---

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

              Thursday, August 31, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 175

                            Headlines

3 TIMES 90 INC: Black Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
3D SYSTEMS: $4MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 21
3M CO: Rougeau Files Suit Over Contamination of Water Wells
3M CO: Settles Combat Arms Earplug Litigation for $6-Bil.
3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Chemicals, Applewhite Says

3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Chemicals, Beam Alleges
3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Chemicals, Gonzales Says
3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Chemicals, Kremer Claims
3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Chemicals, Lang Alleges
3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Chemicals, Ruffin Claims

3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Chemicals, Ward Claims
3M COMPANY: Palmer Toxic Chemicals Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
530 HOSPITALITY: Erkan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
A&H LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Drivers' Minimum, OT Wages, Singh Says
AAC HOLDINGS: $3.75MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 18

ALDER HOLDINGS LLC: Nipper Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California
ALEXIA ADMOR FRENCH: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AMAISEM HOLDINGS: Colvin Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
AMAZON.COM INC: Cross Suit Removed to D. Colorado
AMAZON.COM INC: Kumar Suit Removed to E.D. California

AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Madriz's Appeal in Stockholder Suit Dismissed
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Simons Sues Over Certificate of Incorporation
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Court Grants Bid for Arbitration in Netzel Suit
APFS LLC: Marconi Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Recruiters
ARGO BLOCKCHAIN: Murphy Suit Transferred to S.D. New York

ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Plymouth Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
ASSOCIATED MATERIAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Marlin Alleges
ASTEC INDUSTRIES: TGERS Suit Remanded to E.D. Tenn.
ATLANTIC SPECIALTY: Denial of Bid in PacificSource Suit Reversed
AUTOMATIC DATA: Faces ERISA Suit in New Jersey Court

AVIS BUDGET GROUP: Cairns Files Suit in D. New Mexico
BARBARA TAYLOR: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Brown
BEIERSDORF INC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Amended Akes Complaint
BEN & JERRY'S: Tyrnauer Suit Transferred to D. Vermont
BIG FISH: Bid for Protective Order Denied in Campos Class Suit

BLUE & CREAM: Erkan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BLUE CROSS: Merz Sues Over Denied Religious Accommodation Request
BOMBAS LLC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BP EXPLORATION: Claims in Smith BELO Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
BRADY W. DOUGAN: Colbert Suit Transferred to S.D. New York

BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Newton Seeks Leave to File Supplemental Notice
BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Newton Seeks Oral Argument on Class Status Bid
BROOKLYN AAR LLC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
CENTENE MGMT: Bid to Exclude Expert Testimony in Angelo Suit Denied
CHEVROLET OF HOMEWOOD: Faces Kies Suit Over Disability Harassment

CIRCLE K STORES: Abboud Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
CLEAN ADVANTAGE: Bruno Bid for Conditional Status Partly OK'd
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Weingartner Sues Over Toothpaste's False Ads
COLUMBUS REGIONAL: Court Certifies Savings Plan Participant Class
COMMANDO LLC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

DAM MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Roesel Suit Alleges
DAVE INC: Court Vacates All Deadlines in Lopez Class Action
DEJA VU PIZZA: Class Cert Response Filing Extended to Sept. 5
DFL PIZZA: Court Narrows Claims in Nagel Class Action
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Charges Inflated Interchange Fees, Suit Claims

DOLIUM DISPACK-PROJECTS: Kosinski Suit Goes to C.D. California
DWELL OUTDOORS: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ELI INC: De Baeza Sues Over Uncompensated Hours of Work
ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS: Dyer Files Suit in C.D. California
ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Levi Says

ENVISION MANAGEMENT: Loses Renewed Bid to Stay Harrison ERISA Suit
EPPINGER MFG. CO: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Guzman Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
ESSENTIA HEALTH: Class Certification Bid Filing Due May 23, 2024
EVERGREEN REAL: McKenna Suit Alleges Disability Discrimination

EXCLUSIVE MARKETING: Robinson Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Loses Bid to Compel Kisciras to Arbitration
FEDEX CORPORATION: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Covic Alleges
FIGS INC: Faces Shareholder Suit in California Court Over IPO
FIGS INC: Shareholder Suit in CA Court Consolidated

FIGURE LENDING: Court Grants Ward Leave to File Amended Complaint
FIRELANDS REGIONAL: Schaffer Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Ohio
FIRST PENN-PACIFIC: Faces Iwanski Insurance Suit
FLAGSTAR BANK: Ignores Qualified Written Request, Alcantar Claims
FLAGSTAR BANK: Johnson Suit Removed to C.D. California

FOX LIFESTYLE: Erkan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
FST AMERICA INC: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FUNKO INC: Shumacher Shareholder Suit Ongoing in Delaware Court
FURNITURE WORLD: Boxley Sues Over Unlawful Termination
GENIUS BRAND & COMPANY: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Suit Claims
GEORGE BROKAW: Assad Suit Stayed Pending Dismissal Bid
GHOST BEVERAGES: Martinez Sues Over Misleading Representations
GLANBIA PERFORMANCE: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GLASSES USA: Cody Files Suit in C.D. California

GOOGLE LLC: Collects Tax Data Without Consent, Adams Alleges
GRANITE STATE: Class Action Settlement in Grenier Gets Initial Nod
GREATBANC TRUST: Finkle Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
GREENHILL & CO: Finger Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties
GULF HARBOUR: Ruperto FDCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida

HANCOCK REGIONAL: Childers Suit Removed to S.D. Indiana
HARRY AND DAVID: Strickland Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
HCA HEALTHCARE: Hahn Suit Removed to M.D. Tennessee
HEILIND ELECTRONICS: Hess Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
HIGH PLAINS: Padilla Seeks Unpaid Regular & OT Wages Under FLSA

HOPEBRIDGE LLC: Prelim. Approval of Deal in Skevington Suit Denied
HOSPITALITY STAFFING: Cariola Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
HOSPITALITY STAFFING: Tapia Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
HOST INTERNATIONAL: Continuance of Class Cert Hearing Sought
HOUSING AUTHORITY: Joy Suit Removed to C.D. California

HUB CYBER SECURITY: Continues to Defend PIPE Funds Class Suit
HUB CYBER: Continues to Defend Cancelled Contract Class Suit
HUGO BOSS: Herrera ADA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
HUNTER WARFIELD: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due March 29, 2024
INTERLOCK SECURITY: Fails to Pay Guards' OT Wages Under FLSA

J. PRESS INC: Black Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
JAAP TRUCKING INC: Singh Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
JACE CAR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Qyap Suit Alleges
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Plumbers' Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Tinoco Seeks Unpaid Wages and Fringe Benefits

JP MORGAN: Court OK's Settlement in US Virgin Islands Suit
JP MORGAN: Faces Antitrust Charges Overseas
JP MORGAN: Named in Ongoing Debit/Credit Card Fees Suits
JP MORGAN: Settlement in Consolidated Suit Gets Final Nod
JTAV CLINICAL SKIN: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

KALMBACH FEEDS: Serendipity Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania
KAYA INC: Vachnine Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KOELSCH SENIOR: Fite Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
KRG SERVICES: Fails to Pay Cleaning Staffs' Minimum & OT Wages
LAND AND SEA RESTAURANTS: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

LASTPASS US: Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
LAWSON PRODUCTS: Faces Davis Data Breach Suit in Illinois Court
LEADING EDGE: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Zarr Alleges
LEAF HOME LLC: Scott Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
LENOVO (US): Court Narrows Claims in First Amended Augustine Suit

LIFE INSURANCE: Hoffman Suit Removed to N.D. California
LINCOLN LIFE & ANNUITY: Dismissal of Nitkewicz Suit Under Appeal
LINCOLN LIFE & ANNUITY: Faces VLF Insurance Suit in New York
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Court Dismisses Glover Class Action
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Faces Angus Insurance Class Suit

LINCOLN NATIONAL: Faces Morgan Insurance Suit in Texas Court
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Faces TVPX ARS Insurance Suit in PA Court
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Settlement in COI Rate Suit Gets Initial Nod
LITTLE CAESAR: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Feb. 16, 2024
LM GENERAL INSURANCE: Grant Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania

LOREN D. STARK: Kohn Files Suit in S.D. Texas
LOUISVILLE METRO: $1.5M Class Settlement in Lott Suit Has Final OK
LOVEVERY INC: Court Grants Voluntary Dismissal of Haymond Suit
LUMICO LIFE INSURANCE: Oneal Files Suit in S.D. New York
MANTEI & ASSOCIATES: Black Suit Removed to D. South Carolina

MARQUETTE SOCIAL: Nelson Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
MAT KING: Proch Loses Class Certification Bid
MDL 2744: Court Denies Class Cert Bid in Shifter Defects Suit
MDL 2873: Faces Cajar Suit Over Toxic Aqueous Foams Exposure
MDL 2873: Faces Ferguson Suit Over Toxic Aqueous Foams Exposure

MDL 2873: Faces Snider Suit Over Toxic Aqueous Foams Exposure
MDL 2873: Luedtke Files Suit Over Toxic Aqueous Foams Exposure
MDL 2873: McNicholas Suit Alleges AFFF Exposure Caused Cancer
MDL 2873: Murillo Says AFFF Exposure Caused Illness
MDL 2873: Smith Suit Alleges Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams

MDL 2873: Toxic Aqueous Foams Exposure Caused Cancer, Martinez Says
MDL 2873: Waldinger Files Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
MDL 2963: Smitty's Allowed Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal
MDL 2977: Pilgrim's Seeks Leave to File Supplemental Memo
MDL 2977: Pilgrim's Seeks Leave to File Supplemental Memo in Colvin

MDL 2977: Pilgrim's Seeks Leave to File Supplemental Memo in Haff
MDL 2977: Pilgrim's Seeks Leave to File Supplemental Memo in Mason
MEILE INVESTMENT: Steinlin Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
MICHAEL KORS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Hussein Says
MIDDLE TENNESSEE: Jones Sues Over Race Discrimination, Harassment

MISSOURI: Court Denies Bid for Writ of Habeas Corpus in Kirk Suit
MNE CONGLOMERATE: Montoya Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages
MONSANTO CO: Voluntary Dismissal of 27 Alcanter Plaintiffs Granted
NEW YORK LIFE: Class Members Urged to File Settlement Claims
NEWS CORP: Continues to Defend HarperCollins Class Suit in N.Y.

NICOLE COLBERT: Benjamin Files Suit in D. Columbia
NORTH OAK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jacko Suit Alleges
NORTHERN MARIANA: Camacho Files 9th Cir. Appeal
NUTRACEUTICAL WELLNESS: Sued Over Mislabeled Hair Growth Products
OHIO: Mag. Judge Wants Claims in Stone v. Chambers-Smith Dismissed

ORRICK & HERRINGTON: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Suit Says
PARKCHESTER FISHERY: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
PASHA ATLANTA: Kincaid Sues Over Restaurant Servers' Unpaid Wages
PB RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cajamarca Alleges
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Carrick Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois

PEOPLECONNECT INC: Denial of Bids in Boshears Suit Partly Dismissed
PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY: Class Cert Hearing Extended to Sept. 15
PERMANENT GENERAL: Hodge Bid to Extend Disclosures of Experts Nixed
PHP OF NC: Johnson FLSA Suit Transferred to E.D. North Carolina
PRETZEL PETE: Initial Case Management Order Entered in Taveras Suit

PRIMEFLIGHT AVIATION: Brunner Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Johnson Says
PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED: Final Order Issued; Martinez Suit Dismissed
PROSPECT MEDICAL: Roma Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
QUTOUTIAO INC: S.D. New York Closes Cases in Securities Litigation

RALPHS GROCERY: Court Continues Class Cert. Briefing in Hiradate
REGAL CAPITAL: Acuff TCPA Suit Seeks Class Certification
RGB LLC: Fails to Properly Pay Cafe Employees, Laser Suit Alleges
ROADTEX TRANSPORTATION: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Naimee Says
RUGSUSA LLC: Wiley Sues Over False Reference Prices & Discounts

SAINT JOSEPH'S: Fails to Refund Tuition Fees, Cantave Says
SAM REED: Faces Lavin Securities Row over SEC Reporting Issue
SEQUENCING LLC: Bid for Class Certification Granted in Melvin Suit
SHC ELECTRIC: Padilla Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SHIPPY SHOES: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

SPARKY'S CONSULTING: Perez Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA
ST. CLAIR COUNTY, MI: Bid to Certify Class in Proch v. King Denied
SUFFOLK FOOD: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Diaz Suit Alleges
SUNRISE SENIOR: Class Certification Denial in Heredia Suit Affirmed
SUSHI TO GO: Court Approves $15K Settlement in Li Wage & Hour Suit

SWEDISH HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Adan Suit Alleges
SWEETWATER FRANCHISE: Fails to Secure Employees' Info, Turner Says
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Class Deal in Securities Suit Gets Final Nod
TASHKENT SUPERMARKET: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Suit Alleges
TEACHERS INSURANCE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, King Allleges

TESLA INC: Van Diest Sues Over False Ads of Vehicles' Driving Range
TEXAS TACO: Fails to Pay Cooks' OT Wages Under FLSA, Ramirez Says
THERMO FISHER: Fails to Pay Timely Wages, Dechirico Suit Alleges
TOMAR ENTERPRISES: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
UNIBARNS TRADING: Faces Riley Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages

UNITED STATES: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 12, 2024
UNITED STATES: Mag. Judge Endorses Dismissal of Robertson v. Biden
WALMART INC: Oettle's Two Claims for Breach of Warranty Dismissed
WASHINGTON NEWSPAPER: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 19, 2024

                            *********

3 TIMES 90 INC: Black Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3 Times 90, Inc. The
case is styled as Jahron Black, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. 3 Times 90, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06235
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 18, 2023).

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

3 Times 90, Inc. -- https://www.3times.com/ -- offers soup
dumplings and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


3D SYSTEMS: $4MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 21
--------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on Aug. 28 disclosed that the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York has
approved the following announcement of a proposed class action
settlement that would benefit purchasers of 3D Systems Corporation
Publicly-Traded Common Stock (NYSE:DDD):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND

PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO:  ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED THE PUBLICLY-TRADED COMMON
      STOCK OF 3D SYSTEMS CORPORATION ("3DSC") FROM MAY
      6, 2020, THROUGH MARCH 5, 2021, INCLUSIVE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, that a hearing
will be held on November 21, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. before the
Honorable Nicholas G. Garaufis, United States District Judge of the
Eastern District of New York, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Courtroom 4D
South, Brooklyn, NY 11201, for the purpose of determining: (1)
whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in the
above-captioned Action for consideration including the sum of
$4,000,000 should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the
Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether
the application of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees of
up to one-third plus interest of the Settlement Amount,
reimbursement of expenses of not more than $50,000, and a service
payment of no more than $21,500 in total to Plaintiffs, should be
approved; and (4) whether this Action should be dismissed with
prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement, dated
December 16, 2022 (the "Settlement Stipulation"). The Court
reserves the right to hold the Settlement Fairness Hearing
telephonically or by other virtual means. The Court appointed The
Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as Lead Counsel to represent you and the other
Settlement Class Members. However, you have the right to retain
your own counsel and the right to appear at the Settlement Fairness
Hearing through counsel of your choosing.

If you purchased the publicly-traded common stock of 3DSC during
the period from May 6, 2020, to March 5, 2021, both dates
inclusive, your rights may be affected by this Settlement,
including the release and extinguishment of claims you may possess
relating to your ownership interest in publicly-traded 3DSC common
stock. If you need assistance obtaining a detailed Notice of
Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a
copy of the Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form"), you may
write to, call, or contact the Claims Administrator: 3D Systems
Corp. Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O.
Box 230, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205, Media, PA 19063; (Toll-Free)
(866) 274-4004; (Fax) (610) 565-7985; info@strategicclaims.net. You
can also download copies of the Notice and submit your Claim Form
online at www.strategicclaims.net/3DSC. If you are a member of the
Settlement Class, to share in the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form electronically or
postmarked no later than October 24, 2023 to the Claims
Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to share in the
recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will
be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you
make a claim.

If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion so that
it is received no later than October 24, 2023, in the manner and
form explained in the Notice. All members of the Settlement Class
who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be
bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the
Settlement Stipulation.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead
Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of expenses and awards to Plaintiffs must be in the manner and form
explained in the detailed Notice and received no later than October
24, 2023, by each of the following:

Clerk of the Court
United States District Court Eastern District of New York
225 Cadman Plaza East         
Brooklyn, NY 11201          

Robin Bronzaft Howald
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A
275 Madison Avenue   
40(th) Floor   
New York, NY 10016        
Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel

Elizabeth Gingold Clark
Alston & Bird
90 Park Avenue
15(th) Floor
New York, NY 10016
Counsel for Defendants

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Lead Counsel:

Robin Bronzaft Howald
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue
40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
rhowald@rosenlegal.com

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

DATED: JULY 18, 2023    BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
                         DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
                         EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


3M CO: Rougeau Files Suit Over Contamination of Water Wells
-----------------------------------------------------------
LUCAS ROUGEAU; ALISHA ROUGEAU; CARRIE BRENTON; KERRY BRENTON;
TIMOTHY GERDMANN; AND MELISSA GERDMANN, Plaintiffs v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING, CO.); AHLSTROM
RHINELANDER LLC; AHLSTROM-MUNKSJO SPECIALTY SOLUTIONS ACQUISITION
LLC; AHLSTROM NA SPECIALTY SOLUTIONS LLC; AND JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS
1-49, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00546-WMC (W.D. Wis., Aug. 9,
2023) is a class action against the Defendants seeking to recover
compensatory and all other damages, including but not limited to
the costs of restoring and remediating contamination from
Plaintiffs and Class members' real properties and drinking water
wells, costs of treating water, costs of acquiring bottled water,
non-economic damages, loss of earnings and future earnings, damages
for loss of use and enjoyment, lost property value, and household
expenses, among others.

Over the course of decades, Defendant Ahlstrom and its predecessors
disposed of millions of pounds of waste from the Rhinelander Paper
Mill by dumping and spreading the waste on farmland throughout
Oneida County, and specifically in the Town of Stella. Upon
information and belief, this waste contained high levels of
perfluorooctanoic acid, perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, and other
polyfluoroalkyl substances. It was this "land application" of waste
that caused Plaintiffs' wells to be among the most contaminated in
the country for PFAS, says the suit.

In addition to Defendant Ahlstrom -- which owns and operates the
Rhinelander Paper Mill -- Plaintiffs also bring this action against
Defendant 3M, which sold and supplied PFAS chemicals to the
Ahlstrom facility.

And at all relevant times, Defendant 3M knew or should have known
about the inherent risks and dangers involved in the use of PFAS
compounds in products sold to other companies, like Ahlstrom --
including that both PFOA and PFOS are mobile in water, not easily
biodegradable, highly persistent in the environment, and present
significant and unreasonable risks to both human health and the
environment. Nevertheless, Defendants made a conscious choice to
manufacture, market, sell, and dispose of PFAS products and waste
in a way that caused harm to Plaintiffs, the suit alleges.

The Plaintiffs own and live on properties serviced by private wells
in and around Oneida County, Wisconsin.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kristen E. Lonergan, Esq.
          CROOKS LAW FIRM S.C.
          531 Washington Street
          P.O. Box 1184
          Wausau, WI 54402-1184
          Telephone: (715) 842-2291
          Facsimile: (715) 845-7367

               - and -

          Scott Summy, Esq.
          Brett Land, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
          Dallas, TX 75219-4281
          Telephone: (214) 521-3605
          Facsimile: (214) 520-1181

               - and -

          Philip F. Cossich, Jr., Esq.
          Andrew Cvitanovic, Esq.
          COSSICH, SUMICH, PARSIOLA & TAYLOR, LLC
          8397 Highway 23, Suite 100
          Belle Chasse, LA 70037
          Telephone: (504) 394-9000
          Facsimile: (504) 394-9110

3M CO: Settles Combat Arms Earplug Litigation for $6-Bil.
---------------------------------------------------------
St. Paul, Minn.-based 3M (NYSE: MMM) has reached an agreement with
the court-appointed negotiating Plaintiffs' counsel to resolve the
Combat Arms Earplug litigation against Aearo Technologies and 3M.
Under the agreement, 3M will contribute a total amount of $6.01
billion between 2023 and 2029, which is structured under the
agreement to include:

     -- $5.01 billion in cash consideration; and
     -- $1 billion in 3M common stock, par value $0.01 per share.

The actual amount, payment terms, and dates are subject to
satisfaction of certain participation thresholds claimants must
meet, including that at least 98% of individuals with actual or
potential litigation claims involving the CAE (calculated as
described in the Settlement) must have enrolled in the Settlement
and provided 3M with a full release of any and all claims involving
the CAE.

The Settlement contemplates that the shares of 3M common stock to
be issued in the Settlement, if and when issued, will be issued in
reliance on the exemption from registration provided by Section
3(a)(10) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

This agreement, reached through a mediation process, is structured
to promote participation by claimants and is intended to resolve
all claims associated with the Combat Arms Earplug products. The
agreement includes all claims in the multi-district litigation in
Florida and in the coordinated state court action in Minnesota, as
well as potential future claims. The Florida and Minnesota courts
are entering orders to support implementation of the agreement.

3M said the agreement is not an admission of liability. 3M insists
the products at issue in this litigation are safe and effective
when used properly. 3M is prepared to continue to defend itself in
the litigation if certain agreed terms of the settlement agreement
are not fulfilled.

Financial Considerations

As a result of the agreement, the company will record a pre-tax
charge of approximately $4.2 billion in the third quarter of 2023,
representing the $5.3 billion pre-tax present value of
contributions under the agreement net of 3M's existing accrual of
approximately $1.1 billion related to this matter. This charge will
be reflected as an adjustment in arriving at 3M's results, adjusted
for special items. Additional details of the agreement, including
the anticipated payment schedules provided that certain conditions
are met, will be included in 3M's filings with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Aearo and 3M are actively engaged in insurance recovery activities
to offset a portion of the settlement payments, and Aearo initiated
insurance recovery litigation against its carriers in June related
to the litigation.

3M said the strength and stability of 3M's business model and
strong free cash flow capability, together with proven capital
markets access, provide financial flexibility to deploy capital to
meet its cash flow needs under this agreement and other commitments
and obligations.

A copy of the Combat Arms Settlement Agreement, dated August 29,
2023, between: (1) 3M Company and Aearo Technologies, LLC and (2)
the named Plaintiffs' Leadership In re Combat Arms Earplug Products
Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2885, U.S.D.C. for the Northern
District of Florida; and (3) the named Plaintiffs' Leadership in
the Minnesota coordinated state court action pending in the 4th
Judicial District, County of Hennepin, Minnesota, File No.
27-CV-19916, is available at:

                https://tinyurl.com/269bya6p

The CAE Claimants' Counsel include:

     Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
     AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
     17 East Main Street, Suite 200
     Pensacola, FL 32502
     E-mail: baylstock@awkolaw.com

          - and -

     Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
     SEEGER WEISS LLP
     55 Challenger Road
     Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
     E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com

          - and -

     Clayton A. Clark, Esq.
     CLARK, LOVE & HUTSON, PLLC
     440 Louisiana Street, Suite 1700
     Houston, TX 77002
     E-mail: CClark@triallawfirm.com

A copy of the Combat Arms Settlement Agreement For Verdict Cases
(Master Settlement Agreement II), dated August 29, 2023, between:
(1) 3M Company and Aearo Technologies, LLC and (2) the named
Plaintiffs' Leadership In re Combat Arms Earplug Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 2885, U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of
Florida; and (3) the named Plaintiffs' Leadership in the Minnesota
coordinated state court action pending in the 4th Judicial
District, County of Hennepin, Minnesota, File No. 27-CV-19916, is
available at:

                https://tinyurl.com/bdhe6bjp

A copy of the Combat Arms Settlement Agreement For Wave Cases
(Master Settlement Agreement III), dated August 29, 2023, between:
(1) 3M Company and Aearo Technologies, LLC and (2) the named
Plaintiffs' Leadership In re Combat Arms Earplug Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 2885, U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of
Florida; and (3) the named Plaintiffs' Leadership in the Minnesota
coordinated state court action pending in the 4th Judicial
District, County of Hennepin, Minnesota, File No. 27-CV-19916, is
available at:

                https://tinyurl.com/m3eav7hb

Plaintiff counsel in the Verdicts Settlement include:

Counsel for Plaintiff Luke E. and Jennifer Estes:

     Adam Pulaski, Esq.
     Katherine Cornell
     PULASKI LAW FIRM, PLLC
     2925 Richmond Ave., Ste 1725
     Houston, TX 77098
     Tel: (713) 664-4555
     E-mail: kcornell@pulaskilawfirm.com
             adam@pulaskilawfirm.com

Counsel for Plaintiff Stephen Hacker:

     Evan D. Buxner, Esq.
     GORI JULIAN & ASSOCIATES
     156 North Main Street Edwardsville, IL 62025
     Tel: (618) 659-9833
     E-mail: evan@gorijulianlaw.com

        - and -

     Quinn Robert Wilson, Esq.
     ONDER LAW LLC
     110 E Lockwood Avenue Second Floor
     St. Louis, MO 63119
     Tel: (314) 963-9000
     E-mail: wilson@onderlaw.com

Counsel for Plaintiff Lewis Keefer:

     Brian Hugh Barr, Esq.
     LEVIN PAPANTONIO
     316 S Baylen Street, Suite 600
     Pensacola, FL 32502
     Tel: (850) 435-7045
     E-mail: bbarr@levinlaw.com

          - and -

     Winston Troy Bouk, Esq.
     LEVIN PAPANTONIO
     316 S Baylen Street, Suite 600
     Pensacola, FL 32502
     Tel: (850) 435-7045
     E-mail: tbouk@levinlaw.com

Counsel for Plaintiff Lloyd Baker:

     Sean P. Tracey, Esq.
     Shawn P. Fox, Esq.
     TRACEY FOX KING & WALTERS
     440 Louisiana St., Suite 1901
     Houston, TX 77002
     Tel: (713) 495-2333
     E-mail: stracey@traceylawfirm.com
             sfox@traceylawfirm.com

Counsel for Plaintiff Brandon Adkins:

     Robert W. Cowan, Esq.
     K. Camp Bailey, Esq.
     Aaron H. Heckaman, Esq.
     Andrea M. McGinnis, Esq.
     Katie R. Caminati, Esq.
     BAILEY COWAN HECKAMAN PLLC
     1360 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 2300
     Houston, TX 77056
     Tel: (713) 425-7100
     Fax: (713) 425-7101
     E-mail: bailey-svc@bchlaw.com
             rcowan@bchlaw.com
             sbuchanan@bchlaw.com
             amcginnis@bchlaw.com
             kmcgregor@bchlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff Guillermo Camarillorazo and Plaintiff
Steven Wilkerson:

     Thomas W. Pirtle, Esq.
     Buffy K. Martines, Esq.
     LAMINACK, PIRTLE & MARTINES LLP
     5020 Montrose Blvd., 9th Floor
     Houston, TX 77006
     Tel: (713) 292-2750
     Fax: (713) 292-2755
     E-mail: tomp@lpm-triallaw.com
             buffym@lpm-triallaw.com

Counsel for Plaintiff Theodore Finley:

     Thomas J. Henry, Esq.
     Roger Turk, Esq.
     Russell W. Endsley, Esq.
     THOMAS J. HENRY LAW, PLLC
     521 Starr Street
     Corpus Christi, TX 78401
     Tel: (361) 985-0600
     Fax: (361) 985-0601
     E-mail: tjhenry@thomasjhenrylaw.com
             tjh.3m@thomasjhenrylaw.com
             rlt.3m@thomasjhenrylaw.com
             rwe.3m@thomasjhenrylaw.com

Counsel for Plaintiffs Ronald Sloan:

     Muhammad S. Aziz, Esq.
     ABRAHAM WATKINS NICHOLS
     800 Commerce St.
     Houston, TX 77055
     Tel: (713) 222-7211
     E-mail: maziz@abrahamwatkins.com

          - and -

     Shelley V. Hutson, Esq.
     CLARK, LOVE & HUTSON, PLLC
     440 Louisiana Street, Suite 1700
     Houston, TX 77002
     Tel: (713) 757-1400
     E-mail: shutson@triallawfirm.com

Counsel for Plaintiffs William Wayman:

     David R. Buchanan, Esq
     Maxwell H. Kelly, Esq.
     Caleb A. Seeley
     SEEGER WEISS
     55 Challenger Road Sixth Floor
     Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
     Tel: (973) 693-9100
     E-mail: dbuchanan@seegerweiss.com
             mkelly@seegerweiss.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff Luke Vilsmeyer:

     Joseph L. Messa, Jr., Esq.
     Ashley B. DiLiberto, Esq.
     MESSA & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     123 S. 22nd St.
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Tel: 215-568-3500
     E-mail: jmessa@messalaw.com
             adiliberto@messalaw.com

          - and -

     Bobby J. Bradford, Esq.
     AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
     17 East Main Street, Suite 200
     Pensacola, FL 32502
     Tel: (850) 202-1010
     E-mail: bbradford@awkolaw.com

Counsel for Plaintiff Jonathon Vaughn:

     Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
     WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL
     4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
     Kansas City, MO 64112
     Tel: (816) 701-1100
     E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com

Counsel for Plaintiff Jame [sic]:

     Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
     Bobby J. Bradford, Esq.
     Jennifer M. Hoekstra, Esq.
     Daniel J. Thornburgh, Esq.
     AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
     17 East Main Street, Suite 200
     Pensacola, FL 32502
     Tel: (850) 202-1010
     E-mail: baylstock@awkolaw.com
             bbradford@awkolaw.com
             jhoekstra@awkolaw.com
             dthornburgh@awkolaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

     Kevin H. Rhodes
     Executive Vice President and
     Chief Legal Affairs Officer Legal Affairs Department
     3M Company
     3M Center, 220-9E-01
     St. Paul, MN 55144-1000
     E-mail: 3MCAEnotices@mmm.com

          - and -

     Thomas J. Perrelli, Esq.
     Chair
     JENNER & BLOCK
     1099 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 900
     Washington, DC 20001-4412
     Tel: (202) 639-6004
     E-mail: tperrelli@jenner.com

          - and -

     Benjamin W. Hulse, Esq. (for Wave Cases)
     Partner
     NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
     60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3100
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Tel: (612) 321-2800
     Fax: (612) 321-2288
     E-mail: ben.hulse@nortonrosefulbright.com

3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Chemicals, Applewhite Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
BILL LEE-WAYNE APPLEWHITE, v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-03927-RMG
(D.S.C., Aug. 9, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants
seeking damages for personal injury and death resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter
turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting, says the suit.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of
Decedent's training and firefighting activities.

Mr. Applewhite is a resident and citizen of Jacksonville, Florida.
The Plaintiff regularly used and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during his working career in the military
and/or as a civilian. He was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a
result of exposure to the Defendants AFFF products, the Plaintiff
contends.

The Defendant includes AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT
DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION
FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); ALLSTAR
FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC;
HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY
SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC. PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN
MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; and W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.

3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Chemicals, Beam Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
GARY MICHAEL BEAM v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-03928-RMG (D.S.C.,
Aug. 9, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants seeking
damages for personal injury and death resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear
(TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting, says the suit.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of
Decedent's training and firefighting activities.

Mr. Beam is a resident and citizen of McCurtain, Oklahoma.  He
regularly used and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training
and during his working career in the military and/or as a civilian.
He Plaintiff was diagnosed with hyperthyroidism as a result of
exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, the Plaintiff contends.

The Defendant includes AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT
DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION
FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); ALLSTAR
FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC;
HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY
SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC. PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN
MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; and W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.

3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Chemicals, Gonzales Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Herby Gonzales v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-03935-RMG (D.S.C.,
Aug. 9, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants seeking
damages for personal injury and death resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear
(TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting, says the suit.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of
Decedent's training and firefighting activities.

Mr. Gonzales is a resident and citizen of Bulverde, Texas. He
regularly used and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training
and during his working career in the military and/or as a civilian.
He was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF product, the Plaintiff contends.

The Defendant includes AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT
DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION
FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); ALLSTAR
FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC;
HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY
SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC. PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN
MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; and W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.

3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Chemicals, Kremer Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN E. KREMER v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-03938-RMG (D.S.C.,
Aug. 9, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants seeking
damages for personal injury and death resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear
(TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting, says the suit.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of
Decedent's training and firefighting activities.

Mr. Kremer is a resident and citizen of Southgate, Missouri. He
regularly used and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training
and during his working career in the military and/or as a civilian.
He was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF products, the Plaintiff contends.

The Defendant includes AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT
DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION
FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); ALLSTAR
FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC;
HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY
SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC. PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN
MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; and W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.

3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Chemicals, Lang Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL LANG v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-03939-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 9, 2023)
is a class action against the Defendants seeking damages for
personal injury and death resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG)
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting, says the suit.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of
Decedent's training and firefighting activities.

Mr. Lang is a resident and citizen of Richland Hills, Texas. He
regularly used and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training
and during his working career in the military and/or as a civilian.
He was diagnosed with hypothyroidism as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF products, the Plaintiff contends.

The Defendant includes AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT
DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION
FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); ALLSTAR
FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC;
HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY
SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC. PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN
MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; and W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.

3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Chemicals, Ruffin Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALBERT RUFFIN, v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-03946-RMG (D.S.C.,
Aug. 9, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants seeking
damages for personal injury and death resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear
(TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting, says the suit.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of
Decedent's training and firefighting activities.

Mr. Ruffin is a resident and citizen of Newark, NJ. Plaintiff
regularly used and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training
and during his working career in the military and/or as a civilian.
The Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of
exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, the Plaintiff contends.

The Defendant includes AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT
DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION
FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); ALLSTAR
FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC;
HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY
SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC. PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN
MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; and W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.

3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Chemicals, Ward Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
DARON WARD v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-03950-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 9, 2023)
is a class action against the Defendants seeking damages for
personal injury and death resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG)
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting, says the suit.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of
Decedent's training and firefighting activities.

Mr. Ward is a resident and citizen of Goldsboro, NC. He regularly
used and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and
during his working career in the military and/or as a civilian. He
Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of
exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, the Plaintiff contends.

The Defendant includes AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT
DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION
FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); ALLSTAR
FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC;
HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY
SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC. PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN
MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; and W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.

3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

3M COMPANY: Palmer Toxic Chemicals Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as WALTER PALMER, et al. v. 3M
COMPANY, et al., Case No. 01-CV-2023-902355 (Filed Aug. 14, 2023)
was removed from the Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit,
Jefferson County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division.

The N.D. Alabama Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01060-RDP to
the proceedings.

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

In relevant part, the Plaintiffs allege that 3M and certain other
Defendants sold AFFF containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances, including perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid.

3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate operating in
the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer
goods.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
          Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
          Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
          ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
          2160 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 328-9200
          E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com
                  gary@elglaw.com
                  kmckie@elglaw.com

530 HOSPITALITY: Erkan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 530 Hospitality, LLC.
The case is styled as Nihal Erkan, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. 530 Hospitality, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-06240 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 18, 2023).

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

530 Hospitality, LLC doing business as The Skylark is an upscale
rooftop cocktail lounge.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


A&H LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Drivers' Minimum, OT Wages, Singh Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GURVINDER SINGH, on her own behalf and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. A&H LOGISTICS CORP. ABDELRAHMAN ABDELHAMID
a/k/a Abdel Rahman, Case No. 1:23-cv-04386 (D.N.J., Aug 11, 2023)
alleges that the Defendants failed to pay its employees, including
the Plaintiff, minimum wage for each hour worked and overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and
Hour Law, and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law.

The Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff
her lawful overtime compensation of one and one-half times (1.5x)
their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a given
workweek, the Plaintiff claims.

Accordingly, the Defendants failed to keep full and accurate
records in order to mitigate liability for their wage violations.
The Plaintiff estimates that he spent on average 126 hours per week
driving and around drove around 6,825 miles per week for the
Defendants.

From February 01, 2023, to May 31, 2023, the plaintiff was to be
paid sixty-five cents ($0.65) per mile that he drove. This meant
for the 6,825 miles that the Plaintiff drove per week he would earn
around Four Thousand Four Hundred Thirty-Six Dollars and
Twenty-Five Cents ($4,436.25). Although plaintiff Gurvinder Singh
was promised his mile rate, the defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiff for all the days that he worked. As a result of the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff his wages, the plaintiff
states that he is owed around sixteen thousand dollars ($16,000.00)
in back wages from the Defendants, the suit alleges.

Plaintiff Gurvinder Singh was employed by the Defendants as a Truck
Driver at Defendants Truck Company A&H Logistics Corp from February
01, 2023, to May 31, 2023.

A&H Logistics is a freight shipping trucking company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

AAC HOLDINGS: $3.75MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 18
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued a statement regarding the
AAC Securities Litigation:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

INDIANA PUBLIC RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MICHAEL T. CARTWRIGHT, KIRK R. MANZ
and ANDREW W. McWILLIAMS,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-00407

CLASS ACTION

Judge Eli J. Richardson
Magistrate Judge Alistair E. Newbern

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
THE COMMON STOCK OF AAC HOLDINGS, INC. ("AAC" OR THE "COMPANY")
BETWEEN MARCH 8, 2017 AND APRIL 15, 2019, INCLUSIVE ("CLASS" OR
"CLASS MEMBERS")

THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on
October 18, 2023, at 3:00 p.m., before the Honorable Eli Richardson
at the United States District Court, Middle District of Tennessee,
Nashville Division, Fred D. Thompson U.S. Courthouse and Federal
Building, Courtroom 5C, 719 Church Street, Nashville, TN 37203, to
determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement (the "Settlement")
of the above-captioned Litigation as set forth in the Stipulation
of Settlement ("Stipulation")1 for $3,750,000 in cash should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the
Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should be entered
dismissing the Litigation with prejudice; (3) to award
Plaintiff’s Counsel attorneys’ fees and expenses out of the
Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of Pendency and Proposed
Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), which is discussed below)
and, if so, in what amount; (4) to pay Plaintiff for its costs and
expenses in representing the Class out of the Settlement Fund and,
if so, in what amount; and (5) the Plan of Allocation should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate.

There exists the possibility that the Court may decide to conduct
the Settlement Hearing by video or telephonic conference, or
otherwise allow Class Members to appear at the hearing by phone or
videoconference, without further written notice to the Class. In
order to determine whether the date and time of the Settlement
Hearing have changed, or whether Class Members must or may
participate by phone or video, it is important that you monitor the
Court’s docket and the Settlement website,
www.AACSecuritiesLitigation.com, before making any plans to attend
the Settlement Hearing. Any updates regarding the Settlement
Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing
or updates regarding in-person or telephonic appearances at the
hearing, will also be posted to that website. Also, if the Court
requires or allows Class Members to participate in the Settlement
Hearing by telephone or videoconference, the access information
will be posted to the Settlement website,
www.AACSecuritiesLitigation.com.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED AAC COMMON STOCK BETWEEN
MARCH 8, 2017 AND APRIL 15, 2019, INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS ARE
AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION.

To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release
form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than November
24, 2023) or electronically (no later than November 24, 2023). Your
failure to submit your Proof of Claim by November 24, 2023, will
subject your claim to rejection and preclude your receiving any of
the recovery in connection with the Settlement of this Litigation.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired AAC common stock between
March 8, 2017 and April 15, 2019, inclusive, and do not request
exclusion from the Class, you will be bound by the Settlement and
any judgment and release entered in the Litigation, including, but
not limited to, the Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of
Claim.

If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more
completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder
(including your right to object to the Settlement), and a Proof of
Claim, you may obtain these documents, as well as a copy of the
Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions for
the defined terms used in this Summary Notice) and other settlement
documents, online at www.AACSecuritiesLitigation.com, or by writing
to:

AAC Securities Litigation
Claims Administrator
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
P.O. Box 301171
Los Angeles, CA 90030-1171

Inquiries should NOT be directed to AAC, Defendants, the Court, or
the Clerk of the Court.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of
Claim, may be made to Class Counsel:

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
Ellen Gusikoff Stewart
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 1-800-449-4900
settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com

IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A
REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED BY SEPTEMBER 27,
2023, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL CLASS
MEMBERS WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT EVEN IF THEY DO NOT SUBMIT
A TIMELY PROOF OF CLAIM.

IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE
SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY PLAINTIFF’S
COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES NOT TO EXCEED 17% OF THE
$3,750,000 SETTLEMENT AMOUNT AND EXPENSES NOT TO EXCEED $695,000,
AND/OR PAYMENT TO PLAINTIFF FOR ITS COSTS AND EXPENSES NOT TO
EXCEED $25,000. ANY OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND
SENT TO CLASS COUNSEL AND DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL BY SEPTEMBER 27,
2023, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.

DATED: July 6, 2023

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION


ALDER HOLDINGS LLC: Nipper Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alder Holdings LLC.
The case is styled as Joseph Nipper, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Alder Holdings LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-01239-ADA-CDB (E.D. Cal., Aug. 18, 2023).

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

Alder -- https://www.alder.com/ -- is a privately owned and
operated company offering security, home automation, and life
safety services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachel Elizabeth Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33133
          Phone: (305) 469-5881
          Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com


ALEXIA ADMOR FRENCH: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alexia Admor French
Designer Group, Ltd. The case is styled as Janelys Hernandez, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Alexia Admor
French Designer Group, Ltd., Case No. 1:23-cv-07296 (S.D.N.Y., Aug.
17, 2023).

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

Alexia Admor -- https://alexiaadmor.com/ -- is a womenswear brand
dedicated to offering aspirational luxury at accessible price
points.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMAISEM HOLDINGS: Colvin Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amaisem Holdings
Group, LLC. The case is styled as Whitney Colvin, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Amaisem Holdings
Group, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-23147-KMW (S.D. Fla., Aug. 18, 2023).

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

Amaisem Holdings Group, LLC is in the industry of offices and
clinics of doctors of medicine.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manuel Santiago Hiraldo
          HIRALDO PA
          401 E Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1400
          Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 400-4713
          Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

               - and –

          Michael Eisenband, Esq.
          EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
          515 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 533-4092
          Email: meisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com


AMAZON.COM INC: Cross Suit Removed to D. Colorado
-------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Leah Cross, Marco Granger Rivera, and Ryan
Schilling, and those similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM, INC., and
AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., was removed from the District Court of
Denver County, Colorado, to the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado on Aug. 17, 2023, and assigned Case No.
1:23-cv-02099.

The Plaintiffs allege that various policies effectively prevent
Delivery Associates from taking "duty-free paid rest breaks, as
required by Colorado law" and that the DSPs' drivers are "not paid
for those missed rest breaks." Based on this alleged conduct,
Plaintiffs bring claims on behalf of themselves and all similarly
situated employees under the Colorado Wage Claim Act, the Colorado
Minimum Wage Act, and for Civil Theft, to recover their allegedly
unpaid wages, other compensatory damages (including damages for
emotional distress), available statutory penalties, and attorneys'
fees and costs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David H. Seligman, Esq.
          Valerie L. Collins, Esq.
          Alex Hood, Esq.
          Juno E. Turner, Esq.
          TOWARDS JUSTICE
          303 E. 17th Ave. Suite 400
          Denver, CO 80203
          Phone: (720) 441-2236
          Email: david@towardsjustice.org
                 valerie@towardsjustice.org
                 alex@towardsjustice.org
                 juno@towardsjustice.org

               - and -

          Toby J. Marshall, Esq.
          Eric R. Nusser, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Phone: (206) 816-6603
          Email: tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com
                 eric@terrellmarshall.com

               - and -

          Shelby Leighton, Esq.
          David Muraskin, Esq.
          PUBLIC JUSTICE
          1620 L St. NW, Suite 630
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: (202) 797-8600
          Email: sleighton@publicjustice.net
                 dmuraskin@publicjustice.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jennifer S. Harpole, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          1900 Sixteenth Street, Suite 800
          Denver, CO 80202-5835
          Phone: 303.629.6200
          Fax: 303.484.3926
          Email: JHarpole@littler.com


AMAZON.COM INC: Kumar Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Anup Kumar, an individual, and those
similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC.,
Case No. 23CV004592 was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Sacramento, to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of California on
Aug. 17, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-at-00800.

