---

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

              Friday, September 1, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 176

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Brown Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina
3M COMPANY: Garza Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina
3M COMPANY: Knight Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina
3M COMPANY: Sherbert Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina
3M COMPANY: Vaughn Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina

ACCELL COMPANIES: Campbell Sues Over Unlawful Misclassification
AHLSTROM-RHINELANDER: Faces Class Action Over PFAS Contamination
ALBA CARTING: Faces Gutierrez Suit Over Workers' Unpaid Wages
ALBERTSONS COS: Settles Safeway BOGO Meat Sales Class Action
ALLSTATE INDEMNITY: Court OKs Free Bid to Certify Class

ALLSTATE VEHICLE: Policyholder Class Certified in Mitchell Suit
ALTUS DIRECT: PHRC Files Amended Placeholder Class Cert Bid
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Class Cert Filing in Ismail Extended to Sept. 1
AMERICAN INCOME: Fuld Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
AMERICAN TUNA: Craig Suit Seeks to Certify New York Class

AMP LTD: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $110 Million
ANADARKO E & P: Compelled to Produce Several Documents
ANGEL ARSH: Faces Hanif Suit Over Clerks' Unpaid Wages
ANYWHERE REAL ESTATE: Continues to Defend Nasalek Class Suit
APPLE INC: Agrees to Settle Class Action Suit Over Software Updates

APTDECO INC: Dawson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
APTDECO INC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AUSTRALIA: Public Housing Tenants File Suit Over Removal Program
AUTO-CHLOR SYSTEM: Conditional Status of Collective Action Sought
AUTOMOBILE CLUB: Cervantes FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. California

AUTOZONERS LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April 5, 2024
BAE SYSTEMS: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Replies
BAE SYSTEMS: Parties Seek to Continue Hearing Date
BAUSCH HEALTH COMPANIES: Faces Kelk Suit Over B&L Spinoff
BAYSIDE CONTRACTING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Saldivar Alleges

BECTON DICKINSON: IP A/S Wins Class Certification Bid
BIKE-ON.COM INC: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BLUE KNIGHT GLOBAL: Dias Sues Over Illegal Background Check
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Faces Consolidated Suit Over LOTUS System Recall
BRENES LAW: Court Enters General Pretrial Management in LRAL Suit

BRINKER RESTAURANT: Byrant Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
BRODER BROS: Peraza Suit Removed to E.D. California
CABOO PAPER: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CANADA: Class Action Suit Over Privacy Breach Certified
CANADA: Faces Class Suit Over CRA Privacy Breach

CAPE COD POND: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CAPITAL ONE: Buckles Sues Over Deceptive Credit Card Sign-Up Bonus
CARDILLO INC: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CARDINAL HEALTH: Louisiana Sheriffs Seek OK of Settlement
CARGILL INC: Judge Dismisses Price-Fixing Class Action Suit

CARSON-NEWMAN UNIVERSITY: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CASCADE LIVING: Filing for Class Cert Bids Due May 6, 2024
CASEY'S GENERAL: Loses Bid to Dismiss in Part Kessler Suit
CITADEL SERVICING: Class Cert Filing Deadline Modified to Nov. 30
COFFEYVILLE RESOURCES: El Dorado Seeks to Certify Settlement Class

COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Faces Class Action Over Toothpaste False Ads
COLUMBIA BANKING: Faces Fraud Charge in Marin County
COLUMBIA BANKING: Faces Fraud Charge in Northern California
COMERICA BANK: Court Narrows Claims in Sparkman Suit
COMERICA INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due October 20

CONGO BRANDS: Berrios Sues Over Mislabeled Energy Drinks
CONSTELLATION NEWENERGY: Birnhack Sues Over Unlawful Pricing
CRAWFORD & COMPANY: Jackson Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT
DEBT COLLECTORS: Harvasty Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
DELAWARE: Court Narrows Claims in Crichlow Suit

DELTA AIR: Seeks Dismissal of Carbon-Neutral Class Action
DEWEY'S BAKERY: Bullock Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DOCTORS MEDICAL: Beltran Files Suit Over Disclosure of Private Info
DOLE PLC: Settles False Ads Class Action Suit for $4.3-M
DOT FOODS: Faces Class Suit Over Sharing of Workers' Health Records

DRESSER LLC: Bid to Certify Class of Property Related Claims Tossed
ECHOSTAR CORP: May Face Class Action Over Dish Network Merger Plan
ELECTROLUX HOME: Seeks Dismissal of Parker's Amended Class Action
ELITE MEDICAL: Sued Over EMTs Traffic Ticket Paycheck Deductions
EMBRY-RIDDLE: Lopez Seeks to Certify Class of Plan Participants

EMMA MATTRESS: Faces Johnson Suit Over Mattresses' False Sale Price
ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS: Smith Sues Over Failure to Secure Info
EP GLOBAL PRODUCTION: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Replogle Says
ESSA BANCORP: Continues to Defend RESPA Class Suit
EXICURE INC: Seeks Dismissal of Colwell Securities Suit

EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Adams Sues Over Sherman Antitrust Act Breach
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Court Ruling in FCRA Class Suit Discussed
F.L. CROOKS & CO: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FACEAPP TECHNOLOGY: Faces Class Action Suit Over BIPA Violations
FARADAY FUTURE: Continues to Defend Stockholder Class Suit in DE

FENWICK & WEST: Cabo Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
FIRST-CALL MEDICAL: Underpays Cardiac Technicians, Joseph Says
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Takes Digital Payments, Not Settlement Checks
FIRSTSUN CAPITAL: Continues to Defend Besser Class Suit
FRANK BRUNCKHORST: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cooke Suit Alleges

FRANK KENDALL: Claims in Johnson Suit Narrowed
FRANKLIN MINT: Brown Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Faces Callejas Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
FUNPLUS INTERNATIONAL: Faces Guns of Glory False Ads Class Action
GANNETT CO: Faces Class Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Pay

GERON CORPORATION: Settlement in Consolidated Suit Wins Initial Nod
GIFTED NURSES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Amended to Feb. 2, 2024
GOBRANDS INC: Faces Stern TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
GOLDMAN SACHS INT'L: Commodities Antitrust Suit Dismissed
GOLDMAN SACHS: Consolidated Suit Over VRDO Ongoing

GOLDMAN SACHS: Consolidated Suits Over Rate Swaps Ongoing
GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement Reached in Commodities Antitrust Suit
GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Suit for Wiretapping Taxpayer Data
GROUPON INC: Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Approval
H&R BLOCK: Caimano Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania

HAWAIIAN AIRLINES: O'Hailpin Seeks Extension of Class Cert Deadline
HCA HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN: Berry Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
HOST INTERNATIONAL: Class Cert. Hearing Extended to Sept. 21
HOWARD UNIVERSITY: Faces Whetstone Suit Over Shortchanging Retirees

INDEPENDENT HOME: Class Cert Bid Filing Due June 11, 2024
INDIVIOR PLC: Settles End Payor Class Claims in Suboxone Suit
INFOARMOR INC: Munoz Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
INOTIV INC: Continues to Defend Grobler Securities Class Suit
INTERLOCK SECURITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ferraro Alleges

JONES FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Anderson Class Suit
JONES FINANCIAL: Court Narrows Claims in Zigler Suit
JONES FINANCIAL: Loses Bid to Junk Dixon Discrimination Suit
JUICE PLUS+ COMPANY: Wahab Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KEVIN CARR: Seeks Denial of Antrim Bid for Class Certification

KEYCORP: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of October 3 Deadline
KILOLO KIJAKAZI: Campos Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
KISS NUTRACEUTICALS: Gamboa Seeks to Certify Class of Workers
KLAUSSNER FURNITURE: Chavis Sues Over Layoff Without Prior Notice
L9 SPORTS: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

LEE'S HOUSE: Faces Lin Suit Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Wages
LENSAR INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due October 17
LINQ BUSLINES: Father of Crash Victim Mulls Class Action
MALONE UNIVERSITY: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
MANUFACTURERS & TRADERS: Rainey Suit Removed to S.D. Texas

MEHMET ILHAN: Cunningham Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Florida
MEMPHIS, TN: Appeals Ruling  in Rape Kit Class Action Suit
META PLATFORMS: Vigo County School to Join Social Media Class Suit
MONASH IVF: Faces Class Suit Over Using Embryos Without Consent
NAIMA PHARMACY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Campos Alleges

NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Settles Suit Over Cancelled Hall of Fame Game
NEW SOUTH WALES: Faces Class Suit Over Fatal Wedding Bus Crash
NEW YORK DMV: Ugo-Alum Files Suit in S.D. New York
OCUGEN INC: Securities Class Suit Reply Brief Due September
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Court Dismisses Munoz Suit

OCWEN FINANCIAL: Faces Weiner Suit in California
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Settlement in Thacker Suit Wins Final Nod
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Tentative Settlement Reached in Forest Suit
PALM BEACH ATLANTIC: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
PEI OHIO INC: Cervantes Suit Removed to C.D. California

PEPPER'S PERFORMANCE: Wahab Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PERFORMANCE HEALTH: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Ballard Says
PHH MORTGAGE: Settlement in Torliatt Suit Wins Final Nod
PHH MORTGAGE: Settlement Reached in Morris Suit
PIZZETTE LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Domingo Suit Alleges

POKE FIDI: Fails to Pay Server's Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
POLK COUNTY, FL: Teacher's Union Files Class Action Grievance
PREMIUM RETAIL: Fails to Pay Merchandiser's Minimum & OT Wages
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Sued Over Failure to Maintain Cybersecurity
QANTAS AIRWAYS: Fails to Refund COVID Cancelled Flights, Suit Says

QTC COMMERCIAL: Ross Sues Over Failure to Protect PII
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Lens Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Debt
RBH DESIGNS: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
REGAL REXNORD: Perez Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Wisconsin
REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces RICO Suit Over Medical Benefits

RES-CARE INC: Saldana Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach
RESIDENCE INN: Kyri Suit Removed to C.D. California
RESONETICS LLC: Reyes Suit Removed to S.D. California
RESORT LIFESTYLE: Pierson Sues Over Non-Payment of Overtime Wages
RHG & COMPANY: Wahab Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

RIPPLE BEHAVIOR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chochola Alleges
ROBLOX CORP: Faces Suit for Facilitating Illegal Child Gambling
SAFEWAY INCORPORATED: Ehrmantraut Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
SALCEDO CARGO: Bloise Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF: Altmann Files Suit in D. California

SANSUM CLINIC: Discloses Info to FB Without Consent, Rose Says
SARTHAK EXPRESS: Kumar Sues Over Truck Drivers' Unpaid Wages
SENTECH SERVICES: Bobo Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
SEVEN STORIES PRESS: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SHIFT4 PAYMENTS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 19

SHREDLY LLC: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SIMMONS FIRST: Wins Suit vs Wilkins on Overdraft Fees
SLASHOP INC: Shea Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SMARTLINK LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Coleman Alleges
SOUTH32 LTD: Sued Over Workers' Inadequate Training, Equipment

SPORTSWEAR INC: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SPRUCE POWER: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit in NY
ST. DOMINIC HEALTH: Class Cert Bid Filing Due April 15, 2024
STABILITY AI: Seeks to Stay Discovery in Andersen Suit
STATE FARM MUTUAL: Yancey Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois

STEEL DYNAMICS: Baird Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
STELLANTIS NV: Stichting Car Claims Certified as Class Action
STONE & SAUNDERS: Newman Files TCPA Suit in D. Colorado
STORMY KROMER: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: Continues to Defend Winter Class Suit

STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: Judge Grants in Part Motion to Dismiss Suit
SUBWAY RESTAURANTS: Court OK's Amin Bid to Dismiss Suit
SUNTRUST BANKS: Randle Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Settlement in WDS Union Suit OK'd
TACOS JAM: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Espinoza Claims

TALARIS THERAPEUTICS: Juan Monteverde Probes Tourmaline Merger
TAPESTRY INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Amended to Feb. 27, 2024
TAPESTRY INC: Class Certification Discovery Due Jan. 17, 2024
TAPESTRY INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Feb. 27, 2024
TARGET CORPORATION: Alonso Suit Removed to C.D. California

TARGET CORPORATION: General Pretrial Management Entered in Alonzia
TEACHERS INSURANCE: Andersen Files Suit in S.D. New York
TEMASEK HOLDINGS: Cabo Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
TGI FRIDAYS: Gragnano Seeks to Certify Employee Class & Subclasses
TOYOTA MOTOR: Settles Class Suit for $78.5M Over Air Bag Control

TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Parties Seek Scheduling Order for Class Status
TYLER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Over Software Defects
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Binter Sues Over Illegal Pre-Recorded Calls
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Jubran Files Suit in D. Minnesota
UNITED PARCEL: Todd Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

UNUM GROUP: Williams Files Suit in E.D. Tennessee
USA TODAY: Fails to Pay Site Editors' OT Wages Under FLSA
USA VEIN CLINICS: Gallardo Sues Over Labor Code Violations
UUUUU INC: Morgan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
VACAVILLE FRUIT CO: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

VAXART INC: Faces Chan Action in California Court
VERTAFORE INC: Data Breach Suit Over Drivers' License Dismissed
WALKING DEPOT: Wahab Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WERFEN USA: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Degroat Alleges
WEST VIRGINIA: Court Certifies Class Suit Over Foster Care System

WESTERN DIGITAL: Faces Two More Class Suits Over SanDisk SSDs
WESTERN ILLINOIS: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Cesca
WESTFIELD, MA: Denies Allegations in Wage Theft Lawsuit
WHISKERS HOLISTIC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
WILDFLOUR BAKERY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ford Suit Alleges

WINDSOR PROPERTY: Forget FCRA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
WINTERGREEN NORTHERN: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WOLVERINE WORLD WIDE: Wahab Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WONDEREN STROOPWAFELS: Martinez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WRIGHT TRAFFIC: Johnson Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania

WYNDHAM VACATION: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
XPO LOGISTICS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 15, 2024
YAMAHA MOTOR: Faces Higgins Class Suit Over Fuel Level Defects
ZA & D SERVICE: Kasseris FLSA Suit Transferred to E.D. New York

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Defends 3,432 Active Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNS Sub Has 55 Pending Claims as of June 30, 2023
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Has $446MM Reserves at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Met-Pro Has 261 Pending Exposure Cases

ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Faces 512 PI Lawsuits as of June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: OfficeMax Defends Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Republic Has $85.7MM Net A&E Loss Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Paramount Global Reports 20,750 Pending Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Faces 112 Exposure Cases

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Perrigo Co. Defends 92 Product Liability Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Faces Numerous Product Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Has 557 Exposure Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Faces Exposure Lawsuits


                            *********

3M COMPANY: Brown Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Charles Brown, et al., and others similarly
situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00906 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina on Aug. 22, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-04190-RMG to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability.

3M -- https://www.3m.com/ -- (originally the Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company) is an American multinational conglomerate
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare and
consumer goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
          Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
          Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
          ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
          2160 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Phone: 205-328-9200
          Facsimile: 205-328-9456
          Email: gregc@elglaw.com
                 gary@elglaw.com
                  kmckie@elglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          M. Christian King, Esq.
          Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq.
          W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq.
          Wesley B. Gilchrist, Esq.
          LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C.
          The Clark Building
          400 North 20th Street
          Birmingham, AL 35203-3200
          Phone: (205) 581-0700
          Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com
                 hprater@lightfootlaw.com
                 lradney@lightfootlaw.com
                 wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com


3M COMPANY: Garza Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Fred Garza, et al., and others similarly
situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00892 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina on Aug. 22, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-04203-RMG to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability.

3M -- https://www.3m.com/ -- (originally the Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company) is an American multinational conglomerate
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare and
consumer goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
          Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
          Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
          ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
          2160 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Phone: 205-328-9200
          Facsimile: 205-328-9456
          Email: gregc@elglaw.com
                 gary@elglaw.com
                  kmckie@elglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          M. Christian King, Esq.
          Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq.
          W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq.
          Wesley B. Gilchrist, Esq.
          LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C.
          The Clark Building
          400 North 20th Street
          Birmingham, AL 35203-3200
          Phone: (205) 581-0700
          Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com
                 hprater@lightfootlaw.com
                 lradney@lightfootlaw.com
                 wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com


3M COMPANY: Knight Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michael Knight, et al., and others similarly
situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00903 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina on Aug. 22, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-04202-RMG to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability.

3M -- https://www.3m.com/ -- (originally the Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company) is an American multinational conglomerate
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare and
consumer goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
          Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
          Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
          ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
          2160 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Phone: 205-328-9200
          Facsimile: 205-328-9456
          Email: gregc@elglaw.com
                 gary@elglaw.com
                  kmckie@elglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          M. Christian King, Esq.
          Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq.
          W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq.
          Wesley B. Gilchrist, Esq.
          LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C.
          The Clark Building
          400 North 20th Street
          Birmingham, AL 35203-3200
          Phone: (205) 581-0700
          Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com
                 hprater@lightfootlaw.com
                 lradney@lightfootlaw.com
                 wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com


3M COMPANY: Sherbert Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Joseph M. Sherbert, et al., and others similarly
situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00912 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina on Aug. 22, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-04191-RMG to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability.

3M -- https://www.3m.com/ -- (originally the Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company) is an American multinational conglomerate
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare and
consumer goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
          Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
          Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
          ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
          2160 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Phone: 205-328-9200
          Facsimile: 205-328-9456
          Email: gregc@elglaw.com
                 gary@elglaw.com
                  kmckie@elglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          M. Christian King, Esq.
          Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq.
          W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq.
          Wesley B. Gilchrist, Esq.
          LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C.
          The Clark Building
          400 North 20th Street
          Birmingham, AL 35203-3200
          Phone: (205) 581-0700
          Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com
                 hprater@lightfootlaw.com
                 lradney@lightfootlaw.com
                 wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com


3M COMPANY: Vaughn Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as James Felton Vaughn, et al., and others
similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00911
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
South Carolina on Aug. 22, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-04192-RMG to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability.

3M -- https://www.3m.com/ -- (originally the Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company) is an American multinational conglomerate
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare and
consumer goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
          Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
          Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
          ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
          2160 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Phone: 205-328-9200
          Facsimile: 205-328-9456
          Email: gregc@elglaw.com
                 gary@elglaw.com
                  kmckie@elglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          M. Christian King, Esq.
          Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq.
          W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq.
          Wesley B. Gilchrist, Esq.
          LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C.
          The Clark Building
          400 North 20th Street
          Birmingham, AL 35203-3200
          Phone: (205) 581-0700
          Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com
                 hprater@lightfootlaw.com
                 lradney@lightfootlaw.com
                 wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com


ACCELL COMPANIES: Campbell Sues Over Unlawful Misclassification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rodney Campbell, Sr., and Jonathan Durbin, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. ACCELL COMPANIES, INC., Case
No. 0:23-cv-02601-ECT-TNL (D. Minn., Aug. 23, 2023), is brought
challenging the unlawful misclassification of them as independent
contractors instead of employees in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act
("MFLSA").

The Defendant has uniformly classified all Delivery Drivers as
independent contractors. Pursuant to Defendant's schedules and
business needs, Plaintiffs worked five or six days per week.
Plaintiffs typically worked fifty-five hours per week. Delivery
Drivers are not paid an overtime premium for those hours worked
over forty per week. In order to perform their delivery work,
Defendant requires Delivery Drivers to drive their personal
vehicles.

By misclassifying delivery drivers as independent contractors,
Defendant forces all drivers to bear all of the costs of performing
delivery services, including, but not limited to, gasoline, tolls,
vehicle maintenance, and insurance. When these expenses are taken
into account, Defendant fails to pay an hourly rate of pay to
drivers, including Plaintiffs, equal to or greater than the
applicable federal minimum wage, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs have worked as delivery drivers for Defendant.

The Defendant conducts business throughout the state of Minnesota,
contracting to make deliveries in Minnesota and Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam W. Hansen, Esq.
          APOLLO LAW LLC
          333 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: (612) 927-2969
          Email: adam@apollo-law.com

               - and -

          Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
          Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq.
          HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
          801 Cherry St., Suite 2365
          Fort Worth, Texas 76102
          Phone: (817) 479-9229
          Email: drew@herrmannlaw.com
                 pamela@herrmannlaw.com

               - and -

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


AHLSTROM-RHINELANDER: Faces Class Action Over PFAS Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eileen Persike, writing for Tomahawk Leader, reports that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Ahlstrom-Rhinelander paper
mill and 3M for their alleged roles in "contaminating private well
drinking water in Oneida County" with PFAS chemicals in the area
around the Town of Stella east of Rhinelander. The website
www.businesswire.com reports a law firm based in Dallas, Tex., is
handling the case, which was filed on behalf of six residents on
Wednesday, Aug. 9 in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin.

