---

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

              Tuesday, August 29, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 173

                            Headlines

AETNA INTERNATIONAL: SW Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
AIR PRODUCTS: Camcara Must File Class Cert. Bid by Jan 29, 2024
ALASKA MILL FEED: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ALIGNMENT HEALTHCARE: Dabney Labor Suit Stayed Pending Mediation
ALLIED MAKER: Durantas Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

ALLIED UNIVERSAL: McCord Sues to Recover All Overtime Compensation
ALPHABET INC: Hearing on Class Certification Bid Set for Oct. 24
AM COMMUNICATIONS: Class Settlement in Grant Suit Gets Prelim. Nod
AMBERGLEN DEVELOPMENT: Filing of Class Cert Bids Due Nov. 15
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Court Approves Revised Stockholder Settlement

AMERICAN ACADEMY: Erkan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces Oliver Antitrust Suit in NY Court
AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES: Salazar Files Suit in S.D. New York
AMERIFLIGHT LLC: Fredericks Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
ANYWHERE REAL ESTATE: Discovery in Nosalek Suit Ongoing

APACHE CANADA: Settlement Deal Reached in Flesch Class Suit
APPLE INC: Judge Decision Favors Battergate Class Suit Settlement
APPLIED DIGITAL: McConnell Sues Over 6% Decline of Stock Price
ARC AUTOMOTIVE: Anderson Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
ARCHER-DANIELS: Faces Antitrust Suits in Various Courts

ARTHURS TAVERN: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ATLASSIAN CORP: Continues to Defend HFPF Suit
AURA WELLNESS SPA: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
AURINIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Ortmann Suit Over SEC Filings Ongoing
AUTOZONERS LLC: Lewis Suit Removed to C.D. California

AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL: Larez Suit Removed to E.D. Kentucky
B&G FOODS: Plaintiffs Seek to Continue Trial & Pretrial Deadlines
BARTECA RESTAURANTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rose Alleges
BARTECA RESTAURANTS: Rose Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
BELLA BRIDESMAIDS: Erkan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

BENCHMARK MEDIA: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BIOGEN INC: To Settle ERISA Suit in Massachusetts Court
BLOOM ENERGY CORP: Settlement Deal Reached in Roberts Suit
BLUE NOTE ENTERTAINMENT: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BOARD OF TRUSTEES: Ausherman Suit Removed to S.D. Indiana

BRADFORD COUNTY SCHOOL: Bradford Files Suit in M.D. Florida
BRIX CHOCOLATE: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BROOKE & DYLAN: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BROWN'S SHOE FIT: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BURGER KING: Herrera ADA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey

BURGERFI INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Walker Class Suit
C&R RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Alleges
CAL CARTAGE: Hernandez Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Packers in Cal.
CAL-MAINE FOODS: Court Junks Bell Suit without Prejudice
CALENDLY LLC: Faces Ringler Suit Over Illegal Wiretapping

CALIZO CONDIMENTS: Bullock Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CALL TRADER: Reimer Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
CAMBRIDGE COLLEGE: Scalione Sues Over Unprotected Personal Data
CANADA: May Face Class Action Suit Over Cannabis Legalization
CANADIAN NATIONAL: Bid for Wildfire Class Certification Denied

CANON USA: Private Settlement in Ink Catridge Class Suit Discussed
CAPITAL TRUSTEES: Sued Over Mismanagement of Retirement Plan
CAPITOL EXPRESS: Ramacciotti Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CARECENTRIX INC: Jones Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CATHOLIC HEALTH: J.C. Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of PII & PHI

CENGAGE LEARNING: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Jan. 5, 2024
CHIPICAN LLC: Miller Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
CHRISTO FIFTH AVENUE: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Rodriguez Class Suit
CITY OF BUFFALO: Galbraith Suit Removed to W.D. New York

CLAYTON COUNTY, GA: Breedlove Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Cert.
COINBASE GLOBAL: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit in CA Court
COINBASE GLOBAL: Underwood Shareholder Suit Dismissed
COMMUNITY BRANDS: Hoover Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Faces Suits Over SEC Filings/IPO Issue

COREBRIDGE FINANCIAL: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Newman Says
COREBRIDGE FINANCIAL: Oakwood Files Suit in S.D. Texas
COREBRIDGE FINANCIAL: Sweeney Files Suit in S.D. Texas
COURSERA INC: Feng Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
CROSS POINT: Ct. Terminates as Moot Lockerby Bid for Class Status

D-MARKET ELEKTRONIK: $63K in Fees, Costs Awarded in IWA-Forest Suit
D-MARKET ELEKTRONIK: Final Judgment Entered in IWA-Forest Suit
D-MARKET ELEKTRONIK: Plan of Allocation in IWA-Forest Suit Approved
DAHLIA RODRIGUEZ: Williams Files Suit in N.D. Alabama
DANTE DINING GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ellis Alleges

DELTA AIR: Agrees to Settle Class Action Suit Over Cancelled Flight
DESKTOP METAL: Guzman-Martinez Suit Consolidated with Zhou
DESKTOP METAL: Hathaway Suit Over EnvisionTEC Issue Consolidated
DESKTOP METAL: Xie Suit Over EnvisionTEC Issue Consolidated
DG SMITH ENTERPRISES: Gillespie Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

DISCOVER YOUR MOBILITY: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DISTACART INC: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DJ0 THREADS: Medina Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations in Calif.
DUCKSUNG INC: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DUN BRADSTREET HOLDINGS: Court Stays Batis Class Suit

DUN BRADSTREET HOLDINGS: DeBose Alleges Illegal Personal Data Use
DUNKIN DONUTS: Herrera ADA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
DXC TECHNOLOGY: Shareholder Suit Over 2017 Stock Offering Ongoing
E.I. DU PONT: Dotson Sues Over Contaminated Drinking Water Supplies
E.I. DU PONT: Greene Sues Over Negligence with Contaminated Water

EAO WIRELESS INC: Rivera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
EATON CORP: Sells Defective Circuit Breakers, Schlesinger Says
EDGIO INC: Interim Agreement Reached in Assad Class Suit
EMANUEL MEDICAL: Harrill Sues Over Unlawful Data Disclosure
EMBRY-RIDDLE AERONAUTICAL: Michaels Alleges False Degree Program

ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS: Murphy Files Suit in C.D. California
ENVESTNET INC: Continues to Defend Wesch Class Suit in N.D. Cal.
ENVIVA INC: Faces Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filings
EP GLOBAL PRODUCTION: Rhumm Files Suit in C.D. California
EQUIFAX INC: Canadian Supreme Court Dismisses Complainant Appeal

ERIC FRIEDLANDER: A.C. Suit Removed to E.D. Kentucky
FABIO SCALIA SALON: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
FALCON EQUITY: PBRT Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
FARM BOY: Palacios Suit Seeks Truck Unloaders' Unpaid Wages
FARMINGTON STATE BANK: O'Keefe Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida

FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK: Lynn Files Suit in D. Montana
FEDEX FREIGHT: Gayden Suit Removed to C.D. California
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Commences Settlement Payouts in Racketeering Suit
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Samuels-Cox Files Suit in N.D. Alabama
FORSYTHE FINANCE: 10th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in McMurray

FRINGE BENEFIT: 2nd Class Certification Order Issued in ERISA Suit
FULCRUM THERAPEUTICS: Celano Hits Stock Drop Over Sickle Cell Meds
FULTON COUNTY SCHOOL: MacCracken Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
FUNKO INC: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Ongoing in Washington
FUNKO INC: Shareholder Suit Over IPO Ongoing in WA Court

GALA WOODWORKING: Garcia Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Painters
GALLIMORE RESTORATION: Clark Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Faces Consolidated ERISA Suit in MA Court
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Suit Over Faulty Diesel Pump
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Suit Over Faulty Transmission

GENESYS TECHNOLOGY: Hobbs Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky
GOLDMAN SACHS: Plaut Allowed Leave to File Third Amended Complaint
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Wins Bid to Stay Discovery in Moyer Suit
GRAPPLER PRESSURE: Rose Sues Over Layoffs Without Advance Notice
GRID CONNECT: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

HARTFORD LIFE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Baker Alleges
HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Fails to Shutdown Power to Reduce Fire
HCA HEALTHCARE: M.R. Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee
HTI POLYMER: La Tour Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Donadio Suit Removed to C.D. California

ICONIC ENTERTAINMENT: Johnson Sues Over Unpaid Proper Compensation
IDEA 247 INC: Rose Files Suit in S.D. Florida
INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: Faces Malozzi Shareholder Suit in NJ Court
INTEGRIS HEALTH: Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma
IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit

JAGUAR LAND: Joyce Sues Over Defective Motor Vehicle Batteries
JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Pok Suit Removed to S.D. California
JLM DECORATING: Martinez File Class Cert. Reply by Sept. 8
JOHN'S SHANGHAI: Court Dismisses All Class Claims in Xue Suit
JOHNS HOPKINS: Riffey Sues Over Failure to Secure Customers' Info

JP WHITE: Hong Bid to Expand Pre-Cert Discovery Scope Partly OK'd
KPMG LLP: Chong "401(k) Plan" Suit Seeks Class Certification
LADUCA SHOES US: Erkan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
LENOVO UNITED: Consumer's Session Replay Class Action Advances
LIFELABS: Settles Class Suit Over 2019 Cyberattack for $9.8M

LIGHTNING OILFIELD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Green Alleges
LOANCARE LLC: Rothman FCRA Suit Removed to S.D. New York
MAJOR ENERGY ELECTRIC: Glikin Files Suit Over Power Rate Issue
MARINHEALTH MEDICAL: C. M. Files Suit in N.D. California
MASIENDA LLC: Toro Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store

MAVIS TIRE: Mahase Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Store Managers
MEDIASPIKE INC: Fitzhenry Files TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina
MERCER UNIVERSITY: Suit Transferred to M.D. Georgia
META PLATFORMS: Williams Suit Transferred to N.D. California
MH PIZZA LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Blehm Alleges

MILLER AND FUTURE: Faces Class Suit Over Paid Sex with Minors
MIXOLOSHE LLC: Morgan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NAPLES HIBACHI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Feng Suit Alleges
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Myers Sues Over Disclosed Subscribers' Info
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Remand of Browne to N.J. State Court Reversed

NATURAL GROCERS: Wins Bid to Decertify Collective Action
NECESSITY RETAIL: Court Affirms Dismissal of Hibbard Complaint
NECESSITY RETAIL: Faces Bracken Suit Over Merger Deal
NECESSITY RETAIL: Faces Callaway Securities Suit Over Merger Deal
NEOVIA LOGISTICS: Ruelas Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois

NEW MEXICO: Review of Injunction in Hatten-Gonzales Suit Dismissed
NEW YORK, NY: Bowser Files Suit in E.D. New York
NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR: Faces Suit Over Alleged Privacy Breach
NEXTCURE INC: Ye Zhou Suit over IPO Dismissed
NEXTCURE INC: Zach Liu Shareholder Suit Stayed

NOVEL KITCHENS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hetnarine Alleges
NUMI INC: Morgan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ONE WORLD CPG: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ONEW COMPANY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hines Alleges
PATIENT LIFT USA: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses Kang Suit with Prejudice
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Trucker Fund Hits Stock Price Drop
PBF ENERGY: Faces Goldstein Securities Suit
PEDDLE LLC: Miller Files Suit in M.D. Georgia
PENINSULA HEALTH: Court Orders Payment of Bolton Unpaid Overtime

PENSION BENEFIT: Taylor Sues Over Failure to Secure Customers' Info
PENSKE TRUCK: Cabral TCPA Suit Transferred to M.D. Pennsylvania
PERFORMANCE HEALTH: Malo Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI
PIT BULL PRODUCTS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PLAYAGS INC: Shareholder Suit in Nevada Stayed Pending Pleads

POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Must Explain Why Berlanga Should Not Be Stayed
POLLOS MARIO: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
PORSCHE CARS: Turner Suit Removed to C.D. California
PREMIUM RETAIL: Gay Suit Removed to N.D. California
PRINT SYNDICATE: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED: Roberts Files Suit in N.D. Ohio
RELIANT AUTO BODY: Ortiz Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
RENT-A-CAR COMPANY: Bell Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
RESTORE HEALTH: Lottmaxey Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
RETALIATION USA DEBUSK: Corea Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages

ROCKET MORTGAGE: Faces Roseboro Suit Over Employees' Unpaid Wages
SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in CA
SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend UA Local 38 Class Suit
SEBA ABODE: Bid for Class Certification in Wofford Suit Granted
SEDGWICK CLAIMS MGMT: Moscovitz Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.

SELENE FINANCE: Waldruff Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
SHOES FOR CREWS: Garcia Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
SILVERGATE BANK: Bhatia Suit Moved From N.D. to S.D. California
SOLAR ALTERNATIVES: Dismissal of Williams' TCPA Claims Recommended
SOLID PERSONNEL: Luna Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

SONTARA OLD HICKORY: Leach Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
SOUTHEASTERN INDIANA: Zeigler Suit Removed to S.D. Indiana
SOUTHWEST GAS: McFadden Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
SPIRIT AIRLINES: Tentative Settlement Reached in Cox Suit
SSA GROUP: Yannello Suit Seeks Food Service Workers' Unpaid Wages

STONELEDGE FURNITURE: Brito Suit Removed to C.D. California
STREETSBORO FIT: Jackson Suit Removed to C.D. California
TACO BELL: Faces Consumer Class Suit Over Menu Items' False Ads
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Finds Privilege to Inaba Memo Waived
TASTE OF ITALY: Larios Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages

TEACHERS INSURANCE: Lopez Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
TIAA BANK: Class Settlement in DeSimone Suit Wins Final Approval
TOTAL QUALITY: Underpays Logistic Account Executives, Pasche Says
TOWER WAV LLC: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
UDEMY INC: Settlement Deal Reached in Williams Class Suit

UNISON AGREEMENT: Ahmed Sues Over Unfair and Deceptive Practices
UNITED STATES: Bullock Files Suit in C.D. California
UNITED STATES: Henry Sues Over Illegal Exaction of Bankruptcy Funds
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Alleges
UNITEDHEALTHCARE INC: Johnson Sues Over Unsolicited Calls

UNITI GROUP: Settlement in Mayer Suit Gets Final Nod
UNITI GROUP: Settlement Reached in Consolidated Securities Suit
UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER: Benton-Hill Sues Over Data Breach
UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Says
UNIVERSITY OF SCRANTON: Nouri Sues Over Retention of Tuition Fees

UNKNOWN NORMAL: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Brown
UTILITY METERING: Underpays Meter Installer Technicians, Kanou Says
VERTICAL HOLDINGS: Fails to Properly Pay Housemen, Saheb Alleges
VERVE CULTURE: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
VI-JON LLC: Eyberg Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri

VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA: Lawson Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
VITAL FARMS: Discovery Ongoing in Usler Suit
VOYA FINANCIAL: Court Narrows Claims  in Ravarino Suit
VOYA FINANCIAL: To Settle Insurance Dispute After Mediation
WALGREEN CO: Court Dismisses Class Suit Over Hydrogen Peroxide

WALMART INC: Dismissal Bid in Corpuz Class Suit Denied
WELLPATH LLC: El-Amin Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee
YEISER RESEARCH: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ZUFFA LLC: Court Certifies Anticompetitive Behavior Class Suit

                            *********

AETNA INTERNATIONAL: SW Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as SW, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AETNA International LLC, Aetna Inc., Aetna
Health Management, Inc., Aetna Health Inc., AETNA Corporate
Services LLC, Aetna Resources LLC, NationsBenefits LLC,
NationsBenefits Holdings LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00351 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida on Aug. 11, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:23-cv-61548-RS to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

Aetna International Inc. -- http://www.aetnainternational.com/--
provides insurance products and related services. The Company
offers range of services including medical, pharmacy, dental, group
life, long term care and disability plans, and other products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Anthony Love, Esq.
          LOVE CONSUMER LAW
          2500 Northwinds Parkway, Suite 330
          Alpharetta, GA 30009
          Phone: (404) 855-3600
          Email: tlove@loveconsumerlaw.com

               - and -

          Sharon Jessica Zinns, Esq.
          ZINNS LAW, LLC
          4243 Dunwoody Club Drive, Suite 104
          Atlanta, GA 30350
          Phone: (404) 882-9002
          Email: sharon@zinnslaw.com

               - and -

          Lucy McShane, Esq.
          Maureen M. Brady, Esq.
          MCSHANE & BRADY LLC
          1656 Washington Street Suite 140
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Phone: (816) 888-8010
          Email: lmcshane@mcshanebradylaw.com
                 mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com


AIR PRODUCTS: Camcara Must File Class Cert. Bid by Jan 29, 2024
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAMCARA, INC. d/b/a AST
WATERJET, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC., Case No.
5:21-cv-02264-EGS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Edward G. Smith
entered an amended scheduling order as follows:

   1. the request to extend discovery deadlines is granted.

   2. The court's April 17, 2023, scheduling order is amended as
      follows:

      a. The parties shall complete class action fact discovery by

         November 30, 2023.

      b. Counsel for the plaintiff shall serve upon counsel for the

         defendant the information referred to in Federal Rule of
         Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) by expert report or answer to

         expert interrogatory no later than December 14, 2023.

      c. The parties shall conclude expert depositions, if any, no

         later than January 18, 2024.

      d. The plaintiff shall file a motion for class certification
and
         supporting brief by January 29, 2024.

      e. The defendant shall file a brief in opposition to the
motion
         for class certification by February 28, 2024.

      f. The plaintiff shall file a reply brief in further support
of
         its motion for class certification by March 20, 2024

      g. The court will hold oral argument on the motion for class

         certification on Tuesday, April 9, 2024.

Air Products is an American international corporation whose
principal business is selling gases and chemicals for industrial
uses.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 1, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QBfuvd at no extra charge.[CC]

ALASKA MILL FEED: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alaska Mill Feed &
Garden Center, Inc. The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Alaska Mill Feed &
Garden Center, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-07034 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 9,
2023).

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

Alaska Mill Feed & Garden Center, Inc. --
https://alaskamillandfeed.com/ -- is a sizable, long-running
emporium of farming & gardening supplies, pet food, plants &
housewares.[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


ALIGNMENT HEALTHCARE: Dabney Labor Suit Stayed Pending Mediation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alignment Healthcare, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that on April 27, 2022, a
former employee of the company filed a purported class action
lawsuit captioned "Dabney v. Alignment Healthcare USA, LLC, Orange
County Superior Court," alleging that the company failed to provide
hourly employees with required meal and rest breaks or pay such
workers a premium equal to an hour of pay for missed meal or rest
breaks.

Discovery in the matter commenced on June 8, 2022.

On September 2, 2022, the court granted a stay of proceedings and
discovery in anticipation of mediation scheduled this August.

Alignment Healthcare, Inc. is a health care platform that is
purpose-built to provide seniors with high quality, affordable care
with a vastly improved consumer experience.


ALLIED MAKER: Durantas Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allied Maker, LLC.
The case is styled as Hakan Durantas, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Allied Maker, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-06048 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 10, 2023).

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

Allied Maker -- https://www.alliedmaker.com/ -- is a Long
Island-based design and manufacturing studio established in 2013 by
designer Ryden Rizzo.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          14749 71st Ave.
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


ALLIED UNIVERSAL: McCord Sues to Recover All Overtime Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Leigh A. McCord and Debra Keen, Individually, and on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. ALLIED UNIVERSAL
SECURITY, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00815 (M.D. Tenn., Aug. 7, 2023),
is brought for recovery of all the overtime and contractual
compensation owed them, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees,
interest, and other costs, fees and expenses from Defendants that
is available to them under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The Plaintiffs and those similarly situated performed work for
Defendant in excess of 40 hours per week within weekly pay periods
during all times material. The Defendant violated the FLSA by
failing to pay Plaintiffs and those similarly situated one and
one-half times their regular hourly rates of pay at the new pay
increase rates of pay for all hours over 40 per week within weekly
pay periods during all times material to this collective action.
Defendant did not compensate Plaintiffs and those similarly
situated at the applicable FLSA overtime compensation rates of pay
for all hours performed over 40 within weekly pay periods during
all times material to this multi-plaintiff action.

In Addition, the Plaintiffs and each Rule 23 class member were
offered a pay raise in February of 2022. Plaintiffs and Rule 23
class members accepted their respective offer (pay raise) by
thereafter performing the job duties assigned them in consideration
for the pay raise. Such pay raises thereafter became the respective
regular hourly rates of pay for Plaintiffs and those similarly
situated. However, following confirmation of their new pay raises,
Defendant violated its contractual obligations to Plaintiffs and
Rule 23 class members by paying a portion of their wages within
weekly pay periods at the new pay raise rate and a portion of their
wages at the former pay rate, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by and worked for the Defendant as
hourly-paid employees.

The Defendant is one of the largest security companies in the
United States with operations in most states, including in the
State of Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          James L. Holt, Jr., Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Phone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
                 rbryant@jsyc.com
                 jholt@jsyc.com


ALPHABET INC: Hearing on Class Certification Bid Set for Oct. 24
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action re ALPHABET, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case
No. 3:18-cv-06245-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Trina L. Thompson
entered a case management and scheduling order pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and Civil Local Rule 16-10:

   1. Trial Date:                            Aug. 18, 2025

   2. Final Pretrial Conference:             July 24, 2025

   3. Dispositive Motions:

      Last day to file dispositive           Dec. 20, 2024
      motions:

      Last day to file oppositions:          Feb. 18, 2025

      Last day to file replies:              April 4, 2025

      Last day to be heard:                  April 29, 2025,

   4. Fact Discovery Cut-Off:                June 3, 2024

   5. Expert Reports:

      Opening Reports by:                    July 24, 2024

      Rebuttal reports by:                   Sept. 9, 2024

   6. Expert Discovery Cut-Off:              Oct. 21, 2024

   7. Substantial Completion Of              Jan. 5, 2024
      Document Production:

   8. Hearing on Class                       Oct. 24, 2023
      Certification:

Alphabet is an American multinational technology conglomerate
holding company headquartered in Mountain View, California. It was
created through a restructuring of Google on October 2, 2015, and
became the parent company of Google and several former Google
subsidiaries.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 1, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3s94k6S at no extra charge.[CC]

AM COMMUNICATIONS: Class Settlement in Grant Suit Gets Prelim. Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ORPHEUS GRANT, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated who were employed by AM COMMUNICATIONS
LTD, AM COMMUNICATIONS LLC; AM COMMUNICATIONS OF OHIO LLC; and/or
any other entities affiliated with or controlled by AM
COMMUNICATIONS, LTD.; AM COMMUNICATIONS LLC; and AM COMMUNICATIONS
OF OHIO LLC, Plaintiffs v. AM COMMUNICATIONS, LTD.; AM
COMMUNICATIONS LLC; AM COMMUNICATIONS OF OHIO LLC; and any related
entities, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01526-DNH-ML (N.D.N.Y.),
Judge David N. Hurd of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Settlement, and Approval of Plaintiffs' Proposed Notice
of Settlement and Class Action Settlement Procedure.

Judge Hurd certifies the Settlement Class for settlement purposes.
He grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval finding
that the releases contemplated in the Settlement Agreement and
Release are fair, reasonable, and enforceable under the New York
Civil Practice Law and Rule Sections 907, 908, and 909, the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, the New York State
Department of Labor Regulations, and other applicable laws.

Judge Hurd (a) grants preliminary approval of the settlement, (b)
approves distribution of the proposed notice and claim form, and
(c) implements the schedule proposed by the parties for
effectuating the other terms of the proposed settlement.

Based upon his review of the Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in
Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and
Collective Action Settlement, the Declaration of James Murphy, and
other papers submitted in connection with the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Preliminary Approval, Judge Hurd grants preliminary approval of
the settlement memorialized in the Settlement Agreement. He also
approves the Proposed Notice of Class and Collective Action
Settlement and directs its distribution to the Class and Collective
members.

Judge Hurd sets the following settlement procedure:

     Aug. 16, 2023 - Defendants' Counsel will provide Class Counsel
and the Settlement Administrator with the Class List Mailing of
Class Notice.

     Aug. 31, 2023 - Last day for Class Members to "opt out" of the
Settlement or to submit written objections to the Settlement.

     Nov. 13, 2023 - Class Counsel will submit Motion for Judgment
and Final Approval.

     Nov. 28, 2023, at 1:00 p.m. - Final Fairness Hearing. At the
courthouse located at 10 Broad Street in Utica, New York (Without
additional notice to Class Members, the Court may, in its
discretion, cancel or adjourn the Fairness Hearing, or change the
Fairness Hearing from in-person to remote)

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 1, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/bdhxh6u7 from Leagle.com.


AMBERGLEN DEVELOPMENT: Filing of Class Cert Bids Due Nov. 15
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Garcia v. Amberglen
Development LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00400 (D. Or., Filed March 20,
2023), the Hon. Judge Jolie A. Russo entered a scheduling order as
follows:

  -- Motion for Extension of Time Discovery      Sept. 29, 2023
     related to class certification to be
     served by:

  -- Fact Discovery related to class             Oct. 30, 2023
     certification to be completed by:

  -- Written consents, if any, should be         Oct. 30, 2023
     submitted by:

  -- Motions for Class Certification,            Nov. 15, 2023
     Appointment of Class Counsel, and
     Appointment of Class Representatives
     due by:

The nature of suit states Real Property -- Diversity-Breach of
Contract.[CC]

AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Court Approves Revised Stockholder Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that AMC Entertainment's revised stockholder
settlement was approved by a Delaware judge on August 11, 2023,
according to a court filing, three weeks after the judge rejected a
related deal.

Under the approved class action settlement, cinema operator AMC
will provide stock worth an estimated $129 million to holders of
its common stock to settle potential legal claims related to a
stock conversion plan.

The approved class settlement did not allow shareholders to opt out
and binds them to the agreement.

On July 21, the same judge, Delaware Vice Chancellor Morgan Zurn,
rejected a prior version of the settlement because it also settled
potential claims by preferred shareholders who were not represented
in the lawsuit.

That provision was removed from the proposed settlement that Zurn
approved on August 11, 2023. [GN]

AMERICAN ACADEMY: Erkan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Academy of
Pet Grooming, Inc. The case is styled as Nihal Erkan, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. American Academy of
Pet Grooming, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-05970-HG (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 7,
2023).

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

American Academy of Pet Grooming -- https://aaopg.com/ -- is NYC's
only pet grooming school licensed by the State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          14749 71st Ave.
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces Oliver Antitrust Suit in NY Court
---------------------------------------------------------
American Express company disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 25, 2023, that on January 29, 2019, the
company was named in a putative class action brought in the United
States District court for the Eastern District of New York,
captioned "Anthony Oliver, et al. v. American Express company and
American Express Travel Related Services company Inc.," in which
the plaintiffs are holders of MasterCard, Visa and/or Discover
credit cards (but not American Express cards) and allege they paid
higher prices as a result of the company's anti-steering and
non-discrimination provisions in violation of federal antitrust law
and the antitrust and consumer laws of various states.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other forms of relief. The
court dismissed plaintiffs' federal antitrust claim, numerous state
antitrust and consumer protection claims and their unjust
enrichment claim. The remaining claims in the plaintiffs' complaint
arise under the antitrust laws of 11 states and the consumer
protection laws of six states.

American Express company is a financial services company based in
New York.


AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES: Salazar Files Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Water
Resources, LLC. The case is styled as Juan Salazar, on Behalf of
Himself and All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. American Water
Resources, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-04250-KMW-SAK (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 9,
2023).

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

American Water Resources (AWR) -- https://www.awrusa.com/ -- offers
service line protection contracts to homeowners in 43 states and
Washington, D.C.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradley Lewis Rice, Esq.
          NAGEL RICE LLP
          103 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Phone: (973) 618-0400
          Fax: (973) 618-9194
          Email: brice@nagelrice.com


AMERIFLIGHT LLC: Fredericks Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Kathleen Fredericks, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. AMERIFLIGHT, LLC, Case No.
3:23-cv-01042 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Puerto Rico, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas on Aug. 8, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-01757-X to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Ameriflight LLC -- http://w3.ameriflight.com/-- is an American
cargo airline with headquarters at the Dallas/Fort Worth
International Airport.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Seligman, Esq.
          Rachel W. Dempsey, Esq.
          TOWARDS JUSTICE
          PO Box 371680, PMB 44465
          Denver, CO 80237-5680
          Phone: (720) 441-2236
          Email: david@towardsjustice.org
                 rachel@towardsjustice.org

               - and -

          Persis Yu, Esq.
          STUDENT BORROWER PROTECTION CENTER
          1025 Connecticut Ave NW, #717
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: (202) 670-3871
          Email: persis@protectborrowers.org

               - and -

          Rachel Smit, Esq.
          FAIR WORK, P.C.
          192 South St. Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111, USA
          Phone: (617) 841-8188
          Email: rachel@fairworklaw.com

               - and -

          Ashley Tremain, Esq.
          TREMAIN ARTAZA PLLC
          4925 Greenville Ave Ste. 200
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Phone: (469) 573-0229
          Email: ashley@tremainartaza.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Carlos G. Colon-Machargo, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS
          191 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 4800
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Phone: (404) 260-0657
          Fax: (404) 870-1732
          Email: carlos.colon-machargo@ogletree.com

               - and -

          John Barcus, Esq.
          Shaina E. Hicks, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS
          8117 Preston Road, Suite 500
          Dallas, TX 75225
          Phone: (214) 987-3000
          Email: john.barcus@ogletree.com
                 shaina.hicks@ogletree.com


ANYWHERE REAL ESTATE: Discovery in Nosalek Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Anywhere disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ending June 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 4, 2023, that the discovery started for the
Sherman Act-related class suit in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts. The case is captioned Nosalek, Hirschorn
and Hirschorn v. MLS Property Information Network, Inc., Realogy
Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC,
HSF Affiliates, LLC, RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc.
(U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts).

This is a putative class action filed on December 17, 2020
(formerly captioned as Bauman), wherein the plaintiffs take issue
with policies and rules similar to those at issue in the Moehrl and
Burnett matters, but rather than objecting to the national policies
and rules published by NAR, this lawsuit specifically objects to
the alleged policies and rules of a multiple listing service (MLS
Property Information Network, Inc.) that is owned by realtors,
including in part by one of the Company's company-owned brokerages.


The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made agreements and
engaged in a conspiracy in restraint of trade in violation of the
Sherman Act and seek a permanent injunction, enjoining the
defendants from continuing conduct determined to be unlawful, as
well as an award of damages and/or restitution, interest, and
reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses.

On December 10, 2021, the Court denied the motion to dismiss filed
in March 2021 by the Company (together with the other defendants
named in the complaint) and in January 2022, the plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint which, among other things, redefined the
covered area as limited to home sales in Massachusetts (removing
New Hampshire and Rhode Island).

The lawsuit seeks to represent a class of sellers who paid a broker
commission in connection with the sale of a property listed in the
MLS Property Information Network, Inc.

On January 23, 2023, MLS Property Information Network, Inc.,
HomeServices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, HSF Affiliates,
LLC, RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. filed their
answer to the second amended complaint.

The Anywhere defendants filed their answer to the second amended
complaint on February 21, 2023.

Discovery in the case has commenced.

Anywhere Real Estate Group LLC (NYSE: HOUS), is an indirect
subsidiary of publicly-traded Anywhere Real Estate Inc.
(NYSE:HOUS, formerly known as Realogy Holdings Corp.) and is based
in Madison, NJ. Anywhere provides franchise and brokerage
operations as well as national title, settlement, and relocation
companies and nationally scaled mortgage origination and
underwriting joint ventures. The company operates in three
segments: Anywhere Brands (formerly Franchise), Anywhere Advisors
(formerly Owned Brokerage) and Anywhere Integrated Services
(formerly Title). The franchise brand portfolio includes Better
Homes and Gardens(R) Real Estate, CENTURY 21(R), Coldwell
Banker(R), Coldwell Banker.


APACHE CANADA: Settlement Deal Reached in Flesch Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
APA Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 10, 2023, that APA's subsidiary, Apache Canada
LTD, has agreed to a settlement under which Apache will pay $7
million USD to resolve all claims against the company asserted by
the class.

The settlement is subject to court approval and is expected to be
finalized by the end of 2023.

On September 11, 2019, four ex-employees of Apache Canada LTD, on
behalf of themselves and individuals employed by Apache Canada LTD
on July 6, 2017, filed an Amended Statement of Claim in a matter
styled "Stephen Flesch et. al. v Apache Corporation et. al.," No.
1901-09160 Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta against the company
and others seeking class certification and a finding that the Sale
and Purchase Agreement dated July 6, 2017 amounted to a Change of
Control of the company, entitling them to accelerated vesting under
the company's equity plans. In the suit, the class seeks
approximately $60 million USD and punitive damages.

In said Sale and Purchase Agreement, the company and its
subsidiaries divested their remaining Canadian operations to
Paramount Resources LTD. Closing occurred on August 16, 2017.

APA Corporation is into crude petroleum and natural gas and is
based in Houston, Texas.


APPLE INC: Judge Decision Favors Battergate Class Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Friedman of Phone Arena reports that back in May 2020, U.S.
District Judge Edward J. Davila gave preliminary approval to a
class action settlement between plaintiffs and Apple. To stop
iPhone models with a degraded battery from shutting down when asked
to perform a processing-heavy task, Apple quietly sent out an iOS
update (10.2.1) that throttled the speed of the CPU cores on
affected iPhone models without getting approval from device owners
or even letting them know. Thus, #batterygate was born. The
settlement called for Apple to pay plaintiffs up to $500 million.

Each plaintiff is expected to receive approximately $65 now that a
judge has cleared the way for Apple to make these payments. The
judge removed the lone obstacle blocking the payments from being
disseminated by denying the appeal of two iPhone owners who were
blocking the release of the payouts by objecting to the terms of
the settlement. According to SiliconValley.com (via AppleInsider),
now that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has issued this
ruling, the class action settlement can proceed.

The lawyer representing the iPhone owners, Tyson Redenbarger, said
that 3 million claims were received. The $65 payout that each
plaintiff will receive is just an estimate and the final figure
will be based on the actual number of valid claims received.
Redenbarger said that some claims are still being assessed. Even
though Apple agreed to pay $310 million to $500 million to
plaintiffs, the company still denied any wrongdoing on its part.

Just days before the curtain came down on 2017, Apple published an
apology while offering a 63% discount on battery replacements for
certain out-of-warranty iPhone models dropping the price to $29.
And in iOS 11.3, Apple launched the Battery Health tools that show
iPhone users what their current battery capacity is compared to the
100% capacity the cell was at when the phone was first taken out of
the box.

For example, when I first booted up my iPhone 11 Pro Max for the
first time, the maximum capacity on the Battery Health & Charging
page was 100%. After all of these years, the capacity is down to
83%. If that figure drops below 80%, I will receive a message that
says, "Your battery's health is significantly degraded. An Apple
Authorized Service Provider can replace the battery to restore full
performance and capacity."
To check the health of your iPhone's battery, go to Settings --
Battery -- Battery Health & Charging. [GN]

APPLIED DIGITAL: McConnell Sues Over 6% Decline of Stock Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
PHILIP MCCONNELL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APPLIED DIGITAL CORPORATION,
WESLEY CUMMINS, and DAVID RENCH, Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-01805-E (N.D. Tex., August 12, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding Applied Digital's business,
operations, and compliance policies in order to trade Applied
Digital securities at artificially inflated prices between April
13, 2022 and July 26, 2023. Specifically, the Defendants failed to
disclose that: Applied Digital had overstated the profitability of
its datacenter hosting business and its ability to successfully
transition into a low-cost artificial intelligence (AI) Cloud
services provider; (ii) Applied Digital's Board of Directors was
not independent within the meaning of NASDAQ listing rules; (iii)
accordingly, Applied Digital had overstated the efficacy of its
business model and failed to maintain proper corporate governance
standards; (iv) the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to subject
the company to significant financial and/or reputational harm; and
(v) as a result, the company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

When the truth emerged, Applied Digital's stock price fell $0.60
per share, or 6 percent, over the following two trading sessions,
to close at $9.40 per share on July 28, 2023, says the suit.

Applied Digital Corporation is a computer application corporation,
with principal executive offices located at 3811 Turtle Creek,
Blvd., Suite 2100, Dallas, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
         THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
         12700 Park Central Drive, Suite 520
         Dallas, TX 75251
         Telephone: (972) 521-6868
         Facsimile: (346) 214-7463
         E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com
                 andrew.blumberg@blbglaw.com

                 - and -

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

ARC AUTOMOTIVE: Anderson Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as David Anderson, Robert Ballero Gonzalez, Deneen
Brown, Jonathan Carano, Dennis Fett, Clayton Fineout, Bonnie
Florentine, Ninotchka Harper-Bey, Mark Hartman, Michael Hayes, Brad
Hoschar, Steve Isbister, Brandy Knapp, Renee Lesesne, Rene Madueno,
James Mccrory, Janice Mckennon, Loretta Mitchell, Bryan Polo,
Steven Aula, Ryan Clark, Latricia Ford, Sheila Hall-Hudson,
Rosalind Hudson-Battie, Hannah Jones, Aaron Jophlin, Tyler Baker,
Anthony Wayne Brown, Vincent Cerrato, Jr., William Arthur Guest
Jr., Nicole Hearn, Jimmy Herrera, Cara Taylor Long, Tracy Miles,
Douglas Philip Paulson, Patricia Taylor, Jordan Tribble, Anita
Victory, Julie Walling, David Winslow, John Britton, John Britton,
Celeste Felice, Stephen Gearhart, Eniko Gedo, Eva Jacinto, Patricia
Jones, Matthew Kakol, Francine Lewis, Kristen Luiz, Rittie
Marshall, Anthony Raspantini, Nicole Senkpeil, Shona Thomas,
Melissa Warren, Marie Hudson, Leigh Schultz, Billy Sellers, Matthew
Shephard, Bobby Sims, Brenda Smith-Watson, Latasha Tinch, Michael
Tropea, Elizabeth Valenzuela, George Welch, Theresa Wolle, Kenneth
Allan, Moises Alonso, Dave Bacon, Leatha Barber, Brandon Barker,
Brian Belanger, Rached Belhadj, Lisamarie Blumberg, Tina Brown,
Christopher Carter, Katrina Chambliss, Corby Cline, William Demele,
Marcos Diaz, Manakia Eiland, Gregorio Escobedo, Jamaria Fernandez,
Harley Graff, Douglas Hall, Westley Hamner, Natasha Hochstetler,
Stacey Kabir, John Komoroski, Tiffany Marvin, Daniel Mccarthy,
Latunder Mercadel, Scott Milewski, Felicia Owens, Kara Petschen,
Anita Reddick, Jeffrey Rhoades, Jeffrey Slusher, Chad Sorenson,
Tonjua Speck, Gilbert Starkey, Dwayne Stowe, Julie Struble, Frank
Talavera, Michael Thomas, Nelson Yerger, Jaime Duran, Preshawn
Long, Elisabeth Lovett, Patricia Mobley, Ryan Taylor, Richard Topa,
Bobbie & Trois White, Earl Wilson, And Ronald Wolf, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. ARC AUTOMOTIVE,
INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00233 was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia on Aug. 7, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-03499-ELR to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Product Liability.

ARC Automotive, Inc. -- http://www.arcautomotive.com/-- is a
global manufacturer that produces a full complement of inflators
for automotive airbag applications.[BN]

ARCHER-DANIELS: Faces Antitrust Suits in Various Courts
-------------------------------------------------------
Archer-Daniels-Midland Company (ADM) disclosed in its Form 10-Q for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2023, that it is facing several
suits over ethanol pricing.

OIn September 4, 2019, AOT Holdings AG filed a putative class
action under the U.S. Commodities Exchange Act in federal district
court in Urbana, Illinois, alleging that the company sought to
manipulate the benchmark price used to price and settle ethanol
derivatives traded on futures exchanges.

On March 16, 2021, AOT filed an amended complaint adding a second
named plaintiff Maize Capital Group, LLC. AOT and Maize alleges
that members of the putative class collectively suffered damages
calculated to be between approximately $500 million to over $2.0
billion as a result of the company's alleged actions. On July 14,
2020, Green Plains Inc. (GP) and its related entities filed a
putative class action lawsuit, alleging substantially the same
operative facts, in federal court in Nebraska, seeking to represent
sellers of ethanol.

On July 23, 2020, Midwest Renewable Energy, LLC (MRE) filed a
putative class action in federal court in Illinois alleging
substantially the same operative facts and asserting claims under
the Sherman Act. On November 11, 2020, United Wisconsin Grain
Producers LLC (UWGP) and five other ethanol producers filed a
lawsuit in federal court in Illinois alleging substantially the
same facts and asserting claims under the Sherman Act and Illinois,
Iowa, and Wisconsin law.

The court granted ADM's motion to dismiss the MRE and UWGP
complaints without prejudice on August 9, 2021, and September 28,
2021, respectively. On August 16, 2021, the court granted ADM's
motion to dismiss the GP complaint, dismissing one claim with
prejudice and declining jurisdiction over the remaining state law
claim. MRE filed an amended complaint on August 30, 2021, which ADM
moved to dismiss on September 27, 2021.

UWGP filed an amended complaint on October 19, 2021, which the
court dismissed on July 12, 2022. UWGP has appealed the dismissal
to the United States court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. On
October 26, 2021, GP filed a new complaint in Nebraska federal
district court, alleging substantially the same facts and asserting
a claim for tortious interference with contractual relations.