The Plaintiff's Complaint in the State Court Action asserted the
following causes of action: Failure to Pay Overtime; Failure to Pay
Wages Due; Inaccurate Wage Statements; Waiting Time Penalties;
Retaliation in Violation of Gov't Code; Retaliation in Violation of
Gov't Code; Race Discrimination; National Origin Discrimination;
Harassment Due to Race; Hostile Work Environment in Violation of
Gov't Code; Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; Negligent
Infliction of Emotional Distress; Negligent Hiring, Supervision,
and Retention; Failure to Reimburse Employees for Required Business
Expenses; Unfair Competition; and Violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA").[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kent J. Sprinkle, Esq.
          Desiree J. Ho, Esq.
          Taylor Wendland, Esq.
          CDF LABOR LAW LLP
          4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 740
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Phone: (858) 646-0007
          Email: ksprinkle@cdflaborlaw.com
                 dho@cdflaborlaw.com
                 twendland@cdflaborlaw.com


AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Madriz's Appeal in Stockholder Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Justice Collins J. Seitz, Jr., of the Supreme Court of
Delaware dismisses an interlocutory appeal filed by David D.
Madriz, Jr., in the lawsuit styled IN RE AMC ENTERTAINMENT
HOLDINGS, INC. STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION Case No. 258, 2023 (Del.).

On July 20, 2023, the Appellant, David D. Madriz, Jr., filed this
interlocutory appeal from a stockholder class action pending in the
Court of Chancery. A proposed settlement has been submitted to the
Court of Chancery for approval.

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

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

Judge Seitz notes that it appears that Madriz sent a letter, dated
April 27, 2023, to the Court of Chancery ("April 27, 2023 Letter").
The letter appears on the docket for May 4, 2023 under Filing ID
Number 69956552.

In the April 27, 2023 Letter, Madriz expressed his concerns
regarding an "AMC Tokenization Scam," the need for discovery on
this issue, and the Plaintiff's counsel. According to Madriz, he
had telephone calls with Court of Chancery employees on June 26th
and June 27th regarding the lack of action on his April 27, 2023
Letter.

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

Therefore, Judge Seitz rules that this appeal is dismissed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 3, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/35tufdms from Leagle.com.


AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Simons Sues Over Certificate of Incorporation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Simons, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly-situated holders of Series A Convertible Participating
Preferred Stock and AMC Preferred Equity Units of AMC Entertainment
Holdings, Inc. v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., Case No.
2023-0835 (Court, Aug. 14, 2023) contends that AMC sought to raise
additional capital by securing shareholder approval to amend the
Company's Certificate of Incorporation to authorize the issuance of
additional shares of Common Stock and to issue those shares.

The Plaintiff seeks:

   (a) a declaratory judgment that the Settlement breaches the
       Series A Convertible Participating Preferred Stock
       Certificate of Designations (COD); and

   (b) an injunction requiring AMC to give effect to the anti-
       dilution provision in Section VI of the COD, which requires

       AMC to adjust the number of shares of AMC Class A Common
       Stock to be received by the holders of the Preferred Stock
       upon the conversion of the Preferred Stock, and give effect

       to Section III of the COD and distribute the Special
       Distribution of the Settlement to the holders of Preferred
       Stock at the same time and on the same terms as it will be
       distributed to the holders of Common Stock.

Two class actions were filed on behalf of holders of Common Stock
seeking, among other things, (i) a ruling that the creation of the
Preferred Stock was not properly authorized, and (ii) a separate
class vote for Class A Common Stockholders on the proposals at the
March 14, 2023 shareholder meeting. At the March 14, 2023, special
meeting, the 1-for-1 conversion was approved, but the Certificate
of Incorporation was not formally amended to authorize the issuance
of additional shares of Common Stock to support the conversion
because the Delaware Court of Chancery had previously issued an
Order allowing the special meeting to occur but preventing AMC from
formally amending its Certificate of Incorporation as a result of
any vote of shares at that special meeting.

The Settlement was granted final approval by the Court on August
11, 2023. As of the date of the filing of this Complaint, the March
14, 2023, shareholder approval of an increase in the number of
authorized shares of Common Stock and subsequent filing of the
amended Certificate of Incorporation that formalizes such increase,
conversion of all existing Preferred Stock into Common Stock on a
1-for-1 basis, and a subsequent 1-to-10 reverse stock split of the
Common Stock, has not yet been given effect, as it is currently
subject to a Status Quo Order.

On August 4, 2022, AMC announced the Board's creation of 10 million
new shares of Preferred Stock, which carried super voting
rights—100 votes per share, as compared to the 1 vote per share
enjoyed by the holders of AMC's Common Stock—and a corresponding
economic interest in the Company.

On December 22, 2022, AMC announced it had entered into a
multi-step agreement allowing a single investor, Antara Capital
L.P., to obtain over 257 million APEs—representing almost 28% of
all outstanding APEs—at an average cost of $0.66 per unit.

On March 14, 2023, AMC convened the Special Meeting and held a
shareholder vote where the Proposals, including the one-for-one
Conversion, were approved by a majority of Common Stock and
Preferred Stock.2

A total of 182,342,728 out of 517,580,416 eligible shares of the
Common Stock were present in person or represented by proxy at the
Special Meeting, and a total of 182,342,728 shares of Common Stock
were voted after excluding broker non-votes. Of those
182,342,728 shares of Common Stock voted, 132,182,944, or 72.5%,
voted in favor of the Proposals.

The Revised Settlement was approved by the Court on August 11,
2023. Once the Status Quo Order is lifted, the Company will
increase the number of Common Shares outstanding, distribute the
Special Distribution to the Common Stockholders and convert the
Preferred Stock. The Special Distribution gives one share of Common
Stock for every 7.5 shares held. In the conversion, outstanding
Preferred Stock will be converted into shares of Common Stock on a
basis of one-hundred (100) shares of Common Stock for each share of
Preferred Stock, and thus converts the APEs - which are each one
one-hundredth (1/100) of a Preferred Share - into common stock on a
1:1 basis.

The Revised Settlement violates the Certificate of Designations,
which calls for the number of shares of Common Stock to be received
upon the conversion of the Preferred Stock to be adjusted for any
dilution of the Common Stock that occurs "[i]n the event the
Corporation shall at any time prior to the Conversion Date issue
Additional Shares of Common Stock."

The Settlement also breaches the contractual right of the Preferred
Shareholders (and thus APE unitholders) under Section III of the
COD to receive distributions declared and paid or made in respect
of the shares of Common Stock, at the same time and on the same
terms as holders of Common Stock.

Mr. Simons has held AMC Preferred Equity units.

AMC is an American movie theater chain.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Russell D. Paul, Esq.
          Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq.
          Andrew Abramowitz, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          800 N. West Street, 2nd Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Court Grants Bid for Arbitration in Netzel Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Brian Netzel, et al., Plaintiffs v. American
Express Company, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV-22-01423-PHX-SMB
(D. Ariz.), Judge Susan M. Brnovich of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Arizona grants AmEx's motion to compel
arbitration.

Pending before the Court is Defendant American Express' ("AmEx")
Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint. Plaintiffs Brian Netzel, Travis Smith, Eric Langkamp,
and Nancy Larson filed a Response, and AmEx filed a Reply. The
Court exercises its discretion to resolve this motion without oral
argument.

AmEx is a "global, multi-billion dollar financial services firm
with over 60,000 employees." The Plaintiffs are all former AmEx
employees, who began working for AmEx in the following years:
Netzel, 2010; Smith, 2016; Langkamp, 2017; and Larson, 1993. They
allege AmEx implemented policies to hire and maintain a percentage
of African American employees to be comparable to that of the
United States population.

The Plaintiffs allege AmEx provided executives with financial
incentives to "decrease the percentage of white employees in their
departments" and punished employees, who were unwilling to make
employment decision based on race. AmEx allegedly discriminated
against white employees when it came to layoffs and repeatedly
instructed its workers that black employees and customers were to
be given favorable treatment. As a result of these practices, the
Plaintiffs allege they were terminated or forced to resign.

The Plaintiffs filed this class action lawsuit alleging multiple
claims on their own behalf, and on behalf of a similarly situated
class of AmEx employees for unlawful race discrimination (the
Plaintiffs and the Class), unlawful racial harassment/hostile
environment (the Plaintiffs and the Class), retaliation (Netzel,
Smith, and Larson), and constructive discharge (Smith, Langkamp,
and Larson) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Ms. Larson, individually and on behalf of a California Subclass of
AmEx employees, also brings claims for racial discrimination,
racial harassment, failure to prevent discrimination, harassment,
and retaliation under California Government Code Section 12900, et
seq. She, individually, also brings claims for retaliation and
constructive discharge under California Government Code Section
12900 et seq., and a claim for Tameny retaliation under California
public policy. The Plaintiffs bring a claim for unfair competition
under the California business and professional code and seek
declaratory relief.

In 2003, AmEx implemented an arbitration policy as a condition of
employment. The policy required all employees to submit
employment-related disputes to mandatory arbitration. The policy
applied initially to employees hired on or after June 1, 2003. In
2007, AmEx amended its arbitration policy to include all employees
hired before June 1, 2003, but allowed such employees to opt out.

Plaintiffs Netzel, Smith, and Langkamp began their employment after
June 1, 2003, and, accordingly, signed acknowledgement forms upon
commencement of their employment. Larson, whose employment predated
implementation of the policy, was provided an opportunity to opt
out, but she never submitted an opt out form. AmEx now moves to
compel arbitration.

The Court applies Arizona's choice of law rules to determine the
parties' substantive disputes.

The Plaintiffs argue California law should govern the
enforceability of the arbitration agreements because under McGill
v. Citibank, N.A., 393 P.3d 85 (Cal. 2017), California prohibits
contracts that waive a party's right to pursue public injunctive
relief.

AmEx disputes Plaintiffs' contacts with California. AmEx asserts
neither Netzel, Langkamp, nor Smith lived or worked in California
during their employment. But AmEx does recognize that Larson worked
for AmEx from her home in California. AmEx disputes the Plaintiffs'
attempts to tie this case to California's protection of public
injunctive relief.

Even assuming the prohibition of public injunctions is a
"fundamental policy" of California, the Court finds the Plaintiffs
have failed to establish that California has a greater material
interest in the enforceability of the arbitration agreements. Based
on these widely dispersed contacts, the Court cannot conclude that
California law would been the state of applicable law absent the
New York choice of law provision.

The Court also agrees with AmEx that the Plaintiffs do not seek
public injunctive relief as contemplated in McGill. Judge Brnovich
notes that the Plaintiffs do not seek relief with the purpose of
prohibiting unlawful acts that threaten the general public with
future injury. They instead seek to redress their specific injuries
and injuries to "a group of individuals similarly situated" to
them. Such relief does not constitute public injunctive relief, and
the Court finds McGill does not apply. The Court will, thus, apply
New York law as contemplated by the agreements.

The parties next dispute whether Larson received sufficient notice
to be bound by AmEx's arbitration policy. AmEx expanded its
arbitration policy to all its employees in 2007. Larson's
employment predated that policy change. AmEx states it emailed
Larson to inform her that she would have forty-five days to opt out
of the arbitration policy.

The Plaintiffs challenge AmEx's reliance on its employee Jeanne
Stout's declaration under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6), claiming
the emails lack foundation and arguing Stout is neither a custodian
or a qualified witness. The Court disagrees. Judge Brnovich holds
that Stout's declaration satisfies the requirements under Rule
803(6)(D), and the Court will consider Stout's declaration and the
related emails for the analysis presented.

Under New York law, the parties' conduct can lead to an inference
of a binding agreement. New York law also provides for a rebuttable
presumption that an employee received notice when that notice was
properly addressed and mailed. Judge Brnovich says the presumption
may be rebutted with evidence that the document was never
received.

The Court is unpersuaded by Larson's attempts to rebut this
presumption. Though Larson claims she never received the emails,
and despite describing her custom and practice of doing so, she
does not argue that she would not have been included in the group
of addressees described in the email. Her mere denial of ever
receiving the email is simply insufficient, Judge Brnovich points
out. In total, the Court finds Larson has not sufficiently rebutted
the presumption that she received notice of the arbitration
agreement.

AmEx asserts the Plaintiffs must be compelled to arbitrate their
claims because they are subject to valid arbitration agreements
that encompass all their claims. The Plaintiffs challenge the
enforceability of the agreements but not their validity. The Court
finds no issue with the arbitration agreements' validity and finds
the Plaintiffs' claims are entirely within its scope.

The Plaintiffs claim the arbitration agreements are unenforceable
because they are permeated with unconscionability. They assert the
agreement is procedurally unconscionable because it was
"take-it-or-leave-it" as a condition of employment. They also
describe a series of "sharp tactics" that AmEx used to "trick"
employees into signing the arbitration agreement. For example, AmEx
apparently rushed Netzel and Langkamp into signing the agreement
amongst a large stack of documents during their onboarding
processes.

Judge Brnovich finds that the Plaintiffs do not include a similar
argument that Smith's onboarding was procedurally unconscionable,
nor do they make a procedural unconscionability argument as to
Larson. The Court, thus, finds no unconscionability as to Smith and
Larson's agreements, and it will analyze only whether Netzel and
Langkamp's agreements were procedurally unconscionable.

AmEx contends that both Netzel and Langkamp knew before beginning
their employment that they would be subject to the arbitration
policy.

Even viewing the facts most charitably to Netzel and Langkamp, the
Court finds no procedural unconscionability. Even if the
arbitration agreement was layered into a stack of dozens of
onboarding documents, Netzel and Langkamp had prior notice that
their employment was conditional on their assent to the arbitration
agreement. Both of them then undisputedly signed the agreement on
their first days at AmEx.

The Court cannot say that either Netzel or Langkamp were subject to
a coercive high pressure tactic that effectively eliminated their
ability to make a meaningful choice. Without procedural
unconscionability, Judge Brnovich holds that the Plaintiffs'
defense fails, and the Court need not decide whether the agreement
was substantively unconscionable.

Because the Plaintiffs have not established that the arbitration
agreements are unenforceable, the Court finds the Plaintiffs'
claims are subject to arbitration under the plain language of their
agreements.

Accordingly, Judge Brnovich grants AmEx's Motion to Compel
Arbitration and Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The Clerk of
Court is instructed to terminate this case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 3, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yc87szmz from Leagle.com.


APFS LLC: Marconi Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Recruiters
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JULI MARCONI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. APFS LLC d/b/a ADDISON PROFESSIONAL
FINANCIAL SEARCH, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-05464 (N.D. Ill.,
August 14, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Ms. Marconi was employed by Addison as a recruiter in Schaumburg,
Illinois from approximately August 2020 until March 2021.

APFS LLC, doing business as Addison Professional Financial Search,
is a management consulting services provider that maintains its
headquarters in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
         Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
         WERMAN SALAS P.C.
         77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402
         Chicago, IL 60602
         Telephone: (312) 419-1008
         E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
                 msalas@flsalaw.com

                 - and -

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

                 - and -

         Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
         BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
         11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
         Houston, TX 77046
         Telephone: (713) 877-8788
         Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
         E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

ARGO BLOCKCHAIN: Murphy Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Aaron Murphy, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ARGO BLOCKCHAIN PLC, PETER WALL, ALEX
APPLETON, MATTHEW SHAW, SARAH GOW, COLLEEN SULLIVAN, and MARIA
PERRELLA, Defendants; Brian Begay, Benjamin Lamontagne, Ever
Garcia, Michael Phillips, Alex Lacy, Mohit Mohindru, Richard Hawes,
Movants; Case No. 1:23-cv-00572 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on Aug. 18,
2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-07305-CM to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commodities for
Securities Fraud.

Argo Blockchain PLC -- https://argoblockchain.com/ -- is
principally involved in crypto asset mining. The Company's mining
infrastructure is located at multiple sites in Quebec, Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher Whalen, Esq.
          Joel C. Haims, Esq.
          Kierstin S. Fowler, Esq.
          MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
          One Vanderbilt Avenue
          New York, NY 10017-5404
          Phone: (212) 547-5573
          Email: chwhalen@mwe.com
                 ksfowler@mwe.com


ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Plymouth Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
PLYMOUTH COUNTY RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION, et al. are taking an appeal
from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Plymouth
County Retirement Association, et al., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Array
Technologies, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-4390, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint
was filed against the Defendants for alleged violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiff Plymouth County
Retirement Association allege in the complaint that the Defendants
made no mention in the IPO Materials, the December 2020 SPO
Materials, and the March 2021 SPO Materials (the "Offerings")
submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission any issues
revolving around, inter alia, material negative impacts of rising
steel and freight costs on its operations. Furthermore, subsequent
to the Offerings during the Class Period, the Defendants repeatedly
and consistently painted a materially misleading picture of the
Company's business and prospects that did not reflect these rising
costs. After the Offerings, and subsequent to the Class Period,
Array disclosed that it was experiencing increases in steel prices
and substantial increases in the cost of both ocean and truck
freight that in turn were having a material impact on its margins
for the foreseeable future. This caused Array to miss profit
expectations and withdraw its full-year outlook.

On Oct. 17, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' consolidated class action complaint for violation of
the Federal Securities Laws, which the Court granted through an
Order entered by Judge Victor Marrero on May 19, 2023.

Judge Marrero held that the core of the Plaintiffs' allegations
that leads to dismissal of their claims, is that investors, like
the Plaintiffs, were harmed when Array failed to accurately predict
the future. The securities laws do not require any issuer,
including Array, to have such prescience for divining market
volatility with the precision that the Plaintiffs seek, especially
not in the context of all the financial market challenges,
uncertainties, and volatility engendered by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Hence, the Plaintiffs' claims must be dismissed. For these reasons,
Judge Marrero granted the motion of the Defendants to dismiss in
its entirety.

On June 9, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file an
amended complaint, which Court denied on July 5, 2023. The action
was dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court was directed to
close the case.

The appellate case is captioned Plymouth County Retirement
Association v. Array Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-1122,
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed
on August 7, 2023. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants PLYMOUTH COUNTY RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION, et
al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

            Michael P. Canty, Esq.
            LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
            140 Broadway
            New York, NY 10005
            Telephone: (212) 907-0700

Defendants-Appellees ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al. are
represented by:

            Lisa Heather Bebchick, Esq.
            ROPES & GRAY LLP
            1211 Avenue of the Americas
            New York, NY 10036
            Telephone: (212) 596-9000

                    - and -

            Peter L. Welsh, Esq.
            ROPES & GRAY LLP
            Prudential Tower
            800 Boylston Street
            Boston, MA 02199
            Telephone: (617) 951-7000

                    - and -

            Robert Andrew Sacks, Esq.
            SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
            1888 Century Park East
            Los Angeles, CA 90067
            Telephone: (310) 712-6600

                    - and -

            Stefan H. Atkinson, Esq.
            KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
            601 Lexington Avenue
            New York, NY 10022
            Telephone: (212) 446-4803

                    - and -

            Jay B. Kasner, Esq.
            SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
            One Manhattan West
            New York, NY 10001
            Telephone: (212) 735-2628

ASSOCIATED MATERIAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Marlin Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES MARLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ASSOCIATED MATERIALS, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 5:23CV1621-BYP (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 21, 2023) is an action against
the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the
Plaintiff's and the Class' personally identifiable information.

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

As a result, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was compromised
through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party—an
undoubtedly nefarious third party seeking to profit off this
disclosure by defrauding the Plaintiff and Class Members in the
future, says the suit.

ASSOCIATED MATERIALS, LLC is a manufacturer of professionally
installed exterior building products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elizabeth Ruth Klos, Esq.
          COLE & VAN NOTE
          555 12th Street, Suite 2100
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 891-9800
          Facsimile: (510)891-7030)
          Email: erk@colevanote.com

ASTEC INDUSTRIES: TGERS Suit Remanded to E.D. Tenn.
---------------------------------------------------
Astec Industries, 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 31, 2022, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued an opinion
reversing the dismissal of the company and one former executive
officer, affirming the dismissal of certain other former executive
officers and remanding "City of Taylor General Employees Retirement
System v. Astec Industries, Inc., et al.," Case No.
1:19-cv-24-CEA-CHS to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee for proceedings consistent with the
opinion. On July 11, 2022 Defendants filed an answer to the
complaint, and the action is now in discovery.

The company and certain of its former executive officers were named
as defendants in a putative shareholder class action lawsuit filed
on February 1, 2019, as amended on August 26, 2019, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The
complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making allegedly false and
misleading statements and that the individual defendants were
control persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The complaint is filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased
stock of the company between July 26, 2016 and October 22, 2018 and
seeks monetary damages on behalf of the purported class. On October
25, 2019, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. On February 19,
2021, the Motion to Dismiss was granted with prejudice and judgment
was entered for the defendants. On March 19, 2021, plaintiff filed
a Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment and For Leave to File the
Proposed Amended Complaint, which was denied on May 5, 2021.
Plaintiff appealed the Motion to Dismiss and denial of its Motion
to Alter or Amend the Judgment and For Leave to File the Proposed
Amended Complaint to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit.

Astec Industries, Inc. designs, engineers, manufactures and markets
equipment and components used primarily in road building and
related construction activities, as well as other products
discussed below.


ATLANTIC SPECIALTY: Denial of Bid in PacificSource Suit Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned PACIFICSOURCE HEALTH PLANS,
Plaintiff-Appellee v. ATLANTIC SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 22-35666 (9th Cir.), the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reverses an order
denying a motion to set aside a default judgment.

Atlantic Specialty Insurance Co. ("ASIC") appeals the district
court's order denying its motion to set aside a default judgment
entered in favor of PacificSource Health Plans. The Panel reverses
and remands for further proceedings.

When considering whether to set aside a default judgment for
"excusable neglect," see Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), the three "Falk
factors" inform the district court's discretion, the Court of
Appeals notes, citing Falk v. Allen, 739 F.2d 461, 463 (9th Cir.
1984).

The Falk factors are: (1) whether the plaintiff will be prejudiced;
(2) whether the defendant has a meritorious defense; and (3)
whether culpable conduct of the defendant led to the default. The
district court can deny relief on the basis of any factor, but must
consider that the excusable neglect inquiry is at bottom an
equitable one, taking account of all relevant circumstances
surrounding the party's omission.

The Court of Appeals finds that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in finding that setting aside the default judgment
would not prejudice PacificSource.

To satisfy the meritorious defense requirement, a party must simply
allege sufficient facts that, if true, would constitute a defense.
ASIC argues that its defense is meritorious because the costs of
giving notice to class members are not covered under the plain text
of the Policy.

In the underlying state-court class action ("Gardner" or "the
Gardner action"), the trial court ordered PacificSource to pay the
class notice costs as part of the injunctive relief that would be
entered against PacificSource. The Panel notes that the fact that
PacificSource and the Gardner plaintiffs later entered into a
stipulated order concerning class notice procedures does not alter
its analysis. The order was entered into "pursuant" to the Gardner
court's class certification order and was described as a
settlement.

ASIC argues that, because the notice costs were court-ordered, they
were not incurred in the investigation or defense of the Gardner
action (and, therefore, were not Claim Expenses), but rather
constituted a settlement, judgment or other amount, which
PacificSource was legally obligated to pay as a result of a Claim.
Thus, according to ASIC, these costs fall into the Policy's
"Damages" category--but because the definition of "Damages"
excludes any cost or expense of complying with any injunctive
relief, the costs are not covered.

The district court rejected this argument, noting that the Policy's
definition of "Claim Expenses" does not expressly exclude
court-ordered costs. The Policy, however, must be read as a whole,
the Panel opines. If PacificSource could simply reframe the relief
it was ordered to pay as a "Claim Expense" to escape the Policy's
exclusion of "any cost or expense of complying with any injunctive
relief," the Damages exclusion would be rendered meaningless,
violating principles of contract interpretation.

The Court of Appeals says it need not and do not decide the merits
of the underlying coverage dispute. But ASIC has suggested a
plausible reading of the Policy that would exclude coverage of the
notice costs. By failing to consider the Policy in its entirety,
the Court of Appeals finds that the district court abused its
discretion when it concluded that ASIC failed to meet its minimal
burden to demonstrate a meritorious defense.

To conclude that ASIC was culpable, the district court relied on
ASIC's admission of fault, the Montana Insurance Code, and
out-of-Circuit cases finding no excusable neglect where a default
was caused by the movant's failure to establish minimum procedural
safeguards for responding to complaints.

ASIC admitted that it mishandled the complaints, but it did not
admit--and no facts have been alleged--that it acted intentionally
or in bad faith. PacificSource argues that the Montana Insurance
Code establishes ASIC's bad faith, and in its culpability
assessment, the district court also noted that ASIC failed to
comply with its obligations to respond to service under the Code.

But state law does not limit a federal court's discretion to set
aside a default judgment under Rule 60, a procedural inquiry, the
Court of Appeals opines. It points out that it was error for the
district court to rely on the Montana Insurance Code to find that
ASIC acted in bad faith.

The district court abused its discretion in finding ASIC culpable
and, to the extent it relied on Montana law in its assessment,
committed an error of law, the Court of Appeals holds. For all
these reasons, the Court of Appeals finds that the district court
abused its discretion in denying ASIC's motion to set aside the
default judgment.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated Aug. 3, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/kn2vyey7 from Leagle.com.


AUTOMATIC DATA: Faces ERISA Suit in New Jersey Court
----------------------------------------------------
Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (ADP) 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
2020, a putative class action complaint was filed against ADP,
TotalSource and related defendants in the U.S. District Court,
District of New Jersey.

The complaint asserts violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) in connection with the ADP TotalSource
Retirement Savings Plan's fiduciary administrative and investment
decision-making.

The complaint seeks statutory and other unspecified monetary
damages, injunctive relief and attorney's fees.

Automatic Data Processing, Inc. provides comprehensive cloud-based
human capital management solutions that unite HR, payroll, talent,
time, tax and benefits administration.


AVIS BUDGET GROUP: Cairns Files Suit in D. New Mexico
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Avis Budget Group,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Norman Wayne Cairns, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated v. Avis Budget Group,
Inc., Sedwick Claims MGMT Services, ABG Recovery US, Case No.
1:23-cv-00695-JFR (D.N.M., Aug. 19, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Avis Budget Group -- http://www.avisbudgetgroup.com/-- is American
car rental agency holding company headquartered in Parsippany, New
Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


BARBARA TAYLOR: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Brown
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Keith., et al., v. Barbara
A. Taylor, Case No. 4:23-cv-04112-SLD-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. 2, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/444lGz6 at no extra charge.[CC]

BEIERSDORF INC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Amended Akes Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TONYA AKES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BEIERSDORF, INC., Defendant, Civil
No. 3:22-cv-869 (JBA) (D. Conn.), Judge Janet Bond Arterton of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut denies the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff Akes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, brings a class action suit against Defendant Beiersdorf
alleging violations of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"),
California Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), and False Advertising Law
("FAL") (collectively, the "California Statutes") as well as unjust
enrichment. The essence of the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is
that she was misled by the Defendant's deceptive labeling on its
2.5-ounce bottle of Coppertone Sport Mineral sunscreen based on her
perception that its labelling "Face 50" meant that it was
"specifically designed" or "specifically formulated" "for use on
the face."

The Plaintiff points to three statements on the label to support
her belief: "FACE," "Won't Run Into Eyes," and "Oil Free." She
calls "Won't Run Into Eyes" and "Oil Free" "face-specific
representations." The Plaintiff alleges that the sunscreen in this
2.5-ounce "FACE" packaging is identical to the sunscreen contained
in the Defendant's larger 5-ounce Coppertone Sport Mineral bottle
which does not label itself with the words "FACE," but is priced at
half the cost per ounce. Her theory of the deception is that the
Defendant purports to have a specialized facial sunscreen which it
sells at a premium, but the sunscreen sold in the "FACE" container
is no different from the sunscreen sold in the larger (and
significantly cheaper per ounce) bottles.

The Defendant contends that the Plaintiff cannot rely on a price
comparison between the two bottles of sunscreen to demonstrate
deception and that she fails to adequately plead that the "FACE"
bottle is deceptive in and of itself. It moves to dismiss the
Amended Complaint arguing that the Plaintiff has failed to plead
that anything on the label was actually false, or that she was
harmed through any misleading implication.

As to the Plaintiff's California statutory claims, Judge Arterton
finds that (i) the word "FACE" is prominently displayed front and
center and the Plaintiff's claimed interpretation is plausible
based on particularized facts alleged, and is thus sufficient to
survive a motion to dismiss; (ii) the Plaintiff's claim she relied
on the "FACE" label for her belief that the ingredients were
tailored specifically for the face survives dismissal and it
remains an open factual question for development in discovery
whether the lotion (in both bottles) was identical and/or was
formulated for facial use; and (iii) the Plaintiff's articulation
of economic injury suffices to meet the standing requirement.

Count V is a claim for quasi-contract and unjust enrichment, on the
basis that the deceptive and misleading labeling led the Plaintiff
and the nationwide class to purchase the "FACE" lotion product at
two times the price charged for the non-"FACE" product. The
Defendant urges that this side-stepping of California's bar on
unjust enrichment claims is ineffective.

Judge Arterton holds that the alleged duplicative nature of the
Plaintiff's restitution claim is not a basis for dismissal.
Additionally, the Defendant overlooks that whether the sunscreen is
specifically formulated for the face remains a factual dispute
requiring discovery.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Arterton denies the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2023 Ruling is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3tnbxncs from Leagle.com.


BEN & JERRY'S: Tyrnauer Suit Transferred to D. Vermont
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Dovid Tyrnauer, Sarah Tickle, Amanda Berger,
David Callaway, Tiffany Taylor, Chris Halverson, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Ben & Jerry's
Homemade Inc., Case No. 7:23-cv-01877 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Vermont on Aug. 11, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00299-cr to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Ben & Jerry's Homemade Holdings Inc., trading and commonly known as
Ben & Jerry's, is an American company that manufactures ice cream,
frozen yogurt, and sorbet.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake H. Yagman, Esq.
          Israel David, Esq.
          ISRAEL DAVID LLC
          17 State Street, Suite 4010
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 739-0622

The Defendant is represented by:

          Dale J. Giali, Esq.
          Keri E. Borders, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 443-4355
          Fax: (213) 443-4310

               - and -

          Shaila Rahman Sayma Diwan, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING, LLP
          1185 Avenue of the Americas, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: (212) 556-2100
          Fax: (212) 556-2222


BIG FISH: Bid for Protective Order Denied in Campos Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHAN CAMPOS, v. BIG FISH
GAMES, INC., a Washington corporation, et al., Case No.
2:22-cv-01806-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Ricardo S. Martinez
entered an order granting in part the Plaintiff's motions to compel
and denying the Defendant's motion for a Protective order.

Mr. Campos argues that users' personal information regarding
purchases and login information is necessary in order to determine
which "purchases were made in connection with the false advertising
at issue."

Big Fish argues that these requests are overbroad and irrelevant
and that they ultimately violate the privacy interests of
individuals.

The Court finds this information relevant for discovery purposes.
The entire basis of this litigation involves in-app purchases made
in connection with false advertising.

The Court does not find this request to be burdensome since Mr.
Campos has offered to limit the scope of discovery to purchases
made after February 2021, so as to include only those purchases
made after approval of the Kater settlement.

Mr. Campos has failed to provide any evidence that a defect or
anomaly in the code exists or may exist that would render a request
for the source code a reasonable request. The Court finds that
source code review is unreasonable and disproportionate in light of
the narrow issues being disputed. Thus, the Court denies this
request.

Big Fish is a developer and distributor of casual games for
computers and mobile devices. Mr. Campos and the putative class are
individual gamers who have engaged with games created by Big Fish
and who have made in-game purchases.

Mr. Campos brings this proposed class action against Big Fish for
violations of FTC regulations, alleging that Big Fish engaged in
unfair business practices by advertising in-game i tems such as
virtual chips or virtual gold, using misleading sale offers that
included false comparisons to the purported non-sale values and
misleading countdown timers that reset endlessly.

Big Fish is a casual gaming company based in Seattle.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DUDrpJ at no extra charge.[CC]

BLUE & CREAM: Erkan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue & Cream, LLC.
The case is styled as Nihal Erkan, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Blue & Cream, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-06241 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 18, 2023).

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

Blue & Cream (B&C) -- https://blueandcream.com/ -- is a Hamptons
based multi-label Mens & Womens retail clothing store.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BLUE CROSS: Merz Sues Over Denied Religious Accommodation Request
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TODD MERZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN,
Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-12079-MAG-APP (E.D. Mich., August 14,
2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Elliott-Larsen
Civil Rights Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure or refusal to
accommodate the religious beliefs and practices of its employees in
connection with its mandatory COVID-19 vaccine policy for all
employees and contractors, including those working remotely. The
Defendant terminated approximately 250 employees who requested a
religious accommodation to the COVID-19 vaccine on January 5, 2022.
As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's misconduct, the
Plaintiff and Class members have suffered emotional and physical
distress, mental and physical anguish, loss of reputation,
humiliation and embarrassment, and the physical effects associated
therewith, and will so suffer in the future, says the suit.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a rating and
underwriting consultant from May 20, 1996, until his termination
effective January 5, 2022.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan is a nonprofit corporation, with
a principal place of business located at 600 E. Lafayette Blvd.,
Detroit, Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Noah Hurwitz, Esq.
         HURWITZ LAW PLLC
         340 Beakes St., Ste. 125
         Ann Arbor, MI 48104
         Telephone: (844) 487-9489
         E-mail: noah@hurwitzlaw.com

BOMBAS LLC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bombas LLC. The case
is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Bombas LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-07292
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2023).

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

Bombas -- http://www.bombas.com/-- is an apparel brand. The
company originally sold socks and began selling T-shirts in
2019.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BP EXPLORATION: Claims in Smith BELO Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEROME SMITH v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET
AL., Civil Action No. 22-842 (E.D. La.), Judge Wendy B. Vitter of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana:

   a. grants BP's Motion for Summary Judgment; and

   b. denies the Plaintiff's Amended Rule 56(d) Motion to Deny or
      Defer Briefing on BP's Motion for Summary Judgment.

Before the Court is BP's Motion for Summary Judgment filed by
Defendants BP Exploration & Production Inc. and BP America
Production Co. The Plaintiff opposes the Motion. The Defendants
have filed a Reply in support of their Motion. Also before the
Court is an Amended Rule 56(d) Motion to Deny or Defer Briefing on
BP's Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Plaintiff. The
Defendants oppose the Motion.

The case arises from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of
Mexico in 2010 and the subsequent cleanup efforts of the Gulf
Coast. On Jan. 11, 2013, Judge Carl J. Barbier, who presided over
the multidistrict litigation arising out of the Deepwater Horizon
incident, approved the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class
Action Settlement Agreement (the "MSA"). The MSA allows for certain
individuals, referred to as "BELO" plaintiffs, to seek compensation
for injuries resulting from spill-related exposures that were first
diagnosed after April 16, 2012. Plaintiff Smith is a BELO
plaintiff.

The Plaintiff filed the individual action against the Defendants on
March 30, 2022 to recover for injuries allegedly sustained as a
result of the oil spill. For approximately four months in 2010, the
Plaintiff worked as a cleanup worker, tasked with cleaning up oil
and oil-covered debris from the beaches and coastal areas in
Mississippi. He alleges that the Defendants' negligence in both
causing the Gulf oil spill and subsequently failing to properly
design and implement a clean-up response caused him to suffer
injuries including chronic rhinitis. Specifically, he seeks to
recover economic damages, personal injury damages -- including
damages for past and future medical expenses and for pain and
suffering -- and costs.

The original deadline for the Plaintiff to provide his expert
reports to the Defendants was March 1, 2023. Shortly before that
deadline, he moved for an extension of all outstanding pre-trial
deadlines, including the deadline to produce expert reports. The
Court, finding that good cause existed to warrant an extension,
gave the Plaintiff, inter alia, a 30-day extension, i.e., until
March 31, 2023, on his deadline to provide expert reports to the
Defendants. The Plaintiff failed to provide expert reports by the
deadline. Instead, he filed yet another Motion to Extend Case
Management Deadlines, requesting an additional 90-day extension on
his deadline to provide an expert report. The Court denied the
Motion, finding that the Plaintiff had failed to provide good cause
for another continuance in this matter.

The Defendants filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment on May
1, 2023 asserting that they are entitled to summary judgment
because the Plaintiff has not produced an expert report or any
expert testimony in support of his exposure-related health
complaints -- a necessary requirement under controlling Fifth
Circuit precedent -- and, thus, cannot prove that his alleged
medical conditions were caused by his exposure to substances
related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

In response, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Rule 56(d) Motion to
Deny or Defer Briefing on BP's Motion for Summary Judgment seeking
a denial or deferment of the Defendants' Motion. He contends that
he needs additional time to review discovery so that he may proffer
the required expert opinion testimony on his behalf.

Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that information contained in
materials obtained from BP's contractors, Exponent and CTEH, is
essential for his experts' ability to tabulate a harmful level of
exposure and that his expert requires more time to review this
discovery. He incorporates the same arguments that he raised in his
prior Motion to Extend Case Management Deadlines which was denied
by the Court.

The Plaintiff also attaches an affidavit from Dr. Ranajit Sanu
explaining the importance of the Exponent documents to his case and
opining that the specific Deepwater Horizon oil spill exposure data
collected by Exponent is inaccurate and flawed. Dr. Sanu contends
that he requires additional time to review the Exponent documents
to determine the failures and limitations of the sampling data
collected after the oil spill. Lastly, the Plaintiff provides
orders from several other courts in which similar B3 and BELO
plaintiffs have been granted extensions on their deadlines to
provide expert reports; none of the cited cases concern the
granting of a Rule 56(d) motion, however.

The Defendants filed both a reply memorandum in support of their
own Motion for Summary Judgment as well as a response in opposition
to the Plaintiff's Rule 56(d) Motion, in which they incorporated by
reference the arguments set forth in their reply. They argue that
the Plaintiff should not be granted any more time to provide expert
reports on his behalf because he fails to provide any case-specific
reason as to why a continuance is necessary.

The Defendants also contest the Plaintiff's contention that the
Exponent documents are relevant to the Motion for Summary Judgment,
arguing that the Exponent documents have no bearing on the general
causation inquiry because data from the response is not needed for
a general causation opinion. Accordingly, they contend that the
Court should grant their Motion for Summary Judgment and deny the
Plaintiff's Amended Rule 56(d) Motion to Deny or Defer Briefing on
BP's Motion for Summary Judgment.

Judge Vitter explains that the burden of proof is on the BELO
plaintiffs to prove that the legal cause of the claimed injury or
illness is exposure to oil or other chemicals used during the
response. To prove causation, BELO plaintiffs are required to
provide reliable expert testimony. To establish general causation,
a causation expert must identify the harmful level of exposure to a
chemical at which physical symptoms manifest.

Judge Vitter has carefully reviewed the Plaintiff's Motion,
supporting memorandum, the accompanying affidavit of Dr. Sanu, and
other attached materials and finds no basis for granting the
Plaintiff's Rule 56(d) Motion. She says all of the Plaintiff's
arguments pertaining to the Exponent discovery material concern the
accuracy and reliability of the sampling data taken by the
Defendants after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Even if the
Plaintiff's contentions are correct, he still fails to properly
establish 'the harmful level of exposure to a chemical' at which
physical symptoms manifest, one of the minimal facts necessary to
sustain a plaintiff's burden in a toxic tort case.

Accordingly, because the Plaintiff fails to demonstrate how
additional time to review the Exponent discovery has any bearing on
his obligation to provide an admissible general causation expert
report, he has not shown how any emergent facts, if adduced, will
influence the outcome of the pending summary judgment motion. For
that reason, Judge Vitter denies the Plaintiff's Rule 56(d) Motion
to deny or defer ruling on the Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment. She does not prolong the matter without any showing that
the Plaintiff is able to produce a general causation expert report
that meets the Daubert standards for reliability.

Without expert testimony, which is required to prove general
causation, Judge Vitter holds that the Plaintiff has failed to
demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact regarding his claims
that his injuries were caused by exposure to oil. When a plaintiff
has no expert testimony to prove his medical diagnosis or causation
at trial, the plaintiff's suit may be dismissed at the summary
judgment stage. Thus, the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment
must be granted as the Defendants are entitled to judgment as a
matter of law due to the Plaintiff's failure to establish general
causation.

The Plaintiff's claims against the Defendants are dismissed with
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2023 Order & Reasons is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yxb32ybv from Leagle.com.


BRADY W. DOUGAN: Colbert Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Star Colbert, Assenagon Credit Subdebt And Coco,
Axiom Lux Sicav, and Axiom European Financial Debt Fund Limited,
individually and on Behalf of All Other Credit Suisse Group AG AT1
Bondholders v. BRADY W. DOUGAN, ERIC VARVEL, JAMES L. AMINE,
TIMOTHY P. O'HARA, DAVID MILLER, BRIAN CHIN, CHRISTIAN MEISSNER,
GAËL DE BOISSARD, URS RÖHNER, TIDJANE THIAM, THOMAS GOTTSTEIN,
SIR ANTÓNIO HORTA-OSORIO, ROBERT S. SHAFIR, LARA J. WARNER,
RICHARD E. THORNBURGH, ANDREAS GOTTSCHLING, MICHAEL KLEIN, and
NOREEN DOYLE, Case No. 1:23-cv-04582 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on Aug. 17,
2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-07297-KPF to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for Breach
of Fiduciary Duty.

Brady William Dougan is an American banker and CEO of Exos.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Greg G. Gutzler, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT LLC
          485 Lexington Ave., Suite 1001
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (314) 833-6645
          Email: ggutzler@dicellolevitt.com


BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Newton Seeks Leave to File Supplemental Notice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD A. NEWTON, SR.,
Individually and on behalf of a Class of Individuals Similarly
Situated, v. BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
1:20-cv-02001-AT (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff seeks leave to file his
notice of supplemental authority in support of his motion for class
certification.

The proposed Notice of Supplemental Authority briefly describes the
relevance of the opinions to the issues raised in the briefing of
Newton's Motion.

Brighthouse is a major provider of annuities and life insurance in
the United States.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 2, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/459QVdd at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roy E. Barnes, Esq.
          J. Cameron Tribble, Esq.
          THE BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC
          31 Atlanta Street
          Marietta, GA 30060
          Telephone: (770) 227-6375
          Facsimile: (770) 227-6373
          E-mail: roy@barneslawgroup.com
                  ctribble@barneslawgroup.com

BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Newton Seeks Oral Argument on Class Status Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD A. NEWTON, SR.,
Individually and on behalf of a Class of Individuals Similarly
Situated, v. BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
1:20-cv-02001-AT (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order granting request for oral argument on his motion for class
certification.