The lawsuit alleges the application of waste from the paper mill
onto farmland in the county caused the contamination in nearby
private wells. These PFAS chemicals were produced and sold by 3M
Company.

"It is Ahlstrom's policy not to comment in detail on open
litigation," Addie Teeters, head of marketing communications and
public affairs for Ahlstrom North America, told the Northwoods Star
Journal. "While we are still reviewing the complaint, it appears to
focus on activities that are alleged to have occurred prior to
Ahlstrom's acquisition of the mill in 2018."

According to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
more than half the private wells tested for PFAS in Stella have
come back positive for what are called "forever chemicals."

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances are man-made chemicals used to
create nonstick, stain resistant and waterproof products. They are
called forever chemicals because they don't break down and spread
easily, contaminating groundwater, surface water and soil.

Some of the highest levels of PFAS in the country are found in the
Stella area. The Wisconsin Department of Health Services (DHS) says
anything more than 20 parts per trillion (ppt.) is unsafe; some of
the wells tested in Stella were as high as 35,000 ppt.

The lawsuit seeks to recoup costs associated with
remediation/access to clean water, past and future water testing,
loss of use and enjoyment of property and decreases in property
value. [GN]

ALBA CARTING: Faces Gutierrez Suit Over Workers' Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE LUIS JUNIOR CRUZ GUTIERREZ, on behalf of himself, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff v. ALBA CARTING &
DEMOLITION INC d/b/a COMPAC INDUSTRIES 2; d/b/a Tristate 2, and
ANDREW HORAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-07138 (S.D.N.Y., Aug.
11, 2023) is brought by the Plaintiff pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages, including overtime wages, due to time
shaving; statutory penalties; liquidated damages; and attorneys'
fees and costs.

The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants in October 2022 as a laborer
to perform duties at varied construction sites. The Plaintiff's
employment was terminated on March 27, 2023.

Alba Carting & Demolition Inc. owns and operates a New York-based
company engaged in construction contracts, and specifically
demolition services under the trade name "Compac Industries."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

ALBERTSONS COS: Settles Safeway BOGO Meat Sales Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Loe and Kelly Jones, writing for KVUE, report that in 2016,
Safeway shoppers in Oregon filed a lawsuit against Albertsons, the
grocery store chain's parent company, over pricing on
buy-one-get-one (BOGO) sales on meat.

The shoppers accused Safeway of violating state law by raising the
price of meat products that were eventually sold under "Buy One,
Get One Free" and "Buy One, Get Two Free" promotions.

Safeway allegedly deceived customers into thinking they were
getting a good deal under the promotions, when in fact the prices
were hiked before the sale, the lawsuit said.

Several VERIFY viewers reached out about the Safeway BOGO lawsuit,
and wondered if information they received online or in the mail
about a settlement was real.

THE QUESTION
Is the Safeway BOGO class action settlement real?

THE SOURCES
Class action lawsuit, Stewart et al. v. Albertsons Cos., Inc.
David Sugerman, an attorney representing the plaintiffs in the
class action lawsuit
www.safewaybogoclassaction.com

THE ANSWER
This is true.
Yes, the Safeway BOGO class action settlement is real

WHAT WE FOUND
Safeway shoppers in Oregon who participated in the sales between
May 2015 and September 2016 may be eligible for a settlement
payment of approximately $200.

David Sugerman, an attorney representing the plaintiffs in the
class action lawsuit, confirmed to VERIFY that
www.safewaybogoclassaction.com is the official settlement website.

People who are eligible to receive direct payments should have
already received a mailed or emailed notice about the settlement,
the official website says.

The court approved the settlement on July 25, 2023, according to
the website. On Aug. 8, 2023, the settlement administrator sent an
email to eligible Safeway shoppers with a secure link that allows
them to select a preferred payment method.

Payments for those who are eligible are scheduled to go out in late
September, Sugerman said.

According to the official settlement website, Safeway shoppers must
meet these criteria in order to be eligible for a payment:

The purchase had to have been made from a Safeway store in Oregon.

The meat products had to be on sale as part of a "Buy One, Get One
Free" or "Buy One, Get Two Free" promotion.

A Safeway Club Card had to be used to make the purchase between May
4, 2015, and Sept. 7, 2016.

If you have questions about the settlement, you can email
info@safewaybogoclassaction.com or call the settlement
administrator at 1-855-475-1347. [GN]

ALLSTATE INDEMNITY: Court OKs Free Bid to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAPHNE NOBLE FREE, v.
ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, Case No. 9:20-cv-00190-MJT (E.D. Tex.),
the Hon. Judge Michael J. Truncale entered an order granting motion
to certify class and final judgment.

  -- Future objections to the Agreement, if any, are hereby
overruled
     as untimely.

  -- Pursuant to Rule 23, final certification of the Settlement
Class
     is confirmed for the purpose of the Settlement, in accordance

     with the Agreement.

  -- No timely requests for exclusion were submitted by potential
     members of the Settlement Class.

     All other potential members of the Settlement Class are
adjudged
     to be members of the Settlement Class and are bound by this
Final
     Judgment Order and by the Agreement, including the releases
     provided for in the Agreement and this Final Judgment Order.

  -- The Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
     Settlement is granted and all provisions and terms of the
     Agreement are finally approved in all respects.

  -- The Parties to the Agreement are directed to consummate the
     Agreement in accordance with its terms, as may be modified by

     subsequent orders of this Court.

  -- Pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (g), Plaintiff Daphne Noble Free is

     appointed as theRepresentative Plaintiff for the Settlement
     Class, and the following counsel are appointed as Class
Counsel
     for the Settlement Class:

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

          - and -

          Mike Love, Esq.
          MIKE LOVE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          202 E. Lufkin Ave.
          Lufkin, TX 75901
          Telephone:(936) 632-2000
          E-mail: mikelove@texaslawoffice.com

  -- Class Counsel's motion concerning attorneys' fees and
litigation
     costs is granted. Pursuant to Rule 23(h), the Court awards
Class
     Counsel the total sum of $350,000.00 in attorneys’ fees and

     costs. The Court hereby finds that this amount is fair and
     reasonable.

  -- Claim Settlement Payments to Class Members who timely file a
     completed Claim Form shall be made in the amounts, within the

     time period, and in the manner described in the Agreement.

  -- The Court appoints Dean Brinkley as the Neutral Evaluator to
     carry out the duties and responsibilities set forth in the
     Agreement. Plaintiff, Class Counsel, Defendant, and
Defendant's
     Counsel shall not be liable for any act or omission of the
     Neutral Evaluator.

The Plaintiff filed the operative complaint alleging that the
Defendant violated applicable law and breached its contracts by
wrongfully adjusting and paying claims for real property total loss
by fire in violation of Texas law. Defendant has denied, and still
denies, any liability, wrongdoing, and damages with respect to the
matters alleged in the Complaint.

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

ALLSTATE VEHICLE: Policyholder Class Certified in Mitchell Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES MITCHELL, et al., v.
ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No.
2:21-cv-00347-TFM-B (S.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge Terry F. Moorer
entered an order that:

  -- The objection to the Agreement filed by Melvin and Sandra
Satcher
     is overruled.

  -- Pursuant to Rule 23 final certification of the Settlement
Class
     is confirmed for the purpose of the Settlement, in accordance

     with the Agreement.

  -- Timely requests for exclusion were submitted by 10 potential
     members of the Settlement Class and those potential Class
     Members, are excluded from the Settlement Class. All other
     potential members of the Settlement Class are adjudged to be
     members of the Settlement Class and are bound by this Final
     Judgment Order and by the Agreement, including the releases
     provided for in the Agreement and this Final Judgment Order.

  -- The Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval is granted and all
     provisions and terms of the Agreement are finally approved in
all
     respects.

  -- The Parties to the Agreement are directed to consummate the
     Agreement in accordance with its terms, as may be modified by

     subsequent orders of this Court.

  -- Pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (g), Plaintiffs James Mitchell, as

     Personal Representative of the Estate of Lula Mitchell, Larry

     Johnson, Joyce Johnson, Thelma Petty-Cosey, Sarah Roberson,
     Maurice Williams, and Telecia Hardy are appointed as the
     Representative Plaintiffs for the Settlement Class, and the
     following counsel are appointed as counsel for the Settlement

     Class:

          Erik D. Peterson, Esq.
          ERIK PETERSON LAW OFFICES, PSC
          110 W. Vine St., Suite 300
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Telephone: 800-614-1957
          E-mail: erik@eplo.law

               - and -

          T. Joseph Snodgrass
          SNODGRASS LAW, LLC
          100 South Fifth Street, Suite 800
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 339-1421
          E-mail: jsnodgrass@snodgrass-law.com

               - and -

          James Brandon McWherter
          MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC
          341 Cool Springs Blvd., Suite 230
          Franklin, TN 37067
          Telephone: 615-354-1144
          Facsimile: 731-664-1540
          brandon@msb.law

  -- class counsel's motion for attorneys' fees, litigation costs,
and
     expenses and request for service awards (doc. no. 54) is
granted.

     Pursuant to Rule 23(h), the court awards class counsel
     $3,950,000.00 in attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and
costs.

     In addition, the Court awards Plaintiffs service awards of
     $7,500.00 per claim. The Court finds that these amounts are
fair
     and reasonable and directs that Allstate shall pay such
amounts
     pursuant to the terms of the Agreement.

  -- The Court appoints George M. Van Tassel, Jr. as the Neutral
     Evaluator to carry out the duties and responsibilities set
forth
     in the Agreement. The Plaintiffs, Class Counsel, Allstate, and

     Defendants' Counsel shall not be liable for any act or
omission
     of the Neutral Evaluator.

As part of its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court certified for
settlement purposes a class defined as:

   "All policyholders, (except for those explicitly excluded
below),
   insured under any property insurance policy issued by Allstate,
who
   made, who made:

        (i) a Structural Loss claim for property located in the
State
            of Alabama during the Class Period (August 3, 2015
through
            the time of Class Notice);

       (ii) where Allstate issued payment based on an Xactimate
(TM)
            estimate; and (iii) that resulted in an ACV Payment
from
            which Nonmaterial Depreciation was withheld.

The Settlement Class does not include:

      (i) policyholders whose claims arose under labor permissive
          policy forms, i.e., those forms and endorsements
expressly
          permitting the "depreciation" of "labor" within the text
of
          the policy form

     (ii) policyholders who received one or more ACV Payments for a

          claim that exhausted the applicable limits of insurance;


    (iii) policyholders whose claims were denied or abandoned
without
          an ACV Payment;

     (iv) Allstate and its officers and directors;

      (v) members of the judiciary and their staff to whom this
Action
          is assigned and their immediate families; and

     (vi) Class Counsel and their immediate families.

Allstate provides property and casualty insurance services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 3, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KR3SAz at no extra charge.[CC]




ALTUS DIRECT: PHRC Files Amended Placeholder Class Cert Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PROGRESSIVE HEALTH AND
REHAB CORP., an Ohio corporation, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, v. ALTUS
DIRECT HEALTHCARE LLC, an Ohio limited liability company, and
ABDIRAHIM RASHID, Case No. 2:23-cv-01936-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio),
Progressive files a "placeholder" motion for class certification to
protect against any potential attempt by the Defendants to moot its
claims through the tendering of individual relief.

The Plaintiff files this motion to prevent a "pick-off" of its
claims. Plaintiff also submits its accompanying brief in support.

The Sixth Circuit held this ruling was consistent with
Campbell-Ewald, 136 S. Ct. at 672. Thus, in order to protect
against any alternative pick-off attempt following CampbellEwald,
Plaintiff seeks to maintain this "placeholder" motion for class
certification, like the named plaintiffs in Wilson.

The Plaintiff proposes the following class definition:

   "All persons who on or after four years prior to the filing of
this
   action were successfully sent telephone facsimile messages the
same
   or similar to the Faxes attached to the Complaint as Exhibits A
and
   B."

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 3, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45EJmes at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy C. Ammer, Esq.
          MONTGOMERY JONSON LLP
          600 Vine Street, Suite 2650
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 241-4722
          Facsimile: (513) 768-9227
          E-mail: tammer@mojolaw.com

                - and -

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Class Cert Filing in Ismail Extended to Sept. 1
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ESSAMELDIN ISMAIL, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., and DOES 1–50, inclusive, Case No.
2:22-cv-01111-DMG-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dolly M. Gee
entered an order approving in part joint stipulation to continue
case deadlines:

               Matter                 Current Date        New Date

  Early Mediation Deadline           July 28, 2023     Jan. 29,
2024

  Joint Report re Early              Aug. 4, 2023      Feb. 4, 2024

  Mediation due

  Class Cert Motion Filing           Sept. 1, 2023     Mar 1, 2024
  Deadline

  Opposition to Class Cert           Oct. 13, 2023     Apr. 12,
2024
  Motion

  Reply ISO Class Cert Motion        Nov. 3, 2023      May 3, 2024

  Hearing on Class Cert Motion       Nov. 17, 2023     May 17,
2024

  Motion Cut-Off (filing             Oct. 13, 2023     Jun. 28,
2024
  deadline)

  Last Hearing Date for              Nov. 17, 2023     Aug. 2,
2024
  Dispositive Motions

  Initial Expert Disclosure &        Jan. 2, 2024      July 2,
2024
  Report Deadline
  Rebuttal Expert Disclosure         Jan. 30, 2024     July 30,
2024
  & Report Deadline

  Expert Discovery Cut-Off           Feb. 13, 2024     Aug. 13,
2024

  Settlement Conference              Feb. 6, 2024      Aug. 27,
2024
  Completion Date

  Final Pretrial Conference          Mar. 5, 2024      Sept. 24,
2024

  Court Trial                        Apr. 2, 2024      Oct. 22,
2024

American Airlines provides scheduled air transportation services
for passengers and cargo.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OUpWeN at no extra charge.[CC]

AMERICAN INCOME: Fuld Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTA FULD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN INCOME LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an
Indiana corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01420-JPH-MG (S.D.
Ind., Aug. 11, 2023) seeks to stop the Defendant from violating the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making telemarketing calls to
consumers without consent including calls to phone numbers that are
registered on the National Do Not Call registry and to consumers
who have expressly requested that the calls stop.

The Plaintiff asserts that the unauthorized solicitation telephone
calls that she received from or on behalf of Defendant have harmed
her in the form of annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of privacy,
occupied her phone line, and disturbed the use and enjoyment of her
phone. She contends that she has never done business with American
Income and has never given them consent to call her phone number.
Seeking redress for these injuries, Plaintiff Fuld, on behalf of
herself and Classes of similarly situated individuals, brings suit
under the TCPA.

American Income Life Insurance Company sells supplemental insurance
benefit plans to consumers throughout the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric C. Bohnet, Esq.
          6617 Southern Cross Dr.
          Indianapolis, IN 46237
          Telephone: (317) 750-8503
          E-mail: ebohnet@gmail.com

               - and -

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          237 S Dixie Hwy, Floor 4
          Coral Gables, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 469-5881
          E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com

AMERICAN TUNA: Craig Suit Seeks to Certify New York Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY CRAIG, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN TUNA,
INC., and WORLD WISE FOODS, LTD., Case No. 3:22-cv-00473-RSH-MSB
(S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3), certifying a New York
Class defined as follows:

   "All persons who purchased American Tuna Products in New
   York State between November 2018 and the date class notice is
   disseminated primarily for personal, family, or household
   purposes, and not for resale."

   American Tuna Products include:

   -- American Tuna Pole Caught Wild Albacore – No Salt (6 oz)

   -- American Tuna Pole Caught Wild Albacore – Sea Salt (6 oz)

   -- American Tuna Pole Caught Wild Albacore – Smoked
      w/Olive Oil (6 oz)

   -- American Tuna Pole Caught Wild Albacore – Jalapeño (6 oz)

   -- American Tuna Pole Caught Wild Albacore – Garlic (6 oz)

   -- American Tuna Pole Caught Wild Albacore – No Salt (3.5 oz)

   -- American Tuna Pole Caught Wild Albacore – Sea Salt (3.5
oz)

   -- American Tuna Pole Caught Wild Albacore – No Salt (66.5
oz)

   Excluded from the Class are current and former officers and
   directors of Defendants, members of the immediate families of
   the officers and directors of Defendants, Defendants’ legal
   representatives, heirs, successors, assigns, and any entity in
   which they have or have had a controlling interest.

   Also excluded from the Class is the judicial officer to whom
this
   lawsuit is assigned.

The Plaintiff will also move for an Order appointing Plaintiff Ray
Glass as the class representative and the Law Offices of Robert L.
Kraselnik, PLLC as Class Counsel.

American Tuna is an American-certified sustainable pole & line
albacore tuna, hand-processed in Oregon, owned by fishermen.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 7, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EfFWU4 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert L. Kraselnik, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L KRASELNIK, PLLC
          261 Westchester Avenue
          Tuckahoe, NY 10707
          Telephone: (646) 342-2019
          E-mail: robert@kraselnik.com

                -and -

          Jayson M. Lorenzo, Esq.
          J. LORENZO LAW
          2292 Faraday Avenue, Suite 100
          Carlsbad, CA 92008
          Telephone: (760) 560-2515
          E-mail: jmlorenzo.esq@gmail.com

AMP LTD: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $110 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
Miklos Bolza, writing for Australian Associated Press, reports that
irate shareholders who sued AMP over allegations of financial
misconduct have reached a $110 million out-of-court settlement,
averting the need for a lengthy hearing.

On the eve of a 15-day trial in the NSW Supreme Court, AMP and the
Maurice Blackburn-backed class action resolved the five-year long
legal battle.

"I'm pleased to announce that this matter has settled," said class
action barrister Cameron Moore SC in court on Aug. 21.

The lawsuit was filed in June 2018 after AMP made disclosures of
systemic misconduct at the banking royal commission that year.

AMP said it had charged fees to customers who did not receive any
services and withheld information about these breaches from the
Australian Securities and Investments Commission.

The revelations led to a sharp decline of around 11 per cent in
AMP's share price, pushing shareholders to launch their class
action against the financial firm.

They claimed the corporation should have been more open about its
conduct and that shareholders purchased shares at an inflated price
as a result.

After the royal commission, AMP chairman Catherine Brenner and CEO
Craig Meller resigned.

In an ASX announcement on Aug. 21, AMP said the settlement amount
would mostly be covered by its insurance.

"In reaching a settlement, AMP makes no admission of liability,"
the firm wrote.

Capital returns expected this year for current shareholders would
not be affected, AMP added.

Justice Michael Ball adjourned the matter until September 5 to give
the parties time to work out the next steps to a settlement
approval hearing which could take two to three months.

The judge will have to sign off on the total amount and any legal
fees sought by Maurice Blackburn before any remaining funds are
sent to shareholders.

At 10.34am, AMP shares were down 1.4 per cent to $1.2375. [GN]

ANADARKO E & P: Compelled to Produce Several Documents
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BOX ELDER KIDS, LLC; C C
OPEN A, LLC; and GUEST FAMILY TRUST, by its Trustee CONSTANCE F.
GUEST, v. ANADARKO E & P ONSHORE, LLC; ANADARKO LAND CORPORATION;
and KERR-MCGEE OIL AND GAS ONSHORE, LP, Case No.
1:20-cv-02352-WJM-SKC (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge S. Kato Crews
entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
Plaintiffs' motion to compel production of documents from
Defendant's privilege log. The Court orders that:

  -- The Defendants must produce the following documents to
Plaintiffs,
     unredacted, within seven days of the date of this Order: Entry

     Nos. 28, 40-42, 45, 47, 48, 50, 51, 100, 112, 132, 133, 168,
169,
     171, 174, 177, 178, 183, 197, 198, and 208.

  -- And finally, for Entry No. 183, Defendants claim both
attorney-
     client privilege and work product. The Defendants have not met

     their burden to show this document benefits from either
     protection. The bottom portion of this email string is a
message
     from Lynn Schardein to Hank Wood with other Anadarko employees

     copied.

This matter is before the Court on referral of Plaintiffs' motion
to Compel Production of Documents from Defendants' Privilege Log.
This dispute is old in part due to the procedural posture of the
case. It first arose with the parties' September 16, 2021 Joint
Discovery Dispute Report. After an informal telephone conference
with counsel on May 31, 2022, the Court took these issues under
advisement pending a ruling on Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

The Plaintiffs are three surface landowners of acreage in Colorado
that is subject to respective Surface Owner Agreements (SOAs) with
Defendants. The SOAs quiet title to the minerals and authorize
Defendants to enter and drill on Plaintiffs' lands to produce oil
and gas.