On March 18, 2022, the Nebraska federal district court granted
ADM's motion to transfer the GP case back to the Central District
of Illinois for further proceedings. ADM moved to dismiss the
complaint on May 20, 2022, and on December 30, 2022, the court
dismissed GP's complaint with prejudice. GP has appealed the
dismissal.

Archer-Daniels-Midland company is a food processing company based
in Illinois.


ARTHURS TAVERN: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arthurs Tavern, Inc.
The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Arthurs Tavern, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-05963 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 7, 2023).

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

Arthur's Tavern -- https://www.arthurstavern.com/ -- is a nightclub
in the West Village, New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          14749 71st Ave.
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


ATLASSIAN CORP: Continues to Defend HFPF Suit
---------------------------------------------
Atlassian Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending July 3, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 17, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the City of Hollywood Firefighters' Pension
Fund class suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

On February 3, 2023, a putative securities class action (the
"Putative Class Action") was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, captioned City of Hollywood
Firefighters' Pension Fund vs. Atlassian Corporation, Case No.
3:23-cv-00519, naming the Company and certain of its officers as
defendants.

The lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of its
securities between August 5, 2022 and November 3, 2022 (the "Class
Period").

The complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on
allegedly false and misleading statements about our business and
prospects during the Class Period. The lawsuit seeks unspecified
damages.

On May 15, 2023, the Court appointed City of Hollywood
Firefighters' Pension Fund and Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and
Retirement System as co-lead plaintiffs (the "Plaintiffs") in the
Putative Class Action and approved their selection of lead counsel.


The Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 14, 2023, which
alleges the same claims against the same defendants for the same
Class Period as the original complaint.

The defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint is due by
September 8, 2023.

The defendants intend to deny the allegations of wrongdoing and
vigorously defend against the claims in this lawsuit.

Atlassian develops and sells collaboration and project-management
software that operates both on premises and in the cloud.[BN]

AURA WELLNESS SPA: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aura Wellness Spa
Corp. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Aura Wellness Spa Corp., Case No.
1:23-cv-05965 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 7, 2023).

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

Aura Wellness Spa Corp. -- https://www.spa-aura.com/ -- is a spa in
New York City specializong in Couple Massages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          14749 71st Ave.
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


AURINIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Ortmann Suit Over SEC Filings Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that in April 15, 2022, a
purported shareholder class action complaint, "Ortmann v. Aurinia
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.," Case no. 1:22-cv-02185, was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, naming the company and certain of its officers as
defendants.

The lawsuit alleges that the company made materially false and
misleading statements regarding its financial guidance and
commercial prospects in violation of certain federal securities
laws. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of
the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including
reasonable attorneys' fees. On June 2, 2022, the case was
transferred from the Eastern District of New York to the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland. On February 20,
2023, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved the lead
plaintiff's selection of lead counsel. On May 22, 2023 the lead
plaintiff filed their amended complaint.

Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a fully integrated
biopharmaceutical company focused on delivering therapies to treat
targeted patient populations with a high unmet medical need that
are impacted by autoimmune, kidney and rare diseases.


AUTOZONERS LLC: Lewis Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Zachary Lewis, an individual, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v.
AUTOZONERS, LLC, a Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. 37-2023-00021114-CU-OE-CTL was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Diego, to the United States District Court for the Central District
of California on Aug. 7, 2023, and assigned Case No.
3:23-cv-01441-L-SBC.

In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges nine causes of action against
Defendant: Unfair Competition; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages;
Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Required Meal
Periods; Failure to provide Required Rest Periods; Failure to
Provide Accurate Wage Statements; Failure to Reimburse Employees
For Required Expenses; Failure to Provide Wages When Due; and
Failure to Pay Sick Pay Wages.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Evan R. Moses, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART PC
          400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 239-9800
          Fax: (213) 239-9045
          Email: evan.moses@ogletreedeakins.com

               - and -

          Alexandra M. Asterlin, Esq.
          Eric E. Suits, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2500
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Phone: (916) 840-3150
          Facsimile: (916) 840-3159
          Email: alexandra.asterlin@ogletree.com
                 eric.suits@ogletree.com


AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL: Larez Suit Removed to E.D. Kentucky
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Nicole Martinez Larez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL LLC;
and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2227714 was removed
from the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, to
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on Aug. 8, 2023, and assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-01591.

On July 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed and served on Avenue5 a First
Amended Complaint ("FAC"). The FAC alleges the following Labor Code
violations: failure to pay minimum wage in violation of Labor Code;
failure to pay overtime in violation of Labor Code; failure to
provide meal breaks in violation of Labor Code; failure to
authorize and permit rest breaks in violation of Labor Code
section; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements in
violation of Labor Code; failure to timely pay wages during
employment in violation of Labor Code; failure to timely pay wages
at the time of separation (waiting time penalties) in violation of
Labor Code.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jennifer G. Redmond, Esq.
          Gal Gressel, Esq.
          Nina Montazeri, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          A Limited Liability Partnership
          Including Professional Corporations
          Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4109
          Phone: 415.434.9100
          Facsimile: 415.434.3947
          Email: jredmond@sheppardmullin.com
                 ggressel@sheppardmullin.com
                 nmontazeri@sheppardmullin.com


B&G FOODS: Plaintiffs Seek to Continue Trial & Pretrial Deadlines
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SABRINA SILVA and NANCY
SCHIER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. B&G FOODS, INC. and B&G FOODS NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No.
4:20-cv-00137-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:

   1) continuing trial and Pretrial deadlines, and

   2) setting a Briefing schedule for plaintiffs' Renewed motion
for
      class Certification.

      Document/Event                       Deadline to File/Time

      -- Renewed Motion                       August 21, 2023

      -- Opposition                           September 5, 2023

      -- Reply                                September 13, 2023

      -- Hearing on Renewed Motion            September 28, 2023

      -- Trial                                January 8, 2024

B&G manufactures, distributes, and markets a range of household
products and shelf-stable and frozen food.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 1, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OsH1wk at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory S. Weston, Esq.
          THE WESTON FIRM
          1405 Morena Blvd., Suite 201
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 798-2006
          Facsimile: (619) 343-2789
          E-mail: greg@westonfirm.com

BARTECA RESTAURANTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rose Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
MAKENZI E. ROSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BARTECA RESTAURANTS LLC, dba BAR TACO; BAR
TACO PORT CHESTER LLC dba BAR TACO; and MICHAEL SOBELMAN,
Defendants, Case No. 7:23-cv-07143 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 11, 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 Rose was employed by the Defendants as a crew member.

BARTECA RESTAURANTS, LLC operates as a restaurant. The Company
offers wines, street foods, non-alcoholic beverage, cocktails, and
beers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          60 East 42nd Street – 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
          Email: pcooper@jcpclaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph Jeziorkowski, Esq.
          VALIANT LAW
          75 S. Broadway, Suite 400
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 595-6702
          Facsimile: (909) 677-2290
          Email: jjj@valiantlaw.com

BARTECA RESTAURANTS: Rose Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Barteca Restaurants
LLC. The case is styled as Makenzi E. Rose, on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated v. Barteca Restaurants LLC, doing
business as Bar Taco, Michael Sobelman, individually, Case No.
7:23-cv-07142 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 11, 2023).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Acts.

Bartaco -- https://bartaco.com/ -- stylized as bartaco, is an
American restaurant chain company which focuses on upscale
street-style food.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


BELLA BRIDESMAIDS: Erkan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bella Bridesmaids
Franchise Group, LLC. The case is styled as Nihal Erkan, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Bella Bridesmaids
Franchise Group, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-06024-HG (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 9,
2023).

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

Bella Bridesmaids Franchise Group, LLC --
https://bellabridesmaids.com/ -- operate a showroom providing
bridesmaids with stylish, wearable, and modern bridesmaid
dresses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          14749 71st Ave.
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


BENCHMARK MEDIA: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Benchmark Media
Systems, Inc. The case is styled as Luis Mercedes, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Benchmark Media
Systems, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06226-GHW (S.D.N.Y., July 19,
2023).

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

Benchmark Media Systems, Inc. -- https://benchmarkmedia.com/ -- is
a privately-held manufacturer of precision audio electronics for
broadcast, recording, and Hi-Fi applications.[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:

          David Stein, Esq.
          STEIN & NIEPORENT LLP
          1441 Broadway, Suite 6090
          New York, NY 10018
          Phone: (212) 308-3444
          Fax: (212) 836-9595
          Email: dstein@steinllp.com


BIOGEN INC: To Settle ERISA Suit in Massachusetts Court
-------------------------------------------------------
Biogen Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 25, 2023, that in September 2020 the U.S.
District court for the District of Massachusetts consolidated two
cases filed against the company in July and August 2020 by
participants in the Biogen 401(k) Savings Plan, alleging breach of
fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 (ERISA) and seeking a declaration of the action as a class
action and monetary and other relief.

In June 2023 the parties reached a settlement in principle, subject
to approval of the settlement by the court.

Biogen is a biopharmaceutical company based in Massachusetts.


BLOOM ENERGY CORP: Settlement Deal Reached in Roberts Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Bloom Energy Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that in June 30, 2023, Bloom
and Elissa Roberts executed a definitive settlement agreement
containing customary terms for class action settlements, and on the
same date, filed the settlement agreement with the court to see its
approval.

In May 2019, Elissa Roberts filed a class action complaint in the
federal district court for the Northern District of California
against Bloom, certain members of senior management team, and
certain of the directors alleging violations under Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act for alleged misleading statements or
omissions in our Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed with the
SEC in connection with the IPO. On September 3, 2019, the court
appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiffs' counsel. On
November 4, 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding the
underwriters in the IPO and its auditor as defendants for the
Section 11 claim, as well as adding claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, against
the company and certain members of its senior management team. The
amended complaint alleged a class period for all claims from the
time of its IPO until September 16, 2019. On April 21, 2020,
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which continued to
make the same claims and added allegations pertaining to the
restatement and, as to claims under the Exchange Act, extended the
putative class period through February 12, 2020. On July 1, 2020,
Bloom and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the second
amended complaint.

On September 29, 2021, the court entered an order dismissing with
leave to amend (1) five of seven statements or groups of statements
alleged to violate Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and (2)
all allegations under the Exchange Act. All allegations against its
auditors were also dismissed. Plaintiffs elected not to amend the
complaint and instead on October 22, 2021 filed a motion for entry
of final judgment in favor of Bloom's auditors so that plaintiffs
could appeal the dismissal of those claims. The court denied that
motion on December 1, 2021 and in response plaintiffs filed a
motion asking the court to certify an interlocutory appeal as to
the accounting claims. The court denied plaintiffs' motion on April
14, 2022. The claims for violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act that were not dismissed by the court entered the
discovery phase.

On January 6, 2023, Bloom and the plaintiffs' entered into an
agreement in principle to settle the claims against Bloom, its
executives and directors, and the IPO underwriters for a payment of
$3 million.

Bloom Energy is into clean, reliable alternative renewable energy
using commercially viable solid oxide fuel-cell based power
generation platform, marketing and selling energy servers primarily
through direct sale.


BLUE NOTE ENTERTAINMENT: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue Note
Entertainment Group, LLC. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Blue Note
Entertainment Group, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-06050-DLI-MMH (E.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 10, 2023).

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

Blue Note -- https://www.bluenote.com/ -- is a jazz club-focused
music venue and lounge providing entertainment for the people of
the community in the evening.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          14749 71st Ave.
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


BOARD OF TRUSTEES: Ausherman Suit Removed to S.D. Indiana
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Sherrie Ausherman, Individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
FLAVIUS J. WITHAM MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Case No. 49D03-2306-CT-024271
was removed from the Indiana Commercial Court, Marion County, to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana on Aug. 9, 2023, and assigned Case No.
1:23-cv-01402-JPH-MKK.

The Plaintiff alleges that Witham engaged in unlawful wiretapping
and invaded her privacy by allegedly using the Meta Pixel on
Witham's public website.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Tyler Moorhead, Esq.
          Philip R. Zimmerly, Esq.
          111 Monument Circle, Suite 2700
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Phone: (317) 684-5000
          Fax: (317) 684-5173
          Email: tmoorhead@boselaw.com
                 pzimmerly@boselaw.com

               - and -

          Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq.
          Michelle R. Gomez, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          1801 California Street, Ste. 4400
          Denver, CO 80202
          Phone: (303) 861-0600
          Fax: (303) 861-7805


BRADFORD COUNTY SCHOOL: Bradford Files Suit in M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bradford County
School Board. The case is styled as Bradford County Branch of the
NAACP, Elizabeth G. Walker, Jimmie L. Scott, Carolyn B. Spooner,
Maurice J. White, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Bradford County School Board, Pat Spengler, Chairman;
J.T. Parrish, Rodney Hall, Dr. Len Scholfman, Judy Becker, their
successors and agents, in their official capacities, Case No.
3:86-cv-00004-TJC-MCR (M.D. Fla., Aug. 9, 2023),

The nature of suit is stated as Voting Civil Rights for the Voting
Rights Act.

The Bradford County School District --
https://www.bradfordschools.org/ -- manages public education in
Bradford County, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Caroline Andrews McNamara, Esq.
          Daniel B. Tilley, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF FLORIDA
          4343 W Flagler Street, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33134
          Phone: (786) 363-1392
          Email: cmcnamara@aclufl.org
                 dtilley@aclufl.org

               - and -

          Nicholas Warren, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA, INC.
          336 East College Ave., Suite 203
          Tallahassee, FL 32301
          Phone: (786) 363-1769
          Email: nwarren@aclufl.org


BRIX CHOCOLATE: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brix Chocolate, Inc.
The case is styled as Nadreca Reid, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Brix
Chocolate, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06934-AT (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 7,
2023).

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

Brix Chocolate -- https://www.brixchocolate.com/ -- specializes in
wholesale confections products and are from the United States of
America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


BROOKE & DYLAN: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brooke & Dylan, LLC.
The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Brooke & Dylan, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-07036 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 9, 2023).

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

Brooke & Dylan, LLC is located in a Long Island New York with
interior design furniture & decor color accessories.[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


BROWN'S SHOE FIT: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brown's Shoe Fit
Company. The case is styled as Maria DiMeglio, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Brown's Shoe Fit Company, Case
No. 1:23-cv-06215-VEC (S.D.N.Y., July 19, 2023).

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

Brown's Shoe Fit -- https://brownsshoefitco.com/ -- provides the
best comfort shoes, walking shoes, running shoes, work shoes and
casual shoes with friendly, knowledgable service.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


BURGER KING: Herrera ADA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Carlos Herrera, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Burger King Corporation, Case No.
HUD-L-002239-23 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Hudson County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey on Aug. 9, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-04284-EP-JBC to
the proceeding.

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

Burger King -- http://www.bk.com/-- is an American-based
multinational chain of hamburger fast food restaurants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Zemel, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW LLC
          660 Broadway
          Paterson, NJ 07514
          Phone: (862) 227-3106
          Fax: (973) 525-2552
          Email: dz@zemellawllc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael J. Barrie, Esq.
          BENESCH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN & ARNOFF
          1313 North Market Street, Suite 1201
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (267) 972-9555
          Email: mbarrie@beneschlaw.com


BURGERFI INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Walker Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
BurgerFi International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending July 3, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 17, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Walker class suit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

John Walker, Individually and On Behalf of all Other Similarly
Situated v. BurgerFi International, Inc. et al (in the United
States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No.
023-cv-60657). On April 6, 2023, John Walker, on behalf of himself
and other similarly situated plaintiffs, filed a class action
lawsuit against the Company and certain current and former
executives alleging that the Company violated certain securities
laws by making false and misleading statements or failed to
disclose that (1) the Company had overstated the effectiveness of
its acquisition and growth strategies, and (2) the Company had
misrepresented the purported benefits of the Anthony's acquisition
and the post-acquisition business and financial prospects of the
Company.

On July 20, 2023, the court appointed John Walker and Joseph
Poalino as co-lead plaintiffs in the matter.

The Company believes that all claims are meritless and plan to
vigorously defend these allegations.

BurgerFi International, Inc. multi-brand restaurant company based
in Florida.





C&R RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
JUAN GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. C&R RESTAURANT GROUP, L.P.; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV19037 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 10, 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 Garcia was employed by the Defendants as a shift leader.

C&R RESTAURANT GROUP, LP is a franchisee of Taco Bell, operating
stores in Los Angeles and Orange Counties. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Lilit Tunyan, Esq.
           Artur Tunyan, Esq.
           TUNYAN LAW, APC
           1336 Rossmoyne Avenue
           Glendale, CA 91207
           Telephone: (323) 410-5050
           Email: ltunyan@tunyanlaw.com
                  atunyan@tunyanlaw.com

CAL CARTAGE: Hernandez Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Packers in Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARYOLIN HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAL CARTAGE WAREHOUSING &
TRANSLOADING, LLC; EMPLOYER'S OUTSOURCING, LLC; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV19093 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., August 10, 2023) is a class action against the
Defendant for violations of California Labor Code and California's
Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum
wages, failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide
meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest breaks, failure
to indemnify necessary business expenses, failure to timely pay
final wages at termination, failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements, and unfair business practices.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a packer.

Cal Cartage Warehousing & Transloading, LLC is a provider of
warehousing and transloading services, doing business in
California.

Employer's Outsourcing, LLC is a payroll service provider, doing
business in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Kane Moon, Esq.
         H. Scott Leviant, Esq.
         Mariam Ghazaryan Esq.
         MOON LAW GROUP, PC
         1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880
         Los Angeles, CA 90017
         Telephone: (213) 232-3128
         Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
         E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
                 scott.leviant@moonyanglaw.com
                 Mariam.ghazaryan@moonyanglaw.com

CAL-MAINE FOODS: Court Junks Bell Suit without Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------
Cal-Maine Foods Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 25, 2023, that in September 20, 2021, the court
dismissed "Bell et al. v. Cal-Maine Foods et al.," Case No.
1:20-cv-461, filed in the Western District of Texas, Austin
Division without prejudice. On July 13, 2022, the court denied the
plaintiffs' motion to set aside or amend the judgment to amend
their complaint.

In April 30, 2020, the company was named as one of several
defendants in said case. The defendants include numerous grocery
stores, retailers, producers, and farms. Plaintiffs assert that the
defendants violated the DTPA by allegedly demanding exorbitant or
excessive prices for eggs during the COVID-19 state of emergency.
The plaintiffs request certification of a class of all consumers
who purchased eggs in Texas sold, distributed, produced, or handled
by any of the defendants during the COVID-19 state of emergency.

Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the company and other defendants from
selling eggs at a price more than 10% greater than the price of
eggs prior to the declaration of the state of emergency and damages
in the amount of $10,000 per violation, or $250,000 for each
violation impacting anyone over 65 years old. On December 1, 2020,
the company and certain other defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the plaintiffs' amended class action complaint.

The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to strike, and the
motion to dismiss and related proceedings were referred to a United
States magistrate judge. On July 14, 2021, the magistrate judge
issued a report and recommendation to the court that the
defendants' motion to dismiss be granted and the case be dismissed
without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. is primarily engaged in producing, grading,
packaging, marketing, and distributing fresh shell eggs based in
Mississippi.


CALENDLY LLC: Faces Ringler Suit Over Illegal Wiretapping
---------------------------------------------------------
ADINA RINGLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CALENDLY, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-06601 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 11, 2023) is a class action suit
brought against the Defendant for aiding, agreeing with, employing,
or otherwise enabling the wiretapping of the electronic
communications of visitors to Calendly's website, Calendly.com, in
violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, the wiretaps, which are embedded on the
Website, are used without the consent of visitors to the Website.
Calendly contracts with a third party, Heap, Inc., to provide the
software that runs on the Calendly Website. The electronic
communications of users of the Website are routed through the
servers of and are used by Heap to, among other things, secretly
observe and record the Website visitors' electronic communications
in real time. The nature of Heap's licensing agreement with
Calendly is such that Calendly "aids, agrees with, employs, or
conspires" to permit Heap to read, attempt to read, to learn, and
use the electronic communications of Plaintiff and the Class
Members when visiting the Website without their consent, thus
violating the California Invasion of Privacy Act, says the suit.

CALENDLY, LLC provides software solutions. The Company offers
scheduling platform to book meetings and other appointments which
eliminates the hassle of back-and-forth emails. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          Email: ltfisher@bursor.com

CALIZO CONDIMENTS: Bullock Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Calizo Condiments,
LLC. The case is styled as Justin Bullock, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Calizo Condiments, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-06987 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2023).

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

Calizo Condiments -- https://calizocondiments.com/ -- offers
quality products with elevated authentic Mediterranean
flavors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


CALL TRADER: Reimer Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Call Trader LLC. The
case is styled as Ruhi Reimer, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Call Trader LLC doing business as:
Thehealthscout.com, Case No. 3:23-cv-03582-SK (N.D. Cal., July 19,
2023).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Call Trader -- https://calltrader.com/ -- is an industry leading
customer acquisition company that specializes in consumer initiated
inbound and warm transfer phone calls.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
          21031 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 340
          Woodland Hills, CA 91364
          Phone: (323) 306-4234
          Fax: (866) 633-0228
          Email: abacon@toddflaw.com
                 tfriedman@toddflaw.com


CAMBRIDGE COLLEGE: Scalione Sues Over Unprotected Personal Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia Scalione, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Cambridge College, Inc., Case No. (Mass. Cmmw., Aug. 9,
2023), is brought to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of
Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information that it
collected and maintained, and for failing to provide adequate
notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information
had been stolen by criminals and uploaded onto the Dark Web.

The Defendant failed to implement and maintain reasonable data
security measures. As a result, between February 20, 2023 and March
2, 2023, the cybercriminal ransomware group named Monti accessed
and exfiltrated Plaintiffs and Class Members' unencrypted full
names and Social Security Numbers and other personal information
(collectively "Private Information" or "PH") from an
Internet-accessible environment on Defendant's network (the "Data
Breach").

Despite knowing that PII stolen in the Data Breach would be used
for harm, Defendant did not begin notifying victims, like
Plaintiff, or state Attorneys General of the Data Breach until
August 4, 2023—long after Defendant understood the risk that
Plaintiff and Class Members faced. And when the Notice Letters were
finally sent, Defendant omitted crucial information, such as the
fact that it the Data Breach was a ransomware attack by a known
criminal hacker group, and as a result, Plaintiff's and Class
Members' PII was likely disseminated on the Dark Web.

As a result of this delayed response, Plaintiff and Class Members
were unaware that their Private Information had been compromised,
and that Plaintiff and Class Members were, and continue to be, at a
present and significant risk of identity theft and various other
forms of personal, social, and financial harm, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff received a Notice Letter from Defendant, dated August
4, 2023, by U.S. Mail.

The Defendant is a private college that touts itself as "a leader
and pioneer in adult learning."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Randi Kassan, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (212) 594-5300
          Email: rkassan@milberg.com

               - and -

          David K. Lietz, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 440
          Washington, D.C. 20015-2052
          Phone: (866) 252-0878
          Fax: (202) 686-2877
          Email: dl ietz@milberg.com


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

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

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

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

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

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

CANADIAN NATIONAL: Bid for Wildfire Class Certification Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press of Toronto Star reports that a British Columbia
Supreme Court justice has refused to certify a class-action lawsuit
linked to the wildfire that destroyed the village of Lytton in
2021, but the ruling also allows for an amended claim, potentially
keeping the lawsuit alive.

Chief Jordan Spinks of the Lytton-area Kanaka Bar Indian Band is
the only remaining plaintiff in the claim after the death of fellow
Lytton resident and plaintiff Chris O'Conner.

Spinks argues the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways,
along with the Attorney General of Canada, Transport Canada and
others "caused or contributed" to the devastating wildfire that
levelled most of Lytton and killed two people.

But the ruling from Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson finds
"deficiencies" he says make it "plain and obvious" that the suit
will fail, such as overly broad allegations or a lack of clarity
about the special damages class members might have suffered.

Hinkson writes that although the suit doesn't meet the criteria for
a class-action case, he agrees it can be rewritten "with the
benefit of (his) reasons," and resubmitted.

The claim seeks damages, alleging that a westbound CP coal train,
being operated at the time by a CN crew, passed through Lytton
moments before flames broke out near the tracks and quickly spread
into the village, one day after it had set an all-time Canadian
heat record of 49.6 C.

In refusing to certify the suit, Hinkson found negligence
allegations were "overly broad" and don't lay out a specific case
against each defendant.

"In particular, I find that there are no clear material facts
alleged as to how the defendants allegedly caused the wildfire,"
said Hinkson in the ruling posted online on August 10, 2023.

In refusing to certify the suit, Hinkson found negligence
allegations were "overly broad" and don't lay out a specific case
against each defendant.

"In particular, I find that there are no clear material facts
alleged as to how the defendants allegedly caused the wildfire,"
said Hinkson in the ruling posted online on August 10, 2023.

The chief justice also ruled loss claims were ambiguous, writing
"the same broad material facts are alleged on behalf of all of the
class members despite the fact that they suffered differing
injuries and some only suffered economic losses."

The cause of the 2021 wildfire remains undetermined.

A separate lawsuit, filed by the Village of Lytton and the
Thompson-Nicola Regional District alleges Transport Canada, CN and
CP rail are accused of being negligent for allowing train travel
through Lytton during the 2021 heat dome.

The suit, seeking general and special damages and costs, alleges
the railways failed to ensure braking systems and other train
equipment was safe, that reasonable fire prevention methods were
not used and crews failed to watch for smoke or fire along the
tracks.

The Insurance Bureau of Canada last year estimated insured losses
of the destruction in Lytton at $102 million.

The 2021 heat dome was one of the most extreme weather events in
recent Canadian history, and was blamed for more than 600 deaths in
B.C. [GN]

CANON USA: Private Settlement in Ink Catridge Class Suit Discussed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Hollister of The Verge reports that were you hoping Canon
might be held accountable for its all-in-one printers that
mysteriously can't scan when they'e low on ink, forcing you to buy
more? Tough: the lawsuit we told you about last year quietly ended
in a private settlement rather than becoming a big class-action.

I just checked, and a judge already dismissed David Leacraft's
lawsuit in November, without Canon ever being forced to show what
happens when you try to scan without a full ink cartridge.
(Numerous Canon customer support reps wrote that it simply doesn't
work.)
Here's the good news: HP, an even larger and more shameless
manufacturer of printers, is still possibly facing down a
class-action suit for the same practice.

As Reuters reports, a judge has refused to dismiss a lawsuit by
Gary Freund and Wayne McMath that alleges many HP printers won’t
scan or fax documents when their ink cartridges report that
they’ve run low.

Among other things, HP tried to suggest that Freund couldn't rely
on the word of one of HP’s own customer support reps as evidence
that HP knew about the limitation. But a judge decided it was at
least enough to be worth exploring in court.

"Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that HP had a duty to disclose
and had knowledge of the alleged defect," wrote Judge Beth Labson
Freeman, in the order denying almost all of HP's current attempts
to dismiss the suit. (You can read it at the bottom of this
story.)

Interestingly, neither Canon nor HP spent any time trying to argue
their printers do scan when they're low on ink in the lawsuit
responses I've read. Perhaps they can't deny it? Epson, meanwhile,
has an entire FAQ dedicated to reassuring customers that it hasn't
pulled that trick since 2008.

HP does seem to be covering its rear in one way. The company's
original description on Amazon for the Envy 6455e claimed that you
could scan things "whenever":
But when I went back now to check the same product page, it now
reads differently: HP no longer claims this printer can scan
"whenever" you want it to. Now, we wait to see whether the case can
clear the bars needed to potentially become a big class-action
trial, or whether it similarly settles like Canon, or any number of
other outcomes.

I'm curious: do you have a printer where your scanner won't scan
without ink? [GN]

CAPITAL TRUSTEES: Sued Over Mismanagement of Retirement Plan
------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD N. BONDS, individually and on behalf of the Flat Rock Metal
and Bar
Processing Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RICHARD A. HEETER; CAPITAL
TRUSTEES, LLC; PETER F. SHIELDS; PAUL J. LANZON II; and JOHN DOES
1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-12045-GCS-DRG (E.D. Mich., Aug.
11, 2023) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.

According to the complaint, in breach of their duty of loyalty to
Flat Rock Metal and Bar Processing Employee Stock Ownership Plan
(the “Plan” or “the ESOP”), ESOP trustees have defined and
employed deficient "industry" standards for themselves alone that
deviate from sound business practices employed by non-ESOP buyers
in the so-called "real world" and required by ERISA.

In accordance with its and "industry" routine practices, the
Trustee's due diligence in the ESOP Transaction was less extensive
and thorough than the due diligence performed by third-party buyers
in corporate transactions of similar size and complexity.
Incentives to the Trustee to fail to exercise care, skill, prudence
and diligence in the interest of Plan participants and
beneficiaries in the ESOP Transaction by failing to apply sound
business principles of evaluation and to conduct a prudent
investigation and negotiation included the possibility of business
from sellers of companies who understood that the Trustee applied a
lesser degree of due diligence in ESOP purchases of businesses than
is typical for non-ESOP-buyers' purchases of businesses, referrals
for such work by other service providers in the ESOP creation and
administration business such as Greenwich Capital Group LLC, and
engagement as the Plan's ongoing trustee after the ESOP Transaction
and the fees paid for that engagement.

The Plan suffered losses due to the overvaluation of SAC stock in
the ESOP Transaction and its overpayment for the stock, in an
amount to be determined following discovery and expert analysis of
non-public information concerning the Trustee's and its financial
advisor's valuation and due diligence methodologies, SAC financials
and growth projections, and other documents and information that
were considered or should have been considered in the ESOP
Transaction, says the suit.

CAPITAL TRUSTEES, LLC is a Pennsylvania Limited Liability Company
founded in 2012, formed to provide independent trustee and
fiduciary services specifically for Employee Stock Ownership Plans
(ESOPs). [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Perrin Rynders, Esq.
          Aaron M. Phelps, Esq.
          VARNUM LLP
          Bridgewater Place, P.O. Box 352
          Grand Rapids, MI 49501-0352
          Telephone: (616) 336-6000
          Email: prynders@varnumlaw.com
                 amphelps@varnumlaw.com

               - and -

          Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
          Ryan T. Jenny, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          1055 Thomas Jefferson Street
          NW, Suite 540
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 463-2101
          Email: gporter@baileyglasser.com
                 rjenny@baileyglasser.com

CAPITOL EXPRESS: Ramacciotti Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capitol Express
Lines, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Anthony Ramacciotti, on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Petitioner v. Capitol
Express Lines, Inc., Does 1-20, Respondents, Case No. 23CV006543
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Aug. 10, 2023).

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

Capital Express Lines -- https://capitalexpresslines.com/ -- is a
highly efficient, experienced, and professional logistics shipping
company that offers transportation, delivery and warehouse services
throughout Ontario area.[BN]

CARECENTRIX INC: Jones Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Nadeyah Jones, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. CARECENTRIX INC., a corporation, Case No. 3:23-cv-01071
(D. Conn., Aug. 10, 2023), is brought arising from the Defendant's
willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and
common law as a result of unpaid overtime wages.

The Defendant's customer service representatives (collectively
referred to herein as "CSRs") typically worked five days each week
and up to, and on occasion more than, 40 hours per week. While
Defendant has access to all payroll records, Plaintiff does not,
and there were one or more instances during Plaintiff's employment
when she worked 40 hours or more in a workweek.

The Defendant violated the FLSA and common law by systematically
failing to compensate its CSRs for work tasks completed before and
after their scheduled shifts when they were 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. 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 complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident of McDonough, Georgia and worked
remotely for the Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt CSR from
November 2022 to June 22, 2023.

CareCentrix, Inc. is a Delaware corporation (File No. 2946167)
headquartered in Hartford, Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Morneau, Esq.
          CONNOR & MORNEAU, LLP
          273 State Street #2
          Springfield, MA 01103
          Phone: 413-455-1730
          Email: jmorneau@cmolawyers.com

               - and -

          Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
          Alana A. Karbal, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, 17th Floor
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Phone: 248-355-0300
          Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com
                 akarbal@sommerspc.com


CATHOLIC HEALTH: J.C. Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of PII & PHI
----------------------------------------------------------------
J.C., on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v.
Catholic Health System, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00796 (W.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 8, 2023), is brought to address Defendant's unlawful practice
of disclosing Plaintiff's and Class Members' confidential
personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health
information ("PHI") (collectively referred to as "Private
Information") to third parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc.
d/b/a Meta ("Facebook"), without consent through the use of pixel
tracking software that is embedded in Defendant's website.

The Defendant owns and controls https://www.chsbuffalo.org/
("Defendant's Website" or the "Website"), which it encourages
patients to use for booking medical appointments, locating
physicians and treatment facilities, communicating medical
symptoms, searching medical conditions and treatment options,
signing up for events and classes, and more.

The Plaintiff and other Class Members who used Defendant's Website
understandably thought they were communicating only with their
trusted healthcare provider. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and Class
Members, however, Defendant had embedded the Facebook Tracking
Pixel (the "Pixel" or "Facebook Pixel") into its Website,
surreptitiously forcing Plaintiff and Class Members to transmit
their Private Information to Facebook. Operating as designed and as
implemented by Defendant, the Pixel allows the Private Information
that Plaintiff and Class Members submit to Defendant to be
unlawfully disclosed to Facebook alongside the individual's unique
and persistent Facebook ID ("FID").

In addition to the Facebook Pixel, Defendant also installed and
implemented Facebook's Conversions Application Programming
Interface ("CAPI") on its Website servers. Unlike the Facebook
Pixel, which co-opts a website user's browser and forces it to
transmit information to Facebook in addition to the website owner,
CAPI does not cause the user's browser to transmit information
directly to Facebook. Instead, CAPI tracks the user's website
interaction, including Private Information, records and stores that
information on the website owner's servers, and then transmits the
data to Facebook from the website owner's servers.

Despite willfully and intentionally incorporating the Facebook
Pixel and CAPI into its Website and servers, Defendant has never
disclosed to Plaintiff or Class Members that it shared their
sensitive and confidential communications and Private Information
with Facebook. Plaintiff and Class Members were unaware that their
Private Information was being surreptitiously transmitted to
Facebook as they communicated with their healthcare provider via
the Website or stored on Defendant's servers to be later
transmitted to Facebook so it could be used for targeted
advertising and marketing purposes, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person and citizen of New York.

CHS is a health care provider incorporated as a nonprofit in the
State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Randi Kassan, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (212) 594-5300
          Email: rkassan@milberg.com

               - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          Glen L. Abramson, Esq.
          Alexandra M. Honeycutt, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (202) 429-2290
          Email: gklinger@milberg.com
                 gabramson@milberg.com
                 ahoneycutt@milberg.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Terence R. Coates, Esq.
          Dylan J. Gould, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
          119 E. Court St., Ste. 530
          Cincinnati, OH 4502
          Phone: (513) 651-3700
          Fax: (513) 665-0219
          Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com
                 dgould@msdlegal.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


CENGAGE LEARNING: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Jan. 5, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kleiner v. Cengage
Learning Holdings II, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-10245 (D.
Mass., Filed Feb. 14, 2022), the Hon. Judge Richard G. Stearns
entered an order setting pretrial schedule after Denial of Motion
to Dismiss Order:

  -- Initial disclosures required by                Sept. 22, 2023
     Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) will
     be completed by:

  -- If there is disagreement as to                 Dec. 1, 2023
     the delineation of the plaintiff
     class(es), class discovery will
     be completed by:

  -- Class certification motions will               Jan. 5, 2024
     be filed by:

               with any opposition by:              Jan. 22, 2024

  -- If there is no disagreement as to              Jan. 22, 2024
     delineation of the class, all fact
     discovery will be completed by:

  -- If class discovery and certification           April 26, 2024
     is necessary, all fact discovery will
     be completed by:

Cengage is an education and technology company, which engages in
the provision of content, print and digital teaching.[CC]

CHIPICAN LLC: Miller Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chipican LLC. The
case is styled as Kimberly Miller, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Chipican LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-00815 (W.D.N.Y., Aug. 10, 2023).

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

CHIPICAN LLC was established on Dec 08 2020 as a foreign limited
liability company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: jeffrey@gottlieb.legal

               - and -

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTFRIED & GOTTFRIED, LLP
          122 East 42nd. St., Suite 620
          New York, NY 10168
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


CHRISTO FIFTH AVENUE: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Christo Fifth Avenue,
LLC. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Christo Fifth Avenue, LLC, Case
No. 1:23-cv-05966 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 7, 2023).

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

Christo Fifth Ave -- https://christonyc.com/ -- is a salon with the
premier haircare specialist focused on curly hair types, textures,
and layering.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          14749 71st Ave.
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Rodriguez Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Cinemark Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 4, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Rodriguez class suit in the Cook County
Circuit Court of Illinois.

Gerardo Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of a class of all
others similarly situated vs Cinemark USA, Inc. and Cinemark
Holdings, Inc., et al. This class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company on February 24, 2023 in the Cook County Circuit Court
in Illinois alleging violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act.

The Company firmly maintains that the allegations are without merit
and will vigorously defend itself against the lawsuit. The Company
cannot predict the outcome of this litigation.

Cinemark Holdings Inc., together with its subsidiaries, engages in
the motion picture exhibition business. As of December 31, 2018, it
operated 341 theatres and 4,586 screens in 41 states of the United
States; and 205 theatres and 1,462 screens in Brazil, Argentina,
Chile, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua,
Costa Rica, Panama, Guatemala, Bolivia, Curacao, and Paraguay. The
company was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Plano, Texas.



CITY OF BUFFALO: Galbraith Suit Removed to W.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Robert Galbraith, Melissa Mosko, Dana McWhite,
Kenneth McWhite, Antwanett Williams, Rahwa Ghirmatzion, Rebecca
Whipple, Nolan Whipple, Susan Gillick, Felicia Richardson, Richard
Richardson, Abdukadir Abdullahi, on behalf of themselves and their
respective minor children, and on behalf of a class of all persons
similarly situated v. City of Buffalo, Buffalo Water Board, Buffalo
Municipal Water Finance Authority, Byron W. Brown in his official
capacity as Mayor of Buffalo, Oluwole A. McFoy in his official
capacity as Chairman of the Buffalo Water Board, Veolia Water North
America-Northeast, LLC, Veolia North America, LLC, Case No.
808737/2023 was removed from the State of New York Supreme Court,
to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York on
Aug. 10, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00814 to the
proceeding.

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

Buffalo -- https://www.buffalony.gov/ -- is the second-largest city
in the U.S. state of New York and the seat of Erie County.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Garrett Scott Llewellyn, Esq.
          BARNES AND THORNBURG LLP
          2029 Century Park East Suite 300
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 284-3880
          Fax: (310) 284-3894
          Email: garrett.llewellyn@btlaw.com

               - and -

          Jarman Douglas Russell, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          1221 Avenue of Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Phone: (212) 506-2500
          Fax: (212) 849-5854
          Email: jrussell@mayerbrown.com


CLAYTON COUNTY, GA: Breedlove Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Cert.
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HARRISON BREEDLOVE; HAAKON
BREKKE; CONNOR SMITH; RAMONIE SMITH; JOSHUA TOWNES; MATTHEW GRAHAM
CAMPBELL CARTER SMITH; JOSH CWIERTNIAK, on behalf of themselves and
a class of similarly situated persons, v. SHERIFF VICTOR HILL,
individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of the Clayton
County, Georgia; JOHN or JANE DOES 1-20, Deputies, Clayton County
Sheriff's Department; CLAYTON COUNTY, GEORGIA; KEVIN ROBERTS,
individually and in his capacity as Chief of the Clayton County
Police Department; JOHN or JANE DOES 21-40, Officers, Clayton
County Police Department; JOHN or JANE DOES 41-60, Officers, Morrow
Police Department; JOHN or JANE DOES 61-80, Officers, Jonesboro
Police Department; Case No. 1:23-cv-00963-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23, certifying class action, consisting of all persons who are
described as follows:

   "All individuals who were detained, searched, and arrested
   by the Defendants without a warrant or probable cause at the
Sam's
   Club located at 7325 Jonesboro Rd., Morrow, Georgia on March
13-14,
   2021."

Clayton County is located in the north central portion of the U.S.
state of Georgia, and is included in the Atlanta metropolitan
area.

A copy the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 1, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45r519P at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James W. Hurt, Jr., Esq.
          HURT STOLZ, P.C.
          1551 Jennings Mill Road, Unit 3100B
          Watkinsville, GA 30677
          Telephone: (706) 395-2750
          Facsimile (706) 996-2576
          E-mail: jhurt@hurtstolz.com

                - and -

          John Hollis Baker, Esq.
          BAKER & SLIDER, LLC
          298 E. Washington St.
          Athens, GA 30601
          Telephone: (706) 208-1514
          E-mail: john@georgialawyerteam.com

COINBASE GLOBAL: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit in CA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coinbase Global, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2023, that in July and August 2021, three
purported securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California against the Company,
its directors, certain of its officers and employees, and certain
venture capital and investment firms.

The complaints alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act, in connection with the registration
statement and prospectus filed in connection with the Direct
Listing. In November 2021, these actions were consolidated and
recaptioned as "In re Coinbase Global Securities Litigation," and
an amended complaint was filed. The plaintiff seeks, among other
relief, unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs.

Coinbase, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Coinbase Global, Inc.
operates globally and is a leading provider of end-to-end financial
infrastructure and technology for the crypto-economy offering
consumers the primary financial account for the crypto-economy,
institutions a state of the art marketplace with a deep pool of
liquidity for transacting in crypto assets, and developers
technology and services that enable them to build crypto-based
applications and securely accept crypto assets as payment.


