle.com.


AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Class Action Over Stock Conversion Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Hals, writing for Reuters, reports that AMC Entertainment Inc
was hit with a class-action lawsuit on behalf of preferred
shareholders that are challenging its stock conversion plan, just
days after the cinema operator ended a bruising legal fight with a
different group of investors.

AMC got court approval on Aug. 11 for a settlement of a class
action lawsuit by holders of the company's common stock, clearing
the way for the company to convert its preferred stock, known as
APEs, to common shares.

AMC, a "meme" stock that was part of a social media-fueled trading
frenzy in 2021 along with other companies such as Gamestop, has
said that conversion plan is key to strengthening its finances.

A holder of APEs said in the lawsuit, which was filed late on Aug.
14 but hit the public docket on Aug. 15, that APEs investors are
being shortchanged in the settlement that was approved on Aug. 15.

AMC did not respond to a request for comment.

AMC agreed to settle the class action by holders of common stock by
providing them with additional shares worth an estimated $129
million. The holders of common stock had claimed that the company
rigged a shareholder vote against them.

In the new lawsuit filed in Delaware's Court of Chancery, APE
investor Michael Simons claims AMC is obligated to provide the same
amount of new stock to APE holders as the company is giving to
common shareholders in the settlement.

Simons' complaint said the settlement "has the effect of diluting
the preferred shareholders' ownership interest in AMC." He also
said it violates the certificate of designation that governs AMC's
preferred stock.

The lawsuit adds to months of legal turmoil for the company.
Objections to shareholder class action settlements are rare, but
AMC received thousands from investors who questioned claims about
the company's dire finances. The settlement was initially rejected
by a Court of Chancery judge in July before the judge signed off on
a revised deal on Aug. 15. [GN]

AMERICAN FIRST: Files 9th Cir. Appeal in Andrade Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
AMERICAN FIRST FINANCE, INC. has filed an appeal in the lawsuit
entitled MARIA ANDRADE, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN FIRST FINANCE, INC.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-06743-SK, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, AFF provides
"purchase money loans for the sale of consumer goods through
retailers with whom AFF has a preexisting relationship." It
interacts with customers, such as Andrade, through retailers. AFF
provides its marketing materials, credit application and security
agreement forms, and a hyperlink to its pre-approval process to the
retailers. Andrade alleges that AFF's role is not disclosed to
consumers and that the retailer then purports to assign to AFF the
Security Agreements that individual customers sign.

On Dec. 9, 2015, Andrade purchased several pieces of furniture from
Elegant Furniture in Fresno California. She alleges that she signed
a purchase order, but she was not informed that her sale was being
financed with AFF. She had no interaction with AFF and only
interacted with the retailer, Elegant Furniture. A salesman with
Elegant Furniture told Andrade that the payments for the furniture
would be about $100 every month and "that if she paid for the
furniture in full within 90 days of purchase there would be no
interest."

The Plaintiff brings claims against AFF based on the terms of the
financing with AFF, and she alleges, inter alia, that the interest
rates AFF charged to her and to the putative class members were
unconscionable. She seeks to represent a class defined as "all
California residents who purchased consumer goods from AFF
affiliated businesses and who AFF claims are or were bound to the
terms of its Security Agreement" from Nov. 7, 2014, to the
present." The proposed class is comprised of approximately 180,000
people -- those individuals who have loans with AFF up through
Sept. 29, 2021.

On June 28, 2023, Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim entered an order and
judgment that held that in order to deter Defendant from engaging
in illegal and unfair conduct, it is necessary to award to
Plaintiff in restitution the full amount of money that Defendant
took from her as a result of the transaction. The Court found that
restitution to Plaintiff is appropriate under California Business &
Professions Code and awarded Plaintiff a total amount of $2,161.15
in restitution. The Court found that prejudgment interest is not
necessary to make Plaintiff whole in light of her restitution award
and therefore declined to award her prejudgment interest. Based on
the restitution awarded to Plaintiff, Plaintiff no longer owes any
debt to Defendant. Therefore, Defendant would have no basis to sell
any debt for collections or attempt to seek possession of
Plaintiff's furniture.

On July 17, 2023, the Defendant filed an administrative motion for
extension of time to file bill of costs which the Court denied on
July 18 through an Order entered by Judge Kim.

The appellate case is captioned as Maria Andrade v. American First
Finance, Inc., Case No. 23-16050, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 31, 2023.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant American First Finance, Inc. Mediation
Questionnaire was due on August 7, 2023;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by August 28, 2023;

   -- Transcript is due on September 26, 2023;

   -- Appellant American First Finance, Inc. opening brief is due
on November 6, 2023;

   -- Appellee Maria Andrade 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]

Defendant-Appellant AMERICAN FIRST FINANCE, INC. is represented
by:

          Tomio Buck Narita, Esq.
          WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US), LLP
          50 California Street, Suite 2750
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 519-6093

Plaintiff-Appellee MARIA ANDRADE, on behalf of herself and those
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Robert S. Green, Esq.
          Emrah M. Sumer, Esq.
          GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
          2200 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 101
          Larkspur, CA 94939

APPLE INC: 9th Cir. Dismisses Appeals on Settlement Terms Objection
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Finney and Simone Chavoor, writing for KGO, report that the
United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has cleared the
way for payments to be sent to members of a class action suit
against Apple for deliberately slowing iPhones with aging
batteries.

The court dismissed appeals last week from two individual members
of the class action lawsuit who objected to the terms of the
settlement, meaning that the payments to claimants can now be
sent.

In March 2020, Apple agreed to settle the suit for a minimum of
$310 million, up to $500 million. Consumers who owned iPhone 6, 6
Plus, 6S, 6S Plus, and SE models running iOS 12.2.1 and iPhone 7
and 7 Plus running iOS 11.2 -- and who filed their claim before the
October 2020 deadline -- will be receiving a check for about $65.

In 2018, Apple was accused of slowing down an iPhone's performance
if the operating system detected the device's battery had degraded
with age, which the company has denied. Three million claims were
filed in the class action suit. [GN]

APPLE INC: iOS 15 Degraded iPhone 7 Performance, Margolis Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
DR. FERN MARGOLIS, MAYER MARGOLIS, JUAN PADILLA, ZEV LEWINSON,
EDUARDO ARANIBAR, ELIZABETH GUIDICE, EARL MCFARLAND, GLENNIS
PARKER, and SHAUN BIDDISCOMBE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. APPLE INC. Defendant, Case
No. 5:23-cv-03882 (S.D. Cal., August 2, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for misrepresenting negative effects of iOS
15 on iPhone 7 devices in violation of the Computer Fraud And Abuse
Act, the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act,
California's False and Misleading Advertising Law, California's
Unfair Competition Law, the New York General Business Law, the
Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, the
North Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act, and the Virginia
Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, Apple released iOS 15 in 2021 as the
latest iOS version available at the time. iOS 15 was the last iOS
series that Apple made available for the iPhone 7 and iPhone 7
Plus. Apple promoted iOS 15 as improving the performance of the
iPhone 7 Devices and providing important security updates. The
Company also incessantly told its customers to download updates by
sending notifications directly to their iPhones until they
downloaded the latest version of iOS 15.

iOS 15, however, did not work well on the iPhone 7 Devices.
Instead, it slowed down their performance of basic operations
across apps, as compared to prior iOS versions. This operating
system update also caused myriad other problems as compared to
prior iOS versions, such as apps freezing or crashing, the battery
draining more quickly, the device taking longer to work after
booting, and the device becoming very hot, among other basic
performance problems in the regular usage of the iPhone 7 Devices,
says the suit.

The Plaintiffs are all owners of iPhone 7 Devices who suffered
significant performance degradations after they downloaded iOS 15
onto their devices. The Plaintiffs continued using their iPhone 7
Devices after downloading iOS 15, despite the problems described
above, because they did not want to spend the significant amount of
money it would cost to purchase a new iPhone, the suit asserts.

Apple Inc. is one of the world's largest developers and sellers of
mobile phones and other consumer electronic devices.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP  
          1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 405-7190
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          Michael Grunfeld, Esq.
          Emma Gilmore, Esq.
          Brandon Cordovi, Esq.
          POMERANTZ, LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  egilmore@pomlaw.com
                  mgrunfeld@pomlaw.com
                  bcordovi@pomlaw.com

ARC AUTOMOTIVE: Class Action Over Airbag Inflators Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Beasley Allen disclosed that it filed a class action lawsuit for
owners or lessees of vehicles with defective driver or passenger
side ARC Automotive airbag inflators. The inflators can cause
serious injuries or death.

When consumers buy or lease vehicles, they expect them to have been
inspected and designed with safety in mind.

More than 100 plaintiffs from 36 states this summer filed a
Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleging violations of state
consumer protection and warranty laws.

The plaintiffs also seek to represent a nationwide class on behalf
of all people in the United States who purchased, currently own,
lease, or leased a Class Vehicle containing a driver or passenger
side inflator manufactured by ARC Automotive, Inc. between 2001 and
2018.

The lawsuit filed June 28, 2023, alleges defective airbag inflators
were manufactured by ARC, and/or its subsidiaries, successors, or
affiliates. The airbag inflators are installed in numerous
companies' airbag modules and distributed or marketed through
several vehicle manufacturers.

These defective vehicles pose a serious risk to the safety and
health of occupants. Airbag inflators from vehicles in the Class
Action suit use gas and propellant to fill the airbag cushion
during a crash. The ARC-made defective airbag inflators are
manufactured through a friction-welding process, which fuses
components of the airbag inflator using heat and rotation. ARC's
friction-welding process, however, inadequately joins the airbag
inflator components together and creates excess weld flash, which
can exit the inflator upon deployment or rupture the inflator
entirely. Due to the location and proximity to vehicle occupants,
the inflator defect places occupants at severe risk of bodily
injury or death.

The National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration's
conclusions followed a nearly eight-year investigation. During that
time, there have been at least 10 known ruptures of the defective
inflators in vehicles, including seven driver inflators and three
passenger inflators. Two of those ruptures resulted in driver
fatalities.

Based on known incidents in the field, NHTSA's ongoing
investigation, pre-release design and testing, and numerous vehicle
manufacturer recalls, the defendants have long known about the
inflator defect and the risk to consumer safety.

NHTSA has demanded that ARC recall the defective inflators to
address the serious safety defect. Despite this demand, ARC refuses
to issue any recall of the approximately 30 million affected
vehicles for this failure mode.

If you or someone you know has experienced the inflator defect or
has a defective ARC-made airbag inflator in their vehicle, our firm
would like to speak with you.

This case is being pursued by Beasley Allen Consumer Fraud lawyers
Dee Miles, Demet Basar, Clay Barnett, Mitch Williams, and Dylan
Martin. [GN]

ARC ONE PROTECTIVE: Faces Pasteur Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
RAYNARD PASTEUR, individually and on behalf of all of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARC ONE PROTECTIVE SERVICES LLC, a
Florida Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No.
6:23-cv-01479 (M.D. Fla., August 2, 2023) is a class action brought
by the Plaintiff under Fair Labor Standards Act against the
Defendant for failing to compensate hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week at one and one-half times the regular hourly rate.

The Plaintiff began working for Defendant on August 17, 2021, and
was assigned to provide security services at the COVID testing
sites. His employment with Defendant ended on June 23, 2022.

Arc One Protective Services LLC is engaged in the business of
providing full-service private security services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy D. Friedman, Esq.
          Paul A. Hankin, Esq.
          THE DOWNS LAW GROUP, P.A.
          3250 Mary Street, Suite 307
          Coconut Grove, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 444-8226
          Facsimile: (305) 444-6773
          E-mail: jfriedman@downslawgroup.com
                  phankin@downslawgroup.com

AUTOZONERS LLC: Contreras Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL CONTRERAS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AUTOZONERS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability
company; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
23STCV17970 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 31, 2023) arises
from the Defendant's alleged unlawful labor policies and practices
in violation of the Private Attorneys General Act of the California
Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant's failure to provide their
non-exempt employees with all wages at the regular rate, accurate
itemized wage statements, and timely pay all wages during and upon
termination of employment in compliance with the applicable wage
order and/or the state law.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant in Temple City, California
from approximately 2019 through approximately December 28, 2022.
Plaintiff worked as a store manager and earned approximately $22.82
per hour.

AutoZoners, LLC is a retailer of automotive parts and accessories
headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley Grombacher, Esq.
          Lirit King, Esq.
          BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
          31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (805) 270-7100
          Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
          E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
                  kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
                  lking@bradleygrombacher.com

               - and -

          Garen Majarian, Esq.
          Sahag Majarian, II, Esq.
          MAJARIAN LAW GROUP APC
          18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 263-7343
          Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
          E-mail: garen@majarianlawgroup.com

AVOCADO MATTRESS: False Advertising Class Action Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Bedding News Now reports that a proposed class action that alleged
Avocado Mattress had falsely advertised its latex mattresses,
pillows and mattress toppers as free of synthetic and nontoxic
chemicals has been dismissed.

"We are pleased to report that the proposed class-action lawsuit
against Avocado has been dismissed," the company said in a
statement to Bedding News Now. "As is common in these legal
matters, we cannot discuss further details, but we are glad to put
this issue behind us."

The lawsuit alleged several false claims against the company about
creating products containing synthetic and/or harmful chemicals.

In fact, Avocado Green Brands, in addition to using natural
materials in its products, is involved with several green
initiatives, including releasing an annual sustainability and
impact report to exemplify its efforts. In addition, the company is
Climate Neutral Certified, which means it has committed to
reduction targets and specific action plans to reduce operational
and value chain emissions within the next 12-24 months. [GN]

BEEEPERMD LLC: Gibson Sues Over Mobile Testers' Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
ALEESHA GIBSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BEEEPERMD, LLC., a Florida Limited Liability
Company, COLLABRATORY VENTURES, LLC., a Florida Limited Liability
Company, COLLABRATORY VENTURES II LLC., a Florida Limited Liability
Company and JEREMY GELBART, individually Defendants, Case No.
9:23-cv-81102 (S.D. Fla., Aug. 1, 2023) is a collective action
brought by Plaintiff against the Defendants pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and
alleged contractual obligations, or unjust enrichment if no
contract.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a mobile tester from
approximately January 2022 through June 22, 2022, in Florida. She
asserts that Defendants required and/or permitted her to work as a
non-exempt, hourly paid "Tester" in excess of 40 hours per week but
refused to compensate her and similarly situated workers for all
hours worked.

BeeperMD, LLC is an online scheduling service that automatically
confirms appointments and keeps track of doctor's schedules.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noah E. Storch, Esq.
          RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
          10368 W. State Road 84, Suite 103
          Davie, FL 33324
          Telephone: (866) 344-9243
          Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
          E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com

BISHOP OF CHARLESTON: 4th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Nestler
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GARY NESTLER, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated; VIEWED STUDENT FEMALE 200, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated; VIEWED STUDENT MALE
300, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. THE BISHOP OF CHARLESTON, a Corporation
Sole; BISHOP ENGLAND HIGH SCHOOL; TORTFEASORS, 1-10; THE BISHOP OF
THE DIOCESE OF CHARLESTON, in his official capacity; ROBERT
GUGLIELMONE, individually, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 22-1750
(4th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit affirms the
district court's denial of the Students' motion for class
certification and grant of summary judgment in favor of the
Defendants.

After learning that an employee of Bishop England High School
("Bishop High") covertly filmed Bishop High students disrobing
through a locker room window, Bishop High students and parents of
Bishop High students brought this putative class action. Relevant
to this appeal, although the Students did not allege that a Bishop
High employee filmed the students or even viewed them through a
locker room window, the Students brought a claim for wrongful
intrusion into private affairs under South Carolina law, alleging
they could state a claim based on the potential that they were
viewed while partially or completely nude.

The district court denied the Students' motion for class
certification and granted summary judgment in favor of the
Defendants. In so doing, it heavily relied on its determination
that South Carolina case law permits success on the tort of
wrongful intrusion into private affairs only when the plaintiff can
show that an actual viewing occurred. The Students appeal, arguing
that the district court's interpretation of South Carolina law was
erroneous.

Bishop High is a Catholic high school in Charleston, South
Carolina. Students participating in physical education or sporting
events at Bishop High disrobed in locker rooms that shared
adjoining walls with Bishop High coaching staff offices. Each wall
contained a 4' by 4' glass window that made it possible for Bishop
High employees, and anyone else with access to the offices, to view
students in the locker rooms as they disrobed. In May 2019, it came
to light that Bishop High's Director of Sports Information had used
a locker room window to surreptitiously film students in the
process of disrobing and who had already disrobed.

After learning of that employee's conduct, the Students brought a
putative class action in the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas,
claiming, inter alia, wrongful intrusion into private affairs. They
brought their claims against Bishop High; the Bishop of Charleston,
a Corporation Sole; and Robert Guglielmone, the Bishop of
Charleston, individually and in his official capacity. The Fourth
Circuit refers to these defendants collectively as "the School."

After the School removed this case to federal court pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1453(b), the Students moved for class certification
of two proposed classes -- a "Viewed Class" and a "Tuition Class."
The Viewed Class would be made up of Bishop High students, or their
representatives, who were required to disrobe in the locker rooms
and who therefore could have been viewed by persons on the other
side of the windows. The Tuition Class would consist of all persons
who paid tuition for a Bishop High student who was required to use
the locker rooms and was thus subject to possible viewing through
the windows. Both classes are limited to students and parents
within a 20-year period who may have claims against the School
based on its employees "monitoring, watching, viewing, spying,
prying, besetting, photographing or videotaping them, or other such
similar type conduct," through the viewing windows of the coaches'
offices into the locker rooms.

The School opposed the motion, arguing that the Students could not
meet the requirements of class certification. In relevant part, the
School asserted that the proposed class members were not
ascertainable and were instead "fail-safe" classes because there
was no evidence they had actually been viewed. Further, the School
contended that the Students lacked standing because, without
evidence of actual viewing, they could not show a concrete injury.
In response, the Students asserted that the potential for
monitoring was sufficient to prove a claim for wrongful intrusion
into private affairs under South Carolina law such that evidence of
actual viewing was unnecessary. Pressing that interpretation of
state law, the Students asserted that they met the requirements for
class certification and had suffered a cognizable injury.

The district court denied the Students' motion for class
certification. It had multiple reasons for that denial but two are
particularly relevant on appeal. First, the district court
concluded that South Carolina law explicitly requires that
information about the victim be acquired by the defendant for the
tort to be actionable, but the Students could not demonstrate that
anyone actually viewed them through the locker room windows. As a
result, the district court determined that the Students could not
meet multiple class certification requirements, including
ascertainability, and that they lacked standing. Second, the
district court explained that the Students failed to address the
superiority requirement of class certification.

Thereafter, the School filed a motion for summary judgment, which
the district court granted, reasoning that without evidence of
actual viewing, the named plaintiffs failed to establish that they
suffered a legally cognizable injury.

The Students timely appeal from both the denial of class
certification and the grant of summary judgment. The Fourth Circuit
has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1291.

The Students' appeal essentially rests on their assertion that the
district court applied the wrong legal standard because the South
Carolina tort of wrongful intrusion into private affairs does not
require an actual viewing to be actionable.

Although the Fourth Circuit does not downplay what is alleged to
have occurred, conclusory statements alleging "anxiety" -- without
more -- do not demonstrate the requisite "serious mental or
physical injury or humiliation" necessary to establish injury.  All
that the Students put forward in their complaint and the record are
generalized statements, unsupported by medical records or other
testimony that would allow a factfinder to determine the
seriousness of the alleged injury. There is simply insufficient
evidence to support their allegations as a matter of law.
Therefore, the Students failed to satisfy the requirements for a
claim of wrongful intrusion into private affairs, making summary
judgment appropriate. As a result, the Fourth Circuit affirms the
district court's judgment, albeit for a different reason than the
district court.

Although this analysis would also lead the Fourth Circuit to affirm
the district court's denial of class certification, it has an
additional basis for doing so given the Students' failure to
challenge on appeal a separate ground the district court relied on
to deny class certification. As the district court explained in its
order, the Students wholly failed to address the superiority
requirement of class certification in their motion before the
district court.

Given that the Students had the burden to prove superiority and yet
failed to make any argument that would permit the district court to
make such a finding, the court appropriately denied class
certification. Any argument to the contrary was forfeited, and the
Fourth Circuit need not address it further.

Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit affirms the judgment of the
district court because the Students failed to demonstrate an injury
resulting from the potential viewing -- as is required for a claim
for wrongful intrusion into private affairs under either parties'
interpretation of the "viewing" requirement.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 28, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2rac5b2v from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: David Kevin Lietz -- dlietz@milberg.com -- MILBERG,
Washington, D.C., for the Appellants.

Richard Sears Dukes, Jr. -- rdukes@turnerpadget.com -- TURNER
PADGET GRAHAM & LANEY, P.A., Charleston, South Carolina, for the
Appellees.

ON BRIEF: Lawrence E. Richter, Jr. -- lrichter@richterfirm.com --
RICHTER FIRM, LLC, Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina; Carl L. Solomon --
cls@solomonlawsc.com -- SOLOMON LAW GROUP, LLC, Columbia, South
Carolina, for the Appellant.

Carmelo B. Sammataro -- ssammataro@turnerpadget.com -- TURNER
PADGET GRAHAM & LANEY, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for the
Appellees.


BOB COCHRAN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Voight Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA VOIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BOB COCHRAN MOTORS, INC.; #1 COCHRAN BUICK
GMC, INC.; COCHRAN AUTO BODY & SERVICE, LLC; COCHRAN COLLISION OF
CRANBERRY, LLC; COCHRAN COLLISION OF GREENSBURG, LLC; COCHRAN
INFINITY, INC.; COCHRAN MOTORS, INC.; COCHRAN OLDSMOBILE, INC.;
COCHRAN SATURN, INC.; COCHRAN SOUTH HILLS, INC.; #1 COCHRAN
INFINITY OF SOUTH HILLS, INC.; COCHRAN INFINITI, INC.; COCHRAN
SATURN, INC.; REC28, INC.; RCVW, INC.; AV AUTOMOTIVE, INC.; COCHRAN
IMPORTS, INC.; COCHRAN 2756, INC.; COCHRAN FAR, INC.; AV FORD,
INC.; RC20, INC.; COCHRAN GLWC INVESTMENTS, LLC; REC18, INC.;
REC76, INC.; REC46, INC.; REC21, INC.; REC27, INC.; REC24, INC.;
REC25, INC.; REC23, INC.; REC26, INC.; AVMH, INC.; CANONSBURG
COLLISION, LLC; WASHINGTON COLLISION, LLC; NORTH HILLS COLLISION,
LLC, collectively d/b/a # 1 COCHRAN, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-01455-NR (W.D. Pa., Aug. 15, 2023) seeks to recover from
the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff Voight was employed by the Defendants as a collision
technician.

Bob Cochran Motors, Inc. operates as a car dealer. The Company
offers new and used cars, as well as provides rental, maintenance,
post warranty repairs, mechanical and painting work, diagnosis
insurance, valuation, and security services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua P. Ward, Esq.
          Justin M. Bahorich, Esq.
          J.P. WARD & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          The Rubicon Building
          201 South Highland Avenue Suite 201
          Pittsburgh, PA 15206
          Telephone: (412) 545-3016
          Facsimile: (412) 540-3399
          Email: jward@jpward.com
                 jbahorich@jpward.com

BOB'S RED: Hayden Sues Over Flaxseed Products' Misleading Label
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARK HAYDEN individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BOB'S RED MILL NATURAL FOODS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-03862-AGT (N.D. Cal., Aug. 1, 2023)
arises from the Defendant's conduct of misleading consumers about
the health benefits and quality of flaxseed products and failing to
disclose that the products contain unsafe and unlawful levels of
cadmium, in violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act
and the California's Unfair Competition Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant manufactures two flaxseed
products called Bob's Red Mill Whole Ground Flaxseed Meal and Bob's
Red Mill Golden Flaxseed Meal. The labels for each of these
products give reasonable consumers the impression that the products
are healthy and made with quality ingredients and do not contain
unlawful levels of heavy metals. For example, the front labels on
each of the Products state: "To Your Good Health," "You Can See Our
Quality," "Non-GMO," and "Gluten Free." The net-effect or
net-impression of the products' labeling on consumers is that the
products do not contain any potentially harmful ingredients like
high levels of cadmium, says the suit.

Consumers, including Plaintiff, would not have purchased
Defendant's products if they had known the products contain high
levels of cadmium, a substance which has known adverse health
effects on humans, the suit added.

Bob's Red Mill Natural Foods, Inc. is a manufacturer of various
whole-grain food products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zachary M. Crosne, Esq.
          Craig W. Straub, Esq.
          Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
          CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
          9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (866) 276-7637
          Facsimile: (310) 510-6429   
          E-mail: zach@crosnerlegal.com
                  craig@crosnerlegal.com
                  mhouchin@crosnerlegal.com

CANADA: Class Action Over Immigration Policy Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Toronto Star's Manuela Vega provides the latest update on a
class-action lawsuit against a former immigration policy and
Trudeau's response to the housing crisis.

A lawsuit claims Canada's now defunct safe country rules
"marginalize, prejudice, and stereotype" refugees

Piotr Marek Kaczor, a gay man from Poland, and Aniko Horvathne
Serban, a Roma minority from Hungary, thought arriving in Canada
would mean leaving behind discriminatory experiences. But upon
arriving, the Canadian government barred them from obtaining work
permits and pre-removal risk assessments based on their country of
origin. Although the federal government got rid of the so-called
designated country of origin list behind the policy in 2019, Kaczor
and Serban say the damage has already been done and they want
justice. They're filing a $100 million class-action suit on behalf
of 20,000 current and former refugee claimants, Nicholas Keung
reports. Here's more on what they faced under the previous system.

At a recent housing announcement in Hamilton, the prime minister
caused a stir when he said housing prices aren't primarily a
federal responsibility, Alex Ballingall reports. And while housing
advocates, business groups and opposition parties call for more
action to reduce costs, inflation is only making construction more
expensive. Altogether, the Liberals have a "toxic" political
dilemma on their hands -- one it's not doing enough to address,
according to a former senior economic adviser in Trudeau's office.
This is what's going so wrong. [GN]

CHATTANOOGA HEART: Faces Two Class Actions Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chattanoogan.com reports that two class action lawsuits have been
filed against the Chattanooga Heart Institute.

One was brought by the Mason Law Firm and another by a Memphis
attorney. They were filed in Hamilton County Circuit Court.

Still other class action lawsuits have been filed against CHI in
Federal Court.

One lawsuit says extensive personal information was released during
the breach of over 170,000 current and former patients.

CHI was alerted to the cybersecurity attack around April 17. It was
found that it occurred between March 8-16.

The suit says those individuals whose data was leaked will be at
risk for financial harm for the rest of their lives, saying the
information taken was "a gold mine for data thieves."

It says the data could be used for a variety of financial crimes.

The suit says there is no indication that CHI has since improved
its data protection.

It asks for unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. [GN]

CHURCH & DWIGHT: Agrees to Settle Dry Shampoo Class Suit for $2.5M
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaushal S., writing for SK Lifestyle, reports that Church &
Dwight's co-owned Batiste dry shampoo brand has agreed to resolve a
$2.5 million class action lawsuit. The lawsuit that was filed in
November 2022 alleged that the Batiste-branded dry shampoo
contained unsafe levels of a human carcinogen -- Benzene.

Though Church & Dwight never accepted the allegations made by the
lawsuit, the establishment has now agreed to compensate all class
members either in the form of purchase vouchers or cash payments.
The compensation is available to all members who may have purchased
the Batiste Bare dry shampoo and other similar products on or
before May 30, 2023.

Class members across the country will be able to claim their
compensation by filling out a 'Claim Form' available on the website
-- https://cd-settlement.com/submit-claim -- until November 15,
2023. Individuals can receive up to $10 or more if they submit the
form with or without a receipt.

Individuals can claim the compensation under the Batiste dry
shampoo $2.5 million settlement until November 15, 2023

The class members who participated in the November 2022 Batiste dry
shampoo lawsuit, are eligible to receive compensation under the
$2.5 million settlement. To claim the compensation, all class
members must fill out the Batiste dry shampoo lawsuit settlement
'Claim Form' on this website --
https://cd-settlement.com/submit-claim -- before November 15,
2023.

All consumers who may have purchased the Batiste Light Bare,
Batiste Clean, or Batiste Bare Dry shampoo products on or before
May 30, 2023, may be eligible for the compensation.

Filling out the Batiste dry shampoo lawsuit settlement claim form
only requires individuals to enter details including information
about the purchased products, the consumer's name, mailing address,
and the method they would prefer to receive the payment through.
The form also has the option to submit a receipt for a higher
payout on all qualifying purchases.

Consumers or class members can receive compensation under the
following conditions on all valid claims made until November 15,
2023:

Consumers who may have purchased any of the Batiste products but
can't provide proof with a receipt will be eligible for a $2 refund
on up to five products. The refund can be availed either in cash or
a voucher.

Those who purchased one or more Batiste products except Bare dry
shampoos will be eligible to claim product vouchers of $2 each for
over five products. The maximum compensation cannot surpass $10.

Consumers who purchased any Batiste Light Bare, Batiste Clean, or
Batiste Bare Dry shampoo products and can provide a receipt or
proof of purchase will receive a full refund for all purchases.