Anadarko was founded in 2004. The company's line of business
includes producing gasoline, kerosene, distillate fuel oils, and
residual fuel oils.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44AkbJm at no extra charge.[CC]

ANGEL ARSH: Faces Hanif Suit Over Clerks' Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Waasiq Hanif, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Angel Arsh, Inc. d/b/a Angels on the Way;
Angel Princess, Inc. d/b/a Angels on the Way 2; Angel Aliyan Inc.
d/b/a Angels on the Way 3; Angel Roshan Inc. d/b/a Angels on the
Way 5; Sirajuddin S. Ali; and, Farhaz Sirajuddin, Defendants, Case
No. 4:23-cv-02974 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 11, 2023) is a collective action
suit brought by the Plaintiff under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
seeking to recover unpaid wages, including overtime wages, from the
Defendants.

The Plaintiff and Members of the Plaintiff Class routinely worked
in excess of 40 hours a week at Defendants' request, yet they did
not receive overtime wages as the FLSA requires. Additionally,
Defendants required Plaintiff and Members of the Plaintiff Class to
routinely work some hours each week off-the-clock, and Defendants
failed to pay any wages for these hours. Likewise, some of these
employees, including the Plaintiff, did not receive, as promised, a
part of the proceeds from the electronic gambling machines located
on the premises of the gas stations. Under a uniform and pervasive
enterprise-wide policy, the Defendants require their employees to
work off-the-clock hours and overtime hours without paying the full
wages owed, says the suit.

Mr. Hanif was employed by the Defendants from 2018 until May 15,
2022, as a clerk at the Defendants' gas stations with the exception
of a few months in 2021 and 2022.

Angel Arsh, Inc., d/b/a Angels on the Way, owns, controls and
operates multiple gasoline stations/convenience stores/electronic
gambling machines in the Houston and surrounding areas of
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq.
          ALI S. AHMED, P.C.
          430 W. Bell Street
          Houston, TX 77019
          Telephone: (713) 898-0982
          E-mail: aahmedlaw@gmail.com

ANYWHERE REAL ESTATE: Continues to Defend Nasalek Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Anywhere Real Estate disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for June 30,
2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4,
2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Nasalek
class suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

Nosalek, Hirschorn and Hirschorn v. MLS Property Information
Network, Inc., Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America,
Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, RE/MAX LLC, and
Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts).

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


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

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

The lawsuit seeks to represent a class of sellers who paid a broker
commission in connection with the sale of a property listed in the
MLS Property Information Network, Inc. On January 23, 2023, MLS
Property Information Network, Inc., HomeServices of America, Inc.,
BHH Affiliates, LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, RE/MAX LLC, and Keller
Williams Realty, Inc. filed their answer to the second amended
complaint.

The Anywhere defendants filed their answer to the second amended
complaint on February 21, 2023. Discovery in the case has
commenced.

On June 30, 2023, the MLS Property Information Network, Inc. filed
a motion for preliminary approval of a settlement covering sellers
who paid, and/or on whose behalf sellers' brokers paid,
buyer-broker commissions during the settlement class period
(defined as January 15, 1997, through and including the date of
final judgment and order of dismissal) in connection with the sale
of residential real estate listed on the centralized listing
database of MLS Property Information Network, Inc. The corporate
defendants, including Anywhere, are not a party to the motion or
settlement.

The settlement, if finally approved by the Court, requires MLS
Property Information Network, Inc to eliminate the requirement that
a seller must offer compensation to a buyer-broker and to change
various other rules to give sellers various notices and rules
relating to negotiation of buyer-broker compensation.

In addition to the foregoing injunctive relief, MLS Property
Information Network, Inc. has agreed to pay $3 million into a
settlement fund to fund plaintiffs' legal costs incurred or to be
incurred in this litigation. The motion for preliminary approval of
the settlement is pending.

The Company disputes the allegations against it in this case,
believes it has substantial defenses to plaintiffs’ claims, and
is vigorously defending this litigation.

Anywhere Real Estate Inc. operates as a holding company. The
Company through its subsidiaries, provides real estate,
franchising, brokerage, relocation, and title and settlement
services. Anywhere Real Estate offers its services worldwide.


APPLE INC: Agrees to Settle Class Action Suit Over Software Updates
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Donovan Johnson of Fagen Wasanni Technologies reports that for
years, many iPhone users have complained that their devices become
slower after every iOS software upgrade. These complaints have been
dismissed as conspiracy theories, but it turns out that Apple was
indeed slowing down older iPhones intentionally. Now, Apple has
reached a settlement in a class action lawsuit filed in 2020,
requiring them to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars to over
3.3 million plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs argued that Apple used "software throttling" tactics
to intentionally slow down users' phones, forcing them to buy new
ones. Apple has never officially admitted to any wrongdoing, but
instead claimed that the updates were necessary to address battery
issues. However, the judge's decision in the settlement indicates
that Apple's actions were not justified.

While the expected payout will cost Apple between $310 and $500
million dollars, individual litigants will only receive between $65
and $80 each. While this amount may seem small in comparison to the
money many users have spent on Apple products, it is still
considered a moral victory for the consumers who stood up to the
tech giant.

Interestingly, iPhone users are currently receiving alerts for a
new software update. However, due to past experiences and the
settlement, many users may choose not to update their devices. This
reluctance reflects a growing distrust of big tech companies and
their motives.

In addition to the settlement, the timing of major software updates
has raised questions. These updates often coincide with the release
of new iPhones and the holiday shopping season, leading to
suspicions that Apple deliberately timed updates to encourage users
to buy new devices. While Apple has not confirmed this, the
settlement adds weight to these suspicions.

In conclusion, Apple's settlement in the class action lawsuit
serves as a reminder to users to be cautious and skeptical of big
tech companies. It is important to stay informed about software
updates and make informed decisions about device upgrades. While
the individual payouts may be small, the victory lies in holding
Apple accountable for its actions and raising awareness about
consumer rights. [GN]

APTDECO INC: Dawson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aptdeco, Inc. The
case is styled as Lashawn Dawson, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Aptdeco, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-07457
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2023).

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

AptDeco -- https://www.aptdeco.com/ -- is an online marketplace for
buying and selling quality preowned furniture.[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


APTDECO INC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aptdeco, Inc. The
case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Aptdeco,
Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-07463 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2023).

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

AptDeco -- https://www.aptdeco.com/ -- is an online marketplace for
buying and selling quality preowned furniture.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AUSTRALIA: Public Housing Tenants File Suit Over Removal Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Bushnell, writing for Riotact, reports that the ACT Government
will face a class action from public housing tenants over the
botched plan to forcibly remove them from their homes as part of
the housing renewal program.

Ken Cush and Associates will file the class action on behalf of
about 300 ACT public housing tenants with the Federal Court in the
coming weeks.

The class action comes after a public apology and admission from
the government that it got the removal process wrong and a damning
report from Ombudsman Iain Anderson.

Housing Minister Yvette Berry said the implementation of the flawed
removal program, while well-intentioned, was very disappointing.

But the government has restarted the mandatory removal program
designed to free up land and capital for new public housing, taking
on board Mr. Anderson's recommendations and writing to tenants
anew.

Principal Solicitor Sam Tierney said the class action was being
brought by lead applicant Gai Higginson and would claim
compensation arising from a breach of the residential tenancy
agreement.

He said about half of the 300 had already been forcibly moved and
the remainder had received the letter telling them they were about
to be moved on.

"It's really a deficient government process that's completely gone
askew which has caused this problem," Mr. Tierney said.

He said it was too early to put a precise number on the amount of
compensation that might be due given the range of circumstances.

"Everyone has been affected differently, so bearing in mind some
people have moved and some people have just been through the shock
and distress of receiving a letter they shouldn't have got, I think
it's going to be a pretty big range of impacts," he said.

"There are obviously people who have been forcibly moved out of
their houses, in a lot of occasions people who had been there a
long time.

"We are aware that some of these tenants had in fact been told at
different points that they would be there for life.

"So it'll be a matter of the court looking at compensation for
their loss, in the sense if they're unhappy in their new residence,
if they've lost the connection with the community and family that
they'd established."

Mr Tierney said the removal program was something very unfortunate
that should never have happened.

He said these sorts of arbitrary government actions, including
Robodebt, were becoming a problem in that they had a well-meaning
intention but then lost sight that there were people involved.

The public housing plan did not appear to have been properly
thought through.

"It was more about the announceables before they looked at the
substance or how to do it carefully and properly, and seemed to be
a mandate to do it in a rush presumably to take advantage of the
current housing market," Mr Tierney said.

"This is what happens when you rush."

The Ombudsman found that Housing ACT underestimated the impact on
tenants and that its communication with them was impersonal and
caused significant distress.

"While clearly well-intentioned and based on legitimate public
policy goals, Housing ACT did not plan adequately for
implementation of the program," the report said.

Housing ACT is now seeking more information from tenants about
their individual circumstances as part of a more proactive
exemptions policy, as well as fixing the communications issues the
Ombudsman highlighted and providing more support for Tenant
Relocation Officers. [GN]

AUTO-CHLOR SYSTEM: Conditional Status of Collective Action Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mark Sablowsky and Sumner
Johnson, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v.
Auto-Chlor System, LLC, Auto-Chlor System of New York City, Inc.,
and Auto-Chlor System of the Mid South, LLC, Case No.
3:23-cv-02555-AGT (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court
to conditionally certify collective action, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to enter an order:

  -- Directing the Defendants to produce to Plaintiffs a class list

     containing, for the Proposed Collective members, their full
     names, addresses, non-work telephone numbers, email addresses,

     and the dates and branch locations where they worked as
exempt-
     classified Branch Managers;

  -- Directing the dissemination of notice of the pendency of the
     action by mail, email, and text message using the proposed
     Notice; and

  -- Permitting members of the Proposed Collective to file
     Consent to Join Forms, by mail, fax, e-mail, or website
     submission, until 90 days after the date of Plaintiffs’
mailing
     of notice to the class; and (5) permit the dissemination of a

     reminder postcard by mail, email, and text message.

BMs regularly work significantly more than 40 hours per week.11
Plaintiffs testified that, due to the fact that Auto-Chlor System
requires that each customer is visited at least once every 28 days,
BMs often spent a significant portion of their workday "running
routes" -- meaning driving to meet with customers to service their
dishwashers, deliver supplies, and pick up payment.

Auto-Chlor System offers dishwashing and glass-washing machines.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 3, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45BMEiz at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Logan A. Pardell, Esq.
          PARDELL, KRUZYK & GIRIBALDO, PLLC
          433 Plaza Real, Suite 275
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 726-8444
          Facsimile: (877) 453-8003
          E-mail: lpardell@pkglegal.com

                - and -

          Edward J. Wynne, Esq.
          George Nemiroff, Esq.
          WYNNE LAW FIRM
          80 E. Sir Francis Drake Blvd., Suite 3G
          Larkspur, CA 94939
          Telephone: (415) 461-6400
          Facsimile: (415) 461-3900
          E-mail: ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com
                  gnemiroff@wynnelawfirm.com

AUTOMOBILE CLUB: Cervantes FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Joseph Cervantes, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Automobile Club of Southern
California, Inc., PEI Ohio, Inc., Does 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. CIVSB2226202 was removed from Superior Court of CA for the
County of San Bernard, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on Aug. 23, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-01724-DOC-AS to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

The Automobile Club of Southern California -- http://ace.aaa.com/
-- is the Southern California affiliate of the American Automobile
Association federation of motor clubs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott E. Wheeler, Esq.
          SCOTT E. WHEELER LAW OFFICES
          250 West First Street Suite 216
          Claremont, CA 91711
          Phone: (909) 621-4988
          Fax: (909) 621-4622
          Email: sew@scottwheelerlawoffice.com

               - and –

          Aubry Wand, Esq.
          WAND LAW FIRM PC
          100 Oceangate Suite 1200
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Phone: (310) 590-4503
          Fax: (310) 590-4596
          Email: awand@wandlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Nasim Tourkaman, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          2049 Century Park East 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107
          Phone: (310) 553-0308
          Fax: (310) 553-5583
          Email: ntourkaman@littler.com

               - and –

          John K. Beckley, Esq.
          AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AAA
          3333 Fairview Road A451
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: (714) 885-1316
          Fax: (714) 885-1307
          Email: beckley.john@aaa-calif.com

               - and –

          Kurt R. Bockes, Esq.
          Rod M. Fliegel, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          333 Bush Street 34th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: (415) 433-1940
          Fax: (415) 399-8490
          Email: kbockes@littler.com
                 rfliegel@littler.com

               - and –

          Nicole Shaffer, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS PC
          3390 University Avenue Suite 100
          Riverside, CA 92501
          Phone: (951) 848-7940
          Fax: (951) 848-0009
          Email: nicole.shaffer@jacksonlewis.com


AUTOZONERS LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April 5, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Confusione, et al., v.
Autozoners, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00001 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Jan. 2,
2021), the Hon. Judge Anne Y. Shields entered an order on motion
for extension of time to complete discovery:

  -- The Plaintiffs shall serve their              April 5, 2024
     motion for class certification by:

  -- The Defendants shall serve their              May 6, 2024
     opposition by:

  -- The Plaintiffs' reply shall be                May 20, 2024
     served, and the fully briefed motion
     filed on ECF by:

  -- Counsels are directed to submit a              Dec. 5, 2023,
     joint status letter on:

The nature of suit states Labor Litigation --
Diversity-(Citizenship).[CC]

BAE SYSTEMS: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Replies
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cabrales v. Bae Systems
San Diego Ship Repair, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-02122 (S.D.
Cal., Filed Dec. 23, 2021), the Hon. Judge Anthony J. Battaglia
entered an order granting motion joint motion for extension of time
to file response/reply as to motion to certify class:

  -- Responses is due by Sept. 7, 2023

  -- Replies are due by Oct 12, 2023.

  -- Sur-Replies will not be accepted.

  -- Motion Hearing is set for Nov. 27, 2023.

The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Employment Relations.

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


BAE SYSTEMS: Parties Seek to Continue Hearing Date
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FEDERICO CABRALES,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. BAE
SYSTEMS SAN DIEGO SHIP REPAIR, INC., a California corporation; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-02122-AJB-DDL (S.D.
Cal.), the Parties filed a joint motion to continue Hearing date on
the Plaintiffs' motion for class Certification and the Defendant's
motion for Attorney fees:

  -- The Court set a hearing date for Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
     Certification on November 27, 2023 at 3:00 p.m.

  -- The Court moved the hearing date for Defendant's Motion for
     Attorney Fees to November 27, 2023 at 3:00 p.m.

  -- The Plaintiffs' counsel Kiran Prasad, who handled a primary
part
     of the briefing of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class
Certification,
     has a family obligation on November 27, 2023.

  -- The next Monday that all parties are next available to move
the
     hearing date on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification to
is
     December 11, 2023.

Bae Systems repairs, converts, upgrades, and overhauls non-nuclear
ships.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ege81Q at no extra charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Matthew j. Matern, Esq.
          Dalia Khalili, Esq.
          Kiran Prasad, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
                  dkhalili@maternlawgroup.com
                  kprasad@maternlawgroup.com

                - and

          Mary C. Dollarhide, Esq.
          Taylor Wemmer, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          4365 Executive Drive, Suite 1100
          San Diego, CA 92121-2133
          Telephone: (858) 677-1400
          Facsimile: (858) 677-1401
          E-mail: mary.dollarhide@us.dlapiper.com
                  taylor.wemmer@dlapiper.com

BAUSCH HEALTH COMPANIES: Faces Kelk Suit Over B&L Spinoff
---------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies 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 on July 26, 2023, a purported
class action complaint captioned, "Kelk v. Bausch Health Companies,
Inc., et al." Case No. 23-cv-03996, was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey against the company and
certain of its current or former officers.

The action alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. Plaintiff alleges that defendants made various
misrepresentations and omissions regarding the company's proposed
spin-off of Bausch + Lomb (B&L), and alleges that those purported
misrepresentations and omissions concealed that the spin-off was
executed as part of a strategy to subvert the pending opt-out
lawsuits and leave plaintiffs in those actions without viable means
to a potential recovery.

Bausch Health Companies Inc. is a global, diversified specialty
pharmaceutical and medical device company that develops,
manufactures and markets, primarily in the therapeutic areas of
gastroenterology, hepatology, neurology and dermatology, a broad
range of branded, generic and branded generic pharmaceuticals,
over-the-counter products and aesthetic medical devices, and,
through its approximately 89% ownership of Bausch + Lomb
Corporation, branded, and branded generic pharmaceuticals, products
and medical devices (contact lenses, intraocular lenses, ophthalmic
surgical equipment) in the therapeutic areas of eye health.


BAYSIDE CONTRACTING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Saldivar Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
EFRAIN SALDIVAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BAYSIDE CONTRACTING, INC. d/b/a BAYSIDE
CONTRACTING, BAYSIDE WAREHOUSE LLC d/b/a BAYSIDE CONTRACTING,
PANAGIOTIS ECONOMOU and CHRISTOS ECONOMOU, Defendants, Case No.
524400/2023 (N.Y., Sup., Kings Cty., August 22, 2023) is an action
against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime
compensation, provide meals, and provide accurate wage statements.

Plaintiff Saldivar was employed by the Defendants as a construction
helper.

BAY SIDE CONTRACTING, INC. provides mechanical contracting
services. The Company specializes in new construction, plumbing,
heating, mechanical, design build, ventilating, air-conditioning,
repair, maintenance, and renovation services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

BECTON DICKINSON: IP A/S Wins Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as INDUSTRIENS
PENSIONSFORSIKRING A/S, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY and THOMAS E.
POLEN, Case No. 2:20-cv-02155-SRC-CLW (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge
Stanley R. Chesler entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion
for class certification.

The Court further ordered that pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the action is certified to
proceed as a class action, on behalf of the following class:

   "All persons and entities who, from November 5, 2019 to February
5,
   2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), purchased or otherwise
   acquired Becton, Dickinson and Company ("BD") common stock or
call
   options, or sold BD put options, and were damaged thereby (the
   "Class"). Excluded from the Class are:

       (i) Defendants;

      (ii) present or former executive officers of BD or any of
BD's
           subsidiaries or affiliates, members of BD’s Board of
           Directors, and members of the immediate families of each
of
           the foregoing (as defined in 17 C.F.R. section 229.404,

           Instructions (1)(a)(iii) and (1)(b)(ii));

     (iii) any of the foregoing individuals' and entities' legal
           representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns; and

      (iv) any entity in which any Defendant has a controlling
           Interest.

The Court also entered an order that the following claims, as
stated in the Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint, are certified
for class treatment:

   1) Count I, a claim for violation of Section 10(b) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. section 78a, et
seq.
      (the "Exchange Act") against Defendants;

   2) Count II, a control person claim pursuant to Section 20(a) of

      the Exchange Act against Defendant Polen; and

   3) Count III, an insider trading claim pursuant to Sections
10(b)
      and 20A of the Exchange Act against Defendant Polen.

The Plaintiff brings this putative class action pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA), 15 U.S.C.
section 78u-4(a)(3)(B), on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of BD, or BD call
options, or sold BD put options, between November 5, 2019, and
February 5, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Becton, Dickinson is an American multinational medical technology
company that manufactures and sells medical devices, instrument
systems, and reagents.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 3, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45HjTBj at no extra charge.[CC]

BIKE-ON.COM INC: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bike-On.com, Inc. The
case is styled as Maria DiMeglio, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Bike-On.com, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-07447 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2023).

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

Bike-on -- https://bike-on.com/ -- is a shop that has been leading
the way in Handcycle, Recumbent Trikes, and Adaptive Cycles for
over 25 years.[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


BLUE KNIGHT GLOBAL: Dias Sues Over Illegal Background Check
-----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL DIAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BLUE KNIGHT GLOBAL RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES
d/b/a BLUE KNIGHT PROTECTION SERVICES, and BLACKSTONE CONSULTING,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-00497-GAP-PRL (M.D. Fla., Aug.
10, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which imposes several important
requirements on consumer reporting agencies, such as Defendants,
that sell employment-related consumer reports (even if Defendants
deny what they sell actually constitutes a "consumer report").

According to the complaint, the Named Plaintiff was denied
employment opportunities because of Defendants' unlawful actions,
resulting in a lost job, lost pay, and lost benefits. Defendants
Blue Knight and Blackstone are companies that used automated
processes to webscrape criminal histories from court websites, or
purchased such records in bulk, and assign them to specific
consumers -- largely based on name alone. They sold these records
to their various customers, including one that issued a report to
Plaintiff's former employer.