COINBASE GLOBAL: Underwood Shareholder Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
Coinbase Global, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2023, that on February 1, 2023, the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed all
federal claims (with prejudice) and state law claims (without
prejudice) against Coinbase Global, Inc., Coinbase, Inc. and its
CEO Brian Armstrong.

In October 2021, a purported class action captioned "Underwood et
al. v. Coinbase Global, Inc.," was filed against the company
alleging claims under Sections 5, 15(a)(1) and 29(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and violations of
certain California and Florida state statutes. On March 11, 2022,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding Coinbase, Inc. and
Brian Armstrong as defendants and adding causes of action. Among
other relief requested, the plaintiffs sought injunctive relief,
unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and costs. Subsequently, on
February 9, 2023, the plaintiffs appealed that ruling to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and filed their opening
brief on May 25, 2023.

Coinbase, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Coinbase Global, Inc.
operates globally and is a leading provider of end-to-end financial
infrastructure and technology for the crypto-economy offering
consumers the primary financial account for the crypto-economy,
institutions a state of the art marketplace with a deep pool of
liquidity for transacting in crypto assets, and developers
technology and services that enable them to build crypto-based
applications and securely accept crypto assets as payment.


COMMUNITY BRANDS: Hoover Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Hoover, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. COMMUNITY BRANDS PARENTCO, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; COMMUNITY BRANDS LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; EDUCATION BRANDS, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; MOBILECAUSE, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case
No. 3:23-cv-04178 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 16, 2023), is brought alleging
that the Defendants have engaged in a systematic pattern of wage
and hour violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
based on Defendants' failure to maintain a policy that compensates
its employees for all overtime wages.

There are many similarly situated current and former employees who
have not been paid for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek in
violation of the FLSA, as for a lengthy period, Defendants
maintained a practice of not compensating their employees for any
overtime, regardless of the amount of overtime hours worked.
Furthermore, once Defendants began paying employees some overtime
compensation, they still failed to compensate employees for all
overtime hours worked, maintaining a practice of not counting work
tasks such as mandatory training videos, questions, and
demonstrations as time worked. Additionally, Defendants maintained
a willful and systematic practice of failing to compensate its
employees for overtime at their proper regular rate of pay by
failing to factor commissions and other non-discretionary bonuses
into employees' regular rate of pay for overtime purposes, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from December 2019 to
January 2023.

The Defendants are in the business of developing and marketing
cloud based software solutions to customers nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
          Chancellor D. Nobles, Esq.
          LEBE LAW, APLC
          777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90021
          Phone: (213) 444-1973
          Email: Jon@lebelaw.com
                 Chancellor@lebelaw.com


CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Faces Suits Over SEC Filings/IPO Issue
--------------------------------------------------------
ContextLogic Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2023, that beginning in May 2021, four
putative class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California against the company,
its directors, certain of its officers and the underwriters named
in its initial public offering (IPO) registration statement
alleging violations of securities laws based on statements made in
its registration statement on Form S-1 filed with the SEC in
connection with its IPO and seeking monetary damages.

In May 2022, the court appointed lead plaintiffs, who subsequently
filed an amended consolidated class action complaint pursuant to
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act. On April 10, 2023, the plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint and assert only claims made under Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act.

ContextLogic Inc. is a mobile ecommerce company that connects
merchants' products to users based on user preferences.


COREBRIDGE FINANCIAL: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Newman Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
RHONDA NEWMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COREBRIDGE FINANCIAL, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 4:23-cv-02967 (S.D. Tex., August 11, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract,
and declaratory judgment.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiff and similarly situated customers stored within its
network systems following a data breach discovered on or around May
31, 2023. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff
and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a
result, the PII of the Plaintiff and Class members were compromised
and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and
unauthorized third parties, says the suit.

Corebridge Financial, Inc. is a financial services company, with a
principal place of business in Houston, Texas. [BN]

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

                 - and -

         Ryan D. Maxey, Esq.
         MAXEY LAW FIRM, P.A.
         107 N. 11th St. #402
         Tampa, FL 33602
         Telephone: (813) 448-1125
         E-mail: ryan@maxeyfirm.com

COREBRIDGE FINANCIAL: Oakwood Files Suit in S.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Corebridge Financial,
Inc. The case is styled as Charles Oakwood, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Corebridge Financial, Inc.,
Case No. 4:23-cv-02911 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 8, 2023).

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

Corebridge Financial -- http://www.corebridgefinancial.com/-- is
an American multinational financial services company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC - DALLAS
          3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Phone: (214) 744-3000
          Fax: (214) 744-3015
          Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com


COREBRIDGE FINANCIAL: Sweeney Files Suit in S.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Corebridge Financial,
Inc. The case is styled as John W. Sweeney, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Corebridge Financial,
Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-03010 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 15, 2023).

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

Corebridge Financial -- http://www.corebridgefinancial.com/-- is
an American multinational financial services company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com


COURSERA INC: Feng Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
---------------------------------------------
Coursera, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2023, that in January 2023, a putative
class action complaint, "Feng et al v. Coursera, Inc.," was filed
against us in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California. In March 2023, the plaintiff elected to
voluntarily dismiss the entire complaint without prejudice.

The complaint asserted alleged failures to make certain disclosures
and obtain certain authorizations under California's Automatic
Renewal Law and the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. The complaint
sought injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of monetary
damages.

Coursera is an online learning platform that connects learners,
educators, and institutions with the goal of providing world-class
educational content that is affordable, accessible, and relevant.


CROSS POINT: Ct. Terminates as Moot Lockerby Bid for Class Status
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MISHELLE LOZANO LOCKERBY,
v. CROSS POINT NC PARTNERS, LLC, d/b/a SARDIS PLACE AT MATTHEWS,
and CORTLAND MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-00717-MOC-DCK
(W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Max O. Cogburn Jr. entered an order
that:

   -- granting the Defendants' motion for judgment on the
Pleadings;

   -- dismissing or terminating as moot Plaintiff's claims; and

   -- terminating as moot Plaintiff's Motion for class
certification.

The case concerns whether tenants can recover damages from
landlords who charged them eviction-related expenses that were not
authorized by statute at the time, but later became authorized,
through explicitly retroactive amendments to the statute by the
North Carolina General Assembly.

From around December 2015 until March 2019, the Plaintiff rented an
apartment from the Defendants. Over that period, the Plaintiff
executed two leases with Defendant Cross Point. The first lease was
effective December 2015 and the second was effective April 2018.

Consequently, the Plaintiff has sued Defendants, asserting five
separate causes of action: (1) violations of the North Carolina
Residential Rental Agreements Act, the North Carolina Debt
Collection Act ("NCDCA"), the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive
Trade Practices Act ("NCUDTPA").

Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Section 42-46, NCDCA, UDTPA, and
negligent misrepresentation claims will be dismissed. Plaintiff’s
claim seeking declaratory judgment that her leases are void and
unenforceable will also be dismissed, and Plaintiff's claim seeking
declaratory judgment that N.C. GEN. STAT. section 42-33 is not
applicable to her leases, is terminated as moot.

The Plaintiff is a former tenant of the multiunit residential
apartment complex known as Sardis Place at Matthews ("Sardis
Place").

The Defendant Cross Point owns and operates Sardis Place.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 1, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OC6L9p at no extra charge.[CC]

D-MARKET ELEKTRONIK: $63K in Fees, Costs Awarded in IWA-Forest Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IWA-FOREST INDUSTRY PENSION PLAN, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. D-MARKET
ELEKTRONIK HIZMETLER VE TICARET ANONIM SIRKETI a/k/a D MARKET
ELECTRONIC SERVICES & TRADING d/b/a/ HEPSIBURADA, MEHMET MURAT
EMIRDAG, HALIL KORHAN OZ, HANZADE VASFIYE, DOGAN BOYNER, ERMAN
KALKANDELEN, MEHMET EROL CAMUR, CEMAL AHMET BOZER, VUSLAT DOGAN
SABANCI, MUSTAFA AYDEMIR, TOLGA BABALI, COLLEEN A. DE VRIES,
COGENCY GLOBAL INC., MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN
SECURITIES LLC, GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO. LLC, BOFA SECURITIES INC., UBS
SECURITIES LLC, and TURKCOMMERCE B.V., Defendants, Civil Action No.
1:21-cv-08634-PKC (S.D.N.Y.), Judge P. Kevin Castel of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the
motion of the Plaintiffs' Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses and an award to the Plaintiffs.

The matter came before the Court on Aug. 1, 2023, on the Fee
Motion. Judge Castel considered all papers filed and proceedings
conducted and found the Settlement of the Actions is fair,
reasonable and adequate. He awards the Plaintiff's Counsel
attorneys' fees of 25% of the Settlement Amount, plus expenses in
the amount of $62,816.47, together with the interest earned on both
amounts for the same time period and at the same rate as that
earned on the Settlement Fund until paid.

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 77z-1(a)(4), Judge Castel awards
$1,958.98 to the Lead Plaintiff and $1,500 to State Court Plaintiff
for the time it spent directly related to their representation of
the Settlement Class.

Any appeal or any challenge affecting the Court's approval
regarding the Fee Motion will in no way disturb or affect the
finality of the Judgment entered with respect to the Settlement.

If the Settlement is terminated or does not become Final, or the
Effective Date does not occur in accordance with the terms of the
Stipulation, the Order will be rendered null and void to the extent
provided in the Stipulation and will be vacated in accordance with
the Stipulation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 1, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2s3vue47 from Leagle.com.


D-MARKET ELEKTRONIK: Final Judgment Entered in IWA-Forest Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge P. Kevin Castel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York enters an Order and Final Judgment in the
case, IWA-FOREST INDUSTRY PENSION PLAN, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. D-MARKET ELEKTRONIK
HIZMETLER VE TICARET ANONIM SIRKETI a/k/a D-MARKET ELECTRONIC
SERVICES & TRADING d/b/a/ HEPSIBURADA, MEHMET MURAT EMIRDAG, HALIL
KORHAN OZ, HANZADE VASFIYE DOGAN BOYNER, ERMAN KALKANDELEN, MEHMET
EROL CAMUR, CEMAL AHMET BOZER, VUSLAT DOGAN SABANCI, MUSTAFA
AYDEMIR, TOLGA BABALI, COLLEEN A. DE VRIES, COGENCY GLOBAL INC.,
MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, GOLDMAN,
SACHS & CO. LLC, BOFA SECURITIES INC., UBS SECURITIES LLC, and
TURKCOMMERCE B.V., Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-08634-PKC
(S.D.N.Y.).

The Court is advised that the Parties, through their counsel, have
agreed, subject to Court approval following notice to the
Settlement Class and a hearing, to settle the Action and the action
pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
New York styled as Benson v. D-MARKET Elektronik Hizmetler ye
Ticaret Anonim Sirketi, et al., Index No. 655701/2021 (Sup. Ct.
N.Y.) ("State Court Action") upon the terms and conditions set
forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated March 22, 2023.

On April 20, 2023, the Court entered its Order Granting Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement ("Notice Order"), which
preliminarily approved the Settlement, and approved the form and
manner of notice to the Settlement Class of the Settlement, and
said notice has been made, and the fairness hearing having been
held.

Upon examination that the Settlement set forth in the Stipulation
is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and upon holding a Settlement
Fairness Hearing, Judge Castel finally approved the Settlement on
the terms set forth in the Stipulation as fair, reasonable, and
adequate. The Settlement will be consummated in accordance with the
terms and provisions of the Stipulation.

The Action and all of the claims asserted against the Defendants in
the Action by the Plaintiff and the other Settlement Class Members
are dismissed with prejudice. The Parties are to bear their own
costs, except as otherwise provided in the Stipulation.

The terms of the Stipulation and of this Judgment will be forever
binding on the Defendants, the Plaintiff, and all other Settlement
Class Members (regardless of whether or not any individual
Settlement Class Member submits a Proof of Claim or seeks or
obtains a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund), as well as
their respective successors and assigns.

All Released Parties as defined in the Stipulation are released in
accordance with, and as defined in, the Stipulation.

Without further action by anyone and, and subject to the Order and
Final Judgment, upon the Effective Date, the Plaintiff and each
Settlement Class Member, on behalf of themselves, and their
respective heirs, executors, administrators, predecessors,
successors, and assigns, in their capacities as such, (i) will be
deemed to have, and by operation of law and this Judgment will
have, fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished, and
discharged all Released Claims against the Released Parties,
whether or not such Settlement Class Member executes and delivers a
Proof of Claim and Release; and (ii) will be deemed to have, and by
operation of law and this Judgment will have, covenanted not to
commence, institute, maintain, or prosecute any or all of the
Released Claims against the Released Parties, whether or not such
Settlement Class Member executes and delivers a Proof of Claim and
Release.

Upon the Effective Date, each of the Released Parties will be
deemed to have and by operation of the Judgment will have, fully,
finally, and forever released the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff's
Counsel, and each and all of the Settlement Class Members from all
the Released Defendants' Claims.

Notwithstanding, nothing in the Judgment will bar any action by any
of the Parties to enforce or effectuate the terms of the
Stipulation or this Judgment.

Separate orders will be entered regarding approval of a Plan of
Allocation and the motion of the Plaintiff's Counsel for an award
of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses. Such orders will in no
way disturb, affect, or delay the finality of the Judgment, will be
considered separately from this Judgment, and will not affect or
delay the Effective Date of the Settlement.

In the event that the Stipulation is terminated in accordance with
its terms or the Effective Date of the Settlement otherwise fails
to occur: (a) the Judgment will be rendered null and void and will
be vacated nunc pro tunc; (b) the Judgment will be without
prejudice to the rights of Plaintiffs, the other Settlement Class
Members, and Defendants; (c) the Settlement Fund, less any Notice
and Administration Costs actually incurred, paid, or payable and
less any Taxes paid, due, or owing, subject to appropriate
adjustment in the event any tax refund is obtained pursuant to the
Stipulation, will be refunded by the Escrow Agent as provided by
the Stipulation; and (d) the Action and the State Court Action will
proceed as provided in the Stipulation.

Without affecting the finality of this Judgment in any way, this
Court retains continuing jurisdiction over; (a) implementation of
the Settlement and any award or distribution of the Settlement
Fund.

There is no just reason for delay in the entry of the Order and
Final Judgment and immediate entry by the Clerk of the Court is
directed pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 1, 2023 Order & Final Judgment
is available at https://tinyurl.com/5sn5whwp from Leagle.com.


D-MARKET ELEKTRONIK: Plan of Allocation in IWA-Forest Suit Approved
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IWA-FOREST INDUSTRY PENSION PLAN, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. D-MARKET
ELEKTRONIK HIZMETLER VE TICARET ANONIM SIRKETI a/k/a D MARKET
ELECTRONIC SERVICES & TRADING d/b/a/ HEPSIBURADA, MEHMET MURAT
EMIRDAG, HALIL KORHAN OZ, HANZADE VASFIYE, DOGAN BOYNER, ERMAN
KALKANDELEN, MEHMET EROL CAMUR, CEMAL AHMET BOZER, VUSLAT DOGAN
SABANCI, MUSTAFA AYDEMIR, TOLGA BABALI, COLLEEN A. DE VRIES,
COGENCY GLOBAL INC., MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN
SECURITIES LLC, GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO. LLC, BOFA SECURITIES INC., UBS
SECURITIES LLC, and TURKCOMMERCE B.V., Defendants, Civil Action No.
1:21-cv-08634-PKC (S.D.N.Y.), Judge P. Kevin Castel of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the
Plaintiffs' motion for approval of the Plan of Allocation.

The matter came before the Court on Aug. 1, 2023, on the
Plaintiffs' motion for approval of the Plan of Allocation in the
action and the State Court Action.

Having considered all papers filed and proceedings therein, Judge
Castel, pursuant to and in full compliance with Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, finds and concludes that the Plan
of Allocation, as set forth in the Notice of Pendency and Proposed
Settlement of Class Actions, is, in all respects, fair and
reasonable. He approves the Plan of Allocation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 1, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y7j2nfxe from Leagle.com.


DAHLIA RODRIGUEZ: Williams Files Suit in N.D. Alabama
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dahlia Rodriguez. The
case is styled as Dalton Williams, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Dahlia Rodriguez doing business
as: Montes Tortilleria, Case No. 2:23-cv-01080-RDP (N.D. Ala., Aug.
16, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Dahlia Rodriguez doing business as Montes Tortilleria is a
manufacturer in Olivarez, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Julie E. Byrne, Esq.
          Joseph P. Ashbrook, Esq.
          ASHBROOK BYRNE KRESGE - CINCINNATI
          P.O. Box 8248
          Cincinnati, OH 45249
          Phone: (513) 827-1776
          Email: jebyrne@ashbrookbk.com
                 jpashbrook@ashbrookbk.com


DANTE DINING GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ellis Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
MADISON ELLIS; KENNEDY ELLIS; and CARTER ELLIS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DANTE DINING
GROUP, LLC; GIAPPONE, LLC; GOMA BY DANTE, LLC; and JOHN DOE
COMPANIES I-XX, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01558 (N.D. Ohio, Aug.
19, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as servers.

DANTE DINING GROUP, LLC owns and operates various restaurants in
Northeastern Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

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

DELTA AIR: Agrees to Settle Class Action Suit Over Cancelled Flight
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Rumpf-Whitten of New York Post reports that Delta Air Lines
has settled a class-action lawsuit filed by passengers upset by
flight cancelations during the beginning of the coronavirus
pandemic.

The lawsuit alleges that the airline breached its contracts of
carriage during the beginning months of the pandemic.

According to the lawsuit, Delta Air Lines refused to provide
passengers cash refunds, giving them instead travel credit for
future travel plans on flights that the airline canceled between
March 1, 2020, and April 20, 2021.

The plaintiffs argued that while they received ticket credits, they
should have received cash refunds in accordance with the ticket
agreement.

The lawsuit also accused the Atlanta-based Delta of not delivering
refunds in a timely manner.

According to the settlement, customers must meet the criteria to be
eligible for refunds.

The canceled flight must be scheduled between March 1, 2020,
through April 30, 2021, and passengers must have requested refunds
through the Delta database, but received flight credits instead.

The settlement conditions that the flight credit given for the
canceled flight must not have been used as of Jan. 13, 2023.

Delta will pay eligible passengers a cash refund for the ticket,
plus 7% interest on the original ticket price or will issue a
ticket credit that matches the unused credit plus the 7% interest.

No refunds will be issued until after the court's final approval of
the settlement in a hearing scheduled for Oct. 5, the suit says.
[GN]

DESKTOP METAL: Guzman-Martinez Suit Consolidated with Zhou
----------------------------------------------------------
Desktop Metal, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that on February 2, 2022, an
alleged shareholders of Desktop Metal stock filed purported
securities class action complaints in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts captioned "Guzman-Martinez
v. Desktop Metal," Case No. 1:22-cv-10173, Xie v. Desktop Metal,
Case No. 1:22-cv-10297-IT.

The complaint alleges that Desktop Metal and certain of its
officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities and Exchange Act by making false or misleading
statements regarding its subsidiary EnvisionTEC's manufacturing and
product compliance practices and procedures.

On February 4, 2022, the court issued an order consolidating said
case and on July 7, 2022, the court appointed Sophia Zhou lead
plaintiff for the class period of February 17, 2021 through
November 15, 2021. Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint on
December 19, 2022.

Desktop Metal, Inc. is into 3D printing solutions for engineers,
designers, and manufacturers, designing, producing and marketing 3D
printing systems and services to a variety of end customers.


DESKTOP METAL: Hathaway Suit Over EnvisionTEC Issue Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
Desktop Metal, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that on January 14, 2022, an
alleged shareholder of Desktop Metal stock filed purported
securities class action complaints in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts captioned "Hathaway v.
Desktop Metal," Case No. 1:22-cv-10059-IT.

The complaint alleges that Desktop Metal and certain of its
officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities and Exchange Act by making false or misleading
statements regarding its subsidiary EnvisionTEC's manufacturing and
product compliance practices and procedures.

On February 4, 2022, the court issued an order consolidating said
case and on July 7, 2022, the court appointed Sophia Zhou lead
plaintiff for the class period of February 17, 2021 through
November 15, 2021. Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint on
December 19, 2022.

Desktop Metal, Inc. is into 3D printing solutions for engineers,
designers, and manufacturers, designing, producing and marketing 3D
printing systems and services to a variety of end customers.


DESKTOP METAL: Xie Suit Over EnvisionTEC Issue Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
Desktop Metal, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that on February 22, 2022,
an alleged shareholder of Desktop Metal stock filed purported
securities class action complaints in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts captioned "Xie v. Desktop
Metal," Case No. 1:22-cv-10297-IT).

The complaint alleges that Desktop Metal and certain of its
officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities and Exchange Act by making false or misleading
statements regarding its subsidiary EnvisionTEC's manufacturing and
product compliance practices and procedures.

On February 4, 2022, the court issued an order consolidating said
case and on July 7, 2022, the court appointed Sophia Zhou lead
plaintiff for the class period of February 17, 2021 through
November 15, 2021. Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint on
December 19, 2022. The court also vacated its earlier order
consolidating said action with the other lawsuits and will allow
that action to proceed separately, with a new notice to investors,
based on a class period of January 15, 2021 to February 16, 2021.
On September 29, 2022, the court re-consolidated the Xie action
with the other actions for all pre-trial proceedings. Plaintiffs
filed a Consolidated Complaint on December 19, 2022.

Desktop Metal, Inc. is into 3D printing solutions for engineers,
designers, and manufacturers, designing, producing and marketing 3D
printing systems and services to a variety of end customers.


DG SMITH ENTERPRISES: Gillespie Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DG Smith Enterprises
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Joseph Gillespie, on behalf of
himself and other similarly situated "aggrieved employees" under
the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Petitioner v.
DG Smith Enterprises Inc., Does 1-50, Respondents, Case No.
23CV006190 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Aug. 7, 2023).

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

DG Smith Enterprises, Inc. was founded in 1987. The Company's line
of business includes the retail sale of prepared foods and drinks
for on-premise consumption.[BN]

DISCOVER YOUR MOBILITY: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Discover Your
Mobility, Inc. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Discover Your
Mobility, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-07044 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 9, 2023).

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

Discover Your Mobility, Inc. -- https://www.discovermymobility.com/
-- is a home of the worlds lightweight scooter and lightweight
wheelchair.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18th St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: nyjg@aol.com
                 michael@gottlieb.legal


DISTACART INC: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Distacart Inc. The
case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Distacart Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-07276-GHW (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2023).

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

Distacart -- https://www.distacart.com/ -- is a global e-commerce
platform that connects international sellers with buyers in the
United States.[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



DJ0 THREADS: Medina Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRYANA MEDINA and ALEXANDRA BERNHEIM, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DJ0 THREADS
CORPORATION, RICHARD KEITH LATMAN, THE CRM Corporation, and DOES 1
through 30, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23SMCV03755 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., August 10, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code's
Private Attorneys' General Act of 2004 including failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to provide meal breaks, failure to provide
rest breaks, failure to reimburse expenses, failure to provide wage
notice, and failure to provide accurate wage statements.

Ms. Medina and Ms. Bernheim worked for the Defendants as non-exempt
employees from April 2022 through August 11, 2022 and from March
2022 through August 12, 2022, respectively.

DJ0 Threads Corporation is a retail apparel and fashion company,
with its principal place of business in Los Angeles, California.

The CRM Corporation is a software company doing business in
California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Michael C. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
         Orion S. Robinson, Esq.
         Wenguang Bi, Esq.
         ROBINSON DI LANDO
         A Professional Law Corporation
         801 S. Grand Ave., Suite 500
         Los Angeles, CA 90017
         Telephone: (213) 229-0100
         Facsimile: (213) 229-0114
         E-mail: mrobinson@rdwlaw.com
                 orobinson@rdwlaw.com
                 wbi@rdwlaw.com

DUCKSUNG INC: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ducksung, Inc. The
case is styled as Damon Jones, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Ducksung, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-07024-GHW
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 9, 2023).

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

Ducksung Inc. -- https://www.pro5usa.com/ -- is the manufacturer of
Pro 5, known for form-fitting neck heavyweight T-shirts and
heavyweight fleece apparel.[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


DUN BRADSTREET HOLDINGS: Court Stays Batis Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Dun and Bradstreet Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that it is facing case
captioned "Batis v. Dun & Bradstreet Holdings, Inc.," No.
4:22-cv-01924-AGT (N.D. Cal.) filed on March 25, 2022.

Plaintiff Odette R. Batis filed said complaint against the company,
alleging that the Company used the purported class members' names
and personas to promote paid subscriptions to the company's Hoovers
product website without consent, in violation of the California
right of publicity statute, California common law prohibiting
misappropriation of a name or likeness and California's Unfair
Competition Law.

On June 30, 2022, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Complaint pursuant to California's anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit
against public participation) statute. On February 10, 2023, the
District Court denied the motion to dismiss. The decision was
subject to an automatic right of appeal, and the company has
appealed the matter to the Ninth Circuit. The company filed its
opening brief on appeal and is awaiting the opposition brief. All
discovery in the District Court is stayed until the appeal is
decided.

Dun & Bradstreet Holdings, Inc. is into consumer credit reporting,
collection agencies and is based in Jacksonville, Florida.


DUN BRADSTREET HOLDINGS: DeBose Alleges Illegal Personal Data Use
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dun and Bradstreet Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that it is facing a "Right
of Publicity" class action captioned "DeBose v. Dun & Bradstreet
Holdings, Inc.," No. 2:22-cv-00209-ES-CLW (D.N.J.)

On January 17, 2022, Plaintiff Rashad DeBose alleged that the
company used the purported class members' names and personas to
promote paid subscriptions to the company's "Hoovers" product
website without consent, in violation of the Ohio right of
publicity statute and Ohio common law prohibiting misappropriation
of a name or likeness.

On March 30, 2022, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
Complaint. The motion was briefed, and in November 2022 the Court
requested supplemental briefing. Supplemental briefing was
completed in January 2023.

Dun & Bradstreet Holdings, Inc. is into consumer credit reporting,
collection agencies and is based in Jacksonville, Florida.


DUNKIN DONUTS: Herrera ADA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Carlos Herrera, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Dunkin Donuts, LLC, Case No.
HUD-L-002246-23 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Hudson County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey on Aug. 9, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-04283-WJM-MAH to
the proceeding.

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

Dunkin' Donuts LLC -- http://www.dunkindonuts.com/-- also known as
Dunkin' and by the initials DD, is an American multinational coffee
and doughnut company, as well as a quick service restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Zemel, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW LLC
          660 Broadway
          Paterson, NJ 07514
          Phone: (862) 227-3106
          Fax: (973) 525-2552
          Email: dz@zemellawllc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David S. Ostern, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          One Newark Center
          1085 Raymond Blvd., 8th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Phone: (973) 848-4712
          Email: dostern@littler.com


DXC TECHNOLOGY: Shareholder Suit Over 2017 Stock Offering Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DXC Technology Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 18, 2023, that with regards to an August 20, 2019
a purported class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Santa Clara, against the company,
directors and its former officer In January 2023, the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California issued an
order denying the company's motion to dismiss a second amended
complaint that the plaintiffs filed in September 2022, which the
company moved to dismiss.

Said action asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and is premised on allegedly
false and/or misleading statements, and alleged non-disclosure of
material facts, regarding the company's prospects and expected
performance. The putative class of plaintiffs includes all persons
who acquired shares of the company's common stock pursuant to the
offering documents filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with an April 2017 transaction that formed
DXC.

The State of California action had been stayed pending the outcome
of the substantially similar federal action filed in. The federal
action was dismissed with prejudice in December 2021. Thereafter,
the state court lifted the stay and entered an order permitting
additional briefing by the parties. In March 2022, plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint, which the company moved to dismiss. In August
2022, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss, but
permitted Plaintiffs to amend and refile their complaint. In March
2023, the Court entered a scheduling order setting a trial date for
September 2025. The case is now in discovery.

DXC Technology Company helps global companies run their mission
critical systems and operations while modernizing IT, optimizing
data architectures, and ensuring security and scalability across
public, private and hybrid clouds.


E.I. DU PONT: Dotson Sues Over Contaminated Drinking Water Supplies
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Dotson, and other similarly situated v. E.I. DU PONT DE
NEMOURS AND COMPANY and THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, Case No.
2:23-cv-02538-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio, Aug, 9, 2023), is brought for
equitable relief, compensatory and punitive damages, costs incurred
and to be incurred by Plaintiff, and any other damages which the
Court or jury may deem appropriate for bodily injury and property
damage arising from the intentional, knowing, reckless and
negligent acts and omissions of the Defendants in connection with
contamination of human drinking water supplies used by Plaintiff.

The Defendant owned, operated, maintained, managed and/or otherwise
controlled a manufacturing facility in Wood County, West Virginia,
known as the "Washington Works Plant" (hereinafter referred to as
the "Plant"). As a result of Defendant's negligent, improper,
inadequate, inappropriate and/or otherwise unlawful conduct in its
ownership, operation, maintenance, management and/or control of the
Plant, Plaintiff have suffered injuries for which they seek redress
and damages.

As a direct, legal, and proximate result of the culpability and
fault of Defendant, be such fault through strict liability or
negligence, Plaintiff Brian Dotson, was diagnosed with kidney
cancer on November 29, 2021, and was caused to sustain severe and
permanent personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional
distress, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a current citizen and resident of Ohio.

E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY is a Delaware corporation
authorized to conduct business in the States of Ohio and West
Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jon C. Conlin, Esq.
          F. Jerome Tapley, Esq.
          Mitchell Theodore, Esq.
          Brett Thompson, Esq.
          CORY WATSON, P.C.
          2131 Magnolia Ave., Suite 200
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Phone: 205-328-2200
          Fax: 205-324-7896
          Email: jconlin@corywatson.com

               - and -

          Richard W. Schulte, Esq.
          WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC
          865 S. Dixie Dr.
          Vandalia, OH 45377
          Phone: (937) 435-7500
          Fax: (937) 435-7511
          Email: rschulte@yourlegalhelp.com


E.I. DU PONT: Greene Sues Over Negligence with Contaminated Water
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Greene and Sarah Schott, and other similarly situated v. E.I.
DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY and THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, Case No.
2:23-cv-02539-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio, Aug, 9, 2023), is brought for
equitable relief, compensatory and punitive damages, costs incurred
and to be incurred by Plaintiff, and any other damages which the
Court or jury may deem appropriate for bodily injury and property
damage arising from the intentional, knowing, reckless and
negligent acts and omissions of the Defendants in connection with
contamination of human drinking water supplies used by Plaintiffs.

The Defendant owned, operated, maintained, managed and/or otherwise
controlled a manufacturing facility in Wood County, West Virginia,
known as the "Washington Works Plant" (hereinafter referred to as
the "Plant"). As a result of Defendant's negligent, improper,
inadequate, inappropriate and/or otherwise unlawful conduct in its
ownership, operation, maintenance, management and/or control of the
Plant, Plaintiff have suffered injuries for which they seek redress
and damages.

As a direct, legal, and proximate result of the culpability and
fault of Defendant, be such fault through strict liability or
negligence, Plaintiff Aaron Greene, was diagnosed with testicular
cancer on December 21, 2022, and was caused to sustain severe and
permanent personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional
distress, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are current citizens and residents of Ohio.

E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY is a Delaware corporation
authorized to conduct business in the States of Ohio and West
Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jon C. Conlin, Esq.
          F. Jerome Tapley, Esq.
          Mitchell Theodore, Esq.
          Brett Thompson, Esq.
          CORY WATSON, P.C.
          2131 Magnolia Ave., Suite 200
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Phone: 205-328-2200
          Fax: 205-324-7896
          Email: jconlin@corywatson.com

               - and -

          Richard W. Schulte, Esq.
          WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC
          865 S. Dixie Dr.
          Vandalia, OH 45377
          Phone: (937) 435-7500
          Fax: (937) 435-7511
          Email: rschulte@yourlegalhelp.com


EAO WIRELESS INC: Rivera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against EAO Wireless, Inc.
The case is styled as Taleaha Rivera, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. EAO Wireless, Inc., Case No.
23STCV19592 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 16, 2023).

EAO AG -- https://eao.com/ -- is a Swiss, family-owned company
founded in 1947, has developed into one of the world's leading
manufacturers of high-quality industrial switches, complete custom
HMI panels and interface systems, and specialised automotive switch
systems.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake R. Jones, Esq.
          BLAKE JONES LAW, PC
          355 South Grand Avenue Suite 2450 - #2052
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (323) 576-3221
          Email: blake@blakejones.law

EATON CORP: Sells Defective Circuit Breakers, Schlesinger Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
BOB SCHLESINGER, ANDREW SMITH, JASON THOMAS, and PACIFIC
MANAGEMENT, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. EATON CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-00157-RWS (N.D. Ga., August 11, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for breach of express warranties, breach of
implied warranty, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment,
equitable and injunctive relief, strict products liability, and
violations of the Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act,
California's Unfair Competition Law, California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, California False Advertising Law, and the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's design, manufacturing, and
selling of defective Arc Fault Circuit Interpreter (AFCI) circuit
breakers. A defect in those circuit breakers causes them to mistake
ordinary, harmless electrical circuits for dangerous circuits and
to needlessly shut down power. Eventually, Eaton's AFCI circuit
breakers have to be replaced with circuit breakers that function
correctly and prevent electrical fires without otherwise disrupting
the power to the home. Eaton's defective AFCI circuit breakers and
its misleading representations about those breakers caused more
than five million dollars in damage to the electricians and
homeowners in each putative class, says the suit.

Pacific Management, LLC is a property development company doing
business in California.

Eaton Corporation is a circuit breaker manufacturer, with its
principal place of business in Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Taylor C. Bartlett, Esq.
         W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., Esq.
         HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
         2727 Paces Ferry Rd., SE #750
         Atlanta, GA 30339
         Telephone: (205) 326-3336
         Facsimile: (205) 326-3332
         E-mail: taylor@hgdlawfirm.com
                 lewis@hgdlawfirm.com

                 - and -

         Nicholas W. Armstrong, Esq.
         Oscar M. Price, IV, Esq.
         Graham Cotten, Esq.
         PRICE ARMSTRONG, LLC
         1919 Cahaba Road
         Birmingham, AL 35223
         Telephone: (205) 208-9588
         Facsimile: (205) 208-9598
         E-mail: oscar@pricearmstrong.com
                 nick@pricearmstrong.com
                 graham@pricearmstrong.com

EDGIO INC: Interim Agreement Reached in Assad Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Edgio Inc. disclosed in its Form 8K Report for August 12, 2023
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15,
2023, that the parties involved in the Assad class suit entered
into an interim agreement on May 12, 2023 to deter expedited costs
and burdens associated with expedited litigation.

On July 18, 2022, a stockholder filed a verified class action
captioned George Assad v. Walter Amaral, Edgio, Inc. et al.; Diane
Botelho v. Walter Amaral, Edgio, Inc. et al. Delaware Chancery
Court (Case No. 2022-0626); Delaware Chancery Court (Case No.
2022-0624). The class action complaint alleges that the Edgio Board
of Directors violated its fiduciary duties in entering into the
stockholders' agreement as part of the Edgecast Acquisition.

The plaintiffs challenge certain provisions of the stockholders'
agreement alleging that the defensive measures in the agreement
create a significant and enduring stockholder block designed to
entrench the Board of Directors and protect it from stockholder
activism.

The complaint seeks injunctive relief in the form of an injunction
enjoining the enforcement of the challenged provisions.

Edgio filed a motion to dismiss and the matter was heard on October
12, 2022 in the Delaware Chancery Court.

The Vice Chancellor granted Edgio's motion to dismiss on the
record; however on December 8, 2022, the court requested
supplemental briefing on certain issues raised at oral arguments.

Supplemental briefs and answering briefs were filed in January
2023.

On May 2, 2023, the Delaware Chancery Court issued a memorandum
opinion reversing its order on the record and denying the company's
motion to dismiss.

On May 12, 2023, the parties entered into an interim arrangement to
avoid the costs and burdens of expedited litigation where the
company agreed not to enforce the provisions of the stockholders'
agreement that the plaintiffs challenged in the suit in connection
with the company's 2023 annual meeting.

Edgio, Inc. provides content delivery network services based in
Arizona.




EMANUEL MEDICAL: Harrill Sues Over Unlawful Data Disclosure
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judith Harrill, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. EMANUEL MEDICAL CENTER, TENET HEALTH, and META
PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 2:23-at-00777 (E.D. Cal., Aug. 10, 2023),
is brought on behalf of all persons, users, prospective patients
and current patients who visited the Healthcare Defendants' website
https://www.emanuelmedicalcenter.org/ (hereinafter the "Website"),
utilized the Website for its various intended purposes, and had
their private health conditions, identities, actual or potential
medical treatments, and the hospitals they visited or may visit
disclosed to Facebook without their knowledge or consent
(hereinafter, "PII User") and to seek damages associated with
Healthcare Defendants' violation of their privacy rights under the
California Information Protection Act ("CIPA"); Federal Wiretap Act
(the "Wiretap Act"); California Confidentiality of Medical
Information Act ("CMIA"); and common law claims for invasion of
privacy, breach of contract, negligence, and intrusion upon
seclusion.

The Website was coded to include the Pixel, which Healthcare
Defendants have allowed to operate on its website, and which
results in Healthcare Defendant's sharing of users' PHI with
Facebook. The Pixel monitors for events specified by the Healthcare
Defendant and sends users' FID and PHI to Facebook whenever that
Pixel Event occurs on the Website ("Pixel Events"). In this case,
Healthcare Defendants' data sharing is automatically triggered when
a PII User visits any of Healthcare Defendants' webpages with a
PageView and/or Microdata Pixel Event active on Healthcare
Defendants' webpages.

The Defendants share the PII – i.e., the users' unique FID and
PHI – as one data point to Facebook. Because the user's FID
uniquely identifies an individual's Facebook user account, Facebook
or any other ordinary person can use it to quickly and easily
identify the account holder and view that user's corresponding
Facebook profile. The Website's PII Users are not adequately
informed about the dissemination of their PHI. The Website users
are not given an opportunity to consent to the dissemination of
their PHI; instead, it is automatic. PII Users cannot exercise
reasonable judgment to defend themselves against the methods used
by Healthcare Defendants to collect and use their PHI.

Healthcare Defendants' tracking, sharing, interception, and storage
of information--directly, and as aider and abettor to Facebook's
interception--violates Plaintiff's and Class members' statutorily
protected privacy in their protected health information, including
their current or potential medical conditions, the effect those
medical conditions have on their lives, the symptoms of those
medical conditions, and health concerns that user may be
experiencing, tied to their personally identifiable information.

By visiting the Website, Plaintiff and Class Members entrusted
Healthcare Defendants with their PII and PHI. Plaintiff and Class
Members had a reasonable expectation that their PHI and PII would
be kept safe from unauthorized disclosure. In violation of that
trust, and in contravention of their own privacy terms, Healthcare
Defendants disclosed Plaintiff's and Class Members' private health
information to Facebook without authorization or consent to further
Healthcare Defendants' own commercial interests. Healthcare
Defendants have thus failed to safeguard Plaintiff's and Class
Members' sensitive personal, including health, information in
violation of federal and state law, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff began visiting the Website on March of 2021.

Doctors Emanuel Medical Center (EMC) has provided hospital services
to the city of Turlock and nearby communities since 1917.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. (SBN 280332)
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN
          21031 Ventura Blvd, Suite 340
          Woodland Hills, CA 91364
          Phone: (323) 306-4234
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          Email: abacon@toddflaw.com


EMBRY-RIDDLE AERONAUTICAL: Michaels Alleges False Degree Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIANNE MICHAELS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EMBRY-RIDDLE AERONAUTICAL UNIVERSITY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 6:23-cv-01527-WWB-RMN (M.D. Fla., August 10,
2023) is a class action against the Defendant for fraudulent
misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false and
misleading statements that students would receive Accreditation
Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET)-accredited Bachelor of
Science degrees in Aeronautical Engineering following the change of
the name of its Aeronautical Engineering program to Aerospace
Engineering. As a result, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered
damages by being required to pay tuition, fees, and other expenses
for Aeronautical Engineering degrees that were not ABET
accredited.

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Inc. is a not-for-profit
corporation, with its principal place of business in Daytona Beach,
Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Gail McQuilkin, Esq.
         Benjamin J. Widlanski, Esq.
         Eric S. Kay, Esq.
         KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP
         2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor
         Miami, FL 33134
         Telephone: (305) 372-1800
         E-mail: gam@kttlaw.com
                 bwidlanski@kttlaw.com
                 ekay@kttlaw.com

                 - and -

         Kenneth J. McKenna, Esq.
         Anthony F. Sos, Esq.
         DELLECKER WILSON KING MCKENNA RUFFIER & SOS LLP
         719 Vassar Street
         Orlando, FL 32804
         Telephone: (407) 244-3000
         E-mail: kjmeservice@dwklaw.com
                 kmckenna@dwklaw.com
                 afservice@dwklaw.com
                 asos@dwklaw.com

ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS: Murphy Files Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Entertainment
Partners, LLC. The case is styled as Alexis Murphy, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Entertainment
Partners, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-06714-FLA-MAR (C.D. Cal., Aug. 16,
2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

Entertainment Partners -- https://www.ep.com/ -- is the global
leader in entertainment payroll, residuals, tax incentives,
finance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ENVESTNET INC: Continues to Defend Wesch Class Suit in N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Envestnet Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending June 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 4, 2023, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the Wesch putative class suit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.