The final hearing for the November 2022 Batiste-branded dry shampoo
settlement is scheduled for October 16, 2023. Though the brand has
not hinted at a confirmed payout date for the settlement, class
members can expect an announcement soon after the hearing. [GN]

DELTA AIR: Settlement Claim Form Submission Deadline Set Sept. 15
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Parker Erb, writing for Insider, reports that if you had a
Delta flight canceled early in the Covid-19 pandemic, you may
finally get a refund.

That's due to a recent class-action lawsuit, which Delta has agreed
to settle.

Insider breaks down how to determine if you qualify and how to get
a refund if you do.

Anyone who had plans to fly at the start of 2020 will remember the
travel nightmare that began that March when the spread of Covid-19
left a barrage of canceled and disrupted flights.

Now, certain Delta Air Lines passengers whose flights were canceled
during the first year of the pandemic might be eligible for
compensation, thanks to a class-action lawsuit (Dusko v. Delta Air
Lines) the company agreed to settle. A court has yet to decide but
has granted preliminary approval of the settlement, per a website
dedicated to the class action.

According to the website, Delta "breached its contracts of carriage
with ticketholders" by refusing refunds for flights canceled during
the pandemic, instead providing credits for future travel.
According to the website, Delta has denied all allegations and
agreed to settle to avoid further litigation.

A representative for Delta did not respond to Insider's request for
comment, made outside regular working hours.

Are you eligible for a refund?
To be eligible, you must be a US citizen who received credit -- not
cash -- for a non-refundable Delta flight canceled between March 1,
2020, and April 30, 2021.

You must have requested a refund but not received one and have
unused or partial unused credit as of January 13, 2023.

Delta employees, their family members, judges involved with the
case, and their family members, are not eligible.

What can you get from the settlement?
Passengers who meet the above criteria can request either a cash
refund or credit for each eligible ticket. The cash refund equals
the ticket's original amount.

The credit refund will equal the amount of unused credit plus 7%
interest. The credit will be valid for one year from the time it's
issued, according to the website.

How to request a refund if you're eligible:
If you qualify, you must complete a claim form online.
Alternatively, some people may have already received an email
notifying them of their eligibility -- those individuals can find a
link to the claim form in the email.

Qualifying passengers can also fill out a physical claim form and
mail it in. Claim forms must be filed by September 15, 2023.

According to the site, the court is set to hold a hearing on
October 5 to determine whether to approve the settlement. Refunds
won't be issued until any appeals are resolved, and the site
suggests that passengers "please be patient." [GN]

DISCOVER PRODUCTS: Underpays Customer Service Reps, Harris Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
KEYONA HARRIS, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DISCOVER PRODUCTS INC., a corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-05071 (N.D. Ill., August 2, 2023) is a
collective and class action brought by the Plaintiff, individually
and on behalf of all similarly situated persons employed by
Defendant, arising from Defendant's willful violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Illinois
Wage Payment and Collection Act, and common law.

The complaint alleges the Defendant's violation of the federal and
state laws by systematically failing to compensate its customer
service representatives, including Plaintiff, for work tasks
completed before and after their scheduled shifts when they are not
logged into Defendant's timekeeping system, which resulted in CSRs
not being paid for all overtime hours worked, overtime gap time
when associated with unpaid overtime and in non-overtime workweeks,
for regular hours.

Plaintiff Harris is a resident of Chicago, Illinois and worked for
Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt customer service representative
in Defendant's Chicago, Illinois brick and mortar call center from
approximately February 2021 through November 2021 and remotely from
approximately November 2021 through March 2022.

Discover Products Inc. is a digital bank and payments services
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew L. Turner, Esq.
          Alana A. Karbal, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, 17th Floor
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: mturner@sommerspc.com
                  akarbal@sommerspc.com

ECO BRITE: Patino Sues Over Biometric Data Retention
----------------------------------------------------
IRENE PATINO, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ECO BRITE LINENS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2023LA000811 (Ill. Cir., Dupage Cty., August 2, 2023) seeks to
obtain statutory damages and other equitable relief under the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act arising from the
Defendant's alleged unlawful biometric scanning and storage
practices.

As past and present employees of Defendant, Plaintiff and class
members were required to provide it with their personalized
biometric identifiers and the biometric information derived
therefrom. Specifically, 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 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 in violation of BIPA, says the
suit.

Eco Brite Linens, LLC is a for-profit corporation that is
registered to and doing business in the state of Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

EOS ENERGY: Faces Houck Suit Over Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM HOUCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EOS ENERGY ENTERPRISES, INC., JOSEPH
MASTRANGELO, RANDALL GONZALE, and NATHAN KROEKER, Defendants, Case
No. 3:23-cv-04113 (D.N.J., Aug. 1, 2023) is a class action on
behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Eos securities between May 9, 2022 and July 27, 2023, inclusive,
pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Bridgelink Commodities,
LLC is connected to a group whose assets were seized by a creditor
and sold in an auction; (2) that, as such, customer Bridgelink
Commodities, LLC's commitment and ability to purchase Eos products
was not as secure as Eos had led investors to believe; (3) that, as
such, Eos' backlog was overstated; (4) that such overstatement
negatively impacts Eos' ability to secure a loan from the
Department of Energy; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.39 per share, or
14.7%, to close at $2.26 per share on July 28, 2023, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

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

Eos Energy Enterprises, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and
markets zinc-based energy storage solutions for utility-scale,
microgrid, and commercial & industrial applications.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donald A. Ecklund, Esq.
          Kevin G. Cooper, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.   
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
          E-mail: decklund@carellabyrne.com
                  kcooper@carellabyrne.com

EROS INT'L: $25MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 28
---------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

                             C. A. No. 19-cv-14125 (ES)(JSA)

IN RE EROS INTERNATIONAL PLC  
SECURITIES LITIGATION
                             Honorable Esther Salas


SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING;
AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES
AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO:  All persons and entities who, during the period between July
28, 2017 and August 3, 2021, inclusive, purchased or otherwise
acquired Eros Media World Plc, f/k/a ErosSTX Global Corporation,
f/k/a Eros International Plc ("Eros") class A ordinary shares (New
York Stock Exchange ("NYSE"): EROS) and/or ErosSTX common stock
(NYSE: ESGC) and were damaged thereby (the "Settlement
Class"):

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 and an Order of the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey, that the above-captioned litigation
(the "Action") has been certified as a class action on behalf of
the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and entities who
are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition as set forth
in the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and
Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III)
Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of
Litigation Expenses (the "Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiffs in the Action have
reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $25,000,000 in cash
(the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in
the Action.

A hearing will be held on November 28, 2023, at 2:00 p.m., before
the Honorable Esther Salas at the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey, Martin Luther King Building & U.S.
Courthouse, Courtroom MLK 5A, 50 Walnut Street, Newark, NJ 07102,
to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved
as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should
be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases
specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement dated April 4, 2023 (and in the Notice) should be
granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be
approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's
application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses should be approved.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet
received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at In re Eros
International Plc Securities Litigation, c/o Epiq, P.O. Box 2320,
Portland, OR 97208-2320, 1-855-619-1409. Copies of the Notice and
Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website maintained by
the Claims Administrator, www.ErosSecuritiesLitigation.com.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than December 6, 2023.
If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper
Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution
of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be
bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than November 7, 2023,
in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the
Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and
delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they
are received no later than November 7, 2023, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Eros, or its
counsel regarding this notice.  All questions about this notice,
the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:

In re Eros International Plc Securities Litigation   
c/o Epiq
P.O. Box 2320
Portland, OR 97208-2320
855-619-1409
www.ErosSecuritiesLitigation.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made
to Lead Counsel:

Kara M. Wolke, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
(888) 773-9224
settlements@glancylaw.com

By Order of the Court

URL: www.ErosSecuritiesLitigation.com


FEDEX GROUND: Removes Bruno Suit to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case of ROBERTO BRUNO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FEDEX GROUND
PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC.; DOE HUBBARD; and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles (Case No. 23AHCV01619) to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on Aug. 16, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:23-cv-06729. The case is assigned to Hernan D Vera and
referred to Magistrate A. Joel Richlin.

FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC. provides package delivery
services. The Company delivers packages by truck to residential and
business addresses throughout North America. [BN]

The Defendants are represented byL

          Shaun J. Voigt, Esq.
          Victoria Shin, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 330-4500
          Facsimile: (213) 330-4501
          Email: svoigt@fisherphillips.com
                 vshin@fisherphillips.com

FIRSTENERGY CORP: Class Action Over Bailout Scandal Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marty Schladen, writing for Ohio Capital Journal, reports that
after two former Republican officials in June were sentenced for
their roles in a massive racketeering conspiracy, U.S. Attorney
Kenneth Parker said the investigation was continuing. At least two
signs emerged that the proceedings might be intensifying.

Former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder was sentenced to 20
years in federal prison on June 29 and former state GOP Chairman
Matt Borges was sentenced to five years a day later. Both played
roles in a scandal in which Akron-based FirstEnergy and other
utilities paid more than $61 million to pass a $1.3 billion
ratepayer bailout that was mostly intended for a subsidiary that
FirstEnergy was spinning off that owned two Northern Ohio nuclear
plants.

In addition to Householder and Borges, two others who were arrested
in July 2020 have pleaded guilty and a third died by suicide.

But on March 10, just after a jury convicted Householder and
Borges, a reporter asked Parker an obvious question: What about the
people who paid the bribes? Would they be charged? Parker would
only say that the investigation was continuing.

Attorneys for the men who were FirstEnergy's top executives at the
time of the conspiracy -- former CEO Chuck Jones and former Vice
President Michael Dowling -- have already said in court filings
that they believe federal investigators are looking at their
clients.

This month brought two more pieces of evidence that federal
investigators are considering further prosecutions in the bribery
and money laundering scandal.

On Aug. 4, Hilary M. Williams, who is representing FirstEnergy,
submitted a filing in a massive class-action case against the
company over the bailout scandal. She informed the scores of
lawyers for the pension and investment funds suing the company that
they're not the only ones who want to see the emails and text
messages the FirstEnergy executives sent as the bribery scheme was
taking place.

"Counsel . . . we confirmed that we may disclose to the parties
that certain governmental authorities have requested the production
of the entire contents of iPad and iPhone devices used by Mr. Jones
or Mr. Dowling from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2020,"
Williams wrote. "In keeping with the protocol in this matter, those
documents will be produced to all parties, and we expect to do so
at approximately the same time that production is made to the
requesting governmental authorities."

She added. "Mr. Dowling and Mr. Jones used more than a dozen
devices during the relevant time period, and processing and
reviewing the contents of those devices requires substantial
processing time and then time to review for confidentiality and
privilege. We are working to complete the review as quickly as
possible, and expect to make these productions on or about
September 15, 2023."

A spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney's office didn't comment on
whether the "governmental authorities" Williams referred to worked
for Parker, whose office prosecuted Householder and Borges.

However, Parker sent a letter to the Public Utility Commission of
Ohio asking the regulator to further postpone its investigation
into the racketeering scandal.

"The PUCO proceedings involve issues related to the U.S. Department
of Justice of the United States' investigation, and the United
States believes that continued discovery in the PUCO proceedings
may directly interfere with or impede the United States' ongoing
investigation," the letter said. "For that reason, the United
States respectfully requests that PUCO stay the PUCO proceedings
for a period of six months from the date of this letter. The United
States reserves the right to request that the stay be extended
beyond this time."

Among those the feds may be investigating are Jones, Dowling and
Sam Randazzo, whom Gov. Mike DeWine nominated to chair the PUCO in
early 2019.

In a deferred prosecution agreement, FirstEnergy said it paid
Randazzo a $4.3 million bribe just before his nomination in
exchange for favors the ostensible regulator did for the company.
Randazzo denies wrongdoing, but in the Householder trial, witnesses
testified that Randazzo played a key role in drafting the corrupt
bailout legislation.

Plaintiffs in the class-action suit earlier this month filed texts
and emails between Jones, Dowling and Randazzo. They indicate that
the three met in Randazzo's Columbus condo in December 2018 and
arranged to pay the soon-to-be regulator $4.3 million and made it
clear that they expected something in return. They also appear to
indicate that in addition to his work on the the bailout, Randazzo
helped exempt FirstEnergy from a 2024 rate review it had been
required to undergo.

The class-action plaintiffs are accusing FirstEnergy of violating
securities law by concealing its illegal conduct from investors.
They filed a transcript of an earnings call from July 23, 2020 --
days after Householder, Borges and three others were arrested in
the racketeering conspiracy. In it, Jones appeared to mislead
analysts about his and his company's role in it.

"I believe that FirstEnergy acted properly in this matter, and we
intend to cooperate fully with the investigation to, among other
things, ensure our company and our role in supporting House Bill 6
is understood as accurately as possible," said Jones, who would be
fired months later. "In the meantime, we wanted to share our
preliminary perspective on this issue and reinforce the values with
which we operate our company."

Jones also claimed that he and his subordinates followed "the
highest standards of conduct."

"This is a serious and disturbing situation," he said. "Ethical
behavior and upholding the highest standards of conduct are
foundational values for the entire FirstEnergy family and me
personally. These high standards have fostered the trust of our
employees, our customers and the financial community. We strive to
apply these standards in all business dealings including our
participation in the political process."

Jones sat for a sworn deposition in the class-action case in July.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Kimberly Jolson ordered Dowling to sit for
one in October. [GN]

FLORIDA: Seeks Dismissal of Transgender Treatment Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fox 35 Orlando reports that attorneys for the State of Florida are
trying to fend off an attempt to create a class-action lawsuit out
of a challenge to new restrictions on treatments for transgender
people.

The state on Aug. 14 filed a 28-page court document urging U.S.
District Judge Robert Hinkle to reject certification of a class
action in a lawsuit filed on behalf of transgender children and
adults. The lawsuit challenges a new law (SB 254), championed by
Gov. Ron DeSantis, that banned doctors from providing treatments
such as hormone therapy and puberty blockers to transgender
children.

The law also put restrictions on treatments for adults diagnosed
with gender dysphoria.

A revised version of the lawsuit, filed on July 21, sought class
certification. The lawsuit breaks down types of plaintiffs into
three potential classes, depending on whether plaintiffs are
children or adults and certain other circumstances. In each class,
it said "common questions of law and fact exist" to support class
certification. But in the document filed on Aug. 14, attorneys for
the state argued that class certification is "entirely
inappropriate" in the case, in part because of what they said are
varying factors involving plaintiffs.

"There are no common legal or factual questions in any of the
plaintiffs' three proposed classes that could conceivably counsel
in favor of class certification," the document said. [GN]

FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Engines
--------------------------------------------------
Jessy Edwards, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that a group
of Ford Escape, Maverick and Lincoln Corsair drivers are suing the
automaker alleging the vehicles were sold with a dangerous defect
that sometimes led to the engine combusting into an "inferno."

Plaintiffs Todd Nishon, James Capps, Joseph Vaillancourt, Harry
Hilburg, Raymond Dynne II, and William Simmons filed the class
action lawsuit against Ford Motor Company on Aug. 8 in a Michigan
federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer
laws.

According to the lawsuit, Ford sold Escapes, Mavericks and Lincoln
Corsairs equipped with faulty engines that can suffer a blown
engine. The engine can allegedly seize and shatter the engine rods
and connecting bearings, which can then be propelled through the
engine block itself or the oil pan.

"The 'block breach' or blown engine, however named, causes the
engine to stall and it causes highly flammable fluid and vapors to
escape, causing an under hood fire, or at least presenting a
serious fire risk," the plaintiffs say.

Though Ford knew or should have known of the stall and fire risk
prior to launching the vehicles, it did nothing to promptly warn
owners and lessees, instead waiting over a year to announce a
safety recall, the plaintiffs allege.

Ford's fix 'utterly failed,' lawsuit states
Once complaints surfaced, Ford allegedly assured its customers it
had developed a fix that would alleviate the risk of fire. However,
the lawsuit alleges the automaker chose not to inspect the engines
to determine which cars had the defect or issue a fix that
addressed it.

As a result, Ford's fix, "utterly failed, leaving all owners in the
same position as owners like Plaintiffs Nishon and Capps who
suffered catastrophic car fires when the engines in their
Stall/Fire Risk Vehicles blew up."

Nishon describes how, on Oct. 28, 2022, the engine compartment in
his Ford Escape hybrid exploded into flames, and he was "fortunate
to escape the inferno." Meanwhile, Capps was driving in Arizona on
Feb. 24, 2021, when he noticed smoke coming from his Ford Escape
Hybrid. He says he pulled over and he and his wife jumped out.
Within 15 minutes, the vehicle was "totally consumed" by fire, the
lawsuit states.

The plaintiffs are suing on behalf of anyone who purchased or
leased model year 2020-2023 Ford Escape, 2022-2023 Ford Maverick or
2021-2023 Lincoln Corsair vehicles. They're suing for breach of
warranty, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment and violations
of state consumer laws.

They are seeking certification of the class action, restitution,
damages, fees, costs and a jury trial.

Meanwhile, Ford Motor Co. is dealing with a number of class action
lawsuits and recalls.

The plaintiffs are represented by Steve W. Berman, Thomas E. Loeser
and Abigail D. Pershing of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

The Ford Motor Co. class action lawsuit is Todd Nishon, et al. v.
Ford Motor Co., Case No. 2:23-cv-11972-LVP-EAS in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. [GN]

GAP INC: Faces Class Action Over WARN Act Violations
----------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that Gap
failed to give any of its remote-working employees the legally
required sixty days notice prior to the clothing retail company
conducting a mass layoff in April 2023, a new class action lawsuit
alleges.

Plaintiff Ian O'Reilly claims Gap is required by the federal Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) to provide at
least 60 days notice to its employees before conducting a mass
layoff.

O'Reilly argues Gap did give the required 60 days notice to
in-person workers at the company's San Francisco headquarters when
it conducted its mass layoff in April 2023, yet failed to provide
the same notice to employees who worked remotely.

"Gap Inc. gave Mr. O'Reilly only fifteen days notice of his
termination in the mass layoff because he was a remote employee,"
the Gap class action states.

O'Reilly wants to represent a nationwide class of individuals who
worked remotely for Gap out of its San Francisco headquarters and
were terminated during the mass layoff in or around April 2023
without being given 60 days notice.

Gap offered standard transition benefits plan to employees who
agreed to release company from WARN claims, says class action
O'Reilly argues Gap offered to provide its standard transition
benefits plan to all employees who were eligible, but only if the
terminated workers released the company from claims they violated
the WARN act.

"Gap Inc. offered Mr. O'Reilly its standard transition benefits
(which, given his salary, position and tenure, amounted to eight
weeks of severance), but only if he signed a waiver of his claims
under the WARN Act. He did not sign," the Gap class action states.


O'Reilly is demanding a jury trial and requesting an award of
compensatory damages for himself and all eligible class members.

A separate class action lawsuit was filed against Gap last year
over claims the company failed to make its website fully accessible
to and individually usable by individuals who are blind or visually
impaired.

The plaintiff is represented by Benjamin Rudolph Delson, Attorney
at Law.

The Gap layoffs class action lawsuit is O'Reilly, et al. v. The Gap
Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-04002, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California. [GN]

GAP INC: Removes Bourgeois Suit to District of New Hampshire
------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case of JODI BOURGEOIS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE GAP,
INC.; OLD NAVY, LLC; BANANA REPUBLIC, LLC; and ATHLETA, LLC,
Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior
Court of the State of New Hampshire, County of Hillsborough (Case
No. 216-2023-cv-00395) to the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Hampshire on Aug. 16, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the District of New Hampshire assigned Case
No. 1:23-cv-00394. The case is assigned to Judge Talesha Leah
Saint-Marc.

The Gap, Inc. operates as a clothing retailer. The Company offers
casual apparels, jeans, pants, shirts, tops, accessories, and
personal care products for men, women, and children. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kathleen Mahan, Esq.
          HINCKLEY ALLEN 650 Elm Street
          Manchester, NH 03101
          Telephone: (603) 545-6118
          Email: kmahan@hinckleyallen.com

                - and -

          Michael D. Roth, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          633 West Fifth Street Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443-4355
          Email: mroth@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Anne M. Voigts, Esq.
          Alessandra Givens, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          50 California Street Suite 3300
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 318-1200
          Email: avoigts@kslaw.com
                 agivens@kslaw.com

GENWORTH LIFE: Hauser Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Access
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICE HAUSER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GENWORTH LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 3:23-cv-00486-MHL (E.D. Va., August 2, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se,
breach of implied contract, violation of the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act, and unjust enrichment, seeking inter
alia, damages and injunctive relief, including improvements to
Defendant's data security systems and integrated services, future
annual audits, and adequate credit.

This class action arises from the recent targeted cyberattack and
data breach on Genworth's network that resulted in unauthorized
access to highly sensitive data. As a result of the data breach,
Class Members suffered ascertainable losses and are subject to the
present and continuing risk of imminent harm caused by the
compromise of their sensitive personal information.

The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those
similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding
of her and Class Members' personally identifiable information(PII)
that Defendant collected and maintained, and for Defendant's
failure to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and
other Class Members that their PII had been subject to the
unauthorized access of an unknown, unauthorized party.

Genworth Life Insurance Company provides financial and insurance
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
          E-mail: Lee@bbtrial.com
                  Sarah@bbtrial.com

               - and -

          David K. Lietz, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
          5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW
          Washington, D.C. 20015-2052
          Telephone: (866) 252-0878
          Facsimile: (202) 686-2877
          E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com

GOODYEAR TIRE: Hull Seeks Proper Wages Following Kronos Outage
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daren Hull, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company,
Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-01534-JFM (D. Ariz., Aug. 1, 2023)
seeks to recover the unpaid wages and other damages owed by
Goodyear to Plaintiff and similarly situated workers, along with
the other remedies provided by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Like many other organizations across the United States, The
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company's Kronos-based timekeeping and
payroll systems were affected by a service outage beginning in
December 2021. That outage led to problems in timekeeping and
payroll throughout Goodyear's organization.

According to the complaint, Goodyear's workers who were not exempt
from overtime under federal law were not paid for all overtime
hours worked and/or were not paid their proper overtime premium on
time, if at all, for all overtime hours during and after the onset
of the Kronos outage. Goodyear's failure to pay wages, including
proper overtime, on time and in full for all hours worked violates
the FLSA, says the suit.

Plaintiff Hull worked for Goodyear from August 2019 to July 2023.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company is a foreign corporation doing
business in Phoenix, Arizona.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          PARMET PC
          2 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 250
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 999-5228
          E-mail: matt@parmet.law

               - and -

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

HARVARD MEDICAL: Defendants Added in Morgue Mishandling Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Nia L. Orakwue, writing for The Harvard Crimson, reports that in an
amended complaint filed last month, Harvard Medical School
Anatomical Gift Program managers Mark F. Cicchetti and Tracey Fay
were added as defendants in a class action lawsuit over the alleged
mishandling of donated human remains at the HMS morgue.

The suit, which was filed in the Massachusetts Suffolk County
Superior Court by Keches Law Group, originally only named the
University and former HMS morgue manager Cedric Lodge. The amended
complaint, filed July 10, accuses Cicchetti and Fay -- who remain
HMS employees -- of negligence and infliction of emotional
distress.

In June, Lodge was indicted by federal prosecutors for allegedly
stealing and transporting human remains. At the time of the alleged
thefts, Cicchetti and Fay were employed as the managing director
and manager of the HMS Anatomical Gifts Program, respectively.

Jonathan D. Sweet, an attorney representing the affected families,
wrote in an emailed statement that the new defendants were named
due to their roles as directors of the Anatomical Gift Program and
"supervisory responsibilities as to the donor bodies and the morgue
manager Cedric Lodge."

"Defendant Mark F. Cicchetti and Defendant Tracey Fay had a duty to
safeguard the donors' bodies and to ensure that their loved ones'
bodies were not defiled for non-anatomical research purposes," the
amended filing reads. "Harvard and HMS directors breached this duty
when they failed to take reasonably supervisory steps to verify
that the bodies of the donors were treated with proper and
reasonable decency after Harvard had no further use for them in the
HMS."

Families of the deceased initially filed a class action lawsuit
against the University and Lodge on June 16, alleging negligence,
breach of fiduciary duty, and infliction of emotional distress. Two
more class action lawsuits were filed against the University last
month by affected families.

"Harvard and HMS and its managers failed to exercise the minimal
reasonable level of care with respect to the safe custody,
handling, and supervision of donor bodies after their use for
anatomical study," the amended complaint reads.

An HMS spokesperson declined to comment on the pending litigation
or the allegations made against Cicchetti and Fay.

Attorneys on behalf of the Medical School, Cicchetti, and Fay did
not respond to a request for comment. An attorney for Lodge could
not be identified. [GN]

HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Shares Hit Lowest Level Amid Wildfire Scrutiny
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shreyashi Sanyal, Clark Mindock, Chibuike Oguh, Shristi Achar and
Brendan O'Brien, writing for Reuters, report that Hawaiian Electric
Industries' (HE.N) shares plunged nearly 40% to a 13-year low in
early trading on Aug. 14 amid growing scrutiny over whether the
utility company's equipment played any role in the deadly wildfires
that burnt through the coastal Maui town of Lahaina.

Shares of the company hit $18.70, the lowest level since February
2010, just moments after the opening bell, after it was hit with
two lawsuits by residents of the state who claim it is responsible
for the wildfires that killed at least 96 people.

Hawaiian Electric was last trading down 35% at $20.90.

The cause of the fire remains under investigation. Hawaiian
Electric did not immediately respond to a request for comment on
Aug. 14. On Aug. 11, before the lawsuits were filed, the company
said it is working with the county to investigate what happened.

"There's an uncertainty that the cause of the fires in Maui may be
attributable to Hawaiian Electric. That's not yet proven, so
there's the fear in the market. It's a 'shoot first and ask
questions later' type of situation," Thomas Hayes, chair at Great
Hill Capital, said of investors.

A Washington Post report over the weekend raised questions over
whether Hawaiian Electric, which owns utility Maui Electric, did
not take sufficient safety measures amid warnings days before the
fires broke out that wind gusts would trigger dangerous fire
conditions.

The proposed class action lawsuits were filed on Aug. 12 in state
courts and seek to represent thousands of Hawaii residents affected
by the devastating fires that left thousands homeless and Lahaina
in ruins.

Lahaina residents in one of the lawsuits claimed Hawaiian Electric
is responsible for the fires after failing to shut off power lines
despite warnings from the National Weather Service that high winds
could blow those lines down and spark fast-spreading wildfires.

"By failing to shut off the power during these dangerous fire
conditions, defendants caused loss of life, serious injuries,
destruction of hundreds of homes and businesses, displacement of
thousands of people, and damage to many of Hawaii's historic and
cultural sites," the plaintiffs said in the lawsuit, which raises
gross negligence and private nuisance claims, among others.

Hawaiian Electric Vice President Jim Kelly told CNN on Aug. 13 that
the company does not comment on pending litigation.

"At this early stage, the cause of the fire has not been determined
and we will work with the state and county as they conduct their
review," Kelly told CNN. He added that Hawaiian Electric does not
have a formal shut-off program and precautionary shut-offs have to
be arranged with first responders, CNN reported.

The scrutiny caused Wells Fargo (WFC.N) and Morningstar to cut
their price targets for Hawaiian Electric.

Morningstar strategist Andrew Bischof said he was lowering his fair
value estimate for Hawaiian Electric Industries to $23 per share
from $34 due to the reports. Wells cut its price target to $25 from
$35.

"While it remains unclear if any of HE's equipment directly caused
any of the wildfires, we believe it prudent to account for the
risk," Wells Fargo wrote. [GN]

HCA HEALTHCARE: Faces Hinds Suit Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------
KELSEY HINDS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HCA HEALTHCARE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-00794 (M.D. Tenn., August 2, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, and
declaratory judgment, seeking actual and putative damages, with
attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, and appropriate injunctive
and declaratory relief due to HCA's inadequate data security
measures, and its breach of its duty to handle patients' personally
identifying information(PII) or protected health information(PHI)
with reasonable care.

As a healthcare provider, HCA knowingly obtains, collects, and
stores patient PII and PHI and has a resulting duty to secure,
maintain, protect, and safeguard the PII and PHI that it collects
and stores against unauthorized access and disclosure through
reasonable and adequate data security measures. Despite HCA's duty
to safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI,
Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and/or PHI in Defendant's
possession were accessed, exfiltrated, and later offered for sale
by an unauthorized third-party during a data breach on one of its
external storage locations used to format patient email messages,
which HCA disclosed on July 10, 2023, says the suit.

The Plaintiff is a patient of Wesley Medical Center, which is one
of HCA's facilities that was impacted by the alleged data breach.

HCA is a healthcare system in the United States, providing
healthcare services in over 20 states though 180 hospitals and more
than 2,300 care sites.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David A. McLaughlin, Esq.
          901ATTORNEYS, LLC
          200 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 900
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 671-1551
          Facsimile: (901) 671-1571
          E-mail: David@901Attorneys.com

               - and -

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
                  nickc@lcllp.com

HOME DEPOT: $72.5MM Class Settlement in Utne Suit Wins Prelim. Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN UTNE, et al., Plaintiffs v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A.,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-01854-RS (N.D. Cal.), Judge Richard
Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California grants the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval
of class action and PAGA settlement.