Ultimately, Plaintiff lost a job opportunity because of a
background check generated by Defendants, and because Defendants
have unilaterally (and illegally) decided the reports they sell do
not qualify as "consumer reports," the do not comply with the FCRA,
says the suit.

Blue Knight Global Risk Management Services is a “consumer
reporting agency with its principal place of business in Calabasas,
California, but is doing business in Florida in this District.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          Amanda E. Heystek, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8719
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
                  lcabassa@wfclaw.com  
                  aheystek@wfclaw.com  
                  gdesane@wfclaw.com

                - and -

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

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Faces Consolidated Suit Over LOTUS System Recall
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that in December 16, 2020,
Mariano Errichiello, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against the
company, Michael F. Mahoney, Joseph M. Fitzgerald, and Daniel J.
Brennan in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, stemming from the recall and retirement of the LOTUS
Edge (TM) Aortic Valve System (LOTUS System) in United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

On December 14, 2020, the parties agreed to transfer the case to
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.


On March 30, 2021, the court consolidated the actions, and
appointed Mariano Errichiello as the lead plaintiff. The plaintiffs
filed an Amended Complaint in June 2021 that seeks unspecified
compensatory damages in favor of the alleged class as well as
unspecified equitable relief. The company filed a Motion to Dismiss
in July 2021, which, in December 2022, the court granted in part
and denied in part.

Boston Scientific Corporation is into surgical & medical
instruments & apparatus and is based in Marlborough, MA.


BRENES LAW: Court Enters General Pretrial Management in LRAL Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEGAL RECOVERY ASSOCIATES
LLC, v. BRENES LAW GROUP, P.C., Case No. 1:23-cv-02446-ER-BCM
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding
general Pretrial management:

   -- All pretrial motions and applications, including those
related
      to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss
or
      for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for
      summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R.
Civ.
      P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with
this
      Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the

      Court's website at
https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses.

   -- Parties and counsel are cautioned:

      1. Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery
must
         be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of
         discovery set by the Court.

      2. Discovery applications, including letter-motions
requesting
         discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the
need
         for such an application arises and must comply with Local

         Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's
Individual
         Practices. It is the Court's practice to decide discovery

         disputes at the Rule 37.2 conference, based on the
parties'
         letters, unless a party requests or the Court requires
more
         formal briefing. Absent extraordinary circumstances,
         discovery applications made later than 30 days prior to
the
         close of discovery may be denied as untimely.

      3. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion
         conferences are not required but may be requested where
         counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court

         may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues.

      4. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court
         proceeding (including a telephonic court conference) or to

         extend a deadline must be made in writing and in
compliance
         with section 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices.
         Telephone requests for adjournments or extensions will not
be
         entertained.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OKC02l at no extra charge.[CC]

BRINKER RESTAURANT: Byrant Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brinker Restaurant
Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Ahome Byrant, Susan
Rodgers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Brinker Restaurant Corporation, Brinker International,
Inc., Brinker Restaurant Corporation, Case No. CGC23608589 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Aug. 23, 2023).

The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."

Brinker Restaurant Corporation -- https://www.brinker.com/ --
operates a chain of restaurants. The Company retails prepared foods
and drinks. Brinker serves customers worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Ottinger, Esq.
          OTTINGER EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
          535 Mission St 14th Floor,
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415-508-7786
          Email: robert@ottingerlaw.com


BRODER BROS: Peraza Suit Removed to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Timothy Peraza, individually, and on behalf
of other members of the general public similarly situated v. BRODER
BROS., CO. d/b/a ALPHABRODER, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1
through 100 inclusive, Case No. 23CECG02855 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Fresno,
to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California on Aug. 23, 2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-at-00721.

The Plaintiff’s Complaint raises eight causes of action for
Unpaid Overtime, Unpaid Meal Period Premiums, Unpaid Rest Period
Premiums, Unpaid Minimum Wages, Final Wages Not Timely Paid,
Non-Compliant Wage Statements, Unreimbursed Business Expenses, and
Violation of California & Business Professions Code.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gary W. Bethel, Esq.
          Andrew H. Woo, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          5200 North Palm Avenue, Suite 302
          Fresno, CA 93704.2225
          Phone: 559.244.7500
          Fax: 559.244.752
          Email: gbethel@littler.com
                 awoo@littler.com


CABOO PAPER: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Caboo Paper Products
USA, LLC. The case is styled as Nadreca Reid, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Caboo Paper Products USA, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-07336 (S.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 18, 2023).

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

Caboo -- https://cabooproducts.com/ -- is the sustainable
alternative to paper made from trees.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CANADA: Class Action Suit Over Privacy Breach Certified
--------------------------------------------------------
Canada Revenue Agency of Cision reports that did you receive notice
or have reason to believe that you may have experienced a privacy
breach between March 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020 with respect to
your personal or financial information while using a Government of
Canada Online Account (Canada Revenue Agency's "My Account", "My
Service Canada" account, or other online government accounts where
the account is accessed using a GCKey)?

If you used a Government of Canada Online Account, such as CRA's My
Account, a "My Service Canada" account, or various other online
government accounts in the past, this Notice of Certification may
affect your legal rights. Please read it carefully. You may receive
more than one Notice of Certification due to potential unauthorized
access to more than one of your Government of Canada online
accounts.

A class action lawsuit was initiated by Todd Sweet against the
Canada Revenue Agency ("CRA") and the Government of Canada
(collectively, the "Defendant") alleging that the Defendant was
negligent in safeguarding the confidential information of
Canadians, leading to widespread privacy breaches. The Federal
Court of Canada has certified the class action lawsuit against the
Defendant. Todd Sweet is the representative Plaintiff.

WHAT IS THE LAWSUIT ABOUT?
Among other things, the Plaintiff alleges that the Government of
Canada breached class members' privacy by not properly safeguarding
confidential personal and financial information electronically
housed within various online government portals. The Plaintiff
alleges that these inadequate safeguards allowed bad actors to
access the online accounts of Canadians absent their consent, view
confidential and private details and, in many cases, apply for CERB
benefits.

The Plaintiff is asking the Court to order the Government of Canada
to pay compensation for, among other things, the alleged breach of
privacy and credit monitoring services that may be required to
repair the harm caused.

The Government of Canada denies that it did anything wrong. A judge
will decide who is right at trial. The date for that trial has not
yet been set.

WHO IS INCLUDED IN THE LAWSUIT?
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of:

All persons whose personal or financial information in their
Government of Canada Online Account was disclosed to a third party
without authorization between March 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020,
excluding Excluded Persons.

"Government of Canada Online Account" means:

a) Canada Revenue Agency account;

b) My Service Canada account; or

c) another Government of Canada online account, where that account
is accessed using the Government of Canada Branded Credential
Service (GCKey).

"Excluded Persons" means all persons who contacted Murphy Battista
LLP about the CRA privacy breach class action, with Federal Court
file number T-982-20 prior to June 24, 2021.

If you meet the above-mentioned class definition, you are
automatically included in the class action. You do not have to do
anything to participate. If you do not want to be part of the
lawsuit, you must notify class counsel by mail or e-mail that you
want to opt out at the address below by no later than November 27,
2023. If you want to opt out, see below under "What if I do not
want to take part?" for more information.

If you are a class member and you don't opt out, you won't be able
to make your own claim against the Government of Canada for any
specific individual damages you may have suffered. In the class
action, damages will be sought for the class as a whole. The judge
will decide how any such damages should be divided between class
members.

WHAT IF I DO NOT WANT TO TAKE PART?
If you do not want to take part, you have to opt out. If you opt
out, the results of the class action lawsuit will not apply to you
– good or bad. If you do opt out, you will never be entitled to
receive any money through the class action lawsuit but you will
still keep your right to sue the Government on your own behalf,
subject to any applicable limitation periods. If you still want to
opt out, you must either print/scan and complete and send the opt
out form, or send your full name, address, birthdate, and a
statement that you wish to opt-out by mail or by email to the
following address:

Rice Harbut Elliott LLP
Suite #820 – 980 Howe Street
Vancouver, BC V6Z 0C8
Email: service@rhelaw.com

Class members who want to opt out must submit their opt out form to
the above-mentioned address or email address by November 27, 2023.
Class members who do not submit an opt out form by November 27,
2023 will continue to be a part of the class action.

DO I NEED TO PAY ANYTHING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE LAWSUIT?
No. You do not need to pay anything out of your pocket to take part
in the lawsuit. The lawyers appointed by the Court to represent the
class will only be paid if the claims are successful. If that
occurs, the lawyers will request a percentage of the total amount
recovered for the class and will ask to be reimbursed for their
disbursements. The legal fees will be no greater than 33.33% and
must be approved by the Court.

WHO ARE THE LAWYERS FOR THE CLASS?
The class is represented by:

Rice Harbut Elliott LLP
Suite #820 - 980 Howe Street
Vancouver, BC V6Z 0C8
Telephone: 604-682-3771

I WANT MORE INFORMATION
More information on the case is available at
https://rhelaw.com/class-action/cra-privacy-breach-class-action-2/
along with the Fourth Further Amended Statement of Claim, the Order
certifying the action, and other Court documents.

You can also register on the website at
https://rhelaw.com/class-action/cra-privacy-breach-class-action-2/.
If you register, you will receive periodic email updates regarding
the action and advising you of any steps that you are required to
take.

If you still have questions, you can contact class counsel: Rice
Harbut Elliott LLP at (604) 682-3771 and
nbeauprefulton@rhelaw.com.

THIS NOTICE HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED BY THE FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA.
[GN]

CANADA: Faces Class Suit Over CRA Privacy Breach
------------------------------------------------
David Opinko of EverythingGP reports that some Canadians could
potentially be compensated following privacy concerns at the Canada
Revenue Agency (CRA).

A class action lawsuit has been initiated by Todd Sweet and HRE Law
against the CRA and the Government of Canada. The plaintiffs allege
that the defendants were negligent in safeguarding the confidential
information of Canadians, leading to widespread privacy breaches.

Some residents received notices of the breach between March 1 and
December 31, 2020. Sweet claims that inadequate safeguards allowed
bad actors to access their online accounts without their consent,
view confidential and private details, and in many cases, apply for
Canada Emergency Response benefits.

It is unclear at this time how much money affected Canadians could
receive if the lawsuit is successful.

A statement from the CRA said the lawsuit is brought on behalf of:

All persons whose personal or financial information in their
Government of Canada Online Account was disclosed to a third party
without authorization between March 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020,
excluding Excluded Persons.

"Government of Canada Online Account" means:

a) Canada Revenue Agency account;
b) My Service Canada account; or
c) another Government of Canada online account, where that account
is accessed using the Government of Canada Branded Credential
Service (GCKey).

"Excluded Persons" means all persons who contacted Murphy Battista
LLP about the CRA privacy breach class action, with Federal Court
file number T-982-20 prior to June 24, 2021.

Anyone who meets the above-mentioned definitions will be
automatically included in the class action and will not need to do
anything in order to participate.

People who wish to not partake in the lawsuit must complete the opt
out forms and send it by mail or email to the following addressed
by no later than November 27, 2023.

Rice Harbut Elliott LLP
Suite #820 - 980 Howe Street
Vancouver, BC V6Z 0C8
Email: service@rhelaw.com

Those who register on the RHE Law website will receive periodic
email updates regarding the case. It is not a requirement to do
this.

More information on the class action lawsuit is also available on
the RHE Law website. [GN]

CAPE COD POND: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cape Cod Pond
Supplies, Inc. The case is styled as Damon Jones, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Cape Cod Pond
Supplies, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-07333 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 18, 2023).

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

Cape Cod Pond Supplies, Inc. doing business as Pondscapes Garden
Center is a unique full service garden center.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CAPITAL ONE: Buckles Sues Over Deceptive Credit Card Sign-Up Bonus
------------------------------------------------------------------
SHERENE BUCKLES and OMAR MONTES, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL
CORPORATION and CAPITAL ONE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendants, Case
No. 5:23-cv-04052-VKD (N.D. Cal., Aug. 10, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for breach of contract including breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and
violations of the California Business and Professions Code.

According to the complaint, Capital One lured Plaintiffs and
similarly situated Class Members into applying for Quicksilver
credit cards and SavorOne Rewards credit cards by promising a cash
sign-up bonus. The promised cash sign-up bonus was a substantial
factor in Plaintiffs' and Class Members' decision to apply for the
credit cards. Immediately after Plaintiffs and Class Members
applied for the credit cards online, Capital One indicated that
they had been "approved" for the credit cards. But, even though
Plaintiffs and Class Members then spent the required amount using
their credit cards within the specified time period, Capital One
never provided Plaintiffs and Class Members with the promised
sign-up bonus. Capital One's practice of failing to provide the
promised sign-up bonus is unlawful in multiple respects, the suit
alleges.

Plaintiffs Buckles and Montes applied and were approved for their
Quicksilver credit card on Capital One's website in February 2023
and December 2022, respectively.

Capital One Financial Corporation is an American bank holding
company specializing in credit cards, auto loans, banking, and
savings accounts, headquartered in McLean, Virginia with operations
primarily in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 254-6808
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          Allison W. Parr, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest, Suite 1010
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
                  aparr@tzlegal.com

CARDILLO INC: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cardillo, Inc. The
case is styled as Maria DiMeglio, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Cardillo, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-07433-MKV (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 22, 2023).

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

Cardillo -- https://cardillousa.com/ -- is the leading manufacturer
of handcrafted, high-quality custom weight belts made in the United
States.[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


CARDINAL HEALTH: Louisiana Sheriffs Seek OK of Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOUISIANA SHERIFFS'
PENSION & RELIEF FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. CARDINAL HEALTH, INC., et al., Case No.
2:19-cv-03347-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order approving the:

   -- Proposed Settlement;

   -- Plan of Allocation;

   -- Final Class Certification; and

   -- Application an award of attorneys' fees and expenses and an
      award to Lead Plaintiff pursuant to 15 U.S.C. section 78u-
      4(a)(4).

Cardinal is an American multinational health care services
company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45KrZZN at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph F. Murray, Esq.
          MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP
          1114 Dublin Road
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 488-0400
          Facsimile: (614) 488-0401
          E-mail: murray@mmmb.com

                - and -

          Spencer A. Burkholz, Esq.
          Tor Gronborg, Esq.
          Ellen Gusikoff Stewart, Esq.
          Laurie L. Largent, Esq.
          Jennifer N. Caringal, Esq.
          Christopher R. Kinnon, Esq.
          J. Marco Janoski Gray, Esq.
          Megan A. Rossi, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: spenceb@rgrdlaw.com
                  torg@rgrdlaw.com
                  elleng@rgrdlaw.com
                  llargent@rgrdlaw.com
                  jcaringal@rgrdlaw.com
                  ckinnon@rgrdlaw.com
                  mjanoski@rgrdlaw.com
                  mrossi@rgrdlaw.com

CARGILL INC: Judge Dismisses Price-Fixing Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Red River Farm Network reports that a federal judge in Minneapolis
has dismissed a price-fixing class action lawsuit against Cargill,
JBS, Tyson Foods, National Beef Packing and Swift. A group of
cow-calf producers filed the lawsuit nearly a year ago, claiming
meatpackers conspired to lower cattle prices in 2015. Judge John
Tunheim said the cow-calf sector is too far removed from alleged
price and supply manipulation to have a standing in the case. [GN]




CARSON-NEWMAN UNIVERSITY: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carson-Newman
University. The case is styled as Joseph Ortiz, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Carson-Newman
University, Case No. 1:23-cv-00877 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2023).

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

Carson–Newman University -- https://www.cn.edu/ -- is a private
Baptist university in Jefferson City, Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CASCADE LIVING: Filing for Class Cert Bids Due May 6, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JORDAN KASTEL and STORMIE
HOY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. CASCADE LIVING GROUP MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00684-JCC
(W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John C. Coughenour entered an order
setting the following case management deadlines:

  -- Pleading amendment and adding additional    Sept. 15, 2023
     Parties:

  -- Class certification motion:                 May 6, 2024

  -- Opposition to class certification:          June 3, 2024

  -- Plaintiff's reply brief:                    June 24, 2024

Cascade owns and operates, senior housing communities that offer a
broad range of senior living options.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45nC672 at no extra charge.[CC]

CASEY'S GENERAL: Loses Bid to Dismiss in Part Kessler Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUMMER KESSLER, on behalf
of herself and all other similarly situated, v. CASEY’S GENERAL
STORES, INC., CASEY’S MARKETING COMPANY, and CASEY'S RETAIL
COMPANY, Case No. 3:22-cv-02971-SPM (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge
Stephen P. McGlynn entered an order denying the motion to dismiss
in part without prejudice.

On December 19, 2022, Kessler filed a two-count "Collective and
Class Action Complaint" against defendants. She seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation for herself and similarly situated
workers. The first cause of action, Count I, seeks to remedy
violations under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL), while the
second cause of action, Count II, seeks to remedy violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Count I is brought on Kessler's behalf and as a putative class
action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
(Doc. 1, p. 10). In Count I, Kessler seeks certification of the
following class, which is collectively referred to as the "Illinois
Class" and/or "Class Members":

   "All Store Managers who are currently or have been employed by
   Defendants in Illinois at any time between the time period of
three
   years prior to the filing of this Collective and Class Action
   Complaint and the date of final judgment in this matter and
   excluding individuals who joined the McColley v. Casey's General
Stores, Inc., et al, Case No. 2:2018-cv-00072 (N.D. Ind.)
   lawsuit."

Casey's operates convenience stores.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45Zn2N5 at no extra charge.[CC]



CITADEL SERVICING: Class Cert Filing Deadline Modified to Nov. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FALON BALLARD AND MATTHEW
BALLARD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, v. CITADEL SERVICING CORPORATION, A/K/A ACRA LENDING; AND
DOES 1-5, Case No. 8:22-cv-01679-FWS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Fred W. Slaughter entered an amended order re stipulation to
continue pretrial deadlines and trial as follows:

                Event                          Date

  Final Pretrial Conference & Hearing         May 23, 2024
  on Motions in Limine

  Last Date to Hear Motion to Amend           Sept. 14, 2023
  Pleadings /Add Parties

  Deadline for Plaintiff's Class              Nov. 30, 2023
  Certification Motion

  Deadline for Defendants' Opposition         Dec. 21, 2023
  to Class Certification

  Deadline for Plaintiff's Reply to           Jan. 11, 2024
  Opposition

  Hearing on Class Certification Motion       Feb. 1, 2024

  Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off                Dec. 1, 2023

  Last Date to Hear Motions                   Feb. 22, 2024

  Deadline to Complete Settlement             Dec. 21, 2023
  Conference  

Citadel provides non-prime loans for residential properties on both
an owner occupied and non-owner occupied basis.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3E8WIUD at no extra charge.[CC]

COFFEYVILLE RESOURCES: El Dorado Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as El Dorado Minerals, LLC,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v.
Coffeyville Resources Refining & Marketing, LLC, Case No.
6:23-cv-00249-JAR (E.D. Okla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:

   (1) Certifying the Settlement Class for Settlement purposes;

   (2) Preliminarily approving the Settlement;

   (3) Appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative for the
Settlement
       Class;

   (4) Appointing Reagan E. Bradford and Ryan K. Wilson as Co-Lead

       Class Counsel and Brady L. Smith as Additional Class Counsel

       for the Settlement Class;

   (5) Approving the form and manner of the proposed Notice;

   (6) Appointing JND Legal Administration as Settlement
       Administrator;

   (7) Appointing MidFirst Bank as Escrow Agent; and

   (8) Setting a hearing date for final approval of the Settlement
and
       application for an award of Plaintiff's Attorneys' Fees,
       Litigation Expenses and Administration, Notice, and
       Distribution Costs, and a Case Contribution Award to
Plaintiff.

Accordingly, Plaintiff moves the Court to certify a Settlement
Class consisting of:

   "All non-excluded persons or entities who: (1) received late
   payments under the Production Revenue Standards Act from
Defendant
   for oil proceeds from Oklahoma wells; or (2) whose oil proceeds

   were remitted to unclaimed property divisions of any government

   entity by Defendant; and (3) whose payments or whose unclaimed
   property did not include the statutory interest required by the

   Production Revenue Standards Act."