Brighthouse is a major provider of annuities and life insurance in
the United States.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 2, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DX2RDq at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roy E. Barnes, Esq.
          J. Cameron Tribble, Esq.
          THE BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC
          31 Atlanta Street
          Marietta, GA 30060
          Telephone: (770) 227-6375
          Facsimile: (770) 227-6373
          E-mail: roy@barneslawgroup.com
                  ctribble@barneslawgroup.com

BROOKLYN AAR LLC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brooklyn AAR, LLC.
The case is styled as Randy Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Brooklyn AAR, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-06203-KAM-PK (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2023).

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

Brooklyn AAR, LLC is a company in Brookly, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CENTENE MGMT: Bid to Exclude Expert Testimony in Angelo Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERIN ANGELO, NICHOLAS ANGELO, AND CYNTHIA WILSON, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. CENTENE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, CELTIC INSURANCE COMPANY,
SUPERIOR HEALTH PLAN, INC., and CENTENE COMPANY OF TEXAS, L.P.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00484-RP (W.D. Tex.), Magistrate Judge
Dustin M. Howell of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas, Austin Division:

   a. denies the Defendants' Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony;
      and

   b. recommends that the District Court denies the Plaintiffs'
      Motion for Class Certification.

The lawsuit is a class action on behalf of all individuals in the
State of Texas who from Jan. 1, 2014, through Dec. 31, 2021 were
insured for health care under the Ambetter insurance policy sold
and managed by the Defendants. The Plaintiffs allege that the lists
of providers represented to be available to insureds were
materially inaccurate in that they contained thousands of names of
providers who were not available to provide medical care. As a
result, the premiums paid by the class members were artificially
inflated because policyholders were charged for access to providers
who were not in fact available to them. The class action seeks to
recover the alleged overcharges.

The health insurance policies at issue are offered under the
Affordable Care Act and sold through the government's Affordable
Care Act marketplace at healthcare.gov. The healthcare.gov listings
for available policies list price, co-pay amounts, deductibles, and
offer the ability to search the provider database -- but the
listings do not include the number of providers in the network.
However, the Defendants are required to maintain a network that is
sufficient in number and types of providers to ensure that all
services will be accessible without unreasonable delay.

The Plaintiffs filed the pending motion for class certification
seeking to certify a class of "all persons in the State of Texas
who were insured by Defendants' Ambetter insurance product which
was purchased through the [Affordable Care Act] HIE from the date
on which the Ambetter policies were first sold in Texas to Dec. 31,
2021," a class of more than 400,000 people. They seek compensation
for alleged overpayment of insurance premiums due to inflated
insurance premium prices.

The gravamen of the Plaintiffs' complaint is the theory that the
defendant insurance companies misrepresented the accuracy, size,
and availability of providers of their network since it was not as
robust as Defendants represent it to be" and therefore caused them
to pay inflated insurance premiums. They ask the Court to
conditionally certify this suit as a collective action.

The Defendants responded and separately moved to strike the
declarations included in the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification on the grounds that they do not have Article III
standing, and do not fulfill the Rule 23(b)(3) requirements of
predominance and superiority. Further, the Defendants also moved to
exclude one of the Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion Experts
on the grounds that the expert's methodology for measuring damages
is unreliable, and thus that it does not pass the Daubert
standard.

Before turning to the class certification motion, Judge Howell
addresses the Defendants' motion to strike the Plaintiffs' expert
testimony in support of class certification. They object to the
testimony of the Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Simon. F. Haeder, arguing
that his testimony is unreliable and irrelevant, and therefore does
not pass the standard set in Daubert. They posit five reasons why
Dr. Haeder's testimony should be excluded: (1) Dr. Haeder's damages
model improperly assumes that Superior made a promise that is not
contained in the relevant contract; (2) Dr. Haeder's model does not
measure the harm that flows from an inaccurate directory; (3) Dr.
Haeder's model is inconsistent with the governing law; (4) Dr.
Haeder relies on improper assumptions about Superior's network
breadth; and (5) Dr. Haeder's model fails to account for
supply-side factors.

The Plaintiffs have designated Dr. Haeder as an expert to testify
on their purported damage caused by the Defendants' allegedly
inflated premium rate. The Defendants challenge the damages model
Dr. Haeder utilizes to arrive at his suggested damages number.

Judge Howell holds that the Defendants are contesting the basis of
the Dr. Haeder's opinion in that they contest the assumptions
underlying his findings, (as well as, in some cases, the sources of
his opinions). These issues go to the weight of and not
admissibility of Dr. Haeder's testimony. Judge Howell finds that
given that the standard for measuring reliability at this stage is
relatively low and grounds for exclusion is limited to an inquiry
as to relevance to class certification requirements, Dr. Haeder's
testimony should not be excluded. Therefore, the Defendants' motion
to exclude Dr. Haeder's testimony in support of class certification
is denied.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify their class under Rule 23(b)(3). The
Defendants object, arguing to the Plaintiffs cannot fulfill Rule
23(b)(3)'s predominance and superiority requirements of Rule
23(b)(3). They, however, contend that the Court need not address
the merits of the Plaintiffs' class-certification arguments because
the Plaintiffs lack the requisite standing to sue in the first
place.

As standing is a constitutional threshold that the Plaintiffs
themselves must first meet before obtaining certification on behalf
of the proposed class, Judge Howell addresses that issue first. He
finds that the Plaintiffs' have not plausibly pleaded an injury in
fact in pleading that they paid inflated prices for coverage under
the Defendants' insurance policies. The Plaintiffs, therefore, lack
standing to bring their claim. Because the suit does not present a
justiciable case or controversy under Article III, Judge Howell
does not reach the class-certification question.

In view of the foregoing, Judge Howell denies the Defendants'
Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony. Further, he recommends that the
District Court denies the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification for lack of standing.

The parties may file objections to this Report and Recommendation.
A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings
or recommendations to which objections are being made. A party's
failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations contained in this Report within 14 days after the
party is served with a copy of the Report will bar that party from
de novo review by the district court of the proposed findings and
recommendations in the Report and, except upon grounds of plain
error, will bar the party from appellate review of unobjected-to
proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the
district court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2023 Report &
Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/25v8nuhy from
Leagle.com.


CHEVROLET OF HOMEWOOD: Faces Kies Suit Over Disability Harassment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BEVERLY KIES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHEVROLET OF HOMEWOOD, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:23-cv-05473 (N.D. Ill., August 14, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint against the Defendant for its
discrimination on the basis of the Plaintiff's disability, its
failure to accommodate disability, disability-based harassment, and
retaliation against the Plaintiff for engaging in a protected
activity under the ADA.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a license and title
clerk from January 1, 2022 until her unlawful termination on or
around July 6, 2022 on the basis of her disability.

Chevrolet of Homewood, Inc. is a company that operates a car
dealership located in Homewood, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
         SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
         2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200
         Lombard, IL 60148
         Telephone: (630) 575-8180
         E-mail: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com

CIRCLE K STORES: Abboud Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
MONICA ABBOUD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CIRCLE K STORES INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-01683-DWL (D. Ariz., Aug. 17, 2023) seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls pursuant to the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

CIRCLE K STORES INC. owns and operates convenience stores. The
Company offers coffee, fountain drinks, beer, snacks, candy, gift
cards, and general merchandise. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nathan Brown, Esq.
          BROWN PATENT LAW
          15100 N 78th Way, Suite 203
          Scottsdale, AZ 85260
          Telephone: (602) 529-3474
          Email: Nathan.Brown@BrownPatentLaw.com

CLEAN ADVANTAGE: Bruno Bid for Conditional Status Partly OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIGNA VASQUEZ BRUNO, v.
CLEAN ADVANTAGE CORPORATION, Case No. 1:22-cv-00816-APM (D.D.C.),
the Hon. Judge Amit P. Mehta entered an order granting in part and
denying it in part motion to conditionally certify collective
action under Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) consisting of current
and former employees of Defendant.

  -- The court will permit Plaintiffs to issue one reminder notice
to
     be sent 45 days after the initial notice is sent to all non-
     responding putative members.

The Plaintiffs are former employees who performed janitorial work
for Defendant Clean Advantage Corporation. They accuse Defendant of
a payroll practice whereby Defendant paid employees for work over
40 hours at their regular wage rates—instead of at
time-and-a-half rates— and did so through an off-the-books
payment to fitictious persons.

Clean Advantage provides commercial cleaning, residential cleaning
and electrostatic disinfection service.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KHMjTI at no extra charge.[CC]



COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Weingartner Sues Over Toothpaste's False Ads
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROMAN WEINGARTNER and KRISTIN DELLA, on behalf of themselves and
those similarly situated v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY, Case No.
3:23-cv-04086-JCS (N.D. Cal., Aug 11, 2023) seeks to remedy
Defendant's unlawful, unfair, and deceptive business practices with
respect to the advertising, marketing, and sale of Colgate and
Tom's of Maine toothpaste labeled with the claims "Recyclable
Tube," "First of Its Kind Recyclable Tube," and/or the universal
recycling symbol.

The Defendant uniformly represents that the Colgate-brand Products
have a "Recyclable Tube" in a conspicuous blue font on a white
background. The Defendant provides no disclaimer on the packaging
that in any way limits their claims of recyclability. Although the
Product was designed to be theoretically recyclable, in practice,
recycling facilities do not accept the redesigned tubes.
Accordingly, they are not, in fact, recyclable, the suit claims.

In addition to damages, restitution, and statutory penalties, the
Plaintiffs seek, on behalf of themselves and the general public, an
injunction precluding the sale of the Products within a reasonable
time after entry of judgment, unless the Products' packaging and
marketing are modified to remove any language suggesting that the
tubes are recyclable or, in the alternative, the language is
qualified to accurately state the availability of recycling
programs.

Plaintiff Roman Weingartner is a resident of San Francisco, and
intends to remain in California.

Plaintiff Kristin Della is a resident of Ridgecrest, and intends to
remain in California.

The Defendant manufactures, markets, and sells Colgate and Tom's of
Maine brand toothpastes in all 50-states and the District of
Columbia, including California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth A. Safier, Esq.
          Marie McCrary, Esq.
          Rajiv V. Thairani, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 639-9090
          Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
          E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com
                  marie@gutridesafier.com
                  rajiv@gutridesafier.com

COLUMBUS REGIONAL: Court Certifies Savings Plan Participant Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA GOODMAN, et al.,
v. COLUMBUS REGIONAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC., Case No.
4:21-cv-00015-CDL (M.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Clay D. Land entered
an order denying Columbus Regional's partial motion to dismiss and
granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class:

   All persons who were participants or beneficiaries in
   the Columbus Regional Healthcare System Retirement
   Savings Plan and had account balances in the Plan as of February
2,
   2015, or after, through the termination of the Plan."

The Plaintiffs were participants in a defined contribution plan
sponsored by their employer, Columbus Regional Healthcare System,
Inc.

The Plaintiffs brought this putative class action alleging that
Columbus Regional breached its fiduciary duties under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), by failing to prudently
monitor and control the Plan's investment options, investment
expenses, and administrative expenses.

According to the Plaintiffs, Columbus Regional's failure to
prudently monitor and control the Plan's investment options
resulted in losses to the Plan and Plan participants who selected
imprudent investment options (or whose funds were placed in them by
default) that ought not to have been offered.

Second, Plaintiffs assert that Columbus Regional breached its
fiduciary duty by failing to monitor and control the Plan's
administrative expenses, which resulted in losses to the Plan and
Plan participants because the Plan paid too much of the
participants' money for services. Third, Plaintiffs contend that
the Plan entered prohibited transactions under which it paid
service providers more than reasonable compensation.

The Plaintiffs were participants in an ERISA defined contribution
plan sponsored by their employer, Columbus Regional.

Columbus offers trained medical staff and other healthcare
professionals dedicated to the well-being of patients.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YBIjcZ at no extra charge.[CC]


COMMANDO LLC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Commando, LLC. The
case is styled as Janelys Hernandez, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Commando, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-07298
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2023).

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

Commando -- https://www.wearcommando.com/ -- is an American
underwear company based in Vermont.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DAM MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Roesel Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARK ROESEL and JERRY HERNANDEZ v. DAM MANAGEMENT LLC d/b/a
LANNING'S, Case No. 5:23-cv-01584 (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 14, 2023) is a
class action alleging the Defendant for failing to pay the
Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees at least minimum wages
for the hours that they worked, pursuant to the Ohio Constitution,
the Ohio Revised Code, and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant paid the Plaintiffs and situated employees less than
the tipped employee minimum wage in at least 2021 and 2022. Some of
the Defendant's minimum wage violations are evident on the face of
the pay stubs that it provided to Plaintiffs and similarly situated
employees, the Plaintiffs contend.

From January 2021 until June 18, 2021, while Roesel worked for the
Defendant, the Defendant only paid Roesel $4.35 per hour, which was
less than the Ohio tipped employee minimum wage of $4.40 per hour.


In 2022, the Defendant only paid Roesel $4.40 per hour, which was
less than the 2022 Ohio tipped employee minimum wage of $4.65 per
hour.

The Defendant also charged Plaintiffs and similarly situated
employees a 5% fee of credit card tips each shift that the
Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees worked. The 5% fee went
to "the house," which is a reference to Defendant itself, the
Plaintiffs allege.

The 5% fee that the Defendant charged each shift to the Plaintiffs
and similarly situated employees also resulted in the Plaintiffs
and similarly situated employees receiving even less than the Ohio
tipped employee minimum wage. Accordingly, the Defendant was
required to pay the Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees the
non-tipped employee minimum wage (for example, $9.30 per hour in
2022) instead of the tipped employee minimum wage (for example,
$4.65 per hour for 2022). In addition to being entitled to unpaid
back wages, the Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees are
also entitled to an additional two times back wages as liquidated
damages under the Ohio Revised Code or, in the alternative,
liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the suit
alleges.

Mr. Roesel began working for Defendant in December 2020 while Mr.
Hernandez began working for Defendant in 1997.

Lanning's is a family run fine dining steak & seafood restaurant
offering the fresh steaks and seafoods.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephan I. Voudris, Esq.
          Christopher M. Sams, Esq.
          VOUDRIS LAW LLC
          8401 Chagrin Road, Suite 8
          Chagrin Falls, OH 44023
          Telephone: (440) 543-06701
          Facsimile: (440) 543-0721
          E-mail: svoudris@voudrislaw.com
                  csams@voudrislaw.com

DAVE INC: Court Vacates All Deadlines in Lopez Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRYSTAL LOPEZ, an
individual, on behalf of herself, the general public, and those
similarly situated, v. DAVE INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-04160-VC (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order that:

  -- The action is stayed pending resolution of the Defendant's
     appeal.

  -- All deadlines are vacated. Once the appeal regarding the Order

     Denying Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration, or, in the
     Alternative, Dismiss for Improper Venue is resolved, (7) days

     later the stay shall be vacated without prejudice to either
party
     moving for further relief.

  -- If there is dispute regarding whether the appeal is resolved,
the
     Parties shall submit a joint letter to the Court on the issue

     pursuant to paragraph 18 of the undersigned's Standing Order
for
     Civil Cases.

On November 30, 2022, the Court, inter alia, ordered the following
class certification deadlines:

               Event                            Deadline
  
  Motion for Class Certification              Aug. 3, 2023

  Opposition to Motion for Class              Aug. 31, 2023
  Certification

  Reply In Support of Motion for Class        Sept. 28, 2023
  Certification

  Class Certification Hearing                 Oct. 12, 2023

Dave is a digital banking service. The service' main focus is on
cash advances.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47ufvXZ at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth A. Safier, Esq.
          Marie A. McCrary, Esq.
          Hayley Reynolds, Esq.
          Rajiv V. Thairani, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 639-9090
          Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
          E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com
                  marie@gutridesafier.com
                  hayley@gutridesafier.com
                  rajiv@gutridesafier.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Edward D. Totino, Esq.
          Benjamin W. Turner, Esq.
          Desiree Hunter-Reay, Esq.
          BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP
          10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 1850
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-4728
          Facsimile: (310) 201-4721
          E-mail: edward.totino@bakermckenzie.com
                  benjamin.turner@bakermckenzie.com
                  desiree.hunter-reay@bakermckenzie.com

DEJA VU PIZZA: Class Cert Response Filing Extended to Sept. 5
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hoffman v. Deja Vu Pizza,
LLC, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00006 (D.N.D., Filed Jan. 14, 2022),
the Hon. Judge Daniel M. Traynor entered an order extending the
time to file Defendants' response to the motion to certify class to
Sept. 5, 2023.

  -- Reply is due by Sept. 26, 2023.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC]

DFL PIZZA: Court Narrows Claims in Nagel Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENJAMIN NAGEL, on behalf
of himself and those similarly situated, v. DFL PIZZA, LLC;
TRI-CITY PIZZA, INC.; MINUTEMAN PIZZA, LTD.; PINNACLE PINZZA, INC.;
JAY FEAVEL; CHARLES S. DOLAN; JOHN DOE CORP. 1-10; and JOHN DOE
1-10, Case No. 1:21-cv-00946-DDD-SBP (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge
Daniel D. Domenico entered an order that:

  -- The motion to certify class is granted in part.

  -- The motion to dismiss complaint is granted with respect to
Tri-
     City Pizza, Inc., Minuteman Pizza, Ltd., and Pinnacle Pizza,
Inc.
     and denied with respect to Jay Feavel and Charles S. Dolan.

  -- The motion to partially dismiss the complaint is denied.

Benjamin Nagel, a pizza delivery driver brought this suit on behalf
of himself and other delivery drivers against various Domino's
Pizza franchises and their owners, Jay Feavel and Charles S. Dolan.


The suit proceeds as both a Rule 23 class action and an FLSA
collective action, although Mr. Nagel has not yet filed a Rule 23
motion for class certification.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 2, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OTzzf0 at no extra charge.[CC]

DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Charges Inflated Interchange Fees, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
LEMMO'S PIZZERIA, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DISCOVER FINANCIAL SERVICES, DFS
SERVICES, LLC, DISCOVER BANK, and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-06651 (C.D. Cal., August 14, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for breach of contract, including the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; unjust enrichment;
and violation of the California's Business and Professions Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendant charged the Plaintiff and
similarly situated entities inflated interchange fees by
systematically and knowingly misclassifying certain Discover credit
cards into the incorrect, higher interchange rate category. As a
result, the Plaintiff and Class members are harmed in the form of
interchange fee overcharges. The Plaintiff and Class members seek
monetary damages, restitution, specific performance, and injunctive
relief to stop and correct the Defendant's misconduct, says the
suit.

Lemmo's Pizzeria, LLC is a pizzeria owner and operator based in
Moorpark, California.

Discover Financial Services is a financial services company
headquartered in Riverwood, Illinois.

DFS Services, LLC is a subsidiary of Discover Financial Services
based in Riverwood, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Taras Kick, Esq.
         Tyler Dosaj, Esq.
         Greg Taylor, Esq.
         THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
         815 Moraga Drive
         Los Angeles, CA 90049
         Telephone: (310) 395-2988
         Facsimile: (310) 395-2088
         E-mail: Taras@kicklawfirm.com
                 Tyler@kicklawfirm.com
                 Greg@kicklawfirm.com

                 - and -

         Roger N. Heller, Esq.
         LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &BERNSTEIN LLP
         275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Telephone: (415) 956-1000
         Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
         E-mail: rheller@lchb.com

DOLIUM DISPACK-PROJECTS: Kosinski Suit Goes to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CORBIN KOSINSKI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. DOLIUM, DISPACK-PROJECTS NV, QUANDRANT
CMS, NORTHWEST PIONEER, INC., PIONEER NORTHWEST, PIONEERING
PACKAGING, MATTHEW PANUCCI, ALBERT WAUTERS, and DOES 1-200,
inclusive, Case No. 30-2022-01240832-CU-PL-NJC, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Orange to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on August 14, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 8:23-cv-01506 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Plaintiff's injury as a result of a
products liability-based accident occurring in the County of
Orange, California.

Dolium is a packaging solutions provider, with its principal place
of business in Antwerp, Belgium.

Dispack-Projects NV is a packaging solutions provider, with its
principal place of business in Antwerp, Belgium.

Quandrant CMS is a manufacturer of plastic parts based in Belgium.

Northwest Pioneer, Inc. is a packaging company based in Kent,
Washington.

Pioneer Northwest is a packaging company based in Kent,
Washington.

Pioneering Packaging is a packaging company based in Kent,
Washington. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Eric Arevalo, Esq.
         SCHUMANN AREVALO LLP
         3100 Bristol Street, Suite 100
         Costa Mesa, CA 92626
         Telephone: (714) 850-0210
         Facsimile: (714) 850-0551
         E-mail: arevalo@scarlaw.us

DWELL OUTDOORS: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dwell Outdoors, LLC.
The case is styled as Felix Castro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Dwell Outdoors, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-07072 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 10, 2023).

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

Dwell Outdoors LLC -- https://www.dwelloutdoorsproducts.com/ -- is
a firm focused on the development of products & brands that inform
a bold outdoor lifestyle.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ELI INC: De Baeza Sues Over Uncompensated Hours of Work
-------------------------------------------------------
Marcela Martinez De Baeza, an individual, on behalf of herself, all
other aggrieved employees, and the general public v. ELI INC. which
will do business in California as NALAS RESIDENTIAL FACILITY, a
Nevada Corporation; FLORA M. CROW, an individual, and DOES 1
through 25, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV19734 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., Aug. 17, 2023), is brought challenging the
Defendants' employment practices with respect to their non-exempt
workers employed in the State of California as Caregivers
(hereinafter "Aggrieved Caregivers" or "Aggrieved Employees"),
based on Defendants' policy and practice of failing, among other
things, to provide payment for all hours worked at the applicable
legal rates, legally compliant meal and rest breaks, denying earned
wages, including overtime pay, and failing to provide accurate wage
statements from June 12, 2022 to the present ("Relevant Time
Period").

In particular, the Defendants fail to provide timely and adequate
meal and rest breaks, fail to timely compensate employees for all
wages earned, and fail to properly and accurately calculate
overtime and report wages earned, hours worked, and wage rates. The
Defendants' compensation scheme did not fully compensate Plaintiff
with at least minimum wages and/or designated rates for all hours
worked. The Defendants' compensation scheme did not fully
compensate Plaintiff with overtime compensation for all overtime
hours worked. The Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with
adequate off-duty meal periods and meal period compensation in
violation of Labor Code and IWC Wage Order, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked at Eli as a Caregiver from December 2018 to
October 2022.

Eli is in the business of providing adult residential care
facilities to individuals suffering from debilitating medical
conditions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael H. Boyamian, Esq.
          BOYAMIAN LAW, INC.
          550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
          Glendale, CA 91203-1922
          Phone: 818.547.5300
          Facsimile: 818.547.5678
          Email: michael@boyamianlaw.com


ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS: Dyer Files Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Entertainment
Partners LLC. The case is styled as Janet Dyer, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Entertainment Partners
LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-06821-WLH-SSC (C.D. Cal., Aug. 18, 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:

          M. Anderson Berry
          Brandon Pierce Jack
          Gregory Haroutunian
          CLAYEO ARNOLD APLC
          6200 Canoga Avenue Suite 735
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Phone: (747) 777-7748
          Fax: (916) 924-1829
          Email: aberry@justice4you.com
                 bjack@justice4you.com
                 gharoutunian@justice4you.com

               - and -

          Scott Stillman
          LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT STILLMAN
          535 Pacific Avenue Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94133
          Phone: (415) 306-8024
          Email: scott@scottstillmanlaw.com


ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Levi Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
AIMEE LEVI, individually an on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS, LLC; ENTERTAINMENT
PARTNERS ENTERPRISES, LLC; and ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS SERVICES,
LLC, Defendant, Case 2:23-cv-06781 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 17, 2023) is a
data breach class action against the Defendants and their related
entities, subsidiaries, and agents for failing to secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information that the
Defendants collected and maintained from the Plaintiff and the
Class members.

According to the complaint, on August 1, 2023, data breach notice
letters were issued by or on behalf of the Defendants announcing
that on June 30, 2023, there was a data security incident on
Defendants' computer network that resulted in unauthorized access
to a subset of the Defendants' accounting application data which
contained the Plaintiff's sensitive personal information. The
Defendants breached their duty by failing to implement and maintain
reasonable security procedures and practices to protect PII from
unauthorized access and storing and retaining Plaintiff's and Class
members' personal information on inadequately protected servers,
databases, and networks. The data breach happened because of the
Defendants' inadequate cybersecurity, which caused Plaintiff's and
Class members' PII to be accessed and acquired by unauthorized
persons, the suit alleges.

ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS, LLC provides technology solutions. The
Company specializes in entertainment payroll, workforce management,
residuals, tax incentives, finance, and other integrated production
management solutions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          David J. McGlothlin, Esq.
          Mona Amini, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          Email: ak@kazlg.com
                 david@kazlg.com
                 mona@kazlg.com

ENVISION MANAGEMENT: Loses Renewed Bid to Stay Harrison ERISA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado denies the Defendants' renewed
motion to stay the lawsuit entitled ROBERT HARRISON and GRACE
HEATH, on behalf of themselves, the ENVISION MANAGEMENT HOLDING
INC. ESOP, and all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs
v. ENVISION MANAGEMENT HOLDING, INC. BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ENVISION
MANAGEMENT HOLDING, INC. EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN COMMITTEE,
ARGENT TRUST COMPANY, DARREL CREPS, III, PAUL SHERWOOD, JEFF JONES,
NICOLE JONES, AARON RAMSAY, TANWEER KHAN, and LORI SPAHN,
Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00304-CNS-MDB (D. Colo.).

The action is before the Court on Defendants Envision Management
Holding, Inc. Board of Directors, Envision Management Holding, Inc.
Employee Stock Ownership Plan Committee, Argent Trust Company,
Darrel Creps, III, Paul Sherwood, Jeff Jones, Nicole Jones, Aaron
Ramsay, Tanweer Kahn, and Lori Spahn's Renewed Motion to Stay
Pending 9 U.S.C. Section 16 Appeal in Light of Intervening Supreme
Court Decision. The Plaintiffs have responded in opposition, and
the Defendants have replied.

The case involves an ERISA-regulated employee stock ownership plan.
On Jan. 29, 2021, Plaintiff Robert Harrison filed a class action
complaint, bringing six causes of action against the various
Defendants and seeking Plan-wide relief. The action was initially
assigned to the Honorable R. Brooke Jackson, who allowed the
Defendants to file a motion compel arbitration.

The action was later reassigned to the Honorable Regina M.
Rodriguez, and on March 24, 2022, Judge Rodriguez denied the
Defendants' motion to compel arbitration, finding the arbitration
provision at issue invalid because it conflicts with
ERISA--specifically, the arbitration provision acts as a
prospective waiver because it disallows plan-wide relief, which is
expressly contemplated by ERISA.

On April 4, 2022, the Defendants appealed Judge Rodriguez's Order.
The same day, the Defendants filed an unopposed motion to stay, and
the Honorable Nina Y. Wang--the assigned magistrate judge at the
time--granted the motion and imposed a stay.

On Feb. 9, 2023, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Judge Rodriguez's
Order. The Defendants filed a petition for rehearing, which the
Tenth Circuit denied. On April 19, 2023, the Tenth Circuit issued
its mandate returning jurisdiction to the district court.

On May 1, 2023, the parties filed a joint status report, indicating
one or more Defendants intended to file a petition to the U.S.
Supreme Court. The Defendants argued the stay previously imposed by
Judge Wang should be kept in place pending resolution of any
petition to the Supreme Court. Plaintiff Harrison disagreed and
opposed any continued stay.

On May 16, 2023, the Court held a conference to better understand
the various interests at issue. During that conference, the Court
decided to lift the stay, but stage discovery to account for the
anticipated petition to the Supreme Court.

On July 6, 2023, the Defendants filed the instant Motion, arguing
that when this Court decided to lift the stay, it did not have the
benefit of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Coinbase, Inc. v.
Bielski, 143 S.Ct. 1915 (2023), in which the Supreme Court held
unequivocally that a district court must stay its pre-trial and
trial proceedings while the interlocutory appeal is ongoing. The
Plaintiffs contend that Coinbase does not change the law in the
Tenth Circuit, and does not warrant reinstatement of a stay.

The Court is called upon to decide whether to reinstate the stay
previously imposed by Judge Wang and recently lifted by the Court.

In this case, the parties agree that a Coinbase stay is appropriate
pending an appeal to the Tenth Circuit under 9 U.S.C. Section
16(a). However, the parties disagree as to whether a Coinbase stay
should extend through and until resolution of a petition to the
U.S. Supreme Court.

At bottom, the Court has two questions to answer: 1) Does Coinbase
require a stay, and if it does not, 2) should the Court reinstate
the stay anyway? The Court has reviewed the Coinbase decision
carefully and on the first question the Court answers, no. Coinbase
does not alter the law that previously informed this Court's
decision, nor does it demand a different decision now.

Judge Braswell says Coinbase concerns the district court's power to
move a case forward while an appeal is pending in the court of
appeals. This is evident not only from the facts underlying the
Coinbase case, but also from the Supreme Court's analysis and
reasoning, which focuses on the parallel tracks in the lower court
and the court of appeals.

Nowhere in Coinbase does the majority discuss the application of
this automatic stay beyond the court of appeals process, Judge
Braswell explains. Moreover, an important underpinning of the
Coinbase decision is the majority's view that a right to
interlocutory appeal of the arbitrability issue without an
automatic stay of the district court proceedings is like a lock
without a key, a bat without a ball, a computer without a
keyboard—in other words, not especially sensible.

In other words, Judge Braswell adds, among other things, the stay
goes hand-in-hand with the right to appeal the district court's
decision to the court of appeals, and here, that right has already
been exercised and Defendants have already benefitted from the
attendant stay. Said another way, the court of appeals proceedings
have concluded, the Tenth Circuit expressly noted that jurisdiction
is transferred back to the lower court, and Coinbase does not
require a different outcome.

As to the second question—should the Court reinstate the stay
anyway--the Court again answers, no. The Defendants argue a stay is
appropriate under the four-factor stay analysis. Judge Braswell
opines that they place relatively little weight on the first factor
(likelihood of success on appeal) and argue the three "harm"
factors tip decidedly in favor of a stay. The Court disagrees.

As to the third factor--risk of harm to the public interest--the
Court finds this factor weighs against a stay. Judge Braswell
explains that the public has an interest in the just and speedy
resolution of matters. As noted, this matter has already been
pending for some time and reinstating a stay would delay the case
even more. Additionally, as witness memories fade and evidence
continues to grow stale, the truth-seeking functions of litigation
are frustrated, and a just resolution becomes more difficult.

The Court is not persuaded that reinstatement of the stay is
appropriate, and the Motion is, therefore, denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 3, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2vcejwm2 from Leagle.com.


EPPINGER MFG. CO: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eppinger Mfg. Co. The
case is styled as Yordaliza Taveras, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Eppinger Mfg. Co., Case No.
1:23-cv-07307 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2023).

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

Eppinger Mfg. Co. doing business as Dardevles --
https://dardevle.com/ -- is the seller and manufacturer of the
American Made world famous Dardevles, Red Eyes, Sparkle tails, Evil
Eyes, Rex Spoons, Buel Spinners fishing lures.[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


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Guzman Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Sherry Aneuris Guzman, on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated consumers v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION
SERVICES, LLC and BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE, Case No.
2023-0764S7-CC-05 was removed from the Circuit Court of the
Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on Aug. 18, 2023, and assigned Case No.
1:23-cv-23153-XXXX.

The Plaintiff alleges damages as a result of violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA").[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Omar M. Salazar II, Esq.
          LEVY & PARTNERS, PLLC
          3230 Stirling Road, Suite 1
          Hollywood, Florida 33021
          Phone: (954) 727-8570
          Facsimile: (954) 241-6857
          Email: omar@lawlp.com

               - and –

          Charles Campbell, Esq.
          EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC
          /o Registered Agent
          1201 Hays Street
          Tallahassee, FL 32301
          Email: charles.campbell@equifax.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Courtney Robertson, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 525-1000
          Fax: (954) 463-2030
          Email: courtney.robertson@hklaw.com


ESSENTIA HEALTH: Class Certification Bid Filing Due May 23, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kraft, et al., v. Essentia
Health, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00121 (D.N.D., Filed July 10,
2020), the Hon. Judge Peter D. Welte entered a stipulated class
certification order as follows:

  -- The Plaintiffs' Class Certification             May 23, 2024
     Expert Disclosures and Reports due by:

  -- The Defendants' Class Certification             Sept. 8, 2024
     Expert Disclosures and Reports due by:

  -- The Plaintiffs' Rebuttal Class                  Sept. 22,
2024
     Certification Expert Reports due by:

  -- The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class                May 23, 2024
     Certification due by:

  -- The Defendants' Response due by:                July 8, 2024

  -- The Plaintiffs' Reply due by:                   Aug. 22, 2024.


The nature of suit states Contract Product Liability.

Essentia Health is an integrated healthcare system with facilities
in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Dakota.[CC]

EVERGREEN REAL: McKenna Suit Alleges Disability Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER MCKENNA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EVERGREEN REAL ESTATE SERVICES,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-05432 (N.D. Ill., August 14, 2023)
is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Illinois Workers'
Compensation Act.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint against the Defendant for
discrimination on the basis of her disability, failure to
accommodate disability in the workplace, and retaliation against
her for engaging in a protected activity under the ADA. Moreover,
the action seeks to redress for the Defendant's termination of the
Plaintiff's employment on the basis of exercising her rights under
the IWCA, and in retaliation for her attempting to assert her
rights under the IWCA when she requested a reasonable
accommodation.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a floater from May 2022
until her unlawful termination on or around April 2023.

Evergreen Real Estate Services, LLC is a real estate agency in
Chicago, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Alexander J. Taylor, Esq.
         SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD
         2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200
         Lombard, IL 60148
         Telephone: (331) 272-1942
         Facsimile: (630) 575-8188
         E-mail: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com

EXCLUSIVE MARKETING: Robinson Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Exclusive Marketing
Agency LLC. The case is styled as Gerald Robinson, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Exclusive Marketing
Agency LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-01522-AGS-KSC (S.D. Cal., Aug. 18,
2023).

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

Exclusive Marketing Agency LLC -- https://www.exclusive.agency/ --
is a one-stop-shop marketing agency that delivers affordable and
scaleable marketing solutions to businesses of all sizes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachel Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33133
          Phone: (305) 469-5881
          Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Loses Bid to Compel Kisciras to Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Zahid N. Quraishi of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey denies without prejudice the Defendant's Motion to
Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings in the lawsuit captioned
MARK KISCIRAS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 23-776 (ZNQ)(RLS) (D.N.J.).

Lead Plaintiff Mark Kisciras, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, filed a memorandum of law in opposition
of the Motion, and the Defendant filed a reply. Also before the
Court is a Motion to Strike filed by the Plaintiff. The Court has
considered the parties' submissions and decides the Motions,
without oral argument, pursuant to Rule 78 and Local Civil Rule
78.1.

The Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Complaint against
Experian for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA").
The Complaint alleges that Experian is a credit reporting agency
(CRA) that has reported that the Plaintiff, as well as other
consumers, are obligated on debts in collection supposedly held by
Investigative Recovery Services, LLC. The Plaintiff claims that
Investigative Recovery is a fraudulent phishing scam engaged in
claiming individuals owe false debts, threatening the necessity of
immediate settlement, and falsely reporting these debts to
Experian.

As a result of the actions of Investigative Recovery, the Plaintiff
alleges that Experian (1) knowingly and recklessly provided
consumer information of debts in collection from a fraudulent and
illegally operating furnisher, (2) failed to legitimately verify
the data provided by this furnisher upon receipt of consumers'
disputes, and (3) recklessly failed to maintain reasonable policies
and procedures to address fraudulent furnisher activity.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Plaintiff
commences a class action suit on behalf of himself and all members
of the Class on two causes of action. Count I alleges violations of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act 15 U.S.C. Section 1681e(b). Count II
alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act 15 U.S.C.
Section 1681i.

In response to the Complaint, Experian filed the instant Motion to
Compel Arbitration.

The existence of an arbitration agreement is not referenced in the
Complaint but is raised for the first time in the Defendant's
motion. Given that the question of arbitrability cannot be resolved
without considering evidence extraneous to the pleadings, Judge
Quraishi says it would be inappropriate to apply a Rule 12(b)(6)
standard in deciding the instant motion.

Thus, the Court will deny the Defendant's motion without prejudice,
and order the parties to conduct limited discovery on the issue of
arbitrability within 45 days. Afterwards, the Defendant may file a
renewed motion to compel arbitration, which the Court will review
under a Rule 56 standard.

Because the Court has not considered any additional information
outside the pleadings, it will also deny the Plaintiff's Motion to
Strike as moot.

For the reasons stated, the Court will deny the Defendant's Motion
to Compel Arbitration without prejudice. The Plaintiff's Motion to
Strike will also be denied as moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Aug. 3, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2z7zea4u from Leagle.com.


FEDEX CORPORATION: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Covic Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
CRAIG A. COVIC and MARK J. ABBOTT, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FEDEX CORPORATION, THE
FEDEX CORPORATION EMPLOYEES' PENSION PLAN, THE RETIREMENT PLAN
INVESTMENT BOARD, AND JOHN/JANE DOES 1–10, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-02516 (W.D. Tenn., Aug. 18, 2023) arises from the
Defendants' alleged violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants
disregarded that duty, electing to use unreasonable and outdated
formulas for payment of pension benefits that substantially
underpaid Plan Participants for their own financial gain. The
Defendants violate ERISA's actuarial equivalence requirements by
using antiquated actuarial assumptions, which produce unreasonably
low conversion factors and, therefore, depress the value of joint
and survivor annuity and preretirement survivor annuities offered
to retired pilots. Despite the considerable increases in life
expectancy over the past 50 years, the Defendants continue to use
antiquated actuarial assumptions to calculate pension benefits for
retired pilots, says the suit.

The Defendants' use of formulas based on outdated actuarial
assumptions to calculate the benefits of former pilots violates
ERISA's actuarial equivalence requirements and results in
Plaintiffs and the Class receiving less than they would if
Defendants used the reasonable and current assumptions required by
ERISA and the accompanying Treasury regulations, the suit alleges.

FEDEX CORPORATION delivers packages and freight to multiple
countries and territories through an integrated global network. The
Company provides worldwide express and freight delivery, ground
small-parcels, less-than-truckload, supply chain management,
customs brokerage services, trade facilitation, and electronic
commerce solutions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Scott Pietrowski, Esq.
          Lisa R. Considine, Esq.
          SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
          Oren Faircloth
          745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
          New York, NY 10151
          Telephone: (212) 532-1091
          Email: lconsidine@sirillp.com
                 ofaircloth@sirillp.com

FIGS INC: Faces Shareholder Suit in California Court Over IPO
-------------------------------------------------------------
FIGS, 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 November 1, 2022, a putative
class action complaint was filed against the company and certain of
its executive officers and directors in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California alleging, among other
things, violations of the Securities Act and Exchange Act for
allegedly making false and misleading statements in its initial
public offering in May 2021 and thereafter.

FIGS, Inc. is a direct-to-consumer healthcare apparel and lifestyle
brand company. It designs and sells scrubwear, and other non-scrub
offerings, such as lab coats, underscrubs, outerwear, activewear,
loungewear, compression socks and footwear.


FIGS INC: Shareholder Suit in CA Court Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------
FIGS, 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 a putative class action
complaint was filed against the company, certain of its executive
officers and directors, stockholders and the underwriters to its
IPO, in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California on December 8, 2022, allegedly making false and
misleading statements in its initial public offering in May 2021
and thereafter.

On February 14, 2023, the court consolidated the complaint and
appointed lead plaintiffs. On April 10, 2023, the lead plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint alleging, among other
things, violations of the Securities Act and Exchange Act for
allegedly making false and misleading statements between May 27,
2021 and February 28, 2023 with respect to the company's ability to
predict customer demand and to manage its supply chain, inventory,
air freight usage and costs. The complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages and attorney's fees and costs.

On May 25, 2023, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint, and briefing on that motion is
ongoing.

FIGS, Inc. is a direct-to-consumer healthcare apparel and lifestyle
brand company. It designs and sells scrubwear, and other non-scrub
offerings, such as lab coats, underscrubs, outerwear, activewear,
loungewear, compression socks and footwear.


FIGURE LENDING: Court Grants Ward Leave to File Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Lee Ward, Plaintiff v. Figure Lending LLC, Defendant,
Case No. CV-23-08116-PCT-SPL (D. Ariz.), Judge Steven P. Logan of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona:

   a. grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss;

   b. grants the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended
      Complaint; and

   c. denies as moot the Defendant's Motion to Disregard.

On Dec. 22, 2022, Plaintiff Ward filed a Complaint initiating this
putative class action against the Defendant in the Superior Court
of Gwinnett County, Georgia. He alleges that the Defendant -- with
whom he entered into a Loan Agreement in the fall of 2019 -- is a
lender offering "purported" home equity lines of credit ("HELOCs").
He asserts, however, that it does not in fact offer HELOCs but
rather home equity loans.  The Plaintiff further alleges that the
Defendant engages in false marketing, makes misleading statements
about its loans, provides customers with inaccurate information,
fails to disclose the costs of its loans, and charges excessive and
fraudulent fees.

On that basis, the Plaintiff's Complaint alleges five counts: (1)
violation of the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"); (2) violation of
TILA based on misleading and inadequate disclosures; (3) breach of
contract based on the assessment of excessive payoff amounts; (4)
breach of contract based on the assessment of post-closing fees;
and (5) unjust enrichment.

On Feb. 3, 2023, the Defendant removed the action to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On June 21,
2023, that court granted the Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue
and transferred the action to this Court, deferring the three
pending Motions for consideration by this Court.

The Defendant moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint on a
variety of grounds. First, it argues that the Plaintiff's TILA
claims should be dismissed because they are barred by TILA's
one-year statute of limitations. The Plaintiff argues that his TILA
claims are timely only based on equitable tolling. Equitable
tolling applies only if a litigant (1) has been diligently pursuing
his rights, and (2) failed to timely file because some
'extraordinary circumstance' stood in his way.

Judge Logan finds that the Plaintiff's Complaint fails to assert
any facts in support of equitable tolling that are separate from
the alleged TILA violations. The Plaintiff fails to allege that he
lacked a reasonable opportunity to discover the fraud or
nondisclosures that form the basis of" his TILA claims. Even
reading the Complaint with the requisite liberality, the
Plaintiff's allegations do not support equitable tolling, and the
TILA claims must be dismissed on statute of limitations grounds.

The Plaintiff's remaining breach of contract and unjust enrichment
claims are brought under state law. Because the federal claims will
be dismissed and the only basis for subject matter jurisdiction in
this case is federal question jurisdiction, Judge Logan declines to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. Thus,
the Complaint will be dismissed in its entirety, and the Court need
not consider the Defendant's other arguments for dismissal.

Still, the Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Leave to File an
Amended Complaint in the event the Court granted the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss. Judge Logan says it may be possible for the
Plaintiff to allege additional facts that support equitable
tolling, so leave to amend is granted.

Finally, the contents of the Plaintiff's Notice of Subsequent
Development bear no relation to the statute of limitations issue on
which the Court has decided the Motion to Dismiss, so Judge Logan
need not and did not consider the Notice. Thus, the Defendant's
Motion to Disregard Plaintiff's Notice is denied as moot. To the
extent the facts in the Notice bear on the Plaintiff's claims, he
may allege them in his amended complaint should he choose to file
one.