More than seven years after the litigation began, the parties have
reached a settlement for which the Plaintiffs seek preliminary
approval. Under the proposed Settlement Agreement, Home Depot will
provide a gross payment of $72.5 million to resolve the claims of
three classes -- two of which have already been certified (the
"Hourly Employee Class" and the "Post-Shift Class"), and one class
(the "Rounding Class") for which the Plaintiffs seek certification
pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The wage and hour class action avers that Home Depot failed to pay
its employees all wages due, in several ways. The Plaintiffs sought
and obtained certification of two classes: the Post-Shift Class
(previously referred to and certified as the "Lock-In Class") and
the Hourly Employee Class. With respect to the former, the
Plaintiffs allege Home Depot did not pay employees who worked
closing shifts for the time they spent waiting in locked stores
until being let out by a supervisor; and with respect to the
latter, they contend Home Depot did not compensate employees for
time spent walking through Home Depot stores to clock-in for their
shifts. Summary judgment was granted to Home Depot as to its
rounding policy with respect to timekeeping.

The parties proceeded through class certification, partial summary
judgment, formal and expert discovery, and a Daubert hearing. After
participating in a full-day mediation session and subsequent
negotiations, the parties arrived at the current Settlement
Agreement. Under the Agreement, Home Depot will pay $72.5 million
as a gross settlement amount. From this, the Plaintiffs propose to
deduct (1) one-third of the gross amount (or roughly $24.16
million) in attorney fees; (2) out-of-pocket costs not to exceed
$3.5 million; (3) a $25,000 service award for the Estate of John
Utne and a $7,500 award for Alfred Pinto; (4) up to $750,000 in
settlement administration costs; and (5) a $10,000 reserve fund for
"disputed, untimely and self-identified claims," the balance of
which will be donated to The Homer Fund as the cy pres recipient.

After these deductions, 5% (or $2.2 million) will constitute the
PAGA Settlement Fund. Pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code Section 2699(i),
75% of this Fund will be paid to the California Labor and Workforce
Development Agency ("LWDA"), and the remaining 25% will go to the
PAGA group members. This leaves around $41.8 million as the Net
Class Settlement Fund. From this, 41% is dedicated to the Hourly
Employee Class claims; 50% is dedicated to the Post-Shift Class
claims; and 9% is dedicated to the Rounding Class claims. This
results in an average payout of roughly $77 for Hourly Employee
Class members, $72 for Post-Shift Class members, $25 for Rounding
Class members, and $2.50 for PAGA group members.

As the gross settlement is non-reversionary, any deductions from
the gross fund not approved by the Court will go back into the net
settlement fund. Further, Class members will not be required to
file claims. Rather, payments will be calculated based on each
member's respective number of shifts worked based on the
Defendant's records, and payments will then be distributed
directly. The Agreement also contains an escalation clause that
effectively limits Defendant's overall exposure should the actual
number of Class members increase.

Gross Settlement Amount $72.5 million Minus Attorney Fees (33.3%)
$24,166,666.67 Minus Costs (up to) $3.5 million Minus Service
Awards $32,500 Minus Settlement Administration costs $750,000 (up
to) Reserve Fund $10,000 Net Settlement Amount $44,040,833.33 PAGA
Settlement (5%) $2,202,041.67 PAGA Members (25%) $550,510.42 LWDA
(75%) $1,651,531.25 Class Settlement (95%) $41,838,791.66
Post-Shift Class (41%) $17,153,904.58 Hourly Employee Class (50%)
$20,919,395.83 Rounding Class (9%) $3,765,491.25.

In exchange, the class members will release all claims that were or
could have been asserted based on the facts alleged in any
Complaint or any notice provided to the LWDA by any Named
Plaintiff. This includes the state wage and hour claims raised, as
well as claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
Section 201 et seq.

Upon review, Judge Seeborg finds that the Plaintiffs have
demonstrated that the Settlement Class may be certified under Rule
23(e) and that the proposed Settlement Agreement appears to be
fair, adequate, and reasonable. As such, the motion is granted.

The proposed settlement is preliminarily approved, under the terms,
definitions, and provisions expressed in the Settlement Agreement.
Pursuant to Rule 23(e), the proposed Settlement Class is
preliminarily certified, with the Class Period running from March
8, 2012, through and including the date of this order.

The Settlement Class contains the following subclasses:

     a. The Hourly Employee Class is defined as all individuals
employed by Home Depot who worked one or more shifts in retail
stores in hourly-paid or non-exempt positions in California during
the Class Period, including persons hired after notice of class
certification.

     b. The Post-Shift Class is defined as all individuals employed
by Home Depot in hourly-paid or non-exempt positions in Home Depot
stores in California during the Class Period, including persons
hired after notice of class certification, who worked at least one
Closing Shift.

     c. The Rounding Class is defined as all individuals employed
by Home Depot who worked one or more shifts in retail stores in
hourly-paid or non-exempt positions in California during the Class
Period and who were paid less than their actual clock-in and
clock-out time for his or her total hours worked during the Class
Period as a result of Home Depot's practice of rounding time to the
nearest quarter hour, including persons hired after notice of class
certification.

The Plaintiffs are preliminarily appointed as the class
representatives for the Settlement Class. Shaun Setareh and Thomas
Segal of the Setareh Law Group, and Cody R. Kennedy, Alan Lazar,
and Marissa Mayhood of Marlin & Saltzman LLP, are preliminarily
appointed as the Class Counsel for the same. KCC is appointed as
the Settlement Administrator.

The proposed Class Notice and the notice procedures outlined by the
parties are approved, subject to the correction noted in the Order.
Notice will be disseminated to the Settlement Class members
pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Settlement Agreement.

A Final Approval Hearing is scheduled for Feb. 15, 2024, at 1:30
p.m. The motion for final approval must be filed no later than 21
days prior to the Hearing.

As noted at the hearing, the parties will, as soon as is
practicable, file on the public docket a final implementation
schedule reflecting the correct dates and deadlines for each of the
events listed in the Plaintiffs' proposed order. This includes the
dates by which the motion for attorney fees' and costs, and the
motion for final approval, must be filed.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 28, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/253bm6cd from Leagle.com.


HUNTER BUSINESS: $450K Settlement in D'Angelo Suit Gets Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANIEL D'ANGELO, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff v. HUNTER BUSINESS SCHOOL,
INC. and JAY FUND, Defendants, Case No. 21-CV-03334 (JMW)
(E.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York grants three motions:

   (1) the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and final
       approval of the class action and collective settlement;

   (2) the Plaintiffs' motion for approval of a service award and
       release payment; and

   (3) the class counsel's motion for attorneys' fees, expenses,
       and costs and administration fees. The settlement
       agreement itself contemplates that all three motions would
       be considered at the fairness hearing.

Named Plaintiff Daniel D'Angelo was employed by Defendants Hunter
Business School and Jay Fund as a Financial Aid Adviser. On June
14, 2021, the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others, commenced
this wage and hour class and collective action against Defendants
alleging the Defendants failed to pay proper overtime wages due to
misclassification of non-exempt workers as exempt under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201 et seq. ("FLSA") and
the New York Labor Law Section 190, et seq. ("NYLL"). Following a
period of informal discovery and investigations and a full day of
formal mediation, the parties achieved a settlement, resolving the
dispute. The parties then entered into a settlement agreement on
May 6, 2022.

On June 14, 2021, D'Angelo initiated this action on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, alleging wage and hour
violations under both the FLSA and NYLL. Hunter employed the
Plaintiff as a Financial Aid Adviser between Oct. 16, 2018, and
March 1, 2021. For the duration of his employment, the Plaintiff
earned a fixed salary of $40,000.22 per year. The Plaintiff was
required to advise students and prospective students about
available financial aid programs.

From October 2018 to March 2020, the Plaintiff adhered to a fixed
schedule and worked 42 hours per week. Subsequently, the Defendants
laid off several financial advisors during the initial stages of
the COVID-19 pandemic; however, Hunter's enrollment increased
significantly during this time. As a result, the Plaintiff began
working approximately 80 to 90 hours per week to address this
influx of new students. The Plaintiff alleges that he was not paid
overtime wages for his overtime hours during and after the pandemic
because the Defendants improperly classified him as "exempt."

The Plaintiff asserts that this exempt classification was erroneous
for two reasons: first, he exercised no executive or administrative
power in his role as an adviser, and second, his salary was far too
low to qualify as exempt in Nassau County under NYLL. In sum, the
Defendants were allegedly obligated to pay the Plaintiff at least
$60,000 in addition to his $40,000 base yearly salary. After
voicing his concerns to several coworkers, the Plaintiff allegedly
determined that 86 employees (including career services advisers,
instructors, and laboratory assistants) had been similarly
misclassified, and that they too were uncompensated for their
overtime labor.

The Settlement Fund is $450,000 where each Class Member would
receive a payment "proportional to the duration of their
employment; those who worked for longer periods will receive
greater payments than those who worked for shorter periods." And no
Class Member is to receive less than $1,000. Upon approval, the
costs and fees will be reduced from the Settlement Amount and each
Class Member will receive their allocated sum at one time. Had the
Class Members waited until after trial to receive a potential sum
of damages, they would be waiting months, even years to see such
monies.

On July 23, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their Answer to the
Complaint, and denied all material allegations. Soon after a
scheduling order was adopted on Oct. 4, 2021, the parties pursued
mediation with Dina Jansenson, Esq., of JAMS. The mediation was
held on March 3, 2022 and negotiations continued thereafter,
resulting in a binding term sheet exchanged on April 15, 2022, and
leading to an executed Settlement Agreement on May 6, 2022. The
parties then filed a motion for preliminary approval of the class
settlement, which was referred to the undersigned by the Hon. Gary
R. Brown for a report and recommendation ("R&R").

On Jan. 24, 2023, Judge Wicks issued an R&R recommending approval
of the settlement, and conditionally certifying the class and
approving the collective action. Thereafter the parties consented
to Judge Wicks for all purposes, and Judge Wicks converted the R&R
to an Order. The parties appeared before him on March 6, 2023, and
a briefing schedule for final approval of the class certification
and settlement approval was set, and a fairness hearing was
scheduled for July 25, 2023. The fairness hearing took place as
scheduled on July 25, 2023, with the counsel and the Objector
presenting their respective positions.

The Class Members consist of the named Plaintiff as well as all
career service advisors, financial aid counselors, admissions
representatives and administrative staff who were employed by the
Defendants from June 14, 2015 up until Nov. 30, 2021 and did not
opt-out of the litigation.

In determining whether final class certification should be granted,
Judge Wicks looks to the prongs under Rule 23: numerosity;
commonality/typicality; adequacy of representation and
predominance/superiority. He finds that the proposed class has
satisfied these prongs.

In considering whether the settlement is substantively fair, courts
look to the Grinnell factors, namely: (1) the complexity, expense
and likely duration of the litigation; (2) the reaction of the
class to the settlement; (3) the stage of the proceedings and the
amount of discovery completed; (4) the risks of establishing
liability; (5) the risks of establishing damages; (6) the risks of
maintaining the class action through the trial; (7) the ability of
the defendants to withstand a greater judgment; (8) the range of
reasonableness of the settlement fund in light of the best possible
recovery; and (9) the range of reasonableness of the settlement
fund to a possible recovery in light of all the attendant risks of
litigation. Judge Wicks finds that these factors weigh in favor of
settlement approval. Accordingly, the class action settlement is
approved as fair and reasonable.

Moreover, Judge Wick finds that the service award is reasonable in
light of the time and effort spent on litigating this case on
behalf of himself and the other Class Members. Accordingly, he
approves the Plaintiff's $10,000 Service Award and $15,000 Release
Payment. He also approves the attorneys' fee award of $150,000,
costs and expenses in the amount of $6,465.94, and administration
fees award of $25,000 to Advanced Litigation Strategies LLC.

For all the foregoing reasons, Judge Wicks grants the motions as
follows: the Plaintiff's Motion for Settlement Class Certification,
Final Approval of the Class-Wide Settlement Agreement, and Approval
of the FLSA Settlement is granted in its entirety; the Plaintiff's
Motion for Approval of the Service Award and Release Fees is
granted in its entirety; and the Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys'
Fees, Costs and Expenses and Administration Fees is granted in its
entirety.

Judge Wicks also approves the releases set forth in the Settlement
Agreement, which will be binding in accordance with the terms set
forth therein. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter
of the litigation and all matters relating thereto, and over all
Parties.

Judge Wicks adopts and finally approves, for the purpose of the
Order, the definition of the settlement "Class" as that term is
defined in the Preliminary Approval Order.

Pursuant to Rule 23, he confirms as final its certification of the
Class for settlement purposes based on its findings in the
Preliminary Approval Order and in the absence of any objections
from Class Members to such certification. Pursuant to 29 Section
U.S.C. 216(b), he approves the FLSA Settlement and certifies the
collective class under the FLSA based on its findings in the
Preliminary Approval Order.

Judge Wicks confirms as final the appointment of (i) D'Angelo, as
the representative of the Class and (ii) C.K. Lee of Lee Litigation
Group PLLC as the Class Counsel for the and for individuals who
opted into the litigation pursuant to the FLSA.

The Action is dismissed with prejudice. However, the Court retains
jurisdiction over the action for the purpose of enforcing the
Settlement Agreement and overseeing the distribution of settlement
funds. The Parties will abide by all terms of the Settlement
Agreement and the Order

A full-text copy of the Court's July 28, 2023 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/39pphchx from Leagle.com.

C.K. Lee, Esq., Anne Seelig, Esq., Lee Litigation Group, PLLC, New
York, NY, Attorneys for Plaintiff Daniel D'Angelo, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs and the Class.

Eve Irene Klein, Esq. -- EIKlein@duanemorris.com -- Katelynn Mimi
Gray, Esq. -- KGray@duanemorris.com -- Duane Morris LLP, New York,
NY, Attorneys for Defendants Hunter Business School, Inc. and Jay
Fund

Noreen Iadanza, Objector, appearing pro se.


INSURANCE CORP: Liable for Damages in Class Action, Court Rules
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Holliday, writing for CTV News, reports that British Columbia's
highest court has dismissed an appeal by ICBC, leaving the
provincial insurer liable for damages in a class action lawsuit.

The case has been before courts in the province for more than a
decade, and stems from a string of arson, shooting and vandalism
incidents that happened over a 10-month period from April 2011 to
January 2012.

The 13 people who had property damaged in the incidents were part
of a larger group of 78 ICBC customers whose personal information
was accessed by claims adjuster Candy Rheaume in 2011 "for no
apparent business reason," according to the latest decision from
the B.C. Court of Appeal.

Rheaume retrieved the customers' personal information by "running"
licence plate numbers provided to her by Aldorino Moretti. The
decision indicates she sold information to him for $25 or more per
licence plate.

The perpetrators of the incidents -- identified in the decision as
Vincent Eric Gia-Hwa Cheung, Thurman Ronley Taffe and others --
used the information to carry out their attacks. The only thing the
13 victims had in common was that their vehicles had been parked in
the parking lot at the Justice Institute of British Columbia.

As summarized in a 2022 B.C. Supreme Court decision that found ICBC
"vicariously liable" for Rheaume's violation of the customers'
privacy, "Cheung had a drug-induced paranoid belief that he was
being targeted and controlled by the Justice Institute."

He was sentenced to 12 years in prison for "numerous arson and
firearm offences" in 2016, according to the supreme court
decision.

It was that decision's findings on the customers' privacy being
breached and vicarious liability that ICBC challenged before the
court of appeal.

INFORMATION WAS NOT PUBLICLY AVAILABLE
Writing for the three-judge panel, which was unanimous in its
decision to dismiss ICBC's appeal, Justice Susan Griffin noted that
the insurer advanced "several grounds of appeal" on the question of
privacy breaches, but they all boiled down to the same basic
argument.

"Essentially, these grounds of appeal all are aspects of ICBC's
assertion that the information was merely contact information and
therefore was not private," Griffin wrote, before addressing and
dismissing each variation.

"In my view, despite ICBC's able arguments, it has not established
that the judge erred in finding that customers had a reasonable
expectation of privacy in the information they gave ICBC, which
expectation was that the information would only be used for ICBC's
legitimate purposes," the judge wrote.

She also rejected the premise she saw underlying each of the
company's arguments, namely that the information was publicly
available and had "no inherent privacy interest."

"This argument begs the question: if the information linking a
licence plate to a person's name and address was not private
because it was available publicly, why did someone need to pay
ICBC's employee in order to obtain that information?" Griffin
wrote. "ICBC's proposition would surprise many people, including
those who park their motor vehicles at the airport to go on
holiday."

Likewise, on the question of vicarious liability, Griffin was
unmoved by ICBC's argument that the trial judge made an error in
his application of the legal principles that determine whether to
impose vicarious liability on an employer for the actions of its
employee.

"It is just to impose liability on ICBC in order to provide an
adequate remedy and to create deterrence of similar conduct in the
future," the judge wrote. "Between ICBC and a customer required to
provide their private information to ICBC, it is just that the risk
of improper use of the information by an ICBC employee in Ms.
Rheaume's position should be borne by ICBC and not the customer."

The high court's decision to dismiss the appeal means the B.C.
Supreme Court decision remains in effect.

That decision found that Rheaume had breached the privacy of the
members of the class described in the class action; that class
members are entitled to general damages on a class-wide basis; that
the individual class members who suffered losses as a result of the
breach are entitled to pecuniary damages; and that ICBC is
vicariously liable for both the general and the pecuniary damages.

What the supreme court decision didn't determine is how much money
those damages are worth. The monetary awards for class-wide damages
and individual issues were left to be determined in future court.
[GN]

JOCKEY INTERNATIONAL: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS MERCEDES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JOCKEY INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:23-cv-07186 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2023) alleges violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, www.jockey.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in
violation of the ADA.

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

JOCKEY INTERNATIONAL GLOBAL, INC. manufactures and retails apparel.
The Company offers sportswear, t-shirts, socks, active wear, sleep
and lounge wear, lingerie, pajamas, tops, boxer briefs, bottoms to
teenagers, men, women, and children. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com


KIMMICO INC: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Bonner Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
BREA BONNER and SHAKIA APRIL LOVE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KIMMICO, INC. d/b/a
FANTASIES NIGHTCLUB, JAGUAR ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC, and CALVIN
BROCKDORFF, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-02062-JKB (D. Md., July
31, 2023) seeks relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Maryland Wage Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage Payment Collection
Law for unpaid minimum wages, unlawfully assigned or withheld tips,
liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and/or any such other
relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

Plaintiffs Bonner and Love were employed by the Management
Defendants in Baltimore City, Maryland as exotic dancers performing
at Fantasies Nightclub from January 2022 until April 2023. They
assert that Management Defendants have had uniform policies and
practices misclassifying exotic dancer workforce as non-employee
contractors, failing to pay minimum wage compensation, and charging
unlawful kickbacks and/or wage deductions and taking and assigning
tips and gratuities from their exotic dancer workforce. As a
result, Management Defendants have denied them and the proposed
class members of minimum wage compensation and retention of tips
and gratuities in violation of the FLSA as well as minimum wages
and unlawfully deducted wages in violation of Maryland law, allege
the Plaintiffs.

Kimmico, Inc., d/b/a Fantasies Nightclub, operates a gentleman's
club, featuring female nude and semi-nude exotic dancers, in
Baltimore City, Maryland.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas J. Eiler, Esq.
          ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
          8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 587-9373
          Facsimile: (240) 839-9142
          E-mail: teiler@zagfirm.com

KLAUSSNER HOME: Faces Class Action Over WARN Act Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sheila Long O'Mara, writing for Furniture Today, reports that a
former employee at Klaussner Home Furnishing's headquarters in
Asheboro has filed a class action civil lawsuit against the company
seeking collection of wages and benefits for 60 days as required
under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act
(WARN).

In the lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court in Delaware, Trey
Chavis and others allege Klaussner failed to provide them with the
required "60 days' advanced written notice of termination" the WARN
Act requires when it said it was going out of business. The case
was filed in the Delaware court because Klaussner is incorporated
in Wilmington, Del.

Klaussner announced Monday, Aug. 7, that it was ceasing operations
because its lender would no longer fund the company. The WARN
filing, which said the company employed 884 people, was emailed and
sent via FedEx to the N.C. Department of Commerce on the same day
Klaussner made its announcement on its website's homepage.

The lawsuit says the number of employees impacted is too "numerous"
and that including them in the document would be "impracticable."

Chavis, who worked at the company's facility at 405 Lewallen Road
in Asheboro, and the other employees are asking for unpaid wages,
salary, commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday pay, accrued vacation
pay, pension and 401(K) contributions and other benefits that would
have been covered for 60 days following the employees'
terminations. [GN]

LADY JANE'S HAIRCUTS: Kennedy Sues Over Stylists' Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tammy Kennedy, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Lady Jane's Haircuts for Men Holding Company, LLC;
Lady Jane's Milford, OH, LLC; Lady Jane's Clearwater FL, LLC; Chad
Johnson; Tim McCollum; Jesse Dhillon; Alicia Bunch; John Doe
1–10; and Doe Corporation 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-00493-MRB (S.D. Ohio, August 2, 2023) seeks appropriate
monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief based on Defendants'
alleged willful failure to compensate Plaintiff and
similarly-situated individuals with minimum wages and overtime
wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio
Constitution, Article II, Section 34a, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act, as well as damages under the theory of unjust
enrichment.

Plaintiff Kennedy worked for Defendants as a stylist in Clearwater,
Florida location from January 2017-May 2020.

Lady Jane's Haircuts for Men Holding Company, LLC is a salon
company registered to do business in the State of Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          Laura E. Farmwald, Esq.
          Emily A. Hubbard, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          8044 Montgomery Rd., Ste. 515
          Cincinnati, OH 45236
          Telephone: (513) 715-8711
          Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
          E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
                  akimble@billerkimble.com
                  lfarmwald@billerkimble.com
                  ehubbard@billerkimble.com

M.A.C. COSMETICS: Removes Byrd Suit to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case of EBONY BYRD, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. M.A.C.
COSMETICS INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, filed a
notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. 23STCV16114) to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Aug.
16, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:23-cv-06720. The case is assigned to the Hon. George H.
Wu and referred to Magistrate Charles F. Eick.

M.A.C. Cosmetics Inc. provides personal care products. The Company
offers lipstick, eye lashes, foundation, powder, concealer,
moisturizers, sponges, brush kits, fragrances, and other related
products. [BN]

The Defendants are 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
          Tel: (213) 612-2500
          Fax: (213) 612-2501
          Email: jennifer.zargarof@morganlewis.com
                 julianne.park@morganlewis.com

MARY BLACK: October 2 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------
The following release was issued on Aug. 15 by The Notice Company,
Inc.:

A court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation.

The Court has certified a class action lawsuit that may affect you.
The lawsuit is known as Blackwell, et al. ("Plaintiffs") v. Mary
Black Health System, LLC et al. ("Defendants"), C. A. No.
2017-CP-42-00219, and it is currently pending before the Honorable
J. Mark Hayes, II of the Court of Common Pleas, Spartanburg County,
South Carolina.

Who is Included? On November 1, 2022, the Court certified the
following Class:

All individuals who, since January 1, 2014, received any type of
healthcare treatment from any entity located in South Carolina that
is owned or affiliated with Defendants, while being covered by
valid health insurance other than Cigna, and whose medical bills
resulting from that treatment were not submitted to their health
insurance carrier for potential payment.

Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants had a policy and practice of
refusing to bill health insurance that impacted every member of the
Class by interfering with Class Members' own relationships with
their insurance companies. The lawsuit also alleges that the
Defendants attempted to collect larger payments from Class Members
than what the Defendants separately contracted for with the
insurance companies. The Defendants deny the lawsuit's allegations.
The Court has not decided whether the Defendants are liable or
whether the allegations of the lawsuit are true. The Court has only
decided that the case should proceed as a class action. The lawsuit
is thus ongoing.

What Do You Need to Do? You don't have to do anything now if you
want to remain in the Class and keep the possibility of getting
money or benefits from this lawsuit.

What Are My Other Options? If you do not want to be a part of the
Class, you must exclude yourself ("opt out") by October 2, 2023. If
you opt out, you will not be eligible to receive any payments or
benefits that might result at trial or settlement. Requests to opt
out must be in writing and mailed to Mary Black Exclusions, c/o The
Notice Company, P.O. Box 455, Hingham, MA 02043. Do not opt out if
you wish to remain a member of the Class.

The descriptions in this Notice are only summaries. If you have any
questions or would like more information, including the detailed
notice, please contact the Class Administrator at 1-800-789-6490 or
visit www.MaryBlackClassAction.com. Please do not call the Court
about this Notice or lawsuit. They will not be able to give you
advice or answer your questions. [GN]

MDL 2873: Bliven Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
----------------------------------------------------------
HERBERT ALLEN BLIVEN, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota
Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.;
AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants,
Case No. 2:23-cv-03699-RMG (D.S.C., July 31, 2023) is a class
action brought by the Plaintiff and those similarly situated
individuals seeking damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic
chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS).

According to the complaint, AFFF containing PFAS that was designed,
manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold by the Defendants was
so hazardous, toxic, and dangerous to human health that the act of
designing, formulating, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and
selling this AFFF was unreasonably dangerous under the
circumstances. The AFFF designed, formulated, manufactured,
marketed, distributed, and sold by Defendants was defectively
designed and the foreseeable risk of harm could and would have been
reduced or eliminated by the adoption of a reasonable alternative
design that was not unreasonably dangerous. The Defendants'
defective design and formulation of AFFF containing PFAS was a
direct and proximate cause of the contamination of the blood and/or
body of Plaintiff and the persistence and accumulation of PFAS in
Plaintiff's blood and/or body, says the suit.

The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian. He was diagnosed with kidney renal
papillary cell carcinoma as a result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products, the suit asserts.

The Bliven case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]

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

MDL 2873: Exposure to PFAS Caused Sickness, Fitzgerald Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
ELIJAH FITZGERALD, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company), Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-03685-RMG
(D.S.C., July 31, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

According to the complaint, the Defendant collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, promoted,
sold, and/or otherwise inappropriately disposed of PFAS chemicals
with knowledge that it was highly toxic and bio persistent, which
would expose plaintiff to the risks associated with PFAS. The
Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous PFAS in his drinking water
and unaware of the toxic nature of the Defendant's PFAS in general.
The Plaintiff's consumption of PFAS from Defendant's contamination
and inappropriate disposal caused Plaintiff to develop the serious
medical conditions and complications alleged herein, says the
suit.

The Plaintiff was exposed to PFAS chemicals through drinking water
both at home and at his place of work, due to contamination on
behalf of the 3M plant in Decatur, Alabama and potential AFFF
sources. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with hypothyroidism as a
result of exposure to Defendant's PFAS contamination, the suit
asserts.

The Fitzgerald case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Hunter Garnett, Esq.
          GARNETT PATTERSON INJURY LAWYERS
          100 Jefferson St S #300
          Huntsville, AL 35801
          Telephone: (256) 539-8686

MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic PFAS Caused Cancer, Daniels Says
------------------------------------------------------------
MASON NEIL DANIELS, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants,
Case No. 2:23-cv-03700-RMG (D.S.C., July 31, 2023) is a class
action brought by the Plaintiff and those similarly situated
individuals seeking damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic
chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS).

According to the complaint, AFFF containing PFAS that was designed,
manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold by the Defendants was
so hazardous, toxic, and dangerous to human health that the act of
designing, formulating, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and
selling this AFFF was unreasonably dangerous under the
circumstances. The AFFF designed, formulated, manufactured,
marketed, distributed, and sold by Defendants was defectively
designed and the foreseeable risk of harm could and would have been
reduced or eliminated by the adoption of a reasonable alternative
design that was not unreasonably dangerous. The Defendants'
defective design and formulation of AFFF containing PFAS was a
direct and proximate cause of the contamination of the blood and/or
body of Plaintiff and the persistence and accumulation of PFAS in
Plaintiff's blood and/or body, says the suit.

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

The Daniels case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]

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

MDL 2873: Williams Suit Alleges Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAVE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants,
Case No. 2:23-cv-03704-RMG (D.S.C., July 31, 2023) is a class
action brought by the Plaintiff and those similarly situated
individuals seeking damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic
chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS).

According to the complaint, AFFF containing PFAS that was designed,
manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold by the Defendants was
so hazardous, toxic, and dangerous to human health that the act of
designing, formulating, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and
selling this AFFF was unreasonably dangerous under the
circumstances. The AFFF designed, formulated, manufactured,
marketed, distributed, and sold by Defendants was defectively
designed and the foreseeable risk of harm could and would have been
reduced or eliminated by the adoption of a reasonable alternative
design that was not unreasonably dangerous. The Defendants'
defective design and formulation of AFFF containing PFAS was a
direct and proximate cause of the contamination of the blood and/or
body of Plaintiff and the persistence and accumulation of PFAS in
Plaintiff's blood and/or body, says the suit.

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

The Williams case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]

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

MDL 2873: Zenz Suit Alleges Exposure to PFAS Caused Cancer
----------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS ZENZ, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants,
Case No. 2:23-cv-03707-RMG (D.S.C., July 31, 2023) is a class
action brought by the Plaintiff and those similarly situated
individuals seeking damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic
chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS).

According to the complaint, AFFF containing PFAS that was designed,
manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold by the Defendants was
so hazardous, toxic, and dangerous to human health that the act of
designing, formulating, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and
selling this AFFF was unreasonably dangerous under the
circumstances. The AFFF designed, formulated, manufactured,
marketed, distributed, and sold by Defendants was defectively
designed and the foreseeable risk of harm could and would have been
reduced or eliminated by the adoption of a reasonable alternative
design that was not unreasonably dangerous. The Defendants'
defective design and formulation of AFFF containing PFAS was a
direct and proximate cause of the contamination of the blood and/or
body of Plaintiff and the persistence and accumulation of PFAS in
Plaintiff's blood and/or body, says the suit.