The Company and Yodlee were also named as defendants in a putative
class action lawsuit filed on August 25, 2020, by Plaintiff Deborah
Wesch in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California.

On October 21, 2020, an amended class action complaint was filed by
Plaintiff Wesch and nine additional named plaintiffs. The case
caption is Deborah Wesch, et al., v. Yodlee, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:20-cv-05991-SK.

Plaintiffs allege that Yodlee unlawfully collected their financial
transaction data when plaintiffs linked their bank accounts to a
mobile application that uses Yodlee's API, and plaintiffs further
allege that Yodlee unlawfully sold the transaction data to third
parties.

The complaint alleges violations of certain California statutes and
common law, including the Unfair Competition Law, and federal
statutes, including the Stored Communications Act.

Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and equitable and
injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and a putative nationwide
class and California subclass of persons who provided their log-in
credentials to a Yodlee-powered app in an allegedly similar manner
from 2014 to the present.

The Company believes that it is not properly named as a defendant
in the lawsuit and it further believes, along with Yodlee, that
plaintiffs' claims are without merit.

On November 4, 2020, the Company and Yodlee filed separate motions
to dismiss all of the claims in the complaint.

On February 16, 2021, the district court granted in part and denied
in part Yodlee's motion to dismiss the amended complaint and
granted the plaintiffs leave to further amend.

The Court reserved ruling on the Company's motion to dismiss and
granted limited jurisdictional discovery to the plaintiffs.

On March 15, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a second amended class action
complaint re-alleging, among others, the claims the district court
had dismissed. The second amended complaint did not allege any
claims against the Company or Yodlee that were not previously
alleged in first amended complaint.

On May 5, 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all claims
asserted against it in the second amended complaint, and Yodlee
filed a motion to dismiss most claims asserted against it in the
second amended complaint.

On July 19, 2021, the Court granted in part Yodlee's motion,
resulting in the dismissal of all federal law claims and two of the
state-law claims.

On August 5, 2021, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss, and dismissed the Company from the lawsuit.

On October 8, 2021, Yodlee filed an early motion for summary
judgment.

On August 12, 2022, Plaintiffs moved for leave to file a third
amended complaint, which Yodlee opposed.

On September 29, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to
amend the complaint.

On December 13, 2022, the Court granted in part and denied in part
Yodlee's early motion for summary judgment, narrowing the scope of
issues that remain to be resolved.

On January 30, 2023, the Court granted Yodlee's motion for
reconsideration and dismissed one additional claim.

On July 20, 2023, the Court granted Yodlee's motion for judgment on
the pleadings and dismissed equitable monetary claims, allowing
Plaintiffs leave to seek to amend by August 7, 2023.

Yodlee will continue to vigorously defend the remaining claims
against it.

Envestnet, Inc. is a financial services company based in
Pennsylvania.


ENVIVA INC: Faces Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filings
---------------------------------------------------
Enviva Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2023, that it is facing a putative
securities class action lawsuit filed in federal district court in
the District of Maryland on November 3, 2022, against Enviva, John
Keppler and Shai Even.

On April 3, 2023, the lead plaintiff filed its amended complaint
adding Jason E. Paral, Michael A. Johnson, Jennifer Jenkins, Don
Calloway, and a number of underwriters of the company's stock
offering made pursuant to its registration statement and prospectus
dated January 19, 2022 as named defendants. The lawsuit asserts
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 thereunder as well as Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act based on allegations that the company made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the its business, operations, and
compliance policies. The lawsuit alleges that the company's
statements were misleading as to the environmental sustainability
of the company's wood pellet production and procurement and the
impact such statements would have on its financials and growth
potential. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, equitable relief,
interest and costs, and attorneys' fees.

The parties completed briefing on Enviva's motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on August 1, 2023 and it is now before the court
for consideration.

Enviva Inc. supplies utility-grade wood pellets primarily to major
power generators under long-term, take-or-pay off-take contracts
procuring wood fiber and process it into utility-grade wood
pellets.


EP GLOBAL PRODUCTION: Rhumm Files Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against EP Global Production
Solutions, LLC, et al. The case is styled as William Rhumm,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EP
Global Production Solutions, LLC, Entertainment Partners, LLC, Case
No. 2:23-cv-06713-GW-AGR (C.D. Cal., Aug. 16, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

EP Global Production Solutions LLC (Entertainment Partners) --
https://www.ep.com/ -- has been a trusted production partner to the
entertainment industry for over 45 years, helping clients create
and produce great shows, choose the best production location,
forecast, manage and track expenses, and pay crew and talent.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel S. Robinson, Esq.
          Michael Willard Olson, Esq.
          Wesley K Polischuk, Esq.
          ROBINSON CALCAGNIE INC.
          19 Corporate Plaza Drive
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Phone: (949) 720-1288
          Fax: (949) 720-1292
          Email: drobinson@robinsonfirm.com
                 molson@robinsonfirm.com
                 wpolischuk@robinsonfirm.com


EQUIFAX INC: Canadian Supreme Court Dismisses Complainant Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Equifax Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 25, 2023, that in July 13, 2023, the Supreme
court of Canada dismissed an appeal made by a plaintiff in January
24, 2023.

In December 13, 2019, the court in Ontario granted certification of
a nationwide class that includes all impacted Canadians as well as
Canadians who had subscription products with Equifax between March
7, 2017, and July 30, 2017, who were not impacted by the incident.

The company appealed one of the claims on which a class was
certified and on June 9, 2021, the company's appeal was granted by
the Ontario Divisional court. The plaintiff filed a notice of
further appeal with the Ontario Court of Appeal, and on November
25, 2022, the Ontario court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiff's
appeal and upheld the Divisional court's ruling in the company's
favor.

Equifax Inc. is a data, analytics, and technology company based in
Georgia.


ERIC FRIEDLANDER: A.C. Suit Removed to E.D. Kentucky
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as A.C., I.C. and K.C.; C.S.; K.A.J.; A.P.-1 and
A.P.-2; J.K.J.; J.T.; K.C. and T.E.J.; minor children, for
themselves and for similarly situated classes, by their Guardian ad
Litem and Next Friend, Richard F. Dawahare v. ERIC FRIEDLANDER, in
his official capacity as Secretary for the Cabinet for Health and
Family Services of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Case No.
23-CI-2248 was removed from the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Fayette
Circuit Court, to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky on Aug. 8, 2023, and assigned Case No.
5:23-cv-00234-DCR.

The Complaint alleges that the Defendant has violated the Plaintiff
Childrens' right to equal protection under Sections 1, 2 and 3 of
the Kentucky Constitution because it has failed to make Foster Care
Maintenance Payments on behalf of these Plaintiff Children. The
Complaint necessarily and explicitly asserts that the Defendant has
thereby violated the federal statute which provides for the
eligibility of relatives, including "fictive kin" persons, to
receive such payments.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          LeeAnne Applegate, Esq.
          OFFICE OF LEGAL SERVICES
          275 East Main Street, 5W-B
          Frankfort, ky 40621
          Phone: (502) 564-7905 ex. 3416


FABIO SCALIA SALON: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fabio Scalia Salon,
LLC. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Fabio Scalia Salon, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-05968-FB-TAM (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 7, 2023).

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

Fabio Scalia -- https://fabioscalia.com/ -- is a go-to boutique
salon and one of the best hair salons in NYC, specializing in
haircuts, styling, extensions, balayage, and color.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          14749 71st Ave.
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


FALCON EQUITY: PBRT Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paul Berger Revocable
Trust. The case is styled as Dale Mathis, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Falcon Equity Investors LLC, Eagle
Falcon JV CO LLC, Alan G. Mnuchin, Jeff Sagansky, Edgar Bronfman,
Jr., Karen Finerman, Michael Ronen, and Saif Rahman, Case No.
2023-0820-JTL (Del. Chancery Ct., Aug. 11, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Breach of Fiduciary Duties.

Falcon Equity Investors -- https://falconequityinvestors.com/ --
invests in top-tier growth companies in the media, digital
media/consumer technology, interactive entertainment,
health/wellness and related industries using special purpose
acquisition companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kelly L. Tucker, Esq.
          Jason M. Avellino, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          123 Justison Street, 7th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: 302-622-7000
          Fax: 302-622-7100
          Email: ktucker@gelaw.com
                 javellino@gelaw.com


FARM BOY: Palacios Suit Seeks Truck Unloaders' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
RUPERTO PALACIOS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FARM BOY MARKET INC. d/b/a KEY
FOOD, and JAE WOO PARK, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-06073
(E.D.N.Y., August 11, 2023) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure
to pay spread of hours compensation, failure to provide wage
notice, and failure to provide accurate wage statements.

Mr. Palacios was employed by the Defendants as a truck unloader,
fruit cleaner and stocker from July 1999 until July 2023.

Farm Boy Market Inc., doing business as Key Food, is a market owner
and operator, with principal executive offices located at 108-16
Liberty Ave., Ozone Park, New York. [BN]

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

FARMINGTON STATE BANK: O'Keefe Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Connor O'Keefe, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Farmington State Bank doing business
as: Moonstone Bank, Deltec Bank & Trust Company Limited, Case No.
2:23-cv-00213 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Washington, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on Aug. 11, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00213 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Farmington State Bank is a robust financial platform to empower
fast-growing innovative and disruptive sectors.[BN]

FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK: Lynn Files Suit in D. Montana
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Federal Savings
Bank, et al. The case is styled as John A. Lynn, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Federal Savings
Bank, PHH Mortgage Corporation doing business as: PHH Mortgage
Services, Dovenmuehle Mortgage, Inc., Does 1-50, Case No.
4:23-cv-00041-BMM-JTJ (D. Mont., July 17, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Foreclosure Real Property.

The Federal Savings Bank -- https://www.thefederalsavingsbank.com/
-- is proud to support the dreams of individuals to buy or
refinance their home.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dennis P. Conner, Esq.
          Gregory Pinski, Esq.
          James Robert Conner, Esq.
          Keith D. Marr, Esq.
          CONNER & MARR, PLLP
          PO Box 3028
          Great Falls, MT 59403-3028
          Phone: (406) 727-3550
          Fax: (406) 727-1640
          Email: dennis@mttrials.com
                 greg@mttrials.com
                 jr@mttrials.com
                 keith@mttrials.com


FEDEX FREIGHT: Gayden Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Seandee Gayden, an individual, on behalf of
herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. FEDEX
FREIGHT, INC., a Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. 23STCV11699 was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 11,
2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-06560.

The Complaint asserts the following causes of action under the
California Labor Code: Unfair Competition in violation of
California Business & Professions Code; Failure to Pay Minimum
Wages in violation of California Labor Code; Failure to Pay
Overtime Wages in violation of California Labor Code; Failure to
Provide Required Meal Periods in violation of California Labor Code
and the applicable IWC Wage Order; Failure to Provide Rest Periods
in violation of California Labor Code and the applicable IWC Wage
Order; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Statements in violation
of California Labor Code; Failure to Reimburse Employees for
Required Expenses in violation of California Labor Code; Failure to
Pay Wages When Due in violation of California Labor Code; Failure
to Pay Sick Pay Wages in violation of California Labor Code; and
Wrongful Termination in violation of Public Policy.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Keith A. Jacoby, Esq.
          Shahram Samie, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
          Phone: 310.553.0308
          Fax: 800.715.1330
          Email: kjacoby@littler.com
                 ssamie@littler.com

               - and -

          Sandra C. Isom, Esq.
          FEDEX FREIGHT, INC.
          8285 Tournament Dr.
          Memphis, TN 38125-1745
          Phone: 901.434.8526
          Fax: 901.468.1726
          Email: scisom@fedex.com


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Commences Settlement Payouts in Racketeering Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Dennis of Fox 8 reports that FirstEnergy is paying back some
customers as part of a multi-million dollar settlement relating to
state's largest public corruption scandal. Here's how to get your
(likely small) piece of the payout.

FirstEnergy Corp. settled a federal class-action lawsuit in which
the utility was accused of racketeering in order to secure the
passage of Ohio House Bill 6, which included a $100 million bailout
for two failing nuclear plants owned by a former FirstEnergy
subsidiary. As a result, some FirstEnergy to pay more than they
should have on their electric bill.

That settlement includes a monetary payment of $49 million,
according to the class-action attorneys' official website,
OhioElectricityLitigation.com.

Anyone who paid Ohio Edison, Cleveland Electric or Toledo Edison
any rates for fees that arose from the passage of HB 6 from Jan. 1,
2020, to June 22, 2022, between may be a member of the settlement
class and entitled to some of the settlement money.

The payments started being distributed on July 31. Eligible
recipients can expect to receive -- or have already received -- an
email from rewards@reward.tremendous.com with the subject header
"Ohio Electricity Litigation: Your Digital Payment is Ready."

Anyone who is being repaid $250 or less is expected to receive a
digital payment in the form of a virtual prepaid Mastercard. The
big button at the bottom of the rewards email that reads "Get
payment" will take you to the redemption website,
reward.tremendous.com.
The cards can be added to digital wallets like Google Pay, Apple
Pay or Samsung Pay for online purchases or loaded to online
retailers that offer a virtual wallet, like Amazon, Target or
Starbucks, according to the email.

They can also be spent in-store like a credit card -- but note that
some retailers don't allow "split payments" if the total purchase
costs more than the balance of the card.

Anyone who's owed more than $250 can expect to be mailed a physical
check by the end of August. [GN]

FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Samuels-Cox Files Suit in N.D. Alabama
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Firstsource
Advantage, LLC. The case is styled as Tonnette Samuels-Cox,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v.
Firstsource Advantage, LLC, Case No. CACE23017065 (Fla. Cir. Ct.,
Broward Cty., Aug. 16, 2023).

First Source Advantage LLC -- https://www.firstsourceadvantage.com/
-- is a debt collection agency focused on consumer debt, especially
auto loans and medical bills.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Gomes Simil, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
          110 S.E. 6TH Street, Suite 1700
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: 954-907-1136
          Fax: 855-529-9540
          Email: jen@jibraellaw.com

FORSYTHE FINANCE: 10th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in McMurray
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICHARD L. McMURRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant v. FORSYTHE
FINANCE, LLC, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 21-4014 (10th Cir.), the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirms the district
court's grant of summary judgment to Forsythe on McMurray's FDCPA,
UCSPA, and damages claims.

Plaintiff-Appellant McMurray entered an agreement with CarFinance
Capital, LLC to buy a motor vehicle through installment payments,
for which the vehicle itself served as collateral. McMurray
defaulted, and the repossession and sale of his car yielded a
deficiency balance. Forsythe bought the debt from CarFinance and
sued McMurray in Utah state court after he failed to pay it.
McMurray filed an answer but did not reply to Forsythe's motion for
summary judgment, which resulted in a default judgment in
Forsythe's favor.

McMurray then filed an action in Utah state court, alleging that
Forsythe was not licensed as a collection agency when it attempted
to collect his debt. The action was removed to the District of
Utah. The district court granted Forsythe's motion for summary
judgment, holding that McMurray's claims were barred by claim
preclusion. McMurray timely appealed. The Tenth Circuit affirms the
district court's grant of summary judgment to Forsythe on
McMurray's Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act ("UCSPA"), Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), and damages claims.

McMurray purchased a motor vehicle pursuant to a retail installment
contract, which was assigned to CarFinance and secured by the
purchased vehicle as collateral. When McMurray defaulted, the car
was repossessed and sold at auction. The sale resulted in a
deficiency balance, and CarFinance sold the debt to Forsythe.

Because McMurray did not pay the outstanding debt when Forsythe
demanded it, Forsythe sued him in Utah state court. McMurray
answered and asserted, among other things, that Forsythe was not
entitled to relief, but did not provide any further details.
Forsythe filed a motion for summary judgment, to which McMurray did
not reply, and the court entered a default judgment in Forsythe's
favor.

McMurray then brought a putative class action in state court,
asserting claims under the UCSPA and the FDCPA based on his
allegation that Forsythe was not registered as a collection agency
under state law when it attempted collection, as well as a damages
claim for emotional distress. McMurray's action was removed to the
United States District Court for the District of Utah under 28
U.S.C. Section 1441(b). Forsythe moved for summary judgment, which
the district court granted on Jan. 11, 2021. Among other reasons,
Forsythe's motion was granted on the ground that McMurray's claims
were barred by claim preclusion. McMurray timely appealed.

The Tenth Circuit holds that the claim preclusion applies to the
case, where the claims arose at the time the initial complaint was
filed. It applies Utah state law on claim preclusion because in
determining whether a state court judgment precludes a subsequent
action in federal court, it must afford the state judgment full
faith and credit, giving it the same preclusive effect as would the
courts of the state issuing the judgment.

Next, in his complaint, McMurray requested the following: (1) a
declaration on behalf of the Plaintiff class members, that since
Defendant Forsythe was acting unlawfully as an unlicensed
collection agency, Forsythe: (i) did not have legal standing to
pursue recovery on assigned debts through litigation and (ii) did
not have legal standing to obtain any judgment in Utah Courts
against the Plaintiff Class Members and those judgments should be
declared (a) void and unenforceable and (b) Forsythe should not be
entitled to collect any sums on those judgments or debts related to
the Plaintiff Class members; (2) disgorgement of all sums Forsythe
collected on a judgment amounts from the Plaintiff Class member's
amounts that Forsythe obtained as a result of the judgments
improperly entered; (3) injunction from attempting to collect any
judgment amounts entered improperly against the Plaintiff Class
Members; (4) statutory damages of $2,000 each or their actual
damages (whichever is greater) under the UCSPA"; and (5) damages
for the emotional distress, with physical manifestations, that
McMurray suffered as a result of the litigation pursued by
Forsythe.

The Tenth Circuit finds that McMurray's first four claims --
regarding the unenforceability of the judgment, and requesting
disgorgement, an injunction, and statutory damages under the UCSPA
-- arose at the time Forsythe's complaint was filed in Utah state
court. In fact, it was the very filing of Forsythe's complaint that
gave rise to McMurray's claims, because Forsythe's complaint
expressed its intention to collect from McMurray, and now McMurray
complains of Forsythe's legal inability to collect due to its
alleged improper registration. Moreover, Forsythe's alleged
improper registration existed well before Forsythe filed its
complaint. Because McMurray's claims before this Court arose from
the same transaction as his Utah state court claims, they could and
should have been raised in the Utah state court action.

McMurray's fifth claim -- requesting damages for the emotional
distress he suffered because of Forsythe's attempt to collect a
judgment from him -- is predicated on the success of his UCSPA and
FDCPA claims. For McMurray to obtain damages for emotional distress
stemming from the litigation pursued against him by Forsythe,
McMurray must first establish that Forsythe violated state or
federal debt collection laws by pursuing said litigation. Because
the Tenth Circuit has found that McMurray's UCSPA and FDCPA claims
are precluded, he has not established any violation committed by
Forsythe in pursuing litigation against him, so he cannot obtain
damages for emotional distress.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Allison H. Eid, writing for the
Tenth Circuit, affirms the district court's grant of summary
judgment to Forsythe on McMurray's FDCPA, UCSPA, and damages
claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 1, 2023 Order & Judgment is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5xjbtrkj from Leagle.com.


FRINGE BENEFIT: 2nd Class Certification Order Issued in ERISA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille of Bloomberg Law reports that a class action covering
thousands of benefit plans serviced by Fringe Benefit Group is
moving forward after the Fifth Circuit on August 11, 2023 said the
second class certification order issued in the case adequately
addressed the flaws in its rejected predecessor.

Fringe, an Austin, Texas-based benefit plan manager, said the class
certification order failed to properly account for the "variety of
fees and plans in play" in the litigation.

The Fifth Circuit called this argument "demonstrably untrue,"
saying the district court "went to great lengths" analyzing the
specific characteristics of each employer contract involved in the
relevant benefit plans. [GN]

FULCRUM THERAPEUTICS: Celano Hits Stock Drop Over Sickle Cell Meds
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fulcrum Therapeutics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that on April 28, 2023, a
class action complaint, "Celano v. Fulcrum Therapeutics, Inc., et
al.," Case No. 1:23-cv-11125-IT, was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey against the company
and current and former officers.

On May 19, 2023, case was transferred to the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts. The Securities Action
alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against
all defendants and control person violations of Section 20(a)
against the individuals, related to the company's February 2023
announcement that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a
clinical hold regarding the investigational new drug application
for "FTX-6058" for the potential treatment of sickle cell disease.
The case alleges that the defendants made misleading statements and
omitted to disclose material information related to the clinical
hold and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages in
connection with an allegedly inflated stock price between March 3,
2022, and March 8, 2023, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

Fulcrum Therapeutics, Inc. is focused on treatment of
genetically-defined rare diseases in areas of high unmet medical
need.


FULTON COUNTY SCHOOL: MacCracken Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew MacCracken, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons v. FULTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Case No.
1:23-cv-03514-JPB (N.D. Ga., Aug. 7, 2023), is brought against
Defendant for unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest,
and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs alleging systemic
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA").

The Defendant willfully violated the FLSA by engaging in a policy
and practice of failing to include non-discretionary retention
bonuses in the regular rates of pay when calculating overtime for
Plaintiff and those similarly situated, in violation of, inter
alia. As a consequence, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees at the appropriate overtime rate
during workweeks in which they worked in excess of 40 hours per
week during the retention bonus periods, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the FCSD from August 4, 2014 to
present as a non-exempt employee in the position of Bus Driver.

FCSD is the fourth largest school system in the state of
Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin M. Scott
          Tierra M. Monteiro
          SCOTT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C.
          160 Clairemont Avenue, Suite 610
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Phone: 678.780.4880
          Facsimile: 478.575.2590
          Email: jscott@scottemploymentlaw.com
                 tmonteiro@scottemploymentlaw.com


FUNKO INC: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Ongoing in Washington
---------------------------------------------------------------
Funko, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2023, that between November 16, 2017 and
June 12, 2018, seven purported stockholders of the company filed
putative class action lawsuits in the Superior Court of Washington
in and for King County against the company, certain of its officers
and directors, ACON Funko Investors LLC, Fundamental Capital, LLC
and Funko International LLC, the underwriters of its IPO, and
certain other defendants.

On July 2, 2018, the suits were ordered consolidated for all
purposes into one action under "In re Funko, Inc. Securities
Litigation." On August 1, 2018, plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint against the company, certain of its officers and
directors, ACON, Fundamental, and certain other defendants. The
company moved to dismiss twice, and the court twice granted the
company's motions to dismiss, the second time with prejudice.
Plaintiffs appealed, and on November 1, 2021, the Court of Appeals
reversed the trial court's dismissal decision in most respects.

On May 4, 2022, the Washington State Supreme Court denied the
company's petition, and the case was remanded to the Superior Court
for further proceedings. The company filed its answer on September
19, 2022 and discovery is currently ongoing. Plaintiffs filed a
motion for class certification on July 7, 2023, and briefing will
be completed on the class certification motion on October 25,
2023.

Funko, Inc. is into games, toys and children's vehicles and is
based in Everett, WA.


FUNKO INC: Shareholder Suit Over IPO Ongoing in WA Court
--------------------------------------------------------
Funko, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2023, that it is facing a June 4, 2018 a
putative class action lawsuit "Kanugonda v. Funko, Inc., et al."
filed in the United States District Court for the Western District
of Washington.

Said case was filed against the company, certain of its officers
and directors, and certain other defendants. On January 4, 2019, a
lead plaintiff was appointed in that case. On April 30, 2019, the
lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint against the previously
named defendants. The company moved to dismiss the Complaint in the
federal action, now captioned Berkelhammer v. Funko, Inc. et al. On
June 14, 2023, and briefing was scheduled to be completed on the
motion to dismiss in August 18, 2023.

Said case alleges that the company violated Sections 11, 12, and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by making allegedly
materially misleading statements in documents filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the company's
IPO and by omitting material facts necessary to make the statements
made therein not misleading. The lawsuits seek, among other things,
compensatory statutory damages and rescissory damages in account of
the consideration paid for the company's Class A common stock by
the plaintiffs and members of the putative class, as well as
attorneys' fees and costs.

Funko, Inc. is into games, toys and children's vehicles and is
based in Everett, WA.


GALA WOODWORKING: Garcia Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Painters
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE LUIS GARCIA REYES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GALA WOODWORKING, INC. (D/B/A GALA
ARCHITECTURAL WOODWORKING) and JOSEPH FINOCCHIARO AKA JOE,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-06079 (E.D.N.Y., August 11, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to
pay overtime wages, failure to pay spread of hours compensation,
failure to provide wage notice, failure to provide accurate wage
statements, and failure to reimburse business expenses.

Mr. Garcia was employed by Defendants as a painter at Gala
Architectural Woodworking from approximately 2011 until on or about
March 27, 2020.

Gala Woodworking, Inc., doing business as Gala Architectural
Woodworking, is a woodworking company, located at 114 12th Street,
Brooklyn, New York. [BN]

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

GALLIMORE RESTORATION: Clark Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Theodore Clark, Individually, and on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. GALLIMORE RESTORATION, LLC, d/b/a SERVPRO OF
LBL SOUTH, and SERVPRO OF LBL NORTH, Case No. 1:23-cv-01162 (W.D.
Tenn., Aug. 8, 2023), is brought for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") against the Defendant for unpaid overtime
wages, unpaid pre-shift "off the clock" work time and unpaid meal
period "off the clock" work time.

The Plaintiff and those similarly situated performed work for
Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week within weekly pay periods
during all times material and relevant to this action without being
compensated for all of such time at the applicable FLSA overtime
compensation rates of pay. More specifically, the Defendant had a
common practice of requiring, inducing, expecting, and/or suffering
and permitting, Plaintiff and those similarly situated to perform
work prior to the beginning of their scheduled shifts, such as
preparing their tools and trucks for work, taking out trash, etc.,
without compensating them for such pre-shift "off the clock" work
at the applicable FLSA overtime compensation rates of pay within
weekly pay periods during all times material to this
multi-plaintiff action, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked as an hourly-paid production tech for the
Defendant.

The Defendant provides commercial and residential restoration and
clean-up services for customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          James L. Holt, Jr., Esq.
          J. Joseph Leatherwood, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN AND BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Phone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
                 rbryant@jsyc.com
                 jholt@jsyc.com

GENERAL ELECTRIC: Faces Consolidated ERISA Suit in MA Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company (GE) disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 25, 2023, that four putative class
action lawsuits have been filed regarding the oversight of the GE
RSP, and those class actions have been consolidated into a single
action in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

The consolidated complaint names as defendants GE, GE Asset
Management, current and former GE, and GE Asset Management
executive officers and employees who served on fiduciary bodies
responsible for aspects of the GE RSP during the class period. Like
similar lawsuits that have been brought against other companies in
recent years, this action alleges that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) in their oversight of the GE RSP, principally
by retaining five proprietary funds that plaintiffs allege were
underperforming as investment options for plan participants and by
charging higher management fees than some alternative funds.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a class of GE
RSP participants and beneficiaries from September 26, 2011, through
the date of any judgment. In August and December 2018, the court
issued orders dismissing one count of the complaint and denying
GE's motion to dismiss the remaining counts. In September 2022,
both GE and the plaintiffs filed motions for summary judgment on
the remaining claims, and oral arguments on the motions have been
scheduled for August 2023.

General Electric company is an industrial company that operates
through its three segments, Aerospace, Renewable Energy, and Power
based in Boston.


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Suit Over Faulty Diesel Pump
--------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company (GM) disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 25, 2023, that a class action is
pending against GM in federal court in the U.S., and a putative
class action in provincial court in Canada, alleging that 2011-2016
model year Duramax Diesel Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra
vehicles are equipped with defective fuel pumps that are prone to
failure.

In March 2023, the federal court certified seven state subclasses.

General Motors company is an automobile manufacturing company based
in Michigan.


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Suit Over Faulty Transmission
---------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company (GM) disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 25, 2023, that there is one putative
class action and one certified class action pending against GM in
federal court in the U.S. alleging that various 2015-2022 model
year vehicles are defective because they are equipped with faulty
8-speed transmissions.

In March 2023, the judge overseeing the class action concerning
2015-2019 model year vehicles certified 26 state subclasses. The
putative class action concerning 2020-2022 model year vehicles is
pending in front of a different judge that has not yet addressed
class certification.

General Motors company is an automobile manufacturing company based
in Michigan.


GENESYS TECHNOLOGY: Hobbs Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Genesys Technology
N.V. The case is styled as Deborah Hobbs, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Genesys Technology N.V. doing
business as: Jumba Bet, Case No. 3:23-cv-00413-CHB (W.D. Ky., Aug.
7, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Genesys Technology N.V. doing business as Jumba Bet --
https://www.jumbabet.com/ -- is a Casino and a licensed brand
accepting US players, play one of the hundreds of online slots and
games powered by Saucify.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
          Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
          Matthew A. Girardi, Esq.
          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (646) 837-7150
          Fax: (212) 989-9163

               - and -

          Bartley K. Hagerman, Esq.
          Philip G. Fairbanks, Esq.
          MEHR FAIRBANKS & PETERSON TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC
          201 W. Short Street, Suite 800
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Phone: (859) 225-3731
          Fax: (859) 225-3830
          Email: bkh@austinmehr.com
                 pgf@austinmehr.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: Plaut Allowed Leave to File Third Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Plaut v. The Goldman Sachs
Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-12084 (S.D.N.Y., Filed Dec.
20, 2018), the Hon. Judge Katharine H Parker entered an order
granting Plaintiff leave to file a Third Amended Complaint that
revises the relevant Proposed Class Period.

  -- The revised Proposed Class Period is October 29, 2014, through

     November 8, 2018

  -- Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion seeking to modify the class
period
     is dismissed as Moot.

The nature of suit states Securities/Commodities/Exchange.

Goldman Sachs is a global investment banking, securities and
investment management firm.

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Wins Bid to Stay Discovery in Moyer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES MOYER, Plaintiff v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-578 (S.D.
Ohio), Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division,
grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' Motion to Stay
Discovery.

The matter is before the Court on the Motion to Stay Discovery
filed by Defendants Government Employees Insurance Co., GEICO
Insurance Agency, LLC, and GEICO Corp. Plaintiffs James Moyer,
Alyssa Palermo, Vincent Harris, Brandon Harris, and Nathaniel
McCracken have filed a Response and the Defendants have filed a
Reply.

In their First Amended Class Action Complaint, the Plaintiffs
allege that the Defendants treated captive insurance agents as
independent contractors rather than employees and failed to provide
certain benefits in violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act ("ERISA") (Counts 1-4). Moyer also asserts an
individual claim for retaliatory termination under ERISA (Count
5).

The Defendants assert that a stay of discovery is necessary because
they intend to file a motion to dismiss addressed to threshold
issues of the statute of limitations, standing, and personal
jurisdiction. As they see it, allowing the Court to address these
arguments first will simplify the issues and presumably, by
extension, the scope of any necessary discovery. Additionally, they
point out that this case is in its earliest stages such that the
Plaintiffs will suffer no prejudice from a short stay. Further,
they contend that a stay will reduce the burden of litigation on
the parties and the Court. Alternatively, the Defendants request
that, if the Court does not stay discovery, they be given the
opportunity to brief the issue of trifurcated discovery.

In response, the Plaintiffs confirm that they do not oppose staying
discovery on the class claims, Counts 1-4. Instead, their
opposition is limited specifically to a stay of discovery relating
to Moyer's individual retaliation claim. In their view, the
Defendants' motion is not directed to discovery related to this
claim and, therefore, should be denied. Beyond this, the Plaintiffs
oppose the idea of trifurcated discovery.

In reply, the Defendants assert that their motion to stay
encompasses Moyer's individual retaliation claim because such a
claim also is deficient due to his lack of standing. Further, they
contend that, even if his individual claim might survive a motion
to dismiss, a stay of discovery would remain more efficient and
cost-effective. Finally, with respect to the issue of trifurcated
discovery, they confirm that they simply are requesting the
opportunity to brief the issue and the Plaintiffs' challenge is
both premature and without merit.

Judge Deavers opines that the Defendants' motion does not warrant
significant discussion. Initially, given the Plaintiffs' stated
lack of opposition to a stay of discovery as it relates to the
class claims, Counts 1-4, she grants the Defendants' motion in
part, to that extent. Accordingly, the only issue before the Court
is whether the Defendants have demonstrated that a stay of
discovery directed to Moyer's individual retaliation claim is
warranted. That claim, as set forth in the Amended Complaint,
alleges that on March 21, 2023, 40 days after Mr. Moyer filed this
lawsuit, Defendants terminated his employment.

Judge Deavers concludes that the Defendants have not demonstrated
that a stay of discovery as to Moyer's individual claim is
warranted. This claim does not present an issue of immunity nor is
it obviously frivolous such that the Court could conclude that the
motion to dismiss is likely to be granted. Rather, the Defendants
argue that this limited discovery should be stayed for two reasons:
(1) their motion to dismiss raises Mr. Moyer's lack of standing and
(2) the burden of litigation on the Court and the parties will be
minimized. Their arguments are not well-taken.

That the Defendants' motion to dismiss Moyer's claim turns on a
threshold issue does not necessarily weigh in favor of granting a
stay. Further, the Defendants have not demonstrated that discovery
limited to only Moyer's retaliation claim will be overly burdensome
in the case. For these reasons, and in the exercise of her
discretion, Judge Deavers denies the motion to stay discovery as it
relates to Moyer's individual retaliation claim.

This brings the Court to the matter of the Defendants' request to
brief the issue of trifurcated discovery as raised in the Rule
26(f) Report. The Defendants have framed this request for briefing
as contingent upon the Court's decision to deny their requested
stay of discovery pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss. As
stated, discovery related to the class claims is stayed. Neither
the Defendants' motion nor their reply specifically contemplates
the result reached where discovery is stayed as to the class claims
but not Moyer's individual claim. Because a stay of discovery
directed to the class claims would seem to foreclose the
Defendants' stated need to brief the matter of trifurcation and, in
the absence of a more targeted argument from the Defendants, the
request for briefing is denied.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Deavers grants in part and denies
in part the Motion to Stay Discovery. She grants the Defendants'
motion to stay discovery in part, as unopposed as to the class
claims (Counts 1-4) and stays discovery as to these claims pending
a ruling on the Motion to Dismiss. She, however, finds that the
Defendants have not carried their burden to show that a stay of
discovery as to Moyer's individual claim (Count 5) is warranted.
Accordingly, in the exercise of her discretion, Judge Deavers
denies the motion to stay discovery in part, to this extent and
discovery may proceed on this claim. She denies the Defendants'
request to brief the issue of trifurcated discovery.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 1, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bdzcuxnv from Leagle.com.


GRAPPLER PRESSURE: Rose Sues Over Layoffs Without Advance Notice
----------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB ROSE, DERRICK BOYD, ROBERTO CASTANEDA, GERMAYNE EDMOND,
STEVEN EDMOND, JR., KELAND GIPSON, REGINALD HOGG, JIMMY KUHN, SIONE
LATU, JUSTIN LEWIS, HECTOR SALAZAR, VEHIKITE TAULAKI, HAFOKA OLIE,
GODFREY WILLIAMS, and TEDDY WOODS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GRAPPLER PRESSURE
PUMPING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:23-cv-00126 (W.D. Tex., August
11, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of
the Worker Adjustment Retraining and Notification Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the WARN Act by
terminating its employees as part of a plant closing or mass layoff
on or about May 15, 2021 without providing them with advance
written notice. Moreover, the Defendant failed to pay their
pre-termination wages and benefits.

Grappler Pressure Pumping, LLC is an oilfield operator in Texas.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Melissa Moore, Esq.
         Curt Hesse, Esq.
         MOORE & ASSOCIATES
         Lyric Centre
         440 Louisiana Street, Suite 1110
         Houston, TX 77002
         Telephone: (713) 222-6775
         Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
         E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net
                 curt@mooreandassociates.net

GRID CONNECT: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grid Connect, Inc.
The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Grid Connect, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-07037-VSB (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 9, 2023).

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

Grid Connect Inc. -- https://www.gridconnect.com/ -- is a leader in
high-quality networking product manufacturing, distribution and
support.[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


HARTFORD LIFE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Baker Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
TYLER BAKER individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01076-KAD (D. Conn., Aug. 11,
2023) is a class action against the  Defendant for its failure to
properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information
including, but not limited to, the Plaintiff's and Class Members'
social security number, first name, last name, date of birth, and
home state and zip code.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant owed and
otherwise assumed statutory, regulatory, and common law duties and
obligations, including to keep Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII
confidential, safe, secure, and protected from the type of
unauthorized access, disclosure, and theft that occurred in the
data breach described herein.

However, the Defendant maintained the PII in a negligent manner. In
particular, PII was maintained on computer systems and networks
that were in a condition vulnerable to cyberattack. The mechanism
of the Data Breach and potential for improper disclosure of the
Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was a known risk to Defendant;
and, thus, the Defendant was on notice that failing to take
appropriate protective measures would expose and increase the risk
that the PII could be compromised and stolen.

As a result of this data breach, the Plaintiff's and Class Members'
PII has been compromised, and they are, and continue to be, at
significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of
personal, social, and financial harm. The risk will remain for
their respective lifetimes, says the suit.

HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY provides insurance
services. The Company offers life, health, home, business, and
accident insurance services to individuals, families, groups, and
businesses. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul Levin, Esq.
          LEVIN, ROJAS, CAMASSAR & RECK, LLC
          40 Russ Street
          Hartford, CT 06106
          Telephone: (860) 834-3333
          Facsimile: (860) 471-8400
          Email: Paul@LRCR.Law

               - and -

          David S. Almeida, Esq.
          Elena A. Belov, Esq.
          ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
          849 W. Webster Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60614
          Telephone: (312) 576-3024
          Email: david@almeidalawgroup.com
                 elena@almeidalawgroup.com

               - and -

          Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
          PEIFFER WOLF CARR
          KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP
          818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
          St. Louis, MO 63104
          Telephone: (314) 833-4825
          Email: bwise@peifferwolf.com

HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Fails to Shutdown Power to Reduce Fire
---------------------------------------------------------
Brianna Sacks of The Washington Post reports that four days before
fast-moving brush fires engulfed parts of Maui, weather forecasters
warned authorities that powerful wind gusts would trigger dangerous
fire conditions across much of the island and Hawaii.
The state's electric utility responded with some preemptive steps
but did not use what is widely regarded as the most aggressive but
effective safety measure: shutting down the power.

Hawaiian Electric, the utility that oversees Maui Electric and
provides service to 95 percent of the state's residents, did not
deploy what's known as a "public power shutoff plan," which
involves intentionally cutting off electricity to areas where big
wind events could spark fires. A number of states, including
California, have increasingly adopted this safety strategy after
what were then the nation’s most destructive and deadliest modern
fires, in 2017 and 2018.

Hawaiian Electric was aware that a power shut-off was an effective
strategy, documents show, but had not adopted it as part of its
fire mitigation plans, according to the company and two former
power and energy officials interviewed by The Washington Post. Nor,
in the face of predicted dangerous winds, did it act on its own,
utility officials said, fearing uncertain consequences.

The decision to avoid shutting off power is reflective of the
utility's struggles to bolster its aging and vulnerable
infrastructure against wildfires, said Jennifer Potter, who lives
in Lahaina and was a member of the Hawaii Public Utilities
Commission until just nine months ago.

"They were not as proactive as they should have been," Potter said
about Hawaiian Electric's fire-prevention planning, adding that
there had not been any real meaningful action to "address some of
those inadequacies in terms of wildfire."

Doug McLeod, a former energy commissioner for Maui County, also
said the utility was aware of the need for a regular shut-down
system and to bury lines, especially given the "number of close
calls in the past."

Earlier this week, high winds caused widespread damage to utility
infrastructure. The intense gusts knocked down about 30 utility
poles across the region, many onto trees and roads, complicating
evacuations, according to Maui County Mayor Richard Bissen. He
confirmed that some electrical lines were energized when they hit
the ground.
The cause of the Maui blazes -- now the deadliest wildfire in
modern U.S. history -- remains under investigation. That probe may
take weeks or even months to produce official findings, and on
August 11, 2023, Hawaii Attorney General Anne Lopez (D) announced a
"comprehensive review" of the decisions and policies surrounding
the fires.
On August 12, 2023, LippSmith LLP and other law firms filed a
class-action lawsuit against the Hawaii utility, alleging that its
downed power lines caused the fire, and that company officials
"inexcusably kept their power lines energized" despite fire
warnings.

Asked about its preparations and response, Hawaiian Electric
confirmed that while it does not have a "formal power shutoff"
protocol, it does have a "robust wildfire mitigation and grid
resiliency program" that includes managing vegetation, hardening
its power systems and inspecting its infrastructure. It also said
it took preemptive actions, including "not enabling the automatic
reclosure of circuits that may open during a weather event. "

The circuit procedure prevents a line from continuing to shower
sparks after it has fallen, but does not prevent the initial spark,
said Michael Wara, a wildfire expert who directs the Climate and
Energy Policy Program at Stanford University. That's the intent of
a "public power shutoff plan," which does have serious trade-offs.

Shutting down power disrupts lives, businesses and can spark
backlash, especially if the anticipated wind event does not trigger
fires. But as climate change intensifies extreme weather, the move
can greatly help a utility prevent destructive and deadly
wildfires.

Downed power lines, sparks from transmission hubs and other
electrical-grid failures have started or helped to spread some of
the deadliest and most destructive blazes in U.S. history. That has
prompted utilities in states like California, Oregon and Nevada,
with approval from regulators, to proactively shut down power to
communities when red-flag conditions arise.