Accordingly, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted, and the
Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. The
Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint is granted,
and the Plaintiff may file an amended complaint. The Defendant's
Motion to Disregard is denied as moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 2, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3ctcf6na from Leagle.com.


FIRELANDS REGIONAL: Schaffer Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Firelands Regional
Medical Center. The case is styled as Kimberly Schaffer, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Firelands Regional
Medical Center, 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.

Firelands Regional Medical Center -- https://www.firelands.com/ --
is a 400+ bed not-for-profit medical center in Sandusky, Ohio,
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Allen C. Tittle, Esq.
          Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq.
          TITTLE & PERLMUTER
          4106 Bridge Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Phone: (216) 285-9991
          Email: tittle@tittlelawfirm.com
                 scott@tittlelawfirm.com


FIRST PENN-PACIFIC: Faces Iwanski Insurance Suit
------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corp. (LNC) 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 a breach of contract
case captioned "Iwanski v. First Penn-Pacific Life Insurance
Company (FPP)," No. 2:18-cv-01573 was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is a putative class
action that was filed on April 13, 2018. FPP is a member of the
Lincoln Financial Group.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant FPP breached the terms of his life
insurance policy by deducting non-guaranteed cost of insurance
charges in excess of what is permitted by the policies.  Plaintiff
seeks to represent all owners of universal life insurance policies
issued by FPP containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance
provisions that are similar to those of Plaintiff’s policy and
seeks damages on their behalf.

Lincoln National Corporation and its subsidiaries operate multiple
insurance businesses through four business segments namely Life
Insurance, Annuities, Group Protection and Retirement Plan
Services.


FLAGSTAR BANK: Ignores Qualified Written Request, Alcantar Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA M. ALCANTAR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLAGSTAR BANK, N.A.; Defendant,
Case No. 2:23-at-00750 (E.D. Cal., Aug. 4, 2023) alleges that the
Defendant failed to conduct a "reasonable investigation" of
Plaintiff's account and also failed to provide her with a complete
record of Plaintiff's file in response to her qualified written
request, in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
as well as asserts that the Defendant's conduct constitutes
unlawful and unfair business practices, as prohibited by
California’s Unfair Competition Law.

The Defendant has allegedly demonstrated a "pattern or practice" of
failing to adequately respond to borrowers' requests for account
information. Notwithstanding this significant failure to abide by
its statutory duty, and despite Plaintiff having informed Defendant
of its failure, the Defendant continued to disregard Plaintiff's
request and, upon information and belief, other borrowers'
reasonable requests for account information, including producing
requested audio recordings of telephone conversations about
Plaintiff's account, the suit alleges.

Flagstar Bank is a mortgage servicing company and bank that
maintains its headquarters in Hicksville, New York, and its
regional headquarters in Troy, Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Gil Melili, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC         
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  gil@kazlg.com

                  - and -

          Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          321 N Mall Drive, Suite R108
          St. George, UT 84790
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: jason@kazlg.com

FLAGSTAR BANK: Johnson Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Victoria Johnson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Flagstar Bank, N.A., Does 1-50,
inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2309190 was removed from the San
Bernardino Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on Aug. 11, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-01626-JWH-KK to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Flagstar Bank -- https://www.flagstar.com/ -- offers a range of
banking and lending solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER STRANCH AND JENNINGS PLLC
          223 Rosa Parks Avenue Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Phone: (615) 254-8801
          Fax: (615) 255-5419
          Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com

               - and -

          John Steinkamp, Esq.
          JOHN STEINKAMP AND ASSOCIATES
          5214 S. East Street Suite D-1
          Indianapolis, IN 46227
          Phone: (317) 526-1471
          Email: john@johnsteinkampandassociates.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Andrew John Demko, Esq.
          Maximillian Wolden Hirsch, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue Suite 47th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 229-9500
          Fax: (213) 625-0248
          Email: ADemko@mayerbrown.com
                 mhirsch@mayerbrown.com


FOX LIFESTYLE: Erkan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FOX Lifestyle
Hospitality, LLC. The case is styled as Nihal Erkan, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. FOX Lifestyle
Hospitality, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-06243 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 18,
2023).

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

FOX Lifestyle Hospitality Group -- https://www.flhgrp.com/ -- is an
experienced culinary and beverage company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FST AMERICA INC: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FST America, Inc. The
case is styled as Luis Mercedes, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. FST America, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-06218-JLR (S.D.N.Y., July 19, 2023).

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

FEMCO Steel Technology (FST) -- http://www.fstshafts.com/-- has
been committed to creating and providing high-quality and
cost-effective steel products and services worldwide.[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


FUNKO INC: Shumacher Shareholder Suit Ongoing in Delaware 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 in January 18, 2022, a purported
stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned "Shumacher v. Brian
Mariotti, et al.," relating to the company's corporate "Up-C"
structure and bringing direct claims for breach of fiduciary duties
against certain current and former officers and directors. Brian
Mariotti was Funko's former CEO.

On March 31, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss the action. In
response to defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiff filed an
Amended Complaint on May 25, 2022. The amendment did not materially
change the claims at issue, and the defendants again moved to
dismiss on July 29, 2022. On December 15, 2022, plaintiff opposed
the motion to dismiss, and also moved for attorneys' fees. Briefing
on the motion to dismiss was completed on February 8, 2023;
briefing on plaintiff's fee application was completed on April 6,
2023. The court heard oral argument on both motions on July 24,
2023.

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


FURNITURE WORLD: Boxley Sues Over Unlawful Termination
------------------------------------------------------
ISSAC BOXLEY, Individually, and on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FURNITURE WORLD DISCOUNT
WAREHOUSE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-02476-SHL-atc (W.D.
Tenn., Aug. 4, 2023) alleges breach of contract under Tennessee
state law and the Fair Labor Standards Act and seeks to recover
unpaid contractual wages or, in the alternative, unjust
enrichment/quantum meruit compensation, for wages owed to Plaintiff
and other similarly situated current and former hourly-paid
warehouse employees.

Plaintiff Issac Boxley was employed as an hourly-paid warehouse
employee by Defendant in this district during all times relevant to
this action. He was unlawfully discharged from his employment with
Defendant in retaliation for complaining about Defendant's failure
to pay him and potential plaintiffs full overtime compensation for
the overtime hours they had earned within weekly pay periods during
all times material. Allegedly, the Defendant paid Plaintiff and
those similarly situated less than their regular hourly rate of pay
for such Saturday work and then only by cash payment, without
recording their Saturday overtime hours into its time keeping
system.

Furniture World Discount Warehouse, Inc. is a Tennessee corporation
with its principal offices and headquarters located at 272 Commerce
Center Circle, Jackson, Tennessee. The company owns and operates a
discount furniture store. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

GENIUS BRAND & COMPANY: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Genius Brand &
Company LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Genius Brand &
Company LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-07295 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2023).

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

The Genius Brand -- https://thegeniusbrand.com/ -- is a private
company. The company currently specializes in the Health, Wellness
and Fitness area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NOREEN SMITH, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GENWORTH FINANCIAL, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00510-REP
(E.D. Va., Aug 11, 2023) is a class action suit brought by the
Plaintiff and all other individuals, totaling more than 2.7 million
people who had their sensitive personal identifiable information
accessed and hacked by malicious, unauthorized third parties that
accessed and removed the PII as early as May 27, 2023 from systems
used by the Defendant.

The Plaintiff also brings this action against Defendant for its
failure to:

   -- ensure that proper security measures were in place to protect

   PII;

   -- ensure that is vendors and business associates had secure
   services, processes and procedures in place to safeguard PII
   that the Defendant shared with those third-parties; and

   -- provide timely, accurate, and adequate notice to the
Plaintiff
   and other class members that their PII had been compromised.

Based on the website notice, the Defendant learned of the Data
Breach on June 16, 2023, but inexplicably waited over a week before
posting its notice. It has been reported that the Data Breach was a
ransomware attack conducted by a notorious ransomware group, C10p,
which claims to have committed the Data Breach.

The Plaintiff received a letter from the Defendant dated July 31,
2023, informing her of the Data Breach but not specifying which
information was compromised. Ten days prior, on July 21, 2023, the
Plaintiff received a letter from Pension Benefit Information, LLC
stating that it provides services to Defendant, and was impacted by
the Data Breach.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered actual injury
including damage to and diminution in the value of their PII, a
form of property that the Defendant obtained from the Plaintiff and
the Class; violation of their privacy rights; and present and
increased risk arising from the identity theft and fraud, says the
suit.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all other class members,
asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, invasion of
privacy, unjust enrichment, and seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief, monetary damages including punitive damages, equitable
relief, and all other relief authorized by law.

Defendant markets mortgage, long-term care insurance, life
insurance, and other insurance and financial products, primarily to
individual consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
          Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
          Drew D. Sarrett, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Ste. 1-A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
                  craig@clalegal.com
                  drew@clalegal.com

                - and -

          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          Mark B. DeSanto, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE, PC
          1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205
          Minneapolis, MN 55413
          Telephone: (612) 594-5933
          Facsimile: (612) 584-4470
          E-mail: emdrake@bm.net
                  mdesanto@bm.net

GEORGE BROKAW: Assad Suit Stayed Pending Dismissal Bid
------------------------------------------------------
Alico, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10Q for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2023, that on March 7, 2023, an alleged
shareholder filed a derivative complaint purportedly on behalf of
the company against certain of its current and former officers and
directors in the 20th Judicial Circuit for Lee County, Florida
captioned "Assad v. George Brokaw et al.," Case # 23-CA-001484.
George R. Brokaw is the chairman of the Board of Directors of
Alico.

The complaint asserts claims of breach of fiduciary duty and unjust
enrichment arising from substantially similar allegations as those
contained in the securities class action described above. The
complaint seeks an unspecified sum of damages, interest,
restitution, expenses, attorneys' fees and other equitable relief.

On June 20, 2023, the court entered an order staying proceedings in
the Assad matter until a ruling on the company's anticipated motion
to dismiss in another case.

Alico, Inc. is a Florida agribusiness and land management company
owning approximately 72,000 acres of land and approximately 90,000
acres of mineral rights throughout Florida.


GHOST BEVERAGES: Martinez Sues Over Misleading Representations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Ghost Beverages, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00646-SPC-KCD
(M.D. Fla., Aug. 21, 2023), is brought under the Florida Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act for false and misleading
representations with regard to Ghost Beverages, LLC's ("Defendant")
energy drinks and supplements.

The Defendant uses candy brands including Swedish Fish,
Bubblicious, Sour Patch Kids and Warheads, to market energy drinks
and supplements only intended for adults ("Product"). Ghost uses
influencers popular among children, and "partners with FaZe Clan, a
leading 'youth focused' esports and gaming platform" that attracts
more teen boys than any traditional sports team. These efforts have
contributed to Ghost's explosive sales growth in the increasingly
competitive energy drink industry. However, a recent independent
investigation revealed that parents and other consumers are being
misled by Ghost's marketing.

Though the Product is marketed to children and teens, the only
place which discloses it is only intended for healthy adults is in
fine print and/or on the opposite side from purchasers. One
researcher noted that "Numerous studies have documented the
powerful impact marketing has on children's consumption,
preferences, and purchase requests." The expert continued, "Pairing
candy logos that have clear child-appeal with a product that harms
children's health is an egregious display of putting profit over
common sense and the well-being of children." The study found that
"Energy drink companies like Ghost are now taking a page from the
e-cig industry's playbook, violating the law by using fun
kid-friendly flavors to attract children to products that are meant
for adults."

The Plaintiff did not expect Ghost would contain potentially
harmful levels of caffeine, not just for adults, but especially for
children. Plaintiff expected that if the Product was not suitable
for children and teens, the labeling would disclose this fact
prominently instead of inconspicuously. Plaintiff expected the
Product would provide energy, even though it could not provide
energy because of the low caloric content. Defendant sold more of
the Product and at higher prices than it would have in the absence
of this misconduct, resulting in additional profits at the expense
of consumers.

As a result of the false and misleading representations, the
Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than
$2.79 for 16 oz, excluding tax and sales, higher than similar
products, represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than it
would be sold for absent the misleading representations and
omissions. Plaintiff paid more for the Product than he would have
paid had he known the representations were false and misleading, as
he would not have bought it or would have paid less, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the Product on one or more occasions.

The Defendant sells Ghost to retailers in Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Wright, Esq.
          THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A.
          515 N Flagler Dr Ste P300
          West Palm Beach FL 33401
          Phone: (561) 514-0904
          Email: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com

               - and -

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
          Great Neck NY 11021
          Phone: (516) 268-7080
          Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com


GLANBIA PERFORMANCE: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Glanbia Performance
Nutrition (NA), Inc. The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Glanbia Performance Nutrition (NA), Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-07293-JLR (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2023).

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

Glanbia Performance Nutrition Inc. --
https://www.glanbiaperformance.com/ -- provides nutritional
products. The Company offers food, beverage, supplement, and animal
nutrition products..[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GLASSES USA: Cody Files Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Glasses USA, Inc. The
case is styled as Annette Cody, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Glasses USA, Inc. d/b/a
www.glassesusa.com, Case No. 8:23-cv-01545 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 19,
2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

Glasses USA, Inc. -- https://www.glassesusa.com/ -- is the premier
online retailer of prescription eyeglasses and sunglasses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC
          4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Phone: (949) 706-6464
          Fax: (949) 706-6469
          Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com


GOOGLE LLC: Collects Tax Data Without Consent, Adams Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
MALISSA ADAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOOGLE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
5:23-cv-04191 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 17, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendant for wiretapping electronic communications on major
on-line tax filing websites offered by H&R Block, TaxAct, and
TaxSlayer, resulting in the involuntarily transmitting of the
Plaintiff and the Class' sensitive financial information to Google
when they file their taxes online.

According to the complaint, what made the wiretapping possible is
Google Analytics’ tracking pixel, which is embedded in the
JavaScript of online tax preparation websites. These tax
preparation companies sent private tax return information to Google
through Google Analytics and its embedded tracking pixel, which was
installed on their websites. These pixels sent massive amounts of
user data to Google to improve its ad business and enhance its
other business tools.

By using the Google Analytics Pixel, the Defendant intentionally
tapped, electrically or otherwise, the lines of internet
communication between the Plaintiffs and class members and the
owners of the websites. By using the Google Analytics Pixel, the
Defendant willfully and without the consent of all parties to the
communication, or in any unauthorized manner, read or attempted to
read or learn the contents or meaning of electronic communications
of Plaintiffs and putative class members, while the electronic
communications were in transit or passing over any wire, line or
cable or were being sent from or received at any place within
California, says the suit.

The Plaintiffs and putative class and subclass members did not
consent to any of the Defendant's actions in implementing the
wiretaps.

GOOGLE LLC operates as a global technology company specializes in
internet related services and products. The Company focuses on
web-based search and display advertising tools, search engine,
cloud computing, software, and hardware. Google serves customers
worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Liskow, Esq.
          GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC
          745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
          New York, NY 10151
          Telephone: (561) 232-6002
          Facsimile: (888) 421-4173
          Email: MLiskow@4-Justice.com

GRANITE STATE: Class Action Settlement in Grenier Gets Initial Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rita Grenier and Edwin
Grenier, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. Granite State Credit Union, Does 1 through 5, Case No.
1:21-cv-00534-LM (D.N.H.), the Hon. Judge Landya McCafferty entered
an order:

  -- Granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of
the
     proposed class action settlement;

  -- Appointing KCC LLC to administer the settlement; and

  -- Provisionally appointing the plaintiffs' counsel of record as

     settlement class counsel and plaintiffs as settlement class
     representatives.

The Plaintiffs allege that Granite violated Regulation E by
charging them overdraft fees without adequately explaining how
Granite determines what constitutes an overdraft.

The plaintiffs seek preliminary certification of the settlement
class for purposes of settlement. The settlement class is defined
as

   "all current and former members of Defendant with consumer
   accounts, who were charged [an overdraft fee] during the Class
   Period."

   The class excludes "Granite State Credit Union, its parents,
   subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, and directors; DOES 1
through
   5; all Settlement Class members who make a timely election to be

   excluded; and all judges assigned to this litigation and their
   immediate family members." All eligible impacted individuals
will
   be included in the settlement unless they opt out.

Granite is a state-chartered credit union based in Manchester, New
Hampshire, with branches throughout the state.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DYhZ3a at no extra charge.[CC]

GREATBANC TRUST: Finkle Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Finkle and Justin Whipple, on behalf of the Buckeye
Corrugated, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan and on behalf of a
class of all other persons similarly situated v. GREATBANC TRUST
COMPANY, DOUGLAS BOSNIK, MARK HUSTED, JON MCGURK, and JOHN DOES
1-10, Case No. 1:23-cv-04732 (N.D. Ill., July 21, 2023), is brought
against GreatBanc Trust Company, the fiduciary trustee for the
Buckeye Corrugated, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan ("the Plan"
or "the ESOP") when the Plan sold shares of Buckeye Corrugated,
Inc. in a 2018 transaction; and management purchasers Douglas
Bosnik, Mark Husted, Jon McGurk, and John Does 1-10 (together, the
"Management Purchasers"), parties in interest to the Plan who
purchased Buckeye stock from the Plan in the 2018 transaction.

This action is brought under the the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") for losses suffered by the Plan and
its participants caused by GreatBanc when it caused the Plan to
sell shares of Buckeye to the Management Purchasers for less than
fair market value, and other plan-wide relief. the Plan has been
injured and its participants have been deprived of hard-earned
retirement benefits resulting from Defendants' violations of
ERISA.

Buckeye was a privately held company and was the Plan's sponsor. In
September 2018, GreatBanc, in its capacity as Trustee of the ESOP,
caused the Plan to sell nearly 100% of the issued and outstanding
shares of Buckeye common stock (967,320 of the 967,688 shares),
directly or indirectly, to high-level members of Buckeye management
("Management Purchasers") for approximately $231,854,904,
specifically 915,307 shares for $221,504,257 and 52,013 shares for
$10,350,647 (the "2018 ESOP Transaction" or "Transaction").

GreatBanc represented the Plan and its participants as Trustee of
the Plan's trust in the ESOP Transaction. It had sole and exclusive
authority to negotiate the terms of the 2018 ESOP Transaction and
to authorize the Transaction on the Plan's behalf. GreatBanc caused
the Plan to enter into stock transactions with parties in interest
that were prohibited transactions under ERISA.

The 2018 ESOP Transaction allowed the Management Purchasers to
acquire Buckeye's equity for less than fair market value. As ERISA
fiduciaries, the Management Purchasers were bound to act solely in
the interests of the Plan's participants and beneficiaries; instead
they usurped the profits that should have accrued to the
participants with the continuing and foreseeable rise of
e-commerce, from which Buckeye would benefit as a supplier of
corrugated packaging to Amazon.com, Inc. and other e-commerce
companies, and they purchased the ESOP's Buckeye stock for less
than fair market value.

The Plaintiffs and other rank-and-file Buckeye employees would no
longer share in Buckeye's success through the Plan, which for more
than twenty years had been a major part of Buckeye employees'
compensation and retirement package. After building Buckeye as a
successful company through years of labor, the ESOP's participants,
including Plaintiffs, were deprived of the benefits of the
company's growth by management that took for themselves profits
that should have further funded the retirements of Buckeye's
employee-owners. In approving the Transaction, GreatBanc failed to
fulfill its ERISA duties, as Trustee and fiduciary, to the Plan and
its participants, including Plaintiffs.

The Management Purchasers are parties in interest who acquired the
ESOP's Buckeye shares in the 2018 ESOP Transaction. The Management
Purchasers are liable under ERISA for knowingly participating in
the prohibited stock transactions and GreatBanc's breaches of
fiduciary duty, and as co-fiduciaries to GreatBanc who participated
in, enabled, and did not make reasonable efforts to remedy
GreatBanc's breaches of fiduciary duty.

Through this action, Plaintiffs seek to enforce their rights under
ERISA and the Plan, to recover the losses incurred by the Plan
and/or the improper profits realized by Defendants resulting from
their causing prohibited transactions and breaches of fiduciary
duty, knowingly participating in the prohibited transactions and
breaches of fiduciary duty, and failing to meet their duties as
co-fiduciaries, and equitable relief, including reformation of 2018
ESOP Transaction contracts and rescission of the Transaction.
Plaintiffs request that these prohibited transactions be declared
void, Defendants be required to restore any losses to the Plan
arising from their ERISA violations, Defendants be ordered to
disgorge any improper profits, and any monies recovered for the
Plan be allocated to the accounts of the Class members in the Plan
or a successor trust, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are participants in the Plan.

GreatBanc Trust Company provides ESOP trustee services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Patrick O. Muench, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          318 W. Adams Street, Suite 1512
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 500-8680
          Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
          Email: pmuench@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Ryan T. Jenny, Esq.
          Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
          1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Suite 540
          Washington, DC 20007
          Phone: (202) 463-2101
          Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
          Email: rjenny@baileyglasser.com
                 gporter@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Dan Feinberg, Esq.
          Anne Weis, Esq.
          FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW, LLP
          2030 Addison Street . Suite 500
          Berkeley, CA 94704
          Phone: (510) 269-7998
          Email: dan@feinbergjackson.com
                 anne@feinbergjackson.com


GREENHILL & CO: Finger Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties
-------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Finger, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. GREENHILL & CO, INC., ROBERT F. GREENHILL, SCOTT L.
BOK, MERYL D. HARTZBAND, JOHN D. LIU, ULRIKA EKMAN, and KEVIN
FERRO, Case No. 653534/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., July 21,
2023), is brought against Greenhill & Co., Inc. and the members of
its Board of Directors (the "Board" or "Individual Defendants") for
breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the Board's efforts
to sell the Company to Mizuho Americas LLC ("Mizuho Americas" and
together with its affiliates, "Mizuho").

On May 22, 2023, Greenhill issued a press release announcing that
Greenhill, Mizuho Americas and Mizuho Americas' wholly owned
subsidiary, Blanc Merger Sub, Inc., entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") pursuant to which Greenhill
stockholders will receive $15.00 in cash per share of Greenhill
common stock (the "Merger Consideration") (the "Proposed
Transaction").

The Proposed Transaction appears to be the product of conflicted
directors, officers and bankers. The Proposed Transaction is the
result of a single-bidder process, driven by Greenhill's Chief
Executive Officer Scott L. Bok who was motivated to enter into a
transaction with Mizuho from the outset as Mizuho conditioned a
deal on Bok's future employment with the combined company.
Moreover, the Company's officers and directors stand to receive
massive paydays from the Proposed Transaction. And Houlihan Lokey
Capital Inc., the sole financial advisor to the Company who issued
the only fairness opinion relied upon by the Board, provided
services to both Greenhill and Mizuho in connection with the
Proposed Transaction. Driven by these motivations, the Company's
insiders and bankers ran a flawed process designed to ensure the
sale of Greenhill to Mizuho on terms preferential to defendants and
to subvert the interests of Plaintiff and the other public
shareholders of the Company.

On July 13, 2023, the Company filed the Schedule 14A Definitive
Proxy Statement (the "Proxy Statement") with the SEC to, among
other things, recommend that Greenhill stockholders vote to approve
the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Statement fails to provide the
Company's shareholders with material information and/or provides
them with materially misleading information thereby rendering the
shareholders unable to make an informed decision on whether to vote
in favor of the Proposed Transaction.

Critically, the Proxy Statement contains materially incomplete and
misleading information, including with respect to Greenhill's
financial projections and the most critical metric for Greenhill
stockholders--Greenhill's unlevered free cash flow ("UFCF")
projections--relied upon by the Board's financial advisor, Houlihan
Lokey, in connection with the financial analyses underlying its
fairness opinion, and relied upon by the Board in connection with
its decision to approve the Proposed Transaction.

The Proxy Statement further fails to disclose material information
concerning: (i) the financial valuation analyses that support the
fairness opinion provided by Houlihan Lokey; and (ii) potential
conflicts of interest faced by Houlihan Lokey and Company insiders.
The special meeting for Greenhill stockholders to vote on the
Proposed Transaction is currently scheduled for August 16, 2023.
For these reasons and as set forth in detail herein, Plaintiff
seeks to enjoin defendants from taking any steps to consummate the
Proposed Transaction unless and until defendants cure their
breaches of fiduciary duty or, in the event the Proposed
Transaction is consummated, recover damages resulting from the
Individual Defendants' violations of their fiduciary duties, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a stockholder of Greenhill.

Greenhill is an independent investment bank that provides financial
and strategic advice on domestic and cross-border mergers,
acquisitions, restructurings, financings, capital raising and other
transactions to a diverse client base, including corporations,
partnerships, private equity sponsors, institutional investors,
family offices and governments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          ACOCELLI LAW, PLLC
          33 Flying Point Road, Suite 131
          Southampton, NY 11968
          Phone: (631) 204-6187
          Email: racocelli@acocellilaw.com


GULF HARBOUR: Ruperto FDCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as William Ruperto, Judith Ruperto, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. Gulf Harbour
Investments Corp., Case No. 35-02023-CA-002304 was removed from the
Circuit Court, Fifth Judicial Circuit, to the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida on Aug. 11, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-00508-GAP-PRL to
the proceeding.

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

Gulf Harbour Investments Corp. specialized loan servicing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James L. 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

               - and -

          Matisyahu H. Abarbanel, Esq.
          Matthew David Bavaro, Esq.
          LOAN LAWYERS, LLC
          3201 Griffin Road, Suite 100
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312
          Phone: (954) 523-4357
          Email: Yanique@fight13.com
                 matthew@fight13.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Peter P. Hargitai, Esq.
          Michael B. Decembrino, Esq.
          Robert C. Burgess, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP
          50 N Laura St., Suite 3900
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Phone: (904) 353-2000
          Fax: (904) 358-1872
          Email: peter.hargitai@hklaw.com
                 michael.decembrino@hklaw.com
                 carter.burgess@hklaw.com


HANCOCK REGIONAL: Childers Suit Removed to S.D. Indiana
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Sherry Childers and Diana Polston,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE HANCOCK REGIONAL HOSPITAL, Case No.
30C01-2307-MI-001202 was removed from the Hancock Circuit Court,
Hancock County, Indiana, to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana on Aug. 18, 2023, and assigned
Case No. 1:23-cv-01471-TWP-TAB.

The Plaintiffs allege that Hancock engaged in unlawful wiretapping
and invaded their privacy by allegedly using the Meta Pixel on
Hancock's website. The Plaintiffs allege that the conduct described
above resulted in the unlawful disclosure of private information to
unauthorized third parties, alongside the individuals IP address
and Facebook IDs.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Tyler J. Moorhead, Esq.
          Philip R. Zimmerly, Esq.
          BOSE MCKINNEY & EVANS LLP
          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


HARRY AND DAVID: Strickland Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Harry and David, LLC.
The case is styled as Crystal Strickland, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Harry and David, LLC,
Case No. 6:23-cv-01580-PGB-LHP (M.D. Fla., Aug. 18, 2023).

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

Harry and David, LLC -- https://www.harryanddavid.com/ -- is an
American-based premium food and gift producer and retailer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
          Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Ave Ste 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 298-2253
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          Email: gberg@shamisgentile.com
                 ashamis@shamisgentile.com


HCA HEALTHCARE: Hahn Suit Removed to M.D. Tennessee
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Sandra Prosser Hahn, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. HCA Healthcare, Inc., Case No.
23-00983-I was removed from the Davidson County Chancery Court,
Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee on Aug. 18, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00874 to the
proceeding.

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

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:

          Ari Y. Basser, Esq.
          Phone: (310) 432-8492
          Email: abasser@pomlaw.com

               - and –

          Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 556-4811
          Fax: (310) 943-0396
          Email: Jordan.Lurie@capstonelawyers.com

               - and –

          Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq.
          BRAMLETT LAW OFFICES
          40 Burton Hills Blvd., Suite 200
          P O Box 150734
          Nashville, TN 37215
          Phone: (615) 248-2828
          Fax: (615) 254-4116
          Email: pknashlaw@aol.com

               - and –

          Robert Preston Bramlett, Esq.
          Email: robert@bramlettlawoffices.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Andrew B. Clubok, Esq.
          Email: andrew.clubok@law.com

               - and –

          Elizabeth L. Deeley, Esq.
          Email: elizabeth.deeley@lw.com

               - and –

          Kathryn Hannen Walker, Esq.
          Peter C. Rathmell, Esq.
          Taylor M. Sample, Esq.
          W. Brantley Phillips, Jr., Esq.
          BASS, BERRY & SIMS (NASHVILLE OFFICE)
          150 Third Avenue South, Suite 2800
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Phone: (615) 742-7855
          Email: kwalker@bassberry.com
                 peter.rathmell@bassberry.com
                 taylor.sample@bassberry.com
                 bphillips@bassberry.com

               - and –

          Marissa Alter-Nelson, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP (NY OFFICE)
          1271 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020-1345
          Phone: (212) 906-1345
          Email: marissa.alter-nelson@lw.com

               - and –

          Melanie M. Blunschi, Esq.
          Email: melanie.blunschi@lw.com


HEILIND ELECTRONICS: Hess Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Iedia Hess, and all similarly situated current and past employees
v. HEILIND ELECTRONICS, INC., Case No. 2:23-at-00807 (E.D. Cal.,
Aug. 18, 2023), is brought under the California IWC Wage Order No.
4 as a result of the Defendants failure to pay proper overtime
compensations.

The Plaintiff was told when hired that the position would not
include overtime. However, after she started working for the
Defendant, she was given a workload that could only be completed
with overtime work. She therefore worked longer than usual hours,
including more than 8 hours in a day and more than 40 hours in a
week. The Defendant told The Plaintiff that the company did not pay
overtime and that overtime would be volunteering for the company.
This reflects an intentional and willful failure of the company to
pay wages in compliance with the law. The Plaintiff was routinely
required to present for work about 30 minutes before the official
starting time, and was not paid for working and being available
during such times. The Plaintiff routinely worked overtime, putting
in 60 hours per week at times. Yet, she was only paid for 40 hours
of work per week, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt
employee paid by the hour.

Heilind Electronics is one of the world's leading distributors for
interconnect, electromechanical, and sensor products. As the
industry's preeminent distributor, Heilind stocks the largest
inventory of connector products in North America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq.
          JOSHUA H. WATSON, Esq.
          CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, PC
          865 Howe Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Phone: (916) 777-7777
          Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
          Email: jwatson@justice4you.com


HIGH PLAINS: Padilla Seeks Unpaid Regular & OT Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
TYSON PADILLA, and RODNEY RAMIREZ, on behalf of themselves and
those similarly situated, v. HIGH PLAINS STEEL SERVICES, LLC, Case
No. 1:23-cv-02053 (D. Colo., Aug. 14, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid
regular rate wages and unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the
Colorado law and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

According to the complaint, the Defendant systemically failed and
continues to fail to appropriately track its employees' time and
pay its employees for all time worked and failed to provide the
10-minute breaks required by Colorado law. The Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated employees did not receive 30-minute meal breaks.
They would instead continue performing work tasks throughout their
shifts, trying to grab food as they could while they were working.
Mr. Padilla and Mr. Ramirez frequently worked over 40 hours per
workweek, entitling them to overtime compensation. The Plaintiffs
would also regularly work past their scheduled shift time and had
no insight into whether they had been clocked out by Defendant
while they were still working, the suit asserts.

The Plaintiffs also seek to recover unlawfully withheld wages,
statutory penalties, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees and
costs, and other damages related to Defendant's violation of
Colorado law.

Mr. Padilla worked for the Defendant from May 28, 2023, through
June 29, 2023. His official title was Supervisor Superintendent,
but he had the responsibilities of a Welder. At no time was Mr.
Padilla responsible for supervising any of the Defendant's
employees or enforcing its illegal payment practices.

Mr. Ramirez worked for the Defendant between June 20, 2023, through
July 3, 2023. Though Mr. Ramirez's official job title was Foreman,
he had the responsibilities of a Welder. At no time was Mr. Ramirez
responsible for supervising any of the Defendant's employees or
enforcing its illegal payment practices.

The Defendant owns and operates a steel fabrication and erection
plant in Colorado.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shelby Woods, Esq.
          Abby Zinman, Esq.
          HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
          730 17th Street, Suite 750
          Denver, CO 80202
          E-mail: swoods@hkm.com
                  azinman@hkm.com

HOPEBRIDGE LLC: Prelim. Approval of Deal in Skevington Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JACQUELINE SKEVINGTON on behalf of herself
and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOPEBRIDGE, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-03105-JPH-MG (S.D. Ind.), Judge James
Patrick Hanlon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, denies the motion for
preliminary approval of class settlement as presented.

Plaintiff Jacqueline Skevington brought this lawsuit on behalf of
herself and those similarly situated, alleging that Hopebridge,
LLC, violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Indiana
Wage Payment Statute (IWPS) by failing to properly pay its
Registered Behavioral Technicians (RBTs) for short breaks that they
took throughout the day. The parties have filed a joint motion for
preliminary approval of a class action settlement and notice, along
with the executed settlement agreement, and proposed class notice.

Ms. Skevington brought this case in December 2021, alleging that
Hopebridge maintained a company-wide policy of not compensating
RBT's for "breaks" regardless of duration. She sought to bring the
FLSA claims "as an 'opt-in' collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b)" on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated employees for unpaid overtime compensation. She also
sought to bring the IWPS claims as a Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 class of current and former RBTs for "unpaid wages for
[the] 'gap time'" when they were required to clock-out.

The parties engaged in discovery and concluded that the data showed
that the average RBT has a maximum unpaid wage claim of far less
than $50 per person. Therefore, they concluded that a settlement,
involving certification, for settlement purposes only, of a class
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) was the most
efficient path.

According to the parties' executed class settlement agreement, the
proposed settlement "Rule 23 Class" includes:

     All non-exempt, hourly-paid Registered Behavior Technicians
     (RBTs) employed by Hopebridge, LLC at one or more of its
     locations in the United States at any time between Dec. 28,
     2019, and May 12, 2022.

Excluded from the Class are any persons, who timely opt out of the
Class. To effectuate that agreement, the parties request that the
Court: (1) enter the proposed Order Preliminarily Approving Class
Action Settlement and Class Notice and Setting Fairness Hearing,
which sets forth the findings required by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3), (2) grant provisional certification
of the Rule 23 Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(3) and preliminary approval of the Agreement and settlement,
(3) approve the proposed Class Notice and authorizes the mailing of
the Class Notice to the Rule 23 Class Members, (4) appoint Class
Counsel, and (5) schedule a Fairness Hearing for final approval of
the Agreement and settlement.

The Court has identified deficiencies in the motion for preliminary
approval of the class action settlement.

When Ms. Skevington filed her complaint, she sought to bring the
FLSA claims "as an 'opt-in' collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b)" on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated employees for unpaid overtime compensation. However, Judge
Hanlon says, the parties' settlement agreement explains that the
Parties have determined that this matter should be settled in a
Rule 23(b)(3) class action rather than a more limited FLSA
collective action.

Thus, the Agreement provides that all class members who do not opt
out, will release, and forever discharge, the Defendant from any
and all wage and hour claims that were or could have been asserted
under the FLSA, and the IWPS.

As drafted, this settlement resolves the FLSA claims of Ms.
Skevington and the putative class through an opt-out release, Judge
Hanlon notes. But class-wide FLSA claims must be resolved through
an opt-in collective action, not an opt-out Rule 23 class action,
Judge Hanlon points out.

Judge Hanlon finds that the parties offer no authority or argument
in support of the request to approve a settlement agreement that
would release Hopebridge from liability under the FLSA without
following the statutorily required opt-in procedure. Therefore, the
Court denies the motion as presented.

Judge Hanlon says other issues in the current motion and brief must
be remedied in future filings.

First, the parties' brief does not analyze whether the proposed
class meets the Rule 23(a) or Rule 23(b)(3) standard as to allow
the IWPS claim to be resolved on a class-wide basis. Instead, it
simply states, "[f]or purposes of this settlement, the Parties
agree that the requirements for certification of a settlement class
have been met." Therefore, any future motion must clearly explain
how the proposed settlement would satisfy each of the requirements
under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3).

Second, the parties provided no declarations or other evidence to
aid the Court in its assessment of whether the proposed settlement
is appropriate under Rule 23 or Section 216(b). Judge Hanlon
explains that this is especially problematic in the FLSA context
because, before a court may conditionally certify a FLSA collective
action, the plaintiffs must make a modest factual showing
sufficient to demonstrate that they and potential plaintiffs
together were victims of a common policy or plan that violated the
law, citing Grosscup v. KPW Mgmt., Inc., 261 F.Supp.3d 867, 869-70
(N.D. Ill. 2017).

Here, while the complaint alleges that Ms. Skevington is
"representative of those other similarly situated employees" and
that they were all subject to "company-wide payroll policies and/or
practices," Judge Hanlon points out that there is no factual
evidence to support that conclusion.

If the parties decide to refile the motion for preliminary approval
of the class settlement, Judge Hanlon rules that they must address
the issues identified in this Order and ensure that their motion,
notice, and proposed settlement otherwise comply with all the
requirements covering 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) collective actions
and/or Rule 23 class actions.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 3, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5eh5u3uj from Leagle.com.


HOSPITALITY STAFFING: Cariola Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hospitality Staffing
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Joshua Cariola, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Hospitality Staffing
Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03689-AT (N.D. Ga., Aug. 18,
2023).

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

Hospitality Staffing Solutions -- https://www.hssstaffing.com/ --
is the largest hospitality staffing agency focused on hospitality
staff nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
          111 W. Jackson Blvd. Suite 1700
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Phone: (312) 984-0000
          Email: malmstrom@whafh.com

               - and -

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


HOSPITALITY STAFFING: Tapia Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hospitality Staffing
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Julie Tapia, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Hospitality Staffing
Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03667-AT (N.D. Ga., Aug. 17,
2023).

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

Hospitality Staffing Solutions -- https://www.hssstaffing.com/ --
is the largest hospitality staffing agency focused on hospitality
staff nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HOST INTERNATIONAL: Continuance of Class Cert Hearing Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAN FRANKENSTEIN,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and
on behalf of the HMSHOST 401(k) RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN AND TRUST,
v. HOST INTERNATIONAL, INC.; HMSHOST 401(k) RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN
AND TRUST RETIREMENT COMMITTEE; COLEMAN LAUERBACH; and DOES NO.
1-10, Whose Names Are Currently Unknown, Case No. 8:20-cv-01100-PJM
(D. Md.), the Parties jointly ask the Court that the hearing be
continued to September 21, 2023, September 22, 2023, or a
subsequent date convenient for the Court.

On March 9, 2023, the Court scheduled an evidentiary hearing on
class certification in this matter for August 16, 2023, for which
it allotted two hours for total argument, pursuant to the Parties'
stipulation.

The Parties also jointly request that they submit proposed Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law in connection with the evidentiary
hearing eight days before the rescheduled hearing date.

The Defendants further request that the Court modify the length and
structure of the hearing to allow a full day for the hearing,
including time for 20-minute opening statements, in order to
present newly-developed evidence on the issue of class
certification, which includes testimony from the six witnesses.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3s3Bogs at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kolin C. Tang, Esq.
          Ronald S. Kravitz, Esq.
          MILLER SHAH LLP
          19712 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 222
          Irvine, CA 92660
          Telephone: (866) 540-5505
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: kctang@millershah.com
                  rskravitz@millershah.com

                - and -

          Timothy F. Maloney, Esq.
          Alyse L. Prawde, Esq.
          JOSEPH GREENWALD & LAAKE, PA
          6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400
          Greenbelt, MD 20770-1417
          Telephone: (240) 553-1206
          Facsimile: (240) 553-1737
          E-mail: tmaloney@jgllaw.com
                  aprawde@jgllaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Reginald Goeke, Esq.
          Michelle Webster, Esq.
          Nancy G. Ross, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          1999 K Street NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 263-3241
          Facsimile: (202) 263-5241
          E-mail: rgoeke@mayerbrown.com
                  mwebster@mayerbrown.com
                  nross@mayerbrown.com

HOUSING AUTHORITY: Joy Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Kimberly Joy, Robert Herrera, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Housing Authority of
the City of Los Angeles, Case No. 23STCV14808 was removed from the
Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on Aug. 10, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-06525 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.

The Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles --
http://www.hacla.org/en-- is a state-chartered public agency.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Danielle E. Stierna, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD AND SMITH LLP
          633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 250-1800
          Fax: (213) 250-7900
          Email: danielle.stierna@lewisbrisbois.com


HUB CYBER SECURITY: Continues to Defend PIPE Funds Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
HUB Cyber Security Ltd. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for
fiscal period ending June 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 31, 2022, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the PIPE funds class suit.

On March 6, 2023, the Company was notified of a class action
certification motion filed against it, and its directors and
officers (including former officers) with the Tel-Aviv District
Court's Economic Department.

The motion was filed for alleged misleading details in the
Company's public reports in Israel regarding the PIPE funds that
were supposed to be received by the Company upon the consummation
of the Business Combination.

The petitioner seeks to represent anyone who purchased the
Company's ordinary shares after the announcement of the Business
Combination in March 2022 until the end of February 23, 2023, which
was the last trading day of the Company’s ordinary shares on the
TASE.

The overall compensation estimated by the petitioner in the motion
is approximately US$ 25 million.

The Company is required to file its response to the motion by
September 6, 2023.

As of the date of this Annual Report, the Company is analyzing the
motion and is presently unable to assess the chances of its
approval and/or its scope and whether, if approved, it will have a
material impact on the Company’s results of operations or
financial condition.

HUB Cyber Security Ltd. focuses on two symbiotic lines of business
– Confidential Computing and Cyber Security Professional Services
– a trusted advisor to its customers. The symbiotic connection
between the two offerings is deeply rooted in the company's
strategy.


HUB CYBER: Continues to Defend Cancelled Contract Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
HUB Cyber Security Ltd. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for
fiscal period ending June 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 31, 2022, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the cancelled contract class suit.


On March 29, 2022, two plaintiffs petitioned the District Court in
Tel Aviv for certification of a class of plaintiffs in a class
action suit against us and seven individuals serving as the
Company's officers and directors as of such date. The request for
certification is based on a delay in HUB's making a public
announcement of the cancellation of a contract tender whose award
to HUB had been previously announced.

The canceled contract represented revenue to HUB of NIS 800,000
(approximately US$250,000) per year, and HUB's previous
announcement stated that the contract tender would have a material
effect on its 2022 financial results.

HUB was notified of the cancellation of the award of the tender on
the afternoon of Wednesday, March 23, 2022, which was the same day
that HUB announced its execution of the Business Combination
Agreement.

HUB reported the cancellation of the award on Sunday, March 27,
2022. The applicable rules of the TASE and the Israel Securities
Authority, require announcements of this kind to be made not later
than the trading day following a company's receipt of the relevant
information.

Friday is not a trading day on the TASE, so HUB's report can be
said to have been made one day late. The price of HUB's ordinary
shares on the TASE fell by approximately 35% on March 27, 2022.

The plaintiff’s request to the court cites total damages at NIS
229 million (approximately $70 million).

On October 20, 2022, the amount claimed was reduced from NIS 229.44
million to NIS 5.44 million (approximately $1.48 million).

On January 30, 2023, the amount requested was increased to NIS 64
million.

On February 2, 2023, a partial judgment was issued in which the
motion to withdraw against the directors was approved, leaving the
motion pending against the Company and its former Chief Executive
Officer only.

The court ordered that the answer to the amended approval request
be submitted by September 3, 2023.