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

The Zenz case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous
Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]

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

MEDTRONIC INC: Harris Hits Defective Implantable Cardiac Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MEDTRONIC INC., MEDTRONIC USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 0:23-cv-02273 (D. Minn., Aug. 1, 2023) arises
from the Defendants' negligent failure to ensure the quality and
safety of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators and Cardiac
Resynchronization Therapy Defibrillators in violation of the
Minnesota False Statements in Advertising Act and the Minnesota
Deceptive Trade Practice Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' negligent failure led
to the recall of the said devices. These defibrillators have been
recalled because they contain a glassed feedthrough. A glassed
feedthrough "may deliver low or no energy output when high voltage
therapy is needed due to inappropriate activation of the Short
Circuit Protection feature." A defibrillator that malfunctions in
this manner during a life-threatening event could lead to serious
injury including cardiac arrest or death, says the suit.

The Plaintiff and the putative class suffered economic damages due
to Defendants' misconduct and seek injunctive relief, monetary
damages, and restitution for the full purchase price of the medical
devices they purchased, the suit asserts.

Medtronic Inc. is an American medical device company with its
principal place of business in Minneapolis, Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chad Alexander, Esq.
          SIEBEN POLK
          Eagan Woods Office Center
          2600 Eagan Woods Drive, Suite 50
          Eagan, MN 55121-1170
          Telephone: (651)-437-3148
          E-mail: CAlexander@siebenpolklaw.com

               - and -

          Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
          Blake G. Abbott, Esq.
          POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC
          32 Ann Street
          Charleston, SC 29403
          Telephone: (803) 222-2222
          E-mail: blake.abbott@poulinwilley.com
                  paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com

MERCURY AUTO: Averts Workers' Overtime Class Action in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ufonobong Umanah, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Mercury
Auto Transport LLC workers who alleged the company misclassified
them to avoid paying them overtime had their case dismissed by the
US District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Their allegations "at best resemble 'defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusations' that are insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss,"
Judge Raag Singhal wrote August 11.

Alleging Mercury Auto failed to pay overtime is insufficient to
allege workers are similarly situated for the purpose of a proposed
class action, the court ruled
While an oral agreement under an extremely liberal reading could be
construed to satisfy some of the elements of a contract. [GN]


MINNEAPOLIS RAGSTOCK: Hussein Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Minneapolis Ragstock,
Co. The case is styled as Sumaya Hussein, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Minneapolis Ragstock, Co., Case
No. 1:23-cv-04257 (D.N.J., July 3, 2023).

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

Minneapolis Ragstock Co. -- https://ragstock.com/ -- is a Retail,
and Apparel & Accessories company located in Minneapolis,
Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


MOHAMMAD REZA VAZIRI: Lalabekyan Sues Over False Imprisonment
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gayane Lalabekyan, individually and on behalf of the putative
class, 44 Grigor Lusavorich Street, Stepanakert, Republic of
Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) v. MOHAMMAD REZA VAZIRI, Case No.
1:23-cv-01994-JMC (D.D.C., July 11, 2023), is brought involving the
role of DEFENDANT VAZIRI in aiding and abetting the false
imprisonment and torture of 120,000 Armenians, including 30,000
children, in Artsakh (also known as Nagorno-Karabakh), a
self-governing enclave in the South Caucasus.

On December 12, 2022, the government of Azerbaijan orchestrated a
blockade of the only road connecting the 120,000 ethnic Armenians
in Nagorno-Karabakh with the outside world, thereby preventing
anyone and anything from entering or exiting. The blockade has
caused a humanitarian catastrophe in Nagorno-Karabakh, depriving
the Armenian population of access to food, medicine, heat,
electricity, and normal living conditions.

The United States, the United Nations, the European Parliament and
numerous other states and global institutions have called upon
Azerbaijan to end its blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh. Numerous
international human rights organizations--including Human Rights
Watch, the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention, the
International Association of Genocide Scholars, and Amnesty
International--have warned that Azerbaijan is committing ethnic
cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh and that the risk of genocide against
the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh is acute. The International Court
of Justice has ordered Azerbaijan to lift the blockade.

The Plaintiff is a victim of the blockade. She has been falsely
imprisoned by the blockade since December 12, 2022, enduring grave
violations of her freedom of movement and right to life; suffering
lack of access to food, proper medical care and medicine; enduring
physical pain and suffering in extreme winter temperatures without
regular access to heat or electricity; and suffering other human
rights abuses. She represents a putative class of nearly 120,000
Artsakh Armenians that continue to suffer under Azerbaijan's
strategic blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh, aided and abetted by
DEFENDANT VAZIRI. In this case, Plaintiff and the putative class
bring three causes of action against DEFENDANT VAZIRI: aiding and
abetting false imprisonment; aiding and abetting intentional
infliction of emotional distress; and aiding and abetting
violations of the Torture Victims Protections Act, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a civilian living in Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh)
who has lived in Artsakh since the start of Azerbaijan's blockade.

Mohammad Reza Vaziri is a civilian living at 6833 Capri Place,
Bethesda, Maryland 20817.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Karnig S. Kerkonian, Esq.
          Elizabeth M. Al-Dajani, Esq.
          KERKONIAN DAJANI LLP
          1555 Sherman Avenue, Suite 344
          Evanston, IL 60201
          Phone: (312) 416-6180
          Fax (312) 604-7815
          Email: kkerkonian@kerkoniandajani.com
                 ealdajani@kerkoniandajani.com



MORGANS SHOES: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Morgans Shoes, Inc.
The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Morgans Shoes, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-06882 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 4, 2023).

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

Morgan's Shoes, Inc. -- https://morganshoes.com/ -- offers retail
shoe sales, including orthopedic footwear.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


MOTIVE ENERGY: Knight Sues Over Field Workers' Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
JESSE KNIGHT, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MOTIVE ENERGY TELECOMMUNICATIONS GROUP, INC.
Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-01511 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 1, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendant for unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, declaratory relief and other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff, Jesse Knight, performed as non-exempt field worker
services for Defendant in Colorado from approximately February 2022
to January 2023. He asserts that Defendant violated the FLSA by
failing to pay him and other similarly-situated workers time and
one half for all of their hours worked over 40 each week.

Motive Energy Telecommunications Group, Inc. provides
telecommunications solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Schwartz, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          633 W. 5th Street, #2200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 757-6072
          Facsimile: (213) 757-6172
          E-mail: jschwartz@forthepeople.com

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Shabazz Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Abdul Shabazz, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE
LLC, d.b.a. RIGHTPATH SERVICING, Case No. 5:23-cv-02991-JMG (E.D.
Pa., Aug. 3, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA").

Nationstar Mortgage LLC, doing business as Mr. Cooper --
https://www.mrcooper.com/ -- offers mortgage services. The Company
provides mortgages loan, re-financing, and home equity loans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph M. Adams, Esq.
          200 Highpoint Drive, Suite 211a
          Chalfont, PA 18914
          Phone: (215) 996-9977
          Fax: (267) 996-4141
          Email: josephmadamsesq@verizon.net


NEW YORK, NY: Efforts to Improve Safety at City Jails Not Enough
----------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Rayman, writing for New York Daily News, reports that New
York City's efforts to curb violence and improve safety at Rikers
Island and other city lockups are "not enough," a federal judge
said on Aug. 10 as she set in motion a series of steps that could
end with Mayor Adams' administration losing control of the jail
system.

Manhattan Federal Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered lawyers for
detainees and the Manhattan U.S. Attorney's office to file motions
by Nov. 17 to hold the city in contempt of prior court orders and
to make a case for the federal takeover.

"The defendants [city officials and the Department of Correction]
hold a crucial public trust. They do not seem willing or able to
make the changes that are necessary. I am not saying the progress
is not positive. I am saying it is not enough," Swain said in
court.

Swain added her decision partly resulted from concerns about the
Correction Department's willingness to "engage productively" with a
court-appointed federal monitoring team, which is tracking violence
and conditions at Rikers Island and other jails as part of a class
action lawsuit.

Under the schedule set by Swain, the city would have until Jan. 16
to file its opposition brief. The plaintiffs would reply by Feb.
15, setting up the possibility that Swain could order appointment
of a receiver as early as next summer.

But the appointment of an outsider to run the jail system would
have to overcome a series of hurdles -- notably the federal Prison
Litigation Reform Act, a law which requires a finding that all
other avenues of improvement to the system have been attempted.

The Clinton-era law has been wielded in the past by the city as an
effective tool against other class action lawsuits. City correction
unions also could bring legal challenges to a takeover.

Correction Commissioner Louis Molina made a last-ditch effort to
avert the process with a lengthy defense of his department's
performance since he began leading it in early 2022. He cited one
statistic after another that he claimed showed improvement compared
to 2021.

"No receiver will make greater reform at a faster pace than what we
have accomplished," he declared.

But Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Powell dismissed Molina's
assertion that things are better than two years ago.

"We don't think that is a proper comparison," Powell said.
"Stabbings and slashing will exceed 300 this year with 6,000 uses
of force -- much high than other jail systems. Every use of force
and violence indicator is substantially higher compared to 2016."

"The proposals offered by the city have been underwhelming," Powell
said. "It has failed to offer novel strategies, just more of the
same, such as issuing teletypes to remind officers of their basic
jobs."

Swain's decision was a setback for Mayor Adams, who has stubbornly
opposed receivership.

Anna Friedberg, the deputy monitor in the class action suit before
Swain, noted that Molina created a high security unit for men two
weeks ago inside the women's jail at Rikers -- known as the Rose M.
Singer Center. Already in the new men's high security area, eight
stabbings and slashings have been reported, including blade attacks
on victims in restraints, Friedberg said.

"Weapons have been found in this high security unit," Friedberg
said, adding that when she visited the Singer Center high-security
unit, she witnessed guards looking on indifferently as detainees
smoked illegal narcotics.

"They were highly intoxicated, some almost unable to stand,"
Friedberg said.

Sixteen detainees rioted and took over a housing unit on Aug. 1,
with two detainees even forcing their way into a control room.

On Aug. 8, sources said, there were two near-fatal overdoses in the
Eric M. Taylor Center at Rikers. One of the detainees was found at
8 p.m. in a bus in the sally port, the sources said.

That man was given 10 Narcan doses. He and the other overdosed man
were at Elmhurst Hospital as of Aug. 10, the sources said. [GN]

NEWTON RUNNING: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Newton Running
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Maria DiMeglio, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Newton Running
Company, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-05850-VSB (S.D.N.Y., July 7,
2023).

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

Newton Running -- https://www.newtonrunning.com/ -- is the leader
in natural running form and active technology in footwear.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com

               - and -

          Ara Vahe Naljian, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 584-5575
          Email: analjian@steinsakslegal.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Benjamin F. Silfen, Esq.
          BERG HILL GREENLEAF RUSCITTI LLP
          1712 Pearl Street
          Boulder, CO 80302
          Phone: (303) 412-1600
          Fax: (303) 412-1601
          Email: bfs@bhgrlaw.com


NIPPON EXPRESS: Aranda Files Suit in D. Nevada
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nippon Express
U.S.A., Inc. The case is styled as Charles M. Aranda, individually
and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
Nippon Express U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 23CV040634 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Alameda Cty., Aug. 14, 2023).

Nippon Express -- http://www.nipponexpress.com/-- is a global
logistics company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christina M. Lucio, Esq.
          FARNAES & LUCIO, APC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, California 92618
          Phone: (949) 387-7200
          Fax: (949) 387-6676
          Email: christina@Jameshawkinsaplc.com

NORTHLAND RESOURCES: Dec. 15 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action involving Northland Resources S.A.
("Northland") and other related parties has settled for
EUR7,550,000. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has approved
the settlement agreement and the plan of distributing the
settlement funds less Court-approved legal fees, disbursements,
notice, administration and other related costs.

The claims period is now open for eligible affected shareholders to
make a claim for a portion of the settlement funds. Eligible
shareholders include all persons or entities who acquired Northland
Resources S.A. Securities between April 1, 2012 and January 23,
2013 and held some or all of those Securities as of January 23,
2013.

Claims can be submitted online through the settlement website at
www.northlandclassaction.com, or by paper copy upon request to the
Claims Administrator. The deadline for filing a claim is December
15, 2023. Claims filed after the deadline may not be approved or
eligible for compensation.

For more information regarding the claims process, or to view
copies of the Settlement Agreement, Plan of Distribution, Claims
Notice and other documents, please visit the settlement website
www.northlandclassaction.com. If your question is not answered
there, you may contact the Claims Administrator at
northland@ricepoint.com or 1.888.756.7635.

Foreman & Company, the lawyers acting for the class in this matter,
can be contacted at northland@foremancompany.com or at
1.855.814.4575, ext. 107.

Foreman & Company, based in London, Ontario, has more than 20
years' experience in class action litigation and expertise in a
full range of class action matters. [GN]

NORTHTOWN CAPITAL: Barragan Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northtown Capital
Services Group, LLC. The case is styled as Moises Barragan, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Northtown
Capital Services Group, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00258-MJT (E.D. Tex.,
July 12, 2023).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Northtown Capital Services Group LLC is a Billing and Accounts
Receivable company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Stephen Agruss, Esq.
          AGRUSS LAW FIRM LLC
          4809 N. Ravenswood Avenue,Suite 419
          Chicago, IL 60640
          Phone: (312) 224-4695
          Fax: (312) 253-4451
          Email: michael@agrusslawfirm.com


ONEMAIN GENERAL: Estrada Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Onemain General
Services Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Jenny Estrada,
on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Petitioner v.
Onemain General Services Corporation; Onemain Financial Group LLC;
Does 1-50, Respondents, Case No. 23CV005986 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., Aug. 3, 2023).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."

OneMain Holdings, Inc. is an American financial services holding
company headquartered in Evansville, Indiana, with central
offices.[BN]

OPC KICKS LLC: Hussein Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against OPC Kicks, LLC. The
case is styled as Sumaya Hussein, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. OPC Kicks, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-04258
(D.N.J., July 3, 2023).

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

OPC Kicks -- https://www.opckicks.com/ -- was founded in 2006 and
has been customizing sneakers since.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


OPENAI INC: Faces Privacy Class Action Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Hans Allnutt and Astrid Hardy of DAC Beachcroft, in an article for
Claims Journal, disclosed that generative AI tools such as ChatGPT
have been in the headlines since 2022, with many users (including
children) using the tools to generate content with little thought
as to the data protection risks associated with its use. Last
month, we reviewed the various actions being undertaken by European
data protection authorities in an effort to ensure that OpenAI, the
creator of ChatGPT, is using the personal data obtained via the
platform appropriateClaims Journally. Perhaps unsurprisingly, there
are now updates from the United States as the regulatory and
litigation backlash against OpenAI takes on a wider international
outlook.

There is a key theme to the developments in the US which concerns
the huge amount of personal data which is being used (allegedly
scraped from the web) to train OpenAI's products. The investigation
and class actions filed highlight the moral, legal and ethical
concerns regarding the development of generative AI products.

The past month has seen the commencement of an investigation into
OpenAI by the Federal Trade Commission, and further understanding
of how the litigation landscape for artificial intelligence
technologies is likely to progress, with the first AI focused class
action filed. These increasing regulatory pressures on OpenAI and
class action lawsuits are indicative of the legal backdrop against
which AI platforms will find themselves operating. We summarize the
key developments below:

Federal Trade Commission investigation

It has recently been reported by the Washington Post that the US
Federal Trade Commission has commenced an investigation into
OpenAI, demanding substantial detail on how OpenAI addresses risk
related to its AI models.

The subject of the investigation is whether OpenAI has "(1) engaged
in unfair or deceptive privacy or data security practices or (2)
engaged in unfair or deceptive practices relating to risks of harm
to consumers, including reputational harm, in violation of Section
5 of the FTC Act [which relates to unfair or deceptive acts or
practices]".

Class actions

Mr. Allnutt and Ms. Hardy said, "We are now seeing a series of
class actions being commenced in the United States against OpenAI
and other companies involved in the development of AI systems,
which largely consider whether data and images have been improperly
obtained and then used as part of training datasets for the AI
platforms."

Northern District of California class action

A class action has been filed in California against Open AI and
Microsoft including various alleged complaints. Microsoft is also a
defendant in the class action, since it integrated OpenAI's
technologies in some of the software and services it provides
(Azure OpenAI Service, Bing, Microsoft Teams). The plaintiffs
(claimants), have asked to remain anonymous, are claiming $3
billion. The action is one of the first AI related class actions
which is not focused on intellectual property infringement. The
complaints include violation of unfair competition, privacy,
consumer fraud, and deceptive business practices legislation across
Illinois and California.

The complaint, a copy of the 157-page complaint can be found here,
alleges ongoing harms and threats posed by the products which are
the subject of the complaint (ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4.0, Dall-E, and
Vall-E). These harms include privacy violations, misinformation
campaigns, malware creation and autonomous weaponry. In respect of
the harms actioned upon the members of the class, it is alleged
that the business model of OpenAI is based on theft.

It is argued that OpenAI ignored established protocols for the
purchase and use of personal information which would be used to
train the AI, and instead "systematically scraped 300 billion words
from the internet, "books, articles, websites and posts –
including personal information obtained without consent" [paragraph
146].

It is also alleged that non-users of ChatGPT had their "personal
information scraped long before OpenAI's applications were
available to the public, and certainly before they could have
registered as a ChatGPT user" [paragraph 159]. The personal data
includes accounts, names, contact information, means of payment to
name a few examples. The class action highlights the privacy
concerns with the potential exposure of users' and non-users'
personal information.

Authors class action

Class actions were also filed against Meta and OpenAI in San
Francisco earlier this month, by the authors Sarah Silverman,
Richard Kadley and Christopher Golden against Open AI and Meta. The
complaint against Meta is directed against the Large Language Model
Meta AI (LLaMA) product, which as of yet is not publicly
available.

It is alleged that OpenAI has been training ChatGPT using datasets
"from copyrighted works -- including books written by [the author
Plaintiffs] . . . without consent, without credit, and without
compensation." The action against Meta makes similar allegations.

Getty UK/US action against Stability AI

In the United Kingdom, Getty Images is pursuing a claim against an
AI image generator, Stability UK, over the unlawful use of
copyrighted photographs in order to train the image generation
tool. The representative action alleges that at least 12 million
links to Getty content had formed part of the training. Earlier
this year, similar litigation against Stability's US operations was
filed in Delaware by Getty, and a class action complaint has also
been filed in San Francisco by artists who also alleged their work
has been used to train the Stability AI tool.

Implications for companies in the UK
Dependent on the outcomes in the United States there could be real
implications on companies globally should there be a temporary
freeze on access granted (which is what the plaintiffs ask for in
the California class action), which would impact the continued
availability of ChatGPT and other OpenAI products worldwide.
Alternatively, we could see requests for tighter security and
controls on the use of personal data which would be welcome, but
could restrict the speed of development on generative AI tools
generally. For example, it is alleged that OpenAI is using personal
data which has been collected via web-scraping (without users'
consent), should future consent be required, then it follows that
this will limit the speed of development of generative AI tools
moving forward.

Conclusion
Any decisions flowing from the US, will undoubtedly alter the data
practices used by OpenAI to develop its generative AI tools. It is
likely that any outcome from the US will have a knock-on effect
with regulators and organizations globally.

Mr. Allnutt and Ms. Hardy said, "We will continue to report on
developments in this area, in particular steps taken by the Courts
and whether this aligns with data protection regulators around the
world. What remains to be seen is whether the courts will agree
with the regulators' concerns on the associated data protection and
privacy risks in both the development and use of these AI tools."
[GN]

PATTERSON-UTI DRILLING: Ginn Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK GINN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PATTERSON-UTI DRILLING COMPANY LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-02830 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 1, 2023) seeks
to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

Plaintiff Ginn was employed by Patterson in Texas from
approximately March 2022 until April 2023, as a health, safety and
environment advisor. He asserts that although he and the Putative
Collective/Class Members have routinely worked (and continue to
work) in excess of 40 hours per workweek, they were not paid
overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all
hours worked.

Patterson is an oilfield services company that owns and operates
land-based oil rigs throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
          Carter T. Hastings, Esq.   
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Ste. 610
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  austin@a2xlaw.com
                  lauren@a2xlaw.com
                  carter@a2xlaw.com

PENNY NEWMAN GRAIN: Nares Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Penny Newman Grain
Co., et al. The case is styled as Carlos Nares, on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated, Petitioner v.
Penny Newman Grain Co., Does 1-100, Respondents, Case No.
23CV006061 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Aug. 4, 2023).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."

Penny Newman -- https://penny-newman.com/ -- plays a vital role
within many different segments of the food/ag supply chain.[BN]

PENSION BENEFIT: Cheng Sues Over Compromised Personal Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Cheng, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. PENSION BENEFIT INFORMATION, LLC; THE BERWYN GROUP,
INC.; DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 2:23-cv-05481-DDP-MRW (C.D.
Cal., July 7, 2023), is brought against the Defendants for various
claims under state law, including negligence, invasion of privacy
and violations of California's Consumer Records Act ("CRA"),
arising from a data breach which compromised personal information
of retired members of the California Public Employees' Retirement
System ("CalPERS") including their full name, date of birth and
Social Security number.

In May 2023, the data that PBI had received from CalPERS with the
personal information of Plaintiff and the rest of the Class, was
downloaded by an unauthorized third party. In total, full names,
dates of birth and Social Security numbers of 769,000 retired
CalPERS members were exfiltrated. PBI waited until on or around
June 4, 2023, to notify CalPERS. CalPERS sent notices to retired
members on June 22, 2023. PBI has not sent any notice to Plaintiff
and the rest of the Class.

The Plaintiff are informed and believe and thereon allege that each
of the fictitiously named Defendants is legally responsible for the
occurrences herein alleged, and that Plaintiff's damages as herein
alleged were proximately caused by their conduct. At all relevant
times, all Defendants were and are legally responsible for the
unlawful conduct, policies, practices, acts, and omissions as
described in each and all of the foregoing paragraphs, unless
otherwise indicated, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a retired member of CalPERS.

PENSION BENEFIT INFORMATION, LLC is a limited liability corporation
incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mike Arias, Esq.
          Craig S. Momita, Esq.
          M. Anthony Jenkins, Esq.
          ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS LLP
          6701 Center Drive West, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Phone: (310) 844-9696
          Facsimile: (310) 861-0168
          Email: mike@aswtlawyers.com
                 craig@aswtlawyers.com
                 anthony@aswtlawyers.com


PENSION BENEFIT: Hurtado Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robbie Hurtado, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PENSION BENEFIT INFORMATION, LLC dba PBI RESEARCH
SERVICES, BERWYNGROUP, INC. and PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Case
No. 3:23-cv-03377-SK (N.D. Cal., July 6, 2023), is brought against
Defendants Pension Benefit Information, LLC ("PBI"), BerwynGroup,
Inc. ("BGI") and Progress Software Corporation ("PSG")
(collectively "Defendants") for their failure to properly secure
and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally
identifiable information stored within Defendant's information
network, including without limitation, full names, dates of birth,
Social Security numbers and dependents'/children's names (these
types of information, inter alia, being thereafter referred to,
collectively, as "personally identifiable information" or "PII").

The Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendants responsible for the harms it
caused and will continue to cause the Plaintiff and, at least,
hundreds of thousands of other similarly situated persons in the
massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by PBI
on or around June 6, 2023 by which cybercriminals infiltrated
Defendants' inadequately protected file transfer application and
accessed highly sensitive PII which was being kept unprotected (the
"Data Breach").

While PBI claims to have discovered the breach as early as June 6,
2023, Defendants did not begin informing victims of the Data Breach
until June 22, 2023 and failed to inform victims when or for how
long the Data Breach occurred. Indeed, the Plaintiff and Class
Members were wholly unaware of the Data Breach until they received
letters informing them of it. The Notice received by the Plaintiff
was dated June 22, 2023.

The Defendants acquired, collected and stored the Plaintiff's and
Class Members' PII. Therefore, at all relevant times, Defendants
knew or should have known that the Plaintiff and Class Members
would use Defendants' services to store and/or share sensitive
data, including highly confidential PII. By obtaining, collecting,
using and deriving a benefit from the Plaintiff's and Class
Members' PII, Defendants assumed legal and equitable duties to
those individuals. These duties arise from state and federal
statutes and regulations as well as common law principles.

The Defendants disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class
Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly and/or negligently
failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure that the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was safeguarded,
failing to take available steps to prevent an unauthorized
disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required and
appropriate protocols, policies and procedures regarding the
encryption of data, even for internal use.

As a result, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was compromised
through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party--an
undoubtedly nefarious third party seeking to profit off this
disclosure by defrauding the Plaintiff and Class Members in the
future. the Plaintiff and Class Members have a continuing interest
in ensuring their information is and remains safe and are entitled
to injunctive and other equitable relief, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff's PII was exposed in the Data Breach because the
Defendants stored and/or shared the Plaintiff's PII.

PBI bills itself as death audit and beneficiary research experts
for pension plans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
          Laura Grace Van Note, Esq.
          Cody Alexander Bolce, Esq.
          COLE & VAN NOTE
          555 12th Street, Suite 2100
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Phone: (510) 891-9800
          Facsimile: (510) 891-7030
          Email: sec@colevannote.com
                 lvn@colevannote.com
                 cab@colevannote.com
          Web: www.colevannote.com


PENSION BENEFIT: Smith Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PENSION BENEFIT INFORMATION, LLC; THE BERWYN GROUP,
INC., Case No. 0:23-cv-02055-KMM-DTS (D. Minn., July 10, 2023), is
brought arising out of the recent targeted cyberattack and data
breach in 2023 ("Data Incident") on PBI's network that resulted in
unauthorized access to customer and employee data.

Information compromised in the Data Incident includes Plaintiff's
and Class Members' full names, dates of birth, and Social Security
numbers (these types of information, inter alia, being thereafter
referred to, collectively, as "Private Information").  The Data
Incident has impacted more than 700,000 California Public
Employees' Retirement System ("CalPERS") members and an unknown
number of California State Teachers' Retirement System ("CalSTRS")
members. The Data Breach has also impacted millions of additional
individuals nationwide for whom PBI provides pension and insurance
related services. In addition, Plaintiff and Class Members'
sensitive personal information--which was entrusted to PBI was
compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Incident.

As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and approximately
millions of Class Members suffered ascertainable losses in the form
of the loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses
and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or
mitigate the effects of the Data Incident. The Plaintiff brings
this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to
address PBI's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private
Information that it collected and maintained.

PBI maintained the Private Information in a reckless and negligent
manner. In particular, the Private Information was maintained on
PBI's computer system and network in a condition vulnerable to
cyberattacks. Upon information and belief, the mechanism of the
cyberattack and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's
and Class Members' Private Information was a known risk to PBI, and
thus PBI was on notice that failing to take steps necessary to
secure the Private Information from those risks left that property
in a vulnerable condition. Plaintiff and Class Members' identities
are now at risk because of PBI's negligent conduct because the
Private Information that PBI collected and maintained is now in the
hands of data thieves, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Ohio and is a plan
participant of an entity that utilizes PBI's services.

Pension Benefit Information, LLC is a Delaware limited liability
corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nathan D. Prosser, Esq.
          Anne T. Regan, Esq.
          Lindsey L. Larson, Esq.
          HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC
          8050 West 78th Street
          Edina, MN 55439
          Phone: (952) 941-4005
          Email: nprosser@hjlawfirm.com
                 aregan@hjlawfirm.com
                 llabellelarson@hjlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Terence R. Coates, Esq.
          Dylan J. Gould, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
          119 E. Court, Suite 530
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Phone: (513) 651-3700
          Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com
                 dgould@msdlegal.com


PENSION BENEFIT: Sued Over Failure to Implement Cybersecurity
-------------------------------------------------------------
Melainee Collins, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PENSION BENEFIT INFORMATION, LLC; THE BERWYN
GROUP, INC.; and DOES 1-10, CASE 0:23-cv-02045-KMM-DTS (D. Minn.,
July 7, 2023), is brought arising from the Defendants' negligent
failure to implement and maintain reasonable cybersecurity
procedures that resulted in a data breach of its systems, which was
discovered in May or June 2023 (the "Data Breach"), in violation of
the California Consumer Privacy Act, the California Customer
Records Act, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law,
and for invasion of privacy based on the California Constitution.

PBI acts as a third-party provider of pension management services
to public pensions throughout the nation, including the California
Public Employees' Retire System ("CalPERS") and the California
Teachers' Retirement Fund ("CalSTRS"). In connection with the Data
Breach, PBI failed to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and
Class Members' protected personally identifiable information,
including without limitation, full names, dates of birth, and
Social Security numbers (these types of information, inter alia,
being thereafter referred to, collectively, as "personal
identifiable information" or "PII").

The Data Breach has impacted more than 700,000 CalPERS members and
an unknown number of CalSTRS members. The Data Breach has also
impacted several million additional individuals nationwide for whom
PBI provides pension and insurance related services. Plaintiff
brings this class action complaint to redress injuries related to
the Data Breach, on behalf of herself and a nationwide class and
California subclass of similarly situated persons.

The Plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of a nationwide class for
negligence, negligence per se, declaratory judgment, common law
invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract and breach of
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of the State of California
whose personal identifying information was part of the June 2023
data breach.