   "Late payments" for purposes of this class definition means
payment
   of proceeds from the sale of oil production from Oklahoma wells,

   including unclaimed property payments, after the statutory
   periods identified in Okla. Stat. tit. 52, section 570.10(B)(1)

   (i.e., commencing not later than six (6) months after the date
of
   first sale, and thereafter not later than the last day of the
   second succeeding month after the end of the month within which

   such production is sold).

   Late payments do not include: (a) payments of proceeds to an
owner  
   under Okla. Stat. tit. 52, section 570.10(B)(3) (minimum pay);
and
   (b) prior period adjustments.

   Excluded from the Class are: (1) Defendant, its affiliates,
   predecessors, and employees, officers, and directors; (2)
agencies,
   departments, or instrumentalities of the United States of
America,
   including any Indian tribe as defined at 30 U.S.C. section
1702(4)
   or Indian allottee as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(2), or
the
   State of Oklahoma; and (3) BP America Production Company,
Chaparral
   Energy LLC (or its successor Canvas Energy Inc.), Citizen Energy

   (or its predecessor Roan Resources LLC), Continental Resources,

   Inc., Marathon Oil Corporation, and the affiliates of each.

Coffeyville Resources operates a complex full coking refinery that
processes moderately heavy, medium sulfur crude oil.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3svxhKB at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Reagan E. Bradford, Esq.
          Ryan K. Wilson, Esq.
          BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC
          431 W. Main Street, Suite D
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 698-2770
          E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com
                  ryan@bradwil.com

                –and–

          Brady L. Smith, Esq.
          BRADY SMITH LAW, PLLC
          One Leadership Square, Suite 1320
          211 N. Robinson
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 293-3029
          E-mail: brady@blsmithlaw.com

COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Faces Class Action Over Toothpaste False Ads
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a
proposed class action out of California alleges Colgate-Palmolive
Company has falsely advertised Colgate-Palmolive Company and Tom's
of Maine toothpastes as recyclable, given that the products are
rejected at virtually every recycling facility in the United
States.

The 32-page lawsuit explains that traditional toothpaste tubes,
which are typically made from a mixture of different types of
plastic and metal, are "universally banned and rejected" by
recycling facilities in the United States because their
multi-material composition makes them difficult to sort, separate
and process into reusable material.

Although Colgate-Palmolive Company has marketed Colgate and Tom's
of Maine toothpastes as having a "recyclable tube" made entirely of
high-density polyethylene, or HDPE plastic, recycling facilities
are unable to distinguish between traditional tubes and the
defendant's redesigned products, the complaint charges.

"[T]heoretically," the products are not as difficult to recycle as
traditional toothpaste tubes, but "[i]n reality, the purported
innovation is a total flop," the filing says.

The case further contends that recycling facilities refuse to
accept the defendant's products because the tubes cannot be fully
emptied, and leftover toothpaste poses an "insurmountable
contamination risk" to the recyclable waste stream.

"Contaminated materials are one-hundred percent not recyclable,"
the suit says. "More egregiously, contamination degrades the
quality of recyclables, which often causes materials that would
otherwise be recycled to be landfilled."

According to the filing, the manufacturer knows that its supposedly
recyclable tubes consistently end up in landfills or incinerated
because recycling facilities do not accept them. Colgate-Palmolive
Company goes so far as to admit in a video published by the
Consumer Goods Forum that it's "[continuing] the work beyond
technically recyclable toward acceptance of tubes in recycling
centers globally," the complaint relays.

Nevertheless, the company deceptively represents to buyers that its
Colgate and Tom's of Maine product packaging "is not meant for a
landfill" and "gets turned into useful products," the lawsuit
claims. Consumers are likely to be misled by the defendant's
inclusion on Colgate products of a chasing arrows triangle, which
is the universal recycling symbol, and label claims that Tom's of
Maine product packaging is "the first of its kind recyclable tube,"
the filing adds.

Per the case, Colgate-Palmolive Company represents its toothpaste
tubes as environmentally friendly to capitalize on consumer demand
for "green" products.

However, according to the Federal Trade Commission's Guides for the
Use of Environmental Claims, it is considered deceptive for a
company to make unqualified recyclable claims about a product
unless at least 60 percent of consumers have access to a recycling
program that will recycle the item, the case relays.

"[A] review of municipal recycling programs shows that there are
currently no recycling facilities for the Products available to
consumers or communities in California and nationwide," the suit
says, claiming that reasonable consumers would not have purchased
the toothpastes, or would have paid less for them, had they known
the products are only recyclable in theory.

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States who
purchased any Colgate or Tom's of Maine toothpaste products labeled
with the claims "Recyclable Tube," "First of Its Kind Recyclable
Tube," and/or the universal recycling symbol since August 11, 2019.
[GN]

COLUMBIA BANKING: Faces Fraud Charge in Marin County
----------------------------------------------------
Columbia Banking System, Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that it is facing a case
filed in May 2023 in Marin County Superior Court alleging claims by
investors associated with the failure of two commercial real estate
investment companies, Professional Financial Investors, Inc. and
Professional Investors Security Fund, Inc., allegedly affected
through a Ponzi scheme.

Collectively, the class plaintiffs most recently estimate that
damages from the scheme may amount to between $386.2 million and
$429.8 million, which does not consider prior bankruptcy recoveries
of $110.0 million to date. Said case follows an SEC non-public
investigation of Professional Financial Investors, Inc. and
Professional Investors Security Fund, Inc. on May 28, 2020.

Columbia Banking System, Inc. is a State Commercial Bank based in
Tacoma, WA.


COLUMBIA BANKING: Faces Fraud Charge in Northern California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Columbia Banking System, Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that it is facing a case
filed in June 2023 in the United States District Court for Northern
California alleging claims by investors associated with the failure
of two commercial real estate investment companies, Professional
Financial Investors, Inc. and Professional Investors Security Fund,
Inc., allegedly affected through a Ponzi scheme.

Collectively, the class plaintiffs most recently estimate that
damages from the scheme may amount to between $386.2 million and
$429.8 million, which does not consider prior bankruptcy recoveries
of $110.0 million to date. Said case follows an SEC non-public
investigation of Professional Financial Investors, Inc. and
Professional Investors Security Fund, Inc. on May 28, 2020.

Columbia Banking System, Inc. is a State Commercial Bank based in
Tacoma, WA.


COMERICA BANK: Court Narrows Claims in Sparkman Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAULA SPARKMAN, v.
COMERICA BANK, et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-02028-DMR (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Donna M. Ryu entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss Sparkman
complaint.

   -- Sparkman's breach of contract claims based on the Terms of
Use
      and claim for restitution are dismissed with leave to amend.
The
      motion to strike Sparkman's jury demand is denied.

   -- Any amended complaint is due within 14 days of the date of
this
      Order. If no amended complaint is filed, Defendants' answer
is  
      due within 28 days of the date of this Order.

The Defendants do not address the "knowing and voluntary" standard
in their motion. Instead, they cite cases in which courts in the
Ninth Circuit enforced waivers of jury trials without discussing
the facts of those cases or comparing them to the case.

In the absence of any showing by Defendants that Sparkman knowingly
and voluntarily waived her right to a jury trial, the court finds
that Defendants have failed to meet their burden on this issue.

Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to strike the jury demand is
denied.

The Plaintiff Paula Sparkman filed this putative class action
against Defendants Comerica Bank and Conduent Business Services,
LLC alleging claims under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, and
California law related to Defendants' operation of prepaid debit
cards through which a state agency disburses child support
payments. Defendants move pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss the complaint.

Sparkman makes the following allegations in the complaint, all of
which are taken as true for purposes of the motion to dismiss.

Sparkman is a single mother who lives with her daughter in
California. She receives court-ordered child support from her
daughter’s father.

In California, child support payments are made through California
Child Support Services.

Sparkman seeks to represent a California class of allegedly
similarly situated persons, defined as:

   "All persons issued a California Way2Go Card (TM) Prepaid
Mastercard
   (TM) who (1) notified Defendants that one or more charges on
their
   account were unauthorized or disputed; and (2) were denied
   reimbursement on the grounds that Defendants (i) could not
confirm
   fraud occurred; or (ii) found a conflict in information provided

   during an investigation, through the date of any class
   certification order in this action."

She also seeks to represent an "EFTA subclass":

   "All persons in the Class who (1) were denied on or after April
27,
   2022 through the date of any class certification order in this
   action and (2) whose denial was with regard to a disputed charge

   (or charges) totaling more than $50."

Comerica Bank is a subsidiary of Comerica Incorporated, a financial
services company headquartered in Dallas, Texas.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PazXpQ at no extra charge.[CC]

COMERICA INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due October 20
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Aug. 21
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Comerica Incorporated (NYSE: CMA)
between February 9, 2021 and May 29, 2023, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Comerica investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Comerica class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=16714 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose,
among other things, that: (1) Comerica failed to provide meaningful
oversight over the vendors to whom it contracted out day-to-day
operations of the Direct Express program, a system through which it
is contracted to provide federal benefits to millions of Americans
without bank accounts; (2) as a result of violations in the
day-to-day operations of Direct Express, including handling fraud
disputes and allowing sensitive data to be handled out of a
vendor's office in Pakistan, Comerica was not in compliance with
the Federal Contract, and knew it was not in compliance; (3)
Comerica knew and failed to disclose that it was in potential
violation of Regulation E due to inadequate fraud prevention in the
Direct Express program and responses to instanced of fraud; and (4)
as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations,
and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October
20, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=16714 or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.

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

Contacts
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]

CONGO BRANDS: Berrios Sues Over Mislabeled Energy Drinks
--------------------------------------------------------
Steve Berrios, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Congo Brands, LLC and Prime Hydration, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 6:23-cv-01529 (M.D. Fla., Aug. 10, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendants for false and misleading
advertising; breaches of express warranty, implied warranty of
merchantability/fitness for a particular purpose and Magnuson Moss
Warranty Act; fraud; unjust enrichment; and violation of the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Congo Brands, LLC and Prime Hydration, LLC manufacture Prime Energy
and Prime Hydration energy drinks. The products' popularity and
demand "is in large part fueled by their celebrity backers . . .
two prominent YouTubers, Logan Paul and KSI."

According to the complaint, representing Prime Energy and Prime
Hydration as energy drinks is misleading because the former only
has 10 calories in a 12-ounce can while the latter has 25 calories
in a 16.9-ounce bottle. While both are sweet, this is from
artificial sweeteners, which is not disclosed on the front label,
says the suit.

As a result of the false and misleading representations, the
products are sold at a premium price, approximately no less than
$2.19 for 12 oz for Prime Energy and $2.39 for 16.9 oz for Prime
Hydration, excluding tax and sales, higher than similar products
represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than they would be
sold for absent the misleading representations, marketing, and
omissions. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated consumers
paid more for the products than they would have paid had they known
the representations, marketing and omissions were false and
misleading, as they would not have bought them or would have paid
less, the suit alleges.

Congo Brands, LLC owns and controls Prime Hydration, LLC and is
responsible for the products' marketing, sale and distribution
within Florida and the United States.[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
          Telephone: (561) 514-0904
          E-mail: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com

               - and -

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

CONSTELLATION NEWENERGY: Birnhack Sues Over Unlawful Pricing
------------------------------------------------------------
Yitzchok Birnhack, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. CONSTELLATION NEWENERGY, INC., Case No.
3:23-cv-08337-RK-JBD (D.N.J., Aug. 23, 2023), is brought seeking to
redress the Defendant’s deceptive, bad faith, and unlawful
pricing practices that have caused thousands of commercial and
residential customers in New Jersey and other states to pay
considerably more for their electricity and natural gas supply than
they should otherwise have paid.

In many states, residential and commercial consumers can choose to
purchase their gas and electricity supply from unregulated energy
service companies (“ESCOs”) like the Defendant instead of just
from their local utility. the Defendant exploits residential and
commercial customers’ desire to take advantage of falling prices
in the market while at the same time having some protection against
significant price increases. It does so by offering a market
variable rate product based on actual market pricing but with a cap
on certain wholesale costs and its margins.

To that end, the Defendant promises in uniform customer contracts
that it will set its electricity and natural gas at a variable rate
based on two components: a usage charge based on the actual cost of
wholesale electricity, as established by applicable wholesale
market index prices for the customer’s location (the “Usage
Charge”), and a retail service charge composed of secondary
energy-related charges the Defendant incurs for participating in
retail energy markets, plus a reasonable margin (the “Retail
Service Charge”). These secondary charges, as well as the profit
margins the Defendant tacks on to its procurement costs, are a
substantial portion of the overall supply charges customers pay. To
assuage customers’ fears of price spikes, the Defendant promises
that it will cap the Retail Service Charge at a specified per therm
or per kWh rate.

The contract the Defendant offered to Plaintiff, is typical of this
marketing strategy. Using its uniform customer contract (which did
not become effective during a prolonged rescission period), the
Defendant promised it would set its variable rates based on the
customer's "usage as provided by the Utility multiplied by the Real
Time Locational Based Marginal Price for the zone in which your
account is located as published by PJM Interconnection, L.L.C."
plus a "retail service charge."

In reality, however, the Defendant ignores the language of its
contract and charges a Retail Service Charge that exceeds the cap.
As it typically does, the Defendant also charged Plaintiff a Retail
Service Charge that exceeded the $0.065 per kW/h cap. Further, the
Defendant's contract violates several disclosure requirements
mandated by New Jersey regulations. The regulations' purpose is to
protect customers from an ESCO's price gouging and deceptive
marketing, and they are designed to inform the customer, ahead of
time, of the nature of the rates that will be charged and how they
compare to rates charged by the local utility--the ESCOs' biggest
competitor. Here, the Defendant ran roughshod over applicable
regulations and, as a result, was able to charge unwitting
customers energy rates that were consistently higher than the rates
charged by these customers’ existing utilities.

The Defendant's overcharges were not mere happenstance, as the
Defendant's conduct is designed to take advantage of consumers'
good faith and their lack of knowledge about, and access to,
accurate wholesale and retail energy pricing information. As a
result of the Defendant's unlawful acts described herein, thousands
of unsuspecting consumers have been, and continue to be, harmed by
the Defendant's failure to abide by its contractual terms and other
unlawful conduct. Defendant's conduct, which often affects
society's most vulnerable citizens, is immoral, unethical,
oppressive, and unscrupulous, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was enrolled by Constellation in a fixed rate plan to
supply Plaintiff's electricity in October 2010.

Constellation provides electricity and natural gas services to
millions of customers in Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois,
Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Texas, Virginia, Washington, D.C., and Wyoming.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica L. Hunter, Esq.
          J. Burkett McInturff, Esq.
          WITTELS MCINTURFF PALIKOVIC
          305 BROADWAY, 7TH FLOOR
          NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10007
          Phone: (914) 775-8862
          Facsimile: (914) 775-8862
          Email: jlh@wittelslaw.com
                 jbm@wittelslaw.com

               - and -

          D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
          Erin Kelley, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          One North Broadway, Suite 900
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Phone: (914) 298-3281
          Email: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
                 ekelley@fbfglaw.com


CRAWFORD & COMPANY: Jackson Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRYAN JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CRAWFORD & COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
0:23-cv-61547 (S.D. Fla., Aug. 11, 2023) seeks relief for the
Plaintiff and the collective class under the Fair Labor Standards
Act to remedy Defendant's failure to pay appropriate overtime
compensation.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a disability benefits
specialist from approximately May 14, 2021 and was employed by the
Defendant in Broward County, Florida as he worked remotely from his
residence. He asserts that Defendant suffered and permitted him and
the putative class members to work more than 40 hours per week
during weeks within the statutory period without paying them
overtime compensation.

Crawford & Company provides managed care to customers in multiple
states across the U.S., including Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremiah J. Talbott, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF J.J. TALBOTT
          900 E. Moreno Street
          Pensacola, FL 32503
          Telephone: (850) 437-9600
          Facsimile: (850) 437-0906
          E-mail: jj@talbottlawfirm.com
                  civilfilings@talbottlawfirm.com

DEBT COLLECTORS: Harvasty Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Debt Collectors
International, Inc. The case is styled as Carla Harvasty,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Debt
Collectors International, Inc., Case No. 6:23-cv-01607-CEM-DCI
(M.D. Fla., Aug. 23, 2023).

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

Debt Collectors International, Inc. --
https://www.debtcollectorsinternational.com/ -- deploys experienced
collectors that are skilled in every aspect of debt
collection.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Gomes Simil, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
          110 S.E. 6TH Street, Suite 1700
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 628-5793
          Fax: (954) 507-9974
          Email: jen@jibraellaw.com

               - and -

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 907-1136
          Fax: (855) 529-9540
          Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com


DELAWARE: Court Narrows Claims in Crichlow Suit
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENIO CRICHLOW, V.
DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, et al., Case No.
1:22-cv-00272-RGA (D. Del.), the Court entered an order that:

   1. The Plaintiffs motion for an extension to file responses to
       Defendants' motions to dismiss is denied.

   2. The State Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in part
      and denied in part.

   3. The Defendant Adah's motion to dismiss is granted.

   4. All claims and Defendants are DISMISSED, with the exception
of
      Plaintiffs deliberate indifference claim for damages against

      Defendants Peck and Travis in their individual capacities,
which
      will be permitted to proceed.

   5. The Defendants Peck and Travis shall file their answer within
21
      days of this Memorandum Order.

The Defendants Peck and Travis' invocation of qualified immunity
does not mention the critical components of Plaintiffs claim-his
age, illness, medical vulnerability; the drenching rain; and the
lack of rain gear. Rather, Defendants assert that they "have
neither found a case in the jurisdiction establishing a clear right
in [their] response to the COVID-19 pandemic, nor in Plaintiff
being ordered to relocate to the COVID-19 quarantine building with
his personal effects after he tested positive for COVID-19."

The Plaintiff Kenia Crichlow1 appears prose and proceeds in forma
pauperis. On March 1, 2022, he filed this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. section 1983.2 (0.1. 3).

Delaware Department of Correction is a state agency of Delaware
that manages state prisons.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45Zn5IL at no extra charge.[CC]

DELTA AIR: Seeks Dismissal of Carbon-Neutral Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Clark Mindock, writing for Reuters, reports that Delta Air Lines
has asked a federal judge to toss a proposed class action lawsuit
accusing the U.S. carrier of misleading consumers by touting itself
as carbon-neutral.

In a motion to dismiss filed on Aug. 18 in a Los Angeles federal
court, the company said the complaint filed on behalf California
residents who say they were duped by Delta's advertising is
preempted by federal law.

The Airline Deregulation Act prevents states from enforcing laws
that impact airline rates, routes or services. Delta said the
lawsuit's allegations "cut to the core purpose" of that law, since
they raise state law claims and relate to "the bargained-for
exchange between an airline and its customers."

Counsel for the proposed class didn't immediately respond to a
request for comment on Aug. 21.

The lawsuit, which alleges violations of state consumer protection
laws and laws prohibiting unfair and fraudulent business practices,
was filed by a California resident who bought Delta tickets to
engage in "more ecologically conscious air travel," and would not
have purchased the tickets at that price without the allegedly
inaccurate environmental representations.

The complaint alleges that Delta is not living up to advertising
that presents the Atlanta-based carrier as "the world's first
carbon-neutral airline," saying those claims would lead reasonable
consumers to believe Delta has entirely offset its carbon dioxide
emissions since it began making the neutrality claims in March
2020.

But, the carbon offset market -- a voluntary, loose arrangement of
companies and non-profits -- is "replete" with inaccurate
accounting and other concerns, which makes Delta's claims
"manifestly and provably false," according to the lawsuit.

A Delta spokesperson said in a statement the lawsuit is "without
legal merit" and that the company has "fully transitioned its focus
away from carbon offsets" since 2022, in favor of investing in
other de-carbonization strategies like developing sustainable
aviation fuel.

Many global airlines have committed to "net-zero" carbon emissions
by 2050, partly through purchasing offsets which critics say do not
lower actual emissions.

The case is Berrin v. Delta Air Lines Inc., U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, case No. 2:23-cv-04150.

For the proposed class: Jonathan Haderlein and Krikor Kouyoumdjian
of Haderlein and Kouyoumdjian

For Delta: Peter Hsiao, Michael Roth, David Balser, Charles
Spalding Jr. and Julia Barrett of King & Spalding [GN]

DEWEY'S BAKERY: Bullock Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dewey's Bakery, Inc.
The case is styled as Justin Bullock, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Dewey's Bakery, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-07465 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2023).