Hawaiian Electric recognized that a power shut-off plan could be
effective, especially after it reviewed what happened with
California's 2018 Camp Fire, which killed 85 people, documents
show. In a filing to the state last year, it pointed to
California's Public Power Shutoff Plan as a successful way to
prevent wildfires when additional robust techniques are not yet in
place.

In its statement, however, Hawaiian Electric raised concerns that
shutting off power might prevent fire crews from using electricity
to draw water they needed for firefighting.

A utility spokesperson explained that it is difficult to enact
"preemptive, short-notice power shutoffs" because they must be
coordinated with first responders and that "notifications also need
to be made to customers with special medical needs who use
specialized equipment."

Such challenges are a real concern, wildfire experts note, but the
purpose of a plan is to organize with agencies in advance. That
includes emergency responders who, with enough time, can procure
equipment such as backup generators to pump water if the grid goes
down.
The vulnerable nature of Hawaii's grid has also been a concern for
years. Old wooden poles are largely uninsulated and strung with
lush vegetation over miles of rugged terrain, according to utility
specialists. In interviews, residents and energy experts said they
have long called for the utility to harden its grid, and despite
the cost, to put more of it underground.

The poles have been in horrible shape for years, said Potter, the
former utilities commissioner. "I think we were all playing on the
fact that we got lucky -- up until now," she said.

The pattern of Hawaii's fires suggests that a spate of small
ignitions combined to form a bigger blaze, Wara and other experts
said. There'd been no lightning strikes, which have sparked series
of blazes in other parts of the United States, before the fires
broke out. Instead, Wara said, and "the only real source of that is
power lines."

The chronology of how and where the fires started, and when and
where power equipment had problems, has alarmed many residents and
officials.

Around 12:30 a.m. on August 8, 2023, a brush fire started near
Olinda Road in Kula, a small town in a mountainous region called
Upcountry, near Maui's highest peak. By that point, 80 mph gusts
had caused power outages on other parts of the island.

Kyle Ellison, who lives in Kula, remembers looking out his bathroom
window around 3 a.m. and seeing faint flames coming from Olinda
Road. The winds, he recalled "were stronger than anything I've ever
seen in my life and I’ve lived here 30 years."

A few hours later, shortly after 5 a.m. Hawaiian Electric reported
that crews were responding to outages around Lahaina, 30 miles away
on the coast. Around 6:30 a.m., another brush fire broke out in
Lahaina; officials then said they'd contained that blaze.

By 9 a.m., thousands of people in Upcountry lost power "due to high
winds," the utility said on Twitter. "There are several spans of
downed power lines in various areas that require repairs,” it
wrote. "Mahalo for your patience." At 9:45 a.m., the utility
reported that it was inspecting three main transmission lines to
check for damage and also was responding to repair "multiple downed
poles and spans of lines in various areas." Fire officials also
warned that these downed lines "may be energized."

Around 11:30 a.m., Ellison and his wife had just finished making
chicken nuggets for their children when they heard a crack and a
boom, what sounded like a tree going down "and something
electrical." He said his internet shut off and then, shortly after,
flames were quickly crawling in the gulch behind his home. Grabbing
their children and whatever items they could, the couple sprinted
down the driveway and jumped into the car.

Photos from Hawaiian Electric on Twitter show wooden poles snapped
in half and lines hanging or on the ground. One image was close to
Ellison's home, he said.
By late afternoon of August 8, 2023, Ellison and more than 12,400
other people were without power, and about 30 downed poles and
"multiple spans of power lines in various areas" across the island
were in need of repair, the utility wrote.

Then, the Lahaina Fire flared up again. Shortly after, flames
seized the town, consuming the popular tourist destination Front
Street and jumping from building to building, forcing some
residents to flee into the ocean.

The horrific scenes, stories of survival and shocking loss of life
feel traumatically familiar to the moment that arguably changed how
the nation thinks about wildfires and their potentially
catastrophic impacts: The 2017 Tubbs Fire, when flames rushed over
parched hillsides and jumped a freeway into the Northern California
city of Santa Rosa in what felt like a matter of minutes,
incinerating apartment complexes, out of which people narrowly
escaped, and killing 22 people.

How the Maui fires compare with some of the deadliest U.S.
wildfires

The country would see this happen again, with the deadliest
wildfire hitting California just a year later. On a bone-dry, gusty
day in November, the Camp Fire nearly incinerated the rural town of
Paradise, again catching hundreds of residents by surprise and
killing 85 people.

Ultimately it was a utility company, Pacific Gas & Electric, that
was blamed for the Camp Fire, as well as several other major
blazes, ignoring warnings from state officials about its aged
equipment, inspections and other protocols. In 2020, PG&E, which
has since filed for bankruptcy, pleaded guilty to involuntary
manslaughter.

Like California and other western states, Hawaii is becoming more
prone to wildfires, in part because of climate change but also
because of other human-linked phenomena -- such the spread of
nonnative grasses, which become fuel for fires when they dry out.

In filings with the state, Hawaiian Electric has been detailing its
goals to make its infrastructure more resilient. These include
putting lines underground in vulnerable areas, hardening poles and
launching a program to remove hazardous trees, according to grid
assessment reports and funding applications to the Public Utilities
Commission over the past few years.

It had closely studied California's methodologies, including its
Power Safety Shutoff (PSPS) Plan. Hawaiian Electric cited it as a
strategy that helps mitigate "wildfire risks until more robust
preventive measures have been implemented in an area."

The utility also took notice of California's faults, documents
show, having considered the state's "devastating wildfires of
2018," as well as its own experiences in 2019. It noted that
utility companies can be held liable when it comes to sparking or
spreading a wildfire, and cited PG&E's $15 billion settlement with
victims as an example.

"The risk of a utility system causing a wildfire ignition is
significant," the company wrote last summer. As a result, it wanted
to take the adequate steps to ensure that its facilities would not
be "the origin or contributing source of ignition for a wildfire."
[GN]

HCA HEALTHCARE: M.R. Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as M.R. and D.S., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. HCA HealthCare Inc.; Midwest
Division-RMC, LLC doing business as: Research Medical Center;
Centerpoint Medical Center of Independence, LLC doing business as:
Centerpoint Medical Center; Case No. 4:23-cv-00496 was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri,
to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on
Aug. 9, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00835 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

HCA Healthcare -- http://www.hcahealthcare.com/-- is an American
for-profit operator of health care facilities that was founded in
1968.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maureen M. Brady, Esq.
          Lucy McShane, Esq.
          MCSHANE & BRADY, LLC
          1656 Washington Street, Suite 120
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Phone: (816) 888-8010
          Email: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com
                 lmcshane@mcshanebradylaw.com


HTI POLYMER: La Tour Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sir Caesar La Tour, and other similarly situated aggrieved
employees v. HTI POLYMER, INC. and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case
No. 23STCV18902 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 9, 2023),
is brought against the Defendants for violations of the California
Labor Code, the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") and the
Business and Professions Code as a result of the Defendants'
failure to compensate for all hours worked; failure to pay minimum
wages; failure to pay overtime; failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements; failure to pay wages owed every pay
period; failure to give rest breaks; failure to give meal breaks;
failure to reimburse for business expenses; failure to pay wages
when employment ends, retaliation.

The Defendant did not provide Plaintiff and other similarly
situated aggrieved employees with the minimum wages to which they
were entitled for all work performed and did not compensate him and
others for all hours worked pursuant to California Labor Code. The
Defendant also violated Labor Code because it failed to pay
Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved employees'
overtime, even though they worked more than 8 hours per day, 12
hours per day, and/or 40 hours per week throughout their
employment. The Defendant also violated because it failed to
provide Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved employees
the requisite 30-minute, uninterrupted meal periods for every 5
hours of work throughout their employment, and Plaintiff did not
validly waive said meal periods, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff started working at the Defendant as an installer on
June 2022.

HTI POLYMER, INC. is and was a Washington corporation, doing
business in Los Angeles County, California, including Costco stores
in Los Angeles County, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harout Messrelian, Esq.
          MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
          500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Phone: (818) 484-6531
          Facsimile: (818) 956-1983


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Donadio Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Patricia Donadio, individually and behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals v. Hyundai Motor America,
Case No. 30-02023-01333836-CU-BT-CXC was removed from the
California Superior Court, Orange County, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 9, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-01453-JWH-JDE to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated Other Contract.

Hyundai Motor America -- http://www.hyundaiusa.com/us/en-- doing
business as Hyundai Motor North America is the operating subsidiary
that oversees all operations of Hyundai Motor Company in Canada,
Mexico, and the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yevgeniy Y. Turin, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW PC
          55 West Wacker Drive 9th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 893-7002
          Email: eturin@mcgpc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Shon Morgan, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART AND SULLIVAN LLP
          865 South Figueroa Street 10th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543
          Phone: (213) 443-3000
          Fax: (213) 443-3100
          Email: shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com


ICONIC ENTERTAINMENT: Johnson Sues Over Unpaid Proper Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Madison Johnson, individually and on behalf of other
aggrieved employees v. ICONIC ENTERTAINMENT MANAGEMENT INC. and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 23GDCV01681 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 9, 2023), is brought under the Labor
Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004 as a result of the
Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime wages.

The Defendant failed to properly compute, compile, account for and
pay Plaintiff and other Aggrieved Employees because, among other
reasons: misclassification as independent contractor; failure to
Pay all Wages including minimum and overtime wages; failure to pay
premium wages to Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees who were
denied proper meal periods; failure to pay premium wages to
Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees who were denied proper rest
periods; failure to issue Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees
wage statements that fully and accurately itemized the
requirements; failed to pay Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees
all wages due at throughout their employment and at the separation
of their employment based on the time frames; all in violation of
the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff is informed and believes,
and based thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should have
known that Plaintiff and the other Aggrieved Employees were
entitled to receive certain wages for overtime compensation and
that they were not receiving wages for overtime compensation, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt hourly
paid security guard beginning November 2019.

The Defendant is engaged in the business of event management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aidin D. Ghavimi, Esq.
          Ilana N. Fine, Esq.
          STARPOINT, LC
          15233 Ventura Boulevard, Suite PH16
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Phone: (310) 424-9971
          Fax: (424) 255-4035
          Email: service@starpointlaw.com


IDEA 247 INC: Rose Files Suit in S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against IDEA 247 INC. The
case is styled as Michael Rose, on behalf of himself individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IDEA 247 INC.
doing business as: IDEA FINANCIAL, Case No. 1:23-cv-22945-JEM (S.D.
Fla., Aug. 7, 2023).

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

IDEA 247 INC. doing business as Idea Financial --
https://www.ideafinancial.com/ -- is a team of experienced business
advisors and financial services .[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob Lawrence Phillips, Esq.
          Joshua Robert Jacobson, Esq.
          Normand PLLC
          3165 McCrory Place, Ste. 175
          Orlando, FL 32803
          Phone: (407) 603-6031
          Fax: (888) 974-2175
          Email: jacob.phillips@normandpllc.com
                 JJacobson@normandpllc.com

               - and -

          Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
          613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
          Madison, WI 53703
          Phone: (608) 237-1775
          Email: raina@turkestrauss.com


INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: Faces Malozzi Shareholder Suit in NJ Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that it is
facing a federal securities class action lawsuit was filed in April
25, 2022 against the company and certain of its officers captioned
"Michael V. Malozzi, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., Paul Smithers,
Catherine Hastings and Andy Bui, Case No. 2-22-cv-02359," in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The lawsuit was purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the
company's common stock and alleges that the company and certain of
the company's officers made false or misleading statements
regarding the company's business in violation of Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, SEC Rule 10b-5, and Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act. According to the filed complaint, the
plaintiff is seeking an undetermined amount of damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs and other relief on behalf of the
putative classes of all persons who acquired shares of the
company's common stock between May 7, 2020 and April 13, 2022.

On September 29, 2022, an Amended Class Action complaint was filed
under the same Case Number, adding as defendants Alan D. Gold and
Benjamin C. Regin, and asserting causes of action under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the Amended Class Action
Complaint, the plaintiff is seeking an undetermined amount of
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs and other relief on
behalf of the putative classes of all persons who acquired shares
of the company's common stock between August 7, 2020 and August 4,
2022. On December 1, 2022, defendants moved to dismiss the Amended
Class Action Complaint; on January 25, 2023, plaintiff responded to
defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint;
and on March 6, 2023 defendants replied to plaintiff's response.

Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. is an internally-managed
real estate investment trust focused on the acquisition, ownership
and management of specialized industrial properties leased to
experienced, state-licensed operators for their regulated cannabis
facilities.


INTEGRIS HEALTH: Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma
----------------------------------------------
The case styled as John Doe, Individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Integris Health Inc., Case No.
CJ-23-03801 was removed from the Oklahoma County District Court, to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on
Aug. 16, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-00728-HE to the
proceeding.

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

INTEGRIS Health -- https://integrisok.com/ -- provides expert,
walk-in treatment for minor illnesses and injuries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason B. Aamodt, Esq.
          INDIAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          406 S. Boulder Ave., Suite 830
          Tulsa, OK 74103
          Phone: (918) 347-6169
          Fax: (918) 948-6190
          Email: Jason@iaelaw.com

               - and -

          Lynn Toops, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Phone: (317) 636-6481
          Fax: (317) 636-2593
          Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com

               - and -

          Matthew D. Alison, Esq.
          INDIAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW GROUP PLLC
          204 Reunion Center
          9 East 4th St
          Tulsa, OK 74104
          Phone: (918) 347-6169
          Email: matthew@iaelaw.com

The Defendants is represented by:

          Larry D. Ottaway, Esq.
          FOLIART HUFF OTTAWAY & BOTTOM
          201 Robert S Kerr Ave., 12th Fl
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Phone: (405) 232-4633
          Fax: (405) 232-3462
          Email: larryottaway@oklahomacounsel.com


IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
iRhythm Technologies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 4, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the putative securities class suit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

On February 1, 2021, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California (the "Court") alleging that the Company and its former
Chief Executive Officer, Kevin M. King, violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
("Securities Class Action Lawsuit").

On August 2, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
and filed a further amended complaint on September 24, 2021. The
amended complaint names as defendants, in addition to the Company
and Mr. King, its former Chief Executive Officer, Michael J. Coyle,
and former Chief Financial Officer and former Chief Operating
Officer, Douglas J. Devine.

The purported class in the amended complaint includes all persons
who purchased or acquired the Company's common stock between August
4, 2020 and July 13, 2021, and seeks unspecified damages
purportedly sustained by the class.

On October 27, 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. The motion to dismiss was fully briefed and the
Court held a hearing on the motion on February 4, 2022, after which
the Court took the matter under submission.

On March 31, 2022, the Court issued an order granting the Company's
motion to dismiss the Securities Class Action Lawsuit, without
allowing plaintiff further leave to amend, and entered judgment in
favor of the Company and the other defendants.

On April 29, 2022, the plaintiff that filed the initial complaint
in the action filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals. On September 7, 2022, the plaintiff-appellant filed its
opening brief, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss for lack
of standing to appeal and Article III standing on September 27,
2022.

On October 17, 2022, the plaintiff filed its response to the
Company's motion to dismiss, and the Company filed its reply in
support of the motion to dismiss on November 3, 2022. The Company's
motion to dismiss the appeal was denied without prejudice on
December 8, 2022.

The Company filed its responding brief on the appeal on February
16, 2023. Briefing on the appeal has been completed and the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals heard argument on July 13, 2023.

The Company believes the Securities Class Action Lawsuit to be
without merit and plans to defend itself vigorously.

iRhythm Technologies, Inc. is a digital healthcare company
redefining the way cardiac arrhythmias are clinically diagnosed by
combining its wearable biosensing technology with cloud-based data
analytics and deep-learning capabilities. The company is based in
San Francisco, California.


JAGUAR LAND: Joyce Sues Over Defective Motor Vehicle Batteries
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHARON JOYCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC; and
Does 1 through, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-04281 (D.N.J., Aug. 9,
2023) is a action individually and on behalf of all persons who
purchased or leased in California, certain vehicles equipped with
uniform and uniformly defective battery systems manufactured,
distributed, warranted, marketed and sold or leased by JLRNA as
described herein ("Class Vehicles"), and for which the Defendants
issued a warranty.

According to the complaint, the Defendants expressly warranted that
the Vehicle would be free from defects in materials,
nonconformities, or workmanship during the applicable warranty
period and to the extent the Vehicle had defects, the Defendants
would repair the defects.

However, the Class Vehicles' battery systems have a serious
manufacturing and  materials defect caused by thermal overload
leading the battery systems in Class Vehicles to be unreasonably
dangerous. JLRNA has no fix for this defect. Charging the high
voltage battery can result in a fire and lead to significant
personal injury. Had the Plaintiff and Class Members known that the
Class Vehicles contained the battery system defect, they would not
have purchased or leased a Class Vehicle, says the suit.

JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC was founded in 2001. The
company's line of business includes the manufacturing or assembling
of complete passenger automobiles. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert A. Magnanini, Esq.
          STONE & MAGNANINI LLP
          400 Connell Drive, Suite 6200
          Berkeley Heights NJ, 07922
          Telephone: (973) 218-1111

               - and -

          Richard M. Wirtz, Esq.
          Daniel Z. Inscore, Esq.
          Alana L. Mellgren, Esq.
          WIRTZ LAW APC
          4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 800
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (858) 259-5009
          Email: eservice@wirtzlaw.com;
                 rwirtz@wirtzlaw.com

               - and -

          Mark O'Connor, Esq.
          O'CONNOR LAW GROUP, LLC
          384 Forest Avenue Suite 17
          Laguna Beach, CA 92651
          Telephone: (949) 494-9090
          Email: moconnor@teamolg.com

JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Pok Suit Removed to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Carly Pok, an individual, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. JETBLUE AIRWAYS
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation and DOES 1-50, Case No.
37-2023-00026924-CU-OE-CTL was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California, in and for the County of San Diego, to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California on Aug. 7, 2023, and assigned Case No.
3:23-cv-01438-BEN-WVG.

The Complaint alleges eleven causes of action on behalf of
Plaintiff and a putative class under California law: failure to pay
all state minimum wages; failure to pay local minimum wages;
failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide rest periods and
pay rest period premiums; failure to provide meal periods and pay
meal period premiums; failure to maintain accurate employment
records; failure to pay wages timely during employment; failure to
timely pay all wages owed upon separation from employment; failure
to furnish accurate itemized wage statements; failure to pay sick
leave; and violation of the Unfair Competition Law.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Andrew P. Frederick, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1400 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Phone: +1.650.843.4000
          Fax: +1.650.843.4001
          Email: andrew.frederick@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Nicole L. Antonopoulos, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One Market, Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: +1.415.442.1000
          Facsimile: +1.415.442.1001
          Email: nicole.antonopoulos@morganlewis.com


JLM DECORATING: Martinez File Class Cert. Reply by Sept. 8
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISRAEL MARTINEZ, v. JLM
DECORATING, INC., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02969-RA-SN (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Sarah Netburn entered an order that the Defendants
shall respond by August 25, 2023.

  -- The Plaintiff shall file a reply, if any, by September 8,
2023.

  -- On July 26, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify
class.

JLM is a full-service painting, wallcovering & decorative firm.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 1, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47zXG9S at no extra charge.[CC]


JOHN'S SHANGHAI: Court Dismisses All Class Claims in Xue Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JIAN ZHONG XUE, et al., Plaintiffs v. JOHN'S SHANGHAI,
LLC d/b/a John's Shanghai, et al., Defendants, Case No.
4:21-CV-01203 (M.D. Pa.), Judge Matthew W. Brann of the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania grants
partial summary judgment in the Defendants' favor and dismisses all
class allegations.

Jian Zhong Xue and Raymond Chow formerly worked at John's Shanghai,
a restaurant in State College, Pennsylvania that served Chinese
cuisine. The Plaintiffs filed the action raising several
wage-related claims on behalf of themselves and a putative class of
employees of John's Shanghai, LLC. Despite a lengthy discovery
period -- which only recently concluded -- the Plaintiffs produced
no evidence to support any class allegations, nor have they timely
moved for class certification.

In 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Defendants,
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the New York Labor Law related
to the Defendants' alleged failure to pay prevailing minimum wages
and overtime wages. The Defendants filed an answer to the
complaint, and the matter proceeded through a contentious discovery
period that eventually concluded in May 2023. The deadline for the
Plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification lapsed on June
2, 2023, without the Plaintiffs having filed such a motion.

The Defendants have now filed a motion for partial summary
judgment. They argue that the Plaintiffs have stated that they do
not intend to represent any other individuals, and they have
presented no evidence that they could adequately represent the
interests of any putative class. The Plaintiffs have not filed a
response to the motion, and the time to do so has now lapsed,
rendering the matter ripe for disposition.

In response to interrogatories submitted during discovery, the
Plaintiffs identified each other -- Jian Zhong Xue and Raymond Chow
-- as the only other individuals who are similarly situated to the
Plaintiffs with respect to the claims raised in the complaint.
During depositions, Jian Zhong Xue asserted that he would only
represent himself and does not represent anybody else. Similarly,
Raymond Chow stated in his deposition that he was not seeking
relief on behalf of anyone else, and he is just into his own case.

The Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs cannot establish the
requirements for class certification, and any class allegations
therefore fail as a matter of law. Because certain of the
Plaintiffs' claims arise under the FLSA, for purposes of this
motion, Judge Brann evaluates all class allegations under the more
lenient FLSA standard. He finds that the Plaintiffs cannot sustain
their class allegations. There is absolutely no evidence in the
record -- a record that was developed during nearly eighteen months
of discovery -- that there is a factual nexus between the way the
Defendants' policies allegedly harmed the Plaintiffs and the way in
which the Defendants' policies affected the putative class members.
Nor do the Plaintiffs even attempt to argue that such a nexus
exists. The Plaintiffs have not identified any other individuals
who are similarly impacted, and they readily admit that they do not
represent the interests of anyone else in this litigation.

Given the lack of any nexus that is required for even conditional
class certification, Judge Brann finds as a matter of law that the
Plaintiffs cannot sustain a class action, and any class action
allegations will be dismissed from the complaint. For these
reasons, he grants the Defendants' motion for partial summary
judgment and dismisses any class allegations from the complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 1, 2023 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/535tmusy from Leagle.com.


JOHNS HOPKINS: Riffey Sues Over Failure to Secure Customers' Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PHYLLIS RIFFEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY and THE JOHNS
HOPKINS HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-02190-JRR (D.
Md., August 11, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and
unjust enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiff and similarly situated customers stored within their
network systems following a data breach between May 29, 2023 and
May 31, 2023. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach.
As a result, the PII of the Plaintiff and Class members were
compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown
and unauthorized third parties, says the suit.

The Johns Hopkins University is a private research university, with
its headquarters and principal place of business located in
Baltimore, Maryland.

The Johns Hopkins Health System Corporation is a healthcare
services provider, with its headquarters and principal place of
business located in Baltimore, Maryland. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         George G. Triantis, Esq.
         John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
         Ra O. Amen, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
         201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
         Tampa, FL 33602
         Telephone: (813) 223-5505
         Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
         E-mail: GTriantis@forthepeople.com
                 JYanchunis@forthepeople.com
                 Ramen@forthepeople.com

JP WHITE: Hong Bid to Expand Pre-Cert Discovery Scope Partly OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YINGCAI HONG, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, et al., v. JP WHITE PLAINS,
INC., d/b/a Haiku Asian Bistro White Plains, et al., Case No.
7:19-cv-05018-NSR-AEK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Andrew E. Krause
entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
Plaintiffs motion to expand the scope of pre-certification
discovery.

  -- The Plaintiffs may take limited additional discovery regarding

     Defendants' meal program.

  -- By September 1, 2023, the parties must complete Mr. Lee's
     deposition.

  -- By August 18, 2023, the parties must meet and confer to
discuss
     the parameters of a supplemental production of documents
     sufficient to show the number of employees who were eligible
for
     the meal program during the relevant period, and the number of

     employees who participated in the meal program during the
     relevant period.

  -- By August 25, 2023, the Plaintiffs must serve a formal request

     for production of documents pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal

     Rules of Civil Procedure to request this limited set of
     additional records.

  -- The Defendants must respond to the supplemental demand by
      September 25, 2023.

The Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Hong was regularly required to work
through his breaks and that nevertheless, Defendants deducted 40
minutes from his pay when he worked full days and twenty minutes
from his pay when he worked half days.

According to the Second Amended Complaint, the circumstances that
resulted in Mr. Hong not having a regular break time were that as a
driver, "he was always on call, meaning that if customer's order
came, his break stopped and he had to deliver."

A copy of the Court's order dated July 31, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sfnszX at no extra charge.[CC]

KPMG LLP: Chong "401(k) Plan" Suit Seeks Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HILTON HEE CHONG, PAUL J.
BURROUGHS and RICHARD O'DRISCOLL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. KPMG, LLP, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
KPMG, LLP, THE KPMG PENSION STRATEGY AND INVESTMENT COMMITTEE and
JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 2:21-cv-19330-MEF-MAH (D.N.J.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying class action,
appointing them as representatives of the proposed class, and
appointing their counsel
as counsel.

The Plaintiffs submit that the Court should certify the following
proposed Class:
   
   "All persons, except Defendants and their immediate family
members,
   who were participants in or beneficiaries of the KPMG 401(k)
Plan,
   at any time between October 26, 2015, through the date of
   judgment."

KPMG is a multinational professional services network.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 1, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sjyxQw at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
          Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
          Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
          312 Old Lancaster Road
          Merion Station, PA 19066
          Telephone: (610) 890-0200
          Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
          E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
                  donr@capozziadler.com

LADUCA SHOES US: Erkan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LaDuca Shoes US, LLC.
The case is styled as Nihal Erkan, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. LaDuca Shoes US, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-05971-MKB-SJB (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 7, 2023).

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

LaDuca Dance Shoes -- https://www.laducashoes.com/ -- are the
premiere flexible character shoe of the dance and theatre
world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          14749 71st Ave.
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


LENOVO UNITED: Consumer's Session Replay Class Action Advances
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Brown at news.bloomberglaw.com reports that Lenovo
United States Inc. must face a proposed class action alleging it
installed code on its website that allowed a third-party to record
user activities in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy
Act.

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


LIFELABS: Settles Class Suit Over 2019 Cyberattack for $9.8M
------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Collins of Goldstream News Gazette reports that LifeLabs
says a settlement hearing has been scheduled for the 2019
cyberattack that affected millions of customers and it could result
in the company paying anywhere between $4.9 million and $9.8
million, if approved.

A settlement approval hearing is scheduled for Oct. 25 through the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice, which certified the class-action
lawsuit. The hearing will be held by video conference.

People in the lawsuit have three options: stay in the class action
and participate in the settlement, stay in the class action and
object to the settlement or opt out of the class action, but not
receive any benefit from the settlement.

If people choose to reject the settlement, they have until Oct. 20
to email the claims administrator.

If the settlement is approved, LifeLabs has agreed to compensate
class-action lawsuit members who submitted a valid claim form.

LifeLabs would pay a guaranteed minimum of $4.9 million and up to
and addition $4.9 million, depending on how many claims are made.
Lawsuit members could each receive between $50 and $150.

In December 2019, LifeLabs was the victim of a data hack, affecting
up to 15 million customers in B.C. and Ontario. LifeLabs paid a
ransom and the cyberattackers returned the data, adding that the
data has not been identified as being sold on the dark web or
otherwise misused by anyone.

After the cyberattack, a class-action lawsuit was brought forward
alleging that that LifeLabs was negligent in its protection of that
data. LifeLabs denied all such allegations.

The lawsuit includes about 8.6 million people whose personal
information, including personal health numbers were stolen, and
131,957 people whose confidential test requisitions or test results
were stolen by hackers. [GN]

LIGHTNING OILFIELD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Green Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
CODY GREEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LIGHTNING OILFIELD SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-00982 (W.D. Tex., Aug. 9, 2023) is an
action against the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and the
class minimum wages, and overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff Green was employed by the Defendant as a swamper.

LIGHTNING OILFIELD SERVICES, INC. is a transportation service
provider in the oil & gas industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

LOANCARE LLC: Rothman FCRA Suit Removed to S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Yosef Rothman, individually, and on behalf of
all other similarly situated consumers v. Loancare, LLC, Case No.
032516/2023 was removed from the Supreme Court, County of Rockland,
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
Aug. 9, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 7:23-cv-07023 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

LoanCare -- https://www.myloancare.com/ -- is a top national
subservicer, provides loan servicing solutions that assist the
lending industry achieve optimal asset performance.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joseph Michael DeFazio, Esq.
          TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS
          875 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 704-6341
          Email: joseph.defazio@troutman.com


MAJOR ENERGY ELECTRIC: Glikin Files Suit Over Power Rate Issue
--------------------------------------------------------------
Via Renewables, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2023, that in January 14, 2021, case
"Glikin, et al. v. Major Energy Electric Services, LLC," a
purported variable rate class action was filed in the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York, attempting to
represent a class of all Major Energy customers (including
customers of companies Major Energy acts as a successor to) in the
United States charged a variable rate for electricity or gas by
Major Energy during the applicable statute of limitations period up
to and including the date of judgment.

Via Renewables, Inc. is an independent retail energy services
company that provides residential and commercial customers in
competitive markets across the United States with an alternative
choice for natural gas and electricity. It is a holding company
whose primary asset consists of units in Spark HoldCo, LLC and
conduct retail energy services business through several brands
across our service areas, including Electricity Maine, Electricity
N.H., Major Energy, Provider Power Massachusetts, Spark Energy, and
Verde Energy.


MARINHEALTH MEDICAL: C. M. Files Suit in N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MarinHealth Medical
Group, Inc., et al. The case is styled as C. M., individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MarinHealth Medical
Group, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-04179-DMR (N.D. Cal., Aug. 16,
2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

MarinHealth -- https://www.mymarinhealth.org/ -- is a healthcare
system serving Marin County and the surrounding areas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yana A. Hart, Esq.
          Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
          Tiara Avaness, Esq.
          Valter Malkhasyan, Esq.
          CLARKSON LAW FIRM PC
          22525 Pacific Coast Highway
          Malibu, CA 90265
          Phone: (213) 788-4050
          Fax: (213) 788-4070
          Email: seth@klafterlesser.com
                 rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                 tavaness@clarksonlawfirm.com
                 vmalkhasyan@clarksonlawfirm.com


MASIENDA LLC: Toro Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
-------------------------------------------------------------
JASMINE TORO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MASIENDA, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-07053-JGLC (S.D.N.Y., August 10, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990, the New York State Human Rights Law, and
the New York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://masienda.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues include, but not limited to:
inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading hierarchy,
ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning,
redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address,
lack of alt-text on graphics, the denial of keyboard access for
some interactive elements, unclear labels for interactive elements,
and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a
mouse, says the suit.

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

Masienda, LLC is a limited liability company, with its principal
place of business located at 11515 W. Pico Boulevard, Los Angeles,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Mars Khaimov, Esq.
         MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
         100 Duffy Avenue, Suite 510
         Hicksville, NY 11801
         Telephone: (929) 324-0717
         Facsimile: (929) 333-7774
         E-mail: mars@khaimovlaw.com

MAVIS TIRE: Mahase Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Store Managers
-------------------------------------------------------------
SEAN MAHASE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAVIS TIRE SUPPLY LLC d/b/a MAVIS DISCOUNT
TIRE, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-07111 (S.D.N.Y., August 11, 2023)
is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law and for breach of contract, promissory fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an assistant manager,
floating manager, and store manager from January 2020 until January
31, 2023.

Mavis Tire Supply LLC, doing business as Mavis Discount Tire, is an
operator of a chain of auto-part service and retail stores,
headquartered in Millwood, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         C.K. Lee, Esq.
         Anne Seelig, Esq.
         LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
         148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
         New York, NY 10011
         Telephone: (212) 465-1188
         Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

MEDIASPIKE INC: Fitzhenry Files TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mediaspike, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Mark Fitzhenry, individually and on
behalf of a class of all person and entities similarly situated v.
Mediaspike, Inc., Edufficient.com, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-03923-RMG
(D.S.C., Aug. 9, 2023).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

MediaSpike -- https://www.mediaspike.com/ -- provides a native
monetization platform for applications, with a focus on social and
mobile games.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Maxfield, Esq.
          DAVID MAXFIELD ATTORNEY LLC
          PO Box 11865
          Columbia, SC 29211
          Phone: (803) 509-6800
          Fax: (855) 299-1656
          Email: dave@consumerlawsc.com


MERCER UNIVERSITY: Suit Transferred to M.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as John Doe, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Petitioner v. THE CORPORATION OF MERCER
UNIVERSITY, d/b/a MERCER UNIVERSITY, Respondent, Case No.
3:23-cv-00087 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Georgia on Aug. 8, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-00288 to the
proceeding.

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

Mercer University -- http://www.mercer.edu/-- is a private
research university with its main campus in Macon, Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert E. Jones, Esq.
          THE JONES LAW FIRM, P.C.
          1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 950
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: (404) 877-2345
          Email: rob@robjoneslaw.com

               - and -

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Phone: (212) 643-0500
          Fax: (212) 253-4272
          Email: mreese@reesellp.com

               - and -

          Charles D. Moore, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 South 5th Street, Suite 1900
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (212) 643-0500
          Email: cmoore@reesellp.com

               - and -

          Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
          LAUKAITIS LAW LLC
          954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205, #10518
          San Juan, PR 00907
          Phone: (215) 789-4462
          Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com


META PLATFORMS: Williams Suit Transferred to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Cedric Williams, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Meta Platforms Inc., Facebook
Holdings LLC, Facebook Operations LLC, Facebook Payments, Inc.,
Facebook Technologies LLC, Instagram LLC, Siculus Inc., Case No.
2:23-cv-00927 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Louisiana, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on Aug. 16, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-04154-YGR to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for
Product Liability.

Meta Platforms, Inc. -- https://about.meta.com/ -- doing business
as Meta, and formerly named Facebook, Inc., and TheFacebook, Inc.,
is an American multinational technology conglomerate based in Menlo
Park, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Allen Lemmon, Esq.
          LEMMON LAW FIRM (NO)
          5301 Canal Blvd Ste A
          New Orleans, LA 70124
          Phone: (985) 783-6789
          Email: andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Blake G Abbott, Esq.
          Paul Doolittle, Esq.
          POULIN WILLEY & ANASTOPOULO
          32 Ann St
          Charleston, SC 29403
          Phone: (843) 614-8888
          Email: blake@akimlawfirm.com
                 pauld@akimlawfirm.com


MH PIZZA LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Blehm Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
CALEB BLEHM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MH PIZZA, LLC; and KEENE MURPHY, Case No.
1:23-cv-03587-MHC (N.D. Ga., Aug. 11, 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 Blehm was employed by the Defendants as a delivery
driver.

MH PIZZA, LLC owns and operates a multiple Marco’s Pizza
restaurants in Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James W. Hurt, Jr., Esq.
          HURT STOLZ, P.C.
          1551 Jennings Mill Road, Unit 3100B
          Watkinsville, GA 30677
          Telephone: (706) 395-2750
          Facsimile: (706) 996-2576
          Email: jhurt@hurtstolz.com

MILLER AND FUTURE: Faces Class Suit Over Paid Sex with Minors
-------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that Twenty-eight women have provided sworn
affidavits alleging Robert Miller gave them cash and gifts in
exchange for sex when they were underage, and they're looking to be
added to a class-action lawsuit against the Quebec billionaire.

A total of 29 women have now come forward saying Miller paid them
for sex. The sexual encounters allegedly took place over a 20-year
period between 1992 and 2012, according to court documents obtained
by Radio-Canada.

The class-action lawsuit against Miller and Future Electronics, the
company he helped launch, was filed in February by Consumer Law
Group.

The lead plaintiff in the lawsuit is a Montreal woman who was 17 at
the time she says she met Miller. She met him about 10 times for
sex over a two-year period, according to the lawsuit.

Earlier this year, CBC News and Radio-Canada spoke to twelve women
who said they were paid cash and gifts in exchange for sex with
Miller.

Miller denies the allegations.

In their affidavits, the women explained how the alleged encounters
with Miller affected their lives.

One woman, referred to in French as Madame 9 in court documents,
says she was 14 when she first had sex with Miller in exchange for
$1,500.

In her affidavit, she said she began drinking, using drugs and
working in strip clubs. She also said she had suicidal thoughts
when she was younger that recently resurfaced once allegations
against Miller became public.

The 29 women are seeking $1.5 million each for punitive damages on
top of reparations for psychological damage. None of the women are
named in the court documents.

The firm representing the lead plaintiff has filed a motion to
amend the lawsuit by adding the 28 affidavits. It also wants to
include two more defendants: Sam Joseph Abrams and Raymond Poulet,
who are associates of Miller.

The women say the pair helped recruit minors and co-ordinated
meetings.

Miller's legal team opposes those amendments. On August 11, 2023,
it declined CBC/Radio-Canada's request for comment, citing the
ongoing legal process. The case is expected to be back in Quebec
Superior Court on Sept. 7.

The class-action lawsuit as a whole has yet to be authorized.

Support is available for anyone who has been sexually assaulted.
You can access crisis lines and local support services through this
Government of Canada website or the Ending Violence Association of
Canada database. If you're in immediate danger or fear for your
safety or that of others around you, please call 911. [GN]

MIXOLOSHE LLC: Morgan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mixoloshe, LLC. The
case is styled as Paradise Morgan, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Mixoloshe, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-07005-ALC (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 9,
2023).

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

Mixoloshe -- https://mixoloshe.com/ -- is a category defining,
female-founded beverage brand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com

NAPLES HIBACHI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Feng Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
YUNFANG FENG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NAPLES HIBACHI BUFFET INC.; and MING SHI,
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00602-JLB-KCD (M.D. Fla., Aug. 10,
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 Feng was employed by the Defendants as a waitress.

NAPLES HIBACHI BUFFET INC. owns and operates a restaurant in
Naples, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jianyin Liu. Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAMES LIU PLLC
          15750 SW 92nd Ave Unit 20C
          Palmetto Bay, FL 33157
          Telephone: (305) 209 6188
          Facsimile: (305) 402 5959
          Email: jamesliulaw@gmail.com

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Myers Sues Over Disclosed Subscribers' Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA MYERS, OSCAR RODRIGUEZ, PAUL SUTTON, TREVOR ADKINS, BRENT
RISH, DEREK SAMMELMAN, and MARY MARTIN, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
FOR STOCK CAR AUTO RACING, INC. and NASCAR DIGITAL MEDIA, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 6:23-cv-01540 (M.D. Fla., August 11, 2023) is
a class action against the Defendants for violation of the Video
Privacy Protection Act.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to disclose to the
National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing (NASCAR) website's
newsletter subscribers that their personal identifying information
(PII) would be captured by Facebook Pixel and then transferred to
Facebook. At no point during or after the subscription sign up
process, or anywhere on the website for that matter, the Defendants
seek or obtain consent for the sharing of subscribers' PII and web
watching history, which the Defendants surreptitiously gathered
through the use of the Pixel that they chose to employ on the
website. Subscribers of the website have been harmed as a result of
violations of the VPPA. In addition to monetary damages, the
Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief requiring the Defendants to
immediately (i) remove the Pixel from the website, or (ii) add
adequate notices, and obtain the appropriate consent from
subscribers.

National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc. (NASCAR) is an
American auto racing sanctioning and operating company with
headquarters at 1 Daytona Blvd, Daytona Beach, Florida.

NASCAR Digital Media, LLC is a media company headquartered in North
Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq.
         Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq.
         EDELSBERG LAW
         20900 NE 30th Ave., #417
         Aventura, FL 33180
         Telephone: (786) 289-9471
         E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
                 adam@edelsberglaw.com

                 - and -

         Mark S. Reich, Esq.
         Courtney Maccarone, Esq.
         Gary S. Ishimoto, Esq.
         LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
         55 Broadway, 4th Floor, Suite 427
         New York, NY 10006
         Telephone: (212) 363-7500
         Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
         E-mail: mreich@zlk.com
                 cmaccarone@zlk.com
                 gishimoto@zlk.com

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Remand of Browne to N.J. State Court Reversed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LESROY E. BROWNE, on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST, also
known as NATIONAL COLLEGIATE MASTERSTUDENT LOAN TRUST I; NATIONAL
COLLEGIATE STUDENTLOAN TRUST 2003-1; NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
STUDENTLOAN TRUST 2004-1; NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENTLOAN TRUST
2004-2; NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENTLOAN TRUST 2005-1; NATIONAL
COLLEGIATE STUDENTLOAN TRUST 2005-2; NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
STUDENTLOAN TRUST 2005-3; NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENTLOAN TRUST
2006-1; NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENTLOAN TRUST 2006-2; NATIONAL
COLLEGIATE STUDENTLOAN TRUST 2006-3; NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
STUDENTLOAN TRUST 2006-4; NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENTLOAN TRUST
2007-1; NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENTLOAN TRUST 2007-2; NATIONAL
COLLEGIATE STUDENTLOAN TRUST 2007-3; NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
STUDENTLOAN TRUST 2007-4; WILMINGTON TRUST CO, as Trustee for
National Collegiate Student Loan Trust; US BANK NA, in its Role as
Special Servicer for the National Collegiate Student Loan Trust;
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS INC., Appellants, Case No. 23-2017 (3d Cir.),
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reverses the
District Court's order remanding Browne's class action complaint to
New Jersey state court.