Pension Benefit Information, LLC and The Berwyn Group, Inc.
(collectively "PBI") jointly provide pension benefit management
services to public pensions throughout the nation, including
CalPERS and CalSTRS.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Jason M. Wucetich, Esq.
          Dimitrios V. Korovilas, Esq.
          WVCETICH & KOROVILAS LLP
          222 N. Pacific Coast Hwy, Suite 2000
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Phone: (310) 335-2001
          Facsimile: (310) 364-5201
          Email: jason@wukolaw.com
                 dimitri@wukolaw.com

               - and -

          M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
          Gregory Haroutunian, Esq.
          Brandon P. Jack, Esq.
          CLAYEO C. ARNOLD
          A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          865 Howe Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Phone: (916) 239-4778
          Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
          Email: aberry@justice4you.com
                 gharoutunian@justice4you.com
                 bjack@justice4you.com


PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Philips North
America, LLC. The case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Philips North America,
LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-06833 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 3, 2023).

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

Philips North America LLC -- http://usa.philips.com/-- designs and
manufactures products for consumers, commercial professionals, and
government professionals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noor H. Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
          380 North Broadway, Suite 300
          Jericho, NY 11753
          Phone: (718) 740-5060
          Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com


PORSCHE CARS: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Defective Taycans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a
Porsche Taycan class action lawsuit alleges customers in California
have not received what they paid for regarding 2020-2021 Porsche
Taycans, including base, 4S, Turbo, and Turbo S models.

The class action alleges Porsche advertised the 2020-2021 Taycans
as equipped with several functions that are allegedly defective.

   * State-of-the-art cockpit display
   * Integrated Apple CarPlay and an infotainment system with Apple
Music built in
   * Air conditioning and heating
   * A mobile phone app that controls charging the car, displays
the status of charging, and controls the air conditioning
   * Wireless mobile phone charging

In addition, the class action alleges the Taycan has a "Smart Lift
system that is geolocation based so the car will remember locations
where lifting the car for greater clearance is desired and
automatically lifts the car when at those locations."

The lessee who sued contends Porsche knew none of these features
functioned properly. However, Porsche allegedly forced customers to
pay for vehicles with several features that didn't work.

The class action lawsuit was filed by California plaintiff William
M. Turner who leased a 2021 Porsche Taycan 4S.

Porsche allegedly falsely advertised the 2020-2021 Taycan vehicles
by making consumers believe multiple features functioned normally.

The plaintiff asserts his Taycan began having trouble as soon as he
leased it and was driving it home. According to the lawsuit, Apple
CarPlay and the wireless mobile phone charging did not function
properly.

The plaintiff said he was notified about a recall of the computer
system, but by that time multiple issues were evident.

According to the Porsche Taycan lawsuit:

1. Sometimes Apple CarPlay did not work at all
2. Frequently the part of the dashboard that was supposed to
display Apple CarPlay, the radio, the controls for the car, etc.
remained blank/black for the entire drive
3. When Apple CarPlay worked, 95% of the time it took more than 60
seconds to connect, and 20% of the time, it took more than five
minutes to connect
4. It frequently took several minutes for Plaintiff to be able to
use the radio
5. Plaintiff's "favorites" for radio stations were repeatedly
deleted, requiring that Plaintiff reset them as "favorites"
6. The wireless charging frequently did not work, and, when it did
work, it took two to 20 minutes for charging to start
7. The Smart Lift system frequently did not work, resulting in the
car scraping the ground (potentially causing damage to the car).

The plaintiff says the recall repairs did help certain features but
none of the problems were completely eliminated.

There were allegedly two more Taycan recalls but the plaintiff
continued to have several problems with the vehicle, including a
loss of heating.

In addition, the plaintiff claims Porsche technicians told him
other 2020-2021 Taycan customers were having the same problems.

The Porsche Taycan class action lawsuit was originally filed in the
Supreme Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, but was
removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California: William M. Turner v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

The plaintiff is represented by Law + Brandmeyer LLP. [GN]

POST BAGEL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hercules Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
GLORIA HERCULES, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. POST BAGEL INC. D/B/A POST BAGEL RESTAURANT;
and MARTA LILIAN ORTORIO, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-06132
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2023) is an action against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals
and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements.

Plaintiff Hercules was employed by the Defendants as a waitress,
cashier, and maintenance worker.

POST BAGEL INC. owns and operates Post Bagel, a breakfast
restaurant located in Westbury, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

PRECISION IMAGING: Hermann Files Suit in M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Precision Imaging,
Inc. The case is styled as Natalie Hermann, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Precision Imaging, Inc.,
Case No. 3:23-cv-00818-TJC-LLL (M.D. Fla., July 13, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.

Precision Imaging -- https://www.precisionimagingcenters.com/ --
offers litigation and imaging support such as copying, scanning,
printing, and electronic data review.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
          LAUKAITIS LAW FIRM LLC
          954 Avenida Pone De Leon, Suite 205, #10518
          San Juan, PR 00907
          Phone: (215) 789-4462

               - and -

          Joshua Robert Jacobson
          NORMAND PLLC
          3165 McCrory Place, Suite 175
          Orlando, FL 32803
          Phone: (407) 488-8291
          Email: JJacobson@normandpllc.com


PRECOR INCORPORATED: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Precor Incorporated.
The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Precor Incorporated, Case No.
1:23-cv-06812 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 3, 2023).

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

Precor -- https://www.precor.com/ -- offers the best selection of
home fitness gym equipment, including ellipticals, bikes, rowers,
strength training equipment, and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
          380 North Broadway, Suite 300
          Jericho, NY 11753
          Phone: (718) 740-5060
          Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com


PRIORITY CONCEPTS: Connor Sues Over Unsolicited Calls and Messages
------------------------------------------------------------------
JAY CONNOR, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons
and entities similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRIORITY CONCEPTS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-03726-RMG (D.S.C., July 31, 2023)
seeks redress for the Defendant's alleged wide-scale illegal
telemarketing calls in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and the South Carolina Telephone Privacy Protection
Act.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff Connor received a
pre-recorded call on his cellular telephone number on July 11,
2023. The number called had been on the National Do Not Call
Registry for more than 30 days prior to the call. The pre-recorded
message stated that a refund based on a federally mandated employee
retention credit program is due.

The Plaintiff and members of the classes are entitled to and do
seek injunctive relief prohibiting Defendant and/or its affiliates,
agents, and/or other persons or entities acting on Defendant's
behalf from violating the TCPA by making calls, except for
emergency purposes, to any cellular telephone numbers or numbers
for which the recipient is charged for the call using an artificial
or prerecorded voice in the future.

Priority Concepts, Inc. is a financial consulting corporation with
a principal place of business in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David A. Maxfield, Esq.
          P.O. Box 11865
          Columbia, SC 29211
          Telephone: (803) 509-6800
          Facsimile: (855) 299-1656
          E-mail: dave@consumerlawsc.com

               - and -

          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Telephone: (508) 221-1510  
          E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com

PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Mosqueda Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROSEMARY MOSQUEDA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION and
PENSION BENEFIT INFORMATION, LLC d/b/a PBI RESEARCH SERVICES,
Defendants, Case No. 0:23-cv-02278-KMM-DTS (D. Minn., August 2,
2023) asserts claims against the Defendants for negligence,
negligence per se, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and
violations of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information
Act, the California Customer Records Act, the California Unfair
Competition Law, and the California Constitution arising from
Defendant's inadequate security measures to safeguard Plaintiff's
sensitive personal identifiable information(PII) and protected
health information(PHI).

As a result of Defendants' inadequate security and breach of its
duties and obligations, the data breach occurred and Plaintiff's
and class members' PII and PHI was accessed by, and disclosed to,
an unauthorized third-party actor. This instant action seeks to
remedy these failings and their consequences. The Plaintiff thus
brings this complaint on behalf of herself and all similarly
situated individuals whose PII and/or PHI was exposed as a result
of the data breach, which PSC learned of on May 27, 2023, but did
not publicly disclose until May 31, 2023, says the suit.

Progress Software Corporation is an American public company that
offers software for creating and deploying business
applications.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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: Ortega Sues Over Failure to Secure Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Ortega, David Merkle, and Nancy Merkle, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE
CORPORATION, a Delaware Publicly Traded Corporation; PENSION
BENEFIT INFORMATION, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company,
Case No. 2:23-cv-05301 (C.D. Cal., July 3, 2023), is brought
against the Defendants for their failure to properly secure and
safeguard Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated individuals'
names, addresses, Social Security numbers, birthdates, demographic
information, beneficiaries' information, driver's license numbers,
vehicle registration numbers, and other personally identifiable
information and financial information (collectively, the "Private
Information").

"Private Information" was shared between the Retirement Systems and
PBI using PROGRESS's proprietary line of products and services,
including file transfer software, file transfer services, cloud
hosting, and /or cloud storage known as "MOVEit," "MOVEit File
Transfer," and "MOVEit Cloud" (hereinafter the "MOVEit Software").

On May 31, 2023, PROGRESS posted on its website a "Critical
Vulnerability" notice, stating, in part: "PROGRESS has discovered a
vulnerability in MOVEit Transfer that could lead to escalated
privileges and potential unauthorized access to the environment. If
you are a MOVEit Transfer customer, it is extremely important that
you take immediate action as noted below in order to help protect
your MOVEit Transfer environment." A nearly identical notice was
posted with regard to MOVEit Cloud. On June 6, 2023, a Russian
based cyber terrorist group named "CLOP" has publicly claimed to
have accessed and retrieved the Private Information of millions of
americans, using the critical vulnerabilities in the MOVIEit
Software. Since June 6, 2023, additional critical vulnerabilities
in MOVEit Software have been identified and publicly admitted to by
PROGRESS.

PROGRESS and PBI have not yet sent direct notice to those impacted
by the Data Breach, though many of Defendants' customers, including
the Retirement Systems, have begun notifying individuals, that
their Private Information has been compromised as a result of the
Breach. PROGRESS has not confirmed that it has adequately enhanced
its data security practices sufficient to avoid a similar
vulnerability in its "MOVEit Software" in the future. PROGRESS has
not confirmed to Plaintiffs and Class members what if any
negotiations took place with CLOP, and what, if any of the Private
Information was sold, released, publicized, etc.

The Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered and continue to
suffer harm, including release of the Private Information, imminent
risk of identity theft and other fraudulent misuse of the Private
Information by bad actors, out-of-pocket expenses incurred to
remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach, and the value of
their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of
the Data Breach, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are retirees receiving benefits through the
California Public Employees' Retirement System (hereinafter
"CalPERS")

PROGRESS is a software company offering a range of products and
services to government and corporate entities across the country
and around the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ramin R. Younessi, Esq.
          Heather N. Phillips, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RAMIN R YOUNESSI
          A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP.
          3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2200
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: (213) 480-6200
          Email: ryounessi@younessilaw.com
                 hphillips@younessilaw.com


PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Siflinger Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Siflinger and Randy Kiyabu, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION and
PENSION BENEFIT INFORMATION, LLC d/b/a PBI RESEARCH SERVICES, Case
No. 1:23-cv-11782-NMG (D. Mass., Aug. 3, 2023), is brought against
Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard
personally identifiable information ("PII" or "Private
Information") including, but not limited to, Plaintiffs' and Class
members' names, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers.

According to CalPERS, "PBI provides services to CalPERS to identify
member deaths. This ensures that proper payments are made to
retirees and beneficiaries and prevents" instances of overpayments
or other errors." CalPERS succinctly summarizes the breach as
follows: "CalPERS provided data to PBI in a secure, encrypted
format. On June 6, 2023, PBI notified CalPERS that a previously
unknown 'zero-day' vulnerability in the MOVEit transfer application
allowed our data to be downloaded by an unauthorized third party."
CalPERS states that the unauthorized third party downloaded "full
name, date of birth and Social Security number. It could also have
included the names of your child or children."

During its business operations, Defendants acquired, collected,
utilized, and derived a benefit from Plaintiffs' and Class members'
Private Information. Therefore, Defendants owed and otherwise
assumed statutory, regulatory, contractual, and common law duties
and obligations, including to keep Plaintiffs' and Class members'
Private Information confidential, safe, secure, and protected from
the type of unauthorized access, disclosure, and theft that
occurred in the Data Breach described below.

Despite its duties to Plaintiffs and Class members related to and
arising from its cloud hosting and secure file transfer services
and applications involving MOVEit, PSC stored, maintained, and/or
hosted Plaintiffs' and Class members' Private Information on its
MOVEit transfer services software that was negligently and/or
recklessly configured and maintained so as to contain security
vulnerabilities that resulted in multiple breaches of its network
and systems or of its customers' networks and systems, including
PBI. These security vulnerabilities existed as far back as 2021. As
a result of the breach, unauthorized third-party cybercriminals
gained access to and obtained Plaintiffs' and Class members' PII,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs received a breach notification letter from CalPERS
alerting Plaintiffs that their PII had been stolen.

PBI, which is based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, is a company that
provides search services to pension funds like CalPERS, insurance
companies, and others to determine whether fund recipients are
deceased.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kristen A. Johnson, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
          1 Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: (617) 482-3700
          Fax: (617) 482-3003
          Email: kristen@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Sean R. Matt, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 623-7292
          Fax: (206) 623-0594
          Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
                 sean@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
          4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
          Cincinnati, OH 45242
          Phone: (513) 345-8291
          Fax: (513) 345-8294
          Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com

               - and -

          Charles Schaffer, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Elia, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Phone: (215) 592-1500
          Fax: (215) 592-4663
          Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
                 nelia@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
          THE LYON FIRM
          2754 Erie Ave.
          Cincinnati, OH 45208
          Phone: (513) 381-2333
          Fax: (513) 766-9011
          Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Brown, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Phone:(516) 873-9550
          Fax: (516) 747-5024
          Email: JBrown@leedsbrownlaw.com

               - and -

          Jason Sulzer, Esq.
          THE SULZER LAW GROUP
          270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 347-657-5533
          Fax: 888-749-7747
          Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com


QUALITY DRIVE AWAY: Gentry Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Deon Gentry and Leon Gentry, Jr., as
individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
QUALITY DRIVE AWAY, INC., an Indiana corporation; and DOES 1
through 100 inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2314287 was removed from the
Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 14,
2023, and assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-01642.

The complaint alleges generalized claims for violations of the
California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code. The
Plaintiffs allege that, as a result of Defendant's alleged willful
misclassification of its drivers as independent contractors,
Plaintiffs and unnamed other drivers are entitled to damages,
restitution, statutory penalties, and attorney's fees.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Roger M. Mansukhani, Esq.
          Kiley McCarthy Connolly, Esq.
          Amanda H. Herron, Esq.
          GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
          633 West Fifth Street, 52nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 576-5000
          Fax: (213) 680-4470
          Email: rmansukhani@grsm.com
                 kconnolly@grsm.com
                 aherron@grsm.com


R1 RCM INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Reynolds Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND L. REYNOLDS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. R1 RCM, INC. d/b/a MEDICAL
FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00135-Z (N.D.
Tex., Aug. 15, 2023) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of
making unsolicited calls in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

R1 RCM, INC. d/b/a MEDICAL FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS is an American
revenue cycle management company servicing hospitals, health
systems and physician groups across the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 South Highland Avenue Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Telephone: (630) 575-8181
          Email: mdaher@sulaimanlaw.com

RAREESSENCE LLC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against rareESSENCE, LLC. The
case is styled as Mairoby Hernandez, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. rareESSENCE, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-06796 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 3, 2023).

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

rareESSENCE Aromatherapy --
https://www.rareessencearomatherapy.com/ -- is a seller of
essential oils, body care products, aromatherapy books, perfumes,
and candles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RC BIGELOW: Court Certifies False Advertising Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Conor J. Mannix, Esq., of K&L Gates, disclosed that on July 31,
2023, the Central District of California granted class
certification in a false advertising lawsuit against tea-maker R.C.
Bigelow, Inc.[1] The suit alleges that Bigelow's tea labels, which
state "Manufactured in the USA 100%," either intentionally or
negligently misrepresent the origins of the tea because the tea
itself is primarily grown internationally, and at least partially
processed abroad before being packaged in the U.S.

Certifying the Class
The court found the plaintiffs satisfied all four prerequisites for
class certification (numerosity, commonality, typicality, and
adequacy).[2] The court refused to find typicality lacking merely
because a consumer purchased the product because of taste or brand
loyalty.

For the commonality requirement,[3] the court examined the
"predominance inquiry" in which a court asks whether "questions
common to the class predominate" over the individual questions of
each plaintiff's experience.[4] The court studied how different
consumers might experience the claim, considering both the
placement of the product on store shelves and the prominence of the
claim on the label. The court noted that the same Made in USA label
was placed on many different types of teas, and that the claim was
set off and much larger than other text on the box, not hidden in a
block of text. The court also examined whether consumers would rely
on the common meaning of the Made in USA claim, and whether there
could be damages from the alleged misrepresentation. The court then
held that despite the individual reasons a consumer chose Bigelow
teas, the common questions for the class did predominate over the
individual questions. The court then defined the common questions
as (1) whether reasonable consumers would believe the label to be
true, and (2) whether the teas actually were 100% manufactured and
processed in the United States.

Admitting and Analyzing Expert Testimony
The Defendants also challenged certain expert reports. The first
report was from a food labeling specialist that discussed how the
food industry analyzes "Made in USA" claims, which included an
analysis of related federal and state statutes. The defendants
sought to exclude this report on the grounds that its analysis was
irrelevant to the specific charges of the class action and that the
non-lawyer expert had improperly proffered legal opinions. The
court dismissed those concerns, stating that the report and
testimony discussed relevant statutes.

The second challenged report contained the results of a survey that
supported the plaintiffs' theory of damages — specifically,
­­­that consumers are willing to pay a premium for certain
qualities such as a product being made wholly in the U.S., and that
plaintiffs were misled into paying this premium. The defendants
claimed that the survey lacked specificity and improperly
disregarded many other external factors influencing consumer
behavior. The court disagreed, finding that such issues went to the
weight of the evidence, not the admissibility.

The third challenged report contained the results of a survey that
asked consumers what they perceived the "Manufactured in the USA
100%" to mean. According to the report, almost 85% of the consumers
surveyed believed "manufactured" to mean the same as "processed,"
which matters, according to plaintiffs, because the tea was not
100% processed in the U.S. The defendants sought to strike this
report because it did not examine what "processed" meant to the
consumers. The court again found that the plain meaning of
"processed" was unambiguous and denied the defendant's motion.

[1] ORDER GRANTING CLASS CERTIFICATION, DENYING MOTIONS TO STRIKE,
July 31, 2023, Case No. 20‐cv‐06208 DDP (RAOx) (C.D. Cal)

[2] Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).

[3] Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2).

[4] Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 623 (1997).[GN]

REAL KOSHER: Gurkov Sues Over Mislabeled Ice Cream Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHAYA GURKOV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. REAL KOSHER ICE CREAM INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:23-cv-06128 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2023) seeks to remedy the
deceptive and misleading business practices of the Defendant with
respect to the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of Defendant's
Ice Cream and Sorbet products (hereinafter the "Products").

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant has
improperly, deceptively, and misleadingly labeled and marketed its
Products to reasonable consumers, like the Plaintiff, by omitting
and not disclosing to consumers on its packaging that consumption
of the Products may increase the risk of contracting invasive
infections.

The Products contain Listeria monocytogenes, which could lead to
serious and life-threatening adverse health consequences. The risk
of serious infection is particularly concerning for pregnant
mothers, infants, the elderly, and immunocompromised individuals,
who are highly susceptible to severe infection and even death from
Listeria monocytogenes. The Defendant knows that if they had not
omitted that the Products contained Listeria monocytogenes, then
Plaintiff and the Class would not have purchased the Products at
all, says the suit.

REAL KOSHER ICE CREAM INC. provides dairy products. The Company
offers ice cream, vegan, and fruit bars.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Nick Suciu III, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
          Telephone: (313) 303-3472
          Email: nsuciu@milberg.com

REALPAGE INC: Dempsey Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Benjamin Dempsey and Ivonne Arriola Mendieta,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
RealPage, Inc., BH Management Services, LLC, Cortland Partners,
LLC, Pinnacle Property Management Services, LLC, Greystar Real
Estate Partners, LLC, Highmark Residential, LLC, Independence
Realty Trust, Inc., Lincoln Property Co., Mid-America Apartment
Communities, Inc., Morgan Properties Management Company, LLC, Case
No. 1:23-cv-01832 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the District of Colorado, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee on Aug. 4, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00792 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust.

RealPage -- https://www.realpage.com/ -- provides data analytics,
property management software, and services to efficiently manage
rental properties and real estate.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rusty Evan Glenn, Esq.
          SHUMAN GLENN & STECKER
          600 17th Street, Suite 2800 South
          Denver, CO 80202
          Phone: (303) 861-3003
          Fax: (303) 536-7849
          Email: rusty@shumanlawfirm.com


RECKER CONSULTING: Underpays Customer Service Reps, Lott Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
KIARA LOTT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. RECKER CONSULTING, LLC d/b/a PATH FORWARD IT, a
limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00489-DRC
(S.D. Ohio, Aug. 1, 2023) is a collective and class action arising
from the Defendant's alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and common
law.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant violated the FLSA and
common law by systematically failing to compensate its customer
service representative, including Plaintiff, for work tasks
completed before and after their scheduled shifts and during their
unpaid meal periods, when they are not logged into Defendant's
timekeeping system, which resulted in CSRs not being paid for all
overtime hours worked, and in non-overtime workweeks, for regular
hours. More specifically, Defendant failed to compensate CSRs for
the substantial time they spent turning on and booting up their
computer and computer systems prior to clocking in to Defendant's
timekeeping system, and shutting down/logging out of various
computer programs and software after they clocked out at the end of
each day, says the suit.

Plaintiff Lott is a resident of Cincinnati, Ohio and worked
remotely for Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt customer service
representative from approximately September 21, 2020 through April
1, 2021.

Recker Consulting, LLC is a managed service provider that offers
solutions and IT support to healthcare and other business
markets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
          Jacob A. Mikalov, Esq.
          BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP
          4200 Regent Street, Suite 210
          Columbus, OH 43219
          Telephone: (614) 221-4221
          E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
                  jmikalov@barkanmeizlish.com

               - and -

          Matthew L. Turner, Esq.
          Alana A. Karbal, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, 17th Floor
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: mturner@sommerspc.com
                  akarbal@sommerspc.com

REMAC LLP: Gonzalez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Remac, L.L.P. The
case is styled as Yanilza Gonzalez, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Remac, L.L.P., Case No. 1:23-cv-06823
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 3, 2023).

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

Remac LLP was founded in 1974. The Company's line of business
includes the wholesale distribution of footwear.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
          380 North Broadway, Suite 300
          Jericho, NY 11753
          Phone: (718) 740-5060
          Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com


REPUBLIC SERVICES: Molina Files Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Republic Services,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Julio Cesar Molina,
individually, and on behalf of all other aggrieved employees v.
Republic Services, Inc., Richmond Sanitary Service, Inc., Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV19374 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 14,
2023).

Republic Services -- http://www.republicservices.com/-- is a North
American waste disposal company whose services include
non-hazardous solid waste collection, waste transfer, waste
disposal, recycling, and energy services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcia Guzman, Esq.
          Victoria Tokar, Esq.
          GUZMAN & TOKAR LLP
          440 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 1354
          Covina, California 91723
          Phone: (626) 427-7128
          Fax: (213) 342-6329
          Email: service@guzmanandtokar.com
                 service@guzmanandtokar.com

RESURGENT CAPITAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Perkins Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH PERKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P., Defendant,
Case No. 6:23-cv-04048-TMC (D.S.C., Aug. 15, 2023) seeks to stop
the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P. is a manager and servicer of
domestic and international consumer debt portfolios for credit
grantors and debt buyers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dave Maxfield, Esq.
          DAVE MAXFIELD, ATTORNEY, LLC
          P.O. Box 11865
          Columbia, SC 29211
          Telephone: (803) 509-6800
          Email: dave@consumerlawsc.com


RETROSPEKT LLC: Gonzalez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Retrospekt, LLC. The
case is styled as Yanilza Gonzalez, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Retrospekt, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-06824 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 3, 2023).

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

Retrospekt, LLC offers vintage Polaroid instant film cameras,
cassette players and vintage gaming, faithfully refurbished and
restored to original working condition.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
          380 North Broadway, Suite 300
          Jericho, NY 11753
          Phone: (718) 740-5060
          Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com


REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Lytle Sues Over Exposure of PII
-----------------------------------------------------
Karen Lytle, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. REVANCE THERAPEUTICS, INC., Case No. 23C1897 (Tenn.
20th Judicial Dist. Ct., Davidson Cty., Aug. 15, 2023), is brought
arising out of the public exposure of the confidential, private
information of Revance's current and fonner employees, Personally
Identifying Information ("PII") and Protected Health Information
("PW') (collectively "Private Information"), Plaintiff and the
Class Members, from March 15, 2023 to April 10, 2023 during a
cyberattack, caused by the Defendant's failures to adequately
safeguard that information ("the Data Breach").

As a condition of working for Revance, Defendant required its
employees to provide it with their sensitive Private Information,
which Revance promised to protect from unauthorized disclosure. The
Defendant failed to undertake adequate measures to safeguard the
Private Information of Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members,
including failing to implement industry standards for data
security, and failing to properly train employees on cybersecurity
protocols, resulting in the Data Breach.

Although Defendant purportedly discovered the Data Breach on April
9, 2023, it failed to immediately notify and warn current and
former employees who were victimized in the breach, waiting until
July 10, 2023 to send written notice to Plaintiff and the Class
Members. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failures
to protect current and former employees' sensitive Private
Information and warn them promptly and fully about the Data Breach,
Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members have suffered widespread
Injury and damages necessitating Plaintiff to seek relief on a
class wide basis, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a former Revance employee and Data Breach victim.

Revance is a biotechnology company headquarted m Nashville,
Tennessee, with approximately $78 million in revenue in 2021 and
500 employees.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          Andrew E. Mize, Esq.
          STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
          The Freedom Center
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Phone: (615) 254-8801
          Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
          Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
                 amize@stranchlaw.com

               - and -

          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          Raina Borelli, Esq.
          TURKE & STRAUSS, LLP
          613 Williamson St., Suite 201
          Madison, WI 53703
          Phone: (608) 237-1775
          Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
          Email: sam@turkestrauss.com
                 raina@turkestrauss.com


SALMOS 23 V: Castano Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation
-----------------------------------------------------------
CLAUDIA CASTANO, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. SALMOS 23 V, LLC, and ODELMYS BELLO,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-22860 (S.D. Fla., July
31, 2023) is an action against the Defendants to recover monetary
damages for unpaid overtime hours and retaliatory constructive
discharge under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from April 1, 2019 to
approximately October 15, 2020, or 80 weeks, and from January 1,
2022 to July 10, 2023, or 79 weeks. She and those similarly
situated worked as a caregiver at a facility engaged in caring for
the sick, the aged, or the mentally ill.

SALMOS 23 V, LLC is an assisted living facility that provides room,
board, personal, and healthcare services to the elderly and
infirm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

SOUTH32 LTD: Faces Class Suit Over Exposure to Coal Dust in Mines
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SABC News reports that Richard Spoor Incorporated filed an
application for certification for a class action against global
mining companies, South32, BHP Billiton and Seriti Power. The
applicants are seeking legal remedies for miners who contracted
coal mine dust lung disease as a result of long and often
unprotected exposure to coal dust in mines. The dependents of
deceased workers who contracted the illness are also being
represented. RSI say the companies have breached the legal duties
owed to the miners by failing to implement statutorily mandated
procedures and protections.

Dasantha Pillay is an instructing attorney for the Coal Class
Action case brought to court by Richard Spoor Incorporated. [GN]



SOWELL REALTORS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Turner Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
LAUREN TURNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOWELL REALTORS, INC., Case No.
2:23-cv-02505-JTF-atc (W.D. Tenn., Aug. 15, 2023) is an action
against the Defendant failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class
minimum wages, and overtime compensation for hours worked in excess
of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff Turner was employed by the Defendant as a staff.

SOWELL REALTORS, INC. is a full service real estate company located
in Memphis, Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris Burks, Esq.
          WH LAW
          1 Riverfront Place, Suite 745
          North Little Rock, AR 72114
          Telephone: (901) 641-4199
          Email: chris@wh.law


ST. CAMILLUS HEALTH: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Wieland Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
LAWANDA WIELAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ST. CAMILLUS HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 23-cv-1086 (E.D. Wis., Aug. 15, 2023) is an action against
the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff Wieland was employed by the Defendant as an aide.

ST. CAMILLUS HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. provides assisted living, memory
care, and independent living services at various facilities and
physical locations in the State of Wisconsin. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

SUNRISE GROWERS: Faces Class Action Over Frozen Fruit Recall
------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that Sunrise
Growers, Inc. faces a proposed class action in the wake of its
voluntary recall of various frozen fruit products sold at Walmart,
Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, Target, Aldi and Associated Wholesale
Grocers due to potential bacterial contamination.