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

Dewey's Bakery -- https://deweys.com/ -- is an American retail
bakery offering fresh baked goods including custom cakes, Moravian
cookies, cheese straws, and artisan cheese biscuits.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DOCTORS MEDICAL: Beltran Files Suit Over Disclosure of Private Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LORI BELTRAN, BRITTANY MATUS, PRESTON MEISNER, PAUL BLUMBERG, and
MARK MEHRING, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF MODESTO, TENET
HEALTH, and META PLATFORMS, INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:23-at-00774 (E.D. Cal., Aug. 10, 2023) seeks damages associated
with Defendants' violation of Plaintiffs' privacy rights under the
California Information Protection Act, the Federal Wiretap Act, and
the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act as well
as ancillary common law claims for invasion of privacy, breach of
contract, negligence, and intrusion upon seclusion.

This putative class action is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff
and all persons, users, prospective patients and current patients
who visited the Healthcare Defendants' website https://www.
dmc-modesto.com/, utilized the Website for its various intended
purposes, and had their private health conditions, identities,
actual or potential medical treatments, and the hospitals they
visited or may visit disclosed to Facebook without their knowledge
or consent.

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

Doctors Medical Center of Modesto is a full-service, comprehensive
healthcare facility with headquarters in Modesto, California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Mark S. Reich, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          55 Broadway, 4th Floor, Suite 427
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          E-mail: mreich@zlk.com
                  cmaccarone@zlk.com

DOLE PLC: Settles False Ads Class Action Suit for $4.3-M
--------------------------------------------------------
OpenClassActions.com reports that a $4,303,125 class action lawsuit
has been settled with Dole over assertions that Dole advertised,
marketed, and sold their fruit bowl products, claiming it is
contained "in 100% juice" or only "in 100% fruit juice," when the
fruit products contained trace amounts of ascorbic acid and/or
citric acid, or other ingredients.

Dole did not accept that the class action lawsuit's allegations
were valid, stating that their fruit bowl products have
consistently been appropriately marketed and labeled, as consumers
understand that "in 100% juice" refers to the packaging medium,
distinguishing the Fruit from similar products packaged in syrup,
gel, or water, for example. Dole maintains that this phrase does
not provide an exhaustive statement of the product's ingredients.
As of now, the Court has not determined whether the class action
lawsuit or Dole is correct.

How Do I Qualify?
You may be owed a payment between $9.00 and $18.00 per household if
you purchased fruit products that are part of the settlement
anytime between January 12, 2017 and June 27, 2023. The purchase
must have been made in the United States either in-store or online
for personal use, and not for resale or commercial use of the
products. In order to qualify for the Dole fruit bowl class action
settlement you must have purchased one of the following Dole brand
Dole Fruit Bowl products:

   Dole(TM) Fruit Bowl Product   
   Dole(TM) Cherry Mixed Fruit   
   Dole(TM) Diced Apples   
   Dole(TM) Diced Pears   
   Dole(TM) Diced/Chunk Mango   
   Dole(TM) Papaya Mango   
   Dole(TM) Peach Mango   
   Dole(TM) Mandarin Oranges   
   Dole(TM) Pineapple Paradise   
   Dole(TM) Mandarin Oranges   
   Dole(TM) Pineapple Tidbits/Slices/Chunks/Crushed   
   Dole(TM) Mixed Fruit   
   Dole(TM) Red Grapefruit Sunrise   
   Dole(TM) Melon Medley   
   Dole(TM) Tropical Fruit   
   Dole(TM) Diced/Sliced Peaches labeled "in 100% fruit juice"   

How Much Can I Get for the Dole fruit bowls Settlement?

The total settlement amount is over $4,300,000. If you file a valid
claim, and do not have proof of purchase, the class action will pay
for up to 60 products that are covered (see list above for covered
Dole fruit bowls) at $0.15 per product, estimated. If you claim
more than 60 products in your claim form, you will need to provide
proof of purchase in order to qualify for a full payout. With proof
of purchase, the Dole class action lawsuit will pay out for up to
120 covered fruit bowl products at $0.15 per product.

How Do I Find Class Action Settlements?

Look for Class Action Settlements you qualify for by getting
notified of new class action lawsuits as soon as they are open to
claims here:

your_name@email.com

How Do I File a Claim?

To be eligible to receive a payment from the $4.3 Million Class
Action Settlement, you must complete a class action Claim Form
fully by September 25, 2023 electronically. The deadline for
submitting this Claim Form is November 15, 2023 at 11:59 PM Pacific
Time.

Claim Form Website: FruitMarketingSettlement.com[GN]

DOT FOODS: Faces Class Suit Over Sharing of Workers' Health Records
-------------------------------------------------------------------
David Beasley of Cook County Record reports that a class action
lawsuit accuses one of America's largest food redistributors, Dot
Foods, of violating an Illinois genetic privacy law by allegedly
wrongly sharing workers' health records.

"As a condition of employment, Dot Foods requires employee
candidates to undergo a physical exam during which genetic
information in the form of their family medical history is
requested," says the lawsuit filed by named plaintiff Max Stuck in
Cook County Circuit Court.

The practice violates the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act
(GIPA), the suit says.

"Having recognized the uniquely private and sensitive nature of
genetic information – and the potential for harmful
discrimination that such information may encourage among the
Illinois General Assembly enacted GIPA in part to regulate
employers' use of such genetic information," the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit pointed to language in the law which classifies family
medical history as "uniquely private and sensitive form of personal
information, which can reveal "a trove of intimate information
about that person's health, family, and innate characteristics."

According to the complaint, Stuck applied for a job at Dot Foods in
January and was required to take a physical and was allegedly asked
questions about his family's medical history.

"Such questions included whether the Plaintiff's family had a
history of high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease, and other
genetic information in the form of diseases that had manifested in
his family members," the complaint said. "By requiring Plaintiff to
answer questions about his family medical history, Defendant
directly or indirectly solicited, requested, or required Plaintiff
to disclose his genetic information."

The company never told Stuck "either verbally or in writing of his
right to privacy under GIPA or otherwise informed he was not
legally obligated to disclose genetic information," the suit says.

It seeks statutory damages of $15,000 for each "reckless or
intentional violation" and $2,500 for each negligent violation,
reasonable attorney fees and costs and other relief "the Court
deems reasonable and just."

Stuck is represented by David L. Gerbie, William Kingston and
Joseph Dunklin of the firm of McGuire Law P.C., of Chicago. [GN]

DRESSER LLC: Bid to Certify Class of Property Related Claims Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE BARTON, ET AL.,
v. DRESSER, LLC, ET AL., Case No. 1:22-cv00263-dcj-jp (W.D. La.),
the Hon. Judge David C. Joseph entered an order denying the motion
to certify class of Property Related Claims.

  -- The parties shall file a joint status report by September 5,
     2023, outlining the issues to be discussed.

The Barton Plaintiffs seek certification of a class solely for the
purpose of "determining issues related to Defendants' liability
[for] the Plaintiffs' negligence, strict liability, trespass,
nuisance, and punitive damage claims," which class would encompass:


   "All persons (natural and juridical), who: (a) owned or leased
property impacted by the contaminants emanating from the Facility,
or (b) resided in an area impacted by the contaminates emanating
from the Facility; and who have suffered property-related damages,
such as diminution in value, damage to the natural resources, loss
of enjoyment and use of property, nuisance, and remediation costs,
from the contaminants emanating from the Facility."

Dresser designs, manufactures, and markets energy infrastructure
products and services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 3, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45jc30L at no extra charge.[CC]

ECHOSTAR CORP: May Face Class Action Over Dish Network Merger Plan
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Forrester, writing for Advanced Television, reports that
EchoStar, in the process of being merged with satellite pay-TV
operator Dish Network, could be facing a Class Action of investors
who are dissatisfied with the merger plan.

Lawyers for the Action are saying the investigation concerns
whether the EchoStar board breached its fiduciary duties to
shareholders by failing to conduct a fair process prior to the
agreement, and whether the Dish merger is fair for EchoStar
shareholders.

Such Class Actions are not unusual and while some will succeed the
rewards are frequently modest. For example, a not dissimilar
shareholder Class Action that also included claims against EchoStar
share activity in 2021 resulted in compensation of just $21
million. Once the lawyers fees were deducted the eventual
disbursements were measured as Cents/share. [GN]


ELECTROLUX HOME: Seeks Dismissal of Parker's Amended Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANDRA PARKER, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. ELECTROLUX HOME
PRODUCTS, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01177-PLM-SJB (W.D. Mich.),
Electrolux moves the Court for an order dismissing the Plaintiff's
Amended Class Action Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)
and 12(b)(6).

The Plaintiff's Amended Class Action Complaint should be dismissed
in its entirety, with prejudice, the Defendant contends.

The Plaintiff has failed to allege that Electrolux had a duty of
disclosure, that Electrolux made a misleading representation, that
Electrolux had the requisite knowledge of the alleged defect, or
that she suffered a loss as a result of Electrolux's actions --
Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under the MCPA.

The Plaintiff Sandra Parker brings this putative class action
against Electrolux to recover damages for what she alleges is a
dangerous defect in the Electrolux-manufactured gas range she has
safely used for four years. She seeks to represent a nationwide
class of owners of Electrolux-built gas and electric ranges that
feature front-mounted burner control knobs. However, since
Plaintiff owns only a gas range, she lacks standing to assert
claims regarding electric ranges, so those claims must be dismissed
under Rule 12(b)(1).

The Plaintiff purchased a new Frigidaire-brand gas range from Home
Depot on December 12, 2018. Her range has front-mounted control
knobs that operate the range's gas burners.

"Shortly after" her range was installed, Plaintiff noticed that a
surface burner on her Range could be "actuated unintentionally"
(i.e., turned on by accident) when she applied "light pressure" to
a control knob while, for example, "cleaning her Range."

The Plaintiff alleges that unintended actuation could create
"hazardous conditions [such as] leaking gas or heating electric
cooktops to extreme temperatures -- and serious risk of fire,
property damage, and personal injury."

However, Plaintiff does not allege that she or anyone else in her
household has ever failed to notice immediately that a burner has
been turned on, nor does she claim that unintended actuation has
caused her range to leak gas or caused a fire or injury to a person
or property.

Electrolux manufactures and distributes electrical appliances.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 4, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3srk3yo at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Galen D. Bellamy, Esq.
          WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP
          370 Seventeenth Street, Suite 4500
          Denver, CO 80202-5647
          Telephone: (303) 244-1800
          Facsimile: (303) 244-1879
          E-mail: bellamy@wtotrial.com

                - and -

          Harold D. Pope, Esq.
          Jonathan Kama, Jr., Esq.
          Krista L. Lenart, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
          400 Renaissance Center
          Detroit, MI 48243
          Telephone: (313) 568-6800
          Facsimile: (313) 568-6893
          E-mail: hpope@dykema.com
                  jkama@dykema.com
                  klenart@dykema.com

ELITE MEDICAL: Sued Over EMTs Traffic Ticket Paycheck Deductions
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Beasley, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a new
lawsuit accuses a private ambulance company of wrongly deducting
workers' pay for traffic tickets they received while driving
ambulances on medical assistance calls.

"These EMTs and Paramedics had earned wages taken directly out of
their paychecks without prior or concurrent authorization,
allegedly to pay for moving violations the company had received
from the City of Chicago and/or other municipalities, issued to
their ambulance vehicles," said the class action lawsuit filed in
Cook County Circuit Courte against Elite Medical Transportation,
LLC. "This amounts to theft of wages."

The complaint cites paycheck deductions of $50 and $100 to pay for
the moving violations.

Named plaintiffs in the action include Andreas Maynor, Sara Flynn
and Pablo Acevedo.

"Plaintiffs do not have employment agreements with Elite which
authorize specific deductions from Plaintiffs' pay for moving
violations issued to the Company," the lawsuit states.

The company requested that some of the employees sign a pay
deduction authorization after the deduction had been made, but they
refused, the suit says.

Illinois law "requires employers to pay their employees according
to their agreements and to pay employees all earned wages or final
compensation," the suit states.

"A key common question of law and fact involves whether Elite made
these deductions without authorization," the lawsuit says.
'Similarly, all the proposed class members have had unlawful
deductions made from their pay."

The employees seek reimbursement for the deductions with interest
and attorney fees.

"This case is filed on behalf of the scores of current and former
EMTs and paramedics during the statutory period who, despite
devoting thousands of hours per year to critical life-saving work,
have not been paid their promised, agreed, and earned wages for
their work," the suit said.

The plaintiffs are represented by Ramsin G. Canon, of Canon Law
Group, of Chicago. [GN]

EMBRY-RIDDLE: Lopez Seeks to Certify Class of Plan Participants
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GUILLERMINA LOPEZ, on
behalf of the Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University DC Retirement
Plan, individually and as a representative of a class of
participants and beneficiaries, v. EMBRY-RIDDLE AERONAUTICAL
UNIVERSITY, INC., Case No. 6:22-cv-01580-PGB-LHP (M.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her motion for
class certification:

   "All persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the
   Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University DC Retirement Plan at any
time
   between August 3, 2016, and the present."

The Plaintiff contends that Defendant owes fiduciary duties to the
Plan, and thus to all participants, and hence all class members. In
discharging those duties, the Defendant was obligated to treat all
participants (and all class members) alike.

Allowing thousands of individuals to pursue separate actions on
behalf of the Plan could result in varying adjudications on
numerous issues, resulting in conflicting and incompatible
standards of conduct for Defendant. As noted, to resolve
Plaintiff's claims, the factfinder must determine whether Defendant
used prudent methods to monitor compensation and investments,
whether the fees and investments were reasonable and prudent, and
the proper benchmarks to measure Plan losses, the lawsuit says.

Thus, the Plan wide losses stemming from the excessive TIAA
compensation during the relevant time period is roughly $4 million.
Obviously, the Plan is suffering massive financial losses because
of Defendant’s failure to defray reasonable expenses. The Plan
will continue to suffer these losses and retirement assets
squandered unless prudent remedial measures are implemented, and
soon.

This case is similar to ERISA breach of fiduciary duty actions
against universities certified by courts throughout the country,
including in Henderson v. Emory Univ., Case No. 1:16-CV-2920-CAP,
2018 WL 6332343 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 13, 2018) more recently in Santiago
v. Univ. of Miami, Case No. 1:20-CV-21784, (S.D. Fla. April 7,
2022) (for settlement purposes).

Embry–Riddle is a private university focused on aviation and
aerospace programs.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 4, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47I29rf at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          Amanda E. Heystek, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 337-7992
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
                  lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                  aheystek@wfclaw.com

                - and -

          Michael C. Mckay, Esq.
          MCKAY LAW, LLC
          5635 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 170
          Scottsdale, AZ 85258
          Telephone: (480) 681-7000
          Facsimile: (480) 348-3999
          E-mail: mmckay@mckaylaw.us

EMMA MATTRESS: Faces Johnson Suit Over Mattresses' False Sale Price
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CRYSTAL JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EMMA MATTRESS INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-01472-RBM-WVG (S.D. Cal., Aug. 11, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of California's False
Advertising Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and Unfair
Competition Law, and for breach of contract, breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty, quasi-contract/unjust
enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and intentional
misrepresentation.

Defendant Emma Mattress Inc. sells and markets mattresses and other
sleep-related products online through the Emma website,
www.emma-sleep.com. On its website, Defendant lists purported
regular prices and advertises purported limited time discounts from
those regular prices. These include discounts offering "up to $X
off" and "up to X% off." The Defendant uses countdown clocks to
represent that its sales are on the verge of ending. The Defendant
also advertises that its products have a lower discount price as
compared to a higher, regular price shown in grey and/or
strikethrough font.

Far from being time-limited, however, Defendant's discounts are
always available. As a result, everything about Defendant's price
and purported discount advertising is false. The regular prices
Defendant advertises are not actually Defendant's regular prices,
because Defendant's products are always available for less than
that. The purported discounts Defendant advertises are not the true
discount the customer is receiving, and are often not a discount at
all. Nor are the purported discounts time-limited and expiring
after the countdown clock runs out -- quite the opposite, they are
always available, asserts the suit.

As a result, the Defendant can charge a price premium for its
products, that it would not be able to charge absent the
misrepresentations. So, due to Defendant's misrepresentations,
Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers paid more for the
products they bought than they otherwise would have, the suit
alleges.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christin Cho, Esq.
          Simon Franzini, Esq.
          Grace Bennett, Esq.
          DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
          201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 656-7066
          Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
          E-mail: christin@dovel.com
                  simon@dovel.com
                  grace@dovel.com

ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS: Smith Sues Over Failure to Secure Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRENDEN SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-06546-CAS-PVC (C.D. Cal., Aug. 10, 2023) is a class action
against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and protect
Plaintiff's and Class members' personally identifiable
information(PII) from foreseeable cyber threats, resulting in the
theft and dissemination of their PII on the dark web.

On June 30, 2023, Defendant detected suspicious activity within its
computer network. A month after being made aware of the suspicious
activity, on July 31, 2023, Defendant finally sent out a letter to
Plaintiff and Class members informing them that their PII had been
stolen by criminals. The PII that was stolen in the Data Breach
included (but was not necessarily limited to) Plaintiff's and Class
members' names, mailing addresses, Social Security numbers, and tax
identification numbers.

The complaint alleges that the PII was targeted and stolen because
of Defendant's negligent acts and omissions regarding its data
security practices. The Defendant failed to take reasonable
measures to monitor weaknesses in its data security, failed to
timely update, patch, and correct vulnerabilities, and failed to
detect and prevent the data breach that resulted in criminals
stealing Plaintiff's and Class members' PII. In addition, Defendant
waited an entire month after the data breach occurred to notify
affected individuals, which prevented them from timely mitigating
the consequences of the data breach, adds the complaint.

The Plaintiff and Class members are past and current employees or
contractors who worked on or were otherwise compensated in
connection with productions for which Defendant provided payroll or
other cloud-based production management services.

Entertainment Partners, LLC offers production companies cloud-based
related to production finance and production management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
          Gregory Haroutunian, Esq.   
          Brandon P. Jack, Esq.
          CLAYEO C. ARNOLD A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          6200 Canoga Avenue, Suite 375
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (747) 777-7748
          Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
          E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com
                  gharoutunian@justice4you.com
                  bjack@justice4you.com

               - and -

          Marc E. Dann, Esq.
          Brian D. Flick, Esq.
          DANNLAW
          15000 Madison Avenue
          Lakewood, OH 44107
          Telephone: (216) 373-0539
          Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
          E-mail: mdann@dannlaw.com
                  notices@dannlaw.com

               - and -

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

EP GLOBAL PRODUCTION: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Replogle Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CYNTHIA REPLOGLE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EP GLOBAL PRODUCTION SOLUTIONS,
LLC d/b/a ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-06941
(C.D. Cal., Aug. 23, 2023) seeks to hold the Defendant responsible
for the harms it caused the Plaintiff and similarly situated
persons in the preventable data breach of the Defendant's
inadequately protected computer network.

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the personal
information acquired by cybercriminals in the Data Breach includes
names, addresses, Social Security numbers, and/or tax
identification numbers of at least 471,362 individuals.

The Defendant breached its duty and betrayed the trust of the
Plaintiff and Class members by failing to properly safeguard and
protect their Personal Information, thus enabling cyber criminals
to access, acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber,
infiltrate, release, steal, misuse, and view it. Due to the
Defendant's negligence and failures, cyber criminals obtained and
now possess everything they need to commit personal identity theft
and wreak havoc on the financial and personal lives of more than
470,000 individuals, for decades to come, says the suit.

EP GLOBAL PRODUCTION SOLUTIONS, LLC d/b/a ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS
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:

          John J. Nelson, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
          280 S. Beverly Drive
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (858) 209-6941
          Email: jnelson@milberg.com

             - and -

          A. Brooke Murphy, Esq.
          MURPHY LAW FIRM
          4116 Wills Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700
          Oklahoma City, OK 73108
          Telephone: (405) 389-4989
          Email: abm@murphylegalfirm.com

ESSA BANCORP: Continues to Defend RESPA Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
ESSA Bancorp, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 11, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the RESPA class suit.

The Company and its subsidiary, ESSA Bank were named as defendants,
among others, in an action commenced on December 8, 2016 by one
plaintiff who sought to pursue the suit as a class action on behalf
of the entire class of people similarly situated.

The plaintiff alleged that a bank previously acquired by the
Company received unearned fees and kickbacks in the process of
making loans, in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act.

In an order dated January 29, 2018, the district court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the case.

The plaintiff appealed the court's ruling.

In an opinion and order dated April 26, 2019, the appellate court
reversed the district court's order dismissing the plaintiff's case
against the Company and remanded the case to the district court in
order to continue the litigation.

The litigation is now proceeding before the district court.