In 2007, Browne cosigned a student loan issued by JP Morgan Chase
Bank (the Chase Loan). Ten years later, Browne asked Pennsylvania
Higher Education Assistance Agency (PHEAA), which was the primary
servicer of the Chase Loan, to identify the Loan's current
creditor. Browne alleges that PHEAA informed him that the Trusts
owned the Chase Loan and that he therefore made payments to the
Trusts from June 2017 until at least June 2020, when the loan was
paid in full.

Nearly a year after paying off the loan, on April 21, 2021, Browne
filed a putative class action in New Jersey state court naming the
Trusts as defendants and alleging that the Trusts had violated New
Jersey's Consumer Finance Licensing Act by collecting debts,
including the Chase Loan, without being licensed to do so. Browne's
case was then removed to federal court, where it was dismissed for
lack of Article III standing and then remanded to New Jersey state
court.

Upon remand, Browne filed an amended complaint in state court
naming the Trusts, Wilmington Trust Company, U.S. Bank N.A., and
Transworld Systems, Inc. as defendants. His new complaint added 68
paragraphs of allegations against the Appellants, on top of
augmenting and emphasizing theories of liability mentioned in
passing in the original complaint. Browne's complaint was once
again removed to federal court, prompting Browne to seek remand for
lack of Article III standing.

Concluding that Browne's amended complaint possessed the same
defects that led to its prior holding, the District Court held that
Browne lacked standing and once again remanded Browne's case to
state court. The Appellants subsequently filed a Petition for
Permission to Appeal in the Third Circuit seeking approval under 28
U.S.C. Section 1453 to appeal the District Court's remand order.
The Third Circuit granted this Petition on June 2, 2023, and the
appeal followed.

According to the amended complaint, the Appellants deceived Browne
into making payments on the Chase Loan either to the wrong creditor
-- because the Trusts did not own the accounts -- or that were not
owed at all because Browne's obligation to pay was voided because
of the assignment from JP Morgan Chase to the unlicensed Trusts.

As to the first theory, the amended complaint alleges the Trusts
cannot show that they are assignees of any particular loan and that
they used false or misleading statements in the course of their
collection efforts, which caused the Plaintiff to make payments for
the Chase Loan between June 2017 and June 2020. As to the second
theory, Browne's amended complaint asserts that any alleged
assignment of the Chase Loan to the Trusts was void upon assignment
because the Trusts were not licensed under New Jersey law, and
therefore lacked the legal right to enforce any student loan
against the Plaintiff, even if the Trusts had acquired the
account.

Despite lacking that right, Browne contends, the Appellants
deceived him and putative class members by misrepresenting in its
collection and other communications that the Trusts had the legal
right to collect, thereby causing them ascertainable loss in the
amount of monies claimed to be due, collected, and/or paid on the
void accounts.

In short, under either theory the amended complaint alleges both
that Browne suffered a monetary injury and that this injury was
caused by the Appellants' deceitful and misleading collection
efforts. Browne has thus alleged the most obvious tangible harm and
has suffered a concrete injury in fact under Article III. For these
reasons, the Third Circuit reverses the judgment of the District
Court and remands for the District Court to vacate its order of
remand to the state court and to proceed consistent with this
Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 1, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4ff8a7sp from Leagle.com.


NATURAL GROCERS: Wins Bid to Decertify Collective Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Natural Grocers by Vitamin Cottage, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August, 2023, that in May
2023, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado
granted the company's motion to decertify a collective action and
denied its plaintiffs' motion to certify a putative class of
Colorado plaintiffs and the named plaintiff's litigation and
certain arbitration claims will proceed on an individual basis.

In January 2020, a former assistant store manager filed a putative
class action lawsuit in said court on behalf of current and former
assistant store managers alleging that the Company violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Colorado labor laws by
misclassifying the assistant store managers as exempt. The alleged
violations relate to failure to pay for overtime work. In November
2020, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification with regard to the FLSA claim.

In December 2022, pre-trial motions were filed by both parties,
including a motion filed by the company to decertify the FLSA
collective action, which included 100 opt-in plaintiffs. In
February 2023, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking certification
of a putative class with regard to alleged violations of Colorado
labor laws, which the company opposed.

Natural Grocers by Vitamin Cottage, Inc. operate retail stores that
specialize in natural and organic groceries, dietary supplements
and body care products. The company operated 164 stores as of June
30, 2023 and September 30, 2022 in 21 states and also has a bulk
food repackaging facility and distribution center in Golden,
Colorado.


NECESSITY RETAIL: Court Affirms Dismissal of Hibbard Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Necessity Retail REIT, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that in a decision and order
entered on March 9, 2023, the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the dismissal
of a consolidated complaint filed by Terry Hibbard, Susan Bracken,
Michael P. Miller, Jamie Beckett and Lynda Callaway.

Said cases were consolidated in July 11, 2019. The court also
stayed the Consolidated Cases pending a decision on the motions to
dismiss in an action involving similar claims pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Following the federal court's decision dismissing that action on
October 31, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
class action complaint in the consolidated cases seeking
substantially similar remedies from the same defendants. The
company moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint on
December 16, 2019.

After the parties completed briefing on this motion, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its decision
affirming dismissal of the federal action. The plaintiffs moved to
amend their complaint, purportedly to limit it to claims still
viable in spite of the results of the federal action. The proposed
second amended complaint no longer contains direct claims against
the company. Instead, the plaintiffs seek to pursue state law
claims derivatively against AR Global Investments, LLC, Necessity
Retail Advisors, LLC, the company's initial chief executive officer
and chair of the board of directors, the company's current
directors and David Gong, a former director, with the company as a
nominal defendant.

On December 20, 2021, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to
amend and dismissed the litigation. On January 26, 2022, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the court's decision. In a
decision and order entered on March 9, 2023, the Supreme court of
the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Department,
affirmed the dismissal of the complaint.

The Necessity Retail REIT, Inc. is an externally managed real
estate investment trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes
focusing on acquiring and managing a diversified portfolio of
primarily necessity-based retail single-tenant and multi-tenant
properties in the United States. As of June 30, 2023, the company
owned 991 properties, comprised of 27.3 million rentable square
feet, which were 92.7% leased, including 882 single-tenant
net-leased commercial properties.

Substantially all of the company's business is conducted through
The Necessity Retail REIT Operating Partnership, L.P. and its
wholly-owned subsidiaries. Necessity Retail Advisors, LLC manages
the company's day-to-day business with the assistance of the
company's property manager, Necessity Retail Properties, LLC. The
Advisor and the Property Manager are under common control with AR
Global Investments, LLC.


NECESSITY RETAIL: Faces Bracken Suit Over Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------------
The Necessity Retail REIT, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that that it is facing a
putative class action complaint in New York State Supreme court,
New York County filed in March 6, 2019 by Susan Bracken, Michael P.
Miller and Jamie Beckett, purported stockholders of the company.
Class action complaint is on behalf of themselves and others who
purchased shares of common stock through the company's then
effective distribution reinvestment plan, against the company, AR
Global Investments, LLC, Necessity Retail Advisors, LLC, the former
chairmen, the company's chief financial officer at the time of the
RCA Merger and each of the company's directors immediately prior to
the RCA Merger.

The complaint asserted violations of Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended against the company's chief financial
officer at the time of the RCA Merger and each of the company's
directors immediately prior to the RCA Merger, violations of
Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act against the company and the
company's current chief executive officer, president and chair of
the board of directors, and control person liability against the
Advisor, AR Global and the former chairmen under Section 15 of the
Securities Act. The complaint sought unspecified damages and
rescission of the company's sale of stock pursuant to the
registration statement.

The Necessity Retail REIT, Inc. is an externally managed real
estate investment trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes
focusing on acquiring and managing a diversified portfolio of
primarily necessity-based retail single-tenant and multi-tenant
properties in the United States. As of June 30, 2023, the company
owned 991 properties, comprised of 27.3 million rentable square
feet, which were 92.7% leased, including 882 single-tenant
net-leased commercial properties.

Substantially all of the company's business is conducted through
The Necessity Retail REIT Operating Partnership, L.P. and its
wholly-owned subsidiaries. Necessity Retail Advisors, LLC manages
the company's day-to-day business with the assistance of the
company's property manager, Necessity Retail Properties, LLC. The
Advisor and the Property Manager are under common control with AR
Global Investments, LLC.


NECESSITY RETAIL: Faces Callaway Securities Suit Over Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Necessity Retail REIT, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that it is facing a putative
class action complaint in New York State Supreme court, New York
County filed in April 30, 2019 by Lynda Callaway, a purported
stockholder of the company.

The complaint asserted violations of Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended against the company's chief financial
officer at the time of the RCA Merger and each of the company's
directors immediately prior to the RCA Merger, violations of
Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act against the company and the
company's current chief executive officer, president and chair of
the board of directors, and control person liability against the
Advisor, AR Global and the former chairmen under Section 15 of the
Securities Act. The complaint sought unspecified damages and
rescission of the company's sale of stock pursuant to the
registration statement.

The Necessity Retail REIT, Inc. is an externally managed real
estate investment trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes
focusing on acquiring and managing a diversified portfolio of
primarily necessity-based retail single-tenant and multi-tenant
properties in the United States. As of June 30, 2023, the company
owned 991 properties, comprised of 27.3 million rentable square
feet, which were 92.7% leased, including 882 single-tenant
net-leased commercial properties.

Substantially all of the company's business is conducted through
The Necessity Retail REIT Operating Partnership, L.P. and its
wholly-owned subsidiaries. Necessity Retail Advisors, LLC manages
the company's day-to-day business with the assistance of the
company's property manager, Necessity Retail Properties, LLC. The
Advisor and the Property Manager are under common control with AR
Global Investments, LLC.


NEOVIA LOGISTICS: Ruelas Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jesus Ruelas, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. NEOVIA LOGISTICS SERVICES, LLC, was removed
from the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois, Chancery Division,
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on Aug. 7, 2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-05203.

The Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint asserts that he used
timekeeping technology to clock in and out from work in a manner
that violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act
("BIPA").[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Erin Bolan Hines, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          123 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1800
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 382-3100
          Email: ebolanhines@cozen.com


NEW MEXICO: Review of Injunction in Hatten-Gonzales Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DEBRA HATTEN-GONZALES, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. DAVID R.
SCRASE, Secretary of the New Mexico Human Services Department,
Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 22-2115 (10th Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismisses the States' appeal from
a district court order interpreting an injunction.

The interlocutory appeal stems from a long-running class action
suit challenging the State of New Mexico's administration of
federal social benefits programs. The State seeks review of a
district court order interpreting an injunction.

In 1988, Debra Hatten-Gonzales sued the Secretary of the New Mexico
Human Services Department under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 to challenge
how the State processed applications for the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program ("SNAP"), Medicaid, and other federal benefits.
The district court certified a class of benefits applicants. The
parties settled. The resulting consent decree specified how the
State must process applications. In 1998, the district court
modified the consent decree and adopted it as an injunction. In
2018, the court again modified the consent decree.

The current consent decree requires the State to follow federal
laws and guidelines regarding benefit application processing
timelines. It provides that a case file review is "necessary to
measure compliance and to verify that systemic or programmatic
barriers to proper application determinations and access to
benefits do not exist within the State's application processing
practices." The State must periodically permit a case file review
for benefits programs based on a statewide representative sample.

The State complies when the case file review reveals no "systematic
or programmatic barriers" to benefits access. The consent decree
defines "systemic or programmatic barrier" as a "policy or
prevalent practice implemented at one or more of the Income Support
Division offices that results in the failure to comply with federal
law in the SNAP and/or Medicaid program and is not due to an
isolated event or action."

On July 25, 2022, the special master who had been appointed to
administer the consent decree submitted a report to the district
court recommending case file review procedures. His report
recommended that the case file review cover 288 randomly sampled
cases submitted between March and August 2022, including
applications that were submitted based on federal government
waivers to certain application requirements that were granted due
to the pandemic. By contrast, the special master also recommended
that the case review sample exclude certain Disaster SNAP
applications related to New Mexico wildfires.

The district court adopted the special master's recommendation. It
rejected the State's objection that because pandemic-related
federally approved waivers and special circumstances are isolated
events and actions under the decree, cases subject to
pandemic-related waivers should not be included in the sample
universe. Hence, it overrules the objection.

The State appealed under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(a)(1), seeking
review of an interlocutory order modifying an injunction. It then
moved in district court to stay proceedings there during the
appeal. Granting the motion in part and denying it in part, the
court certified the appeal was frivolous as to any matter unrelated
to the case review. The State next moved the district court to
dismiss for lack of Article III jurisdiction, arguing that a viable
class no longer exists. That issue is pending in the district
court.

The State challenges the district court's rejection of its argument
that the federal pandemic waivers constituted an "isolated event or
action" warranting exclusion of pandemic-waiver cases from the case
file review.

The Tenth Circuit rejects this challenge. It says the State has
failed to show the Tenth Circuit has Section 1292(a)(1)
jurisdiction.

The district court did not expand or modify the injunction. Its
determination that the federal pandemic waivers were not an
"isolated event or action" was a reasonable interpretation of the
consent decree. The court did not alter the status of the parties,
but merely restated their relationship in new terms. It t did not
change the consent decree's compliance mandates, enforcement
mechanisms, or otherwise alter the command of the earlier
injunction, relax its prohibitions, or release any respondent from
its grip.

Because it lacks interlocutory jurisdiction under Section
1292(a)(1) to review the district court's order, the Tenth Circuit
dismisses the appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 1, 2023 Order & Judgment is
available at https://tinyurl.com/27p3e6uk from Leagle.com.


NEW YORK, NY: Bowser Files Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The City of New York,
et al. The case is styled as Geoffrey Bowser, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. The City of New York,
Dermot F. Shea, Keechant Sewell, Edward A Caban, Case No.
1:23-cv-06183 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for the Civil
Rights Act.

New York -- https://www.nyc.gov/ -- often called New York City or
NYC, is the most populous city in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
          KLAFTER LESSER LLP
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Phone: (914) 934-9200
          Fax: (914) 934-9220
          Email: seth@klafterlesser.com


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

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

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

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

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

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

NEXTCURE INC: Ye Zhou Suit over IPO Dismissed
---------------------------------------------
NextCure, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2023, that in July 13, 2023, judgement on
behalf of company and the other named defendants was entered, and
the case for "Ye Zhou v. NextCure, Inc., et. al.," (Case
1:20-cv-0772, September 21, 2020) was closed by the court.

Said putative stockholder class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York. On February
26, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint
that asserts claims against the company, certain of its officers
and members of the board of directors, and the underwriters in its
May 2019 initial public offering and November 2019 underwritten
secondary public offering. The complaint alleges that the
defendants violated provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and the Securities Act of 1933 with respect to statements made
regarding the company's "NC318" product candidate and the "FIND-IO"
platform. The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of its securities between May 8, 2019
and July 14, 2020.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on April 27, 2021, and on July 12, 2023 the court issued
a memorandum opinion and order granting defendants' motion to
dismiss against all counts of the consolidated amended complaint.

NextCure, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company
committed to discovering and developing novel, first-in-class
immunomedicines to treat cancer and other immune-related diseases
by restoring normal immune function through its proprietary
Functional, Integrated, NextCure Discovery in Immuno-Oncology
(FIND-IO) platform. It studies various immune cells in order to
discover and understand targets and structural components of immune
cells and their functional impact in order to develop
immune-medicines.


NEXTCURE INC: Zach Liu Shareholder Suit Stayed
----------------------------------------------
NextCure, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2023, that in May 17, 2021, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland, Southern Division,
granted the parties' joint motion to stay a purported shareholder
derivative lawsuit styled "Zach Liu v. Richman et. al.,
Case:21-cv-00754" pending resolution of the defendants' motion to
dismiss.

Said suit was filed in March 24, 2021 alleging breaches of
fiduciary duty by officers and/or directors, unjust enrichment,
abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets,
and violations of the Exchange Act and the Securities Act. The
complaint seeks unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and costs,
declaratory relief, corporate governance changes, and restitution.

On August 1, 2023, company filed a notice with the court in the Liu
Action advising of the result of the motion to dismiss.

NextCure, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company
committed to discovering and developing novel, first-in-class
immunomedicines to treat cancer and other immune-related diseases
by restoring normal immune function through its proprietary
Functional, Integrated, NextCure Discovery in Immuno-Oncology
(FIND-IO) platform. It studies various immune cells in order to
discover and understand targets and structural components of immune
cells and their functional impact in order to develop
immune-medicines.


NOVEL KITCHENS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hetnarine Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
GAINDALALL GARY HETNARINE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NOVEL KITCHENS, INC. (D/B/A NOVEL
KITCHENS); and LOUIS DAVERSA, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-06012
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 9, 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 Hetnarine was employed by the Defendants as a carpentry
worker.

NOVEL KITCHENS, INC. owns and operates a custom cabinet and closet
store, located at Jamaica, Queens 11435, under the name "Novel
Kitchens." [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NUMI INC: Morgan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Numi, Inc. P.B.C. The
case is styled as Paradise Morgan, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Numi,
Inc. P.B.C., Case No. 1:23-cv-06936 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 7, 2023).

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

Numi Organic Tea -- https://numitea.com/ -- is a premium, Fair
Trade sustainable company; specializing in unique and innovative
blends of green, black, white, oolong teas, pu-erh, and herbal teas
such as Honeybush and Rooibo.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


ONE WORLD CPG: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against One World CPG, LLC.
The case is styled as Nadreca Reid, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. One
World CPG, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-07006 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 9, 2023).

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

One World CPG is located in Solana Beach, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


ONEW COMPANY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hines Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
DANIELLE HINES; KELSIE NOEL; and KAYLEIGH SAWYER, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ONEW
COMPANY, LLC; ONEW COMPANY TN, LLC; ONEW COMPANY AL, LLC; ONEW
COMPANY, LA, LLC; ONEW COMPANY FL, LLC; ONEW COMPANY NC, LLC; ONEW
COMPANY SC, LLC; ONEW COMPANY VA, LLC; ONEW COMPANY MD, LLC; and
KEVIN G, JANG, Case No. 2:23-cv-02491 (W.D. Tenn., Aug. 9, 2023)
seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as sales
associates.

ONEW COMPANY, LLC owns and operates clothing stores located in
Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Maryland, Virginia, North
Carolina, South Carolina, and Louisiana. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          James L. Holt, Jr., Esq.
          J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT
          OWEN & BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
                 rbryant@jsyc.com
                 jholt@jsyc.com
                 jleatherwood@jsyc.com

PATIENT LIFT USA: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Patient Lift USA,
LLC. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Patient Lift USA, LLC,
Case No. 1:23-cv-07043-JPC (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 9, 2023).

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

Patient Lift USA, LLC -- https://www.patientliftusa.com/ -- offers
durable medical equipment & medical supplies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18th St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: nyjg@aol.com
                 michael@gottlieb.legal


PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses Kang Suit with Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------
PayPal Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2023, that on April 27, 2023, the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California granted the
motion of the defendants to dismiss the case captioned "Kang v.
PayPal Holdings, Inc., et al.," Case No. 21-cv-06468 (August 20,
2021) in its entirety with prejudice.

Said putative securities class action asserts claims relating to
the company's disclosure of a Civil Investigative Demands (CIDs)
from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) related to the
marketing and use of PayPal Credit in connection with certain
merchants that provide educational services and the SEC Debit Card
Program Matter in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021. The Kang Securities Action
purports to be brought on behalf of purchasers of the company's
stock between February 9, 2017 and July 28, 2021 and asserts claims
for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 against the company, its Chief Executive
Officer, and former Chief Financial Officer.

The complaint alleges that certain public statements made by the
company during the Class Period were rendered materially false and
misleading (which, allegedly, caused the company's stock to trade
at artificially inflated prices) by the defendants' failure to
disclose that, among other things, PayPal's business practices with
respect to PayPal Credit and regarding interchange rates paid to
its bank partner related to its bank-issued co-branded debit cards
were non-compliant with applicable laws and/or regulations.

The Kang Securities Action seeks unspecified compensatory damages
on behalf of the putative class members. On November 2, 2021, the
court appointed a Lead Plaintiff, and on January 25, 2022, the Lead
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint alleges
a class period between April 27, 2016 and July 28, 2021 and in
addition to the company, its Chief Executive Officer, and former
Chief Financial Officer, also names other Company executives as
defendants. The amended complaint alleges that various statements
made by the defendants during the Amended Class Period were
rendered materially false and misleading, in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by PayPal's
alleged violations of the 2015 consent order with the CFPB, federal
consumer financial laws, and Regulation II.

On August 8, 2022, the court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss
the amended complaint in its entirety, and granted Lead Plaintiff's
request for leave to file a further amended complaint. On September
16, 2022, Lead Plaintiff filed a second amended action, which
asserts the same claims against the same Defendants based on the
same alleged conduct as the prior complaint. Defendants moved to
dismiss it on November 3, 2022.

On April 27, 2023, the Court granted Defendants' motion and
dismissed it in its entirety with prejudice. Plaintiffs' deadline
to file an appeal has passed and the matter is now closed.

PayPal Holdings, Inc. is a technology platform that enables digital
payments and simplifies commerce experiences on behalf of merchants
and consumers worldwide.


PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Trucker Fund Hits Stock Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------
PayPal Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2023, that in October 4, 2022, a putative
securities class action captioned "Defined Benefit Plan of the
Mid-Jersey Trucking Industry and Teamsters Local 701 Pension and
Annuity Fund v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., et al.," Case No.
22-cv-5864, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey.

On January 11, 2023, the Court appointed Caisse de depot et
placement du Quebec as lead plaintiff and renamed the action "In re
PayPal Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation." On March 13, 2023,
the lead plaintiff filed an amended and consolidated complaint.
Said action asserts claims relating to its public statements with
respect to net new active accounts results and guidance, and the
detection of illegitimately created accounts. It was be brought on
behalf of purchasers of the company's stock between February 3,
2021 and February 1, 2022 and asserts claims for alleged violations
of Sections 10(b) of the Exchange Act against the company, as well
as its Chief Executive Officer, Chief Strategy, Growth and Data
Officer, and former Chief Financial Officer for alleged violations
of Sections 20(a) and 20A of the Exchange Act.

The complaint alleges that certain public statements made by
defendants during the class period were rendered materially false
and misleading (which, allegedly, caused the company's stock to
trade at artificially inflated prices) by the defendants' failure
to disclose that, among other things, the company's incentive
campaigns were susceptible to fraud and led to the creation of
illegitimate accounts.

PayPal Holdings, Inc. is a technology platform that enables digital
payments and simplifies commerce experiences on behalf of merchants
and consumers worldwide.


PBF ENERGY: Faces Goldstein Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------
PBF Energy Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2023, that it is facing a class suit
captioned "Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et
al.," filed on February 17, 2017

PBF Energy and PBF LLC, and its subsidiaries, PBF Western Region
LLC and Torrance Refining Company LLC and the manager of its
Torrance refinery along with ExxonMobil were named as defendants in
the class action and representative action complaint filed on
behalf of Arnold Goldstein, John Covas, Gisela Janette La Bella and
others similarly situated. The complaint was filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles and alleges
negligence, strict liability, ultra-hazardous activity, a
continuing private nuisance, a permanent private nuisance, a
continuing public nuisance, a permanent public nuisance and
trespass resulting from the February 18, 2015 electrostatic
precipitator (ESP) explosion at the Torrance refinery which was
then owned and operated by ExxonMobil.

The operation of the Torrance refinery by the PBF entities
subsequent to the company's acquisition in July 2016 is also
referenced in the complaint. To the extent that plaintiffs' claims
relate to the ESP explosion, ExxonMobil retained responsibility for
any liabilities that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the
agreement relating to the acquisition of the Torrance refinery. On
July 2, 2018, the court granted leave to plaintiffs to file a
Second Amended Complaint alleging groundwater contamination. With
the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, plaintiffs added an
additional plaintiff, Hany Youssef.

On October 15, 2019, the judge granted certification to two limited
classes of property owners with Youssef as the sole class
representative and named plaintiff, rejecting two other proposed
subclasses based on negligence and on strict liability for
ultrahazardous activities. The certified subclasses relate to
trespass claims for ground contamination and nuisance for air
emissions. On February 5, 2021, the company's motion for Limited
Extension of Discovery Cut-Off and a Motion by plaintiffs for Leave
to File Third Amended Complaint were heard by the Court.

On May 5, 2021, the court granted plaintiffs leave to amend their
complaint for the third time to substitute Navarro for Youssef. On
May 12, 2021, plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint (TAC)
that contained significant changes and new claims, including
individual claims, that were not included in the motion for leave
to amend plaintiffs presented to the court.

On June 9, 2021, the filed a Motion to Dismiss/Strike the TAC. On
June 23, 2021, plaintiffs filed their opposition to the company's
Motion to Dismiss/Strike, to which it filed a reply on July 2,
2021. A hearing on the Motion to Dismiss/Strike the TAC was held on
August 2, 2021 and the court ordered that the TAC be struck and
that the parties meet and confer with respect to the complaint.
After meeting and conferring, plaintiffs agreed to submit a
corrected TAC with changes reflecting the removal of Youssef and
the substitution of Navarro as the named Plaintiff. On August 23,
2021, the court approved the parties' stipulation to take Navarro's
deposition on September 23, 2021. Also, on August 23, 2021, the
court approved the parties’ stipulation to continue the pretrial
dates with the new deadlines.

On October 8, 2021, plaintiffs filed their Motion to Appoint
Navarro as Class Representative. On October 29, 2021, the company
filed its opposition to this motion. On November 15, 2021,
plaintiffs filed their reply. On February 8, 2022, the court held a
hearing on plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Navarro as Class
Representative but did not act on the motion. Instead, the Court
ordered the parties to submit draft orders for the court's
consideration. After considering the parties' proposed orders, on
July 5, 2022, the court issued a final order ruling that the
plaintiffs' Motion to Substitute Navarro as Class Representative
was denied and decertifying both of plaintiffs' proposed Air and
Ground Subclasses. The order provided that the case will proceed
with Navarro as the sole plaintiff and required the parties to meet
and confer and propose a schedule for the remaining pretrial dates
and a trial date.

On July 19, 2022, plaintiffs filed a petition with the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals seeking permission to appeal the District
Court's decertification order finding that Navarro is an inadequate
class representative. The company's answer to the petition was
filed on July 29, 2022. On September 22, 2022, the Ninth Circuit
issued an order denying plaintiffs' petition for permission to file
an interlocutory appeal, confirming that the case will proceed with
Navarro as the sole plaintiff. On September 27, 2022, the Plaintiff
filed a schedule of pretrial and trial dates with a trial date of
July 18, 2023, which was approved by the Court.

On January 13, 2023, the defendants filed a motion for judgment on
the pleadings. On January 23, 2023, the Plaintiff filed its
opposition to the defendants' motion. Its reply to plaintiff's
opposition was filed on January 30, 2023. Defendants' motion was
scheduled to be heard by the court on February 13, 2023. On
February 27, 2023, the court issued an order granting the company's
motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed plaintiff's
trespass claim with prejudice and granted plaintiff leave to amend
his nuisance claims in conformity with the order if he can do so
consistent with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures.
On March 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Fourth Amended Complaint (FAC)
relating to the remaining nuisance claims.

On April 7, 2023, the company responded to the FAC by filing a
motion to dismiss for plaintiff's failure to establish standing to
bring the nuisance claims. On April 17, 2023, plaintiff filed its
opposition to the motion. On April 24, 2023, the company filed its
reply to the plaintiff's opposition. A hearing on the company's
motion was scheduled for May 8, 2023 but, on May 2, 2023, the court
took the hearing on the motion off calendar. On May 23, 2023, the
court denied the company's motion. Currently, the parties are
engaged in discovery and trial is scheduled for January 16, 2024.

PBF Energy Inc. is the sole managing member of PBF Energy Company
LLC, with a controlling interest in PBF LLC and its subsidiaries.
PBF LLC, together with its consolidated subsidiaries, owns and
operates oil refineries and related facilities in North America.
PBF LLC, together with its subsidiaries, owns an interest in an
equity method investment that owns and operates a biorefinery
co-located with the Chalmette refinery in Louisiana.


PEDDLE LLC: Miller Files Suit in M.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PEDDLE, LLC. The case
is styled as Frederick Miller, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PEDDLE, LLC, Case No.
3:23-cv-00095-TES (M.D. Ga., Aug. 16, 2023).

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

Peddle -- https://www.peddle.com/ -- is a car buying service that
makes instant offers on vehicles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brent M Kaufman, Esq.
          32 Ann St.
          Charleston, SC 29403
          Phone: (843) 222-2222
          Email: brent.kaufman@poulinwilley.com


PENINSULA HEALTH: Court Orders Payment of Bolton Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andi Yu, Lexie Jeuniewic, and Ruth Brook of News report that a
Melbourne hospital could be forced to pay more than 1500 junior
doctors for overtime following an historic class action win over
wage theft.

A Federal Court judge has found Peninsula Health breached the Fair
Work Act in underpaying its junior doctors between 2015 and 2021.

The lead applicant in the class action, Dr Gaby Bolton, will be
paid $8,345 for overtime worked in 2019 and 2020 at Frankston
Hospital when she was a trainee doctor.

The remaining junior doctors are yet to have their individual
claims, ranging between $5,000 and $50,000, assessed.

Dr Bolton, now an anaesthetic registrar at a different hospital,
started her career at Frankston Hospital in Melbourne's south-east
and said she agreed to put her name to the lawsuit because junior
doctors needed to be recognised for their work.

"This was never about the money," the 29-year-old told the ABC.

"No one will get any kind of life-changing amount of money out of
this."

Dr Bolton said fair pay and adequate staffing would make patients
and junior doctors safer.

"The general public would be quite horrified to know the little
amount of sleep that a lot of the junior doctors are running on,"
she said.

Before she went into medicine, Dr Bolton knew overtime was part of
being a doctor, and like many trainees initially did not want to
make a fuss by complaining.

"Us junior doctors just put our head down and do the work because
at the end of the day we do it for our patients," she said.

She was approached by lawyers for Australian Salaried Medical
Officers' Federation to put her name to the class action and
agreed.

Court case centred on how overtime was authorised

The central issue in Gaby Bolton's case against Peninsula Health,
launched in 2021 and finalised on August 11, 2023 in Justice
Mordecai Bromberg's judgement, was over how she received permission
to work overtime.

Peninsula Health argued that for doctors to be paid overtime, they
had to be expressly authorised by a superior, whereas Dr Bolton
argued that the need to work overtime was implied because of the
tasks she was expected to complete before leaving work.

Dr Bolton gave evidence she was expected to start her shift before
the rostered time because she had to prepare patient lists for a
meeting, which she could only do by coming in early. She often
stayed at work past her finish time to complete ward rounds or
medical records.

She gave evidence that the method of claiming overtime -- via phone
to her superior -- was difficult.

"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, and why couldn't you
just wait to do it the next day," Dr Bolton told the court.

Such a phone call "may have made her look like a lazy and
inefficient doctor", she told the court.

Dr Bolton's landmark win to impact thousands of other junior
doctors
AMA Victoria president Jill Tomlinson said the Federal Court
judgement was "historic".

"It really is a turning point for us in our campaign to end
excessive and dangerous working hours for junior doctors," she
said.

"If they're working excessive hours these junior doctors are much
more likely to make mistakes."

Dr Tomlinson said the AMA was calling on the state government to
strengthen the healthcare system by creating safe working
conditions for junior doctors.

Class action lawyers say the ruling in Dr Bolton's favour paves the
way for the success of other class actions currently in progress
against other Victorian health services, which could result in
25,000 junior doctors receiving an average of $10,000 each, or
about $250 million of unpaid wages in total.

Lawyer Hayden Stephens said there had been a long-running campaign
to stop excessive, dangerous overtime.

He praised Dr Bolton for standing up to her former employer.

"She's shown great courage in taking on Peninsula Health," Mr
Stephens said.

Gordon Legal partner Andrew Grech, who is also acting the class
action, said Justice Mordecai Bromberg's decision would "likely
govern the rights and entitlements of thousands of junior
doctors".

He called on the Victorian government to intervene.

"You can't trust the CEOs of the health services to honour the
spirit of the wage theft legislation," Mr Grech said.

"It's time to stop stealing the wages of junior doctors and start
treating them with the respect they deserve."

A state government spokesperson said the government takes its
health workforce seriously and "wage theft is not tolerated in
Victoria".

"The Department of Health and Peninsula Health are carefully
considering the decision handed down on August 11, 2023 afternoon
and we are not in a position to make any further comment at this
point," the spokesperson said.

Other health services subject to class actions over unpaid overtime
to junior doctors are Monash Health, Latrobe Regional Hospital and
Bairnsdale Regional, Western Health, Eastern Health and the Royal
Womens', Alfred Health and St Vincent's Hospital, Northern Health,
Bendigo Health and Melbourne Health and Northeast Health
Wangaratta. [GN]

PENSION BENEFIT: Taylor Sues Over Failure to Secure Customers' Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE TAYLOR and TIMOTHY SIDES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PENSION BENEFIT
INFORMATION, LLC and THE BERWYN GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No.
5:23-cv-01617-FLA-SHK (C.D. Cal., August 10, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence, breach of implied
contract, and violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act,
the Customer Records Act, the California Right to Privacy, and the
Unfair Competition Law.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiffs
and similarly situated customers stored within their network
systems following a data breach. The Defendants also failed to
timely notify the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals
about the data breach. As a result, the PII of the Plaintiffs and
Class members were compromised and damaged through access by and
disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the
suit.

Pension Benefit Information, LLC is a provider of pension plan
management services, with its principal place of business located
at 333 South Seventh Street, Suite 2400, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

The Berwyn Group, Inc. is a provider of pension plan management
services, with its principal place of business located at 2 Summit
Park Drive, Suite 610, in Independence, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
         Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
         Laura E. Goolsby, Esq.
         CAPSTONE LAW APC
         1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (310) 556-4811
         Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
         E-mail: Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
                 Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
                 Laura.Goolsby@capstonelawyers.com

PENSKE TRUCK: Cabral TCPA Suit Transferred to M.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Sergio Cabral, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Penske Truck Leasing Co., L.P., Case
No. 3:23-cv-00162 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 9, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-01316-JPW to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Penske Truck Leasing Co., L.P. --
https://www.pensketruckleasing.com/ -- operates a truck rental and
leasing company. The Company offers complete fleet management
services, including full service leasing, logistics, truck rentals,
used trucks for sale, and fleet services for utility & transit
companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Raslavich, Esq.
          Morgan Ashlee Dean, Esq.
          KUHN RASLAVICH, P.A.
          2110 West Platt Street
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Phone: (813) 422-7782
          Email: ben@thekrfirm.com
                 morgan@thekrfirm.com

               - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Monhait, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          One Liberty Place
          1650 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 665-2084
          Email: jmonhait@cozen.com


PERFORMANCE HEALTH: Malo Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI
--------------------------------------------------------------
Katelin Malo, individually, and as natural parent and next friend
of A.M., a minor, Corrinna Reed, and Joann Kindred, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PERFORMANCE
HEALTH TECHNOLOGY, LTD., Case No. 6:23-cv-01149-MC (D. Ore., Aug.
7, 2023), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to
properly secure Plaintiffs' and Class Members' personally
identifiable information ("PII") and personal health information
("PHI"). The PII and PHI may have included victims' names, dates of
birth, Social Security numbers, contact information, health
insurance information, email addresses, diagnostic and procedure
codes, and claim and billing information.

PH Tech failed to comply with industry standards to protect
information systems that contain PII and PHI. Plaintiffs seek,
among other things, orders requiring PH Tech to fully and
accurately disclose the nature of the information that has been
compromised and to adopt sufficient security practices and
safeguards to prevent incidents like the disclosure (the "Data
Breach") in the future.

PH Tech uses MOVEit Transfer ("MOVEit") to exchange files and data
between servers, systems, and applications. PH Tech claims that, on
May 30, 2023, "attackers gained access to [Plaintiffs' and Class
Members'] personal information stored on a PH TECH server" via a
flaw in the MOVEit software. PH Tech did not discover the until
June 2, 2023.

On June 16, 2023, PH Tech determined that PII and PHI it received
from Health Share of Oregon was breached in the attack. But PH Tech
did not disclose that its servers were affected until August 2,
2023, when it reported having sent out notification letters to
people whose PII and PHI beginning on July 31, 2023. Plaintiffs
received such letters, all dated July 27, 2023.

As a vendor providing electronic health record and cloud-based
storage services to customers that collect and store PHI, PH Tech
knowingly obtains sensitive PII and PHI and has a resulting duty to
securely maintain that information in confidence. Plaintiffs and
Class Members would not have provided their PII and PHI to PH Tech
customers if they had known that PH Tech would not ensure that it
used adequate security measures.

The Plaintiffs seek to remedy these harms individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated individuals whose PII and/or
PHI were stolen in the Data Breach. The Plaintiffs seek remedies
including compensation for time spent responding to the Data Breach
and other types of harm, free credit monitoring and identity theft
insurance, and injunctive relief including substantial improvements
to PH Tech's data security policies and practices, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs were insured by Health Share of Oregon and received
letters from PH Tech dated July 27, 2023.

PH Tech describes itself as a "company that works with health care
plans, helping with things like customer service, enrollment, and
payment services."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin A. Schwartzman, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          950 West Bannock Street, Suite 940
          Boise, ID 83702
          Phone: (208) 342-4411
          Facsimile: (208) 342-4455
          Email: bschwartzman@baileyglasser.com


PIT BULL PRODUCTS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pit Bull Products,
Inc. The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Pit Bull Products, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-07032-AT (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 9, 2023).

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

Pit Bull -- https://www.pit-bull.com/ -- produces unbeatable
quality motorcycle stands and trailer restraint systems on the
market for sport bikes, dirt bikes, or cruisers.[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


PLAYAGS INC: Shareholder Suit in Nevada Stayed Pending Pleads
-------------------------------------------------------------
PlayAGS, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2023, that in March 23, 2023, the United
States District Court for the District of Nevada decided the motion
to temporarily stay discovery of a consolidated shareholder case in
favor of the defendants, holding that all discovery is stayed
pending resolution of the motion for judgment on the pleadings.

In June 25, and July 31, 2020 putative class action lawsuits were
filed in said court, by two separate plaintiffs against PlayAGS,
Inc. and certain of its officers, individually and on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Company securities
between August 2, 2018 and August 7, 2019. It alleged that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements
concerning the company's forward-looking financial outlook and
accounting for goodwill and intangible assets in its iGaming
reporting unit, resulting in injury to the purported class members
when the value of the company's common stock declined following its
release of its Second Quarter 2019 results on August 7, 2019.

In August 4, 2020, a third plaintiff, "OPPRS," filed a putative
class action lawsuit in the same court asserting similar claims to
those alleged in the first two class action complaints, based on
substantially the same conduct, on behalf of a slightly larger
class stretching back to May 3, 2018. Specifically, OPPRS claimed
that the company, certain of its officers, and certain entities
that allegedly beneficially held over 50% of the company's common
stock at the beginning of the class period, violated the Exchange
Act by allegedly making false and misleading statements concerning
the company's forward-looking financial outlook and accounting for
goodwill and intangible assets in its iGaming reporting unit, and
the adequacy of its internal controls over financial reporting,
resulting in injury to the purported class when its common stock
price declined following the release of its Second Quarter 2019
results.

In addition, based on substantially similar alleged false or
misleading statements, OPPRS asserted claims under Sections 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, on behalf of all
persons who purchased company common stock pursuant and/or
traceable to its August 2018 and March 2019 secondary public
offerings. These secondary-offering claims were brought against the
same defendants identified above, plus certain of the company's
directors and the underwriters.

In October 28, 2020, the court consolidated these three related
putative class actions into "In re PlayAGS, Inc. Securities
Litigation" and appointed OPPRS as lead plaintiff. On January 11,
2021, the lead plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint in the
consolidated action against the same set of defendants, again
asserting claims under the Exchange Act, with an even larger
putative class period, May 3, 2018 through March 4, 2020, and under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act on behalf of the
same putative class as in OPPRS's previous complaint. The Amended
Complaint alleges that statements the defendants made about, among
other things, the company's growth, financial performance, and
forward-looking financial outlook were materially false or
misleading because the company omitted to state that, according to
plaintiffs, its market strength was declining, its growth
strategies were unsustainable, and it was experiencing challenges
in the Oklahoma market. Plaintiffs claim that the purported class
was injured when the common stock price declined after it was
revealed following release of the company's financial reports on
August 7, 2019, November 7, 2019, and March 4, 2020. Plaintiffs
also assert that the company violated Regulation S-K Items 303 and
105 by failing to disclose these same alleged negative trends and
significant risks in the registration materials for the company's
secondary offerings. Unlike the previous complaints, the Amended
Complaint does not allege false or misleading statements concerning
the company's accounting for the iGaming reporting unit or the
adequacy of the company's internal controls over financial
reporting.

In February 23, 2021, the court granted the lead plaintiff's
unopposed motion to file a Second Amended Complaint. The Second
Amended Complaint was filed on March 25, 2021 and asserts
substantially the same claims as the Amended Complaint but extends
the beginning of the putative class period back to January 26,
2018. On May 24, 2021, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
second amended complaint, and on December 2, 2022, the court
granted in part and denied in part those motions. It dismissed each
of the five claims in the second amended complaint—including all
claims under the Securities Act—but the court carved out from the
dismissal a "scheme liability" claim under Section 10(b), brought
only against the company, David Lopez, and Kimo Akiona, which the
court felt was insufficiently briefed. The lead plaintiff was
granted leave to file a further amended complaint but chose not to,
and instead seeks to move forward on the sole remaining scheme
liability claim.