According to the 29-page case, the food manufacturer "improperly,
deceptively, and misleadingly" failed to disclose that the
following frozen fruit products may contain Listeria monocytogenes,
a type of bacteria that can cause a serious and sometimes fatal
infection known as listeriosis:

Great Value Mixed Fruit;
Great Value Dark Sweet Cherries;
Great Value Mango Chunks;
365 Organic Tropical Fruit Medley;
365 Organic Pineapple Chunks;
365 Pineapple Chunks;
365 Organic Whole Strawberries;
365 Organic Slice Strawberries and Bananas;
365 Organic Blackberries;
Trader Joe's Organic Tropical Fruit Blend;
Good & Gather Organic Cherries and Berries Fruit Blend;
Good & Gather Dark Sweet Whole Pitted Cherries;
Good & Gather Mango Strawberry Blend;
Good & Gather Mixed Fruit Blend;
Good & Gather Mango Chunks;
Good & Gather Blueberries;
Good & Gather Triple Berry Blend;
Season's Choice Tropical Blend; and
Best Choice Pitted Red Tart Cherries.

The lawsuit says that the foodborne illness, which causes a 95
percent hospitalization rate and has a case fatality rate of 20
percent, is particularly dangerous to infants, pregnant mothers,
the elderly and immunocompromised individuals.

"Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms
such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal
pain and diarrhea, listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women," the complaint relays. Other
infection issues associated with Listeria monocytogenes include
sepsis, meningitis and encephalitis, the suit adds.

The complaint stresses that the bacteria can survive in freezing
conditions, making the defendant's frozen fruit products "in no way
safe for humans."

Concerningly, consumers reasonably believed they were purchasing
frozen fruit that was safe for consumption given that the company
omitted from packaging that the products contain, or are at risk of
containing, life-threatening bacteria, the filing says.

"Had [the plaintiff] and Class Members known the truth about the
products," the case claims, "they would not have been willing to
purchase it at any price, or, at minimum would have paid less for
it."

According to Sunrise Growers' June 21 recall announcement, the
products' potential for Listeria monocytogenes contamination has
been linked to pineapple provided by a third-party supplier.

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone who purchased any of the
products listed above during the applicable statute of limitations
period. [GN]

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Fisher, writing for Land Line, reports a Washington state
trucker for Swift Transportation has filed a class-action lawsuit
against the company, accusing it of violating wage laws.

On Aug. 10, David Carlson filed a class-action lawsuit against
Swift Transportation in a Tacoma, Wash., federal district court.
The lawsuit claims that the company failed to pay overtime wages
for hours worked more than 40 hours per week.

"Specifically, plaintiff asserts defendant by its actions
'including but not limited to, paying on a per mile or per delivery
basis but not paying for overtime, despite plaintiff and class
members driving over 40 hours per week, defendant violated
Washington overtime law,'" the lawsuit states.

According to the complaint, the putative class worked at least an
aggregate 42,000 workweeks from April 21, 2020. Class members were
generally paid at least $20 per hour of work on average. The
lawsuit goes on to state that "it is reasonable to assume that
plaintiff alleges at least 6 hours of overtime per week per
putative class member." Therefore, claims for unpaid overtime wages
reach at least $5,040,000 ($20/hr x 0.5 overtime premium rate x
42,000 weeks x 6 overtime hours per week x 2 for alleged liquidated
damages under Washington state law). Actual average pay and number
of workweeks worked may be higher.

The Swift lawsuit does not specify how drivers accrued more than 40
hours of work each week.

Last year, a federal court in California gave Swift Transportation
and a class of nearly 20,000 drivers the green light to proceed
with a settlement worth more than $7 million. The settlement put an
end to the lawsuit that was filed nearly 13 years ago.

Drivers allege the carrier failed to:

Pay them minimum wages or agreed rates for all hours worked.

Provide them with duty free meal and rest periods.

Reimburse them for all necessary business expenditures and/or
losses incurred during the discharge of their duties.

Pay them with instruments that were immediately payable in cash, on
demand, and without discount in California.

Furnish them with accurate itemized wage statements.
Timely pay them all wages due following separation of employment.
Regarding hours worked, Swift Transportation drivers claim the
carrier did not compensate for all duties, including:

Driving miles in excess of the estimated miles for which they were
paid.

Performing pre- and post-trip inspections.

Fueling vehicles.

Waiting for dispatch to be issued assignments via onboard
computer systems.

Hooking and unhooking empty trailers.

In 2019, Swift Transportation agreed to a $100 million settlement
in a class action lawsuit with nearly 20,000 truck drivers that
accused the company of misclassifying them as independent
contractors.[GN]

TACO BELL: Removes Herrera Suit to District of New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of CARLOS HERRERA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TACO BELL
CORPORATION, Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from
the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, County of Hudson,
Case No. HUD-L-002328-23, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey on August 14, 2023.

The clerk of court for the District of New Jerse assigned Case No.
2:23-cv-04449-KM-JRA. The case is assigned to Kevin Mcnulty and
referred to Magistrate Jose R. Almonte.

TACO BELL CORPORATION owns and operates a chain of restaurants. The
Company offers tacos, burritos, quesadillas, salads, nachos,
desserts, and beverages for on-premises and off-premises
consumption. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Steven J. Luckner, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
          SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          10 Madison Avenue, Suite 400
          Morristown, NJ 07960
          Telephone: (973) 656-1600
          Facsimile: (973) 656-1611
          Email: steven.luckner@ogletree.com

TENAGLIA & HUNT: Lasky Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
HOWARD LASKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TENAGLIA & HUNT, P.A., Defendant, Case No.
612216/2023 (N.Y., Sup., Nassau Cty., Aug. 1, 2023) seeks redress
for the illegal practices of Defendant, when attempting to collect
an alleged debt from the Plaintiff, in violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Some time prior to January 3, 2021, Plaintiff opened a credit card
account with Credit One Bank, N.A. and after opening the account,
Plaintiff ceased being able to make payments on the account. Credit
One charged off the account and sold it indirectly to an affiliate
engaged in the purchase and collection of defaulted consumer debt,
LVNV Funding LLC. LVNV, directly or indirectly, retained Tenaglia &
Hunt to collect the defaulted debt. To that end, Tenaglia & Hunt
brought an action against Mr. Lasky on April 7, 2023, in the
District Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau,
captioned LVNV Funding, LLC against Howard Lasky,
CV‐003218‐23.

Conspicuously missing from the complaint was the cardholder
agreement governing Mr. Lasky's account with Credit One, an
agreement that Tenaglia & Hunt had provided to Mr. Lasky prior to
the filing of the complaint. The Credit One cardholder agreement
limits the courts in which claims by LVNV can be filed to small
claims court. Instead, Tenaglia & Hunt filed the complaint in the
District Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau. By not
attaching the Credit One cardholder agreement to the complaint,
Tenaglia & Hunt hid the fact that it was filing in a venue not
provided for by the agreement, says the suit.

The Plaintiff was damaged by Tenaglia & Hunt's filing of a
collection action against him in the District Court of the State of
New York, County of Nassau in that he was required to pay and
retain counsel to file an answer and otherwise defend him in that
action. Had Tenaglia & Hunt filed the action in small claims court,
Mr. Lasky would not have had to hire counsel to defend him in the
action, the suit asserts.

Tenaglia & Hunt is a debt collector based in Rochelle Park, New
Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abraham Kleinman, Esq.
          KLEINMAN LLC
          626 RXR Plaza
          Uniondale, NY 11556‐0626
          Telephone: (516) 522‐2621
          Facsimile: (888) 522‐1692
          E‐mail: akleinman@kleinmanllc.com

               - and -

          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          GREENE CONSUMER LAW  
          1954 1st St. #154
          Highland Park, IL 60035
          Telephone: (312) 847‐6979
          Facsimile: (312) 847‐6978
          E‐mail: francis@greeneconsumerlaw.com

TESLA INC: Porter Sues Over Electric Vehicles' False Ads
--------------------------------------------------------
JAMES PORTER, BRYAN PEREZ, and DRO ESRAEILI ESTEPANIAN, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
TESLA, INC. d/b/a TESLA MOTORS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-03878-LB (N.D. Cal., August 2, 2023) arises out of Tesla's
false advertising of its electric vehicles' range, which Tesla
grossly overvalued when selling the vehicles to consumers, in
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
the California Unfair Competition Law, and the California False
Advertising Law.

The complaint alleges that after purchasing Tesla electric
vehicles, many Tesla owners, including Plaintiffs, noticed that the
average range in their vehicles was well-below the range Tesla had
advertised prior to their purchase. As some owners grew concerned,
they contacted Tesla to schedule service appointments to confirm
whether anything was wrong with their electric vehicle or its
battery. However, many consumers who complained or scheduled
appointments with Tesla regarding the below-advertised ranges in
their vehicles discovered that Tesla would cancel such appointments
and would explain that their electric vehicle was performing as
intended, says the suit.

As a result of Tesla's unfair, deceptive, and/or fraudulent
business practices in advertising grossly overestimated range
statistics for its electric vehicles to consumers, Tesla
purchasers, including Plaintiffs, were harmed, the suit claims.

Tesla, Inc. designs, manufactures, advertises, markets, and sells
its electric vehicles throughout the United States and
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam A. Edwards, Esq.
          William A. Ladnier, Esq.
          Virginia Ann Whitener, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          Facsimile: (865) 522-0049  
          E-mail: aedwards@milberg.com
                  wladnier@milberg.com
                  gwhitener@milberg.com

               - and -

          Mitchell Breit, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          405 E. 50th Street
          New York, NY 1002
          Telephone: (347) 668-8445  
          E-mail: mbreit@milberg.com

TILE INC: Faces Gordy Suit Over Privacy Rights Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
SHANNON IRELAND GORDY; and STEPHANIE IRELAND GORDY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TILE,
INC.; LIFE360, INC.; and AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-04119 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 14, 2023) alleges violation of the
California's Invasion of Privacy Act.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants are
engaged in the practice practice of releasing an unreasonably
dangerous product into the stream of commerce, misrepresenting the
harms associated therewith, and facilitating the unwanted and
unconsented to location tracking of the Plaintiffs and Class
members.

TILE, INC. provides mobile tracking devices and services. The
Company offers object location services to users through mobile
tracking devices.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gillian L. Wade, Esq.
          Sara D. Avila, Esq.
          Marc A. Castaneda, Esq.
          MILSTEIN JACKSON
          FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP
          10990 Wilshire Blvd., 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Tel: (310) 396-9600
          Fax: (310) 396-9635
          Email: gwade@mjfwlaw.com
                 savila@mjfwlaw.com
                 mcastaneda@mjfwlaw.com

               - and -

          David Slade, Esq.
          Brandon Haubert, Esq.
          Jessica Hall, Esq.
          WH LAW
          1 Riverfront Place, Suite 745
          North Little Rock, AR 72114
          Telephone: (501) 891-6000
          Facsimile: (501) 222-3027
          Email: slade@wh.law
                 brandon@wh.law
                 jessica@wh.law

TWIST BIOSCIENCE: Bleichmar Fonti & Auld Named Peters' Lead Counsel
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANTHONY JOSEPH PETERS, Plaintiff v. TWIST BIOSCIENCE
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:22-cv-08168-EJD (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Jose Division:

   a. grants the Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of
      Chicago's ("PABF") Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff
      and Approval of its Selection of Lead Counsel; and

   b. denies all other competing motions for appointment of lead
      plaintiff.

The Court has received several motions to appoint lead plaintiff
and select lead counsel in this securities class action governed by
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA").
After all the opening motions seeking appointment had been
submitted, all but two movants withdrew or expressed non-opposition
to the remaining plaintiffs seeking appointment. The two remaining
movants are the University of Puerto Rico ("UPR") Retirement System
and PABF.

Defendant Twist is a biotechnology company that manufactures
synthetic DNA and DNA products. Synthetic DNA products allow users
to design and modify DNA for the purposes of academic research,
enhancing specialty chemical production, and developing healthcare
treatments, among other uses.

During the period between Dec. 13, 2019 and Nov. 14, 2022 (the
"Class Period"), Twist and Co-Defendants Emily Leproust and James
Thorburn assured investors that the Company had achieved
substantial growth and was positioned for future growth. The
Defendants also reported "skyrocketing gross margins" and announced
plans to build a "Factory of the Future" in Wilsonville, Oregon.

On Nov. 15, 2022, Scorpion Capital published a lengthy report that
described Twist as a "cash-burning inferno that is not a going
concern," drawing parallels between Twist's DNA chip technology to
Theranos Inc.'s now infamous non-existent blood-testing technology.
The Scorpion Report indicated that the Company's growth is
dependent on unsustainable pricing strategies to undercut
competitors, that the Company was perpetuating its fraud through
false reporting of capital expenditures and gross margins.
Moreover, Scorpion's investigation revealed that there was no
evidence that the Company intended to begin manufacturing in
Wilsonville and suggested that the Company was using the facility
to hide large operating expenses as fraudulent capital
expenditures.

In response to the Scorpion Report, the price of Twist's common
stock fell nearly 20% from $38 per share on Nov. 14, 2022, to
$30.43 per share on Nov. 15, 2022.

On Dec. 12, 2022, Plaintiff Peters filed the instant Complaint,
asserting claims for relief under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and
78t(a). On the same day, the Plaintiff's counsel published notice
on Business Wire, providing information on the claims asserted, the
purported class period, and a lead plaintiff motion deadline of
Feb. 10, 2023.

On Feb. 10, 2023, the Court received eight (8) motions to appoint
lead plaintiff and select lead counsel. Since then, six of the
movants have either withdrawn their motions or filed non-opposition
to competing motions for lead plaintiff. The remaining candidates
for lead counsel are UPR and PABF, each of whom have filed
subsequent briefs in opposition and reply.

In its motion, PABF stated that it had purchased 19,112 shares and
sold 7,267 shares over the Class Period. At the time of the
Scorpion Report's corrective disclosure, PABF had 11,845 shares
with an average value of $25.9752 (calculated as the average close
price between Nov. 15, 2022 and Feb. 10, 2023). Accordingly, PABF
estimated its loss to be $814,517.36, based on the actual price it
purchased each tranche of stock and disregarding any losses it
sustained from selling shares before the Scorpion Report's
disclosure.

In its opening motion, UPR stated that it purchased and retained a
total of 10,630 Twist common stock during the Class Period at an
average price of $40.94 per share and a total cost of $435,229.
Accordingly, it estimated its total loss to be $158,704, which it
calculated by taking the total cost of its shares ($435,229) and
subtracting the average value of those retained shares ($26.01 per
share) during the PSLRA's 90-day lookback period (Nov. 15, 2022 to
Feb. 9, 2023).

After all competing motions for appointment had been received,
however, UPR adopted a different calculation method that resulted
in a reduced loss amount of $113,859. Its new methodology
calculates the value of its pre-corrective disclosure shares by
adopting the actual purchase price but capping the price at $38 per
share (the closing price on the day before the corrective
disclosure), instead using the average price ($40.94) it had
previously calculated in its opening motion. In other words, all
shares purchased at a price above $38 per share were reduced to $38
for the purposes of UPR's calculations.

Additionally, UPR proposes using the first-in, first-out ("FIFO")
accounting method -- which assumes that the first stocks to be sold
were the ones bought first- instead of the last-in, first out
("LIFO") method -- which assumes that the first stocks to be sold
are those purchased most recently. Although UPR's new calculation
reduces their own loss amount, it would reduce the estimated loss
even further for PABF, changing PABF's estimated loss from over
$800,000 to somewhere between $87,000 to $124,000. As an
alternative, UPR posits that both FIFO and LIFO methodologies are
flawed and proposes a novel method that involves comparing the
total amount of alleged inflation in retained shares by matching
shares with the same levels of inflation.

Judge Davila finds that PABF's LIFO calculation is "rational and
consistently applied," both by the Court and other courts in this
district. Because PABF purchased the most net shares, expended the
most net funds, and sustained the most loss during the Class
Period, Judge Davila finds that PABF has the largest financial
interest.

Based on the foregoing, PABF is presumed to be the most adequate
plaintiff under the PSLRA. No other competing movant, including
UPR, has made any effort to rebut the presumption. Accordingly,
Judge Davila grants PABF's Motion for Appointment as Lead
Plaintiff.

No parties have objected to PABF's selection of Bleichmar Fonti &
Auld LLP ("BFA") as lead counsel for the putative class, nor is the
Court aware of any need to appoint different counsel to protect the
interests of the class. Judge Davila has reviewed the firm's and
attorneys' resumes and is satisfied with PABF's selection of
counsel. Accordingly, he approves PABF's selection of Bleichmar
Fonti & Auld as Lead Counsel.

In view of the foregoing, Judge Davila grants PABF's Motion. He
appoints PABF as the Lead Plaintiff and Bleichmar Fonti & Auld as
the Lead Counsel. He denies all other Motions to Appoint Lead
Plaintiff and Select Lead Counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 28, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yff59wn4 from Leagle.com.


UBS GROUP: Credit Suisse Equity Investors File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Julia Kollewe, writing for The Guardian, reports that UBS faces
another legal challenge to its emergency takeover of Credit Suisse,
as a group representing nearly 1,000 individual shareholders,
including former employees of the failed Swiss bank, prepares to
file a court claim in Zurich on Aug. 7.

The Swiss Association for the Protection of Investors
(Schweizerischer Anlegerschutzverein, or SASV), which represents
retail investors, intends to lodge the claim on behalf of Credit
Suisse shareholders -- including some from the UK -- who suffered
heavy losses as a result of the rushed takeover in March.

UBS, Switzerland's biggest bank, agreed to take over Credit Suisse,
in a rescue orchestrated by the Swiss authorities, for almost
$3.25bn (£2.65bn) -- well below its market value at the time --
amid fears that a failure to protect depositors could trigger a new
global banking crisis.

The SASV claim is the second class action lawsuit brought by Credit
Suisse shareholders against UBS. Shareholders were not allowed to
vote on the emergency merger. There are also lawsuits against
Switzerland's financial regulator over the deal, from bondholders
who were wiped out.

Credit Suisse shareholders received only one UBS share for every
22.48 shares they owned in the failed bank. This valued each Credit
Suisse share at 0.76 Swiss francs (68p), while the book value on 31
March was 13.70 Swiss francs per share, SASV said. It argued that
the exchange ratio was set "without any well-founded basis" as a
result of "hasty action" and "turned out to be far too advantageous
for UBS".

The association said: "The takeover of the second largest Swiss
bank by the largest bank had the character of horse trading, in
which the purchase price was arbitrarily determined."

The vast majority of the claimants in the lawsuit are Swiss, but
they also include investors from the UK, US, Germany, Austria,
Thailand and Dubai. Many are former Credit Suisse staff who were
given shares as part of their annual pay packages.

Arik Röschke, the SASV's general secretary, said: "Credit Suisse
has a strong presence in London, and many employees received shares
as part of their remuneration that are almost worthless now. The
frustration among staff is therefore enormous, as I have been
told.

"However, many employees are reluctant to take legal action against
their employer. Especially because UBS is currently exploring which
employees will be taken on and which will be dismissed."

The merger has put thousands of jobs at risk in London's financial
district, where more than 5,000 Credit Suisse staff and 6,000 UBS
employees are based. It has been reported that UBS is planning to
axe more than half of Credit Suisse's global workforce of 45,000.

Röschke said SASV would write to staff to tell them that they
could join the class action lawsuit on an anonymous basis until any
settlement talks begin, and they could later decide whether to
reveal their identity to UBS.

The claim will be brought under the Swiss merger act, and filed at
the cantonal court of commerce in Zurich, where UBS is based, on
Aug. 7. It could take up to 18 months for a judge to rule in the
case, according to Röschke, and it would be quicker for UBS to
settle the case out of court.

SASV is bringing the case on a not-for-profit basis, with the
Zurich-based law firm Niedermann Rechtsanwälte representing
shareholders. Claimants are asked to pay 250 francs to cover SASV's
costs, but this could be partly refunded if costs are lower than
expected. UBS declined to comment.

The other shareholder class action lawsuit is being brought by
LegalPass, a Lausanne-based legal start-up, and backed by Ethos
Foundation, which represents institutional investors who own about
5% of shares in both banks. It also challenges the exchange ratio
set as part of the Credit Suisse takeover.

Several groups of Credit Suisse bondholders are suing Switzerland's
financial regulator over its decision to wipe out risky bank debt.
They are being represented by the law firms Quinn Emanuel Urquhart
& Sullivan and Pallas Partners. Pallas represents a group of more
than 90 global asset managers, as well as a second group of 460
retail and family office clients. [GN]

UBS GROUP: Faces Third Class Action Over Credit Suisse Takeover
---------------------------------------------------------------
Finews.com reports that a Liechtenstein-based law firm has filed
what is now the third class action lawsuit related to the price UBS
paid for Credit Suisse. The plaintiffs are seeking appropriate
compensation.

Lennert Partners AG, a law firm based in Liechtenstein filed a
class action in the Commercial Court of Zurich on Aug. 14, the
final day to file such a suit, according to an emailed statement
from the firm. The lead plaintiffs are an investment fund and a
private individual.

Other plaintiffs include other investors representing an investment
volume of several million Credit Suisse shares who are seeking
«appropriate compensation payment» of at least 7.78 Swiss francs
per share, which is significantly higher than comparable class
actions, according to the law firm.

UBS paid about three billion Swiss francs for Credit Suisse in
treasury shares, with shareholders receiving one UBS share for
every 22.48 Credit Suisse shares held corresponding to a valuation
of 76 centimes per share. Credit Suisse's share price closed at
1.86 francs on March 17, leaving a market capitalization of around
7.4 billion francs.

"From the beginning, we had investment companies and intermediaries
in mind rather than small shareholders," Philipp Lennert Managing
Partner of the eponymous firm told finews.com. "Our goal was to
represent the owners of at least 1 million Credit Suisse shares as
plaintiffs. We have clearly exceeded that," he added.

No Valuation Scheme

"The exchange relationship between Credit Suisse and UBS shares
doesn't follow any valuation scheme. It is not only completely
inappropriate but has been set arbitrarily. This reinforces the
impression that there was no negotiating parity between the
negotiators of the merger agreement," Lennert said, according to
the statement.

He went on to say the merger was to be carried out "on the back of
Credit Suisse shareholders," and called for a company valuation
based on recognized standards to be carried out as part of the
judicial review that has now been initiated. Considering the
average of the current company valuations, partly published by UBS,
the value is 7.78 francs ($8.86) per share, and the "amount to be
used to settle the action."

Memories of Bear Stearns

The UBS/Credit Suisse deal isn't the first emergency bank merger in
history, nor the first in an acute crisis. One of the biggest was
certainly the takeover of American investment bank Bear Stearns by
its larger rival JPMorgan at the start of the financial crisis in
March 2008 when Bear Stearns fell victim to a liquidity crisis.

At the time of the sale, an exchange ratio was agreed upon that
corresponded to $2 per share, about 7 percent of the previous
market value. After a shareholder class action lawsuit was filed a
few days later, JPMorgan raised the valuation to $10 per share the
same day.

Lennert Partners is a business law firm founded in 2014 and based
in Liechtenstein. The focus of the firm's activities is on
providing international legal and tax advice to private clients and
financial intermediaries. Its staff consists of lawyers, tax
advisors, auditors, and notaries, usually with a large German law
firm background. [GN]

ULTIMATE FIGHTING: Must Face MMA Fighters' Antitrust Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nidhin Shibu, writing for First Sportz, reports that the issue of
fighter pay has persisted in the world of MMA over the last decade.
Every now and then, fighters allege improper pay and other benefits
that led fighters like Francis Ngannou, Corey Anderson, and others
to jump ship from the UFC. An Antitrust lawsuit filed by former MMA
fighters in 2014 recently took the combat sports world by storm.
They claimed that the UFC used improper strategies to dominate the
market and paid less amount to the fighters.

The US Antitrust laws permit private plaintiffs to receive more
than three times if they prove the damage they have suffered. One
of the major goals of the Antitrust lawsuit remains to recover the
money for 1200 fighters who have aligned with the lawsuit. Judge
Boulware ruled that the Antitrust lawsuit had been elevated to
Class Action. A report from Fannation states that the fighter and
lawyers leading the lawsuit will represent the 1200 fighters and
sue the UFC for damages.

The lawsuit has the potential to change the MMA landscape forever.
If the lawsuit is successful, the plaintiffs could get from $800
million to $1.6 billion. Dana White has remained firm on the stance
that the UFC could win the case in court. White has always debated
against the notion of fighter-pay issues and exploitation of the
fighters.

However, others do not think so. Jake Paul has alleged that the UFC
does not pay a fair amount to its fighters. In the past, Jorge
Masvidal stated that the pay scale and revenue share needs to be
changed. Masvidal argued that leagues like NFL and NBA give at
least half of the revenue generated to the players, whereas the UFC
pays less than 15 percent. The revenue aspect of the UFC could play
a major part when the lawsuit reaches court.

Combat sports lawyer makes a case for the ruthless tactics of Dana
White's UFC with Nate Diaz's example after the Class Action lawsuit
proceeding

News sites reported that Nate Diaz earned eight figures for his
boxing bout against Jake Paul. Erik Magraken is a lawyer by
profession and covers the combat sports world. He stated that the
Class Action lawsuit against the UFC has relevance due to how the
UFC operates.

He used the example of Nate Diaz to illustrate his point. He wrote,
"In a profession where CTE is real, and is tied to the DOSAGE of
career brain rattling, if anyone deserves to not be contractually
exploited its pro fighters." Diaz making more money for the Paul
fight than all the fights of his career may be a cause for
concern.

Here is where Masvidal's point about the revenue share comes into
play. Do the fighters only deserve less than 20 percent? Why cannot
it be close to 25 percent? Does it mean that the UFC is exploiting
fighters? Many questions will be answered when the Class Action
lawsuit court proceedings happen. [GN]

UNITED ARTISTS: Faces Class Action Over ADA Violations
------------------------------------------------------
Justin Russell of Kalikhman & Rayz, LLC disclosed that together
with colleagues from Connolly Wells & Gray, LLP, attorneys from
Kalikhman & Rayz, LLC initiated a class action against United
Artists Theaters, which operates the largest and most
geographically diverse movie theater circuit in the United States
-- consisting of 7,334 screens in 588 locations in 44 states -- for
failing to maintain its facilities accessible to individuals with
disabilities in the Greater Philadelphia area, including the
pictured location at the "Grant Plaza" in Northeast Philadelphia.
As detailed in the complaint, which was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, United Artists
Theaters has engaged in willful violations of the applicable
provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec.
12101 et seq., and its implementing regulations by, inter alia,
failing to identify (or otherwise designate) sufficient parking
spaces at its theater locations as "van accessible." [GN]

UNITED STATES: Faces Suit Over Failure to Prevent Prisoners' Abuse
------------------------------------------------------------------
CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR WOMEN PRISONERS; R.B.; A.H.R.; S.L.; J.L.;
J.M.; G.M.; A.S.; and L.T., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; BUREAU OF PRISONS DIRECTOR COLETTE
PETERS, in her official capacity; FCI DUBLIN WARDEN THAHESHA
JUSINO, in her official capacity; OFFICER BELLHOUSE, in his
individual capacity; OFFICER GACAD, in his individual capacity;
OFFICER JONES, in his individual capacity; LIEUTENANT JONES, in her
individual capacity; OFFICER LEWIS, in his individual capacity;
OFFICER NUNLEY, in his individual capacity, OFFICER POOL, in his
individual capacity, LIEUTENANT PUTNAM, in his individual capacity;
OFFICER SERRANO, in his individual capacity; OFFICER SHIRLEY, in
his individual capacity; OFFICER SMITH, in his individual capacity;
and OFFICER VASQUEZ, in her individual capacity, Defendants, Case
No. 3:23-cv-04155-JCS (N.D. Cal., Aug. 16, 2023) is an action
alleging that the Defendants failed, and continues to fail, to take
action to protect those in its care by preventing and addressing
rampant staff sexual misconduct.

According to the complaint, officers, supervisors, and leadership
throughout FCI Dublin were and continue to be aware of the ongoing
sexual abuse at the facility, and not only fail to prevent it but
also affirmatively take actions that allow abuse to continue. Staff
protect their abusive colleagues by failing to investigate claims
or respond meaningfully, and by retaliating against those who
report abuse, says the suit.

FCI Dublin and the BOP's inadequate systems for preventing,
detecting, investigating, and responding to sexual abuse put people
incarcerated at FCI Dublin at substantial risk of serious harm from
sexual assault, harassment, and retaliation by staff, the suit
added.

THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS is a United States federal law
enforcement agency under the Department of Justice that is
responsible for the care, custody, and control of incarcerated
individuals who have committed federal crimes. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael W. Bien, Esq.
          Ernest Galvan, Esq.
          Kara J. Janssen, Esq.
          Ginger Jackson-Gleich, Esq.
          Rosen Bien, Esq.
          GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP
          101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105-1738
          Telephone: (415) 433-6830
          Email: mbien@rbgg.com
                 egalvan@rbgg.com
                 kjanssen@rbgg.com
                 gjackson-gleich@rbgg.com

               - and -

          Susan M. Beaty, Esq.
          CALIFORNIA COLLABORATIVE FOR
          IMMIGRANT JUSTICE
          1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1800
          Oakland, CA 94612-4700
          Telephone: (510) 679-3674
          Email: susan@ccijustice.org

               - and -

          Oren Nimni, Esq.
          Amaris Montes, Esq.
          D Dangaran, Esq.
          RIGHTS BEHIND BARS
          416 Florida Avenue N.W. #26152
          Washington, D.C. 20001-0506
          Telephone: (202) 455-4399
          Email: oren@rightsbehindbars.org
                 amaris@rightsbehindbars.org
                 d@rightsbehindbars.org

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: Settles Price Fixing Suit for $13.5 Million
------------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Spitalniak, writing for Higher Ed Dive, reports that the
University of Chicago will pay $13.5 million to settle claims it
conspired with other wealthy colleges to price-fix its financial
aid packages, driving up the cost of college, according to court
documents.