Though the Company believes that the request for certification on
this claim will be denied by the court, and that it has strong
defenses to any class action that may ultimately be allowed to
proceed, there can be no assurance that a court will not find the
Company liable for significantly greater amounts. At this stage of
the proceedings, it is not possible to assess the chances of the
application being accepted or rejected in part or in full. A
courts' finding of significant liability against the Company could
negatively affect its share price and have a material effect on its
business and financial condition.

HUB Cyber Security Ltd. focuses on two symbiotic lines of business
– Confidential Computing and Cyber Security Professional Services
– a trusted advisor to its customers. The symbiotic connection
between the two offerings is deeply rooted in the company's
strategy.





HUGO BOSS: Herrera ADA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Carlos Herrera, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Hugo Boss Fashions, Inc., Case No.
HUD-L-001800-23 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Hudson County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey on July 19, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-03846-EP-ESK to
the proceeding.

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

Hugo Boss Fashions, Inc. -- https://www.hugoboss.com/ -- is a
retailer offering fashionable attire & fragrances for men & women
from the designer brand.[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


HUNTER WARFIELD: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due March 29, 2024
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDON M. EVANS, et al.,
v. HUNTER WARFIELD, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-00998-SL (N.D. Ohio),
the Hon. Judge Sara Lioi entered an order setting the following
deadlines:

  Deadline to Add Parties, Amend Pleadings,        Oct. 16, 2023
  and/or Amend Class Definition:  

  Deadline for Completing Rule 23 Discovery:       Jan. 31, 2024

  Deadline for Plaintiffs to Identify
  Expert(s) and Provide Reports Regarding
  Class Certification Issues:                      Feb. 15, 2024

  Deadline for Completing Depositions of
  Plaintiffs' Class Experts:                       Dec. 15, 2023

  Deadline for Defendant to Identify
  Expert(s) and Provide Reports Regarding
  Class Certification Issues:                      Feb. 29, 2024

  Deadline for Completing Expert Depositions
  Re: Certification:                               Mar. 15, 2024

  Deadline for Plaintiff's Motion for
  Class Certification:                             Mar. 29, 2024

  Deadline for Defendant's Opposition to
  Plaintiffs’ Class Certification Motion:          Apr. 19, 2024

  Deadline for Plaintiffs' Reply Brief:            Apr. 30, 2024

  Daubert Hearing, if any:                         May 1, 2024

  Hearing regarding Class Certification Issues:    May 30, 2024

  Deadline for Completing Non-Expert Discovery:    July 15, 2024

  Deadline for Completing Expert Discovery:        Aug. 15, 2024
  Deadline for Filing Dispositive Motions:         Sept. 9, 2024

Hunter Warfield is a debt collection agency.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 1, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DU5zcI at no extra charge.[CC]

INTERLOCK SECURITY: Fails to Pay Guards' OT Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE MURO, individually on behalf of herself and others
similiarly situated v. INTERLOCK SECURITY GROUP, INC., a Florida
Profit Corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-00616-JLB-NPM (M.D. Fla., Aug.
14, 2023) seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours in most, if not all,
workweeks. However, the Defendant failed to properly compensate the
Plaintiff for all overtime hours that she worked each week and
instead paid her straight time for all hours worked. Additionally,
the Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff at a rate of one and
one-half times Plaintiff's regular rate of pay for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek, the Plaintiff asserts.

The Plaintiff brings these claims as a collective action and will
request the Court to grant conditional certification under 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b), and to order notices to potential opt-in
individuals who are or were employed by the Defendant as non-exempt
employees within three years prior to the commencement of this
lawsuit.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt
security guard from February 2022 until October 2022.

Interlock provides Security, Investigations, and Property
Management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew R. Gunter, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 1600
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 236-0946
          Facsimile: (407) 867-4791
          E-mail: MGunter@forthepeople.com

J. PRESS INC: Black Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against J. Press, Inc. The
case is styled as Jahron Black, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. J. Press, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06238-FB-JRC
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 18, 2023).

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

J. Press -- https://jpressonline.com/ -- is a traditional men's
clothier founded in 1902 on Yale University's campus in New Haven,
Connecticut, by Jacobi Press.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JAAP TRUCKING INC: Singh Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Harpreet Singh, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. JAAP TRUCKING INC., SSM FREIGHT LLC, KULDEEP SINGH,
Case No. 2:23-cv-06645 (D.N.J., Aug. 21, 2023), is brought against
the Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, (FLSA) and New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, NJSA ("NJWHL"),
arising from unpaid overtime wages, unpaid wage compensation,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgement interest; and or
attorney's fees and cost.

The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed
widespread violations of the FLSA and NJWHL by engaging in pattern
and practice of failing to pay its employees, including Plaintiff,
minimum wage for each hour worked and overtime compensation for all
hours worked over 40 each workweek, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to work as a Truck
Driver for both Corporate Defendants.

The Defendants are both trucking companies that the Plaintiff
worked for while employed with the Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 110
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Phone: (718) 762-1324
          Email: troylaw@troypllc.com'


JACE CAR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Qyap Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
KALZANG QYAP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JACE CAR INC D/B/A A&M CAR SERVICE D/B/A A&M
IKEA THE METRO MARINE CAR SERVICE INC D/B/A A&M CAR SERVICE D/B/A
A&M IKEA; JOHN ANASTASIO OMAR SAAD a/k/a Omar Onar, Defendants,
Case No. 524291/2023 (N.Y., Sup., Kings Cty., Aug. 21, 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 Qyap was employed by the Defendants as a cab driver.

JACE CAR INC. operates car rental business and used car sales. The
Company provides short-term and long-term rentals, and financial
leasing services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          Aaron B. Schweitzer, Esq.
          Tiffany Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Blvd #110
          Queens, NY 11355
          Tel: (718) 762-1324

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Plumbers' Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Plumbers' Local Union No. 690 Health Plan,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON; ALZA CORPORATION; CENTOCOR, INC., ORTHO BIOTECH,
INC., JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA, INC., n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
Case No. 23STCV16052 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas for
Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 17, 2023,
and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-03176-TJS.

The Plaintiff's principal allegation is that the J&J Defendants
illegally inflated their reported AWPs above the "actual average
wholesale prices" for J&J drugs purchased in Pennsylvania and the
DHVCC states over a 32-year period, and that Plaintiff and the
putative class members suffered damages due to that inflation. In
short, it alleges the AWPs were inflated at 25% above the reported
Wholesale Acquisition Cost ("WAC") by default, and that the actual
acquisition cost for the medications was even lower than WAC due to
discounts, rebates, and other incentives to prescribers. Therefore,
Plaintiff alleges, the class suffered damages greater than the
difference between the drug's inflated AWP and WAC.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Donald E. Haviland, Jr., Esq.
          William H. Platt II, Esq.
          Fatih Oguz, Esq.
          HAVILAND HUGHES
          124 South Maple way, Suite 220
          Ambler, PA 19002
          Phone: (215) 609-4661


JOHNSON CONTROLS: Tinoco Seeks Unpaid Wages and Fringe Benefits
---------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS A. TINOCO, DILIP SAHU and FLORIN CIUPERCIUC, individually and
on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who are or were
employed by Johnson Controls, Inc. with respect to Public Works
Projects referenced in this complaint v. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.,
Case No. 1:23-cv-05398 (N.D. Ill., Aug 11, 2023) seeks to recover
prevailing wages and fringe benefits which they and members of the
putative class were entitled to receive for work they performed on
the Public Works Projects but did not receive in violation of the
Illinois Prevailing Wage Act.

This lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and a class
consisting of all persons who performed installation, service and
commissioning work on HVAC and other building systems for JCI on
the sites of the public works projects from August 11, 2018, to the
entry of judgment in this case.

In late 2022, JCI began to pay Tinoco the proper total prevailing
wage and benefit rate for pipefitters pursuant to the Illinois
Department of Labor at $87.73 per hour. The Defendant JCI offered
him a restitution payment for unpaid prevailing wages and
supplemental benefits in early 2023 but he turned it down because
it did not compensate him for all that was owed him under Illinois
law since 2018, the suit says.

JCI's violation of the Illinois Prevailing Wage Act, by failing to
pay Plaintiffs and the putative class prevailing wages and fringe
benefits, was willful and authorizes the recovery of statutory
penalties of two percent (2%) per month, pre-judgment interest and
attorneys' fees under Illinois law. As a result of its violation of
the Illinois Prevailing Wage Act, JCI is liable to the Plaintiffs
and the other members of the putative class in an amount yet to be
determined but believed to exceed $2,000,000.00 plus interest, the
suit claims.

Plaintiff Luis Tinoco worked for JCI from 2006 to April 2023. He
first worked as a systems technician and then as a lead systems
specialist.

Plaintiff Dilip Sahu started working at JCI in May 2018 and
continues to work for the company. He has done this work at and
within various Lake and Cook County public job sites such as
libraries and schools.

JCI provides HVAC, integrated fire alarm, security, fire
suppression, healthcare communications and emergency lighting
systems to municipalities, government agencies, corporations,
hospitals and educational facilities. Not only does JCI design,
engineer and install such systems, they provide inspection,
testing, maintenance and monitoring of them, as well.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David L. Lee, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID L. LEE
          525 S. Dearborn St., #660
          Chicago, IL 60605
          Telephone: (312) 952-1321
          E-mail: d-lee@davidleelaw.com

                - and -

          Bruce E. Menken, Esq.
          Jason J. Rozger, Esq.
          MENKEN SIMPSON & ROZGER LLP
          80 Pine Street, 33rd Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 509-1616
          E-mail: bmenken@nyemployeelaw.com

JP MORGAN: Court OK's Settlement in US Virgin Islands Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. 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 November 2022, a putative
class action filed by an alleged sex-trafficking victim of Epstein
and another which was filed in December 2022, was brought on behalf
of the government of the United States Virgin Islands and also
alleges certain Virgin Islands statutory claims.

In March 2023, the Court granted in part and denied in part
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s motions to dismiss these complaints,
allowing some claims to proceed in both lawsuits.

In June 2023, the Court granted the putative class' motion for
class certification and granted a preliminary approval of a
settlement between the class and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
pursuant to which JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. will pay $290 million
to a fund for Epstein survivors. Said action involving the
government of the United States Virgin Islands are proceeding.

JPMorgan Chase & Company is a commercial bank based in New York,
NY.


JP MORGAN: Faces Antitrust Charges Overseas
-------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. 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 putative class actions have been
filed in the U.K., Israel, the Netherlands, Brazil and Australia
over antitrust charges.

An agreement to resolve one of the UK actions was reached in
December 2022. In July 2023, the U.K. Court of Appeal overturned
the Competition Appeal Tribunal's earlier denial of a request for
class certification on an opt-out basis.

In Israel, a settlement in principle has been reached in the
putative class action, which remains subject to court approval.

JPMorgan Chase & Company is a commercial bank based in New York,
NY.


JP MORGAN: Named in Ongoing Debit/Credit Card Fees Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. 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 groups of merchants and retail
associations filed a series of class action complaints alleging
that Visa and Mastercard, as well as certain banks including the
company, conspired to set the price of credit and debit card
interchange fees and enacted related rules in violation of
antitrust laws.

In 2012, the parties initially settled the cases for a cash
payment, but that settlement was reversed on appeal and remanded to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York. The original class action was divided into two separate
actions, one seeking primarily monetary relief and the other
seeking primarily injunctive relief. In September 2018, the parties
to the monetary class action finalized an agreement which amends
and supersedes the prior settlement agreement. Pursuant to this
settlement, the defendants collectively contributed an additional
$900 million to the approximately $5.3 billion previously held in
escrow from the original settlement. In December 2019, the amended
settlement agreement was approved by the District Court. In March
2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
affirmed the District Court's approval of the settlement, and two
merchants have filed petitions for rehearing of the Appellate
Court's approval. Based on the percentage of merchants that opted
out of the amended class settlement, $700 million has been returned
to the defendants from the settlement escrow in accordance with the
settlement agreement. The injunctive class action continues
separately, and in September 2021, the District Court granted
plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in part, and denied
the motion in part.

Of the merchants who opted out of the amended damages class
settlement, certain merchants filed individual actions raising
similar allegations against Visa and Mastercard, as well as against
the Firm and other banks. While some of those actions remain
pending, the defendants have reached settlements with the merchants
who opted out representing approximately 65% of the combined
Mastercard-branded and Visa-branded payment card sales volume.

JPMorgan Chase & Company is a commercial bank based in New York,
NY.

JP MORGAN: Settlement in Consolidated Suit Gets Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. 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 August 2018, the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted
final approval to a settlement of a consolidated class action
brought by U.S. based plaintiffs, which principally alleged
violations of federal antitrust laws based on an alleged conspiracy
to manipulate foreign exchange rates and also sought damages on
behalf of persons who transacted in FX futures and options on
futures.

An agreement to resolve their claims was reached in December 2022.


JPMorgan Chase & Company is a commercial bank based in New York,
NY.


JTAV CLINICAL SKIN: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JTAV Clinical Skin
Care & Laser Center, Incorporated. The case is styled as Jenny
Hwang, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v.
JTAV Clinical Skin Care & Laser Center, Incorporated, Case No.
1:23-cv-05969 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 7, 2023).

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

JTAV -- https://jtavclinicalskincare.com/ -- offers a wide array of
skin care, anti-aging & rejuvenation services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KALMBACH FEEDS: Serendipity Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Serendipity Therapeutic Riding Center, on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated v. Kalmbach Feeds,
Inc., Case No. 2019-CP-32-02636 was removed from the Pennsylvania
Court of Common Pleas for Luzerne County, to the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 18,
2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-01379-MEM.

The Plaintiff asserts five claims: four on behalf of itself and the
proposed class--alleging violation of the federal Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act ("MMWA"), breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a
particular purpose, and breach of express warranty--and one claim
on behalf of Plaintiff only (negligence — manufacturing
defect).[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          John G. Papianou, Esq.
          Patrick T. Ryan, Esq.
          MONTGOMERY, MCCRACKEN, WALKER & RHOADS, LLP
          1735 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 772-1500
          Email: jpapianou@mmwr.com
                 pryan@mmwr.com


KAYA INC: Vachnine Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kaya, Inc. The case
is styled as Ness-Lee Vachnine, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Kaya, Inc. doing business as: Driscoll
Robbins, Case No. 1:23-cv-07059 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 10, 2023).

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

Kaya, Inc. doing business as Driscoll Robbins --
https://www.driscollrobbins.com/ -- has been Seattle's design
source for the finest selection of handwoven, contemporary and
traditional rugs since 1997.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gabriel Levy, Esq.
          GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
          1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
          Manhasset, NY 11030
          Phone: (516) 287-3458
          Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com


KOELSCH SENIOR: Fite Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Koelsch Senior
Communities, et al. The case is styled as Bessie R. Fite, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, Petitioner v. Koelsch
Senior Communities, LLC, Fresno Memory Care, LLC, Cedarbrook Memory
Care Community, Respondents, Case No. 23CV006509 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., Aug. 10, 2023).

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

Koelsch -- https://koelschseniorcommunities.com/ -- operates senior
living communities in 8 states.[BN]

KRG SERVICES: Fails to Pay Cleaning Staffs' Minimum & OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
ADELINA RAMIREZ, JOSE GUZMAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. KRG SERVICES LLC and DAYSI PARADA
SOTO, Case No. 8:23-cv-02214-AAQ (D. Md., Aug. 14, 2023) alleges
that the Defendant failed to pay minimum wages and overtime wages
at one-and-one-half times their usual hourly wage, under the
Maryland Wage and Hour Law, the Maryland Wage Payment and
Collection Law, and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The Defendants allegedly required Ms. Ramirez and Mr. Guzman to
work time off of the clock and would also issue checks to them in
the name of other people in an attempt to avoid paying overtime
wages due.

Ms. Ramirez worked in excess of 40 hours in most weeks and worked
up to 60 hours per week on occasion. From early October 2022
through the time she left, she was paid a base rate of $17.25 per
hour. At $17.25 per hour, her overtime rate was $25.88 per hour.
Mr. Guzman generally worked Monday through Friday as well as most
weekends. He was often assigned to do extra tasks, such as
performing COVID-19 cleanings or cleaning sensitive areas. From
January 9, 2022, to January 2023, the Defendants paid Ramirez at
the rate of $20.00 per hour. At $20.00 per hour, his overtime rate
was $30.00 per hour. The overtime premium was $10.00 per hour.

As a result of the Defendants' unlawful conduct, the Plaintiffs
suffered a loss of wages and consequential damage, the suit
asserts.

Ms. Ramirez worked at the Novavax Campus in Gaithersburg Maryland
as a Cleaner from May 2016, until February 24, 2023.

Mr. Guzman worked as a Janitorial Supervisor and was responsible
for performing heavy cleaning duties such as cleaning floors,
shampooing rugs, washing walls and glass.

KRG provides janitorial services and operates in Maryland,
Washington D.C., and Northern Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edith K. Thomas, Esq.
          ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
          8757 Georgia Ave., Suite 400
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 587-9373
          Facsimile: (240) 428-9142
          E-mail: ethomas@zagfirm.com

LAND AND SEA RESTAURANTS: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Land and Sea
Restaurants, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Jesus Garcia, an
individual, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. Land and Sea Restaurants LLC d/b/a Epic
Roasthouse, Does 1-50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC23608448 (Cal. Super.
Ct., San Francisco Cty., Aug. 17, 2023).

The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."

Sea Restaurants LLC doing business as Epic Roasthouse --
https://www.epicsteak.com/ -- is an embarcadero steakhouse with a
deep wine list, views of the Bay & weekday happy hours.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq.
          JCL LAW FIRM, APC
          5440 Morehouse Dr., Ste. 3600
          San Diego, CA 92121-6720
          Phone: 619-599-8292
          Fax: 619-599-8291
          Email: jlapuyade@jcl-lawfirm.com


LASTPASS US: Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled as John Doe, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. LastPass US, LLC, GoTo Technologies
USA, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-01723 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Aug. 21, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-11906-PBS to the
proceeding.

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

LastPass -- https://www.lastpass.com/ -- is an award-winning
password manager which helps millions of registered users organize
and protect their online lives.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, Ste. 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Phone: (212) 594-5300
          Email: mreese@reesellp.com

               - and –

          George Volney Granade, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515
          Los Angeles, CA 90211
          Phone: (310) 939-0070
          Fax: (212) 253-4272
          Email: ggranade@reesellp.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Victoria Leigh Weatherford, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3100
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 659-2634
          Fax: (415) 659-2601
          Email: vweatherford@bakerlaw.com


LAWSON PRODUCTS: Faces Davis Data Breach Suit in Illinois Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution Solutions Group, Inc. (DSG) 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
4, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against its
subsidiary, entitled "Lardone Davis, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Lawson Products, Inc.," Case No.
1:23-cv-02118, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

The plaintiff in this case, who purports to represent the class of
individuals harmed by alleged actions and/or omissions by DSG in
connection with the incident, asserts a variety of common law and
statutory claims seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief and
other related relief related to the potential unauthorized access
by third parties to personal identifiable information and protected
health information.

On February 10, 2022, DSG disclosed that its computer network was
the subject of a cyber incident potentially involving unauthorized
access to certain confidential information.

Distribution Solutions Group, Inc. is a global specialty
distribution company providing value-added distribution solutions
to the maintenance, repair and operations, original equipment
manufacturer and industrial technology markets. DSG has three
principal operating companies: Lawson Products, Inc., TestEquity
Acquisition, LLC, and 301 HW Opus Holdings, Inc.


LEADING EDGE: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Zarr Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELE ZARR, an individual, v. LEADING EDGE CONNECTIONS, LLC, a
Florida limited liability company, Case No. 3:23-cv-08530-DWL (D.
Ariz., Aug. 9, 2023) is a class action seeking to recover unpaid
wages, including unpaid overtime for all hours worked exceeding 40
hours in a workweek, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant misclassified the
Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees as independent
contractors, failed to compensate them at the overtime rate for
certain time periods in which they worked more than 40 hours in a
workweek, thereby depriving them of compensation to which they were
entitled.

The Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees seek
backpay for nonpayment and underpayment of wages, liquidated
damages, attorney's fees and costs, and other relief available
under 29 U.S.C. Section 216 and any other applicable law.

The Plaintiff pursues the requested relief on behalf of the
following Collective Members:

         All persons employed by Defendant LEC as independent
         contractors who work as Customer Service workers who have

         worked for the Defendant LEC for a period in excess of
         40 hours per week who were not provided with overtime pay

         as required by the FLSA within the applicable statute of
         limitations applicable to this action.

The Plaintiff began working for LEC in February 2022 as a Customer
Service Representative and had a continuous and ongoing
relationship working for LEC until her employment termination on
August 30, 2022.

LEC is a fully virtual outsourced call center providing customer
service and sales services for its business clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas Brown, Esq.
          ERNST, BROWN & DRAPER, PLLC
          1930 S. Alma School Road, Suite A200
          Mesa, AZ 85210
          Telephone: (602) 324-9673
          E-mail: TBrown@ebdlawyers.com

LEAF HOME LLC: Scott Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Leaf Home, LLC. The
case is styled as Tanya Scott, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. Leaf Home, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00161-TCB
(N.D. Ga., Aug. 11, 2023).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Leaf Home, LLC -- https://www.leafhome.com/ -- is a
technology-enabled provider of home solutions. The Company delivers
transformative home solutions for comfortable living.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Phone: (617) 485-0018
          Fax: (508) 318-8100
          Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com

               - and -

          Steven Howard Koval, Esq.
          THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC
          Building 15, Suite 120
          3575 Piedmont Rd.
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Phone: (404) 513-6651
          Fax: (404) 549-4654
          Email: shkoval@aol.com


LENOVO (US): Court Narrows Claims in First Amended Augustine Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, OPHELIA AUGUSTINE, Plaintiff v. LENOVO (UNITED
STATES), INC., Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-2027-L-AHG (S.D. Cal.),
Judge M. James Lorenz of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California grants in part and denies in part the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's first amended
complaint.

Pending before the Court in this putative class action is the
Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff Augustine's first amended
complaint. The Plaintiff opposed and the Defendant replied.

According to the allegations in the amended complaint, the
Defendant owns and operates the website www.lenovo.com. The
Defendant embedded code provided by a third party, Quantum Metric
within its website that deploys onto a consumer's device every time
they visit its website. The Defendant and Quantum used this
"session replay" code to see and record the Plaintiff's screen
while she was on its website, including what words and were typed,
search terms entered and what content was being clicked, requested,
and inputted by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff now brings two claims for violation of the California
Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA") arising out of this conduct. The
Defendant moves to dismiss both claims pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.

The Defendant moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's first cause of
action (Violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal.
Penal Code Section 631) on the grounds that the Plaintiff consented
to Defendant's actions.

Judge Lorenz holds that the allegation that Quantum's actions go
beyond the ordinary function of a tape recorder is sufficient for
the Plaintiff's claim to survive the Defendant's pleading
challenge. Thus, the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
first cause of action is denied.

The Defendant moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's second cause of
action (Violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal.
Penal Code Section 632.7) arguing that section 632.7 of the
California Penal Code only applies to phone-to-phone
communications, which the Defendant asserts is not the case here.
Indeed, the Plaintiff alleges that she accessed the Defendant's
website on her cell phone but the amended complaint is silent as to
the device or devices used by Quantum or the Defendant.

Judge Lorenz finds that the plain language of section 632.7 limits
the applicability of the statute to communications between certain
types of telephones, not the internet. Indeed, transmission by
internet through a device called 'phone' is not sufficient.
Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
second cause of action is granted without leave to amend as the
Court finds that no amendment could cure the defect that the
statute does not apply to internet communications.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Lorenz denies the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's first cause of action for
violation of section 631 of the California Penal Code. He grants
the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's second cause of
action for violation of section 632.7 of the California Penal Code
is without leave to amend.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 2, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2zv35jn3 from Leagle.com.


LIFE INSURANCE: Hoffman Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Scott Hoffman, Barry Blisten, Deann Fallas,
Gerry Oxx, Damon Stokes, Susan Strozewski, Sarah White, and Maria
De Altonaga, individually and as representatives of the Class v.
Life Insurance Company of the Southwest, Case No. 23CV418236 was
removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of
Santa Clara, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on Aug. 10, 2023, and assigned Case No.
5:23-cv-04068-SVK.

In the complaint, Plaintiffs allege that LICS "charged teachers
millions of dollars in undisclosed and unauthorized fees on their
supplemental retirement savings plans" in violation of Cal. Educ.
Code. The complaint asserts, on behalf of a putative class, claims
for violations of the California Unfair Competition Law.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Timothy Perla, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
          60 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: (617) 526-6000
          Facsimile: (617) 526-5000
          Email: timothy.perla@wilmerhale.com

               - and -

          Jessica Lewis, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
          One Front Street, Suite 3500
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (628) 235-1160
          Facsimile: (628) 235-1001
          Email: jessica.lewis@wilmerhale.com


LINCOLN LIFE & ANNUITY: Dismissal of Nitkewicz Suit Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2023, that its subsidiary Lincoln Life &
Annuity Company of New York (LLANY), is facing a putative class
action captioned "Andrew Nitkewicz v. Lincoln Life & Annuity
Company of New York, pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:20-cv-06805, filed on
August 24, 2020.

On July 2, 2021, the court granted, with prejudice, LLANY's
November 2020 motion to dismiss this matter. Plaintiff sought
compensatory damages and pre-judgment interest on behalf of the
various classes and sub-class.

Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on July 28, 2021, and on
September 26, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit reserved its decision and certified a question to the New
York Court of Appeals. On October 20, 2022, the New York Court of
Appeals accepted the question, and briefing is complete. Oral
argument is scheduled for September 12, 2023.

Plaintiff Andrew Nitkewicz, as trustee of the Joan C. Lupe Trust,
seeks to represent all current and former owners of universal life
(including variable universal life) policies who own or owned
policies issued by LLANY and its predecessors in interest that were
in force at any time on or after June 27, 2013, and for which
planned annual, semi-annual, or quarterly premiums were paid for
any period beyond the end of the policy month of the insured’s
death. Plaintiff alleges LLANY failed to refund unearned premium in
violation of New York Insurance Law Section 3203(a)(2) in
connection with the payment of death benefit claims for certain
insurance policies.

Lincoln National Corporation and its subsidiaries operate multiple
insurance businesses through four business segments namely Life
Insurance, Annuities, Group Protection and Retirement Plan
Services.


LINCOLN LIFE & ANNUITY: Faces VLF Insurance Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corp. (LNC) disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that its subsidiary Lincoln
Life & Annuity Company, is facing a putative class action captioned
"Vida Longevity Fund, LP v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New
York," pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, Case No. 1:19-cv-06004, filed on June 27, 2019.

Plaintiff alleges that Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York
(LLANY) charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance than was
permitted by the policies. On March 31, 2022, the court issued an
order granting plaintiff's motion for class certification and
certified a class of all current or former owners of six universal
life insurance products issued by LLANY that were assessed a cost
of insurance charge any time on or after June 27, 2013. Plaintiff
seeks damages on behalf of the class.

On April 19, 2023, LLANY filed a motion for summary judgment, which
remains pending.

Lincoln National Corporation and its subsidiaries operate multiple
insurance businesses through four business segments namely Life
Insurance, Annuities, Group Protection and Retirement Plan
Services.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Court Dismisses Glover Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corp. 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 case captioned "Glover v.
Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The Lincoln National
Life Insurance Company," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut, Case No. 3:16-cv-00827 has been
dismissed.

Said putative class action that was served on The Lincoln National
Life Insurance Company (LNL) on June 8, 2016. Plaintiff is the
owner of a universal life insurance policy who alleges that LNL
charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance than permitted by
the policy. Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and
variable universal life policyholders who owned policies containing
non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to
those of Plaintiff's policy and seeks damages on behalf of all such
policyholders.

On January 11, 2019, the court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint in
its entirety.

Lincoln National Corporation and its subsidiaries operate multiple
insurance businesses through four business segments namely Life
Insurance, Annuities, Group Protection and Retirement Plan
Services.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Faces Angus Insurance Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corp. (LNC) disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that its subsidiary, The
Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, is facing a putative class
action captioned "Angus v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance
Company (LNL)," pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:22-cv-01878, filed on May 13,
2022.

Angus alleges that defendant LNL breached the terms of her life
insurance policy by deducting non-guaranteed cost of insurance
charges in excess of what is permitted by the policies. She seeks
to represent all owners of universal life insurance policies issued
or insured by LNL or its predecessors containing non-guaranteed
cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of her
policy and seeks damages on their behalf. On August 26, 2022, LNL
filed a motion to dismiss.

Lincoln National Corporation and its subsidiaries operate multiple
insurance businesses through four business segments namely Life
Insurance, Annuities, Group Protection and Retirement Plan
Services.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Faces Morgan Insurance Suit in Texas Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corp. (LNC) 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 31, 2023, the
Lincoln defendants filed a notice of removal for the case captioned
"Henry Morgan et al. v. Lincoln National Corporation d/b/a Lincoln
Financial Group, et al" filed in the District Court of the 14th
Judicial District of Dallas County, Texas (Case No. DC-23-02492),
from the 14th Judicial District of Dallas County, Texas, to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
Dallas Division.

Said putative class action was filed on February 22, 2023 by
plaintiffs Henry Morgan, Susan Smith, Charles Smith, Laura Seale,
Terri Cogburn, Laura Baesel, Kathleen Walton, Terry Warner, and
Toni Hale. They allege on behalf of a putative class that Lincoln
National Corporation (d/b/a Lincoln Financial Group, LNL and
LLANY), FMR, LLC, and Fidelity Product Services, LLC created and
marketed misleading and deceptive insurance products with
attributes of investment products.

The putative class comprises all individuals and entities who
purchased Lincoln "OptiBlend" products that allocated account
monies to the 1-Year Fidelity AIM Dividend Participation Account,
between January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2022. Plaintiffs assert
the following claims individually and on behalf of the class, (1)
violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act against
Lincoln; (2) common-law fraud against Lincoln; (3) negligent
misrepresentation against Lincoln and Fidelity; and (4) aiding and
abetting fraud against Fidelity. Plaintiffs allege they suffered
damages from "a missed investment return of approximately 5-6%" and
mitigation damages. They seek actual, consequential and punitive
damages, as well as pre-judgment and post-judgment interest,
attorney's fees, and litigation costs.

On May 8, 2023, the Lincoln defendants and the Fidelity defendants
filed motions to dismiss, which remain pending.

Lincoln National Corporation and its subsidiaries operate multiple
insurance businesses through four business segments namely Life
Insurance, Annuities, Group Protection and Retirement Plan
Services.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Faces TVPX ARS Insurance Suit in PA Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corp. (LNC) 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 captioned "TVPX ARS Inc., as Securities Intermediary
for Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. v. The Lincoln National
Life Insurance Company," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:18-cv-02989, filed on
July 17, 2018.

Plaintiff alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of
insurance than permitted by the policy. Plaintiff seeks to
represent all universal life and variable universal life
policyholders who own policies issued by LNL or its predecessors
containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are
similar to those of Plaintiff's policy and seeks damages on behalf
of all such policyholders.  

Lincoln National Corporation and its subsidiaries operate multiple
insurance businesses through four business segments namely Life
Insurance, Annuities, Group Protection and Retirement Plan
Services.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Settlement in COI Rate Suit Gets Initial Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corp. (LNC) 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 the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted preliminary
approval of the settlement on June 14, 2023 for consolidated case
captioned "In re: Lincoln National 2017 COI Rate Litigation,"
pending in, Case No. 2:17-cv-04150.

A hearing is scheduled on October 4, 2023, to determine whether
final court approval of the settlement will be granted.

Multiple putative class action cases were consolidated by an order
dated March 28, 2018 where plaintiffs purport to own certain
universal life insurance policies originally issued by
Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL). Among other things, plaintiffs allege
that LNL and LNC breached the terms of policyholders' contracts by
increasing non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates beginning in
2017. Plaintiffs sought to represent classes of policyholders and
sought damages on their behalf. On August 9, 2022, the court denied
plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The parties
participated in a mediation on December 13, 2022, and subsequently
reached a settlement.

On January 26, 2023, the parties informed the presiding judge of a
class settlement in this action, subject to final documentation and
court approval. On March 24, 2023, plaintiffs filed a motion for
preliminary approval of the class settlement. The provisional
settlement, which is subject to both preliminary and final approval
of the court, consists of $117.75 million in pre-tax cash (in the
aggregate for both this litigation and another case, "In re:
Lincoln National COI Litigation") and a five-year cost of insurance
rate freeze, among other terms.

Lincoln National Corporation and its subsidiaries operate multiple
insurance businesses through four business segments namely Life
Insurance, Annuities, Group Protection and Retirement Plan
Services.


LITTLE CAESAR: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Feb. 16, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Horner et al v. Little
Caesar Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-01324-TJM-TWD
(N.D.N.Y.), the Court entered an order that:

  -- Any application to join any person         Oct. 31, 2023
     as a party to this action shall be
     made on or before:

  -- Any application to amend any pleading      Oct. 31, 2023
     in this action shall be made on
     or before:

  -- Rule 33 and 34 Requests to be served       Aug. 16, 2023
     by:

  -- Class Discovery due:                       Dec. 29, 2023

  -- Class Discovery Motions due:               Jan. 19, 2024

  -- Class Certification Motion to              Feb. 16, 2024
     be filed by:

Little Caesar is an American multinational pizza chain.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KHU6Ro at no extra charge.[CC]

LM GENERAL INSURANCE: Grant Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Timothy Grant, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. LM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
GD-23-006382 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of
Allegheny County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 10, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-03026-CFK to the
proceeding.

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

LM General Insurance Co operates as an insurance company. The
Company provides insurance services for auto, boats, equipment
breakdowns, inland marine, bonds, property, and home.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard E Shenkan, Esq.
          SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS LLC
          6550 Lakeshore Street
          West Bloomfield, MI 48323
          Phone: (412) 716-5800
          Email: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com

               - and -

          David A Strassburger, Esq.
          Lydia A. Gorba, Esq.
          STRASSBURGER MCKENNA GUTNICK & GEFSKY
          Four Gateway Center
          444 Liberty Avenue, Suite 2200
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Phone: (412) 281-5423
          Fax: (412) 281-8264
          Email: dstrassburger@smgglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Brooks Foland, Esq.
          MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN
          100 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 201
          Camp Hill, PA 07011
          Phone: (717) 651-3714
          Fax: (717) 651-3707
          Email: brfoland@mdwcg.com

               - and -

          Tiffany L. Powers, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD
          1201 West Peachtree Street
          One Atlantic Center
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
          Phone: (404) 881-4249
          Email: tiffany.powers@alston.com


LOREN D. STARK: Kohn Files Suit in S.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Loren D. Stark
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Shira Kohn, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Loren D. Stark
Company, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-03035 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 18, 2023).

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

Loren D. Stark Company -- https://ldsco.com/ -- is a retirement
plan consulting firm.[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


LOUISVILLE METRO: $1.5M Class Settlement in Lott Suit Has Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TYROME LOTT, Plaintiff v. LOUISVILLE METRO GOVERNMENT,
et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:19-CV-271-RGJ (W.D. Ky.),
Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky, Louisville Division, grants the
parties' motion for final settlement approval, and Lott's motion
for attorney fees.

Plaintiff Lott and Defendants Louisville-Jefferson County Metro
Government, Steve Conrad, Erika Shields in her official capacity as
Chief of Louisville Metro Police Department, and Vanessa Burns
individually and in her official capacity as Secretary of Public
Works as Assets for Metro Government, jointly move for final
settlement approval. Lott also moved for attorney fees and filed a
motion to supplement the briefing.

Having fully heard the parties at the fairness hearing on July 19,
2023, considered the briefing, and all motions being unopposed,
Judge Jennings grants the motions.

The Class is certified for settlement purposes the Court finding
that the Class satisfies the applicable requirements of Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23 and due process. It includes all persons with vehicles
registered to them whose vehicles were assessed a storage fee in
excess of $10 for each of the first seven days a vehicle was in
storage, plus a $5.00 fee per day for each additional day
thereafter that a vehicle remained in storage since on or about
Feb. 2, 2008, and who did not file a valid Opt-Out Request. The
total number of class members is in excess of 39,303 persons.

The terms and provisions of the Settlement Agreement have been
entered into in good faith and are fully and finally approved as
fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of each of
the Parties. The Parties and the Class Counsel are directed to
implement and consummate the Settlement Agreement according to its
terms and provisions.

The terms of the Settlement Agreement and the Final Order and the
accompanying Final Judgment are binding on the Parties, the Class
Representatives, as well as their heirs, executors, and
administrators, successors and assigns, and those terms will have
res judicata and other preclusive effect in all pending and future
claims, lawsuits, or other proceedings maintained by or on behalf
of any such persons, to the extent those claims, lawsuits, or other
proceedings involve matters that were or could have been raised in
the Action.

All Class Members are barred and enjoined from (i) filing,
commencing, prosecuting, maintaining, intervening in, participating
in (as class members or otherwise), or receiving any benefits or
other relief from, any other claim, lawsuit, arbitration, or
administrative, regulatory, or other proceeding or order in any
jurisdiction based on, arising out of, or relating to the claims
and causes of action in this litigation and/or the Settlement
Agreement; and (ii) organizing or soliciting the participation of
any Class Members into a separate class for purposes of pursuing as
a purported class action (including by seeking to amend a pending
complaint to include class allegations or by seeking class
certification in a pending action) any claim, lawsuit, or other
proceeding based on, arising out of, or relating to the claims and
causes of action or the facts and circumstances relating thereto,
in this litigation and/or the Settlement Agreement.

Nothing in the Final Order or the accompanying Final Judgment will
preclude any action to enforce the terms of the Settlement
Agreement.

The Parties are authorized, without needing further approval from
the Court, to agree to and adopt such amendments to, and
modifications and expansions of, the Settlement Agreement, as are
in writing and signed by their counsel and are consistent with the
Final Order and do not limit the rights of the Class Members under
the Settlement Agreement.

The Court expressly retains jurisdiction as to all matters relating
to the administration, consummation, enforcement, and
interpretation of the Settlement Agreement and of this Final Order
and the accompanying Final Judgment, and for any other necessary
purpose.

Neither the Final Order and the accompanying Final Judgment nor the
Settlement Agreement is, may be construed as, or may be used as, an
admission or concession by or against the Defendant or the
Plaintiffs of the validity of any claim or any actual or potential
fault, wrongdoing or liability.

The Defendant will pay the reasonable and necessary Settlement
Administration Costs of the Claim Administrator in accordance with
the terms and conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
This includes the following:

      a. Payment from the Defendants to Kroll Settlement
Administration for their resolution of the claimant payments, tax
requirements and on-going expenses associated with the payments to
claimants is in the best interest of the Class and the Defendants
will provide payment to Kroll consistent with Kroll's total
proposed cost estimate;

      b. Any payments made by the Defendants, including the
previous $61,000, will be treated as a reduction of their $1.5
million total settlement amount;

      c. The Defendants will reimburse the Class Counsel in the
amount of $26,272.82 for their previous payment(s) to Kroll.

The requested attorneys' fees of $450,000 or 30% of the $1.5
million common fund created as a result of the Class Counsel's
efforts is reasonable. The Defendant will also reimburse the Class
Counsel $2,436.67 for litigation expenses which will also be
treated as reduction of the total settlement amount.

The Class Counsel have also requested Incentive Awards for the one
Class Representative. The Defendant does not object to this award.
The Plaintiff seeks an incentive award in the amount of $200,000.
Given Lott's contributions to the suit, including having brought
suit, participated in settlement discussion, and participation in
discovery, Judge Jennings finds an incentive award appropriate.

After payment of attorney fees and expenses, costs of settlement
administration to Kroll, and the incentive payment, the remaining
funds will be paid pro rata to the verifiable claimants per vehicle
involved by Kroll. The Defendant will pay the Class in a pro rata
plan of allocation, which the Court finds is cost effective, simple
and fundamentally fair.

The Action, including all individual and Class claims resolved in
it, is dismissed on the merits and with prejudice against the Class
Representatives and all other Class Members, without fees or costs
to any party or non-party except as otherwise provided in the Order
and the Final Judgment.

The Court will separately enter the accompanying Final Judgment in
accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2023 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc57yyj7 from
Leagle.com.


LOVEVERY INC: Court Grants Voluntary Dismissal of Haymond Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KELLY HAYMOND, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LOVEVERY, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00334-ADA-CDB (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Erica
P. Grosjean of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California grants the Plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal.

The Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant on March 3,
2023. On May 26, 2023, the Plaintiff filed the operative first
amended complaint. On June 9, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to
compel arbitration and motion to dismiss. On July 3, 2023, the
parties filed a stipulation to stay the action. The Court granted
the parties' request to stay on July 5, 2023.

Pending before the Court is the Plaintiff's notice of voluntary
dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, in which she notices dismissal of her individual claims
with prejudice and the putative class members' claims without
prejudice.

Judge Grosjean holds that the Plaintiff is entitled to dismiss her
individual claims with prejudice and without court order because
her filing is made before the Defendant served either an answer or
motion for summary judgment. In a class action, however, court
approval of dismissal may be required under Rule 41(a)(2) if the
class has been certified.

In this case, Jude Grosjean says the Plaintiff seeks to dismiss the
putative class claims under Rule 41(a)(1) without prejudice. The
case is in the initial stages, and thus, the Plaintiff has not
sought certification. Indeed, the Defendant has not answered and
the case has not convened for a scheduling conference. Thus, while
the case is a putative class action, no class has yet been
certified, nor is certification being proposed for purposes of
settlement.

Because no class has been certified in the case, and because any
dismissal without prejudice would not affect putative class
members' claims, Rule 23(e) does not mandate either Court approval
of the parties' settlement or notice to putative class members. In
light of the Plaintiff's filing that is consistent with Rule
41(a)(1)(A)(i) and the Court's finding above that under the
circumstances, Rule 23(e) does not require Court approval of the
dismissal, the action has been terminated by operation of law
without further order of the Court.

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is directed to close the file
in the case and adjust the docket to reflect voluntary dismissal of
the action pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). By this closure, the
Defendant's pending motions (Docs. 13, 14, 20, 21) are moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 2, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4nyvj46f from Leagle.com.


LUMICO LIFE INSURANCE: Oneal Files Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lumico Life Insurance
Company. The case is styled as Lacheryl Oneal, Latonya Williams,
Fannie Colay, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Lumico Life Insurance Company, Case No. 7:23-cv-07078
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 10, 2023).

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

Lumico Life Insurance Company -- https://lumico.com/ -- is a
top-rated insurance provider committed to providing consumers with
affordable life and health products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Victoria Jennings Maniatis, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Ste. 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (866) 252-0878
          Fax: (212) 868-1229
          Email: vmaniatis@milberg.com


MANTEI & ASSOCIATES: Black Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Donald Black, Marcia Black, Larry Martin,
Rebecca Martin, Barbara Thompson, and James Thompson, for
themselves and a class of similarly situated Plaintiffs v. Mantei &
Associates, Ltd., Ricky Alan Mantei, Cindy Chiellini, Centaurus
Financial, Inc., and J.P. Turner & Company, L.L.C., Case No.
2019-CP-32-02636 was removed from the Lexington County, South
Carolina Court of Common Pleas for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit,
to the United States District Court for the District of South
Carolina on Aug. 18, 2023, and assigned Case No.
3:23-cv-04149-SAL.