In January 17, 2023, the company, Mr. Lopez, and Mr. Akiona filed
an answer to the remaining claim, along with a motion to
temporarily stay discovery and a motion for judgment on the
pleadings, arguing that the legal findings contained in the court's
December 2, 2022 decision require dismissal of the scheme liability
claim as well and termination of the action. Those motions were
fully briefed as of March 22, 2023.

PlayAGS, Inc. is a designer and supplier of gaming products and
services for the gaming industry.


POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Must Explain Why Berlanga Should Not Be Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Francisco Berlanga, Plaintiff v. Polaris Industries
Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00949-KJM-DMC (E.D.
Cal.), Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California orders the parties to address why
this action should not be stayed pending resolution of the pending
motion for class certification in Guzman case.

In 2019, Paul Guzman filed a complaint against Polaris in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California -- Guzman v.
Polaris Indus. Inc., No. 18-1543 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2019). He
alleged Polaris had misrepresented the strength of the "rollover
protective systems" on its utility terrain vehicles. According to a
label attached to the vehicles, the protective systems met "OSHA
requirements of 29 CFR Section 1925.53." Guzman alleged this was
false; the protective systems were actually much weaker. He alleged
the misrepresentation violated state law, and he asked the court to
certify a class of similarly situated buyers. After amendments to
the complaint, the parties filed and briefed motions to certify a
class and for summary judgment. The district court granted summary
judgment to Polaris and denied the motion to certify a class as
moot.

Six days later, Guzman filed an appeal. Five days after that, the
attorneys who represented Guzman filed the complaint in this case,
which asserts claims by several other Polaris customers, including
Francisco Berlanga. Like Guzman, they allege the stickers on
Polaris' vehicles overstated their safety, and like Guzman, they
asked to pursue claims on behalf of other Polaris customers in a
class action.

The second case moved forward while Guzman's appeal was pending. In
2022, the Ninth Circuit reversed the Central District court's order
granting summary judgment and remanded. This meant Guzman's motion
for class certification was no longer moot. As a result, two nearly
identical motions for class certification are now pending in both
this case and in Guzman. The proposed class definitions differ only
in the dates they use to define who is a member. According to
Polaris, Guzman is a member of the proposed class in this action,
and Berlanga is a member of the proposed class in Guzman.

Judge Mueller finds that this action and Guzman involve overlapping
proposed classes, similar allegations, and similar legal claims.
Although the actions are not duplicative -- the proposed classes do
not overlap completely -- the pending motions for class
certification in both cases will require the Court and the Central
District court to resolve nearly identical disputes based on the
same law and, in many instances, identical evidence and arguments.
For two courts to move forward simultaneously with both pending
motions for class certification risks not only a significant
duplication of effort but also inconsistent and potentially
conflicting resolutions.

For these reasons, Judge Mueller orders that at the upcoming
hearing before the Court, the parties will be prepared to address
why this action should not be stayed pending resolution of the
pending motion for class certification in Guzman, or in the
alternative whether a dismissal, transfer or stay of a broader
scale would be appropriate.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 1, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y82a744d from Leagle.com.


POLLOS MARIO: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gaspar Lopez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. POLLOS MARIO 86 CORP. (D/B/A POLLOS MARIO COLOMBIAN
RESTAURANT AND BAKERY), HERNAN VALENCIA, JUAN CARLOS LONDONO, and
HECTOR LONDONO, Case No. 1:23-cv-06154 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 15, 2023),
is brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of
the N.Y. Labor Law (the "NYLL"), and the "spread of hours" and
overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor (herein
the "Spread of Hours Wage Order"), including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiff Lopez worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, Defendants
failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and
failed to pay Plaintiff Lopez appropriately for any hours worked,
either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime
premium. Further, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Lopez the
required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work
over 10 hours a day. The Defendants' conduct extended beyond
Plaintiff Lopez to all other similarly situated employees. The
Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff
Lopez and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week
without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation
required by federal and state law and regulations, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was primarily employed as a delivery worker.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a Colombian restaurant and
bakery, located in Queens, New York under the name "Pollos Mario
Colombian Restaurant and Bakery."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PORSCHE CARS: Turner Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as William M. Turner, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc.,
DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV15246 was removed from
the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on Aug. 8, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-06465 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (PCNA) -- http://www.porsche.com/
-- based in Atlanta, Georgia, is the exclusive importer of Porsche
vehicles for the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants is represented by:

          Jahmy Stanford Graham, Esq.
          NELSON MULLINS RILEY AND SCARBOROUGH LLP
          19191 South Vermont Avenue Suite 900
          Torrance, CA 90502
          Phone: (424) 221-7400
          Fax: (424) 221-7499
          Email: jahmy.graham@nelsonmullins.com


PREMIUM RETAIL: Gay Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Geroska Gay, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. PREMIUM RETAIL SERVICES, INC., an entity of
unknown form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. C23-01599
was removed from the Superior Court for the County of Contra Costa,
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on Aug. 7, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-03963.

The Complaint asserts class action claims for: failure to pay
minimum wages; failure to pay wages and overtime under Labor Code;
meal period liability under Labor Code; rest break liability under
Labor Code; failure to pay vacation wages; failure to comply with
Labor Code; reimbursement of necessary expenditures under Labor
Code; failure to comply with Labor Code; violation of Labor Code;
violation of Labor Code; failure to keep required payroll records
under Labor Code; penalties pursuant to Labor Code; violation of
Business and Professions.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Linda Claxton, Esq.
          Samuel Knecht, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
          Contra Costa, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-239-9800
          Facsimile: 213-239-9045
          Email: linda.claxton@ogletree.com
                 samuel.knecht@ogletree.com


PRINT SYNDICATE: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Print Syndicate, Inc.
The case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Print Syndicate, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-07277 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2023).

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

Print Syndicate -- https://www.printsyndicate.com/ -- offers its
consumers access to timely, curated, and well-designed products
that allow them to express who they are.[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


PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED: Roberts Files Suit in N.D. Ohio
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progressive Preferred
Insurance Company, et al. The case is styled as Nathan Roberts,
Freedom Truck Dispatch LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company,
Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, Circular Board LLC, Case
No. 1:23-cv-01597-PAG (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 16, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

Progressive Preferred Insurance Company --
https://www.progressive.com/ -- provides insurances services. The
Company offers homeowners insurance, workmen's compensation
coverage, automotive insurance, and property and casualty
re-insurance services to individuals and businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Julie E. Byrne, Esq.
          Joseph P. Ashbrook, Esq.
          ASHBROOK BYRNE KRESGE - CINCINNATI
          P.O. Box 8248
          Cincinnati, OH 45249
          Phone: (513) 827-1776
          Email: jebyrne@ashbrookbk.com
                 jpashbrook@ashbrookbk.com


RELIANT AUTO BODY: Ortiz Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Ortiz, and other similarly situated aggrieved employees v.
RELIANT AUTO BODY REPAIR; MARK KIM; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive,
Case No. 23STCV18902 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 9,
2023), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the
California Labor Code as a result of the Defendants' failure to
compensate for all hours worked; failure to pay minimum wages;
failure to pay overtime; failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements; failure to pay wages when employment ends; failure to
pay wages owed every pay period; failure to give rest breaks;
failure to give meal breaks; failure to reimburse business
expenses; failure to provide personnel file; failure to provide pay
records; harassment based on sexual orientation; failure to prevent
harassment; retaliation; wrongful constructive discharge in
violation of the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") and the
Business and Professions Code.

Reliant Auto violated Labor Code it is unlawful for any person or
employer to willfully misclassify an individual as an independent
contractor. Reliant Auto also violated Labor Code because it failed
to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved employees
overtime, even though they worked more than 8 18 hours per day, 12
hours per day, and/or 40 hours per week throughout their
employment, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff started working for the Defendant on May 2022 as some
type of a manager, but the Plaintiff was a jack of all trades.

Reliant Auto's core business is providing auto repair work.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harout Messrelian, Esq.
          MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
          500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Phone: (818) 484-6531
          Facsimile: (818) 956-1983


RENT-A-CAR COMPANY: Bell Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
-------------------------------------------------------
Shania Bell, on behalf of the general public as private attorney
general v. RENT-A-CAR COMPANY OF LOS ANGELES, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No.
23STCV18793 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 8, 2023), is
brought pursuant for recovery of penalties under the Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") and to recover civil
penalties and address an employer's violations of the California
Labor Code as a result of unpaid compensations.

In this case, the Defendant violated various provisions of the
California Labor Code. The Defendant implemented policies and
practices which led to unpaid wages resulting from Defendant's:
failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide meal
periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay all wages
earned and owed upon separation from Defendant's employ, failure to
pay wages timely during employment, failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements, failure to provide suitable seating,
failure to pay vested vacation pay, and unlawful deduction of
wages, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant during August 2021 as a
Non-Exempt Employee.

The Defendant operates as car rental business and a franchise
location of Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company, operating in 90
countries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Gregory Mauro, Esq.
          Michael Calvo, Esq.
          Lauren Falk, Esq.
          Ava Issary, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Phone: (949) 387-7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
          Email: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                 Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                 Michael@j ameshawkinsaplc.com
                 Lauren@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                 Ava@jameshawkinsaplc.com


RESTORE HEALTH: Lottmaxey Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Majaya Lottmaxey, and other similarly situated aggrieved employees
v. RESTORE HEALTH AND WELLNES CENTER, LLC and DOES 1 to 25,
inclusive, Case No. 23STCV18982 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
Aug. 9, 2023), is brought against the Defendants for violations of
the California Labor Code as a result of the Defendants' failure to
compensate for all hours worked; failure to pay minimum wages;
failure to pay overtime; failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements; failure to pay wages owed every pay period; failure to
pay wages when employment ends; failure to provide rest breaks;
failure to provide meal breaks; failure to reimburse business
expenses; failure to maintain safe workplace; negligent failure to
maintain safe workplace wrongful constructive discharge in
violation of public policy in violation OF the Private Attorneys
General Act ("PAGA") and the Business And Professions Code.

The Defendant violated Labor Code because it failed to pay
Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved employees for all
hours worked, including the statutory minimum wage for all hours
worked and for "off the clock" work. This is so because Plaintiff
and others would consistently work through meal breaks even though
they were clocked out and "off the clock." The latter would be akin
to a minimum wage violation wherein Plaintiff and others were not
paid for all hours worked. Furthermore, Plaintiff and others would
perform work-related tasks before clocking in and after clocking
out. In addition, The Defendant had a company policy wherein they
would disproportionately round down the number of hours worked by
Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees, resulting in "time
shaving" and further resulting in aggrieved employees not being
paid for all hours worked, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff started working for the Defendant on or around
December 2022 as a CNA.

Restore Health and Wellness Center, LLC is a California
corporation, doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State of
California, and which employed Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harout Messrelian, Esq.
          MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
          500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Phone: (818) 484-6531
          Facsimile: (818) 956-1983


RETALIATION USA DEBUSK: Corea Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Javier Corea, an individual, and other similarly-situated employees
v. RETALIATION USA DEBUSK, LLC., a Corporation; and DOES 1-10,
Inclusive, Case No. 23LBCV01508 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
Aug. 9, 2023), is brought against the Defendants' conduct of
failing to provide adequate meal and rest periods, failing to pay
required minimum wage and overtime payments, and other derivative
wage and hour violations, directly violates state law, constitutes
unfair competition and unlawful and unfair acts and practices.

The Plaintiff was told that he was assigned to an "alternative
workweek," and that he would be working 4 days a week, 10 hours per
day, and would only get overtime for work in excess of 10 hours per
day. In reality, however, he worked 5, 6 or even 7 days a week, and
he quickly learned that the alternative workweek arrangement was a
fiction that was designed to reduce his overtime compensation. By
failing to abide by the alternative workweek, Debusk forfeited
alternative workweek protections, and plaintiff was due ordinary
daily overtime under the Labor Code. Additionally, due to the press
of work, plaintiff routinely worked through rest and meal periods,
but no premiums were paid. Instead, Debusk entered fake, formulaic
meal entries as if a meal period had occurred, thus depriving
plaintiff of additional wages from the subtraction of time, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff began working for USA Debusk, LLC as a field
supervisor in April 4 of 2019.

Debusk USA, LLC is a Corporation doing business in the County of
Los Angeles, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
          Laure N. Haag, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BUCHSBAUM & HAAG, LLP
          100 Oceangate, Suite 1200
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Phone: (562) 733-2498
          Fax: (562) 628-5501
          Email: brent@buchsbaumhaag.com
                 laurel@buchsbaumhaag.com


ROCKET MORTGAGE: Faces Roseboro Suit Over Employees' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRITTANY ROSEBORO and JOHN GLOVER, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ROCKET MORTGAGE, LLC,
QUICKEN LOANS, LLC, and DOES 1-5, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-11995-FKB-EAS (E.D. Mich., August 10, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages and
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Michigan Workplace Opportunity Wage Act.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as non-exempt employees in
Michigan.

Rocket Mortgage, LLC, formerly known as Quicken Loans, LLC, is a
mortgage loan provider doing business in Wayne County, Michigan.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Matthew J. Clark, Esq.
         GREGORY, MOORE, BROOKS & CLARK, P.C.
         28 W. Adams, Ste. 300
         Detroit, MI 48226
         Telephone: (313) 964-5600
         E-mail: matt@unionlaw.net

SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Seagate Technology Holdings Public Ltd. Co. disclosed in its Form
10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2023 filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2023, that
the Company continues to defend itself from the securities class
suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

A putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the federal
securities laws was filed on July 10, 2023, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California against Seagate
Technology Holdings plc, Dr. William D. Mosley, and Gianluca
Romano.

The complaint alleges that it is a securities class action on
behalf of all purchasers of Seagate common stock between September
15, 2020 to October 25, 2022 ( the "Class Period") and asserts
claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b5-1.

The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.


As a s The Company believes that the asserted claim is without
merit and intends to vigorously defend this case.

Seagate Technology Holdings PLC is a global supplier of data
storage products with its principal product development facilities
in Fremont, California.[BN]

SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend UA Local 38 Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Seagate Technology Holdings PLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend the UA Local 38 Defined Contribution
Pension Plan putative class suit in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

A putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the federal
securities laws was filed on July 10, 2023, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California against Seagate
Technology Holdings plc, Dr. William D. Mosley, and Gianluca
Romano. The complaint alleges that it is a securities class action
on behalf of all purchasers of Seagate common stock between
September 15, 2020 to October 25, 2022 (the "Class Period") and
asserts claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b5-1.

The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.


As a s The Company believes that the asserted claim is without
merit and intends to vigorously defend this case.

Seagate Technology Holdings PLC is a global supplier of data
storage products with its principal product development facilities
in Fremont, California.[BN]

SEBA ABODE: Bid for Class Certification in Wofford Suit Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KWEILIN WOFFORD, TARA SEARS, and NICKI ODELL,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. SEBA ABODE, INC., D/B/A BRIGHTSTAR CARE and RANJANA ROY, as
Administratrix of the Estate of Uday Sankar Roy, Deceased,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00084-RJC (W.D. Pa.), Judge Robert J.
Colville of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification.

Before the Court is the Motion to Certify filed by Plaintiffs
Wofford and Sears. The Plaintiffs move, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23, for class certification of their claims under the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"), 43 P.S. Sections 331.101 et seq., and
the common law doctrine of unjust enrichment, as set forth in
Counts II and III of their operative Second Amended Complaint
against Defendants Seba Abode and Ranjana Roy, as Administratrix of
the Estate of Uday Sankar Roy, Deceased.

The Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on July 29, 2021, following the
Court's Memorandum Order permitting the same. The Complaint
differed from the First Amended Complaint in one respect, it added
Plaintiffs Sears and Odell as named Plaintiffs and proposed class
representatives.

Plaintiff Wofford worked for the Defendants as a home health care
companion beginning in March of 2018 and worked out of the
Defendants' Monroeville office as a member of the "BrightStar
Monroeville Southeast Team" until May of 2020. Sears and Odell also
worked for the Defendants as home health care companions. Home
health care companions provide assistance to elderly individuals
and individuals with disabilities in their homes, and such
individuals are the Defendants' clients. They receive an hourly
wage. Seba Abode, Inc. operates four franchises of BrightStar Care
in Pennsylvania, including in Erie, Monroeville, Cranberry, and Mt.
Lebanon.

The Plaintiffs bring the purported class action on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals who were subject to the Defendants'
alleged policy of subjecting their employees to pay rate reductions
if those employees worked over 40 hours per workweek.

The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following proposed class
as to their claims under the PMWA asserted in Count II of the
Complaint ("PMWA Class"): All present and former non-exempt
employees of Seba Abode, Inc. who were paid a reduced hourly rate
as a result of working over 40 hours per workweek at any time from
Jan. 17, 2017 through the present.

The Plaintiffs further seek certification of the following proposed
class with respect to their claims under the common law doctrine of
unjust enrichment under Pennsylvania law asserted in Count III of
the Complaint ("Unjust Enrichment Class"): All present and former
non-exempt employees of Seba Abode, Inc. who were paid a reduced
hourly rate as a result of working over 40 hours per workweek at
any time from January 17, 2016 through the present.

The Plaintiffs request that the Court appoints Wofford and Sears as
class representatives, and that the Court appoints the attorneys
who have entered appearances in the matter from the law firms of
Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC and Jubelirer Pass & Intrieri,
P.C., to represent both classes.

In support of their assertion that the case should be certified as
a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, the Plaintiffs aver that
over one hundred individuals were subjected to the rate reduction
policy, and that the number of class members is thus large enough
that joinder of individual members in this action is impracticable.
They assert that there exist common questions of law and fact among
the class, including whether the Defendants' practice violates
class members' rights under the PMWA, and whether the Defendants
were unjustly enriched by this practice, and that, for the same
reason, the claims of class members are typical of the claims of
the Plaintiffs, and there is no conflict between the Plaintiffs and
any other class member. The Plaintiffs further aver that they will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the classes, and
that their attorneys are experienced and capable class action
litigators and will fairly and adequately represent the interests
of the classes.

The Court has jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' Fair Labor Standard
Act ("FLSA") claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 and has
supplemental jurisdiction over their state-law claims pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Section 1367.

The Defendants assert that the Plaintiff cannot satisfy the
commonality, typicality, predominance, and superiority requirements
for Rule 23 class certification.

Judge Colville finds that (i) the numerosity requirement has been
established because the Plaintiffs assert that 141 employees were
paid a reduced hourly rate because they worked overtime within the
relevant time period, and that 83 employees, including the
Plaintiffs, had been subjected to the rate reduction policy and
paid a reduced rate since July 22, 2018; (ii) the Plaintiffs have
asserted a uniform illegal employment practice that they allege was
applied to each of the class members; (iii) the Plaintiffs have
pointed to a uniform employment policy of paying employees a
reduced rate if they elected to work overtime; and (iv) the
Plaintiffs offer plenty in support of counsel's capability of
representing the proposed classes, as well as Wofford's and Sears'
adequacy as class representatives.

Furthermore, Judge Colville finds that the Defendants' arguments as
to predominance are materially identical to those raised as to
commonality, which he addressed at length. For the same reasons
discussed with respect to commonality, he finds that the
predominance requirement is satisfied.

Judge Colville also finds given the number of class members and the
relatively low amounts at issue on each of their claims,
adjudication of this matter on a class-wide basis is the superior
method of adjudication. A class action is also more efficient, and
will allow the Plaintiffs and the Defendants to avoid duplicative
expenses and take advantage of economies of scale which they would
otherwise lack. The Defendants have also already identified members
of the FLSA collective based on a definition that, but for the
relevant date range, is identical to the class definitions
proposed.

Finally, for similar reasons to those advanced with respect to
suitability, the Defendants suggest that the Plaintiffs have not
proposed an adequate trial plan. Judge Colville has found the
suitability requirement to be satisfied in this matter, and thus
rejects the Defendants' assertions respecting a trial plan.

For the reasons he discussed, Judge Colville grants the Motion to
Certify. An appropriate Order of Court follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 1, 2023 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/38rytb2h from Leagle.com.


SEDGWICK CLAIMS MGMT: Moscovitz Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sedgwick Claims Mgmt.
Servs., Inc. The case is styled as Tarra Moscovitz, William
Browder, Martina Gierhart, Nancy Glover, Montezha Moore, Jeanette
Weston, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v.
Sedgwick Claims Mgmt. Servs., Inc., Case No. CACE23017038 (Fla.
Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Aug. 16, 2023).

Sedgwick Alliance -- https://www.sedgwick.com/ -- is a unique
global network of approved claims management and loss adjusting
companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Phone: (561) 447-8888
          Fax: (561) 447-8831
          Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com

SELENE FINANCE: Waldruff Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Selene Finance, LP,
et al. The case is styled as Herbert Waldruff, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Selene Finance, LP, John Does
1-25, Case No. 3:23-cv-04228-RK-RLS (D.N.J., Aug. 8, 2023).

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

Selene Finance, LP -- https://www.selenefinance.com/ -- operates as
a residential mortgage company. The Company offers all aspects of
mortgage loan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
          One Grand Central Place
          60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
          New York, NY 10106
          Phone: (646) 459-7971
          Fax: (646) 459-7973
          Email: jkj@legaljones.com


SHOES FOR CREWS: Garcia Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Paul Garcia, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Shoes for Crews, Inc., was removed to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
Aug. 9, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 9:23-cv-81129-XXXX to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated Other Contract.

Shoes For Crews -- https://www.shoesforcrews.com/ -- has been the
trusted leader in safety footwear to foodservice, hospitality,
healthcare and industrial employees for over 30 years.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Megan Anne McCurdy, Esq.
          STINSON LLP - Kansas City
          1201 Walnut Street, Suite 2900
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Phone: (816) 691-3111
          Fax: (816) 412-0997
          Email: megan.mccurdy@stinson.com


SILVERGATE BANK: Bhatia Suit Moved From N.D. to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SOHAM BHATIA, et al., Plaintiffs v. SILVERGATE BANK,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-00667-JSC (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California grants Silvergate's motion to transfer the
action to the District Court of the Southern District of
California.

The Plaintiffs sue Silvergate, its parent company, Silvergate
Capital Corp. and Silvergate CEO Alan J. Lane (collectively,
Silvergate), for aiding and abetting a multibillion-dollar fraud
scheme orchestrated by Samuel Bankman-Fried through the
cryptocurrency exchange FTX and the cryptocurrency hedge fund
Alameda Research LLC. Before the Court is Silvergate's motion to
dismiss, or, in the alternative, transfer venue.

Silvergate went "all-in" on cryptocurrency as a deposit niche and
emerged as the leading provider of innovative financial
infrastructure solutions and services to participants in the
nascent and expanding digital currency industry with more than $12
billion in interest-free deposits. Crypto customers accounted for
as much as 99% of Silvergate Bank's deposits. The cryptocurrency
exchange FTX and cryptocurrency trading firm Alameda, both
controlled by Bankman-Fried, accounted for nearly 10% of
Silvergate's business.

FTX collapsed in November 2022, after which Bankman-Fried admitted
to diverting billions in customer money to Silvergate accounts
controlled by Alameda, where the funds were dissipated and lost.
The revelation of FTX's diversion prompted a run on Silvergate,
leading to a record loss of $1 billion and Silvergate's voluntary
liquidation. The Plaintiffs allege Silvergate, which publicly
touted its enhanced proprietary anti-money laundering and 'Know
Your Customer' systems, knew about the scheme, but accepted their
money and executed transfers by which the money was diverted and
dissipated anyway.

The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants substantially helped FTX,
Alameda, and Bankman-Fried perpetuate fraud. Silvergate accepted $8
billion in FTX customer assets, maintained 15 FTX- and
Alameda-related accounts, processed billions in transfers from
FTX's client accounts to Alameda accounts, and accepted deposits
from FTX investors directly into the bank accounts of Alameda and
North Dimension. Lane represented Silvergate conducted significant
due diligence on FTX and its related entities, but in the face of
several red flags, Silvergate continued to complete transfers and
create accounts for FTX and Alameda and allow FTX to use SEN, which
enabled FTX and Bankman-Fried to continue to on-ramp new customers
and allow existing customers to trade cryptocurrency.

The Plaintiffs bring claims for 1) aiding and abetting fraud, 2)
aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, 3) unjust enrichment,
4) aiding and abetting conversion, 5) violations of Unfair
Competition Law under California Business & Professions Code
Section 17200, and 6) negligence. They seek certification of this
action as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(a) and (b)(3), appointment of the Plaintiffs as class
representatives and their attorneys as class counsel under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g), an order requiring the Defendants to
pay the costs of notice to the class, damages, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs of litigation.

The Defendants seek dismissal of the Plaintiffs' complaint under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. Section
1406(a) on the grounds this District is the improper venue for the
claims. In the alternative, they seek transfer to the District
Court for the Southern District of California under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1404. If the Court does not dismiss the complaint pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. Section
1406(a), or transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404, the
Defendants seek dismissal under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
9(b) and 12(b)(6) on the grounds the Plaintiffs fail to state any
claim upon which relief can be granted.

Judge Corley finds that while she has serious concerns as to
whether venue is proper in this District, she need not finally
decide the issue because if venue is improper, it would transfer
rather than dismiss. And, assuming without deciding venue is
proper, the Section 1404 convenience factors weigh heavily in favor
of transferring the action to the Southern District of California.

Judge Corley then finds that venue would be proper in the Southern
District of California because the Defendants are subject to
personal jurisdiction there. The action could have been brought in
the Southern District of California. Indeed, the Plaintiffs'
counsel previously filed three complaints against Silvergate for
claims arising from the same alleged conduct in the Southern
District of California on behalf of different plaintiffs.

Finally, Judge Corley finds that the familiarity of each forum with
the applicable law is neutral because both forums are federal
courts located in California equally familiar with California and
federal law. The feasibility of consolidation with other claims
also weighs neutrally. Because the Plaintiffs do not reside in the
Northern District and have not alleged any contacts with this
District related to this cause of action, the local interest in
this controversy is minimal. The Southern District's interest in
this controversy is much stronger, as the case involves entities
headquartered there.

Judge Corley concludes that the Plaintiffs' choice of forum weighs
against transfer but is entitled to little or no deference because
this is a putative class action, the Plaintiffs do not reside in
this District, they have not alleged contacts with this District
related to their case, and they have not suffered any alleged
injuries in this District. The Southern District of California is
the more appropriate venue for this action considering the
convenience of the parties and witnesses, ease of access to
evidence, and local interest in the controversy. Judge Corley finds
that, even if venue is proper here, the factors under Section 1404
favor discretionary transfer to the Southern District of
California, where the case could have been brought. Accordingly,
she grants the Defendants' motion to transfer to the District Court
of the Southern District of California under 28 U.S.C. Section
1404. Her Order disposes of Docket No. 16.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 1, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/53thdrrx from Leagle.com.


SOLAR ALTERNATIVES: Dismissal of Williams' TCPA Claims Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRIAN L. WILLIAMS v. SOLAR ALTERNATIVES, INC., ET AL.,
SECTION "E" (2), Civil Action No. 23-2533 (E.D. La.), Magistrate
Judge Donna Phillips Currault of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana recommends that the Plaintiff's TCPA
claims on behalf of all other similarly situated persons be
dismissed without prejudice.

Plaintiff Williams filed a Complaint for violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 ("TCPA")
and an Ex Parte/Consent Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma
pauperis on July 17, 2023. Although not styled as a class action in
the caption, in addition to his own claims, the Plaintiff purports
to assert claims on behalf of a class of similarly situated
people.

On July 18, 2023, Judge Currault issued an Order granting the
Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. She
ordered the Plaintiff to show cause why his purported TCPA claims
on behalf of others should not be summarily dismissed given his
status as a pro se litigant with no legal education, training,
knowledge, or skill.

The Plaintiff timely filed a Response in which he asserts that the
Court's determination of the adequacy of class representation
should be based on factors including his understanding of the
claims, his commitment to represent the class fairly and
adequately, and absence of conflicts of interest. He also asserts
that he is entitled to equal protection under the law, thus he
should enjoy the same procedural rights as parties represented by
counsel, including the right to serve as a class representative.

An action may be maintained as a class action if it meets the
criteria of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of
representation, the questions of law or fact involved "predominate"
over any issues affecting individual members of the class, and a
class action is the "superior" method of handling the action. To
determine adequacy of representation, courts consider three
factors: (1) the zeal and competence of the representative's
counsel; (2) the willingness and ability of the representative to
take an active role in and control the litigation and to protect
the interests of absentees; and (3) the risk of conflict of
interest between the named plaintiff and the class he seeks to
represent.

Judge Currault finds that the Fifth Circuit has recognized that a
pro se plaintiff's ability to serve as an adequate representative
is dubious. She further finds that the Plaintiff fails to
acknowledge that in a case such as this, an unlicensed lay person
proceeding pro se with in forma pauperis status is not a proper
class representative because, among other things, he lacks the
requisite legal expertise that would render him competent to
undertake the responsibility of acting as both the representative
plaintiff and the class counsel.

For these reasons, Judge Currault concludes that the Plaintiff's
tenacity and zeal is insufficient to overcome the absence of a
license to practice law, as necessary to represent the interests of
any party other than himself. Accordingly, she recommends that the
Plaintiff's TCPA claims on behalf of "all other similarly situated
persons" be dismissed without prejudice, leaving only his
individual claim for determination.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 1, 2023 Report &
Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/yrphydz7 from
Leagle.com.


SOLID PERSONNEL: Luna Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Solid Personnel,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jose Guadalupe Luna, on behalf
of all other similarly situated, Petitioner v. Solid Personnel,
Inc., Rex Moore Group, Inc., Rex Moore Electrical Contractors &
Engineers, Inc., Respondents, Case No. 23CV006310 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., Aug. 8, 2023).

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

SOLID Personnel -- https://solidpersonnel.com/ -- is a specialized
recruiting & staffing firm founded in the San Francisco Bay
Area.[BN]

SONTARA OLD HICKORY: Leach Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Wayne Leach, Individually, and on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated current and former employees v. SONTARA OLD
HICKORY, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00814 (M.D. Tenn., Aug. 7, 2023),
is brought against the Defendant as a multi-plaintiff action under
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid overtime
compensation and other damages owed to Plaintiff and other
similarly situated hourly-paid production employees.

The Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to pay the Plaintiff and
those similarly situated for all hours worked over 40 per week
within weekly pay periods at one and one-half their regular hourly
rate of pay. The Defendant has been aware it was not compensating
Plaintiff and similarly situated production employees for the time
they performed such "off-the-clock" work within weekly pay periods
during all times material. The Defendant's failure to compensate
Plaintiff and those similarly situated for such unpaid "off the
clock" overtime was willful with reckless disregard to the FLSA
overtime compensation requirements and, without a good faith basis.
As a result of Defendant's lack of a good faith basis and willful
failure to pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated in compliance
with the requirements of the FLSA, Plaintiff and class members have
suffered lost wages in terms of lost overtime compensation as well
as other damages, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
production employee.

Sontara Old Hickory, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with its
principal offices in Old Hickory, Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          James L. Holt, Jr., III, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN AND BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Phone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
                 rbryant@jsyc.com
                 jholt@jsyc.com


SOUTHEASTERN INDIANA: Zeigler Suit Removed to S.D. Indiana
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Julia Zeigler, Donald Roof, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Southeastern Indiana
Health Management Inc. d/b/a Columbus Regional Health, Case No.
49D01-2307-MI-027184 was removed from the Marion County Superior
Court 1, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana on Aug. 8, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-01385-JRS-KMB to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Southeastern Indiana Health Management Inc. doing business as
Columbus Regional Health -- https://www.crh.org/ -- is a nationally
recognized health system serving a 10-county region in southeastern
Indiana.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

The Defendants is represented by:

          Peter S. French, Esq.
          Vivek Randle Hadley, Esq.
          Matthew Thomas Albaugh, Esq.
          TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP (Indianapolis)
          One Indiana Square, Suite 3500
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Phone: (317) 713-3500
          Fax: (317) 713-3699
          Email: pfrench@taftlaw.com
                 vhadley@taftlaw.com
                 malbaugh@taftlaw.com


SOUTHWEST GAS: McFadden Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southwest Gas
Corporation. The case is styled as Michael McFadden, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. Southwest Gas Corporation,
Case No. 4:23-cv-00369-JGZ (M.D. Fla., Aug. 7, 2023).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Southwest Gas -- https://www.swgas.com/ -- is engaged in the
business of purchasing, transporting and distributing the
environmental fuel of choice - natural gas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron Radbil, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC - AUSTIN, TX
          401 Congress Ave., Ste. 1540
          Austin, TX 78701
          Phone: (512) 803-1578
          Fax: (561) 961-5684
          Email: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          James Lee Davidson, Esq.
          Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          5550 Glades Rd., Ste. 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Phone: (561) 826-5477
          Fax: (561) 961-5684
          Email: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
                 jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com


SPIRIT AIRLINES: Tentative Settlement Reached in Cox Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Spirit Airlines, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2023, that in June 2023, the company
reached a tentative settlement in mediation for a maximum amount of
$8.3 million in the case captioned "Cox, et al. v. Spirit Airlines,
Inc."

In 2017, the company was sued in the Eastern District of New York
in a purported class action alleging state-law claims of breach of
contract, unjust enrichment and fraud relating to the company's
practice of charging fees for ancillary products and services. The
original action was dismissed by the District Court; however,
following the plaintiff's appeal to the Second Circuit, the case
was remanded to the District Court for further review on the breach
of contract claim. A hearing on the company's Motion for Summary
Judgment and plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification was held on
December 10, 2021. The Court granted the plaintiff's class
certification motion and denied Spirit's summary judgment motion on
March 29, 2022. The company subsequently filed a motion for
reconsideration on April 26, 2022, and an oral argument was held on
May 19, 2022. The court denied Spirit's motion for reconsideration
on February 14, 2023.

On April 3, 2023, Spirit moved to compel arbitration of and/or
dismiss certain class members' claims for lack of personal
jurisdiction. Trial was set to begin on January 16, 2024. The total
amount paid will depend on a number of factors, including
participation of class members and any conditions on the settlement
approved by the court.

Spirit Airlines operates a budget airline company based in Miramar
Florida.


SSA GROUP: Yannello Suit Seeks Food Service Workers' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALYSSA YANNELLO and KATIE MORT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SSA GROUP, LLC a/k/a SSA
GROUP NEW YORK, Defendant, Case No. 6:23-cv-06452 (W.D.N.Y., August
10, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including
failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to timely pay wages, and failure to provide accurate wage
statements.

Ms. Yannello worked as an administrative operations manager and
food service worker at Seneca Park Zoo from January 2021 through
May 2023.

Mort worked as a food service worker at Seneca Park Zoo from May
2020 to January 2023.

SSA Group, LLC, also known as SSA Group New York, is an integrated
food, retail, and ticketing service provider, with its headquarters
located at 4624 N. Central Park, Denver, Colorado. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Louis Pechman, Esq.
         Gianfranco Cuadra, Esq.
         Christian Mercado, Esq.
         PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
         488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Telephone: (212) 583-9500
         E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
                 cuadra@pechmanlaw.com
                 mercado@pechmanlaw.com

STONELEDGE FURNITURE: Brito Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Ricardo Brito, an individual, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v.
STONELEDGE FURNITURE, LLC, a Wisconsin limited liability company;
and DOES 1-50, Inclusive, Case No. 23STCV14586 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
to the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on Aug. 9, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-06480.

The Complaint seeks damages, penalties, and injunctive relief on
behalf of a putative class for: unfair competition; failure to pay
minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide
meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements; failure to provide wages when
due in violation of California Labor Code; and failure to reimburse
employees for required business expenses.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Barbara J. Miller, Esq.
          Kimberli A. Diggs, Esq.
          Joseph A. Govea, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653
          Phone: +1.714.830.0600
          Fax: +1.714.830.0700
          Email: barbara.miller@morganlewis.com
                 kimberli.diggs@morganlewis.com
                 joseph.govea@morganlewis.com


STREETSBORO FIT: Jackson Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Yalonda Jackson, and others similarly
situated v. STREETSBORO FIT, LLC, Case No. 23-CV-00552 was removed
from the Portage County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 16,
2023, and assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-01602.

In her Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges race discrimination under
Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act, among other claims.
Therefore, because the resolution of Plaintiff's discrimination
claim will require adjudication of disputed questions of federal
law, this Court has federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff's
claims under.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Patrick O. Peters (0079539)
          Jacob Kinder, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          6100 Oak Tree Blvd., Suite 400
          Cleveland, OH 44131
          Phone: (216) 750-0404
          Fax: (216) 750-0826
          Email: Patrick.Peters@jacksonlewis.com
                 Jacob.Kinder@jacksonlewis.co


TACO BELL: Faces Consumer Class Suit Over Menu Items' False Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Reiter at foodnetwork.com reports that back in the '80s,
"Where's the beef?" was a zeitgeist-tweaking Wendy's catchphrase.
Now it's the unspoken question underlying a class-action lawsuit
filed against Taco Bell by a distinctly unsatisfied customer.

In a complaint filed in the Eastern District of New York, a
plaintiff named Frank Siragusa, of Ridgewood, New York, accuses
Taco Bell of "falsely advertising the amount of beef and
ingredients" in several menu items.

Siragusa says the chain indicates it will provide at least "double
the amount" of certain ingredients in its Crunchwrap Supreme,
Grande Crunchwrap, Vegan Crunchwrap, Mexican Pizza and Veggie
Mexican Pizza than they actually do. He further claims that
customers are damaged financially by what he says is false
advertising because they get less than they pay for.

The consumer class-action suit Siragusa v. Taco Bell Corp. was
filed on behalf of Sigarusa "and all others similarly situated" by
the Law Office of James C. Kelly and the Russo Firm in the Eastern
District of New York on July 31, 2023. It says Siragusa and anyone
else who purchased the previously mentioned menu items from a Taco
Bell in New York during the period of July 31, 2020, through the
date of the final deposition in the suit, are eligible to be part
of the class.

"Taco Bell's advertisements for the Overstated Menu Items are
unfair and financially damaging to consumers as they are receiving
a product that is materially lower in value than what is being
promised," the suit alleges. "Taco Bell's actions are especially
concerning now that inflation, food, and meat prices are very high
and many consumers, especially lower income consumers, are
struggling financially."

The filing includes photos of advertised versions of the menu items
in question, including a Mexican Pizza, juxtaposed with photos of
the items served to customers.

"If Plaintiff knew that the Mexican Pizza contained half of the
amount of beef and bean filling as advertised, he would not have
purchased the Mexican Pizza and/or he would not have paid the $5.49
price that he paid for the Mexican Pizza," the suit says.[GN]

TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Finds Privilege to Inaba Memo Waived
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE ACTOS ANTITRUST LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT RELATES
TO: ALL ACTIONS, Master File No. 1:13-cv-09244 (RA) (SDA)
(S.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York finds that Takeda has
waived privilege with respect to the Inaba Memo.

Presently before the Court is a dispute regarding a privileged
document referred to by the parties as the "Inaba Memo," which is a
Jan. 30, 2009 document authored by Atsuhiro Inaba, the first page
of which contains the production page number TAKACTOS_000527151.

Inaba, an employee of Takeda's Japanese parent company, Takeda
Pharmaceutical Company Limited, was identified in contemporaneous
email communications as "Chief Patent Counsel" for Takeda
Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.

The lawsuit is an antitrust class action in which the Plaintiffs
allege that Takeda prevented competitors from timely marketing a
generic version of Takeda's diabetes drug ACTOS by falsely
describing two patents to the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA").
As part of its regulatory compliance defense, Takeda chose to
expressly waive privilege with respect to the applicability of
pre-2003 regulations governing the submission of patent information
to the FDA for the two subject patents, and Takeda's compliance
with the pre-2003 regulations.

Following Takeda's waiver of privilege, the Inaba Memo was produced
by Takeda in 2022. The Inaba Memo later was filed by the Plaintiffs
under seal on Sept. 8, 2022 as an exhibit to a Letter Reply filed
by the Plaintiffs regarding documents subject to Takeda's privilege
waiver.

On Sept. 9, 2022, during a telephone conference with the Court
addressing the scope of Takeda's waiver, Takeda's counsel stated on
the record that Takeda was not seeking to claw back the Inaba Memo.
In addition, Takeda's counsel stated, with respect to the documents
that were exhibits to the Plaintiffs' Letter Reply (which included
the Inaba Memo), that Takeda had endeavored to produce documents
that related to the subject matter of the waiver. Thereafter, on
Sept. 16, 2022, the Court issued its Opinion and Order regarding
the scope of Takeda's waiver of privilege.

On Nov. 4, 2022, during a meet and confer regarding the scope of
Takeda's privilege waiver, the counsel for the Plaintiffs and the
counsel for Takeda specifically discussed the Inaba Memo. During
the meet and confer, the Plaintiffs' counsel reminded Takeda's
counsel that the Inaba Memo had been attached to a filing made by
the Plaintiffs on Sept. 8, 2022, and that Takeda's counsel
represented at the hearing on Sept. 9, 2022 that the document would
not be clawed back. Takeda's counsel never stated during the meet
and confer that the Inaba Memo was inadvertently produced and would
be clawed back.