On December 9, 2019, the court permitted an amendment to the
complaint to add two new plaintiffs to the case asserting similar
claims.

On May 21, 2020, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

Fact and expert discovery is now complete, and the Company and ESSA
Bank have filed motions seeking to have the case dismissed (in
whole or in part) and/or the class de-certified, as well as for
other relief. Plaintiffs have opposed the motions.

The Company and ESSA Bank will continue to vigorously defend
against plaintiffs' allegations. To the extent that this matter
could result in exposure to the Company and/or ESSA Bank, the
amount or range of such exposure is not currently estimable but
could be substantial.

ESSA Bancorp, Inc. is a holding company of ESSA Bank & Trust based
in Pennsylvania.

EXICURE INC: Seeks Dismissal of Colwell Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Exicure Inc. disclosed in its Form 8K Report for June 30, 2023
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11,
2023, that the Company wants to dismiss the second amended
complaint of Mark Colwell.

On December 13, 2021, Colwell filed a putative securities class
action lawsuit against the Company, David A. Giljohann and Brian C.
Bock in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, captioned Colwell v. Exicure, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-0663.

On February 4, 2021, plaintiff filed an amended putative securities
class action complaint.

On March 20, 2023, the court entered an order appointing James
Mathew as lead plaintiff and Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP as lead
counsel in the action pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995.

On May 26, 2023, lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint
against the Company, Dr. Giljohann, Mr. Bock, and Grant Corbett.

The second amended complaint alleges that Dr. Giljohann, Mr. Bock,
and Dr. Corbett made materially false and/or misleading statements
related to the Company's clinical programs purportedly causing
losses to investors who acquired Company securities between January
7, 2021 and December 10, 2021.

The second amended complaint does not quantify any alleged damages
but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, lead plaintiff seeks
to recover damages on behalf of himself and others who acquired the
Company's stock during the putative class period at allegedly
inflated prices and purportedly suffered financial harm as a
result.

The Company intends to move to dismiss the second amended
complaint.

Exicure Inc. has historically been an early-stage biotechnology
company focused on developing nucleic acid therapies targeting
ribonucleic acid against validated targets.

EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Adams Sues Over Sherman Antitrust Act Breach
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Derrick Adams, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., EQUIFAX INC., AND
TRANSUNION, Case No. 2:23-cv-01773-DJC-JDP (E.D. Cal., Aug. 22,
2023), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the
Sherman Antitrust Act and California's Cartwright Act.

In very public fashion, the Three Credit Reporting Agencies
announced a formal agreement among themselves to restrain trade by
refusing to report unpaid medical bills under $500 on consumer
credit reports. Indeed, it is rare to see such a transparent
conspiracy. While the Defendants celebrated their joint action as
benefitting patients, the agreement represents a categorical
violation of the Sherman Act and the Cartwright Act, and its
imposition not only illegally restrains trade, but will also
diminish access to medical care by driving providers out of certain
markets.

The Three Credit Reporting Agencies' conspiracy to devalue their
credit reports, by agreeing not to report unpaid medical bills
under $500, targets medical providers and has inevitably harmed
them. Medical providers now have a more costly path to collect
payment on unpaid medical bills, if they can feasibly collect at
all. Defendants' conduct also places individual medical providers,
such as Dr. Adams, at a severe financial disadvantage compared to
larger and more expensive medical practices, such as hospitals.

Medical providers submit information about unpaid medical bills to
credit reporting agencies in what had been a mutually beneficial
transaction: credit reporting agencies received information about
unpaid debts, which made their reports more valuable to those
purchasing the credit reports, and medical providers received help
persuading patients to pay their medical bills, by virtue of
patients' desire to avoid the negative impact of having unpaid
medical bills on their credit reports.

Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion could have continued competing in
terms of the value of their service to medical practices by
deciding independently what information to report on consumer
credit reports. Instead, the Three Credit Reporting Agencies have
conspired to restrain competition in this market by agreeing not to
report unpaid medical debts under $500 on consumer credit reports.
Defendants' services in the relevant market are now equally
devalued to medical providers such as Plaintiff Dr. Adams.

This conspiracy violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section
16720 of the Cartwright Act. Dr. Adams and many thousands of other
medical providers have suffered losses as a direct and proximate
result of Defendants' unlawful conduct and are entitled to relief
including actual damages, treble damages, equitable relief, and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff works and has an ownership share in the medical
practice Twelve Bridges Dermatology.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc. is an Ohio corporation with
its principal place of business in Costa Mesa, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Court Ruling in FCRA Class Suit Discussed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq., Zachary J. McCormack, Esq., and
Emilee N. Crowther, Esq., of Duane Morris, disclosed that in Nelson
v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., No. 4:21-CV-894, 2023 WL
5284831 (N.D. Ala. Aug. 16, 2023), Judge Corey L. Maze of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama granted
Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc.'s ("Experian")
Motion for Summary Judgment, and denied as moot Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification. Judge Maze reasoned that summary judgment
was appropriate because it was not objectively unreasonable for
Experian to believe it was not required to reinvestigate the
accuracy of Nelson's name, addresses, and social security number
("SSN") on her credit report under Section 1681i of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act ("FCRA"). This ruling not only provides guidance into
the duties of Credit Reporting Agencies ("CRA") in the Eleventh
Circuit to conduct "reasonable reinvestigations" of "the
completeness or accuracy" of items on an individual's credit
report, but also demonstrates how an effectively timed summary
judgment motion can preclude class certification.

Case Background

Experian is a multinational data analytics and CRA company that
collects and aggregates credit information for millions of
individual consumers and businesses. Nelson discovered inaccuracies
in her Experian credit report, namely, that her maiden name was
misspelled, two addresses that were not hers were listed on her
report, and the last digit of her SSN was incorrect. Nelson made
three attempts to contact Experian to correct the inaccurate
information, and even though Experian removed all of the inaccurate
information aside from one address (associated with an open credit
account), Experian did not inform Nelson, or the furnishers of the
information, that the inaccurate information had been removed.
Thereafter, Nelson filed a class action against Experian in 2021
for negligent and willful non-compliance with the FCRA.

Following discovery Experian moved for summary judgment against
Nelson under several theories, including: (1) it accurately
reported the inaccurate information it received; (2) it did not
cause Nelson's injury, if any; (3) 15 U.S.C. Section 1681i's
reinvestigation requirement does not apply to personal
identification information; and (4) Experian is not liable for its
employees' unauthorized acts. Nelson concurrently moved for class
certification under Rule 23.

The Court's Decision

The Court denied Nelson's motion for class certification. Instead,
it granted Experian's motion for summary judgment.

The FRCA's Reinvestigation Requirement

Section 1681i of the FRCA requires a CRA to conduct a reasonable
reinvestigation only if a consumer disputes "the completeness or
accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer's
file." 15 U.S.C. Section 1681i. Both Nelson and Experian agreed
that the Court must grant summary judgment if it found 15 U.S.C.
Section 1681i imposed no duty on Experian to reinvestigate Nelson's
dispute over inaccurate personal identification information.

Nelson asserted "any item of information contained in a consumer's
file" included, at the very least, her name, address, and SSN,
because the term "file" as defined by the FRCA includes "all of the
information on that consumer recorded and retained by a [CRA]." Id.
at 5; 15 U.S.C. Section 1681a(g). However, Experian countered that
the FRCA's disclosure provision requires CRAs to disclose six
categories of information if requested by the consumer, including
the first category of "all information in the consumer's file."
Id.; 15 U.S.C. Section 1681g(a). Experian argued, and the Court
agreed, that Congress' addition of five subcategories of
information after the broad phrase "all information in the
consumer's file" established that "Congress did not literally mean
all information in the consumer's file when it defined 'file' to
mean 'all information in the consumer's file.'" Id. at 6.

Experian further argued that under 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681a(g), the
word "any" in "any item of information contained in a consumer's
file" is limited to information that might be, or has been,
furnished in a consumer report. Id. at 6-7. Since personal
identification information like a consumer's name, address, and SSN
do not bear on an individual's creditworthiness, Experian contended
that such information did not itself constitute a credit report.
Id. at 7. The Court disagreed with Experian's argument. It held
that the FRCA's plain language and canons of construction "forbid
the use of credit worthiness as the limitation on information
contained in both the consumer's credit report and the consumer's
file." Id. at 8.

Ultimately, the Court found that, according to 15 U.S.C. Sections
1681c(h), 1681g(a)(1), and 1681u, names, addresses, and SSNs fit
within the phrase "any item of information contained in a
consumer's file," and Experian thus had a duty to reinvestigate the
accuracy of Nelson's name, addresses, and SSN when Nelson filed a
direct dispute under that provision. Id. at 9-10.

Reasonable Belief

The Court noted that the existence of a duty to reinvestigate "is
not enough to prove a violation of the FCRA" -- Nelson also had to
establish that Experian either negligently or willfully failed to
satisfy its duty to reinvestigate by showing that Experian's
interpretation of the FCRA was objectively unreasonable. Id. at 10;
see also, Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 68-70
(2007).

Experian argued that its understanding of 15 U.S.C. Section 1861i
counseled that disclosures and reinvestigations should be limited
to information that bared on the consumer's credit worthiness. In
support of its position, Experian pointed to two federal circuit
opinions, as well as regulations from the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau and the Federal Trade Commission, all
establishing that the term "file" should only contain what was
included in a consumer report.

Considering no case law told Experian that its interpretation was
wrong, and other circuits' precedent and CFPB and FTC regulations
suggested that Experian could be right, the Court ruled that no
jury could find that Experian negligently or willfully violated the
FCRA, and that Experian's interpretation of the FCRA was
objectively reasonable.

Implications For CRAs

This ruling provides guidance for CRAs regarding how the Eleventh
Circuit will treat "reasonable reinvestigations" of "the
completeness or accuracy" of items on an individual's credit
report. Considering Experian's favorable ruling precluded class
certification, Experian avoided expensive litigation and numerous
claims involving issues similar to Nelson's class action.
Considering this is the first case of its kind, other federal
courts may take note in FCRA class actions. [GN]

F.L. CROOKS & CO: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against F.L. Crooks & Co. The
case is styled as Maria DiMeglio, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. F.L. Crooks & Co., Case No.
1:23-cv-07419 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 22, 2023).

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

F.L. Crooks & Co. -- https://www.flcrooks.com/ -- is a fashion
designer that offers clothing, shoes, and accessories for women and
men.[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


FACEAPP TECHNOLOGY: Faces Class Action Suit Over BIPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris of Madiso - St. Clair Record reports that Edwardsville
lawyer Jeff Cooper of Flint Cooper joined Belleville lawyers James
Radcliffe, Christopher Cueto and Lloyd M. Cueto in filing a
biometric privacy suit against Face App at U. S. district court on
Aug. 8.

They seek to appoint Chelsea Purchase of St. Clair County as leader
of a class seeking $1,000 for each negligent violation of biometric
law and $5,000 for each intentional violation.

They sued a company they identified as a subsidiary of FTL in
Cyprus.

Radcliffe wrote, "From 2018 through 2022, Face App has had an
average of 48 million users."

"Since its launch, Face App has been downloaded over 350 million
times," he wrote.

Radcliffe claimed Face App allows members to upload and edit
photographs within it.

It allegedly collects, stores, and uses member information in
violation of the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act.

Radcliffe claimed it never informed members that it would collect,
store, and use facial information.

He claimed it never informed users of the specific purpose and
length of term for which their information would be collected,
stored, and used.

He added that it never received written releases.

"These issues were the subject of a letter issued by Senator Chuck
Schumer," he wrote.

He claimed Purchase has used Face App for several years.

"Since using Face App, Plaintiff has uploaded many photographs to
Face App's network that include images of her face," he wrote.

Radcliffe proposed to define the class as all Illinois residents
who had identifiers collected, captured, or otherwise obtained.

He claimed the definition might be expanded or narrowed subject to
information obtained through investigation and discovery.

The court clerk randomly assigned Magistrate Judge Mark Beatty.

Cooper and John Simmons operated an asbestos litigation firm until
Cooper started Eudora Global and other international investment
entities.

The entities remain active; but last year, Cooper and Ethan Flint
formed Flint Cooper. [GN]

FARADAY FUTURE: Continues to Defend Stockholder Class Suit in DE
----------------------------------------------------------------
Faraday Future Intelligent Electric Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report for March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 21, 2023, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the stockholder class suit in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware.

On June 14, 2022, a verified stockholder class action complaint was
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against,
among others, the Company, its former Global CEO and CFO, and its
current Chief Product and User Ecosystem Officer alleging breaches
of fiduciary duties (the "Yun Class Action,").

On September 21, 2022, another verified stockholder class action
complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware against, among others, FFIE, the Co-CEOs and independent
directors of PSAC, and certain third-party advisors to PSAC,
alleging breaches of contract and fiduciary duties, and aiding and
abetting alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, in connection with
disclosures and stockholder voting leading up to the Business
Combination (the "Cleveland Class Action"). The Yun and Cleveland
Class Action were subsequently consolidated action (the
"Consolidated Delaware Class Action").

On April 4, 2023, Defendants filed opening briefs in support of
their respective motions to dismiss the complaint.

Given the early stages of the legal proceedings, it is not possible
to predict the outcome of the claims.

Faraday Future claims it designs and engineers next-generation
smart electric connected vehicles.[BN]


FENWICK & WEST: Cabo Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Leandro Cabo, Ryan Henderson, Kyle Rupprecht,
Vijeth Shetty, And Warren Winter, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Fenwick & West LLP, Case No.
3:23-cv-03944 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on Aug. 22, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-23211 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Fenwick & West LLP -- https://www.fenwick.com/ -- is a law firm of
more than 470 attorneys with offices in Silicon Valley, San
Francisco, Seattle, New York City, Santa Monica, Washington, DC and
Shanghai.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William M. Audet, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102-3275
          Email: waudet@audetlaw.com


FIRST-CALL MEDICAL: Underpays Cardiac Technicians, Joseph Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
TIFFANY JOSEPH, individually and for others similarly situated v.
FIRST-CALL MEDICAL, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-11851-LTS (D. Mass.,
Aug. 11, 2023) arises from the Defendant's violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act by depriving Plaintiff and similarly situated
straight time employees of the "time and a half" overtime pay they
are owed for all hours worked after 40 in a workweek.

Plaintiff Joseph has worked for FCMI as a cardiac technician since
approximately March 2022.

FCMI in an independent diagnostic testing facility specializing in
telemedicine heart monitoring services to patients across the
U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip J. Gordon, Esq.
          Kristen M. Hurley, Esq.
          GORDON LAW GROUP LLP
          585 Boylston Street
          Boston, MS 02116
          Telephone: (617) 536-1800
          Facsimile: (617) 536-1802
          E-mail: pgordon@gordonllp.com
                  khurley@gordonllp.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

FIRSTENERGY CORP: Takes Digital Payments, Not Settlement Checks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jake Zuckerman of Cleveland.com reports that Northeast Ohioans who
won class action lawsuit settlement awards in connection with a
massive political bribery scheme say their $10 to $20 winnings are
effectively stranded in "digital payment" form.

Instead of checks or credits on their electric bills, the class
members received their money via an email from a third party that
many found suspicious. The lawsuit closely followed the
now-substantiated criminal allegation that FirstEnergy bribed
ex-Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder to pass legislation that
bailed out nuclear plants owned at the time by a company
subsidiary.

Since Cleveland.com and The Plain Dealer wrote about the first
funds from the $49 million settlement flowing out the door, several
readers have reached out to say their money is stuck in purgatory.
Most received around $8. Because many online vendors won't allow
users to split a bill over multiple forms of payment, the
plaintiffs can't buy much online that costs less than your average
burrito.

Others noted that the award came from email domains affiliated with
Tremendous, a company administering the settlement, making them
think it was a scam. The suspicion grew widespread enough that the
Better Business Bureau issued a public notice that the emails are
not a scam but the real deal.

Dennis Murray Jr., counsel for the plaintiffs, said class members
will be notified if they have not drawn down their funds in a month
or so, and once more after that. He said the overseeing lawyers are
also "looking at" changing the email and sender to make it feel
less spammy.

The digital payment format, he said was the product of compromise.
FirstEnergy "adamantly refused" to apply the money as credits to
bills, as it would have required them to file a new rate case at
the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, which would have caused
more delay. Cutting checks instead of offering digital payments
would have eaten into the settlement distributions, he said.

"The challenge with smaller distributions is that small checks are
often ignored and it costs something like $1.50 to get a check cut
and mailed," he wrote in an email. "With 2 million class members,
that is a lot of money that could be going to the class instead.
The experience of my co-counsel and the class administrator is that
we ultimately will get more money to more class members using
digital payments than we would checks."
"There is an option to receive an alternative form of payment at
the bottom of the email. The simplest way to use these funds is to
add them to a prepaid card such as at Amazon or to use Apple Pay.
You are right, most on-line retailers don't accept split payments,
just as some stores don't but more stores do that online
retailers."

Jennifer Young, a FirstEnergy spokeswoman, declined to comment
directly on the claim that the company 'adamantly refused' to apply
the money to bill credits.
"While the plaintiffs' lawyer is not able to access customer bills
to apply credits, it is otherwise their discretion how to implement
the settlement funds," he said.

PUCO spokesman Matt Schilling said if a given utility company
wanted to apply credits to customers' bills, it would need
permission from the regulators. However, the process is much
simpler than a rate case, as commissioners only would need to
determine if the decreased rates are "just and reasonable."

FirstEnergy paid $37.5 million to settle the case, with Energy
Harbor (formerly a subsidiary of FirstEnergy) paying $11.5 million.
Of that sum, plaintiffs attorneys took home more than $13 million.

Plaintiffs had sued FirstEnergy days after federal prosecutors
accused ex-Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder and four
conspirators in connection with a bribery scheme bankrolled by
FirstEnergy. The class plaintiffs alleged they overpaid on their
bills to fund a $60 million racketeering scheme deployed to pass
House Bill 6, which was worth about $1.3 billion to the company.

Several readers have reached out voicing frustrations with the
settlement, including Carla Vondrak.

"I got $7.89. Must be used for online purchase and must pay
purchase in full. Cannot be combined. That will be difficult," she
said in an email. "How about the people with $1? I would have
preferred a statement credit to my FirstEnergy bill. Bottom line,
very few people will be able to use their settlement."

Vincent Fiordalis, a self-identified "senior citizen [who's] not
too computer savvy," said he doesn't know why his $7.29 wouldn't
just be credited to his FirstEnergy bill.

"It seems to me that that would be the way to do it," he said. "Who
thinks up these email refund notifications?"

Michael O'Boyle, a retired community college professor, wondered
where his check is.

"My question: where is the email that I am supposed to be receiving
from the settlement? And is the amount (paltry as it may be) going
to be somehow embedded in that email? Or sent by another means?" he
said. "I hope that you stay on this case so that we poor
residential customers can get some answers to these questions."
[GN]

FIRSTSUN CAPITAL: Continues to Defend Besser Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
FirstSun Capital Bancorp disclosed in its Form 10-Q/A Report for
March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 11, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from
the Besser overdraft fee class suit in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado.

On September 13, 2021, Samantha Besser filed a putative class
action amended complaint against the Bank in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado.

The amended complaint alleges that the Bank improperly charged
multiple insufficient funds or overdraft fees when a merchant
resubmits a rejected payment request.

The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, which
incorporates the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing.

Plaintiff seeks to represent a proposed class of all the Bank's
checking account customers who were charged multiple insufficient
funds or overdraft fees on resubmitted payment requests.

Plaintiff seeks unspecified restitution, actual and statutory
damages, costs, attorneys' fees, pre-judgment interest, and other
relief as the Court deems proper for herself and the purported
class.

On September 27, 2021, the Bank filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

The motion to dismiss has been fully pled and is before the Court
for decision.

The Bank believes that the lawsuit is without merit, and it intends
to vigorously defend against all claims asserted.

FirstSun Capital Bancorp, headquartered in Denver, Colorado, is the
financial holding company for Sunflower Bank, National Association,
which operates as Sunflower Bank, First National 1870 and Guardian
Mortgage.



FRANK BRUNCKHORST: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cooke Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
DENIS COOKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FRANK BRUNCKHORST CO., LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:23-cv-06333 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 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 as well as alleges violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Plaintiff Cooke was employed by the Defendant as a service support
specialist.