The institution, which did not admit wrongdoing as part of the
settlement, is the first of the 17 institutions named in the
class-action lawsuit to settle. The case was brought by students
and graduates of the colleges and their family members.

In addition to the payment, UChicago will share data and
information on its financial aid practices with the plaintiffs and
coordinate a witness interview with its previous director of
college aid. The information is expected to help the case against
the remaining 16 universities, which have not settled, the
plaintiffs' legal team said on Aug. 14.

Dive Insight:
In early 2022, students and alumni filed an antitrust lawsuit,
Henry, et al. v. Brown University, et al., alleging that more than
a dozen top-ranked colleges illegally colluded to lower the amount
of financial assistance they offered. The defendant institutions
were all at one time members of the since-shuttered 568 Presidents
Group, whose member colleges coordinated their financial policies.

The group was named after section 568 of the Improving America's
Schools Act of 1994, which allows colleges to work together when
determining their financial aid formulas if they practice
need-blind admissions -- meaning they do not consider applicants'
ability to pay during admissions decisions.

But the plaintiffs in the lawsuit alleged the group's members were
not truly need-blind and conspired to cut competition by using a
shared financial aid methodology. This led to higher college costs
for students, they said.

The institutions named in the lawsuit include:

Brown University, in Rhode Island.
California Institute of Technology.
The University of Chicago.
Columbia University, in New York.  
Cornell University, in New York.
Dartmouth College, in New Hampshire.  
Duke University, in North Carolina.  
Emory University, in Georgia.
Georgetown University, in Washington, D.C.
Johns Hopkins University, in Maryland.
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The University of Notre Dame, in Indiana.
Northwestern University, in Illinois.  
The University of Pennsylvania.
Rice University, in Texas.  
Vanderbilt University, in Tennessee.
Yale University, in Connecticut.

The defendants jointly asked the judge to dismiss the lawsuit,
arguing their actions were covered by Section 568.

But in July 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice weighed in on the
case, challenging some of the colleges' arguments. A federal judge
allowed the lawsuit to continue against all named colleges the
following month.

Eric Cramer, a lead attorney for the plaintiffs, lauded the
settlement on Aug. 14.

"This case will serve as an important reminder that the antitrust
laws are a critical source of protection against exploitation by
cartels and monopolies for all citizens, including students,"
Cramer said in a statement. "Because universities play such an
important role in our society, it is all the more important that
they avoid collusion in the provision of financial aid and in the
setting of their prices."

The University of Chicago, however, issued a different viewpoint.

"The University believes the plaintiffs' claims are without merit,"
it said in a statement. "We look forward to putting this matter
behind us and continuing to focus our efforts on expanding access
to a transformative undergraduate education." [GN]

UPONOR INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Brown Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UPONOR, INC.; and UPONOR NORTH AMERICA,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 0:23-cv-02517-NEB-DLM (D. Minn., Aug.
16, 2023) is a class action arising from the Defendants' failure to
protect highly sensitive data.

According to the complaint, the Defendants store a litany of highly
sensitive personal identifiable information about their employees,
with their employees' dependents and beneficiaries. But the
Defendants lost control over that data when cybercriminals
infiltrated their insufficiently protected computer systems in a
data breach. Cybercriminals were able to breach the Defendants'
systems because the Defendants failed to adequately train their
employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable
security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII. In
short, Defendants' failures placed the Class's PII in a vulnerable
position—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the
suit.

UPONOR, INC. provides plumbing, indoor climate, and infrastructure
systems. The Company offers residential radiant floor heating,
commercial heating, residential plumbing, commercial plumbing,
residential fire safety, and pre-insulated pipes. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          Brittany Resch, Esq.
          TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
          613 Williamson St., Suite 201
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 237-1775
          Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
          Email: raina@turkestrauss.com
                 sam@turkestrauss.com
                 brittanyr@turkestrauss.com

VICTORIA: Junior Doctors Win Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Fieldhouse, writing for AusDoc., reports that junior doctors
have claimed victory in a class action on unpaid overtime, which
lawyers are calling a landmark case for Australia.

Two years after the case began, the Federal Court of Australia
handed down its judgement on Aug. 11, finding that Peninsula Health
in Victoria contravened the Fair Work Act.

Justice Mordecai Bromberg found that the lead plaintiff, Dr Gaby
Bolton, was owed just over $8000 in unpaid overtime from four
rotations between 2019 and 2021.

It has opened the door for an estimated 1500 doctors directly
involved in the class action.

Law firms Gordon Legal and Hayden Stephens and Associates
represented Dr Bolton and the Victorian branch of the Australian
Salaried Medical Officers' Federation in the case.

Lawyer Hayden Stephens said there were now a range of options for
the junior doctors.

The court could consider running sample cases, hearing evidence
from different doctors who worked unpaid overtime across different
departments, as a guide to set a damages figure, he said.

"Alternatively, courts sometimes entertain the idea of aggregate
damages across the whole group or, dependent on the circumstances
of the case, appointing a court referee process where individual
assessments occur for each individual client."

He said his preferred option was a settlement scheme agreed outside
of the courts, where individual cases would be assessed.

"At the next hearing, . . . these options that I've canvassed, and
possibly others, will be discussed with the judge."

Peninsula Health could also be penalised under the Fair Work Act.

Mr Stephens said the findings were influential for the other class
actions afoot in Victoria because they addressed a key issue:
whether the relevant enterprise agreements entitled junior doctors
to overtime pay through 'implied authorisation'.

"[Implied authorisation] is established where a junior has
performed necessary duties with the expectation or knowledge of the
employer," Mr Stephens said.

"And the judgement stands for the principle that authorisation can
be implied."

Justice Bromberg said a range of contextual factors weighed into
his decision that overtime had been implicitly authorised for Dr
Bolton's post-shift work writing clinical handovers and discharge
summaries, and her pre-shift preparation.

On clinical handovers, Peninsula Health argued there was no
"express direction" to complete handovers outside of rostered
hours.

But the judge heard from the former head of the cardiology unit,
who said he expected doctors would complete clinical handovers,
even if it took longer than their rostered hours.

This evidence "clearly establishe[d] that Peninsula Health expected
junior doctors in the cardiology unit to complete handovers at the
end of a shift -- even if that meant working beyond their rostered
hours", the judge said.

In the plastics unit, the court found there was "an understanding
or practice" that overtime for pre-shift preparation work was never
claimed as overtime.

However, the head of the plastics unit acknowledged it was "not
possible" for junior doctors to avoid early starts, in order to
prepare patient lists.

The judge came to similar conclusions on overtime for writing
discharge summaries.

He said Peninsula Health set a KPI that 80% of discharge summaries
were completed prior to discharge and that its key witnesses
acknowledged this would sometimes involve working after rostered
hours.

Peninsula Health claimed that Dr Bolton did not work overtime
because it was not shown on her time sheets.

However, this was dismissed as "misguided" due to the environment
that was "hostile to the making of claims".

Dr Bolton gave evidence that she was reticent to seek approval from
the department of medicine's clinical director because other
doctors told her that he "had a reputation for being obstructive
during phone calls and often hard to get hold of".

Getting the director's approval for overtime "was not a simple
phone call to make", she told the court.

"You would be questioned as to why you needed the overtime, why
these tasks were necessary, why couldn't they be handed over, why
couldn't they be done in your rostered hours."

In its defence, Peninsula Health pointed to its written policies on
overtime and time in lieu, and its guideline for managing junior
medical staff overtime, which explained that only the "clinical
director or another member of senior medical staff and preferably a
head of unit" or a delegate could authorise overtime.

But the judge said, "even if the terms of the policy were crystal
clear in providing that Peninsula Health intended that it would
only authorise all overtime where it has given an express
authorisation, . . . the existence of those terms do[es] not
demonstrate that Peninsula Health's intent was objectively so
understood".

"That is because the evidence demonstrated that employees of
Peninsula Health who engaged in clinical work in the departments of
medicine and surgery were likely not aware of the policy."

He said all of the clinical staff called by Peninsula Health as
witnesses "were either not aware of the policy or, if they were
aware, had never applied the policy in the course of their work".

Peninsula Health's lawyers also disputed Dr Bolton's claims on how
much overtime she worked, arguing that five minutes "represented a
reasonable period of time for the performance of the tasks in
question".

But Justice Bromberg said the evidence was that, "in the ideal
world", these tasks could be done in five minutes.

This was "substantially divorced from the world faced by Dr Bolton
and demonstrated in her evidence", he said.

Peninsula Health also argued that "the work provided by Dr Bolton
was . . . motivated by her desire to impress and advance her
career".

But the judge also dismissed this argument as well.

A spokesperson for the Victorian Department of Health said it was
still considering the decision and could not make any further
comment.

Both parties must either agree or file changes to the orders by 25
August. [GN]

WALTER KIDDE: Pons Sues Over False & Misleading Advertising
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Pons, Caroline Coleman, and Stanley Wolken, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. WALTER KIDDE
PORTABLE EQUIPMENT INC. d/b/a Kidde Safety Equipment, and BRK
BRANDS, INC. d/b/a First Alert, Case No. 3:23-cv-03436-LB (N.D.
Cal., July 10, 2023), is brought arising out of the false
misleading advertising, labeling, and packaging of one of the most
important safety products a consumer will ever purchase: home smoke
detectors and seek damages for their purchases of ionization-only
devices that, based on the Defendants' misrepresentations, they
reasonably believed were suitable for detecting smoke during all
common home fires, and they want the industry to stop misleadingly
and deceptively selling ionization-only devices as "smoke alarms."

In virtually every home in America, families install alarms to warn
them about dangerous fires so that they may make a safe escape.
These alarms should be capable of detecting the early signs of a
fire long before the family could--otherwise, they serve no
purpose. The deadliest home fires typically begin as slow,
smoldering fires that often escape notice until there are large
amounts of smoke or flame and by then, escape is risky or hopeless.
Given that smoldering fires are a particularly common and dangerous
type of home fire, any product that is sold as a "smoke alarm"
should be able to reliably detect and warn of such a fire long
before it becomes hazardous. And, when consumers purchase any
product that is labeled, marketed, and sold as a "smoke alarm,"
those consumers reasonably expect that such a product will provide
adequate warning to reliably protect against common home fires.

Yet for decades the largest manufacturers of smoke alarms in
America, including each of the Defendants, have been making and
selling products labeled as "smoke alarms" even though those
products are technologically unsuited for this most basic and
essential function. Crucially, any product advertised, labeled, and
sold as a "smoke alarm" for residential use should have
photoelectric technology inside, because--in stark contrast to
ionization technology--it can quickly detect and warn of the
presence of smoke. Conversely, an alarm product that uses only
ionization technology (an "ionization-only device") cannot
effectively detect smoke from slow, smoldering fires. Because
ionization-only devices are not reasonably suited to detect and
warn of smoldering fires—a particularly common and dangerous type
of home fire—they cannot be truthfully and accurately advertised,
labeled, and sold as "smoke alarm" products.

The Defendants have known about the shortcomings of ionization-only
devices for many years. Each Defendant began manufacturing and
selling ionization-only devices decades ago, and they became able
to mass produce them cheaply. For years, Defendants have also
mass-produced photoelectric devices and "hybrid" devices containing
both types of technology, but they have manufactured and sold
vastly more ionization-only products to American consumers (largely
due to their mislabeling of those products). Consequently, the
overwhelming majority of U.S. homes are equipped solely with
ionization-only devices.

With deliberate disregard for the safety of the public, each
Defendant continues to sell ionization-only devices to the public
deceptively and misleadingly advertised, labeled, and packaged as
"smoke alarms." On the back or bottom of some of their packaging,
the Defendants slip in fine print that says that it is optimal to
buy both kinds of alarms (ionization and photoelectric). But such
fine-print on the back of an ionization-only device package
prominently labeled a "Smoke Alarm" fails to inform reasonable
consumers that the product they are buying is unsuitable for timely
detection and warning of all types of common home fires. Indeed,
burying this critical safety information in small print underscores
Defendants' knowledge that their ionization-only devices—which
are conspicuously mislabeled in large print on the front of the
packaging as "Smoke Alarms"—provide false and misleading
assurances to reasonable consumers.

Today, tens of millions of American families are immediately at
risk that a smoldering fire in their home will not be detected in
time, even though they bought an ionization only "smoke alarm" they
thought was protecting them. And even though the Defendants have
for decades also mass-produced photoelectric devices--and "hybrid"
devices that contain both ionization and photoelectric
technology--they have continued to profit by selling large
quantities of ionization-only devices, notwithstanding the dire
risks to the public. Each Defendant has, quite simply and
callously, placed profits over people, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs bought numerous Kidde ionization-only devices.

Kidde, including its owners, employees, subsidiaries, affiliates,
and agents, has for decades developed, designed, manufactured,
assembled, marketed, promoted, advertised, warranted, distributed,
sold, packaged, and provided instructions for ionization-only
devices under various brand names.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sean Eskovitz, Esq.
          ESKOVITZ LAW LLP
          1217 Wilshire Blvd, # 3683
          Santa Monica, CA 90403
          Phone: 323.821.5836
          Email: seane@eskovitz.com


WELLS FARGO: Fries Sues Over Outdated Two Factor Authentication
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alice Fries, on behalf of itself and all those similarly situated
v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. and DOES 1-100, Case No. 23STCV18422
(Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 3, 2023), is brought against the Defendants'
use of the same outdated 'two factor authentication' ("2FA") system
which caused scams directed at its customers.

The Defendant's pattern and practice prior to speaking to its
customers over the phone is to send a text message to the
customers' cell phone, presumably as a security measure, commonly
known as 'two factor authentication' ("2FA"). WELLS sends the 2FA
text message with a numeric code and then asks the customer to read
back that numeric code to confirm the person is in fact, the WELLS'
customer they are purporting to be. WELLS will not speak to the
customer about their account until the 2FA code is read back.

WELLS FARGO is absolutely aware of numerous scams directed at its
customers whereby criminals and fraudsters pretend to be a WELLS
representative and contact their customers under assorted pretexts.
Once contact is made, these criminals send the WELLS' customer a
2FA text message and ask them to read the code to "verify"
identity. With that 2FA code in hand, these criminals and
fraudsters are able to immediately access the WELLS' customer
accounts, and cause funds to be immediately wired out of the
customer account--all without the permission or consent of the
account holder.

Despite being fully aware of these 2FA scams, WELLS' refuses to do
anything about it. Despite being fully aware of these 2FA scams,
WELLS continues to use the same outdated 2FA system and continues
to ask its customers for that 2FA code when communicating with its
customers. Despite being fully aware of these scams WELLS' refuses
to make any changes to its 2FA system. In fact, if WELLS was
actually concerned about this rampant fraud, it could easily
institute a different 2FA system, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has been a longstanding WELLS customer with multiple
accounts since 1986.

WELLS FARGO continually and systematically transacts business
within Los Angeles County, including multiple branch locations and
ATM's.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel L. Krishel, Esq.
          KRISHEL LAW FIRM
          4500 Park Granada, Suite 202
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Phone: (818)883-8759


WELLS FARGO: Wants Class Action Over Fake Job Interviews Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Gennaro, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Wells Fargo asked a federal judge on Aug. 15 to dismiss a class
action that claims the banking giant conducted fake job interviews
in order to meet its diversity hiring policy.

The bank's attorney, Brenden Cullen, told U.S. District Judge Trina
Thompson in a hearing on the motion to dismiss that the plaintiff
-- a shareholder who filed the suit on behalf of anyone who bought
stock in the company between Feb. 24, 2021, and June 9, 2022 -- had
no specific information about the fake interviews or any Wells
Fargo executive's supposed knowledge of them.

The complaint claims that some Wells Fargo employees conducted fake
interviews to get around the company's diversity guidelines, which
required that at least 50% of candidates interviewed for positions
that have salaries of more than $100,000 a year represented an
underrepresented racial, ethnic, or gender group or were veterans,
people with disabilities or members of the LGBTQ community.

According to the complaint, in May and June 2022, the New York
Times wrote articles detailing the interviews, and Wells Fargo's
common stock price plummeted.

The plaintiffs argue that Wells Fargo execs knew about the practice
of fake interviews, so the company's statements made in reports and
notices filed with the Securities Exchange Commission and press
releases, which emphasized the company's commitment to improving
workforce diversity, were materially false.

Cullen argued on Aug. 15 that the plaintiffs could not prove Wells
Fargo execs knew that the fake interviews were happening, thus they
could not prove that public statements were deliberately false or
misleading.

"If it's not recorded somewhere . . . There has to be some
information that these interviews were fake conveyed to the
defendants," Cullen said. If not, then there is no way to prove the
defendants knew the fake interviews were happening, Cullen added.

The number of fake interviews and when they happened also is in
dispute. Cullen said that there is no way of knowing how many fake
interviews there were, and that, if they occurred, they may have
happened outside of the class period. He also took issue with
claims the interviews were systemic, saying there's no way to prove
that.

Cullen said that Wells Fargo executives could not deliberately make
a false statement if they were not aware any wrongdoing was
happening.

Plaintiffs' attorney Sharan Nirmul pleaded scienter in the case,
which requires the plaintiffs to allege facts that give rise to a
strong inference of fraudulent intent.

Nirmul claimed that the interviews with numerous former employees
in the New York Times articles, plus the fact that the Department
of Justice and other regulatory agencies opened investigations
based on those employees' claims, was proof that the fake
interviews were widespread and tolerated throughout the company.
There was no need for a "smoking gun," Nirmul said.

"These are people that the government thinks are credible," Nirmul
said.

In his rebuttal, Cullen said that inferences were insufficient.

"You have to show that this specific information was available," to
Wells Fargo executives to successfully plead scienter, Cullen
said.

Cullen argued that there was no way to know who talked to the New
York Times, what departments they worked in, if they were current
or former employees, and if their claims about fake interviews even
related to the class period in question.

In his closing remarks, Nirmul said that Wells Fargo CEO Charles
Scharf, named as a defendant in the complaint, had the ability to
control his employees but chose not to. Fake interviews were an
"entrenched" practice in the company, an open secret that
executives had to know about, she said.

"We don't have a document to point you to," Nirmul said, because
misconduct is rarely written down.

Thompson took the matter under consideration. If the defendants'
motion to dismiss is granted, plaintiffs will have 21 days to file
an amended complaint. [GN]

WESTLAKE SERVICES: Klare Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michael Klare, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC d/b/a WESTLAKE
FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
23-STCV-14272 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 4, 2023, and
assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-06386.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent one purported nationwide class on
claims against Westlake Services, LLC d/b/a Westlake Financial
Services (“Westlake”) on the theory that Westlake imposed
unauthorized “Pay-to Pay Fees” on borrowers, in violation of
state law. The Plaintiff alleges claims for breach of contract;
violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the
“Rosenthal Act”); and violation of the California Unfair
Competition Law (the “UCL”).[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jessica R. Lohr, Esq.
          TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
          11682 El Camino Real, Suite 400
          San Diego, CA 92130-2092
          Phone: 858.509.6000
          Facsimile: 858.509.6040
          Email: jessica.lohr@troutman.com


WHITE AID MEDICAL: Gousse Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Leonardo Gousse, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. WHITE AID MEDICAL SUPPLIES INC. and WILLIAM
CENSOR, Case No. 1:23-cv-06110 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2023), is
brought on behalf of drivers working for White Aid for unpaid
minimum and overtime wages, breach of contract damages, and other
relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the
New York State Labor Law ("NYSLL").

By willfully and unlawfully misclassifying its drivers as
"independent contractors," the company has denied them benefits
that the law affords to employees. In particular, the company has:
failed to reimburse or indemnify drivers for employment-related
expenses and losses; taken wrongful deductions from drivers' wages;
coerced drivers to purchase necessary services and items; failed to
pay drivers minimum wage and overtime compensation; and failed to
track and document drivers' actual hours worked, as required by
federal and New York law, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff began working for White Aid as a driver on December
14, 2021 and the employment ended in June 2023.

White Aid is a rapidly growing Durable Medical Equipment (DME)
company that distributes and services medical equipment to
hospitals, rehab/skilled nursing facilities, as well as to our
patients in the home setting throughout New York City and its
surrounding areas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WILLIS TOWERS: Pitts Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE PITTS, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WILLIS TOWERS WATSON US LLC, a limited
liability company, and EXTEND HEALTH, LLC, a limited liability
company, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-02951 (E.D. Pa., Aug. 1,
2023) is a collective and class action brought by the Plaintiff,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons
employed by Defendants, arising from Defendants' willful violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and common law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the laws by
systematically failing to compensate their customer service
representatives for work tasks completed before and after their
scheduled shifts when they were not logged into Defendants'
timekeeping system, which resulted in CSRs not being paid for all
overtime hours worked, overtime gap time when associated with
unpaid overtime and in non-overtime workweeks, for regular hours.

Plaintiff Pitts is a resident of Kountze, Texas and worked remotely
for Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt CSR from approximately
August 2022 through January 2023.

Willis Towers Watson US LLC is a global advisory, broking and
solutions company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam S. Levy
          LAW OFFICE OF ADAM S. LEVY, LLC
          P.O. Box 88
          Oreland, PA 19075
          Telephone: (267) 994-6952
          E-mail: adamslevy@comcast.net

               - and -

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

WISECROWD INC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wisecrowd, Inc. The
case is styled as Mairoby Hernandez, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Wisecrowd, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-06800-ER (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 3, 2023).

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

WiseCrowd -- https://wisecrowd.global/ -- is the trusted online
platform connecting businesses with freelance consultants in
Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


X CORP: Martell Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------
The case styled as Mark Martell, and others similarly situated v. X
Corp., Case No. 2023CH06416 was removed from the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on Aug. 14, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-05449 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.

X Corp. is an American technology company established by Elon Musk
in 2023 as the successor to Twitter, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
          111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Phone: (312) 984-0000
          Fax: (212) 686-0114
          Email: malmstrom@whafh.com

The Defendants is represented by:

          Robert Collins, III, Esq.
          Kathryn Running, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          330 N. Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Phone: (312) 876-7700
          Email: robert.collins@lw.com
                 Kathryn.Running@lw.com


YELLOW FREIGHT: Moore Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice
----------------------------------------------------------------
JEFF MOORE and ELIZABETH BROOKE MOORE on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. YELLOW FREIGHT
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00832-UNA (D. Del., August
2, 2023) is a civil action brought by the Plaintiff for collection
of unpaid wages and benefits for 60 calendar days pursuant to the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.

Plaintiffs Jeff Moore and Elizabeth Brooke Moore were employed by
the Defendant and worked at or reported to a facility located in
Marietta, Georgia until their termination without cause on July 28,
2023.

According to the complaint, on July 28, 2023 and thereafter,
Defendant ordered the termination of Plaintiffs' employment
together with the termination of approximately 30,000 other
employees who worked at or reported to or were assigned work from
its facilities as part of a mass layoff and/or plant closing as
defined by the WARN Act, for which they were entitled to receive 60
days advance written notice. Moreover, the Defendant failed to pay
Plaintiffs and the other similarly situated employees their
respective wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday pay
and accrued vacation for 60 days following their respective
terminations and failed to make 401(k) contributions and provide
them with health insurance coverage and other employee benefits,
says the suit.

Yellow Freight Corporation is a small-freight trucking
company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James E. Huggett, Esq.
          MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
          300 Delaware Avenue Suite 800
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 888-1112
          Facsimile: (302) 888-1119

               - and -

          Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
          LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
          100 Church Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10078
          Telephone: (212) 581-5005
          Facsimile: (212) 581-2122

               - and -

          Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
          M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
          THE GARDNER FIRM, PC
          182 St. Francis Street Suite 103
          Mobile, AL 36602
          Telephone: (251) 433-8100
          Facsimile: (251) 433-8181

ZOOT SQUAD: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zoot Squad. The case
is styled as Maria DiMeglio, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Zoot Squad, Case No. 1:23-cv-05851-LJL
(S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2023).

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

Zoot -- https://zootsports.com/ -- is the leading running and
triathlon sports brand, providing quality running shoes, triathlon,
running, and cycle apparel and wetsuits.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com

               - and -

          Ara Vahe Naljian, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 584-5575
          Email: analjian@steinsakslegal.com


ZUFFA LLC: Sanchez Suit Transferred to D. Nevada
------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Isaiah Sanchez, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Zuffa, LLC doing business
as: UFC Fight Pass, Case No. 2:23-cv-06113 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on Aug. 14, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01259-JCM-VCF to
the proceeding.

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

Zuffa, LLC doing business as UFC Fight Pass --
http://www.ufcfightpass.com/-- is an American subscription-based
video streaming service owned by the UFC's parent company, Zuffa,
that launched in December 2013.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc G. Reich, Esq.
          Adam T. Hoover, Esq.
          REICH RADCLIFFE AND HOOVER LLP
          4675 Macarthur Court Suite 550
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Phone: (949) 975-0512
          Fax: (949) 975-0514

               - and -

          L. Timothy Fisher. Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, PA
          1990 N. California Blvd., Ste. 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Phone: (925) 300-4455
          Fax: (925) 407-2700
          Email: ltfisher@bursor.com

The Defendants is represented by:

          Ashley L. Shively, Esq.
          Daniel Patrick Kappes, Esq.
          Zachary Tyler Watterson, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          560 Mission Street, Ste. 19th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: (415) 743-6900
          Email: ashley.shively@hklaw.com
                 daniel.kappes@hklaw.com
                 zachary.watterson@hklaw.com


ZURI PLASTIC SURGERY: J.F. Files Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zuri Plastic Surgery,
LLC. The case is styled as J.F., on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Zuri Plastic Surgery, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-23102-RAR (S.D. Fla., Aug. 15, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.

Zuri Plastic Surgery -- https://www.zuriplasticsurgery.com/ --
specializes in all types of plastic/cosmetic surgery and
non-surgical face, breast and body rejuvenation procedures.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Natalie Marie Rico, Esq.
          COLSON HICKS EIDSON
          255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Phone: (305) 476-7400
          Fax: (305) 476-7444
          Email: nrico@milberg.com

               - and -

          Jon Deters, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
          119 E. Court St., Ste. 530
          Cincinnati, OH 45002
          Phone: (513) 651-3700

               - and -

          Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
          THE LYON FIRM
          2754 Erie Avenue
          Cincinnati, OH 45208
          Phone: (513) 381-2333
          Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com

               - and -

          Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
          CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE P.A.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: (612) 339-7300
          Email: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com


[*] CANADA: Indigenous Lawsuits Resulted in Billions in Payouts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Flanagan, writing for The American Conservative, reports
that class action lawsuits by Indigenous litigants meet no
resistance from Canada's federal government, resulting in tens of
billions in payouts.

Paying reparations to designated racial and ethnic groups for
historical injustice is a hotly debated issue in contemporary
public policy. Appointed commissions in the state of California and
the city of San Francisco have produced proposals for payments to
African Americans, even though slavery was never a legal
institution in California. The San Francisco committee proposed
giving a grant of $5 million to each qualifying black resident,
plus a guaranteed annual income of $97,000 for the next 250 years.
While this proposal, which would bankrupt the city, is unlikely to
be approved, it shows how high the stakes in the reparations debate
have become.

In Canada, where people of African descent are a small minority,
debates over reparations are focused on other ethnic groups. The
Mulroney (Conservative) government authorized payments to Japanese
Canadians because of their relocation in World War II. The Harper
(also Conservative) government offered compensation to Chinese
Canadians for the head tax on immigrants, though few were left
alive to receive it. The biggest issue of reparations in Canada
going forward will concern Indigenous Canadians: Métis, Inuit, and
above all First Nations (Indians).

American scholar Alfred Brophy has itemized the main elements that
usually make up a reparations package: apologies, truth
commissions, civil rights legislation, community building, and
payments to individuals. Canada has adopted all these several times
over as Indigenous policies. The distinctive Canadian contribution
is a reparations payments strategy driven by the judicial process,
chiefly through class actions. Crucially, the policy of the federal
executive government since 2015 has been to put up only token
opposition to Indigenous claims before proceeding to negotiate a
settlement. The legal process proposes, the executive government
disposes.

Superficially, the Canadian practice appears to seek compensation
for damages for individuals, but the government's unwillingness to
contest these claims, at least since 2015, has turned them into a
kind of de facto reparations. Claims are made in virtue of alleged
historical mistreatment under this or that federal program. When
the claims are not contested, and no proof is sought of actual
damages, they become the equivalent of reparations—but never
discussed in the legislature or ratified by public opinion. In
effect, Canada is enacting reparations by stealth.

Indian Residential Schools (IRS) had enjoyed a relatively favorable
image in Canadian public opinion until 1990, when Manitoba chief
Phil Fontaine was interviewed about physical and sexual abuse that
he claimed to have suffered at an IRS. Similar complaints then
started to come forward from many directions. Historians wrote
influential books criticizing the system, while the Report of the
Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples devoted a chapter to the
topic. The churches that had run the schools with government
funding delivered public apologies, as did the minister of Indian
Affairs.

By the turn of the century, the courts were swamped with IRS
litigation, both class actions and individual claims for
compensation. At the normal pace of the judicial process, it would
have taken decades to resolve all the claims. The churches were
afraid of being bankrupted and were begging the federal government
for a solution. Protracted negotiations between federal
representatives and the Assembly of First Nations resulted in the
Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, signed by Prime
Minister Paul Martin in late November 2005, on the eve of his
government's defeat in the House of Commons.