On Feb. 27, 2023, the Plaintiffs sent Takeda a letter regarding
Takeda's assertions of privilege. In that letter, they identified
the Inaba Memo and requested that the cover email be produced
without any redactions. Following another meet and confer between
counsel, Takeda agreed to re-review the documents subject to the
letter. As a result of its review, Takeda did not claw back the
Inaba Memo but, on March 17, 2023, Takeda reproduced the Inaba
Memo, removing the earlier redactions to the cover email.

Later, on April 3, 2023, the Plaintiffs again filed the Inaba Memo
under seal, this time in connection with the Plaintiffs' Letter
Motion to compel Takeda to produce documents subject to the Court's
Sept. 16, 2022 Order. On April 7, 2023, Takeda's counsel sought to
claw back the Inaba Memo, pursuant to Section 11 of the Protective
Order, on the ground that it had been inadvertently produced.

On April 11, 2023, at 1:31 p.m., the Plaintiffs' counsel sent by
email a detailed letter explaining why they opposed the claw back
and arguing that the circumstances surrounding Takeda's production
of the Inaba Memo clearly indicate intentional disclosure. At 5:31
p.m., Takeda's counsel responded by stating that they are
investigating the statements in the letter regarding TAK
ACTOS_000527151. Then, on the evening of April 12, 2023, Takeda's
counsel sent an email stating that, although they were maintaining
their position that unredacted portions of TAK-ACTOS_000527151 were
inadvertently produced, they were agreeing to withdraw their claw
back in light of the statements made during the Sept. 9, 2022
hearing and the passage of time.

Takeda asserts that, in the course of preparing Inaba for his
deposition in July 2023, Takeda's counsel learned for the first
time that the legal analysis and advice provided in the Inaba Memo
was not generated by Inaba himself, but that he was recounting
advice provided during a meeting that took place in Chicago in
January 2009 that was attended by Takeda in-house counsel and
outside patent litigation counsel. According to Takeda, any
lingering questions as to whether the Inaba Memo was privileged and
not within the scope of Takeda's waiver were put to rest by this
new information. When the Plaintiffs' counsel marked the Inaba Memo
as an exhibit at Inaba's deposition on July 21, 2023, Takeda sought
to claw it back.

Regardless of which waiver standard is applied, Judge Aaron finds
that Takeda has failed to meet its burden to show that the
privilege has not been waived with respect to the Inaba Memo. Even
under the "completely reckless" waiver standard, the record shows
that Takeda has waived privilege with respect to the Inaba Memo.
The Court agrees with Takeda's assessment after Takeda first sought
to claw back the Inaba Memo in April 2023, and the Plaintiffs
resisted. That is, in light of the statements made by Takeda during
the Sept. 9, 2022 hearing and the passage of time, clawing back the
Inaba Memo is not appropriate.

For these reasons, Judge Aaron finds that Takeda has waived
privilege with respect to the Inaba Memo. He orders that the
Plaintiffs' Letter Motion filed at ECF No. 531 will be maintained
under seal. He finds that the proposed redactions and sealing
requests are narrowly tailored to prevent unauthorized
dissemination of sensitive business information.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the gavels
at ECF Nos. 531 and 532.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 1, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/rwbk5wby from Leagle.com.


TASTE OF ITALY: Larios Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abel Isaac Jiatz Larios, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. TASTE OF ITALY RESTAURANT & PIZZERIA NYC INC.
(D/B/A TASTE OF ITALY PIZZERIA), TASTE OF ITALY PIZZERIA #2 INC.
(D/B/A TASTE OF ITALY PIZZERIA), and LUIS PAUCAR, Case No.
1:23-cv-06161 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2023), is brought for unpaid
minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law (the
"NYLL"), and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the
New York Commissioner of Labor (herein the "Spread of Hours Wage
Order"), including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the
Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours
worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours
worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional
overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiff the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which
he had to work over 10 hours a day. The Defendants maintained a
policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and other employees
to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the
minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and
state law and regulations, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed as a delivery worker and dishwasher at
the restaurant.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a pizzeria, located in
Queens, New York, under the name "Taste of Italy Pizzeria."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TEACHERS INSURANCE: Lopez Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
------------------------------------------------------------
Andre Lopez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. TEACHERS INSURANCE AND ANNUITY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, Case No.
1:23-cv-06956-UA (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 7, 2023), is brought against
Defendant TIAA for its failure to properly secure and safeguard
personally identifiable information ("PII") including but not
limited to: Plaintiff's and Class members' name, Social Security
number, gender, date of birth, and physical address.

According to the Notice of Data Breach received by Plaintiff, which
was received not from Defendant TIAA but from a third-party, PBI,
May 31, 2023, PSC's MOVEit software disclosed a major vulnerability
that was exploited by an unauthorized cybercriminal. Over the
course of investigating, PBI, who uses PSC in order to transfer
files of TIAA's clients using the MOVEit software system,
discovered that, between May 29, 2023 and May 30, 2023, third-party
cybercriminals not only exploited the MOVEit software, but
downloaded and exported the data of Plaintiff and Class members
(the "Data Breach"). This Data Breach was likely perpetrated by a
well-known cybergang called Clop. The modus operandi of a cybergang
like Clop is to offer for sale (on the dark web) unencrypted,
unredacted private information like the PII of Plaintiff and the
Class members. Thus, the Plaintiff and Class members are in
imminent harm of identity theft and other identity-related crimes.

Notably, the Data Breach response was worsened too by the fact that
PBI was the issuer of the Notice of Data Breach--a third-party that
most Class members have never heard of. Undoubtedly, this led to
Class members discarding the Notice of Data Breach. Hence, to this
day, those Class members have no knowledge that they are even
victims. TIAA should have been the entity responsible for the
distribution of said notices, as Class members all had accounts
with TIAA and might have had a better chance of being responsive to
an entity they are familiar with.

TIAA negligently chose to utilize PBI's search services with
Plaintiff's and Class members' PII even though the MOVEit software
contained significant security vulnerabilities. The mechanism and
potential for this Data Breach was a known risk to Defendant
because of other file transfer programs that had been previous
subjected to criminal hacking, and, thus, Defendant were on notice
that failing to take appropriate design and protective measures
would expose and increase the risk that PII would be compromised
and stolen, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by an organization that gave his PII to
TIAA in order to administer a 401k retirement plan of which the
Plaintiff was a beneficiary.

The Defendant is a New York based financial services organization
that provides services (such as retirement and annuity-related
services) to academic, research, medical, cultural, and
governmental employees.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Israel David, Esq.
          Adam M. Harris, Esq.
          Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq.
          Madeline Sheffield, Esq.
          ISRAEL DAVID LLC
          17 State Street, Suite 4010
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 212-739-0622
          Fax: 212-739-0628
          Email: israel.david@davidllc.com
                 adam.harris@davidllc.com
                 blake.yagman@davidllc.com
                 madeline.sheffield@davidllc.com


TIAA BANK: Class Settlement in DeSimone Suit Wins Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NICHOLAS DeSIMONE, PATRICK GARDNER, MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN,
PAUL MALSTROM, STEPHEN GALLAGHER, CRAIG PALADEAU, CORY BENNER, and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TIAA BANK, FSB, f/k/a
EVERBANK FINANCIAL CORP., Defendant, Civil Action No. 1:20 Civ.
6492 (BCM) (S.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses grants the
Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for an Order Granting Final Approval
to the Class and Collective Action Settlement.

Upon careful consideration of the Final Approval Motion and the
argument presented on the record during the final Fairness Hearing
held on Aug. 1, 2023, Judge Moses finds, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(e)(2) and Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d
119 (2d Cir. 2015), that the parties' Settlement Agreement and
Release is fair, reasonable, and adequate in all respects.

Judge Moses grants the Final Approval Motion and approves the
Settlement Agreement, which will be binding on the Defendant, all
the Plaintiffs (including opt-in plaintiffs), and all members of
the seven State Law Classes described in the Settlement Agreement
and provisionally certified in the Court's April 4, 2023 Order
Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Class and Collective Action Settlement.

Judge Moses confirms as final (i) the certification of the State
Law Classes for settlement purposes; (ii) the appointment of the
seven named Plaintiffs identified in the Preliminary Approval Order
as Representative Plaintiffs; and (iii) the appointment of Justin
L. Swidler of Swartz Swidler, LLC, Robert D. Soloff of Robert D.
Soloff, P.A., Marc A. Silverman of Frank, Weinberg & Black, P.L.,
and Carly Meredith of Meredith Malatino Law LLC as the Class
Counsel.

Judge Moses approves the (i) Class Counsel's request for attorneys'
fees in the amount of $2,833,333 (one-third of the Gross Settlement
Amount) as a fair and reasonable payment for their service provided
to the Class Members and the Collective Action Members; (ii) the
Class Counsel's request for reimbursement of litigation expenses in
the amount of $32,634.19; (iii) Service Payment of $10,000 to each
Representative Plaintiff; (iv) the Service Payment of $250 to each
of the 101 Discovery Opt-in Plaintiffs, who answered written
discovery; and (v) payment to the Claims Administrator, Angeion
Group, not to exceed $35,000.

Judge Moses directs the Claims Administrator, Angeion Group, to
issue and mail a Settlement Check to each Settlement Plaintiff, and
to mail checks for the Court-approved attorneys' fees and costs to
the Class Counsel, within three days of the Effective Date of the
Settlement Agreement pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. Provided
no appeal is taken from the Order, the Effective Date is 30 days
from the date of the Order. S

In accordance with the recommendation of the Federal Judicial
Center, Judge Moses directs the Class Counsel to file a status
report, no later than April 1, 2024, updating the Court on all
matters pertinent to the distribution of the Qualified Settlement
Fund. Angeion Group will provide a declaration to the Class Counsel
and the Defendant's counsel addressing each of these issues no
later than March 22, 2024.

Judge Moses dismisses action with prejudice and without costs in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and
respectfully directs the Clerk of Court to close the case. The
Court retains jurisdiction over the action for the limited purpose
of enforcing the Settlement Agreement and overseeing the
distribution of the Qualified Settlement Fund.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 1, 2023 Final Approval Order &
Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/4fxth5jd from
Leagle.com.


TOTAL QUALITY: Underpays Logistic Account Executives, Pasche Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRET PASCHE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TOTAL QUALITY LOGISTICS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 8:23-cv-01812 (M.D. Fla., August 11, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as logistic account
executive trainee and subsequently as a logistic account executive
in Tampa, Florida from January 2019 to November 2020.

Total Quality Logistics, LLC is a freight brokerage firm based in
Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq.
         C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
         Jolie Pavlos, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
         20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
         Orlando, FL 32801
         Telephone: (407) 420-1414
         Facsimile: (407) 245-3383
         E-mail: kimd@forthepeople.com
                 rmorgan@forthepeople.com
                 jpavlos@forthepeople.com

TOWER WAV LLC: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tower WAV LLC, et al.
The case is styled as Carol Martinez, individually, and on behalf
of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Tower
WAV LLC, Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CGC23608253 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Aug. 9, 2023).

The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints (Other
Employment)."

Tower WAV LLC -- https://www.towerwav.com/ -- offers innovative and
dependable mobility services to various markets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          751 N Fair Oaks Ave, Ste. 101
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Phone: (818) 230-7502
          Fax: (818) 230-7259
          Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com


UDEMY INC: Settlement Deal Reached in Williams Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Udemy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2023, that in December 13, 2022, the
parties in putative class action complaint captioned "Williams v.
Udemy, Inc.," Case No. 3:21-CV-06489, filed against in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California entered into
a definitive settlement agreement.

Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the parties agreed to dismiss
the pending case in federal court and refile in California state
court, which filing was made on February 3, 2023. On July 28, 2023,
the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego granted final
approval of the settlement in Case No.37-2023-00003666-CU-BT-NC.

Said case was filed in August 23, 2021, alleging violations of
California's unfair competition and false advertising statutes as
well as the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act in connection
with its pricing practices. The complaint sought injunctive relief,
unspecified damages, restitution and disgorgement of profits.

Udemy, Inc. is a global learning company headquartered in San
Francisco, California whose online platform empowers organizations
and individuals with flexible and effective skill acquisition and
development.


UNISON AGREEMENT: Ahmed Sues Over Unfair and Deceptive Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fareed Ahmed and Ahlia Ahmed, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. UNISON AGREEMENT CORP., REAL ESTATE
EQUITY EXCHANGE INC., ODIN NEW HORIZON REAL ESTATE FUND, LP, and
UNISON INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case 1:23-cv-06003-DG-SJB
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2023), is brought against the Defendants based
on their fraudulent, misleading, unfair, and deceptive business
practices.

The Defendants systematically misrepresented services on their
Websites as a "co-investment" by which a homeowner may "unlock the
value" of their home to induce unsophisticated homeowners such as
Plaintiffs who, relying on Defendants' representations, believe
that Defendants will merely share in a portion of the change in
value of their home. In reality, the agreement transfers the
majority of the value of these homes to Defendants. The Defendants
obscure the fact that this agreement is a complex, risky, and
speculative option contract in which the homeowner bets against the
value of their own home increasing--a deal which the homeowner is
essentially guaranteed to lose, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are husband and wife and were the owners in fee
simple of 121 Dartmouth Loop, Staten Island, New York 10306
(hereinafter, "the Property").

Unison was founded in 2004, and is a national company headquartered
in San Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Randi Kassan, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (212) 594-5300
          Email: rkassan@milberg.com

               - and -

          Scott C. Harris, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Phone: (919) 600-5000
          Email: sharris@milberg.com


UNITED STATES: Bullock Files Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United States
Department of Defense, et al. The case is styled as Sherrill
Farrell, Steven Egland, James Gonzales, Stephan Steffanides,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
United States Department of Defense; Lloyd J. Austin III,
Secretary, United States Department of Defense, in his official
capacity; Christine Wormuth, Secretary, United States Army, in her
official capacity; Carlos Del Toro, Secretary, United States Navy,
in his official capacity; Frank Kendall, Secretary, United States
Air Force, in his official capacity, Case No. 3:23-cv-04013-JCS
(C.D. Cal., Aug. 8, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

The United States Department of Defense -- http://www.defense.gov/
-- is an executive branch department of the federal government of
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Chelsea Corey, Esq.
          Radha Sathe Manthe, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING
          1185 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: (212) 556-2232
          Email: ccorey@kslaw.com
                 rmanthe@kslaw.com

               - and -

          David Karl Willingham, Esq.
          Rachel T. Yeung, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 443-4355
          Fax: (213) 443-4310
          Email: dwillingham@kslaw.com
                 ryeung@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth Kristen, Esq.
          Lynnette Miner, Esq.
          LEGAL AID AT WORK
          180 Montgomery Street, Suite 600
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: (415) 864-8848
          Fax: (415) 864-8199
          Email: EKristen@legalaidatwork.org
                 lminer@legalaidatwork.org

               - and -

          Fawn Jade Korr, Esq.
          Lindsay Polastri Nako, Esq.
          Meredith Dixon, Esq.
          Jocelyn Dion Larkin, Esq.
          IMPACT FUND
          2080 Addison Street, Suite 5
          Berkeley, CA 94704
          Phone: (510) 845-3473 x306
          Fax: (510) 845-3654
          Email: fkorr@impactfund.org
                 lnako@impactfund.org
                 mdixon@impactfund.org
                 jlarkin@impactfund.org


UNITED STATES: Henry Sues Over Illegal Exaction of Bankruptcy Funds
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LOLITA HENRY; and THOMAS HUGHES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-11992-SDK-KGA (E.D. Mich., Aug. 9,
2023) is a class action brought under the "Little Tucker Act".

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the U.S. Government
engaged in the wrongful retention of monies paid by Chapter 13
Debtors in the Class that rightfully belong to the Class. A Chapter
13 debtor makes payments to a "standing trustee" -- an employee or
at least an agent of the U.S. Government -- who then disburses
those payments to creditors according to a confirmed reorganization
plan (hereafter the "Standing Trustees"). The compensation of the
Standing Trustees, and virtually all aspects of their funding,
operations and activities in Chapter 13 cases are dictated,
directed, supervised and controlled by the Office of the United
States Trustee, which is part of the United States Department of
Justice. The U.S. Government's seizure of the Fee Portion
constitutes an "illegal exaction" and thus violates the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, says the
suit.

U.S. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North
America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the
nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Gregory D. Hanley, Esq.
     Jamie K. Warrow, Esq.
     Edward F. Kickham Jr., Esq.
     KICKHAM HANLEY PLLC
     32121 Woodward Avenue, Suite 300
     Royal Oak, MI 48073
     Tel: (248) 544-1500

          - and -

     David Findling, Esq.
     THE FINDING LAW FIRM, PLC
     415 S. West Street
     Royal Oak, MI 48067
     Tel: (248) 399-9700

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
NASEEM DILLMAN-HASSO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED,
Defendant, Case No. 0:23-cv-02483-JRT-DLM (D. Minn., Aug. 10, 2023)
is a class action lawsuit against the Defendant for its failure to
properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information
of the Plaintiff and the Class.

According to the complaint, the Defendant negligently chose to
utilize PSC's MOVEit software services with the Plaintiff's and
Class members' PII even though the MOVEit software contained
significant security vulnerabilities. The mechanism and potential
for this Data Breach was a known risk to Defendant because of other
similar file transfer programs that had been previously subjected
to criminal hacking, and, thus, Defendant was on notice that
failing to take appropriate design and protective measures would
expose and increase the risk that PII would be compromised and
stolen.

The Defendant's discovered that, on May 27, 2023, third-party
cybercriminals not only exploited the MOVEit software, but
downloaded and exported the data of Plaintiff and Class members
(the "Data Breach"). The Data Breach that exposed Plaintiff's and
Class members' PII was caused by the Defendant's violation of its
obligations to abide by best practices and industry standards
concerning its information security practices and processes. The
Defendant, despite being a technologically advanced organization,
failed to comply with basic security standards or to implement
security measures that could have prevented or mitigated the Data
Breach, says the suit.

Additionally, the Defendant failed to ensure that all personnel
(and third-parties) with access to its current/former consumers'
PII were properly trained in retrieving, handling, using and
distributing sensitive information, the suit asserts.

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED owns and manages organized health
systems. The Company provides employers products and resources to
plan and administer employee benefit programs. [BN]

The Plaintiff represented by:

          Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
          Roberta A. Yard, Esq.
          REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
          332 Minnesota Street, Suite W1050
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (651) 287-2100
          Email: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
                 r.yard@rwblawfirm.com

               - and -

          Israel David, Esq.
          Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq.
          Madeline Sheffield, Esq.
          ISRAEL DAVID LLC
          17 State Street, Suite 4010
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 739-0622
          Facsimile: (212) 739-0628
          Email: israel.david@davidllc.com
                 blake.yagman@davidllc.com
                 madeline.sheffield@davidllc.com

UNITEDHEALTHCARE INC: Johnson Sues Over Unsolicited Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
Elaine Johnson, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. UnitedHealthcare, Inc., Case No. 5:23-cv-00522-GAP-PRL (M.D.
Fla., Aug. 16, 2023), is brought against the Defendant under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") as a result of the
Defendant's unsolicited calls.

The Defendant routinely violates the TCPA by using an artificial or
prerecorded voice in connection with non-emergency calls it places
to telephone numbers assigned to a cellular telephone service,
without prior express consent. More specifically, upon information
and good faith belief, Defendant routinely used an artificial or
prerecorded voice in connection with non-emergency calls it placed
to wrong or reassigned cellular telephone numbers, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person residing in Lake County,
Florida.

The Defendant is a health benefits company based in Hennepin
County, Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
          Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Phone: (561) 826-5477
          Email: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com
                 jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com


UNITI GROUP: Settlement in Mayer Suit Gets Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------
Uniti Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2023, that in March 3, 2023, the parties in
"Mayer et al. v. Kenny Gunderman et al." signed a stipulation of
settlement agreeing to settle the actions in exchange for
non-monetary damages, and also agreeing to an award of attorney's
fees and expenses to plaintiffs' counsel in both actions in the
amount of $0.8 million.

The court granted final approval to the settlement on May 9, 2023
and dismissed the action. Kenny Gunderman is president and chief
executive officer of Uniti Group Inc.

In August 17, 2021, shareholders filed a derivative action on
behalf of the company in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland. Various members of the company's board of directors and
management team were named as defendants in the Derivative Actions
Case alleged violations of the federal securities laws based on
claims that the defendants improperly failed to disclose the risk
that the company's spin-off from Windstream Holdings, Inc. and
entry into a long-term exclusive triple-net lease with the latter
violated certain debt covenants of Windstream.

Uniti Group Inc. is an independent internally-managed real estate
investment trust engaged in the acquisition, construction and
leasing of mission critical infrastructure in the communications
industry and is principally focused on acquiring and constructing
fiber optic, copper and coaxial broadband networks and data
centers.


UNITI GROUP: Settlement Reached in Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Uniti Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2023, that on March 25, 2022, the parties
in the consolidated case "In re Uniti Group Inc. Securities
Litigation" filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas reached an agreement to settle the class
action for $38.9 million, to be funded entirely by the company's
insurance carriers, which was approved by the court on November 7,
2022.

Beginning on October 25, 2019, shareholders filed class action
lawsuits that were against the company and certain of its officers,
alleging violations of the federal securities laws based on claims
that the defendants improperly failed to disclose the risk that the
company's spin-off from Windstream Holdings, Inc. and entry into a
long-term exclusive triple-net lease with the latter violated
certain debt covenants of Windstream. The class action sought class
certification, unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys'
fees and other relief.

Uniti Group Inc. is an independent internally-managed real estate
investment trust engaged in the acquisition, construction and
leasing of mission critical infrastructure in the communications
industry and is principally focused on acquiring and constructing
fiber optic, copper and coaxial broadband networks and data
centers.


UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER: Benton-Hill Sues Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Natasha Benton-Hill, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The University of Rochester, Case No.
6:23-cv-06447-FPG (W.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2023), is brought to address
Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private
Information that Defendant collected and maintained, and for
failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and
other Class Members that their information had been subject to the
unauthorized access by an unknown third party.

In order to provide services to its students, Defendant acquires,
stores, processes, analyzes, and otherwise utilizes Plaintiff's and
Class Members' personally identifiable information, including, but
not limited to, first and last name, Social Security number, and
date of birth. ("Private Information"). On May 21 2023, Defendant
discovered that an unauthorized attack affecting certain computer
system (the "Data Breach"). Defendant launched a forensic
investigation that "determined an unauthorized third party may have
accessed certain individual personal information during this
incident."

Despite first becoming aware of the Data Breach on or around July
14, 2023, Defendant notified some Class Members on or about May 31,
2023, and did not notify Plaintiff and other Class Members until
July 28, 2023 ("Notice of Data Breach"). As a result of the Data
Breach, Plaintiff and over 88,000 Class Members suffered injury and
ascertainable losses in the form of the present and imminent threat
of fraud and identity theft, loss of the benefit of their bargain,
out-of-pocket expenses, loss of value of their time reasonably
incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack, and the
loss of, and diminution in, value of their personal information,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was a student at The University of Rochester.

The Defendant is a private research university located in
Rochester, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Randi Kassan, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (212) 594-5300
          Email: rkassan@milberg.com

               - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (202) 429-2290
          Email: gklinger@milberg.com

               - and -

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


UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
DOMINIC FIACCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER, Defendant, Case
6:23-cv-00972-DNH-TWD (N.D.N.Y., Aug. 10, 2023) is an action
against Defendant as a result of its failure to safeguard and
protect the confidential information of the Plaintiff and the other
members of the Class, including Social Security Numbers and
personal information that can be used to perpetrate identity theft,
in the Defendant's custody, control, and care.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant did not
have sufficient cyber-security procedures and policies in place to
safeguard the Sensitive Information it possessed. Indeed, the
Defendant disclosed the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Sensitive
Information to a third-party, Progress Software, which had a
security vulnerability in its MOVEit File Transfer solution, a
system which was used by the Defendant. As a result, cybercriminals
were able to gain access to the Defendant's data, including the
Plaintiff and Class Members' Sensitive Information, on May 27,
2023, thereby gaining access to approximately 88,000 Class Members'
Sensitive Information, including Plaintiff's (the "Data Breach").

The Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class have suffered
damages as a result of the unauthorized and preventable disclosure
of their Sensitive Information. The Data Breach was a direct result
of the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cybersecurity protections and protocols that were necessary to
protect the Sensitive Information of students entrusted into
Defendant's custody and care, says the suit.

UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER operates as an educational institution. The
University offers undergraduate and graduate degrees in arts and
sciences, business, dentistry, education, engineering, law,
medicine, nursing, pharmacy, and social work. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          Matthew A. Girardi, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          Email: pfraietta@bursor.com
                 mgirardi@bursor.com

               - and -

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          Email: ltfisher@bursor.com

UNIVERSITY OF SCRANTON: Nouri Sues Over Retention of Tuition Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Nouri, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. UNIVERSITY OF SCRANTON, Case No. 3:23-cv-01362-MEM
(M.D. Pa., Aug. 16, 2023), is brought for damages and restitution
resulting from Scranton's retention of the tuition and fees paid by
Plaintiff and the other putative Class members for in-person
education and services not being provided.

Scranton offers students the option to pick either (1) online
classes, or (2) an on-campus, in-person educational experience in
Scranton, Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff, an undergraduate student
during the Spring 2020 semester, paid tuition and fees to enroll in
Scranton's on-campus, in-person education program, including all
the benefits and services associated therewith for the entirety of
the semester. The Plaintiff's paid-for experience was cut short
mid-way through the Spring 2020 semester, when that in-person
educational experience was taken away from Plaintiff and other
students at Scranton.

In March 2020, in response to the outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 virus,
the virus that causes the COVID-19 disease (the "COVID-19
pandemic"), Scranton, like many other universities, transitioned to
remote online only education, canceled on-campus recreational
events, canceled student activity events, and ordered students to
refrain from going on campus. As a result, all on-campus education,
services, and amenities were no longer available to Scranton
students for the remainder of the Spring 2020 semester.

Despite the harsh reality that students could no longer enjoy the
benefit of the bargain for which they pre-paid, Scranton refused to
provide a pro-rated refund of tuition or fees tied to its on-campus
education, services, and amenities that were not available to
students for a significant part of the Spring 2020 semester.
Accordingly, Scranton's students lost the benefits of the bargain
for services and the experience they paid for but could no longer
access or use following the school's transition to remote learning
in March 2020.

By not giving pro-rated refunds for tuition or fees charged for on
campus education and services not provided, Scranton breached its
with students or was otherwise unjustly enriched. It cannot be
disputed that the circumstances underlying this legal action are
unfortunate and unprecedented. However, the students did not choose
these circumstances, and they certainly did not agree to pay
tuition and fees for online only education and services. It is
unfair and unlawful for Scranton to retain tuition and fees for
campus-based in person education and services not being provided
and to pass the financial losses on to its students, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff paid tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 semester.

Scranton, is a private university founded in 1888. Scranton is
composed of three colleges that offer dozens of major fields for
undergraduate students, as well as a number of graduate
programs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Phone: 412-322-9243
          Facsimile: 412-231-0246
          Email: gary@lcllp.com
                 jamisen@lcllp.com
                 nickc@lcllp.com


UNKNOWN NORMAL: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Brown
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brown v. Unknown Normal
Police Officers, Case No. 1:23-cv-01078-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the
Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows:

   -- Rule 16 scheduling conference

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

   -- Discovery plan

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

   -- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference

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

      scheduling conference be cancelled.

   -- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing

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

      telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to

      appear for an in-person hearing.

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

      discovery deadline has already passed

      The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court

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

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

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

      subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.

   -- Settlement conferences and mediation

      The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or

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

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 1, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47pdlsy at no extra charge.[CC]



UTILITY METERING: Underpays Meter Installer Technicians, Kanou Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
XAVIER KANOU, RANDY HAUCK, JONATHAN LIEURANCE and JARED DANDURAND,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. UTILITY METERING SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:23-cv-02945 (S.D. Tex., August 10, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant as meter installer
technicians beginning 2020.

Utility Metering Solutions, LLC is a company that provides and
installs billing meters, headquartered in Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         David M. Blanchard, Esq.
         BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC
         221 N. Main Street, Suite 300
         Ann Arbor, MI 48104
         Telephone: (734) 929-4313
         E-mail: blanchard@bwlawonline.com

                 - and -

         Harold Lichten, Esq.
         Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
         LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN PC
         729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
         Boston, MA 02116
         Telephone: (617) 994-5800
         E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
                 ssb@llrlaw.com

VERTICAL HOLDINGS: Fails to Properly Pay Housemen, Saheb Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
MOHAMMED SAHEB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VERTICAL HOLDINGS LLC, COBBY POURTAVOSI, and
DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV19046 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., August 10, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code,
the California's Public Policy, and the California's Business and
Professions Code including failure to compensate for all hours
worked, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime,
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to
pay wages owed every pay period, failure to give rest breaks,
failure to give meal breaks, failure to pay wages when employment
ends, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to provide
personnel file, failure to provide pay records, failure to maintain
safe workplace, negligent failure to maintain safe workplace,
retaliation, wrongful termination, and unfair business practices.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a houseman, security,
maintenance in or around August 2022 until on or around March 29,
2023.

Vertical Holdings LLC is a limited liability company based in
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Harout Messrelian, Esq.
         MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
         500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
         Glendale, CA 91203
         Telephone: (818) 484-6531
         Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
         E-mail: hm@messrelianlaw.com

VERVE CULTURE: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Verve Culture Inc.
The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Verve
Culture Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06988-ER (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2023).

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

Verve Culture -- https://verveculture.com/ -- is a marketplace for
artisans from around the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


VI-JON LLC: Eyberg Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
------------------------------------------------
The case styled as James Eyberg, individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Vi-Jon, LLC, Case No. 23PH-CV00974 was
removed from the Circuit Court of Phelps County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on Aug. 9,
2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-00990-PLC to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated Other Fraud.

Vi-Jon -- https://www.vijon.com/ -- is an American health and
beauty care company that produces both private label and brand name
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryce Crowley, Esq.
          STEELMAN GAUNT
          901 N. Pine Street, Suite 110
          Rolla, MO 65401
          Phone: (573) 341-8336
          Email: bryce@sgclawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Megan Anne McCurdy, Esq.
          STINSON LLP - Kansas City
          1201 Walnut Street, Suite 2900
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Phone: (816) 691-3111
          Fax: (816) 412-0997
          Email: megan.mccurdy@stinson.com


VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA: Lawson Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Visionworks of
America, Inc. The case is styled as Anthony Lawson, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Visionworks of
America, Inc., Case No. 6:23-cv-01566-WWB-EJK (M.D. Fla., Aug. 16,
2023).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Visionworks of America, Inc. -- http://visionworks.com/-- is an
American company which operates or manages 711 optical retail
stores in 40 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
          Jacob Lawrence Phillips, Esq.
          NORMAND PLLC
          P.O. Box 140036
          Orlando, FL 32814
          Phone: (407) 603-6031
          Email: ed@ednormand.com
                 jacob.phillips@normandpllc.com

               - and -

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


VITAL FARMS: Discovery Ongoing in Usler Suit
--------------------------------------------
Vital Farms, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 25, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2023, that it is has been engaged in
discovery and have scheduled a mediation in September 2023 to
discuss potential settlement of a class action complaint captioned
"Nicholas A. Usler et al. v. Vital Farms, Inc. et al." in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
filed in May 20, 2021.

The company was accused of false advertising claims by alleged
consumers of it eggs products.

Vital Farms, Inc. packages, markets and distributes shell eggs,
butter and other products. These products are sold under the trade
names "Vital Farms," "RedHill Farms" and "Backyard Eggs," primarily
to retail and foodservice channels in the United States.


VOYA FINANCIAL: Court Narrows Claims  in Ravarino Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Voya Financial, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August, 2023, that in June 13, 2023, the U.S.
District Court of Connecticut issued a ruling granting in part and
denying in part Voya's motion to dismiss the case captioned
"Ravarino, et al. v. Voya Financial, Inc., et al." Case No.
3:21-cv-01658 filed December 14, 2021.

The court largely dismissed the claims for breach of fiduciary
duty. The remaining claims concern allegations of breaches of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) prohibited
transactions rule and a claim for failure to monitor the Voya Small
Cap Growth fund. In this putative class action, the plaintiffs
allege that the named defendants breached their fiduciary duties of
prudence and loyalty in the administration of the Voya 401(k)
Savings Plan. The plaintiffs claim that the named defendants did
not exercise proper prudence in their management of allegedly
poorly performing investment options, including proprietary funds,
and passed excessive investment-management and other administrative
fees for proprietary and non-proprietary funds onto plan
participants. The plaintiffs also allege that the defendants
engaged in self-dealing through the inclusion of the Voya Stable
Value Option into the plan offerings and by setting the "crediting
rate" for participants' investment in the Stable Value Fund
artificially low in relation to Voya's general account investment
returns in order to maximize the spread and Voya's profits at the
participants' expense. The complaint seeks disgorgement of unjust
profits as well as costs incurred.

Voya Financial, Inc. and its subsidiaries is a financial services
organization that offers a broad range of retirement services,
investment management services, mutual funds, group insurance and
supplemental health products.


VOYA FINANCIAL: To Settle Insurance Dispute After Mediation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Voya Financial, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August, 2023, that on May 31, 2023, parties in the
putative class action captioned "Advance Trust & Life Escrow
Services, LTA v. ReliaStar Life Insurance Company" (U.S. District
of Minnesota, Case No. 1:18-cv-02863, October 5, 2018),
participated in a mediation, after which they agreed to settle the
litigation. Voya is a defendant is said case.

Plaintiff alleges that the company's universal life insurance
policies only permitted the company to rely upon the policyholders'
expected future mortality experience to establish the cost of
insurance, and that as projected mortality experience improved, the
policy language required the company to decrease the cost of
insurance. Plaintiff alleges that the company did not decrease the
cost of insurance as required, thereby breaching its contract with
the policyholders, and seeks class certification.

On July 31, 2023, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement agreement. The settlement,
which remains subject to final approval by the court, provides that
the company will deposit $39 in cash consideration into a
settlement fund, and the company has fully accrued the $39 as of
June 30, 2023. The settlement agreement also provides for noncash
consideration consisting of agreements by the company (1) not to
increase cost of insurance rates on the class policies for a period
of seven years and (2) not to challenge the class policies on the
basis of lack of insurable interest or misrepresentation in the
application.

Consistent with the terms of the settlement agreement, the company
specifically and generally denies any and all liability or
wrongdoing of any sort relating to this litigation and makes no
concessions or admissions of liability or misconduct of any sort.

Voya Financial, Inc. and its subsidiaries is a financial services
organization that offers a broad range of retirement services,
investment management services, mutual funds, group insurance and
supplemental health products.


WALGREEN CO: Court Dismisses Class Suit Over Hydrogen Peroxide
--------------------------------------------------------------
Harris Martin reports that an Illinois federal judge has dismissed
a putative class action accusing Walgreen Co. of misrepresenting
that its hydrogen peroxide reduces rates of wound infection, ruling
the claims are preempted by the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act because
the product's label was approved by the Food and Drug
Administration.

In a July 20 order, Judge Jorge Alonso of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois explained that the content of
the label "is a matter of federal law, and by claiming that some
other terminology is necessary to ensure that the label is not
misleading." [GN]

WALMART INC: Dismissal Bid in Corpuz Class Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------
Julie Steinberg of Bloomberg Law reports that Walmart Inc. lost its
bid to quickly exit a proposed class suit alleging its "Spring
Valley 1000 mg Fish Oil" dietary supplement is deceptively called
fish oil.

Federal labeling law doesn’t block the claims, and lead plaintiff
Edison Corpuz plausibly alleged that consumers could be misled by
the fish oil label, a federal judge in California said on August
10, 2023.

Fish oil is among the most popular diet supplements used in the US,
Corpuz said. The global fish oil market is currently estimated to
reach $2.8 billion by 2027, according to his complaint in the US
District Court for the Southern District. [GN]

WELLPATH LLC: El-Amin Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Wadeedah El-Amin, individually and for others
similarly situated v. WELLPATH LLC f/k/a CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS
LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00233 was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on Aug. 8, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00824 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act for Collect Unpaid Wages.

Wellpath -- https://wellpathcare.com/ -- is the premier provider of
localized, high-quality, compassionate care to vulnerable patients
in challenging clinical environments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sue L. Robinson, Esq.
          Brian E. Farnan, Esq.
          Michael J. Farnan, Esq.
          FARNAN LLP
          919 North Market Street, 12th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 777-0300
          Fax: (302) 777-0301
          Email: srobinson@farnanlaw.com
                 bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
                 mfarnan@farnanlaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Phone: (713) 352-1100
          Fax: (713) 352-3300
          Email: adunlap@mybackwages.com
                 cfitz@mybackwages.com
                 mjosephson@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          Carter Tilden Hastings, Esq.
          William Clifton Alexander, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Ste. 610
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Phone: (361) 452-1279
          Email: austin@a2xlaw.com
                 carter@a2xlaw.com
                 clif@a2xlaw.com

               - and -

          Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq.
          Melody Fowler-Green, Esq.
          N. Chase Teeples, Esq.
          YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC
          P.O. Box 159033
          Nashville, TN 37215-9937
          Phone: (615) 250-2000
          Fax: (615) 250-2020
          Email: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com
                 mel@yezbaklaw.com
                 teeples@yezbaklaw.com

               - and -

          Cliff Alexander, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC
          101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Phone: (361) 452-1279
          Email: clif@a2xlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Laurence V. Cronin, Esq.
          SMITH, KATZENSTEIN, & JENKINS LLP
          1000 West Street, Suite 1501
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 652-8400
          Email: lvc@skjlaw.com

               - and -

          Darius Walker, Jr., Esq.
          Keith D. Frazier, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
(NASHVILLE)
          401 Commerce St., Ste. 1200
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Phone: (615) 687-2219
          Email: darius.walker@ogletree.com
                 keith.frazier@odnss.com


YEISER RESEARCH: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yeiser Research &
Development, LLC. The case is styled as Shivan Bassaw,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Yeiser Research & Development, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-07250
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2023).

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

Yeiser Research & Development is an innovative consumer product
development company spanning automotive, beauty, household,
kitchen, garden industries and many more.[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


ZUFFA LLC: Court Certifies Anticompetitive Behavior Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Combat Press reports that the lawsuit alleges that the UFC used
anticompetitive behavior to create monopsony-like conditions for
MMA fighters with exclusive contracts which were nearly perpetual,
plus buying out and closing other MMA promotions. These acts
created conditions so that athletes could not get competitive pay
in other organizations.

There is also an argument being made that the UFC times fight
offers through the time placement of fights that coerced athletes
into renewing contracts early or extended contracts.

According to the lawsuit, the UFC had a devastating effect on a
fighter, who is an independent contractor, to control their career
and earn fair pay for their work. According to the court, the UFC
used their dominance and power in MMA to suppress fighter pay.
Fighters were unable to measure or earn their fair market value, as
there was no free market for them to test free agency. There was no
real competition to the UFC because of their direct actions.

The group, or "class", of people who are challenging the UFC are
fighters who competed in the organization from Dec. 2010 to Jun.
2017. There is a secondary 'identity class' that pertains to
fighters who had their likeness used for merchandise, video games,
and other items such as this.

For this time period, this includes 1,200 athletes who are
automatically included as plaintiffs in the lawsuit. The UFC may
end up having to pay out $811 million to $1.6 billion to fighters.
Fighters have the option to opt-out if they like. However, the most
notable athletes leading the charge are Cung Le and Jon Fitch.

If successful, the UFC would also be forced to change the nature of
their contract, including time limitations, so they can not hold
fighters in perpetuity, similar to other sports.

The UFC is not yet found in wrongdoing. However, this means that
the court, according to Judge Boulware, believes that a
class-action lawsuit is the correct way forward. It is a massive
step in this ongoing case.

According to the documents obtained by Josh Nash of Bloody Elbow:
"Plaintiffs credibly establish that Zuffa systematically acquired,
or forced the shutdown of, rival promoters . . . Defendant's
horizonal acquisitions reinforced their dominance in the input
market. These acquisitions consciously eliminated would-be rivals
to which fighters might otherwise have switched. This conduct
substantially foreclosed competition and had market wide
anticompetitive effects without any recognizable procompetitive
benefits. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that Defendant's willful
anticompetitive conduct maintained, or increased, Defendant's
monopsony power. The Court finds that Defendant fails to present
any meaningful evidence that these acquisitions were procompetitive
or contributed to the development of the industry."

"The combined effect of the contracts' restrictive clauses created
a situation where Zuffa had the sole power to control a fighter's
ability to make money for the majority of the average fighter's
career. Through these restrictive contracts, Zuffa controlled how
much, where, and when fighters could earn compensation by
participating in a bout . . . The Court further finds that these
contracts, with their various restrictive clauses, existed
throughout the class period and operated to lock up fighters with
Zuffa. These contracts therefore restricted fighter mobility and
allowed Zuffa to build concentrated power in the market for fighter
services."

"Because Zuffa fighters did not get paid unless they fought, this
enabled Zuffa to use various strategies related to the timing,
placement, number and opponents of a fighter's bouts to coerce
fighters into renewing their contracts early or extending their
contracts in order to earn a paycheck."

"Court finds that Plaintiffs have established that these forms of
anticompetitive conduct, both individually and collectively, along
with dominant output market power, allowed Defendant to exercise
substantial monopsony power over putative class members in the
input market for fighter services. Ultimately, the Court finds, for
the purposes of class certification, that Plaintiffs have set forth
sufficient evidence that this Scheme amounted to a violation of the
antitrust law." [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 ***