In the Complaint, Plaintiffs invoke statutory, contractual, and
tort-based claims in connection with securities transactions
executed in their brokerage accounts. In the Complaint, Plaintiffs
also seek to represent a class that is limited to South Carolina
citizens and the estates of deceased South Carolina citizens that
are 50 years old or older.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joel H. Smith, Esq.
          Kevin J. Malloy, Esq.
          BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP
          1441 Main Street, Suite 1200
          Columbia, SC 29201-2897
          Phone: (803) 726-7422
          Email: Joel.Smith@bowmanandbrooke.com
                 Kevin.Malloy@bowmanandbrooke.com

               - and –

          A. Inge Selden, III, Esq.
          Joshua D. Jones, Esq.
          Andrea Greene Wells, Esq.
          Katelyn H. Wilson, Esq.
          BRESSLER, AMERY & ROSS, P.C.
          2001 Park Place, Suite 1500
          Birmingham, AL 35203-2735
          Phone: (205) 719-0400
          Email: iselden@bressler.com
                 jdjones@bressler.com
                 awells@bressler.com
                 kwilson@bressler.com

               - and –

          Michael H. Montgomery, Esq.
          MONTGOMERY WILLARD, LLC
          1002 Calhoun Street (29201)
          Post Office Box 11886
          Columbia, SC 29211
          Phone: (803) 779-3500
          Email: mhm@montgomerywillard.com

               - and –

          Cory Manning, Esq.
          NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP
          1320 Main Street, 17th Floor
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Phone: (803) 255-5524
          Email: Cory.Manning@nelsonmullins.com


MARQUETTE SOCIAL: Nelson Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Travis Nelson, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons v. MARQUETTE SOCIAL CLUB, INC. d/b/a MARQUETTE RESTAURANT &
LOUNGE and JOHNNY MIMS, Case No. 1:23-cv-03716-SCJ (N.D. Ga., Aug.
21, 2023), is brought against the Defendants alleging systemic
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") as a
result of unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages.

The Defendants, as a regular and routine practice, willfully failed
to pay the Plaintiff and those similarly situated minimum wage for
all hours worked, instead failing to pay them any base rate at all.
The Defendants, as a regular and routine practice, required the
Plaintiff and those similarly situated to work in excess of 40
hours per workweek, without paying them at a rate of
one-and-one-half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in
excess of forty, in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt employee in the positions of
Bartender and Manager.

Marquette is a non-profit Georgia corporation with its principal
place of business in Fulton County, Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin M. Scott, Esq.
          Tierra M. Monteiro, Esq.
          Grace A. Starling, Esq.
          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
                 gstarling@scottemploymentlaw.com


MAT KING: Proch Loses Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAUREAN PROCH, v. MAT
KING, Sheriff, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-12141-LJM-PTM (E.D. Mich.),
the Hon. Judge Laurie J. Michelson entered an order:

  -- Overruling the Plaintiff's objections,

  -- Adopting the report and recommendation,

  -- Denying the plaintiff's motion for class certification, and

  -- Denying the plaintiff's application to appoint counsel.

Taurean Proch filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. section1983
alleging that the St. Clair County Jail instituted a "de facto ban
on inmates receiving correspondence" in violation of their First
and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47z14C4 at no extra charge.[CC]


MDL 2744: Court Denies Class Cert Bid in Shifter Defects Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FCA US LLC Monostable
Electronic Gearshift Litigation, Case No. 2:16-md-02744-DML-DRG
(E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge David M. Lawson entered an order
granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion for
entry of judgment and denying motion to certify class:

The Court further ordered that:

   -- Judgment in favor of the defendant shall enter on all of the

      claims by plaintiffs and absent class members raising claims

      under the laws of Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Iowa,

      Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New
      Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas,
      Washington, and Wyoming, in the Second Amended Consolidated
      Master Complaint and the complaints in the direct-filed
cases.

   -- Defendant's motion for judgment is denied on the claim based
on
      implied warranty under Utah law, and on the claims of the
      parties and class members involved in the four transferred
      cases, Goldsmith v. FCA US, LLC, No. 16-13681 (C.D. Cal.);
Mack
      v. FCA US, LLC, No. 16-13678 (E.D.N.Y.); Lynd v. FCA US, LLC,

      No. 16-13913 (N.D.N.Y.); and Brooks v. FCA US, LLC, No.
16-13677
      (W.D. Mo.).

   -- The individual and class claims under Utah law of consumer
      protection violations (Count CII), fraudulent concealment
      (CIII), breach of express warranty (Count CIV), and unjust
      enrichment (Count CVI), as pleaded in the Second Amended
      Consolidated Master Complaint and the complaint in Felker v.
FCA
      US LLC, No. 17-10983, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

   -- The plaintiffs' motion to certify a new multi-state class
      is denied.

This multidistrict litigation action presently consists of seven
lawsuits that were filed in this district and four that were filed
in other districts alleging defects in the shifters of certain
motor vehicles manufactured by defendant FCA US LLC (commonly
referred to as Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, FCA, or Chrysler). The
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) ordered these
actions to be centralized in the Eastern District of Michigan under
28 U.S.C. § 1407 and assigned the actions to the undersigned. As
part of the process of winnowing issues and parties through
extensive motion practice, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Consolidated Master Complaint (SACMC).

The Court identified common issues among all the various claims by
the 39 named plaintiffs in 23 states identified in the SACMC and
certified them for trial under Civil Rule 23(c)(4), to begin on
September 6, 2022. Before trial, defendant Chrysler objected to
including the four transferred cases as part of the issues trial,
citing venue objections under Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad
Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26 (1998), and the Court sustained the
objection, excluding those cases, which alleged claims under the
laws of four jurisdictions, from the trial.

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

MDL 2873: Faces Cajar Suit Over Toxic Aqueous Foams Exposure
------------------------------------------------------------
TRISTAN D. CAJAR, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants,
Case No. 2:23-cv-03932-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 9, 2023) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff and those similarly situated individuals
seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

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

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

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

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

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

MDL 2873: Faces Ferguson Suit Over Toxic Aqueous Foams Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
JANET MARIE FERGUSON, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota
Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.;
AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants,
Case No. 2:23-cv-03934-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 9, 2023) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff and those similarly situated individuals
seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

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

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

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

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

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

MDL 2873: Faces Snider Suit Over Toxic Aqueous Foams Exposure
-------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM SNIDER, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants,
Case No. 2:23-cv-03948-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 9, 2023) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff and those similarly situated individuals
seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

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

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

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

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

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

MDL 2873: Luedtke Files Suit Over Toxic Aqueous Foams Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------
LAURENCE LUEDTKE, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants,
Case No. 2:23-cv-03940-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 9, 2023) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff and those similarly situated individuals
seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

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

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

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

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

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

MDL 2873: McNicholas Suit Alleges AFFF Exposure Caused Cancer
-------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHON MCNICHOLAS, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota
Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.;
AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants,
Case No. 2:23-cv-03942-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 9, 2023) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff and those similarly situated individuals
seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

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

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

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

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

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

MDL 2873: Murillo Says AFFF Exposure Caused Illness
---------------------------------------------------
MARCO A. MURILLO, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants,
Case No. 2:23-cv-03943-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 9, 2023) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff and those similarly situated individuals
seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

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

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

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

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

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

MDL 2873: Smith Suit Alleges Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL ANTHONY SMITH, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota
Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.;
AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants,
Case No. 2:23-cv-03947-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 9, 2023) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff and those similarly situated individuals
seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

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

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

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

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

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

MDL 2873: Toxic Aqueous Foams Exposure Caused Cancer, Martinez Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RAUL MARTINEZ, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants,
Case No. 2:23-cv-03941-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 9, 2023) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff and those similarly situated individuals
seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

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

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

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

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

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

MDL 2873: Waldinger Files Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GARY M. WALDINGER, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants,
Case No. 2:23-cv-03949-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 9, 2023) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff and those similarly situated individuals
seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

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

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

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

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

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

MDL 2963: Smitty's Allowed Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Smitty's/Cam2 303 Tractor Hydraulic
Fluid Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation,
Case No. 4:20-md-02936 (W.D. Mo., Filed June 2, 2020), the Hon.
Judge Stephen R. Bough entered an order granting the Defendant's
motion for leave to file exhibits under seal.

  -- The Defendants may file Exhibits 2, 15-17, 23, 25, 32,
125-126,
     129, 131-132, 146, 162, 171 to their opposition to Plaintiffs'

     motion for class certification under seal.

The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property Fraud.[CC]


MDL 2977: Pilgrim's Seeks Leave to File Supplemental Memo
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as McEntire et al v. Tyson
Foods, Inc. et al., Case No. 63:20-cv-07049 (E.D. Okla.), Pilgrim's
Pride Corporation requests, pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(e), leave to
file a Supplemental Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs'
Class Certification Motion.

The McEntire suit has been consolidated in RE BROILER CHICKEN
GROWER ANTITRUST LITIGATION (NO. II) MDL 2977.

The actions in the MDL share factual questions arising from
allegations that defendants agreed not to compete for "Broiler
Grow-Out Services," i.e., the services of farmers (referred to by
the parties as Growers) who raise broiler chickens under contracts
with chicken processors such as defendants.

Specifically, plaintiffs allege an agreement among defendants not
to recruit or contract with Growers contracted by another defendant
or co-conspirator. They also challenge as anticompetitive
defendants' submission of cost information to Agri Stats—a third
party—for use in benchmarking reports. Plaintiffs in each of the
actions assert the same claims under the Sherman Act and the
Packers and Stockyard Act with respect to the same putative
nationwide classes of Growers.

Tyson Foods is an American multinational corporation based in
Springdale, Arkansas that operates in the food industry. The
company is the world's second-largest processor and marketer of
chicken, beef, and pork after JBS S.A. It annually exports the
largest percentage of beef out of the United States.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 1, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47uLHul at no extra charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Marc E. Kasowitz, Esq.
          Hector Torres, Esq.
          David E. Ross, Esq.
          Kevin A. Cyrulnik, Esq.
          Henry B. Brownstein, Esq.
          KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP
          1633 Broadway
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 506-1700
          Facsimile: (212) 506-1800
          E-mail: mkasowitz@kasowitz.com
                  htorres@kasowitz.com
                  dross@kasowitz.com
                  kcyrulnik@kasowitz.com
                  hbrownstein@kasowitz.com

                - and -

          Larry D. Ottaway, Esq.
          Amy Sherry Fischer, Esq.
          FOLIART HUFF OTTAWAY & BOTTOM
          201 Robert S. Kerr. Ave., 12th Floor
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 232-4633
          Facsimile: (405) 232-3462
          E-mail: larryottaway@oklahomacounsel.com
                  amyfischer@oklahomacounsel.com

MDL 2977: Pilgrim's Seeks Leave to File Supplemental Memo in Colvin
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Colvin v. Tyson Foods,
Inc. et al., Case No. 6:2020cv00480 (E.D.Okla), Pilgrim's Pride
Corporation requests, pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(e), leave to file
a Supplemental Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Class
Certification Motion.

The Colvin suit has been consolidated in RE BROILER CHICKEN GROWER
ANTITRUST LITIGATION (NO. II) MDL 2977.

The actions in the MDL share factual questions arising from
allegations that defendants agreed not to compete for "Broiler
Grow-Out Services," i.e., the services of farmers (referred to by
the parties as Growers) who raise broiler chickens under contracts
with chicken processors such as defendants.

Specifically, plaintiffs allege an agreement among defendants not
to recruit or contract with Growers contracted by another defendant
or co-conspirator. They also challenge as anticompetitive
defendants' submission of cost information to Agri Stats—a third
party—for use in benchmarking reports. Plaintiffs in each of the
actions assert the same claims under the Sherman Act and the
Packers and Stockyard Act with respect to the same putative
nationwide classes of Growers.

Tyson Foods is an American multinational corporation based in
Springdale, Arkansas that operates in the food industry. The
company is the world's second-largest processor and marketer of
chicken, beef, and pork after JBS S.A. It annually exports the
largest percentage of beef out of the United States.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 1, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KF74PI at no extra charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Marc E. Kasowitz, Esq.
          Hector Torres, Esq.
          David E. Ross, Esq.
          Kevin A. Cyrulnik, Esq.
          Henry B. Brownstein, Esq.
          KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP
          1633 Broadway
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 506-1700
          Facsimile: (212) 506-1800
          E-mail: mkasowitz@kasowitz.com
                  htorres@kasowitz.com
                  dross@kasowitz.com
                  kcyrulnik@kasowitz.com
                  hbrownstein@kasowitz.com

                - and -

          Larry D. Ottaway, Esq.
          Amy Sherry Fischer, Esq.
          FOLIART HUFF OTTAWAY & BOTTOM
          201 Robert S. Kerr. Ave., 12th Floor
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 232-4633
          Facsimile: (405) 232-3462
          E-mail: larryottaway@oklahomacounsel.com
                  amyfischer@oklahomacounsel.com

MDL 2977: Pilgrim's Seeks Leave to File Supplemental Memo in Haff
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Haff Poultry, Inc. et al.,
v. Tyson Foods, Inc. et al., Case No. 6:21-cv-00033-RJS-CMR, E.D.
Okla.), Pilgrim's Pride Corporation requests, pursuant to Local
Rule 7.1(e), leave to file a Supplemental Memorandum of Law in
Opposition to Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion.

The Haff suit has been consolidated in RE BROILER CHICKEN GROWER
ANTITRUST LITIGATION (NO. II) MDL 2977.

The actions in the MDL share factual questions arising from
allegations that defendants agreed not to compete for "Broiler
Grow-Out Services," i.e., the services of farmers (referred to by
the parties as Growers) who raise broiler chickens under contracts
with chicken processors such as defendants.

Specifically, plaintiffs allege an agreement among defendants not
to recruit or contract with Growers contracted by another defendant
or co-conspirator. They also challenge as anticompetitive
defendants' submission of cost information to Agri Stats—a third
party—for use in benchmarking reports. Plaintiffs in each of the
actions assert the same claims under the Sherman Act and the
Packers and Stockyard Act with respect to the same putative
nationwide classes of Growers.

Tyson Foods is an American multinational corporation based in
Springdale, Arkansas that operates in the food industry. The
company is the world's second-largest processor and marketer of
chicken, beef, and pork after JBS S.A. It annually exports the
largest percentage of beef out of the United States.


A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 1, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47wzK7m at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Marc E. Kasowitz, Esq.
          Hector Torres, Esq.
          David E. Ross, Esq.
          Kevin A. Cyrulnik, Esq.
          Henry B. Brownstein, Esq.
          KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP
          1633 Broadway
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 506-1700
          Facsimile: (212) 506-1800
          E-mail: mkasowitz@kasowitz.com
                  htorres@kasowitz.com
                  dross@kasowitz.com
                  kcyrulnik@kasowitz.com
                  hbrownstein@kasowitz.com

                - and -

          Larry D. Ottaway, Esq.
          Amy Sherry Fischer, Esq.
          FOLIART HUFF OTTAWAY & BOTTOM
          201 Robert S. Kerr. Ave., 12th Floor
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 232-4633
          Facsimile: (405) 232-3462
          E-mail: larryottaway@oklahomacounsel.com
                  amyfischer@oklahomacounsel.com

MDL 2977: Pilgrim's Seeks Leave to File Supplemental Memo in Mason
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mason, et al., v. Tyson
Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-07049 (E.D. Okla.), Pilgrim's
Pride Corporation requests, pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(e), leave to
file a Supplemental Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs'
Class Certification Motion.

The Mason suit has been consolidated in RE BROILER CHICKEN GROWER
ANTITRUST LITIGATION (NO. II) MDL 2977.

The actions in the MDL share factual questions arising from
allegations that defendants agreed not to compete for "Broiler
Grow-Out Services," i.e., the services of farmers (referred to by
the parties as Growers) who raise broiler chickens under contracts
with chicken processors such as defendants.

Specifically, plaintiffs allege an agreement among defendants not
to recruit or contract with Growers contracted by another defendant
or co-conspirator. They also challenge as anticompetitive
defendants' submission of cost information to Agri Stats—a third
party—for use in benchmarking reports. Plaintiffs in each of the
actions assert the same claims under the Sherman Act and the
Packers and Stockyard Act with respect to the same putative
nationwide classes of Growers.

Tyson Foods is an American multinational corporation based in
Springdale, Arkansas that operates in the food industry. The
company is the world's second-largest processor and marketer of
chicken, beef, and pork after JBS S.A. It annually exports the
largest percentage of beef out of the United States.

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Marc E. Kasowitz, Esq.
          Hector Torres, Esq.
          David E. Ross, Esq.
          Kevin A. Cyrulnik, Esq.
          Henry B. Brownstein, Esq.
          KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP
          1633 Broadway
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 506-1700
          Facsimile: (212) 506-1800
          E-mail: mkasowitz@kasowitz.com
                  htorres@kasowitz.com
                  dross@kasowitz.com
                  kcyrulnik@kasowitz.com
                  hbrownstein@kasowitz.com

                - and -

          Larry D. Ottaway, Esq.
          Amy Sherry Fischer, Esq.
          FOLIART HUFF OTTAWAY & BOTTOM
          201 Robert S. Kerr. Ave., 12th Floor
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 232-4633
          Facsimile: (405) 232-3462
          E-mail: larryottaway@oklahomacounsel.com
                  amyfischer@oklahomacounsel.com

MEILE INVESTMENT: Steinlin Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Shu Ann Steinlin, an individual, on behalf of herself and all other
employees similarly situated v. MEILE INVESTMENT, LLC, a California
Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 through 100 Inclusive, Case
No. 23STCV19354 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 18, 2023),
is brought for violations of the California Labor Code for unpaid
minimum and overtime wages.

The Plaintiff's employer told her that she would receive a pay
raise the following year, when the state minimum wage was
increased. When the new year commenced, the Plaintiff did not
receive the pay raise as promised. During her employment, the
Plaintiff worked for more than 8 hours per day and for more than 40
hours per week. The Plaintiff was not paid overtime wages for that
work, as required by the California Labor Code. Th ePlaintiff was
denied uninterrupted meal breaks and rest breaks, which are
required under the California Labor Code. When Plaintiff complained
that she was not receiving wages as required by law and complained
about discrimination and harassment, the Defendants retaliated
against the Plaintiff by terminating her employment. Following her
termination, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff the wages
due and owing to her as required by the California Labor Code, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff started working for the Defendant in November 2021.

MEILE INVESTMENT, LLC is a California limited liability organized
and existing under company which does business in the county of Los
Angeles, State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. DesJardins, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL DESJARDINS, INC.
          17130 Van Buren Bivd, #435
          Riverside, CA 92504
          Phone: (714)265-2100
          Fax: (714)494-8215
          Email: md@desjardinslaw.com


MICHAEL KORS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Hussein Says
------------------------------------------------------------
SUMAYA HUSSEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MICHAEL KORS (USA), INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:23-cv-05803 (N.D., Ill., Aug. 21, 2023) alleges violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

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

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

Michael Kors (USA), Inc. designs and sells apparel, accessories,
and footwear. The Company offers shirts, t-shirts, sweaters,
jackets, pants, suits and blazers, shorts, underwear, dresses,
skirts, shorts, handbags, wallets, shoes, watches, and accessories
for men and women. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MIDDLE TENNESSEE: Jones Sues Over Race Discrimination, Harassment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHAUNTONIO DEMETRICE JONES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIDDLE TENNESSEE SCHOOL OF
ANESTHESIA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00848 (M.D. Tenn.,
August 14, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the
Equal Pay Act of 1963.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was subjected to rampant
harassment and race discrimination from the Defendant's
administration officials throughout his employment. The Defendant's
harassment of the Plaintiff created a hostile working environment
because it created a workplace permeated with discriminatory
intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or
pervasive to alter the conditions of the Plaintiff's employment and
create an abusive working environment. As a direct result of the
Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff was denied the wages his
white coworkers received and was additionally denied a multitude of
employment benefits. The Plaintiff's time as an employee at the
Defendant's institution has been rife with underserved mental
anguish, anxiety, and humiliation, says the suit.

Middle Tennessee School of Anesthesia, Inc. is a nurse anesthesia
school located at 315 Hospital Drive, Madison, Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Daniel J. Murphy, Esq.
         P.O. Box 1157
         Lewisburg, TN 37091
         Telephone: (931) 422-8304
         Facsimile: (615) 523-1254
         E-mail: danielmurphy@danmurph.com

MISSOURI: Court Denies Bid for Writ of Habeas Corpus in Kirk Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sarah E. Pitlyk of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, denies and dismisses the
Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus in the lawsuit
titled CARL KIRK, Petitioner v. DENISE HACKER, Respondent, Case No.
4:23-cv-00011-SEP (E.D. Mo.).

Before the Court is Petitioner Carl Kirk's response to the Court's
May 22, 2023 Order to file an amended petition.

The Petitioner is a self-represented litigant, who is currently a
civil detainee in the Sexual Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment
Services (SORTS) program in Farmington, Missouri. On Jan. 4, 2023,
he filed a document construed as a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254. The petition was not on
a Court-provided form, as required. The case caption indicated that
the petition was being brought on behalf of the Petitioner and nine
other individuals: Daniel Bohannan, Steven Whitt, Devin Hydorn,
John Matheis, Stanley Williams, Rodney Swearengin, Daniel
Kennemore, Christopher Burdiss, and Troy Spencer.

The Petitioner argued that he had been given an indefinite life
sentence in the maximum security Department of Mental Health, and
that he and the other individuals had been in the SORTS program for
longer than the original penalty imposed for their offenses. He
argued that the United States Supreme Court has forbidden civil
commitment laws that amount to punishment and cited the "Universal
Declaration of Human Rights" for the proposition that a person
cannot receive a heavier penalty "than the one that was applicable
at the time the penal offense was committed."

Despite acknowledging Missouri cases that have previously
determined that confining sexually violent predators is not
punishment, THE Petitioner asserted that "it is clear the true
intention and purpose" of the civil commitment law is to "inflict a
continuous penalty to the targeted citizen," and that the State has
created a legal institution of indefinite incarceration. He
expressed his belief that the State of Missouri was violating the
rights of all the individuals he named in the petition by
disguising their intentions in a string of words, which are very
clear in their intent to punish them, which, according to
Petitioner, amounted to a violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Along with the petition, the Petitioner filed a motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, and a motion for appointment of counsel.
He was the only individual to sign the petition or the motions.

On May 22, 2023, the Court granted the Petitioner's motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and denied his motion for
appointment of counsel. The Court also directed the Clerk of Court
to strike all purported petitioners from the case except for Kirk,
explaining that as a nonlawyer, Kirk could not represent others in
federal court. Because the Petitioner had prepared and signed the
pleadings, the case would proceed as to him alone, Judge Pitlyk
holds.

In addition, the Court ordered the Petitioner to file an amended
petition on a Court-provided form. The Court noted that its rules
require self-represented litigants to use a Court-provided form,
and that the petition lacked the information required in a 28
U.S.C. Section 2254 petition. The Court directed the Clerk of Court
to send Petitioner a Section 2254 form, and gave him 30 days to
submit an amended petition on the proper form. The Petitioner was
advised that failure to comply would result in the dismissal of
this action without prejudice and without further notice.

On June 20, 2023, the Court received a response from the Petitioner
entitled "Petitioner[']s Response to Memorandum and Order," which
was not on the Court-provided form.

In his response to the Court, the Petitioner states that he is
seeking the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for himself and all
others similarly situated at this facility, and also the Fulton
facility, by Rule 23 of a class action, naming nine other
individuals. He explains that he is the only signatory "because he
cannot make the contact to obtain these men's signatures." He also
complains about his facility's "exaggerated security," which he
claims has prevented these Petitioners from signing all the
necessary materials and documents that all will willingly sign with
contact.

The Petitioner asserts, among other things, that for these past 22
years or more, he and others have been given an indefinite life
sentence in the maximum security Department of Mental Health.

In closing, the Petitioner warns the Court that if it wishes to
dismiss this instant Petition because it's handwritten, or if it
wants to ignore the facts set out, an appeal will be filed in this
matter.

Attached to the response is an affidavit authored by the
Petitioner. He also submitted an affidavit authored by Larry
Windeknecht, who claims to be a "consumer" of SORTS and
involuntarily detained.

Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the
United States District Courts, the Court is required to undertake a
preliminary review of the Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. Section 2254
petition.

On its initial review, the Court determined that the initial
petition was subject to dismissal. The Court ordered the Petitioner
to file an amended petition on a Court-provided form within 30 days
and advised that failure to comply would result in dismissal. The
Petitioner has now responded, indicating that he will not comply
with the Court's order. Therefore, Judge Pitlyk holds that this
action is subject to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b).

The Petitioner responded to the Court's order allowing him to amend
by acknowledging that he received the Court-provided form but
asserting that it is inadequate. Despite the Court advising him
that he could not represent others, the Petitioner insists that he
is bringing a class action on behalf of all men detained pursuant
to Missouri's Sexually Violent Predator Act.

Judge Pitlyk points out that the Petitioner's noncompliance is
intentional, as he states that he "will not waste time trying to
use the provided form to implement the petition already filed."

Because the Petitioner refuses to follow the Court's order to file
an amended petition, Judge Pitlyk rules that this action is
dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Accordingly, Judge Pitlyk holds that this action is dismissed
without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court's order of
May 22, 2023. The Court also rules that it will not issue a
certificate of appealability.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Aug. 3,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3vf2t42h from
Leagle.com.


MNE CONGLOMERATE: Montoya Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Montoya, on behalf of the general public and other
"aggrieved employees" v. MNE CONGLOMERATE, INC., a California
Corporation, ENW TRUCKING, LLC, a California, and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV19730 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., Aug. 17, 2023), is brought against the Defendants failure to
pay all wages earned to the Plaintiff and the Defendant's
California employees as a result of the unlawful employment
policies and practices.

The Plaintiff and Defendant's California employees were routinely
unable, and not authorized to take their 10-minute rest periods and
were also unable to take an uninterrupted 30-minute meal break for
every shift they worked. Specifically, Plaintiff and Defendant's
California employees were forced to continue working through their
meal and rest breaks in order to assist Defendant's needs. Because
of this, Plaintiff and Defendant's California employees were unable
to take their required meal and rest breaks. Moreover, Defendants
failed to pay premium wages of one hour's pay for each missed meal
and rest break to Plaintiff and Defendant's California employees
who were denied timely meal and rest breaks, in violation of Labor
Code.

The Plaintiff also claims that Defendant has failed to pay all
overtime wages due to non-exempt employees. As a result, employees
are not properly compensated for work performance in excess of 8
hours in a workday and work performed in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek at a rate of no less than one and one-half times the
regular rate of pay. Employees of Defendant regularly work in
excess of 8 hours in a day or more than 40 hours per week and do
not receive overtime compensation at a rate of one and one half of
their regular rate, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt,
hourly employee in California.

ENW Trucking, LLC, is a California Limited Liability Company doing
business in Wilmington, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Otkupman, Esq.
          Nidah Farishta, Esq.
          OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION
          5743 Corsa Ave., Suite 123
          Westlake Village, CA 91362
          Phone: (818) 293-5623
          Facsimile: (888) 850-1310
          Email: Roman@OLFLA.com
                 Nidah@OLFLA.com


MONSANTO CO: Voluntary Dismissal of 27 Alcanter Plaintiffs Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL ALCANTER, et al., Plaintiffs v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-CV-02902 NCC (E.D. Mo.),
Magistrate Judge Noelle C. Collins of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, grants the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice.

The Plaintiffs, 105 individuals, filed this matter for strict
liability (design defect) (Count I), strict liability (failure to
warn) (Count II), negligence (Count III), fraud, misrepresentation,
and suppression (Count IV), and violation of the consumer fraud
acts (Count V) against Defendant Monsanto ("Monsanto") on Aug. 27,
2019, in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri. Monsanto
timely removed the action to this Court on Oct. 24, 2019, based on
the Court's jurisdiction of mass actions under the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). The
Plaintiffs generally seek recovery of compensatory and punitive
damages for developing Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma ("NHL") and "other
cancers" as a result of their exposure to Monsanto's Roundup(R)
products. Monsanto filed its Answer to the Petition and, on Feb.
26, 2020, the Court held a Rule 16 conference and issued a Case
Management Order.

On April 29, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Voluntary
Dismissal Without Prejudice. They asserted that it would be
detrimental to the collective group of them with a confirmed NHL
diagnosis to attempt to prosecute a case involving "other cancers."
The Defendant responded in opposition, arguing that the Plaintiffs
failed to present a proper explanation to warrant dismissal and
only sought to refile their claims in a more advantageous forum.
The Court denied the Motion, noting that there were other vehicles
available to the Plaintiffs to address the issue of avoiding harm
to the Plaintiffs with a confirmed NHL diagnosis.

On Dec. 1, 2020, the Court held a case status conference with the
parties. On April 20, 2021, the parties submitted a Joint Status
Report requesting that this matter be removed from the Court's
trial docket as the parties finalized resolution of this case. The
Court canceled the final pretrial conference and the scheduled
trial, ordering the parties to submit a joint status report every
ninety (90) days and to promptly notify the Court upon resolution
of this matter.

The parties proceeded to file six Joint Status Reports over the
course of a year and a half with nearly identical updates: the
parties represent to the Court that a master settlement agreement
has been signed and resolution is pending but they anticipate that
it may take several months before a proposed order of dismissal is
filed with the Court.

The Court held another case status conference with the parties on
March 14, 2023. It ordered the Defendant to provide a response to
the Plaintiffs within 30 days of the March 14, 2023 order as to
whether the Defendant would object to dismissals without prejudice
for the Plaintiffs with claims related to "other cancers" that are
not NHL. The Defendant has not responded as ordered.

On May 12, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed the current Motion requesting
the dismissal of this matter without prejudice as to 27 Plaintiffs
that developed "other cancers" besides NHL, explaining that the
settlement reached between the NHL Plaintiffs and the Defendant
does not include Plaintiffs with "other cancers" given available
scientific support regarding glyphosphate, the active ingredient in
Roundup(R), and cancers other than NHL.

Additionally, the Plaintiffs assert that a denial of the motion
will waste judicial time and effort by allowing these claims to
remain unnecessarily on the Court's docket, and that the Defendant
would not likely face real prejudice if the "other cancer"
plaintiffs are dismissed. They finally argue that because the
Defendant was to provide them a response as to whether it will
object to dismissal without prejudice of plaintiffs with "other
cancers" no later than 30 days from the date of the March 14, 2023
order, and several weeks have passed since that deadline without a
response from the Defendant, that the Defendant's inaction should
be taken as its consent to, or a waiver of any opposition to, the
dismissals without prejudice of the 27 "other cancers" Plaintiffs.

Judge Collins grants the Motion. She finds that the Plaintiffs have
presented a proper explanation for their desire to dismiss. The
Plaintiffs' purported reason for dismissal is to avoid wasting
judicial time and effort by pursuing claims deemed non-compensable
in the parties' settlement. Furthermore, dismissal of these 27
Plaintiffs would not result in a waste of judicial time or effort
as the Court has not expended significant judicial resources on
this matter because the case has not progressed beyond the pleading
stage. Finally, the Defendant has failed to raise any argument that
it would suffer prejudice. Prejudice does not arise simply because
a second action may be filed against the defendant, which is often
the point in dismissing a case without prejudice.

Accordingly, Judge Collins grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. A partial order of dismissal
accompanies this Order. The matter is set for a status conference
on Sept. 7, 2023, at 11:00 a.m. by videoconference. Counsel of
record will receive an email with a link to join the
videoconference.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 2, 2023 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4zedh5sr from Leagle.com.


NEW YORK LIFE: Class Members Urged to File Settlement Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
ATTENTION: Current or former insurance agents who contracted with
NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE under a full-time insurance agent contract
prior to November 11, 2011, and worked New York Life in New York
state at any time since December 21, 2001, may be entitled to a
settlement payment.

If you contracted with New York Life under a full-time insurance
agent contract prior to November 11, 2011, and worked as a TAS
Agent or Established Agent for New York Life Insurance in New York
State at any time since December 21, 2001, your rights may be
affected by a proposed class action settlement in God, et al., vs.
New York Life Insurance Co., et al., Supreme Court of the State of
New York, County of New York, Index No. 653923/2012.  If you are a
class member in the lawsuit, you are entitled to a settlement
payment in exchange for releasing certain claims against New York
Life, or you may exclude yourself from or object to the settlement.
If you satisfy the above criteria and you have not received a
detailed Class Settlement Notice in the mail, you should provide
your mailing information to the Settlement Administrator; please
call 1-888-416-2035.  Class members may access the Class Settlement
Notice at www.nylifeagentnysettlement.com


NEWS CORP: Continues to Defend HarperCollins Class Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
News Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for fiscal period
ending June 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 15, 2023, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the HarperCollins class suit in the New York District
Court.

Beginning in February 2021, a number of purported class action
complaints have been filed in the N.Y. District Court against
Amazon.com, Inc. ("Amazon") and certain publishers, including the
Company's subsidiary, HarperCollins Publishers, L.L.C.
("HarperCollins" and together with the other publishers, the
"Publishers"), alleging violations of antitrust and competition
laws. The complaints seek treble damages, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees and costs.

In September 2022, the N.Y. District Court granted Amazon and the
Publishers' motions to dismiss the complaints but gave the
plaintiffs leave to amend.

The plaintiffs filed amended complaints in both cases in November
2022, and in January 2023, Amazon and the Publishers filed motions
to dismiss the amended complaints.

While it is not possible at this time to predict with any degree of
certainty the ultimate outcome of these actions, HarperCollins
believes it has been compliant with applicable laws and intends to
defend itself vigorously.

News Corporation (Nasdaq: NWS, NWSA; ASX: NWS, NWSLV) is a global,
diversified media and information services company focused on
creating and distributing authoritative and engaging content and
other products and services. The company comprises businesses
across a range of media including: Dow Jones, digital real estate
services, subscription video services in Australia, news media and
book publishing. Headquartered in New York, News Corp operates
primarily in the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom,
and its content and other products and services are distributed
and
consumed worldwide. Revenues (as reported) were approximately
$10.2
billion for the last twelve months (LTM) ended December 31, 2022.




NICOLE COLBERT: Benjamin Files Suit in D. Columbia
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nicole Colbert, et
al. The case is styled as Riley Benjamin, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated v. Nicole Colbert, Rev., supervisory
Chaplain for the D.C. Department of Corrections, in her individual
and official capacities; Jimmie Allen, Rev.; Chaplain for the D.C.
Department of Corrections, in his individual and official
capacities; JACQUELINE WILLIAMS, Deputy Director of Education,
Reentry, and Case Management for the D.C. Department of
Corrections, in her individual and official capacities; Case No.
1:23-cv-02315-RCL (D.D.C., Aug. 10, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Petition: Civil Rights
(Other).

Nicole Colbert is a Supervisory Chaplain at Department of
Corrections District of Columbia.[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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Marcus Daniel Ireland
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA
          400 Sixth Street NW, Suite 10100.085
          Washington, DC 20001
          Phone: (202) 702-2910
          Email: marcus.ireland@dc.gov


NORTH OAK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jacko Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
LARICA FANTASIA JACKO individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTH OAK REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS,
INC.; and DOES 1 to 25, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV20016 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 21, 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 Jacko was employed by the Defendants as a property
manager.

NORTH OAK REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, INC. is in engaged as a property
management company. [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
          Email: hm@messrelianlaw.com

NORTHERN MARIANA: Camacho Files 9th Cir. Appeal
-----------------------------------------------
ROSA A. CAMACHO, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
entered in their lawsuit entitled Rosa A. Camacho, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Northern Mariana Islands Retirement Fund, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:09-cv-00023, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Northern Mariana Islands.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was brought against the Defendants for failure to pay the amounts
that they were required by law to pay to the Retirement Fund since
2005.

On Dec. 7, 2022, a motion to enforce settlement agreement was filed
in the case. On July 12, 2023, the Court issued its ruling on the
motion.

The appellate case is captioned Rosa A. Camacho, et al. v. NMI
Retirement Fund, et al., Case No. 23-16074, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on August 7, 2023.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Rosa A. Camacho Mediation Questionnaire was due on
August 14, 2023;

   -- Appellant Rosa A. Camacho opening brief is due on November
16, 2023;

   -- Appellee Northern Mariana Islands Retirement Fund answering
brief is due on December 18, 2023; and

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

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

            Jeanne H. Rayphand, Esq.
            NORTHERN MARIANAS PROTECTION & ADVOCACY SYSTEMS, INC.
            P.O. Box 502020
            Saipan, MP 96950
            Telephone: (670) 235-7273

Defendants-Appellees NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS RETIREMENT FUND, et
al. are represented by:

            Nicole M. Torres-Ripple, Esq.
            NMI SETTLEMENT FUND
            P.O. Box 501247
            Saipan, MP 96950
            Telephone: (670) 322-3863

NUTRACEUTICAL WELLNESS: Sued Over Mislabeled Hair Growth Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AUDREY DOTSON, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. NUTRACEUTICAL WELLNESS, INC. d/b/a
NUTRAFOL, Defendant, Case No. 654003/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Aug. 18,
2023) alleges that the Defendant knowingly and willfully
misrepresents to consumers the contents of Nutrafol, a premium
priced hair growth supplement touted to be "clinically tested and
proven" that is made with "medical-grade" ingredients using a
"proprietary" formula "backed by clinical studies and published
research."

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, due to Defendant's
representations about the superior quality, contents, consistency
and clinically proven quality of Nutrafol hair growth Products,
consumers are induced to pay premium prices ($88 per month for a
single bottle) for a hodgepodge of underfilled and inconsistent
ingredients never knowing that what they are really getting is not
as represented.

The Defendant also fails to include a disclaimer on the Product
labeling and in their advertising materials that Nutrafol hair
growth Products contain measurable quantities of the heavy metal
Arsenic, says the suit.

The Plaintiff did not know that bottles of Nutrafol Products
contain underfilled, inconsistent, and varying quantities of
Biotin, Vitamin A, Vitamin E significantly and unreasonably
different from what the labels state, and as a result, that the
Products were not premium quality, clinically proven, or
consistently manufactured. Had the Plaintiff known, she would not
have purchased the Products, or would not have paid a premium price
for them, the suit further alleges.

NUTRACEUTICAL WELLNESS, INC. doing business as Nutrafol, offers
nutritional products. The Company provides nutraceutical supplement
for hair growth for men and women. Nutrafol serves customers in the
State of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Britton D. Monts, Esq.
          THE MONTS FIRM
          4450 Arapahoe Ave., Ste. 100
          Boulder, CO 80303
          Telephone: (512) 474-6092
          Email: bmonts@themontsfirm.com

               - and -

          Stuart L. Cochran
          COCHRAN LAW PLLC
          8140 Walnut Hill Lane Suite 250
          Dallas, TX 75231
          Telephone: (469) 333-3405
          Email: stuart@scochranlaw.com

               -and -

          J.R. Skrabanek
          John Thompson
          THOMPSON & SKRABANEK, PLLC
          42 W. 38th Street, Suite 1002
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (646) 568-4280
          Email: jrs@ts-firm.com
                 jt@ts-firm.com

OHIO: Mag. Judge Wants Claims in Stone v. Chambers-Smith Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled JAMARR R. STONE, Plaintiff v. ANNETTE
CHAMBERS-SMITH, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-424 (S.D. Ohio),
Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, recommends that
the Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed with prejudice.

The Plaintiff, a prisoner at the Madison Correctional Institution
(MaCI), brings this pro se action against Ohio Department of
Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) Director Annette
Chambers-Smith in her official and individual capacities. He
alleges that malfunctions in the ODRC Intranet System have
prevented and will continue to prevent him from receiving
meaningful review in parole and executive clemency decisions. He
has paid the filing fee.

The matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave
to Supplement the Record with Additional Evidence. The Court grants
this Motion to the extent that the Plaintiff requests that the
submitted exhibits be considered with the Amended Complaint. The
Clerk of Court is directed to re-file the submitted exhibits as an
attachment to the Amended Complaint.

The allegations in this action stem from a "Memorandum of Law in
Support Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and
Preliminary Injunction" that the Plaintiff initially filed in S.D.
Ohio Case No. 2:21-cv-884. The District Judge in that matter found
that the motion warranted a new action and ordered that it be
refiled as a new case.

Judge Gentry, then, ordered the Plaintiff to file the motion in the
form of an amended complaint if he wished to proceed with the new
case (Case No. 2:23-cv-424). He, then, filed the Amended Complaint,
which is the operative pleading in this matter.

The matter is also before the Court for a sua sponte review of the
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, as supplemented, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1915A(b).

On April 25, 2022, the Plaintiff forwarded to Defendant
Chambers-Smith a complaint he had filed with the Ohio Inspector
General's Office. In that complaint, he alleged that members of the
Ohio Parole Board ("OPB") were using unethical and illegal
practices to unjustly deny black, brown, and LGBTQ inmates release
on parole supervision. Specifically, he alleged that the ODRC
Intranet System used to complete and route DRC 3031 Staff Hearing
Input Forms ("Forms") to Governor Mike DeWine and the OPB is and
has been inoperable.

On Dec. 26 and 27, 2022, several MaCI staff members and corrections
officers attempted to use the ODRC Intranet System to complete and
route Forms that contained positive input about the Plaintiff.
These individuals desired to have their input be considered by
Governor DeWine when reviewing the Plaintiff's then-pending
Application for Executive Clemency and by the OPB in future parole
hearings. Due to a malfunction in the ODRC Intranet System,
however, they were unable to complete and route the Forms
electronically. Instead, three staff members "were forced to
complete printed versions" of the Forms.

On Dec. 28, 2022, two other staff members told the Plaintiff in an
"extremely aggressive" fashion that printed versions of the Form
are not permitted in ODRC facilities. These staff members made it
"distinctly clear" to him that "severe consequences" would result
if he continued to provide MaCI staff with printed Forms.

The Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on Jan. 25, 2023. He alleges that
most, if not all, ODRC employees are misinformed as to the true
process for creating and routing Forms to Ohio Governor Mike DeWine
and the OPB. He contends that because the ODRC Intranet System is
inoperable in this respect, it has caused him and thousands of
other inmates to be denied their right to have staff provide input
regarding parole and executive clemency decisions. He contends that
the ODRC Intranet System prevents OPB members from reviewing "the
totality" of an inmate's parole or executive-clemency file prior to
a hearing, in violation of ODRC policy and state law. He also
contends that the ODRC Intranet System has resulted in a
"discriminatory process" that has caused and will cause him and
others to suffer irreparable injury.

The Plaintiff further contends that, despite being notified in
writing of "the failed system," Chambers-Smith failed to ensure
that the ODRC Intranet System was fully operable or permit the
Plaintiff to have a reconsideration hearing after his request for
parole was denied in 2020. He also contends that the ODRC Intranet
System prevented the OPB from viewing "all documents" related to
his request for parole prior to his hearing. Specifically, he
claims that OPB's denial of his request for a reconsideration
hearing did not list a "Memorandum In Support of Counsel" that his
attorney had emailed prior to his parole hearing. He seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief.

The Court construes Plaintiff's Amended Complaint as asserting
three distinct claims on his own behalf.

Because the Plaintiff does not appear to be a licensed attorney,
Judge Gentry says he cannot represent other unnamed inmates.
Further, because he is proceeding pro se (i.e., without the
assistance of counsel), it is unlikely that he will be permitted to
pursue a class action on behalf of other incarcerated individuals.
For purposes of this initial screen, therefore, the Court construes
the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint as asserting only individual
claims.