The Conservative Party of Canada, led by Stephen Harper, won the
next election and formed a minority government in January 2006. It
would now be up to the Conservatives to implement the agreement,
even though they had had no role in negotiating it. Prime Minister
Harper decided to accept the IRS Settlement negotiated by Paul
Martin's government and to implement it as written, but not to go
beyond the four corners of the text. Despite some warnings from the
civil service, Harper and his advisors hoped that implementation of
the agreement, combined with a fulsome apology from the prime
minister, would mark the end of an era and the beginning of
reconciliation.

The agreement was exceedingly generous. There was a "Common
Experience Payment" of $10,000 for the first year spent in an IRS,
plus $3,000 for each additional year. No demonstration of harm or
loss to the individual claimant would be required, only evidence of
enrollment. This was a way of handling a multitude of small claims
with relative dispatch, but it bolstered the misconception that the
IRS were horrible places in which everyone suffered. There was also
an Independent Assessment Process for claims of physical and sexual
abuse, with the amount of compensation proportional to the severity
of the purported abuse. Evidence was required that the claimant and
alleged abuser had been at the same school at the same time, but
there was no cross

examination or weighing of conflicting testimonies.

Payments to individuals totaled almost $5 billion. Additional
expenditures on advocacy, commemoration, and legal fees, plus the
number of employment hours invested in negotiation, administration,
and adjudication, would bring the true cost to well over that. (In
evaluating this and all other Canadian dollar amounts, American
readers should remember that the gross domestic product of the
United States is more than ten times larger than that of Canada.
Whereas $5 billion may seem like a rounding error in the United
States, it is "real money" in Canada.) At the time, it was the
largest class action settlement in Canadian history.

Yet it proved to be the beginning rather than the end of demands
for Indigenous reparations.

In the wake of the IRS Settlement, other groups began pursuing
class actions to obtain compensation for alleged historical
grievances, but they did not have much success while the
Conservatives were in power. Things changed dramatically when the
Liberals under Justin Trudeau won the national election of October
19, 2015. Trudeau promptly appointed Jodi Wilson-Raybould as
Minister of Justice, the first status Indian ever to hold that
position.

That appointment marked an immediate change in the litigation
strategy of the Department of Justice, although Minister
Wilson-Raybould did not formalize the new approach until January
11, 2019, when she issued the Attorney General of Canada's
Directive on Civil Litigation Involving Indigenous Peoples. A main
theme of her 20 "Litigation Guidelines" is that, in cases of
Indigenous rights, the Department of Justice should do everything
possible to avoid litigation in favor of other ways of resolving
disputes, such as negotiation. Guideline 4 states:

Counsel's primary goal must be to resolve the issues, using the
court process as a last resort and in the narrowest way possible.
This is consistent with a counsel's ongoing obligation to consider
means of avoiding or resolving litigation throughout a file's
lifespan. Counsel must engage in these efforts early and often,
ensuring that all reasonable avenues for narrowing the issues and
settling the dispute are explored.

Wilson-Raybould's practice directive is still in force, even though
she has been gone from the Justice portfolio since 2019.

The first sign of a shift came with a negotiated settlement of the
Newfoundland and Labrador Residential Schools class action, which
had begun in 2007 and finally reached the courtroom in September
2015. In November 2015, only three weeks after taking office, the
new Liberal government discontinued its legal defence and asked for
negotiations. In 2016, a settlement was reached that provided $50
million to those who had attended five boarding schools in
Newfoundland and Labrador, plus additional money for "healing and
commemoration." The settlement, though small in comparison to the
IRS settlement of 2006, clearly signalled a new receptivity to
Indigenous claims about abuse in education.

Much bigger was the Federal Indian Day Schools Settlement,
announced in March 2019. About 700 day schools had been funded by
the federal government between 1863 and 2000, in every province and
territory. It is estimated that 200,000 students may have attended
them at one time or another, in comparison to an estimated 150,000
who ever attended residential schools (in evaluating these numbers,
remember that some children attended both types of schools at
different times). The settlement provided base compensation of
$10,000 for all who had attended a day school, topped off by an
additional $50,000 to $200,000 for claims of physical and sexual
abuse. As with the IRS agreement, evidence of attendance was
required, but claims of abuse were not to be cross-examined and did
not require corroboration.

It has been reported that $1.47 billion was set aside for
compensating individuals and that 178,161 claims had been filed as
of January 3, 2023. This would yield an average payment of about
$82,000, with much variation depending on claims of abuse. There
was also an appropriation of $200 million to an independent
corporation for healing, commemoration, and perpetuation of
language and culture. An additional provision not seen in previous
settlements was that compensation could be paid to the estate of
claimants who died on or after July 31, 2007.

Residential schools were criticized because they took children away
from their families and placed them in congregate settings where
they allegedly had to endure malnutrition and disease, physical and
sexual abuse from staff and older students, and loss of language
and culture. Now compensation was being paid to students who, like
most other Canadian children, continued to live at home while they
attended school. It was beginning to look as if all formal
education for First Nations children would be considered abusive.

Next to come was a settlement of the day scholars class action,
announced in 2021. Day scholars were Indian children who continued
to live at home while attending an IRS, thus not sleeping overnight
in dormitories. This was possible because many residential schools
were located on Indian reserves, so children who were near the
school could continue to live with their parents, while children
from farther away would board at the school.

According to the settlement agreement, day scholars will receive
$10,000 apiece, without further provision for physical or sexual
abuse. Somewhat like the day school settlement, payments can also
be made to descendants of claimants who passed away after May 30,
2005. The exact number of claimants is not known yet, but it has
been estimated to be 15,000 or more, yielding a minimum payout
total of $150 million. As with earlier settlements, there was a
provision for $50 million to be paid to a Day Scholars
Revitalization Fund for the usual purposes.

At the very end of 2022 came a negotiated settlement to the Indian
Boarding Homes Class Action. This was for Indian students whose
expenses had been paid by the federal government to attend public
schools in town. While in town, they lived with local families,
hence the name "boarding home students." It is estimated that
perhaps 40,000 Indian students were involved between 1951 and 1992.
The program was created when the federal government started to
close IRS after 1950, leaving many children without easy access to
any type of Indian school, especially in the higher grades. The
settlement, whose total has no cap, provides for a $10,000 base
payment plus an additional payment of $10,000 to $200,000 for
abuse, which can include physical or sexual abuse in the homes as
well as racial discrimination from teachers or other students in
the town schools. The law firm carrying the class action estimates
that the total value of the payout will be about $2.2 billion in
individual payments, plus $50 million for a foundation.

Finally comes the Band Reparations Class Action Settlement,
announced in early 2023. This was originally part of the day
scholars class action but was sundered because it presented
different and more difficult issues. The claimants in this instance
are not individuals but 325 Indian bands (First Nations), about
half the First Nations in Canada. The settlement provides $2.8
billion for a 20-year trust fund, independent of government
management, that will pay for programs and services benefitting the
participant bands. The theory behind the award is the novel claim
that First Nations suffered as communities because of the loss of
language and culture suffered by all the Indian children who
received formal education in whatever form. In this claim, harm to
individuals is totally abandoned as a cause of action. There are no
individual payments at all, just one large collective payment.

The Band Reparations settlement may indicate the path of future
litigation. The former chief who initiated the case said that "it
was about time" Canada stepped aside and let First Nations
themselves decide how to overcome the harms caused by IRS. In
context, this was praise for transferring public money to First
Nations, letting them decide how to spend it with no accountability
measures imposed.

What I have called the "education explosion" has resulted in
compensation for practically all First Nations children who
received formal education of any type. There is still a pending
issue with Métis children, but I will let this pass here, because
"Métis" is not a recognized legal category in the United States.
Suffice it to say that education litigation is far from over.

First Nations people with other grievances soon saw the potential
of the class action model. The first achievement was the Sixties
Scoop Settlement, announced in November 2017. It provided $750
million in payments to Indian children, now adults, who had been
"adopted out" (i.e., adopted by non-Indigenous parents) between
1959 and 1991. As of January 2023, 20,992 claims had been approved
out of 34,785 received. After all claims are dealt with, the payout
is expected to be about $25,000 apiece. There was also provision
for payment to the estates of deceased claimants, an appropriation
of $50 million for a commemorative foundation, and payment of $75
million in legal fees.

Adoption of native children became much more frequent in Canada
after a 1951 amendment to the Indian Act gave provincial welfare
agencies the authority to operate on Indian reserves. Before this,
neglected and abused children, as well as orphans, had often been
sent to IRS, which acted as de facto orphanages. Provincial
authorities moved in just as the federal government started closing
IRS. The result was widespread out-adoption of Indian children for
whom provincial social workers could not find Indian homes that
they deemed suitable. Ironically, compensation is now being paid to
neglected and abused children whose lives may well have been saved
by being adopted out.

Further afield, negotiated settlements for two class actions
involving drinkable water on Indian reserves were announced on July
30, 2021. Clean water on reserves has long been a point of
grievance for First Nations, with several ameliorative programs
announced over the years. According to a news report, this
settlement "includes $1.5 billion in compensation for individuals
deprived of clean drinking water; $6 billion to upgrade water
infrastructure to help settle ongoing water issues; and the
creation of a $400 million First Nation Economic and Cultural
Restoration Fund." Eligibility both for First Nations and for
individuals requires a drinking water advisory that lasted at least
one year between November 20, 1995, and June 20, 2021. The deadline
for filing claims is March 7, 2024, so at this stage it is not
clear how many individuals and First Nations will share the
proceeds or in what proportions.

One note of caution is required in understanding the settlement.
The $6 billion "to upgrade water infrastructure" is a promise to
increase federal budgetary expenditures but does not entail cash
transfers to individuals or to First Nations, nor is the timetable
clear. Is it really "new money"? It may not be quite the same as
the collective awards included in the settlements previously
discussed.

The same qualification applies to the astonishingly large foster
care settlement announced in early 2022 and upgraded in 2023. This
will provide $23.3 billion in individual compensation to First
Nations children (and their parents or other caregivers) taken from
Indian reserves into foster care between 1991 and the present.
Compensation is now being offered to the abusers as well as the
abused! There will be another $20 billion for improvement of child
welfare services on reserves over the next five years. As in the
foster care settlement, this second tranche is a promise to spend
more money on programs rather than a distribution of cash to
individuals and organizations.

This settlement was unique not only in size but in its legal
format. It was a response to a human rights complaint originally
lodged in 2007 rather than a class action (though two class actions
later emerged in parallel to the original complaint). The theory of
the complaint was that the federal First Nations Child and Family
Welfare program, which came into effect in 1991, was underfunded
and poorly organized in comparison to provincial programs.
Therefore, anyone affected by it suffered a deprivation of human
rights under the Canadian Human Rights Act and is entitled to
compensation. Crucially, compensation was to be paid for the
deprivation of human rights, not for harm suffered. This almost
magical legal maneuver turned the Human Rights Tribunal into a
reviewer of the adequacy of government policy and funding.

The original human rights complaint did not specify an amount of
damages, but the cost of a positive verdict was thought to be in
the range of $6 to 8 billion. The figure of $40 billion emerged at
a later date after the federal government decided to settle and
brought in former senator and judge Murray Sinclair to lead the
negotiations. Agreement between the parties was reached during the
Covid pandemic when the Canadian federal government, like its
American counterpart, was running gargantuan deficits, so the
previously unthinkable total of $40 billion did not loom so large
in comparison to other governmental expenditures. Only time will
tell whether this settlement, now increased to $43.3 billion, was
an exception or will prove to be a model for future agreements.

The Federal Court of Canada recently certified a new class action
on behalf of all off-reserve Indigenous children (not just status
Indians) taken into non-Indigenous care between 1992 and 2019.
Unless the Crown vigorously defends this claim, the new class
action has the potential for another very large settlement, because
the number of Indigenous people living off reserve between 1992 and
2019, when Métis and Inuit are included, is certainly larger than
the number of status Indians living on reserve.

All three government approaches since 1951 to protecting the
welfare of Indian children have now been declared unacceptable --
using IRS as de facto orphanages, adopting Indian children out to
non-Indian families, and taking children into foster care. In the
real world, there is a difficult situation which no government has
resolved and probably no government can resolve through public
policy alone: coping with the breakup of Indian families due to
alcohol and drug abuse as well as welfare dependency, which makes
the male breadwinner role largely superfluous and tends to deprive
children of paternal support and supervision.

Another major class action not yet settled is the Indian Hospitals
case. At one time the federal government operated at least
twenty-nine Indian hospitals, established long before public health
care became federally funded. Tuberculosis was a lethal plague
among native people, and status Indians were not always welcome in
local hospitals because they did not pay local taxes and could not
afford to pay fees. Now it is claimed that patients in these
hospitals received inferior care and were subjected to physical and
sexual abuse. The lawsuit demands $1.1 billion in compensation for
individuals, with the new wrinkle that compensation can also be
paid to spouses or other family members negatively affected by the
claimants' allegedly inferior health care. The federal government
has indicated willingness to settle, but a deal has not yet been
finalized.

Other cases are still in the litigation pipeline, but this brief
survey shows the potential for the Canadian judicial process to act
as a vehicle for securing reparations far beyond the field of
residential schools. Indeed, the future for such litigation seems
unlimited if the Crown persists in settling almost every claim
rather than using its resources for a vigorous defence.

The value of all these cases settled to date is roughly $38 billion
in payments to individuals plus $32 billion in transfers to
organizations, for a grand total of about $60 billion. In Canadian
terms, this is "real money." The total is bound to go much higher
considering class actions already in the courts, others seeking
certification, and others still only contemplated.

I will not here enter the debate about whether or to what extent
reparations to Indigenous people in Canada are justified. I will
limit myself to making some observations about using the legal
process as a tool to provide reparations.

The record since 2006 is one of continual expansion of claims:

To include new causes of action, moving from residential schools to
other modes of education to other aspects of Indigenous health and
welfare.

To include new groups of claimants, going from status Indians with
grievances to their family members and heirs to whole First Nations
as collective entities to all Indigenous people.

To raise the stakes, from about $5 billion in compensation for
residential schools to $43.3 billion for foster care.

To employ new legal processes, starting with class actions then
moving on to human rights grievances.

Although these actions are styled as legal claims for damages, they
are really critiques of public policy using the judicial system as
a forum. In none of these actions have individual claimants been
required to document harm they allegedly suffered as individuals.
In other areas of law, the Crown is not liable for damages
resulting from past public policy enacted in good faith, using the
information available at the time. The Supreme Court of Canada said
in the Marchi case (2021) that governments may be sued for damages
arising from the operational implementation of policy but "core
policy decisions" should be shielded from civil liability. This is
classic separation of powers doctrine.

The litigation discussed here has dealt mainly with core policy
issues—what is the appropriate structure for education, how
should neglected and abused children be dealt with, how should
health care be delivered to Indians, how should drinkable water be
delivered on Indian reserves. If there were operational failures
connected with the policies, those could have been addressed by
documenting the harm caused to individuals rather than indicting
the whole policy, but that did not happen. Canadian courts have
been turned into a forum for making retrospective judgments about
past policy rather than a venue for adjudicating harm done to
individuals by mistakes in implementation.

Another departure from Canadian legal tradition can be found in the
role played by the federal Department of Justice. Previously, the
department guarded the public interest by vigorously defending
claims. Since 2015, the Department of Justice has called for
negotiations at an early opportunity in cases of historical
grievance, thus preventing grave and novel issues from being heard
in the Supreme Court or other appellate courts. This frustrates the
development of the law. It also turns the federal government into a
piñata, waiting for litigants to beat it and collect what falls
out.

The current approach to negotiation of Indigenous claims amounts to
collusion between claimants and the executive branch of the federal
government, negotiating early settlements while cutting Parliament
out of any meaningful role. In the British tradition of
representative democracy, Parliament is supposed to have the power
of the purse. But Parliament never had a chance to debate and
approve Jodi Wilson-Raybould's practice directive, which was drawn
up by her legal advisers, then adopted by cabinet fiat. A
settlement negotiated by the executive according to the
Wilson-Raybould directive reaches Parliament as a virtual fait
accompli. It is almost impossible for members to track expenditures
because implementation of settlements extends over many years while
claimants are being enumerated and compensated.

For all these reasons, the judicial model of incremental and
never-ending reparations is highly undesirable. Now that it is well
entrenched, we cannot expect internal reform without intervention
from the elected government. Indigenous litigants are thriving by
filing claims and negotiating settlements; class-action law firms
also prosper when the federal government pays their legal fees.
Justice Department lawyers are employees who must act as directed
by the minister, who in turn must follow government policy. To
effect any change, Jodi Wilson-Raybould's practice directive must
be repealed, either by a change of heart in the elected government
or a change in the government by means of an election.

Maybe the judicial model of reparations will never come to the
United States. I wouldn't be too confident. America is even more
litigious than Canada. Class action lawyers reading this article
may already be rushing to find a class for certification.
Forewarned is forearmed. [GN]

[*] Companies Face VPPA Class Action Privacy Litigation Risks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Esler and Eva Novick, Esq., of Miller Nash LLP, in an article
for JDSupra, reports that plaintiffs class action lawyers have
latched onto privacy litigation as their next big meal ticket. Over
the past year, companies have faced a new barrage of lawsuits under
the federal Video Privacy Protection Act, (VPPA) and state and
federal wiretap laws. The VPPA was originally enacted in the 1980s
to prevent videotape rental stores from disclosing customers'
rental records without their consent. While your neighborhood
Blockbuster may be extinct (unless of course you live in Bend), the
VPPA's offer of up to $2,500 per violation in addition to costs and
attorneys fees for successful litigants has given it new life in
this digital age. Over 100 VPPA lawsuits have been filed in roughly
the last year alone alleging that companies' use of Meta's "Pixel"
to track website users' video history and share that information
with advertisers is a violation of the VPPA. Last month, one such
accused company agreed to a $2.6 million class action settlement.

Similarly, under the state and federal wiretap laws, plaintiffs
class action lawyers have alleged that companies' disclosure of
customers' chats to outside software analytics companies violates
state and federal wiretapping and eavesdropping statutes. However,
based on recent federal district court victories by defendants in
getting many such claims dismissed or moved into arbitration, it is
clear that plaintiffs will have to do more than simply allege that
either their video watch history or chat history was disclosed to
win the day. When the courts move beyond companies' procedural
defenses and address the merits of the plaintiffs' claims,
plaintiffs will still need to convince the courts to adapt decades
old statutes to an evolving online marketplace.

Key Takeaways

Companies that conspicuously display mandatory arbitration policies
and class waivers will be more successful either compelling
arbitration or dismissing class actions of such claims.

Companies must be engaged specifically in the business of providing
audio visual materials to be covered by the VPPA.

State laws will differ on who consents and who is participating as
a direct party for the purposes of wiretapping and eavesdropping
violations.

Companies facing similar claims should consider responding
proactively and reaching out to our team at Miller Nash for more
help.

Editor's Note: Michael Zangl, a 2023 Miller Nash summer associate,
contributed to this blog post. [GN]

[*] Jones Day Attorneys Discusses Greenwashing Suits v. Airlines
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory J. Barden, Dean E. Griffith, Françoise S. Labrousse, Ozan
Akyurek, Holly Sara and Prudence J Smith, Esq., of Jones Day, in an
article for Lexology, disclosed that for more than a decade,
environmental groups have accused airlines of "greenwashing" or
misrepresenting the sustainability of their business operations.
Now these claims are gaining traction around the globe. These
groups argue that airlines advertise as environmentally friendly
while their flights contribute to climate change. Although
sustainability is a long-term goal for the airline industry,
airlines now face consumer protection lawsuits in the United
States, Europe, and Australia over ad campaigns touting the use of
carbon offsets for these future commitments.

First Greenwashing Class Action in the United States Under State
Consumer Protection Law

On May 30, 2023, consumers filed a class action lawsuit against a
U.S. airline, claiming the airline misrepresented its environmental
impact by advertising itself as being "carbon neutral" and that
consumers relied on those statements in choosing to fly on that
airline. The first-of-its-kind suit in the United States alleges
violations of California state law related to unfair and deceptive
practices, and claims the airline's reliance on participation in
the voluntary carbon market to offset its emissions makes its
carbon neutrality claim false. This suit alleges the market uses
inaccurate accounting and speculative emissions reduction forecasts
to inflate the actual environmental effects of its projects. Among
other defenses, the airline would be expected to claim that the
California law at issue is preempted by the Airline Deregulation
Act, which expressly preempts states from enacting or enforcing
laws related to an air carrier's routes, rates, or services.

Greenwashing Claims Meet Mixed Success in European Courts

A ruling from the District Court of Amsterdam established for the
first time that an environmental nonprofit has standing to bring a
greenwashing claim against a Dutch air carrier under a new Dutch
class action law aimed at protecting consumers and those affected
by climate change. The environmental group seeks to ban airline
sustainability advertising, drawing parallels to nicotine
advertising to argue that airlines should not be allowed to
advertise they are flying sustainably when they use fossil fuels.
This litigation remains ongoing.

Separately, on June 22, 2023, a consumer protection group, the
Bureau Européen des Unions de Consommateurs, and a number of its
member organizations filed a complaint to the European Commission
and the Consumer Protection Network, alleging that 17 European
airlines have made misleading climate-related claims. The complaint
alleges that the airlines have engaged in greenwashing and
misleading commercial practices by (i) falsely suggesting that air
transport can be "sustainable," "eco-responsible," and "green";
(ii) encouraging the payment of premiums for carbon offsetting in
circumstances where the climatic benefits of the offsets are highly
controversial; and/or (iii) charging customers to contribute to the
development of "sustainable aviation fuels" in circumstances where
the fuels are not ready to be deployed and are not forecast to be
widely used for some time.

In a February 2023 decision by the Stockholm District Court, it was
held that the defendant incorrectly suggested that offset credits
could totally eliminate carbon footprints. On April 5, 2023, the
regional court of Düsseldorf ruled in favor of German NGO Deutsche
Umwelthilfe in the first of 15 greenwashing cases. The court held
that the claim of a multinational energy and petroleum company
advertising heating oil as "CO2 compensated" was misleading. Other
pending German cases concern supermarkets, energy companies,
retailers, sports teams, food companies, and one concerns an
airline which had advertised a compensation scheme for CO2
emissions caused by airline flights.

Greenwashing Complaints Filed With the Australian Consumer
Protection Regulator

On March 22, 2023, the Environmental Defenders Office filed a
complaint with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
("ACCC") against Etihad Airways, alleging that Etihad made false or
misleading statements about its greenhouse gas emissions and plans
for achieving net-zero emissions. The complaint was filed on behalf
of Flight Free Australia, a not-for-profit organization seeking to
reduce climate pollution in the aviation industry. Flight Free
Australia alleges that Etihad ads displayed at an A-League soccer
match at AAMI Park last February stating, "Flying shouldn't cost
the earth" and "Net zero emissions by 2050," were misleading
because they conveyed that Etihad has no significant environmental
impact and that Etihad has a credible path to net-zero emissions by
2050. Flight Free Australia seeks that the ACCC investigate
Etihad's conduct and take compliance action as appropriate on the
basis that Etihad has a significant environmental impact, emitting
4.31 million tonnes of CO2 in 2021, and does not have a clear path
to net zero, with forecasts that its CO2 emissions will increase in
2026. The request for an investigation in the complaint is
reinforced by specific reference to the ACCC's focus on
greenwashing as an enforcement priority for 2023 and the
significant environmental impact of the aviation industry.

Key Takeaways

Perceptions around carbon offsets are evolving, and companies that
rely on them to reduce emissions might be at risk of greenwashing
complaints and/or claims.

Airlines and corporations in the aviation sector (and beyond)
should generally take care in making statements regarding their
environmental impacts and carbon offset offerings, ensuring that
they are not overly broad and can be verified. Companies must be
aware of local requirements governing communications on carbon
compensation and offsets. Some may consider having independent,
third-party verification of their sustainability efforts.

In Australia, there are a number of pending cases which will decide
key questions relating to liability risk for greenwashing in
corporate announcements and marketing. In addition, the ACCC and
other corporate regulators in Australia are devoting significant
resources to conducting investigations and pursuing enforcement
action in relation to greenwashing, and so further actions are
expected imminently.

While these greenwashing claims are similar, the results vary
greatly by jurisdiction. Companies with multinational touchpoints
need to be aware of differences in jurisdictions in which they
operate. Several jurisdictions have rejected these claims, and
companies should carefully consider available defenses.

Anika M. Smith, an associate in the Washington Office, contributed
to this article. [GN]

[*] New SEC Cyberattack Reporting Rule to Expose Cos. to Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daphne Zhang, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a new SEC
cyberattack reporting rule has left public companies and insurers
exposed to potential regulatory probes and shareholder class
actions alleging senior executives failed to supervise their
businesses' cybersecurity practices.

The US Securities and Exchange Commission recently issued rules
that formally outlined directors' responsibilities in cybersecurity
governance for the first time, laying the groundwork for potential
enforcement actions.

The rule also set a road map for investors to bring derivative
claims alleging a company's senior executives breached their
fiduciary duty by failing to manage cyber risks. And it put
insurers on alert that they could find themselves exposed to
underlying claims, insurance attorneys say.

"The plaintiff bar is drooling. They're like, 'when does this go
into effect?'" said Kelly Geary of EPIC Insurance Brokers &
Consultants.

Though the practice is not yet universal, a growing number of
director and officer (D&O) policies are being drafted with
cyber-related exclusions. Meanwhile, most cyber insurance policies
exempt SEC enforcement actions and investor claims, but some cover
allegations against a company's executives over their cybersecurity
roles.

As a result, public companies may soon find themselves in the
"worst of both worlds," where neither cyber nor D&O policies pay
for legal bills over SEC investigations and investor lawsuits, said
Steven Weisman, a partner at McCarter & English, LLP. D&O policies
cover claims and regulator probes against a company and its
directors.

"It's time for public companies to reassess their insurance program
to ensure that they have coverage," Weisman said. "Some cyber
policies cover fines and penalties from the FCC, the FTC, and state
regulatory agencies, but not the SEC."

The rule will accelerate D&O insurers' efforts to exclude cyber
incidents and privacy violations, Geary said. D&O carriers can rely
on the exclusions to deny claims alleging directors were lax in
their oversight of a cyberattack that exposed consumers' and
employees' personal information. Insurance carriers will also
conduct tougher underwriting for cyber risks and add more
restrictive terms to current policies, brokers say.

"I'm sure D&O underwriters are thinking very hard about all of
this," Geary said, referring to regulator and investor claims that
will likely stem from the SEC cyberattack reporting rule.

Board Scrutiny
In its adopted rule, the SEC asked companies for the first time to
describe their senior executives' roles and expertise in managing
cybersecurity threats, which often include business interruption
and reputational damage after a cyber incident.

The cyber literacy of Fortune 500 senior executives is often
inadequate, and there has been an increase in shareholder
derivative suits that specifically target board members about cyber
failures, insurance analysts say.

The rule will embolden plaintiffs to bring duty-of-oversight claims
against companies and their directors, and "make a public company's
insurance application process more onerous" because underwriters
will grill policyholders over their cybersecurity procedures, said
Geary.

Businesses should be vigilant in the next annual renewal cycle of
their general liability, cyber, and D&O policies to check whether
insurers are adding new restrictions in response to the SEC rule,
said Weisman.

"Now that the SEC is regulating cyber disclosures, there may be an
incentive for D&O insurers to not want to insure that risk or to
only insure that risk for additional premiums so we might start to
see more cyber exclusions," said David Cummings, a Reed Smith LLP
partner who represents corporate policyholders.

There's a potential flip side: If a company can show it has mature
cybersecurity measures, insurers may offer "more favorable terms,
better coverage, and lower deductibles," said Katherine Keefe,
cyber incident management leader at broker Marsh McLennan. But
carriers haven't rewarded policyholders with premium discounts yet,
she said.

Cyber Underwriting Data
On the whole, forcing companies to disclose cyberattack incidents
and security measures will help insurers to make more accurate
decisions about corporate cyber risks, said Avery Dial, a partner
at Kaufman Dolowich Voluck, LLP.

"People will be able to see and compare what's being done," Dial
said.

Cyber insurance is a relatively new product that has seen huge
price jumps amid rising hacks in the last few years. Ransomware
attacks against industrial organizations increased by 87% in 2022
from the year before, according to cybersecurity company Dragos
Inc.

One of the key challenges for cyber underwriting has been the lack
of historical and comparable data, because many companies have
never reported their cyber incidents.

Last October, Uber Technologies Inc.'s former security officer was
convicted of concealing a 2016 data breach that exposed the
information of 57 million Uber users and drivers. Uber took a year
to report the incident.

Now the SEC is telling public companies that they can no longer
withhold that kind of information, said Marsh's Keefe.

The publicly reported cyber data will give insurers a second source
to verify what companies disclosed on their insurance applications,
said Cummings. More transparency around companies' cyber measures
will also help to stabilize cyber insurance prices, he said.

The disclosures may be of little use, however, for investors and
insurers trying to forecast how a company will weather a
cybersecurity incident because cyber risks are rapidly changing.

Even when a company has the strongest cyber security measures and
insurance policies, there is no assurance that a future cyber
incident will be covered "if a hacker is creating some new attack
strategy that no one in the insurance or brokerage business thought
of yet," said Alex Sugzda, a partner at Cohen Ziffer Frenchman &
McKenna who represents policyholders.

"The risk itself evolves at a rate that is more rapid than our
annual policy period," EPIC's Geary said. [GN]


                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***