In Count One, the Plaintiff asserts that Chambers-Smith's alleged
failure to correct the malfunctioning portion of the ODRC Intranet
System that should allow staff to submit Forms has denied him
meaningful consideration for parole.

In Count Two, the Plaintiff asserts that Chambers-Smith's alleged
failure to correct the malfunctioning portion of the ODRC Intranet
System that should allow OPB members to view an inmate's complete
parole file prior to a parole hearing has denied him meaningful
consideration for parole.

In Count Three, the Plaintiff asserts that Chambers-Smith's alleged
failure to correct the malfunctioning portion of the ODRC Intranet
System that should allow OPB members to view an inmate's complete
clemency file has deprived him of the right to have the OPB review
"all documents" when considering his clemency application.

At this point in the proceedings, without the benefit of an Answer
or briefing by the parties, and in an abundance of caution, Judge
Gentry concludes that a portion of Count Three may proceed for
further development. Specifically, given the factual allegations
relating to his Application for Executive Clemency pending in
December 2022, Judge Gentry finds the Plaintiff has plausibly
asserted a claim for violation of the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. However, for the
following reasons, Judge Gentry recommends that the remaining
claims in the Amended Complaint (including other portions of Count
Three) be dismissed.

To the extent that the Plaintiff bases Count Three upon violations
of Jail policy, Judge Gentry holds that that portion of the claim
should be dismissed.

To the extent that the Plaintiff bases Count Three upon violations
of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution, Judge Gentry holds that that portion of the
claim should also be dismissed. Judge Gentry explains that the
Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged that any similarly situated
ODRC inmate received more favorable treatment than he did with
respect to the OPB's consideration of all documents relating to a
clemency application.

The claims in Counts One and Two should be dismissed because they
appear to seek relief in connection with the denial of the
Plaintiff's parole in 2020, Judge Gentry opines. The Plaintiff
sought similar relief in another lawsuit that resulted in an award
of summary judgment to Chambers-Smith.

In sum, Judge Gentry recommends that the Plaintiff's claims against
Defendant Chambers-Smith be dismissed with prejudice, except for
Count Three of the Amended Complaint to the extent that it is based
upon an alleged violation of the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, the
Plaintiff has failed to provide a summons and U.S. Marshal form for
service on Defendant Chambers-Smith.

Therefore, the Court grants the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to
Supplement the Record with Additional Evidence. The Clerk of Court
is directed to re-file the evidence as an exhibit to the Amended
Complaint.

The Plaintiff, within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order,
will submit a completed summons and U.S. Marshal form for Defendant
Chambers-Smith. The Clerk of court is directed to send to the
Plaintiff a summons form and a U.S. Marshal form for this purpose.
Once the Court receives the requested forms, the Court orders
service of process by the United States Marshal.

Judge Gentry, therefore, recommends that the Plaintiff's claims
against Defendant Chambers-Smith be dismissed with prejudice,
except for Count Three of the Amended Complaint to the extent that
it is based upon an alleged violation of the Due Process Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and
Recommendation, Judge Gentry says that party may, within fourteen
(14) days, file and serve on all parties objections to the Report
and Recommendation, specifically designating this Report and
Recommendation, and the part in question, as well as the basis for
objection. Response to objections must be filed within fourteen
(14) days after being served with a copy.

The parties are specifically advised that the failure to object to
the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right
to de novo review by the District Judge and waiver of the right to
appeal the judgment of the District Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order and Report and
Recommendations dated Aug. 3, 2023, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/f4x7da2n from Leagle.com.


ORRICK & HERRINGTON: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS R. WERLEY, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals v. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE
INTERNATIONAL, LLP, Case No. 3:23-cv-04089-DMR (N.D. Cal., Aug 11,
2023) seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for failing to
safeguard the sensitive personal identifiable information of the
Plaintiff and over 152,818 similarly situated persons in a massive
data breach of the Defendant's computer network.

On June 30, 2023, Orrick sent letters to the Plaintiff and the
Class Members informing them that, on March 13, 2023, it detected
that an unauthorized party had gained remote access to its network,
and, following an investigation, it determined that the
unauthorized third party obtained files containing personal
information on March 7, 2023.

The PII taken by the hackers includes names, addresses, dates of
birth, and Social Security numbers.

As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and the Class have
suffered damages. For example, the Plaintiff has experienced a
flood of spam telephone calls from unknown persons since the Data
Breach.

On behalf of himself and the Class, the Plaintiff seeks actual
damages, statutory damages, and punitive damages, with attorney
fees, costs, and expenses under negligence, negligence per se,
breach of fiduciary duties, breach of confidence, breach of implied
contract, and invasion of privacy.

The Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief, including significant
improvements to Defendant's data security systems, future annual
audits, and long-term credit monitoring services funded by the
Defendant, and other remedies as the Court sees fit.

Mr. Werley is a citizen of Stockdale, Texas.

Orrick is a global law firm servicing the technology and
innovation, energy and infrastructure, and finance sectors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert S. Green, Esq.
          Emrah M. Sumer, Esq.
          GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
          2200 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 101
          Larkspur, CA 94939
          Telephone: (415) 477-6700
          Facsimile: (415) 477-6710
          E-mail: gnecf@classcounsel.com

                - and -

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com

PARKCHESTER FISHERY: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALBERTO SOLANO FELIX, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. PARKCHESTER FISHERY, INC. (D/B/A PARKCHESTER
FISHERY MARKET), PARKCHESTER FISHERY MARKET, INC. (D/B/A
PARKCHESTER FISHERY MARKET), and CHAN-YOUNG PAK AKA PAK CHAN YOUNG
AKA ARISHES, Case No. 1:23-cv-07119 (S.D.N.Y., Aug 11, 2023) seeks
to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, including
applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.


The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring the
Plaintiff Solano 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, the
Plaintiff asserts.

The Defendants also failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of
the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff Solano
appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of
pay or for any additional overtime premium, the Plaintiff adds.

Plaintiff Solano worked from approximately 9:00 a.m. until 6:30
p.m. to 7:00 p.m., 6 days a week (typically 57 to 60 hours per
week). The Defendants paid the Plaintiff Solano approximately $130
per day. The Plaintiff Solano’s pay did not vary even when he was
required to stay later or work a longer day than his usual
schedule, the lawsuit further alleges.

Plaintiff Solano was employed as a seafood clerk by the Defendants
at Parkchester Fishery Market from April 2021 until January 25,
2023.

Parkchester operates a seafood market located in a neighborhood in
the Bronx.[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

PASHA ATLANTA: Kincaid Sues Over Restaurant Servers' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JANA KINCAID, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PASHA ATLANTA, LLC d/b/a PASHA RESTAURANT
AND BAR, OKAN OZYURTERI, and GOUN HANNA, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-03592-TWT (N.D. Ga., August 14, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for their failure to pay full minimum wages
due to an illegal tip pool policy in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked as a server at Pasha Restaurant and Bar from
approximately January 2021 to March 2023.

Pasha Atlanta, LLC, doing business as Pasha Restaurant and Bar, is
a restaurant owner and operator based in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
         P.O. Box 530244
         Atlanta, GA 30353
         Telephone: (407) 420-1414
         Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
         E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com

PB RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cajamarca Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
LAURO CAJAMARCA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PB RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a PERA BELL FOOD
BAR; JOHN PERAGINE; and SCOTT CAMPBELL, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-06210 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 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 Cajamarca was employed by the Defendants as a
dishwasher.

PB RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a PERA BELL FOOD BAR owns and operates a
restaurant at Patchogue. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sara V. Messina, Esq.
          ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC
          490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Telephone: (631) 257-5588
          Email: smessina@romerolawny.com

PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Carrick Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Gabrielle E. Carrick, on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated v. PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC.; and
DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 23CV417694 was removed from the
Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara, to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on Aug. 18, 2023, and assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-04233.

The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts 7 causes of action against
Defendant: failure to pay overtime wages at the proper rate of pay;
failure to authorize or permit meal periods; failure to authorize
or permit rest periods; failure to indemnify employees for
employment related expenditures; failure to provide complete and
accurate wage statements; failure to timely pay all earned wages
and final paychecks due at time of separation; and unfair business
practices in violation of Business and Professions Code.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jonathan L. Brophy, Esq.
          Michael Afar, Esq.
          Laura E. Heyne, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Phone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          Email: jbrophy@seyfarth.com
                 mafar@seyfarth.com
                 lheyne@seyfarth.com


PEOPLECONNECT INC: Denial of Bids in Boshears Suit Partly Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled JOHN BOSHEARS, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee v. PEOPLECONNECT,
INC., Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 22-35262 (9th Cir.), the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismisses in part and
vacates in part the denial of PeopleConnect's motion to compel
arbitration and motion to dismiss complaint.

Plaintiff-Appellee John Boshears sued Defendant-Appellant
PeopleConnect, Inc., alleging that it violated his right of
publicity by using his photo on its website, Classmates.com.
PeopleConnect responded by seeking two forms of relief.

First, PeopleConnect sought to compel Boshears to arbitrate his
claims under Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).
Second, it sought to dismiss Boshears's complaint, under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing in relevant part that it was entitled to
section 230 immunity under the Communications Decency Act, see 47
U.S.C. Section 230.

In a 26-page document labeled a single "order," the district court
denied both requests for relief. PeopleConnect filed an
interlocutory appeal, attempting to challenge both denials by
relying on the FAA as the basis for interlocutory appellate
jurisdiction (9 U.S.C. Section 16(a)).

Circuit Judge Carlos Bea, writing for the Panel, notes that Section
16(a) allows the Court of Appeals to review the first issue raised
on appeal -- whether the district court correctly denied
PeopleConnect's motion to compel arbitration. The Court of Appeals
addresses that issue in a concurrently filed memorandum disposition
in which it vacates the district court's order denying the motion
to compel arbitration and remand for further proceedings. In this
Opinion, the Court of Appeals addresses only its jurisdiction to
review the second issue -- whether the district court correctly
denied PeopleConnect's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss based on
Section 230 immunity.

Absent a final judgment, the Court of Appeals generally lacks
jurisdiction to review the denial of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
PeopleConnect invokes neither the collateral order doctrine nor the
pendent appellate jurisdiction doctrine to argue that the Panel may
review such a denial here. Instead, it relies solely on the "plain
language" of Section 16(a). PeopleConnect contends that the
district court denied its Rule 12(b)(6) motion in the same "order"
in which the district court denied its motion to compel
arbitration, and, therefore, the whole "order" is reviewable under
Section 16(a).

Judge Bea opines that PeopleConnect conflates, and thereby
confuses, the meaning of an order with that of a document. An
"order" refers to a "written direction or command," not to the
document in which that "direction or command" is "delivered by a
court or judge" to the parties.

In the document at issue, the district court addressed
PeopleConnect's arbitration argument separately from its Section
230 argument. At the end of its arbitration analysis, the district
court wrote: "The Court thus DENIES PeopleConnect's request to
compel arbitration." Six pages later, at the end of its Section 230
analysis, the district court wrote: "The Court DENIES the Motion
[to dismiss] as to this argument." These are separate "written
direction[s] or command[s]." They are, thus, different orders that
merely happen to appear in the same document, Judge Bea points
out.

Courts frequently issue multiple orders in the same document,
particularly when a party request multiple forms of relief at the
same time, as PeopleConnect did here. And it is also common for a
district court to label such a document a singular "order," as the
district court did here, Judge Bea notes. Notwithstanding its label
as a single "order," the document clearly contains multiple
orders.

This all seems fairly commonsensical, Judge Bea says. Yet the
parties do not cite, and the Court of Appeals was unable to find, a
published opinion from its Circuit expressly explaining this
obvious principle. The closest case it could find, Blair v.
Rent-A-Center, Inc., 928 F.3d 819 (9th Cir. 2019), held that
Section 16(a) did not grant jurisdiction to review a denial of a
motion for a discretionary stay even though the district court
denied that motion in the same document in which it denied a motion
to compel arbitration, Blair v. Rent-A-Ctr., Inc., 2017 WL 4805577,
at *6 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2017).

The Court of Appeals now makes explicit what was implied in Blair
-- two orders do not become one "order" for the purpose of Section
16(a) solely by virtue of the fact that they appear in the same
document.

In arguing otherwise, PeopleConnect cites BP P.L.C. v. Mayor & City
Council of Baltimore, 141 S.Ct. 1537 (2021).

To the extent BP P.L.C. is helpful, Judge Bea finds that it merely
suggests that Section 16(a) grants jurisdiction to review all of
the reasoning in an order denying a motion to compel arbitration --
not just some of its parts or pieces. And Donelson v. Ameriprise
Fin. Servs., Inc., 999 F.3d 1080, 1086-87 (8th Cir. 2021) --
PeopleConnect's strongest case -- might suggest that the Court of
Appeals can review issues intertwined with a motion to compel
arbitration.

But neither suggestion is of any help to PeopleConnect, Judge Bea
finds. The district court's denial of Section 230 immunity was
plainly not part of the reasoning it articulated in support of its
denial of PeopleConnect's motion to compel arbitration. Nor did the
motion to compel arbitration turn on whether PeopleConnect was
entitled to Section 230 immunity, Judge Bea explains.

Because Section 16(a) grants the Court of Appeals jurisdiction to
review only an order denying a motion to compel arbitration, and
because the district court's denial of Section 230 immunity is not
part of such an order, Judge Bea holds that the Panel lacks
jurisdiction to review it. The Court of Appeals dismisses this
portion of PeopleConnect's appeal.

Finally, Judge Bea addresses costs. In his answering brief,
Boshears requested an award of fees and costs for responding to
PeopleConnect's Section 230 immunity argument. Boshears was
required to request this award in a separately filed motion.

Regardless, the Court of Appeals denies Boshears's request. Judge
Bea holds that each party will bear its own costs on appeal.

Dismissed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Aug. 3, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3cnuhm92 from Leagle.com.

Ian H. Gershengorn -- igershengorn@jenner.com -- and Illyana A.
Green -- igreen@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, in Washington,
D.C.; Clifford W. Berlow -- cberlow@jenner.com -- Debbie L. Berman
-- dberman@jenner.com -- Wade A. Thomson -- wthomson@jenner.com --
and Daniel W. Bobier -- dbobier@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP,
in Chicago, Illinois; Brent Caslin -- bcaslin@jenner.com -- Jenner
& Block LLP, in Los Angeles, California; Michael Rosenberger --
mrosenberger@gordontilden.com -- Mark A. Wilner --
mwilner@gordontilden.com -- Gordon Tilden Thomas & Cordell LLP, in
Seattle, Washington, for the Defendant-Appellant.

Ben R. Osborn -- ben@benosbornlaw.com -- Law Office of Benjamin R.
Osborn, in Brooklyn, New York; Michael F. Ram --
MRam@forthepeople.com -- Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group,
in San Francisco, California; Samuel J. Strauss --
sam@turkestrauss.com -- Raina Borrelli -- raina@turkestrauss.com --
Turke & Strauss LLP, in Madison, Wisconsin, for the
Plaintiff-Appellee.


PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY: Class Cert Hearing Extended to Sept. 15
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Joseph Pinzon v.
Pepperdine University, Case No. 2:20-cv-04928-DMG-KS (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Dolly M. Gee entered an order amending Scheduling
Order as outlined below:

          Event                      Current Date      Requested
Date

  Hearing on Daubert and Class        Aug. 25, 2023     Sept. 15,
2023
  Certification Motions

  Plaintiffs' Reply re Class          Aug. 8, 2023      Sept. 1,
2023
  Certification Motion

  Plaintiff's Opposition to           Aug. 4, 2023      Aug. 25,
2023
  Daubert Motion

  Defendant's Reply re                Aug. 11, 2023     Sept. 1,
2023
  Daubert Motion

  Motion Cut-Off (filing deadline)    July 21, 2023     No change

  Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off        July 24, 2023     No change
  (includes hearing of discovery
  motions)

  Last hearing date for Daubert and   Sept. 8, 2023     Sept. 15,
2023
  Class Certification motions

  Motions in Limine Filing Deadline   Sept. 25, 2023    Feb. 20,
2024

Pepperdine University is a private research university affiliated
with the Churches of Christ with its main campus in Los Angeles
County, California.

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

PERMANENT GENERAL: Hodge Bid to Extend Disclosures of Experts Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JILL HODGE et al, v.
PERMANENT GENERAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION et al., Case No. (M.D.
Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Barbara D. Holmes entered an order denying
without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion to extend the time for
class certification experts:

The Court said, "The motion seeks an extension of the deadlines for
the parties' disclosures of class certification experts and
reports, but not of the deadline for depositions of experts, which
will cause Defendants' expert disclosures to occur after the
deadline for expert depositions."

Further, the requested extended deadline for Defendants' disclosure
of experts and reports is the deadline for Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification. Had the parties complied with the requirement
that the motion to modify the case management schedule include all
the case management deadlines, even if unaffected, counsel would
(hopefully) have realized these scheduling overlaps and issues. Any
refiled motion must address the parties' intention regarding
depositions of class certification experts and the timing of the
motion for class certification (which the parties are put on notice
the Court is disinclined to modify), the Court says.

Permanent General provides insurance services. The Company
underwrites automobile insurance.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OzpzX4 at no extra charge.[CC]

PHP OF NC: Johnson FLSA Suit Transferred to E.D. North Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michael Johnson, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. PHP OF NC, INC., and JUSTINE WIGGINS,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00477 was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on Aug. 21, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-00462-M-RJ to
the proceeding.

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

PHP of NC Inc. -- https://phpofncinc.com/ -- offers its mentally
and/or physically disabled consumers a variety of options to meet
their individual needs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip Bohrer, Esq.
          Scott E. Brady, Esq.
          BOHRER LAW FIRM
          8712 Jefferson Hwy., Ste. B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Phone: (225) 925-5297
          Fax: (225) 231-7000
          Email: phil@bohrerbrady.com
                 scott@bohrerbrady.com

               - and -

          Brian L. Kinsley, Esq.
          CRUMLEY ROBERTS LLP
          2400 Freeman Mill Road, Suite 200
          Greensboro, NC 27406
          Phone: (336) 333-9899
          Fax: (336) 333-9894
          Email: BLKinsley@crlegalteam.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael D. Ray, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          201 South College St., Suite 2300
          Charlotte, NC 28244
          Phone: (704) 405-3133
          Fax: (704) 342-4379
          Email: michael.ray@ogletree.com

               - and -

          Charlotte C. Smith, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          8529 Six Forks Rd, Forum IV, Suite 600
          Raleigh, NC 27615
          Phone: (919) 760-4150
          Fax: (919) 783-9412


PRETZEL PETE: Initial Case Management Order Entered in Taveras Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YORDALIZA TAVERAS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v
PRETZEL PETE, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-04279-ALC-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Sarah L. Cave entered an order scheduling initial case
management conference as follows:

  -- All pretrial motions and applications, including those
relating
     to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss
or
     for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for
summary
     judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23)

     must be made to Magistrate Judge Cave and must comply with her

     Individual Practices, available on the Court's website at
     https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-sarah-l-cave.

  -- No initial case management conference yet having taken place
in
     this action, it is hereby ORDERED that an initial conference
in
     accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 will be held in person on
     Wednesday, August 30, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 18A,
500
     Pearl Street, New York, New York. At the conference, the
parties
     must be prepared to discuss the subjects set forth in Fed. R.

     Civ. P. 16(b) and (c).

  -- The counsel shall meet and confer in accordance with Fed. R.
Civ.
     P. 26(f) no later than 21 days before the Initial Case
Management
     Conference. No later than August 23, 2023, the parties shall
file
     a Report of Rule 26(f) Meeting and Proposed Case Management
Plan,
     via ECF, signed by counsel for each party. A template is
     available at https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-sarah-l-cave.

Pretzel Pete is a food manufacturing company that offers peanuts
and sesame free seasoned snack foods.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 1, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/455RHZ1 at no extra charge.[CC]

PRIMEFLIGHT AVIATION: Brunner Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Primeflight Aviation
Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Anthony Joseph
Brunner, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Primeflight Aviation Services, Inc., Does 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case
No. CGC23608535 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Aug. 21,
2023).

The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."

PrimeFlight Aviation Services -- https://primeflight.com/ --
provides air carriers and airports with a wide range of aircraft,
passenger and security services to ensure the safe and reliable
operation of their aircraft and the comfort of their
passengers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Phone: (310) 432-0000


PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Johnson Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01583-DAR (N.D. Ohio, August 14, 2023)
is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of
implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory and injunctive
relief.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff
and similarly situated customers stored within its network systems
following a data breach from May of 2021 until May 19, 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.

Progressive Casualty Insurance Company is an insurance company,
with its principal place of business located at 6300 Wilson Mills
Road, Mayfield Village, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
         Kevin M. Cox, Esq.
         THE LYON FIRM
         2754 Erie Ave.
         Cincinnati, OH 45208
         Telephone: (513) 381-2333
         Facsimile: (513) 766-9011
         E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com

PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED: Final Order Issued; Martinez Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jerry H. Ritter of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Mexico issued a final stipulated order approving settlement
and judgment to dismiss the lawsuit captioned DIANE MARTINEZ and
ERIN MARTIN, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs v. PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY,
PROGRESSIVE CLASSIC INSURANCE COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY,
PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED INSURANCE COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY and PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00004-JHR-SCY (D.N.M.).

The Court preliminarily approved the Class Settlement in this case
on March 13, 2023. Since that time, the Parties have completed the
Notice process and now seek final approval of the Settlement
Agreement. Through this Motion For Final Approval of Class
Settlement and a separately filed Motion for Fees and Costs, they
seek, among other things, that the Court: (1) grant final
certification of the settlement Class; (2) approve the Agreement as
fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) rule that the Notice process
was reasonable and the best practicable under the circumstances;
and (4) grant Plaintiff's unopposed request for attorneys' fees,
and the Class Representative awards. A hearing was held on the
Motions on Aug. 2, 2023.

On Aug. 2, 2023, the matter of the Court's final approval of the
Agreement submitted on Jan. 27, 2023, by the Unopposed Motion for
Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement, Approving Notice to Class
Members, and Setting Date for Settlement Fairness Hearing, came
before the Court for consideration. Appearing on behalf of
Plaintiff and the Settlement Class were Kedar Bhasker of LAW OFFICE
OF KEDAR BHASKER, LLC, Corbin Hildebrandt, of CORBIN HILDEBRANDT,
P.C., and Geoffrey Romero of the LAW OFFICE OF GEOFFREY ROMERO
("Class Counsel"). Appearing on behalf of the Defendants were Casie
D. Collignon of BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP.

The Named Plaintiffs, Diana Martinez and Erin Martin, on behalf of
themselves and the proposed Settlement Class, and the Defendants,
individually and on behalf of all affiliated entities, including
Progressive Preferred Insurance Company, Progressive Classic
Insurance Company, Progressive Casualty Insurance Company,
Progressive Max Insurance Company, Progressive Specialty Insurance
Company and Northern Insurance Company (collectively, "Progressive"
or "Defendant," as defined in the Agreement), have executed and
filed the Agreement with the Court on Jan. 27, 2023.

Plaintiffs Diana Martinez and Erin Martin were approved in the
Preliminary Approval Order as the Class Representatives.

The Court, as part of its Preliminary Approval Order, directed that
a plan for disseminating notice of the Settlement ("Notice Plan")
be implemented, and scheduled a hearing to determine whether the
Proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable and
adequate.

Judge Ritter finds that Progressive and Class Counsel have
satisfactorily demonstrated to the Court that the Notice Plan was
followed.

A Final Settlement Hearing was held on Aug. 2, 2023, at which all
interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard, and all
objections to the settlement, if any, were duly considered.

The Complaint filed in this Action alleges generally that the
Defendants sold "illusory" or misleading uninsured/underinsured
motorists bodily injury ("UIM") coverage in New Mexico automobile
insurance policies (the "Policies") by failing to explain the
effect of an offset against UIM coverage of the tortfeasor's
liability coverage pursuant to Schmick v. State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company, 1985-NMSC-073, 103 N.M. 216, 704 P.2d
1092. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court
certifies, solely for purposes of effectuating the Settlement, this
Action as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, defined
as:

     All Persons (and their heirs, executors, administrators,
     successors and assigns) who, during the Class Period, were
     insured under New Mexico automobile insurance policies issued
     by Defendants which included UIM coverage. Excluded from the
     Class are: all present or former officers and/or directors of
     Progressive, Class Counsel and their resident relatives, the
     Judge in the Action and her resident relatives, and
     Defendants' counsel of record in the Action and their
     resident relatives.

The Court affirms this definition of the Settlement Class for
purposes of this Final Judgment.

For purposes of Settlement only, Judge Ritter holds the Named
Plaintiffs possess standing and the proposed Settlement Class is
adequately defined and ascertainable. The Settlement Class is
adequately defined because the class definition is clear and
precise, is based on objective criteria, and, because it only
includes insureds who also suffered redressable harm, it is not
overbroad.

For purposes of Settlement only, Judge Ritter finds the Class is
sufficiently numerous, there are questions of law and fact common
to the Settlement Class (including whether the Defendant's UIM
coverage was illusory or misleading) and the Plaintiffs' claims are
typical of the Settlement Class. In addition, both the Plaintiffs
and Class Counsel are adequate representatives of the Settlement
Class and have fairly and adequately protected and will continue to
protect the interests of the Settlement Class. Thus, the
requirements to certify a class prescribed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)
are satisfied as to the Settlement Class for purposes of
settlement.

For purposes of Settlement only, Judge Ritter holds that the
Settlement Class is certifiable under Rule 23(b)(3) because common
issues predominate over individual issues and class treatment is
superior to other alternatives for adjudicating the claims at
issue.

The Court finds that the Notice Plan and the Class Notice
constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances,
and constituted valid, due and sufficient notice to members of the
Settlement Class. The Court also finds that final approval of the
Agreement and the Settlement embodied therein will result in
substantial savings of time and money to the Court and the
litigants and will further the interests of justice.

Judge Ritter notes that four Settlement Class Members filed timely
and valid requests for exclusion. All other Settlement Class
Members are, therefore, bound by this Final Judgment and by the
Agreement and the Settlement embodied therein, including the
Releases. There were no objections to the Settlement.

Judge Ritter holds that all claims in this Action, as well as the
Action itself, are dismissed in their entirety, on the merits, with
prejudice and without leave to amend, and all members of the
Settlement Class and their respective heirs, executors,
administrators, partners, agents, and the successors and assigns of
each of them, will be forever barred and permanently enjoined from
asserting, either directly or indirectly, individually, or in a
representative capacity or on behalf of or as part of a class, and
whether under State or Federal statutory or common law, any
Released Claim against any Released Person.

The Court has considered the request for a Class Representative
awards, and approves and awards the Named Plaintiffs an amount of
$10,000, each to be paid by the Defendants.

The Court has considered Class Counsel's request for an Attorneys'
Fees award for the prosecution of this action, and makes an
Attorneys' Fees and costs award in the amount of $2,500,000,
including state gross receipt tax, to be paid by the Defendants.

Judge Ritter holds that this Final Judgment is a final order in the
Action within the meaning and for the purposes of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure as to all claims among Defendants on the one
hand, and the Named Plaintiffs, Class Representative and all
Settlement Class Members, on the other, and there is no just reason
to delay enforcement or appeal.

If the Settlement is terminated as provided in the Agreement or the
Effective Date of the Settlement otherwise fails to occur, this
Order will be vacated, rendered null and void, and be of no further
force and effect, except as otherwise provided by the Agreement,
and this Order will be without prejudice to the rights of
Plaintiffs, Settlement Class Members, and Defendants, and the
Parties will be deemed to have reverted nunc pro tunc to their
respective litigation positions in the Action immediately prior to
the execution of the Agreement.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter a judgment of dismissal
and close this case.

Without in any way affecting the finality of this Final Judgment,
the Court will retain continuing jurisdiction over this Action for
purposes of:

   A. enforcing this Final Judgment, the Agreement and the
      Settlement;

   B. implementation of this Settlement and any distributions
      pursuant to the Agreement;

   C. the Action, until the Effective Date;

   B. hearing and determining any application by any Party to the
      Settlement for a settlement bar order; and

   C. any other matters related or ancillary to any of the
      foregoing.

A full-text copy of the Court's Final Stipulated Order dated Aug.
3, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/rpcyh4hp from
Leagle.com.


PROSPECT MEDICAL: Roma Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
---------------------------------------------------------
Joanne Roma, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PROSPECT MEDICAL HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-03216
(E.D. Pa., Aug. 21, 2023), is brought seeking monetary damages and
injunctive and declaratory relief from the Defendant arising from
its failure to safeguard certain Personally Identifying
Information1 ("PII") and other sensitive, non-public financial
information (collectively, "Personal Information") of thousands of
its prospective, current, and former employees, resulting in a
cyberattack of Defendant's network systems being unauthorizedly
accessed on or about August 3, 2023.

On August 3, 2023, Prospect's network systems were unauthorizedly
accessed in a ransomware attack, resulting in the unauthorized
disclosure of the Personal Information of Plaintiff and the Class
Members, including names, Social Security Numbers, and PII (the
"Data Breach").

The Plaintiff and Members of the Class have suffered significant
injury and damages due to the Data Breach permitted to occur by
Prospect, and the resulting misuse of their Personal Information
and fraudulent activity, including monetary damages including
out-of-pocket expenses, including those associated with the
reasonable mitigation measures they were forced to employ, and
other damages. Plaintiff and the Class also now forever face an
amplified risk of further misuse, fraud, and identity theft due to
their sensitive Personal Information falling into the hands of
cybercriminals as a result of the tortious conduct of Defendant.

On behalf of herself and the Class preliminarily defined below,
Plaintiff brings causes of action for negligence, negligence per
se, breach of express and implied contractual duties, unjust
enrichment, and invasion of privacy. Plaintiff seeks damages and
injunctive and declaratory relief arising from Prospect's failure
to adequately protect her highly sensitive Personal Information,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was an employee at Crozer Health from November 2004
to 2015.

Prospect is a "fully integrated" healthcare corporation that
provides healthcare to over 600,000 people.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, P.C.
          1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 496-8282
          Fax: (215) 496-0999
          Email: phoward@smbb.com

               - and -

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


QUTOUTIAO INC: S.D. New York Closes Cases in Securities Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sidney H. Stein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York closes the lawsuits titled In re QUTOUTIAO,
INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case Nos. 20 CIVIL 6707 (SHS), 20 CIVIL
7717 (SHS) (S.D.N.Y.).

For the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion & Order dated Aug. 3,
2023, the Defendants' motions to dismiss the Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint are granted in full. Accordingly, the cases
are closed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Judgment dated Aug. 3, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3nnz8js6 from Leagle.com.


RALPHS GROCERY: Court Continues Class Cert. Briefing in Hiradate
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YOSUKE HIRADATE, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
v. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, an Ohio Corporation; THE KROGER COMPANY,
an Ohio Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No.
2:22-cv-03593-SSS-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sunshine S. Sykes
entered an order granting second stipulation to continue class
certification briefing and related case scheduling deadlines.

As the Parties are in the process of conferring regarding disputes
over the scope of class discovery and individual and corporate
witness depositions, and the scheduling of such depositions, which
are presently anticipated to be completed not later than late
October 2023, additional time is needed for the Parties to conduct
class discovery prior to the filing of Plaintiff's class
certification motion.

The Court, having considered the Parties' Second Stipulation to
Continue Class Certification Briefing and Related Case Scheduling
Deadlines, and finding good cause, grants the Joint Scheduling
Stipulation.

On March 29, 2023, the Court issued its Order Granting Stipulation
to Continue Date for Submission of Local Rule 37-2 Joint
Stipulations and Class Certification Briefing and Related Case
Schedule Deadlines in the above-captioned action, which set, among
other deadlines, a September 29, 2023, deadline for Plaintiff to
file his class certification motion.

Ralphs operates a supermarket chain in California.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sh9uO1 at no extra charge.[CC]


REGAL CAPITAL: Acuff TCPA Suit Seeks Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTORIA ACUFF, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. REGAL CAPITAL
GROUP, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00764-N (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge
entered an order certifying the Classes, appointing Plaintiff as
representative of the Classes, appointing Plaintiff's counsel as
counsel for the Classes, and granting Plaintiff leave to take
limited discovery.

On April 11, 2023, the Plaintiff initiated this class action
lawsuit by filing her Complaint against Regal. In her Complaint,
the Plaintiff asserts claims against Regal for violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA") and for violations
of Texas Business and Commerce Code section 302.101.

Regal's violations of the TCPA and Texas law stem from Regal's
unsolicited, prerecorded telemarketing calls and voicemail messages
sent to Plaintiff’s and Class members' cellular telephones
without the requisite consent.

The Complaint seeks class certification of a proposed Class of
similarly situated persons pursuant to Rules 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3),
and a judgment for statutory damages and injunctive relief, as
afforded by the TCPA, in favor of Plaintiff and the Class.

Regal Capital is a commercial lender specializing in alternative
financing for small to medium sized businesses.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart L. Cochran, Esq.
          COCHRAN LAW PLLC
          8140 Walnut Hill Ln., Suite 250
          Dallas, TX 75231
          Telephone: (469) 333-3405
          Facsimile: (469) 333-3406
          E-mail: stuart@scochranlaw.com

RGB LLC: Fails to Properly Pay Cafe Employees, Laser Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SKYLER LASER, SAMUEL HOPPER, PAIGE FARREN, and KATELYN SNYDER, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. RGB, LLC dba UNION CAFE and GOB-UNION, LLC dba UNION CAFE,
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-02603-JLG-CMV (S.D. Ohio, August 14,
2023) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid minimum
and overtime wages and unlawful tip retention in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act,
the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, the Ohio Constitution, and the Ohio common
law for unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiffs worked at Union Cafe located at 728 North High
Street, Columbus, Ohio.

RGB, LLC is the operator of Union Cafe, headquartered in Columbus,
Ohio.

GOB-Union, LLC is the operator of Union Cafe, headquartered in
Columbus, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
         BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP
         4200 Regent Street, Suite 210
         Columbus, OH 43219
         Telephone: (614) 221-4221
         Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
         E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com

ROADTEX TRANSPORTATION: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Naimee Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AHMAD NAIMEE, DIOGENES M SANCHEZ GOMEZ, individually, and on behalf
of similarly situated employees v. ROADTEX TRANSPORTATION CORP.;
ROADTEX WAREHOUSE SERVICES CORP; ROADTEX TRANSPORTATION
CORPORATION; RDTX TRANSPORTATION, INC.; ECHO GLOBAL LOGISTICS,
INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-01714-TLN-JDP (E.D. Cal., Aug. 14, 2023)
sues the Defendant for failing to pay minimum and overtime pursuant
to the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants allegedly do not provide them with legally compliant
lunch and meal breaks. Instead, employees are expected to work
throughout their shifts with the barest of breaks, often working
seven or more hours before a break. The company also intentionally
falsifies records concerning hours worked to make it appear as
though code compliant meal breaks are taken when they are not. This
results in Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees losing about
30-60 minutes worth of pay every day, the lawsuit asserts.

Because the Defendants failed to pay employees all wages due,
specifically for unpaid hours of work that were wrongfully deducted
from pay due to altering of timecards, the Defendants failed to pay
employees correct wages when due, the lawsuit adds.

The Plaintiffs and their similar colleagues are non-exempt and paid
by the hour. They work long hours, typically 12 hours per day, five
days per week.

Roadtex is a company that provides logistics, transportation, and
warehousing for products across the nation.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq.
          Joshua H. Watson, Esq.
          CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, PC
          865 Howe Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Telephone: (916) 777-7777
          Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
          E-mail: jwatson@justice4you.com

RUGSUSA LLC: Wiley Sues Over False Reference Prices & Discounts
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINA WILEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RUGSUSA, LLC, Case No. 6:23-cv-03250-WBG (W.D. Mo., Aug
11, 2023) alleges that the Defendant advertised reference prices
are inflated and fictitious, and its advertised percentage-off and
dollars-off discounts are false, in violation of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant intentionally misleads
consumers as to the quality and value of the merchandise available
on its website through its deceptive sales tactics. When consumers
visit Defendant's online store, they are shown purported "sale"
prices on nearly all of the Defendant's Products, including new
product lines. However, the Defendant's products never sell at the
purported strikethrough price, the Plaintiff contends.

Accordingly, the Defendant commits the same unfair and deceptive
sales practices for all of its Products. As a direct and proximate
result of Defendant's false and misleading sales practices, the
Plaintiff and members of the Class were induced into purchasing the
Products under the false premise that they were of a higher grade,
quality, or value than they actually were.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and a
proposed class of Missouri residents who purchased products for
personal, family, or household use from RugsUSA's Internet website.


Ms. Wiley purchased an "Ivory Shaggy Diamond Trellis Rug" from the
Defendant's e-commerce store in February 2023, which, at the time,
showed a strikethrough price of $440.60, with a purported "sale"
price of $390.60 – representing a 12 percent discount.

Rugsusa is a retailer of indoor and outdoor area rugs, plus
furniture, lighting, and other home decors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          Julian Diamond, Esq.
          Matthew Girardi, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1330 Avenue of the Americas, Floor 32
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          E-mail: jdiamond@bursor.com
                  mgirardi@bursor.com

SAINT JOSEPH'S: Fails to Refund Tuition Fees, Cantave Says
----------------------------------------------------------
JAULIE CANTAVE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SAINT JOSEPH'S UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case
No. 2:23-cv-03181-MMB (E.D. Pa., Aug. 17, 2023) is a class action
resulting from the Defendant's retention of the tuition paid by the
Plaintiff and the other putative Class Members for in-person
education and services not being provided.

According to the complaint, the on-campus educational experience
for which students paid for, was no longer available to the
Defendant's 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, the Defendant
refused to provide a pro-rated refund of tuition tied to an
on-campus educational experience that was not available to students
for a significant part of the Spring 2020 semester.

The Plaintiff and the Class 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.

ST JOSEPH'S UNIVERSITY operates as an educational institute. The
University provides undergraduate degree programs in accounting,
actuarial science, aerospace, ancient studies, business
administration, business intelligence, chemical biology, and
computer science. [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
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          Email: gary@lcllp.com
                 jamisen@lcllp.com
                 nickc@lcllp.com

SAM REED: Faces Lavin Securities Row over SEC Reporting Issue
-------------------------------------------------------------
TreeHouse Foods, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q fiscal year ended
June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 3, 2023, that a shareholder class action "Lavin v. Reed, et
al.," Case No. 17-cv-01014 (February 7, 2017, N.D. Ill.) is
ongoing, where on October 24, 2022, the plaintiffs' designated an
operative complaint in the Lavin case, which defendants have moved
to dismiss, and was fully briefed as of May 25, 2023. Sam K. Reed
is the former president/CEO at Treehouse Foods Inc.

Said action asserted state law claims for breach of fiduciary duty,
unjust enrichment and corporate waste. The company, as nominal
defendant, and certain of its directors, officers and former
directors and officers are parties to the suit that alleges that
TreeHouse, under the authority and control of the individual
defendants: (i) made certain false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations, and future prospects;
and (ii) failed to disclose that (a) the company's private label
business was underperforming; (b) the company's Flagstone Foods
business was underperforming; (c) the company's acquisition
strategy was underperforming; (d) the company had overstated its
full-year 2016 guidance; and (e) TreeHouse's statements lacked
reasonable basis.

The complaints allege, among other things, that these actions
artificially inflated the market price of TreeHouse common stock
and resulted in harm to the company.

TreeHouse Foods, Inc. manufactures and distributes private label
food and beverages in North America, primarily shelf stable and
share similar customers and distribution.


SEQUENCING LLC: Bid for Class Certification Granted in Melvin Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Elaine E. Bucklo of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, grants the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification in the lawsuit titled David Melvin,
on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Sequencing, LLC, a California limited liability company, Defendant,
Case No. 21 CV 2194 (N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiff David Melvin alleges, on behalf of himself and a class,
that Defendant Sequencing LLC, which purports to offer the world's
largest collection of DNA analysis reports, violates the Illinois
Genetic Information Privacy Act ("GIPA") by disclosing its
customers' genetic information to unknown third-party developers
without first obtaining those customers' consent.

Before the Court is the Plaintiff's motion for class certification,
which seeks to certify a class defined as:

     All people located in the State of Illinois who, from
     Jan. 28, 2020, through Sept. 1, 2022, had their genetic test
     results disclosed to any third party by Sequencing.

The Plaintiff also proposes a subclass of class members, who
purchased a DNA analysis through the Sequencing website, that was
actually conducted by a third-party tester, "Silverberry Genomix."

The gravamen of the Plaintiff's complaint is that Sequencing offers
genetic reports through an "online marketplace," and that to
produce these reports, it shares genetic information that its
customers upload to Sequencing's website with third-party
developers, allegedly without the customers' consent. He offers
evidence garnered in discovery to establish that Sequencing's
liability under the GIPA is amenable to classwide adjudication.

In particular, the Plaintiff relies on the testimony of
Sequencing's Chief Executive Officer and Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6)
witness, Brandon Colby, to describe how Sequencing gathers genetic
information from its customers and shares that information with
third-party developers to produce many of the genetic reports
available for purchase on Sequencing's website.

According to Mr. Colby, after a user creates an account with
Sequencing, he or she can either purchase a DNA test kit directly
from Sequencing and return the results of the test or upload to
Sequencing's website the results of a DNA test taken or stored
elsewhere -- for example, from 23andMe or Ancestry.com. Either
option results in the creation of a "DNA data file" containing "raw
human DNA data" that can be used to assess genotype and to analyze
different aspects of the user's genetic code.

The user can then purchase from Sequencing's "marketplace" reports
based on these analyses that assess the user's heart health, likely
reactions to medications, or risks of developing inherited
diseases, for example, or that provide personalized recommendations
on diet or general health improvements, based on the user's DNA.

Most of the reports available on the marketplace are provided by
third-party developers. These developers access the DNA data they
need to perform their analyses via an "application program
interface" (or "App Market API") that functions as a data pipeline
between Sequencing and the third-party tester. When a Sequencing
customer purchases a report by clicking the "buy" link on
Sequencing's website, (depicting page to purchase the "Basic
Wellness" report run by Silverberry Genomix), the customer's
genetic information is transmitted, along with other personal
information, to the third-party application via the App Market API
so that the requested analysis can be performed.

In some instances, a user may be directed to the third-party's
website to obtain the results of a DNA analysis, but this occurs,
if at all, only after the user has purchased a report and his or
her genetic information has been shared.

In his complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that he created an account
with Sequencing in early 2020, then uploaded his genetic
information to Sequencing's website and purchased several genetic
reports from Sequencing. He later learned that his sensitive
genetic and other identifying information were sent to third party
developers, including Silverberry Genomix.

The Plaintiff claims that Sequencing did not inform him that his
genetic information would be shared and that he never consented to
the disclosure of that information to anyone. According to him,
Sequencing has provided only one screenshot containing language
purporting to warn users that their data will be sent to
third-party testers outside of Sequencing.com. The putative warning
is found in the "Instructions" tab of one analysis provided by
Silverberry Genomix.

A plaintiff seeking class certification bears the burden of proving
that her proposed class meets the four requirements of Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(a), as well as those for one of the three
types of classes identified in Rule 23(b). Because the Plaintiff is
pursuing money damages on behalf of the proposed class and
subclass, he seeks certification under Rule 23(b)(3).

The Defendant's CEO confirmed that at the time this lawsuit was
filed, Sequencing had registered 1,550 users with an IP address in
Illinois, and that of those, 869 users had uploaded and stored one
or more data files on Defendant's website. These numbers are more
than adequate to satisfy numerosity, Judge Bucklo holds.

Judge Bucklo concludes that commonality requirement and typicality
requirement are satisfied. Judge Bucklo also concludes that the
Plaintiff has satisfied Rule 23(a)(4), and that the class and
subclass he proposes satisfy the requirements of Rules 23(a) and
23(b)(3).

The Defendant argues that Judge Bucklo should, nevertheless, delay
certification so that the Court can probe behind the pleadings
before coming to rest on the certification question. As noted,
however, the Plaintiff's motion does not rest on the pleadings
alone but on the ample evidence he has developed in discovery.
Moreover, Judge Bucklo says, the Defendant offers no hint of the
evidence it expects to uncover that would cut against class
treatment of the Plaintiff's claims.

For these reasons, Judge Bucklo grants the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
Aug. 3, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/56ta2h9t from
Leagle.com.


SHC ELECTRIC: Padilla Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Jose Padilla, and all other similarly situated employees v. SHC
Electric LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-03057 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 18, 2023), is
brought to recover unpaid wages and/or overtime and other damages
owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The Plaintiff worked overtime (i.e., more than 40 hours per week)
for Defendant every week during the relevant time period. Plaintiff
worked, at a minimum, 10-hour daily shifts, 5 days a week. The
Defendant did not pay Plaintiff any additional pay for overtime
hours that he worked during the relevant time period. Instead,
Defendant paid Plaintiff his hourly rate (i.e., "straight time")
for each work hour he recorded in the company's timekeeping system,
including his overtime hours. The Defendant paid all similarly
situated employees in the same manner. By engaging in this pay
practice, Defendant deprived employees of their right under Texas
labor law and the FLSA to receive time-and-a-half pay for their
overtime hours, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from May 16, 2022,
until January 20, 2023 as a W-2 employee.

Electric LLC is a business that employs workers to perform
electrical repairs and installations in the Southern District of
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James M. Dore, Esq.
          JUSTICIA LABORAL LLC
          6232 N. Pulaski Road, Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60646
          Phone: 773-415-4898
          Email: jdore@justicialaboral.com


SHIPPY SHOES: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shippy Shoes, LLC.
The case is styled as Janelys Hernandez, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Shippy Shoes, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-07301 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2023).

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

Shippy Shoes -- https://www.shippyshoes.com/ -- is a shoe store
that truly cares about the comfort of customers' feet.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SPARKY'S CONSULTING: Perez Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Esteban Perez, on behalf of himself and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown v. Sparky's Consulting &
Tactics, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, and Timothy
Moore, individually, Case No. 1:23-cv-02058 (D. Colo., Aug. 14,
2023) alleges that the Defendant failed to pay overtime premium
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Overtime and
Minimum and Pay Standards Order, and the Colorado Wage Act.

The Plaintiff was initially hired as an armed security guard before
being transitioned to a salary-exempt "Director of Compliance"
position in January 2023. While employed as DOC, the Plaintiff was
paid a set salary, which served as compensation for all hours
worked each week, including those over 40 in individual work weeks,
the lawsuit claims.

During Plaintiff's employment with Sparky's, the Plaintiff spent
significant amounts of working time performing non-exempt security
duties, such as serving as an hourly armed security guard,
completing routine data entry and paperwork, and reporting other
routine matters to the Director of Operations. The Plaintiff was
allegedly required to complete a certain number of billable hours
as a security guard per week. Sparky's assigned mandatory armed
guard hours to Plaintiff in order to recover sufficient billable
hour revenue from clients to "offset" the cost of Plaintiff's
salary and earn billable guard hours (even though the DOC job did
not generate such revenues) while not paying Plaintiff additional
wages for armed guard work, the suit asserts.

The Plaintiff was allegedly misclassified as a salary-exempt
employee. Sparky's should have at all times compensated the
Plaintiff as an hourly employee entitled to overtime premiums for
hours worked over 40 in individual work weeks.

The Plaintiff worked for Sparky's from December 2022 to June 2023.


Sparky's provides private security services for private events,
security consulting and other related services for both commercial
and residential customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel D. Engelson, Esq.
          John William Billhorn, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1137
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312)-853-1450

ST. CLAIR COUNTY, MI: Bid to Certify Class in Proch v. King Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TAUREAN PROCH, Plaintiff v. MAT KING, Sheriff, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 22-12141 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Laurie J.
Michelson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division:

   (1) overrules Proch's objections;

   (2) adopts the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to deny
       Proch's motion for class certification in full; and

   (3) denies Proch's application to appoint counsel.

Proch filed the lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 alleging that
the St. Clair County Jail instituted a "de facto ban on inmates
receiving correspondence" in violation of their First and
Fourteenth Amendment rights. After granting Proch in-forma-pauperis
status, the Court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Patricia T.
Morris.

In time, Proch filed a motion for class certification, seeking to
serve as a class representative and class counsel for "all persons
detained in the St. Clair County Jail" since August 2022.
Magistrate Judge Morris considered Proch's motion and recommended
that it be denied. Proch objected and the Defendants responded. In
addition to seeking class certification, Proch filed an application
to appoint counsel for himself as an individual. The objections and
the motion are now before the Court.

Judge Michelson explains that before certifying a class action,
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4) requires the Court to find
that the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect
the interests of the class. The representative parties' ability to
protect the interests of the class "depends in part on the quality
of counsel. That, in turn, includes consideration of whether class
counsel is qualified, experienced and generally able to conduct the
litigation.

For two reasons, Magistrate Judge Morris found that Proch failed to
satisfy Rule 23(a)(4) despite his having worked as a paralegal.
First, she found that Proch did not demonstrate the necessary legal
experience or competency to adequately represent the class. And she
concluded that his incarceration would significantly impede his
ability to adequately represent the class.

Proch filed two objections. First, because he was recently released
from the jail, Proch argues that the "primary" reason to deny his
motion has been resolved.

But that was not the primary reason the magistrate judge relied on.
Instead, she found that, even assuming a paralegal could act as
class counsel, the Court knows nothing about Proch's education and
experience as a paralegal that would suggest that he is qualified
to do so. And Proch's objection says nothing about this conclusive
finding. Indeed, he apparently concedes his lack of qualifications:
"Plaintiff may not possess the experience and skills necessary to
singlehandedly represent the proposed class." So Proch's release
from prison does not change the calculus on Rule 23(a)(4). Hence,
the first objection is overruled.

Second, Proch "urges" the Court to appoint other class counsel,
citing Rule 23(g) for its power to do so.

But, as the Defendants point out, Rule 23 does not provide any
basis for the appointment of counsel in this purported class
action. As one court explained: The purpose of Rule 23(g) is not to
enable pro se plaintiffs to obtain recruited counsel in conjunction
with class certification; the purpose of the rule is to ensure that
the proposed class counsel is adequate. Indeed, a court's decision
to certify a class must precede the appointment of class counsel.
So Judge Michelson declines to appoint class counsel and overrules
this objection, too.

Proch also filed an application to appoint counsel for himself as
an individual. He argues that he needs counsel because he is
indigent, because Defendants have "stonewalled" him by limiting his
mail, and because the case is so complex as to require counsel.

Judge Michelson declines to appoint counsel. He says this is not an
extraordinary case requiring the appointment of counsel. For one,
indigence alone is not an exceptional circumstance. For two, the
Defendants can no longer "stonewall" Proch or otherwise interfere
with the case, as he was recently released from the jail. For
three, though Proch is not qualified to serve as class counsel, he
has worked as a paralegal and has competently prosecuted his case
to this point. And finally, the Court does not believe that the
case is so complex that it is beyond his abilities. So Proch's
motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 2, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ydsmx622 from Leagle.com.


SUFFOLK FOOD: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Diaz Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HENRY DIAZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. SUFFOLK FOOD CORP. d/b/a C-TOWN SUPERMARKETS, and PEDRO
DIAZ, Case No. 2:23-cv-06091 (E.D.N.Y., Aug 11, 2023) seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law, on behalf of himself and all similarly
situated current and former employees, and to recover for the
Defendants' failure to furnish accurate wage statements for each
pay period under NYLL section 195(3).

The Plaintiff regularly worked seven days per week, from 7:00 a.m.
until 12:30-1:00 p.m. at the Farmingville Location, at which point
he would be required to punch out, and drive to the Central Islip
location, and continue working at the Central Islip Location from
2:30 p.m. until 5:30 p.m., Monday through Saturday as the
hourly-paid, non-exempt dairy and frozen food manager for both
locations.

The Defendants allegedly failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime at
the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff and other FLSA Collective Action Plaintiffs are and
have been similarly situated, have had substantially similar job
requirements and pay provisions, and are and have been subject to
Defendants' decision, policy, plan and common policies, programs,
practices, procedures, protocols, routines, and rules willfully
failing and refusing to pay them overtime pay for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours each week.

The Plaintiff also brings FLSA claims on behalf of himself and all
non-exempt employees of Defendants who give their consent, in
writing, to become the Plaintiffs and who performed duties
including stocker, sales clerk, cashier, and/or any hourly-paid
non-exempt grocery store position at any time during the three
years prior to the filing of their respective consent forms.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants first as a stocker
from October 2006 until 2008, and then as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt dairy/frozen food manager in name only, from 2008 until
May 13, 2023.

Suffolk is a supermarket and general grocer that provides grocery
services at multiple locations in Suffolk County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

SUNRISE SENIOR: Class Certification Denial in Heredia Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AUDREY HEREDIA, as successor-in-interest to the Estate
of Carlos Heredia, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees v. SUNRISE SENIOR
LIVING, LLC; SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING MANAGEMENT, INC.,
Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 22-55332 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the district court's order
denying Sunrise's motions to strike expert testimony and certifying
a class of Sunrise residents.

Defendant-appellants Sunrise Senior Living LLC and Sunrise Senior
Living Management, Inc. (Sunrise) appeal from the district court's
order denying Sunrise's motions to strike expert testimony and
certifying a class of Sunrise residents to pursue claims under
California's (i) Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), (ii) Unfair
Competition Law (UCL), and (iii) elder financial abuse statute. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(e) and Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(f) and review the district court's rulings
for an abuse of discretion.

The Ninth Circuit affirms.

First, it finds no abuse of discretion in the denials of the
motions to strike the declarations of the Plaintiffs' experts. The
Plaintiffs adduced evidence that care manager target hours
generally correspond to the actual care delivered to residents, and
the district court correctly concluded that Sunrise's contrary
interpretations of the evidence were not grounds to exclude the
expert declarations.

Second, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
rejecting Sunrise's contention that the methodology proposed by the
Plaintiffs' damages expert, Dr. Patrick Kennedy, was unreliable
because it might award damages to uninjured class members. A
possible need for individualized damages calculations does not
render a damages methodology unreliable and does not defeat class
action treatment.

Third, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding
that the opinions of the Plaintiffs' systems engineering expert,
Dale Schroyer, were reliable and relevant. Sunrise demonstrates no
prejudice from the timing of disclosure, and "formalistic
evidentiary objections" are not a basis to exclude evidence offered
in support of class certification.

Fourth, the district court appropriately considered the
"persuasiveness of the evidence" to determine that the expert
declarations were sufficient to serve as common proof of
understaffing and classwide damages.

Fifth, with respect to Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement,
the district court did not impermissibly rely on a "risk of harm"
theory of classwide injury to gloss over Article III standing. The
district court reasonably determined that the Plaintiffs alleged a
cognizable economic injury in the form of an overpayment. The
Plaintiffs adduced sound evidence to show that they can prove
injury on a classwide basis, and that common questions will
predominate with respect to the standing issues in the case.

Sixth, with respect to Sunrise's argument that damages cannot be
measured on a classwide basis, the fees paid by each resident are
ascertainable from Sunrise's business records. The district court
did not abuse its discretion in finding that this model provided a
reasonable "approximation" of the value of the services received by
Sunrise residents and that the Plaintiffs had shown that damages
can be determined without excessive difficulty and attributed to
their theory of liability.

Finally, the Ninth Circuit finds that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in finding that staffing shortfall percentages
are a reasonable "proxy" for the discount to the price consumers
would have been willing to pay at the outset had they known of the
allegedly defective staffing policy.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 2, 2023 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bdf4cupe from Leagle.com.


SUSHI TO GO: Court Approves $15K Settlement in Li Wage & Hour Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Pascal of the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey, Camden Vicinage, approves the parties'
$15,000 settlement to resolve the lawsuit entitled SAM LI,
Plaintiff v. SUSHI TO GO CHERRY HILL, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 22-4734 (EAP) (D.N.J.).

The matter comes before the Court upon the parties' joint motion
filed by Plaintiff Sam Li and Defendants Sushi To Go Cherry Hill,
LLC, John Zhang, and Cindy Doe, seeking approval of a proposed
settlement, which resolves the Plaintiff's wage-and-hour claims
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New Jersey Wage
and Hour Law ("NJWHL") for alleged unpaid overtime and minimum
wages.

The wage-and-hour dispute stems from the Plaintiff's employment as
a "delivery person and general restaurant support staff" at Sushi
To Go, a restaurant located in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. According
to the Complaint, the Plaintiff was employed at Sushi To Go from
September 2021 to April 1, 2022. The Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant Cindy Doe supervised him, determined his salary rate, and
personally paid him. Also, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
John Zhang "participated in the day-to-day operations" of Sushi To
Go.

The Plaintiff alleges that he worked six (6) days a week for
approximately sixty-seven and a half (67.5) hours per week. He
states that he was compensated at a fixed rate of $2,100 per month,
regardless of the number of hours worked. According to the
Plaintiff, he is not exempt, under federal or state law, from
receiving compensation for overtime.

On July 25, 2022, the Plaintiff filed this suit as a collective
action on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees.
He asserts claims for unpaid overtime wages under the FLSA (Count
I), unpaid overtime wages under the NJWHL (Count II), unpaid
minimum wages under the FLSA (Count III), and unpaid minimum wages
under the NJWHL (Count IV). Following his filing of the Complaint,
the parties engaged in discovery and exchanged information related
to time worked, payroll records, and other documents. On March 17,
2023, the Court entered an Order referring the case to mediation by
the consent of the parties.

On May 2, 2023, the parties reached a settlement in principle.
Subsequently, on June 20, 2023, the parties executed a settlement
agreement and release, which resolved the Plaintiff's individual
claims and confirmed that he was no longer seeking to assert claims
on behalf of any putative collective action class.

The settlement would resolve and dismiss the Plaintiff's claims in
exchange for the Defendants making a one-time payment of $15,000,
which consists of $7,928.66 payable to the Plaintiff, $3,964.34
payable to his counsel for attorney's fees, and $3,107 payable to
his counsel for related costs, including filing fees, service fees,
mediation fees, and mailing fees.

On June 26, 2023, the parties filed the present Joint Motion for
approval of the settlement. The parties jointly contend that the
settlement "reflects a reasonable compromise" achieved after "good
faith settlement discussions" and argue that the Court should
approve it. On July 12, 2023, the Court held a settlement hearing
via Zoom video and heard oral argument from the parties on the
record in support of the proposed settlement.

The Court approves the Settlement Agreement in this matter because
it (1) resolves a bona fide dispute; (2) is fair and reasonable to
Plaintiff; and (3) does not frustrate the implementation of the
FLSA.

The Court concludes that the settlement resolves a bona fide
dispute between the parties, and finds that the parties' proposed
settlement is fair and reasonable under the Girsh factors (Girsh v.
Jepson, 521 F.2d 153, 157). The Court is also satisfied that the
settlement does not serve to frustrate the purpose of the FLSA.

Under the percentage-of-recovery method, Judge Pascal says the
attorney's fees requested here are reasonable. The gross settlement
is $15,000, and the Plaintiff's counsel is seeking $3,964.34 in
attorney's fees, which equates to 26.43% of the total fund.
Therefore, Judge Pascal holds, the request is within the range of
past settlements that courts in the Third Circuit have approved,
and the percentage-of-recovery method favors approving the request
for attorney's fees. In sum, the Court approves the requested
attorney's fees because they are reasonable under both the
percentage-of-recovery approach and the lodestar crosscheck.

The Plaintiff's counsel seeks reimbursement of $3,107.00 in costs.
Judge Pascal notes that requests for these categories of fees have
been approved in other FLSA cases, and none of the amounts is
excessive. Thus, the Court approves the Plaintiff's counsel's
request for the payment of costs.

For the reasons set forth here, the Court concludes that the
proposed settlement resolves a bona fide factual dispute, is fair
and reasonable to the Plaintiff, and furthers the implementation of
the FLSA. Also, the Plaintiff's counsel's request for attorney's
fees and costs is reasonable. Accordingly, the parties' Joint
Motion for approval of their Settlement Agreement is granted, and
the settlement is approved.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Aug. 3,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdvp4ddm from
Leagle.com.


SWEDISH HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Adan Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
ISMAHAN ADAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SWEDISH HEALTH SERVICES d/b/a SWEDISH
MEDICAL GROUP, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-01266 (W.D. Wa., Aug.
18, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Adan was employed by the Defendant as a medical
assistant.

SWEDISH HEALTH SERVICES operates as a non profit organization. The
Organization offers orthopedics, childbirth, women's health,
neuroscience, pediatric, primary care, transplant programs, cancer
care, clinical research, visiting nurse, and emergency services.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
          Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
          Erika L. Nusser, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103‐8869
          Telephone: (206) 816‐6603
          Facsimile: (206) 319‐5450
          Email: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
                 jmurray@terrellmarshall.com
                 enusser@terrellmarshall.com

               - and -


          Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
          David Leimbach, Esq.
          Andrew Weaver, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421‐7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421‐7105
          Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                 dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com
                 aweaver@schneiderwallace.com

SWEETWATER FRANCHISE: Fails to Secure Employees' Info, Turner Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA TURNER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SWEETWATER FRANCHISE GROUP, LLC and ALFORD, HOLLOWAY, &
SMITH, PLLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-00074-DCB-BWR (S.D. Miss., Aug. 9,
2023) sues the Defendants for failing to properly secure and
safeguard personal identifiable information for current and former
employees of Sweetwater, including name and Social Security
Number.

On February 23, 2023, AHS learned that an unauthorized external
party gained remote access to its network and acquired copies of
some files stored on its network, including the PII of Plaintiff
and Class Members that AHS obtained from Sweetwater.

On July 17, 2023, AHS began notifying the Plaintiff and Class
Members of the Data Breach.

As a result of this delayed response, the Plaintiff and Class
Members had no idea their PII had been compromised, and that they
were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and
various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm,
including the sharing and detrimental use of their sensitive
information. The risk will remain for their respective lifetimes.
The Defendants allegedly disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff
and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or
negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable
measures to ensure that the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was
safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent an
unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable,
required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures
regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use.

The Plaintiff and Class Members have a continuing interest in
ensuring that their information is and remains safe, and they
should be entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief, the
lawsuit claims.

The Plaintiff worked at Sweetwater's Sonic drive-in restaurant in
Wauchula, Florida; her employment ended approximately a decade
before the events.

Sweetwater operates approximately 30 Sonic drive-in restaurants,
including twelve 12 locations in Florida; 17 locations in
Mississippi; and one (1) location in Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradley S. Kelly, Esq.
          Patrick A. Barthle, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PLLC
          4450 Old Canton Road, Suite 200
          Jackson, MS 39211
          Telephone: (601) 718-0946
          E-mail: bkelly@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

SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Class Deal in Securities Suit Gets Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case
No. 3:18-cv-1818-VAB (D. Conn.), Judge Victor A. Bolden of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut grants the
Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the settlement and plan of
allocation, and the Plaintiffs' Counsel's motion for attorney's
fees and expenses.

In a Ruling and Order dated Feb. 3, 2023, in this consolidated
securities class action, the Court certified the Action to proceed
as a class action on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Synchrony
Financial during the period from Jan. 19, 2018, through July 12,
2018, inclusive, and who were damaged.

Lead Plaintiff Stichting Depositary APG Developed Markets Equity
Pool ("Lead Plaintiff" or "APG") and Plaintiff Stichting Depositary
APG Fixed Income Credits Pool (collectively, the "Plaintiffs"), on
behalf of themselves and the Class; and Defendants Synchrony
Financial ("Synchrony" or the "Company"), Margaret M. Keane, Brian
D. Doubles, and Thomas M. Quindlen have entered into a Stipulation
and Agreement of Settlement dated April 3, 2023, that provides for
a complete dismissal with prejudice of the claims asserted in the
Action on the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation,
subject to the approval of the Court.

The Parties seek approval of the Settlement and the Plan of
Allocation. The Plaintiffs' Counsel seek approval of an award of
attorneys' fees equal to 13% of the Settlement Fund, payment of
$566,401.13 in Litigation Expenses to the Plaintiffs' Counsel, and
$46,700 for costs incurred by the Plaintiffs directly related to
their representation of the Class. On July 6, 2023, Marilyn Wheeler
filed the only objection to the Settlement. A fairness hearing was
held on July 31, 2023.

On Feb. 5, 2019, the Court appointed Stichting Depositary APG as
the Lead Plaintiff and approved BLB&G as the Lead Counsel for the
proposed class. On June 24, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to
certify a class, a memorandum of law in support, and a declaration
from Adam H. Wierzbowski with supporting documents including a
study done by Dr. Steven Feinstein. On Feb. 3, 2023, the Court
issued a Ruling and Order granting the motion to certify the class
and appointing Lead Plaintiff as the Class Representative. On April
7, 2023, the Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary
settlement approval.

On April 12, 2023, the Court granted the motion for preliminary
settlement approval. On April 12 and 13, 2023, the counsel for the
Defendants, under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section
1715 ("CAFA"), sent notices to the appropriate federal and state
officials.

On May 5, 2023, the Court-approved Claims Administrator, Epiq,
began mailing copies of the Notice Packet to potential Class
Members. Beginning on May 5, 2023, copies of the Notice, Claim
Form, Stipulation, Preliminary Approval Order, and Complaint were
made available on the settlement website maintained by Epiq. On May
22, 2023, Epiq caused the Summary Notice to be published in The
Wall Street Journal and Investor's Business Daily. See id. ¶ 8. As
of June 23, 2023, Epiq had disseminated 156,117 copies of the
Notice Packet to potential Class Members and nominees.

On June 26, 2023, the Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for final
approval of the Settlement and Plan of Allocation.

On June 26, 2023, Class Counsel filed a motion for attorney fees
and litigation expenses. On July 6, 2023, Wheeler filed the only
objection to the proposed Settlement. On July 24, 2023, the Lead
Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion for final
approval of the Settlement and motion for attorney fees and
litigation expenses.

Judge Bolden finds that the proposed Settlement is fair,
reasonable, adequate, and in the best interest of the class. He
further finds the Settlement to be the product of extensive arm's
length negotiations conducted by highly experienced counsel. He
therefore certifies the Settlement Class and approves the proposed
Settlement.

Judge Bolden orders that only the following three individuals,
entities, or organizations identified by the Lead Counsel as having
opted-out of the Settlement Class have timely and properly excluded
themselves from the Settlement Class and, therefore, are not
members of the Settlement Class, and are not bound by the terms of
the Settlement Agreement, this Ruling and Order, or the associated
Judgment: (i) Ryan J. Cap, Chicago, IL; (ii) John W. Harrison,
Gambrills, MD; and (iii) Timothy S. Truesdell, Mt. Pleasant, SC.

Accordingly, the Action and all of the claims asserted against the
Defendants in the Action by the Plaintiffs and the Class Members
are dismissed with prejudice as to all Defendants. The Parties will
bear their own costs and expenses, except as otherwise expressly
provided in the Stipulation.

The terms of the Stipulation and of the Ruling and Order will be
forever binding on the Defendants, the Plaintiffs, and all the
Class Members, as well as their respective successors and assigns.
The persons and entities named are excluded from the Class based on
their own request and are not bound by the terms of the Stipulation
or the Ruling and Order.

Without affecting the finality of this Ruling and Order in any way,
the Court retains continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over: (a)
the Parties for purposes of the administration, interpretation,
implementation, and enforcement of the Settlement; (b) the
disposition of the Settlement Fund; (c) any motion to approve the
Class Distribution Order; and (d) the Class Members for all matters
relating to the Action.

Without further approval from the Court, the Plaintiffs and the
Defendants are authorized to agree to and adopt such amendments or
modifications of the Stipulation or any exhibits attached thereto
to effectuate the Settlement that: (a) are not materially
inconsistent with this Judgment; and (b) do not materially limit
the rights of Class Members in connection with the Settlement.
Without further order of the Court, the Plaintiffs and the
Defendants may agree to reasonable extensions of time to carry out
any provisions of the Settlement.

If the Settlement is terminated as provided in the Stipulation or
the Effective Date of the Settlement otherwise fails to occur, the
Judgment will be vacated, rendered null and void, and be of no
further force and effect, except as otherwise provided by the
Stipulation, and the Judgment will be without prejudice to the
rights of the Plaintiffs, the Class Members, and the Defendants,
and the Parties will revert to their respective positions in the
Action immediately before the execution of the Parties' Memorandum
of Understanding on Jan. 17, 2023, as provided in the Stipulation.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment,
consistent with the Ruling and Order, and to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2023 Ruling & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/t4bybm6y from Leagle.com.


TASHKENT SUPERMARKET: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
POKIZA ABDUSAMATOVA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TASHKENT SUPERMARKET LLC; and
ODILJON TURSUNOV, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-06220-DG-RML
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 18, 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 Abdusamatova was employed by the Defendants as a
cashier.

TASHKENT SUPERMARKET LLC owns and operates multiple supermarkets in
New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq.
         STEVENSON MARINO LLP
         445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 1500
         White Plains, NY 10601
         Telephone: (212) 939-7229

TEACHERS INSURANCE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, King Allleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHAY L. KING, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TEACHERS INSURANCE AND ANNUITY ASSOCIATION
OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-07407-VSB (S.D.N.Y., Aug.
21, 2023) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to
properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members'
personally identifiable information stored within the Defendant's
information network, including, without limitation, full names,
dates of birth, addresses, driver's license numbers, and Social
Security numbers, or the personally identifiable information.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to hold the
Defendant responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to
cause the Plaintiff and, at least, thousands of other similarly
situated persons in the massive and preventable cyberattack
purportedly discovered by the Defendant on May 31, 2023, in which
cybercriminals infiltrated the Defendant's inadequately protected
network servers and accessed highly sensitive PII that was being
kept unprotected ("Data Breach").

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

As a result, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was compromised
through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party—an
undoubtedly nefarious third party seeking to profit off this
disclosure by defrauding the Plaintiff and Class Members in the
future.

TEACHERS INSURANCE AND ANNUITY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA is a
financial services organization that is a provider of financial
services in the academic, research, medical, cultural and
governmental fields.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Jared R. Cooper, Esq.
           ROBINSON YABLON COOPER
           & BONFANTE, LLP
           232 Madison Avenue, Suite 909
           New York, NY 10016
           Telephone: (212) 725-8566
           Facsimile: (212) 725-8567
           Email: jared@rycbinjury.com

                - and -

           Daniel Srourian, Esq.
           SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
           3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
           Los Angeles, CA 90010
           Telephone: (213) 474-3800
           Facsimile: (213) 471-4160
           Email: daniel@slfla.com

TESLA INC: Van Diest Sues Over False Ads of Vehicles' Driving Range
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL VAN DIEST and SERGEY KHALIKULOV, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. TESLA, INC. dba TESLA MOTORS, Case
No. 3:23-cv-04098-LB (N.D. Cal., Aug 11, 2023) arises from alleged
Tesla's defective and deceptive manufacturing, marketing, sale,
maintenance, and service of its electric automobiles, which
consistently fail to meet their advertised driving range.

To achieve its advertised driving ranges, Tesla uses a
range-testing regime intentionally designed to produce high range
estimates. The driving conditions used in this range-testing regime
do not reflect the driving conditions that buyers encounter in the
real world. Therefore, every Tesla model's actual driving range is
considerably lower than its advertised driving range, the Plaintiff
contends.

Additionally, Tesla attempts to conceal the defectiveness of its
products after purchase. First, Tesla rigs its onboard range gauges
to deceive drivers as to available range. Second, Tesla uses a team
of employees to persuade complaining customers that its automobiles
are not defective and otherwise to dissuade complaining customers
from making or keeping service appointments, which Tesla knows
would be fruitless.

Thus, Tesla allegedly engages in a three-fold fraud that begins
before purchase and extends through ownership. To right these
wrongs, on behalf of themselves and the proposed classes, the
Plaintiffs seek damages, restitution, statutory damages, and
attorneys' fees for Defendant's deceptive practices. Because
Tesla's conduct is continuing, the Plaintiffs also bring this
action on behalf of the general public to enjoin Tesla from
continuing to mislead current and prospective Tesla owners
regarding the driving range on its cars.

Accordingly, Tesla knows that driving range is one of the most
important factors to consumers deciding whether to purchase a
gasoline vehicle, hybrid vehicle, or electric vehicle. For that
reason, Tesla prominently advertises its vehicles' estimated
driving range in nearly all of its marketing and across all
marketing channels, the suit asserts.

Plaintiff Van Diest purchased a new Tesla Model 3 Long Range from
Tesla in May 2021. He opted to purchase the long-range version of
the Model 3 because he wanted to maximize his driving range.

Plaintiff Khalikulov purchased a used 2020 Tesla Model 3 Long Range
in December 2022. Khalikulov's Model 3, fully charged, indicates
that the vehicle has 281 miles of range as opposed to the 322 miles
advertised by Tesla.

Tesla designs and manufactures electric vehicles, stationary
battery energy storage devices from home to grid-scale, solar
panels and solar shingles, and related products and services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          KALIELGOLD PLLC
          950 Gilman Street, Suite 200
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (202) 350-4783
          E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com
                  jkaliel@kalielpllc.com

                - and -

          Francisco Guerra IV, Esq.
          Jennifer A. Neal, Esq.
          WATTS GUERRA LLP
          875 East Ashby Place, Suite 1200
          San Antonio, TX 78212
          Telephone: (210) 447-0500
          E-mail: fguerra@wattsguerra.com
                  jneal@wattsguerra.com

TEXAS TACO: Fails to Pay Cooks' OT Wages Under FLSA, Ramirez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS RAMIREZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. TEXAS TACO OF SAYVILLE INC., SAMIH NELOVIC,
and ANTHONY EATMAN, Case No. 2:23-cv-06089 (E.D.N.Y., Aug 11, 2023)
alleges that the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff premium
overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of forty hours per
week, failed to furnish a proper wage notice at the time of hire,
and failed to provide accurate wage statements for each pay period
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

For the period of 2018 through 2020, the Plaintiff regularly worked
50 hours per workweek. From April 2021 through the termination of
his employment, the Plaintiff regularly worked 53 hours per
workweek.

Throughout his employment, the Defendants would compensate the
Plaintiff at his straight time rates of pay for all hours worked,
including those hours worked after 40 hours per workweek.
Therefore, at no time during Plaintiff's employment was he
compensated at a rate of one and one-half times his regular hourly
rate for any hours worked in excess of 40 each week, the suit
claims.

The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against the Defendants pursuant
to the collective action provisions of the FLSA, on behalf of
himself, individually, and on behalf of all other persons
similarly-situated during the applicable FLSA limitations period
who suffered damages as a result of the Defendants' willful
violations of the FLSA.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a line cook from in
2018 through 2020, and then again from April 2021 through August
2022.

Texas Taco is in the business of preparing and selling tacos,
burritos, and other Latin-style food.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq.
          ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC
          490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Telephone: (631) 257-5588

THERMO FISHER: Fails to Pay Timely Wages, Dechirico Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
WAYNE DECHIRICO v. THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC, INC., Case No.
612841/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Aug 11, 2023) is a class action alleging
the Defendant for paying its manual workers every other week rather
than on a weekly basis, in violation of the New York Labor Law.

More than 25% of Plaintiff's job responsibilities included manual
labor, including tasks such as operating a lift to move, load and
unload rolls of printing material, loading and unloading printing
material onto and off of printing presses, cleaning printing
presses and related equipment, and changing ink in printing
presses.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class defined as all persons
employed by Defendant's Bohemia location in the State of New York
from March 13, 2017, to the present who earned nine hundred dollars
a week or less; and/or did not have the authority to hire and fire
other employees.

Members of the Class include Inventory Coordinator, Equipment
Operator, Equipment Maintenance Mechanic, Pressman, Technician,
Manufacturing Team Leader, Maintenance Technician, and other
hourly-paid employees who perform similar physical tasks.

Excluded from the class are salaried, executive employees, and
those responsible for hiring and/or firing employees that are also
paid in excess of nine hundred dollars a week

The Plaintiff therefore demands liquidated damages, interest, and
attorneys' fees on behalf of himself and a putative class comprised
of all manual workers employed by the Defendant in New York State
over the last six years.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Pressman in
Bohemia, New York, from May 2008 to January 2023.

Thermo Fisher is an American supplier of analytical instruments,
life sciences solutions, specialty diagnostics, laboratory,
pharmaceutical and biotechnology services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1330 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com
                  aleslie@bursor.com

TOMAR ENTERPRISES: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tomar Enterprises,
Inc. The case is styled as Maria DiMeglio, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Tomar Enterprises, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-07440 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 22, 2023).

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

Tomar Enterprises, Inc. doing business as Good Sports --
https://www.goodsports.org/ -- builds healthy clubs and strong
communities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com


UNIBARNS TRADING: Faces Riley Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SPASOSHION RILEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. UNIBARNS TRADING INC., D/B/A UNICE.COM, Case
No. 8:23-cv-01493 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 14, 2023) contends that the
Defendant promotes and markets its products and services, in part,
by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in
violation of Oklahoma's Telephone Solicitation Act.

To send the text messages, the Defendant used a messaging platform,
which permitted the Defendant to transmit blasts of text messages
automatically and without any human involvement. Moreover, the
telephone number utilized by the Defendant to send the messages
(97918) is known as a short-code. Text messages utilizing a
short-code can only be sent utilizing automated computer equipment
and not a traditional telephone. At no point in time did the
Plaintiff provide the Defendant with her express written consent to
be contacted, the lawsuit claims.

The Defendant's unsolicited text messages caused Plaintiff actual
harm. Specifically, the Plaintiff estimates that she has wasted
fifteen to thirty seconds reviewing each of the Defendant's
unwanted messages. Next, the Plaintiff wasted approximately fifteen
minutes locating and retaining counsel for this case in order to
stop the Defendant's unwanted calls. In all, the Defendant's
violations of the OTSA caused Plaintiff to waste at least fifteen
minutes of her time in addressing and attempting to stop
Defendant's solicitations, the Plaintiff asserts.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's
illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy,
harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of
thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory
damages on behalf of herself and members of the Class, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies.

The Plaintiff is the subscriber and sole user of the 1417 Number
and is financially responsible for phone service to the 1417
Number.

Defendant is an online women's wig company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          1925 Century Park E 1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

UNITED STATES: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 12, 2024
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Larisa Popkova DSHS
Employee No. 1, Paula Brantner-Thomas DSHS Employee No. 2,
Katherine Rowlette DSHS Employee No. 3, Karen Robbins DSHS Employee
No. 4, Gary C. Bright DSHS Employee No. 5, on behalf of themselves
and all other similarly situated persons, v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
AND HEALTH SERVICES, Don Clintsman and Jilma Meneses DOES 1-50.,
Case No. 3:23-cv-05130-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge David G.
Estudillo entered an order setting class certification briefing
schedule:

  Reports from any retained experts under          Sept. 29, 2023
  Rule 26(a)(2) on whose opinions Plaintiffs
  will rely in moving for class certification

  Rebuttal expert reports relating to class        Nov. 9, 2023
  certification

  Class certification-related discovery            Dec. 8, 2023
  complete

  Deadline to file motion for class                Jan. 12, 2024
  certification

  Response to Plaintiff's motion for class         Feb. 16, 2024
  certification

  Reply in support of motion for class             Feb. 23, 2024
  Certification

Department of Social and Health Services is Washington's social
services department.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sdbjf9 at no extra
charge.[CC] 


UNITED STATES: Mag. Judge Endorses Dismissal of Robertson v. Biden
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, recommends that
the Court dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint in the lawsuit styled
RACHEL ROBERTSON, Plaintiff v. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-2473 (S.D. Ohio).

Plaintiff Rachel Robertson, an Ohio resident proceeding without the
assistance of counsel, has submitted a request to file a civil
action in forma pauperis. The Court grants the Plaintiff's request
to proceed in forma pauperis. All judicial officers, who render
services in this action, will do so as if the costs had been
prepaid.

The matter is also before the Court for the initial screen of the
Plaintiff's Complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)
to identify cognizable claims and to recommend dismissal of the
Plaintiff's Complaint, or any portion of it, which is frivolous,
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
or seeks monetary relief from a defendant, who is immune from such
relief.

Having performed the initial screen, for the reasons that follow,
Judge Vascura recommends that the Court dismiss the Plaintiff's
Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1915(e)(2).

The Plaintiff alleges she was injured by one or more executive
orders issued by Defendant Joseph Biden, President of the United
States, mandating COVID-19 vaccinations for healthcare workers,
employees of the federal government or federal contractors, or
employees of employers with 100 or more employees. She alleges that
she suffered overwhelming stress due to having to choose between
keeping her job and her personal and religious beliefs precluding
vaccination before she ultimately resigned from her job.

The Plaintiff also complains that President Biden coerced social
media platforms to suppress free speech and spread misinformation
regarding the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines by threatening to
amend Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act to punish social
media platforms, who did not adhere to his demands.

The Plaintiff purports to assert her claims directly against
President Biden in his individual capacity. As relief, the
Plaintiff requests that President Biden be required to fund a
public access radio and television station, to be managed and
formatted by the Plaintiff, in the amount of $400,000 per year for
not less than eight years. She also asserts class action claims on
behalf of other American citizens, who were similarly harmed.

Judge Vascura opines that the Plaintiff's claims are barred by the
doctrine of presidential immunity, which entitles the President of
the United States to absolute immunity from damages liability
predicated on his official acts.

Although the Plaintiff purportedly sues President Biden in his
individual capacity, the allegedly unlawful conduct--issuing
executive orders and engaging in discourse regarding potential
legislative amendments--was unquestionably undertaken in his
official capacity as President of the United States. President
Biden is, therefore, entitled to absolute immunity from the
Plaintiff's claims.

For these reasons, Judge Vascura recommends that the Court
dismisses the action pursuant to Section 1915(e)(2) for failure to
state a claim on which relief may be granted.

If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party
may, within 14 days of the date of this Report, file and serve on
all parties written objections to those specific proposed findings
or recommendations to which objection is made, together with
supporting authority for the objection(s).

A District Judge of the Court will make a de novo determination of
those portions of the Report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made. Upon proper objections,
a District Judge of the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein, may
receive further evidence or may recommit this matter to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions.

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the
Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to
have the District Judge review the Report and Recommendation de
novo, and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the
decision of the District Court adopting the Report and
Recommendation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order and Report and Recommendation
dated Aug. 3, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mwf5h3sj
from Leagle.com.


WALMART INC: Oettle's Two Claims for Breach of Warranty Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TRISTA OETTLE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALMART, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:20-cv-455-DWD (S.D. Ill.), Judge David W. Dugan of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois grants
Walmart's motion for summary judgment on Oettle's remaining claims
for Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Count I) and
Breach of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (Count II).

In 2018, Oettle purchased a total of four Balloon Time helium tank
kits from Walmart on three separate occasions (March 31, 2018, May
26, 2018, and July 24, 2018). She purchased the kits to inflate
balloons for her children's birthday parties and claims they failed
to keep balloons afloat for a sufficiently long period of time. The
Court granted in part and denied in part Walmart's motion to
dismiss. Specifically, the Court denied Walmart's motion to dismiss
Counts I and II because a factual issue existed regarding the
reasonableness of any delay in giving pre-suit notice. Discovery
ensued, and Walmart now moves for summary judgment on Oettle's
remaining claims Count I and Count II. Walmart contends that it is
entitled to summary judgment as to both claims because Oettle
failed to provide timely pre-suit notice. Oettle opposes the Motion
and Walmart has filed a reply in support of its Motion.

As noted, Oettle purchased four Kits from the Walmart in Carlyle,
Illinois on three separate occasions in 2018 to inflate balloons
for her children's birthday parties. The Kits Oettle purchased
represented on the box that the inflated balloons would have a
"float time" of "5-7 hours." Oettle used each Kit on the day of
purchase. According to her, all four of the Kits performed the same
way with no balloons staying afloat more than two hours.

Oettle claims that, on Jan. 27, 2020 -- 21 months and 27 days after
her first Kit purchase -- she and her husband wrote a letter to
Walmart, attempting to obtain a refund. She says she mailed the
letter to Walmart, but she is not sure where she mailed the letter.
She testified that she "probably" mailed the letter to the Walmart
in Carlyle, Illinois. The letter did not provide any information
for Walmart to be able to contact Oettle or for use in identifying
the transaction or transactions in issue, referring only to "this
balloon time helium tank you sold me about two years ago." The
letter is signed, but the signature is illegible.

Oettle has presented no evidence showing the letter was actually
mailed, the address to which it was mailed, or that it was in fact
delivered. The Walmart store in Carlyle has no record of ever
having received the letter, and the Walmart Contact Center (the
team within Walmart that receives and resolves inquiries and
concerns from customers) has no record of ever having received the
letter.

The Plaintiff has disposed of two of the four helium tanks she
purchased and of the balloons. The two remaining helium tanks are
sitting on her porch.

Walmart contends that it is entitled to summary judgment because
(1) it never received Oettle's letter; (2) even if it did receive
Oettle's letter, the notice was insufficient because it failed to
identify a particular transaction; and/or (3) even if Walmart did
receive Oettle's letter, the letter was not provided within a
reasonable time. Oettle contends that whether she sent, and Walmart
received, her letter is a disputed fact that must be viewed in a
light most favorable to her.

Judge Dugan agrees. Nonetheless, even assuming Walmart received
Oettle's letter, her breach of warranty claim fails as a matter of
law.

First, Oettle's letter fails to identify a particular transaction.
The letter vaguely describes the unidentified buyer's expectation
that when "you buy helium to inflate a balloon that it would
inflate a balloon for more than a few hours." Second, given the
circumstances of the case, the lapse of time between when Oettle
knew of the alleged defect to when she gave notice -- 21 months and
27 days -- is unreasonable as a matter of law.

For these reasons, Walmart's Motion for Summary Judgment as to
Oettle's claim for Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability is
granted. Further, because the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
incorporates state-law notice requirements, Oettle's Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act claim fails as well.

Oettle's Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability claim (Count
I) and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act claim (Count II) are dismissed
with prejudice. Oettle's Motion for Class Certification is denied
as moot. The Order disposes of the entire action. Accordingly, the
Clerk of Court is directed to close the case and to enter judgment
accordingly.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 2, 2023 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bdf34hjt from Leagle.com.


WASHINGTON NEWSPAPER: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 19, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pileggi v. WASHINGTON
NEWSPAPER PUBLISHING COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00345 (D.D.C.,
Filed Feb. 7, 2023), the Hon. Judge Beryl A. Howell entered an
order setting deadlines for Plaintiff motion for class
certification for Jan. 19, 2024.

Washington Newspaper was founded in 2006. The Company's line of
business includes publishing newspapers.[CC]


                            *********

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 ***