FRANK BRUNCKHORST COMPANY, LLC provides food products. The Company
offers turkey, ham, beef, chicken, franks, sausages, bacon,
bolognas, cheese, and condiments. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David C. Wims, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DAVID WIMS
          1430 Pitkin Ave., 2 nd Fl.
          Brooklyn, NY 11233
          Telephone: (646) 393-9550

FRANK KENDALL: Claims in Johnson Suit Narrowed
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Johnson, et al., v. Frank
Kendall Co., Case No. 3:21-cv-01214 (D. Conn., Filed Sept. 13,
2021), the Hon. Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. entered an order
that:

  -- The document filed at ECF No. 99-1 will be substituted for
     Exhibit H, filed at ECF No. 92-9, as the Court reviews the
Joint
     Motion for Settlement Class Certification and Preliminary
     Settlement Approval.

  -- The Court is also in receipt of the Parties Joint Notice of
     Stipulation of Dismissal as to Claims VIII, IX, and X. As a
     stipulated dismissal takes effect without a court order, Fed.
R.
     Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), those claims are now dismissed.

  -- The Court will take no further action regarding this Notice
and
     will proceed solely on the remaining claims addressed in the
     Parties settlement motion.

The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Job Discrimination
(Handicap).[CC]

FRANKLIN MINT: Brown Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
-------------------------------------------------------
Steven Brown, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FRANKLIN MINT FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No.
2:23-cv-03238-GEKP (E.D. Pa., Aug. 22, 2023), is brought against
Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the
Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information
stored within Defendant's information network, including, without
limitation, full names, dates of birth, addresses, member number,
account number and Social Security numbers (these types of
information, inter alia, being thereafter referred to,
collectively, as "personally identifiable information" or "PII").

The Plaintiff seeks to hold 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 Defendant on June
1, 2023, in which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's
inadequately protected network servers and accessed highly
sensitive PII that was being kept unprotected ("Data Breach").
While Defendant claims to have discovered the breach as early as
June 1, 2023, Defendant did not inform victims of the Data Breach
until August 3, 2023. Indeed, the Plaintiff and Class Members were
wholly unaware of the Data Breach until they received letters from
Defendant informing them of it.

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

Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class Members
by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failing
to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure
that the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was safeguarded,
failing to take available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure
of data and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate
protocols, policies, and procedures regarding the encryption of
data, even for internal use. As a result, the Plaintiff's and Class
Members' PII was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and
unauthorized third party--an undoubtedly nefarious third party
seeking to profit off this disclosure by defrauding the Plaintiff
and Class Members in the future. the Plaintiff and Class Members
have a continuing interest in ensuring that their information is
and remains safe and are entitled to injunctive and other equitable
relief, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was notified via letter from the Defendant that his
PII had been accessed because of the Data Breach.

The Defendant is a credit union and collects PII from their Members
in the course of doing business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vincent Coppola, Esq.
          PRIBANIC & PRIBANIC, LLC
          513 Court Place
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: (412) 281-8844
          Facsimile: (412) 281-4740
          Email: vcoppola@pribanic.com

               - and -

          Daniel Srourian, Esq.
          SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: (213) 474-3800
          Facsimile: (213) 471-4160
          Email: daniel@slfla.com


FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Faces Callejas Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE CALLEJAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 2:23-cv-06540 (C.D. Cal., August 10, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendant for damages, injunctive relief, and
any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the
illegal actions of Defendant Freedom Mortgage Corporation in
negligently and/or knowingly invading the privacy of Plaintiff and
the putative class by making unsolicited calls using artificial
and/or prerecorded voice, without implied or express consent, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff was personally affected because Plaintiff was
frustrated, distressed, disturbed, and felt harassed that Defendant
and/or their agents continued to place unauthorized calls to
Plaintiff's cellular telephone using an artificial and/or
prerecorded voice, says the suit.

Freedom Mortgage Corporation is an American full-service mortgage
lender.[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
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  david@kazlg.com
                  mona@kazlg.com
                      
               - and -

          Prescott W. Littlefield, Esq.
          Andrew J. Kearney, Esq.
          KEARNEY LITTLEFIELD, LLP
          100 N Brand Blvd, Suite 424
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (213) 473-1900
          Facsimile: (213) 473-1919
          E-mail: pwl@kearneylittlefield.com
                  ajk@kearneylittlefield.com

FUNPLUS INTERNATIONAL: Faces Guns of Glory False Ads Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that video
game developer FunPlus falsely advertises price discounts for
in-game purchases for its mobile application game Guns of Glory:
Lost Island, a new class action lawsuit alleges.

Plaintiff Loren Kelly claims FunPlus advertises false former prices
for Guns of Glory: Lost Island in-app purchases to induce players
into believing they need to act fast to "take advantage of a
limited-time sale price."

Kelly argues FunPlus has grossed more than $510 million in revenue
since it launched in 2017 through the in-app microtransactions,
which she claims generally range in price from as little as $0.99
to $99.99 each.

"(FunPlus) uses strikethrough pricing and percentages to trick
consumers into believing they are benefitting from limited-time
promotions that substantially increase the value of their in-game
purchases," the Guns of Glory class action states.

Kelly wants to represent a global class and California subclass of
consumers who purchased False Strikethrough Packs, False Bonus
Packs, False Limited Time Availability packs, and/or Loot Boxes
while playing Guns of Glory: Lost Island, within the applicable
statute of limitations.

Kelly argues the in-game items available as an in-app purchase for
Gods of Glory: Lost Island have never actually been offered at a
non-discounted price, despite being advertised as having a
"limited-time" discount.

"(FunPlus) offers false discounts from an original price that did
not exist, and its players bought packs on "sale" that were the
same prices they would ordinarily pay," the Gods of Glory class
action states.

Kelly claims FunPlus is guilty of fraud and unjust enrichment and
of violating California's False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal
Remedies Act.

The plaintiff is demanding a jury trial and requesting declaratory
and injunctive relief along with an award of compensatory, actual,
and punitive damages for herself and all class members.

In another case involving a mobile app game, a group of consumers
filed a class action lawsuit against the makers of the State of
Survival game last year over claims they falsely advertised in-app
purchases as being sold at a discounted price.

Have you made an in-app purchase while playing Guns of Glory: Lost
Island? Let us know in the comments!

The plaintiff is represented by Karl S. Kronenberger, Katherine E.
Hollist, and Leah Rose Vulić of Kronenberger Rosenfeld, LLP,
Raphael Janove, Adam Pollock, and George Krebs of Pollock Cohen
LLP, and Jay Kumar of Jay Kumar Law.

The Guns of Glory class action lawsuit is Kelly v. FunPlus
International AG, Case No. 3:23-cv-04122, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California. [GN]

GANNETT CO: Faces Class Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
Bernie Pazanowski of Bloomberg Law reports that Site editors, who
maintain NFL team webpages for USA Today Sports Media Group LLC,
filed a collective action against the publisher and Gannett Co.
Inc. claiming that they are employees entitled to overtime pay.

The editors signed independent contractor agreements with USA Today
that paid them $2,250 a month, plus small bonuses, based on metrics
such as reader page views. But because the editors worked 70 hours
a week, they said that their salary ranged from $6 to $12 an hour,
according to the complaint filed in the US District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania on August 17, 2023. [GN]

GERON CORPORATION: Settlement in Consolidated Suit Wins Initial Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Geron Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2023, that on October 13, 2022, the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California
preliminarily approved the parties' settlement of a consolidated
class action complaint alleging violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with allegedly false and
misleading statements made by the related to the myelofibrosis
treatment "IMbark" during the period from March 19, 2018, to
September 26, 2018.

The consolidated class action complaint alleges, among other
things, that the company violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 by failing to disclose facts
related to the alleged failure of "IMbark" to meet the two primary
endpoints of the trial, spleen response rate and Total Symptom
Score, and that our stock price dropped when such information was
disclosed. The plaintiffs in the consolidated class action
complaint seek damages and interest, and an award of reasonable
costs, including attorneys' fees., and permitted notice to be
distributed to the class members. On March 30, 2023, the Court held
a hearing on the motion for final approval of settlement and plan
of allocation and ordered supplemental notice be sent to all of the
class members.

Geron Corporation is a biotechnology company located in Foster
City, California, which specializes in developing and
commercializing therapeutic products for cancer that inhibit
telomerase.


GIFTED NURSES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Amended to Feb. 2, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERYL COVINGTON,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GIFTED NURSES, LLC d/b/a GIFTED HEALTHCARE, Case No.
1:22-cv-04000-VMC (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Victoria Marie Calvert
entered an amended scheduling order:

   1. The deadline for Plaintiff to disclose        Feb. 9, 2024
      her expert witness(es) shall be on or
      before:

   2. The deadline for Defendant to disclose        Feb.  16, 2024

      its expert witness(es) shall be on
      or before:

   3. The deadline to conduct fact discovery        May 3, 2024.
      shall be on or before:

   4. Plaintiff's Motion for Class                  Feb. 2, 2024
      Certification shall be filed on or
      Before:

   5. The Defendant's Response shall be             March 4, 2024
      filed on or before:

   6. Plaintiff's Reply, if any, shall be           March 19, 2024
       filed on or before:

   7. The hearing on Plaintiff's Motion             April 25, 2024
      for Class Certification shall be
      held on:

Gifted Nurses specializes in private care for individuals and
families, and medical staff relief services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45o7Bhx at no extra
charge.[CC] 


GOBRANDS INC: Faces Stern TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------------
BRADLEY STERN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GOBRANDS, INC. d/b/a GOPUFF, Case No. 1:23-cv-23140
(S.D. Fla., Aug. 17, 2023) contends that the Defendant promotes and
markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text
messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

On February 28, 2023, the Plaintiff sent a "stop" opt-out
instruction to the Defendant, because he did not wish to receive
the Defendant's solicitations. Notwithstanding, the Defendant
continued to text message the Plaintiff, including on or about June
10, 2023, June 14, 2023, June 15, 2023, June 16, 2023, June 17,
2023, June 18, 2023, June 29, 2023, July 2, 2023, July 10, 2023,
July 14, 2023, and July 17, 2023 (twice), the Plaintiff contends.

The Defendant's failure to honor opt-out requests demonstrates that
the Defendant does not maintain written policies and procedures
regarding its text messaging marketing; provide training to its
personnel engaged in telemarketing; and/or maintain a standalone
do-not-call list, the Plaintiff alleges.

The Defendant's text message spam caused the Plaintiff and the
Class members harm, including violations of their statutory rights,
trespass, annoyance, nuisance, invasion of their privacy, and
intrusion upon seclusion. The Defendant's text messages also
occupied storage space on the Plaintiff's and the Class members'
telephones, the Plaintiff adds.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and statutory damages to put
an end to Defendant's unlawful conduct which has resulted in
intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and
personal to Plaintiff and the Class members.

The Plaintiff was the regular user of cellular telephone number
that received the Defendant's telephonic sales calls.

GoBrands is a provider of online retail and delivery services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and -

          Rachel Dapeer, Esq.
          DAPEER LAW, P.A.
          20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 610-5223
          E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com

GOLDMAN SACHS INT'L: Commodities Antitrust Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that its subsidiary Goldman
Sachs International (GSI) is among the defendants named in putative
class actions relating to trading in platinum and palladium, filed
beginning on November 25, 2014 and most recently amended on May 15,
2017, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

The amended complaint generally alleges that the defendants
violated federal antitrust laws and the Commodity Exchange Act in
connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate a benchmark for
physical platinum and palladium prices and seek declaratory and
injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified
amount.

On March 29, 2020, the court granted the defendants' motions to
dismiss and for reconsideration, resulting in the dismissal of all
claims, and on February 27, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of certain
plaintiffs' antitrust claims and vacated the district court's
dismissal of the plaintiffs' Commodity Exchange Act claim.

On April 12, 2023, the defendants' petition for rehearing or
rehearing en banc with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit was denied.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, together
with its consolidated subsidiaries, is a global financial
institution that delivers a broad range of financial services to a
large and diversified client base that includes corporations,
financial institutions, governments and individuals.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Consolidated Suit Over VRDO Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that its subsidiary Goldman
Sachs and Co. (GS&Co.) is among the defendants named in a related
putative class action filed on June 2, 2021 in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges conspiracy in the market for variable rate
demand obligations (VRDOs) as that alleged in the consolidated
amended complaint filed on May 31, 2019, and asserts federal
antitrust law, state law and state common law claims against the
defendants.

The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
unspecified amounts of compensatory, treble and other damages. On
August 6, 2021, plaintiffs in the May 31, 2019 action filed an
amended complaint consolidating the June 2, 2021 action with the
May 31, 2019 action. On September 14, 2021, defendants filed a
joint partial motion to dismiss the August 6, 2021 amended
consolidated complaint. On June 28, 2022, the court granted in part
and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing
the state breach of fiduciary duty claim against GS&Co., but
declining to dismiss any portion of the federal antitrust law
claims. On October 27, 2022, the plaintiffs moved for class
certification.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, together
with its consolidated subsidiaries, is a global financial
institution that delivers a broad range of financial services to a
large and diversified client base that includes corporations,
financial institutions, governments and individuals.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Consolidated Suits Over Rate Swaps Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that its subsidiary Goldman
Sachs and Co. (GS&Co.), GSI, GS Bank USA and Goldman Sachs
Financial Markets, L.P. are among the defendants named in a
putative antitrust class action relating to the trading of interest
rate swaps, filed in November 2015 and consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The same Goldman Sachs entities are also among the defendants named
in two antitrust actions relating to the trading of interest rate
swaps, commenced in April 2016 and June 2018, respectively, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by three
operators of swap execution facilities and certain of their
affiliates. These actions have been consolidated for pretrial
proceedings.

The complaints generally assert claims under federal antitrust law
and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among
the defendants to preclude exchange trading of interest rate swaps.
The complaints in the individual actions also assert claims under
state antitrust law. The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive
relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount.
Defendants moved to dismiss the class and the first individual
action and the district court dismissed the state common law claims
asserted by the plaintiffs in the first individual action and
otherwise limited the state common law claim in the putative class
action and the antitrust claims in both actions to the period from
2013 to 2016.

On November 20, 2018, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motion to dismiss the second individual action,
dismissing the state common law claims for unjust enrichment and
tortious interference, but denying dismissal of the federal and
state antitrust claims. On March 13, 2019, the court denied the
plaintiffs' motion in the putative class action to amend their
complaint to add allegations related to conduct from 2008 to 2012,
but granted the motion to add limited allegations from 2013 to
2016, which the plaintiffs added in a fourth consolidated amended
complaint filed on March 22, 2019. The plaintiffs in the putative
class action moved for class certification on March 7, 2019.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, together
with its consolidated subsidiaries, is a global financial
institution that delivers a broad range of financial services to a
large and diversified client base that includes corporations,
financial institutions, governments and individuals.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement Reached in Commodities Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that its subsidiaries
Goldman Sachs and Co. (GS&Co.), GSI, J. Aron & Company and Metro
International Trade Services (Metro), a previously consolidated
subsidiary of Group Inc. that was sold in the fourth quarter of
2014, are among the defendants in a number of putative class and
individual actions filed beginning on August 1, 2013 and
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

On May 31, 2022, two individual plaintiffs entered into a
settlement with the defendants. The firm has paid the full amount
of its contribution to the settlement.

The complaints generally allege violations of federal antitrust
laws and state laws in connection with the storage of aluminum and
aluminum trading. The complaints seek declaratory, injunctive and
other equitable relief, as well as unspecified monetary damages,
including treble damages.

In December 2016, the district court granted defendants' motions to
dismiss and on August 27, 2019, the Second Circuit vacated the
district court's dismissals and remanded the case to district court
for further proceedings. On July 23, 2020, the district court
denied the class plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and on
December 16, 2020 the Second Circuit denied leave to appeal the
denial. On February 17, 2021, the district court granted
defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to the claims
of most of the individual plaintiffs. On April 14, 2021, the
plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.

On May 31, 2022, the two remaining individual plaintiffs entered
into a settlement with the defendants. The firm has paid the full
amount of its contribution to the settlement.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, together
with its consolidated subsidiaries, is a global financial
institution that delivers a broad range of financial services to a
large and diversified client base that includes corporations,
financial institutions, governments and individuals.


GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Suit for Wiretapping Taxpayer Data
----------------------------------------------------------
Skye Witley of Bloomberg Law reports that Alphabet Inc.'s Google
was accused of violating federal wiretapping protections in the
latest proposed class action in California federal court over use
of the company's tracking pixels on tax filing websites like H&R
Block.

Nine individual users of online tax preparation tools faulted
Google for invading their privacy under federal statutes and four
state privacy laws, in a lawsuit filed on August 17, 2023 in the US
District Court for the Northern District of California.

Google and three tax preparation companies—H&R Block Inc., TaxAct
Holdings Inc., and TaxSlayer LLC—have come under scrutiny since a
July report released by congressional Democrats raised. [GN]

GROUPON INC: Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------
On August 21, 2023, a federal court in Chicago has preliminarily
approved a settlement of the putative Lanham Act and unfair
competition class action lawsuit led by Pollock Cohen LLP on behalf
of businesses nationwide against Groupon, Inc. Salon Phoenix
Cosmetology LLC, et al., v. Groupon, Inc. (Case No.
1:22-cv-07162).

The lawsuit alleges that Groupon violated the federal Lanham Act
and related state laws by: (1) creating pages on its website
referring to businesses that had never had deals on Groupon, which
allegedly contained "stock" descriptions of such businesses and
certain inaccurate information about such businesses (such pages
are referred to as "Business Landing Pages" in the settlement); and
(2) maintaining Deal Pages on its website after the expiration of a
business's deal on Groupon. The complaint alleges that Groupon
benefitted from this conduct by driving web search traffic to its
website and that businesses in the putative class were harmed by
such conduct through damage to their brands.

Groupon denies all of the allegations but entered into the class
settlement agreement to resolve the litigation without further
cost, risk, and distraction. The final approval hearing for the
settlement will be held on November 16, 2023, in Chicago,
Illinois.

Under the terms of the settlement, Groupon will make certain
changes to the operation of certain pages on its website to address
the concerns raised in the complaint.

Specifically, Groupon will provide the option for settlement class
members to claim, edit, or remove the Business Landing Pages, which
are listed on the Groupon website with a url extension of .biz. All
such pages will include information about how to contact Groupon to
claim the page, request an edit, or request removal of the page. If
Groupon requires time to consider a proposed claim to edit or
remove a page, Groupon will temporarily de-index the page so it
cannot appear on search engine results. Groupon will also ensure
that each Business Landing Page disclaims any affiliation with all
settlement members who do not have a current or prior deal with
Groupon. In addition, class members who have had a Deal Page with
Groupon that has been expired for three years or more may request
that Groupon de-index and remove from internet search results any
expired Deal Page.

For more information on the settlement, class members may refer to
the Settlement Website:
https://www.groupon.com/landing/settlement-agreement. On the
website, class members may find the full settlement agreement, the
key filings in this case, and the procedures and deadlines for
class members to object to the settlement.

The court has appointed Raphael Janove of Pollock Cohen LLP as
class counsel, who can be reached at (646) 201-5523 and
groupon.settlement@pollockcohen.com.

Contact:

Raphael Janove
(646) 201-5523
groupon.settlement@pollockcohen.com [GN]

H&R BLOCK: Caimano Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Roni Sue Caimano, on behalf of herself and
all other similar situated v. H&R BLOCK, INC., HRB Digital LLC, HRB
TAX GROUP, INC., Case No. 230702196 was removed from the Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 23,
2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-03272.

In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims against all Defendants
for: violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic
Surveillance Control Act.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          J. Fred Lorusso, Esq. (No. 92283)
          VAUGHAN BAIO & PARTNERS
          Two Logan Square
          100 North 18th Street, Suite 700
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 569-2400
          Facsimile: (215) 665-8300
          Email: florusso@vaughanbaio.com

               - and -

          Anthony J. Durone, Esq.
          Stacey R. Gilman, Esq.
          BERKOWITZ OLIVER LLP
          2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1200
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Phone: (816) 561-7007
          Facsimile: (816) 561-1888
          Email: adurone@berkowitzoliver.com
                 sgilman@berkowitzoliver.com


HAWAIIAN AIRLINES: O'Hailpin Seeks Extension of Class Cert Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RIKI O'HAILPIN, NINA
ARIZUMI, ROBERT ESPINOSA, ERWIN YOUNG, PUANANI BADIANG, SABRINA
FRANKS, RONALD LUM, DAN SAIKI, and BRANDEE AUKAI, on their own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HAWAIIAN
AIRLINES, INC. and HAWAIIAN HOLDINGS, INC., Case No.
1:22-cv-00532-JAO-RT (D. Haw.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order extending class certification deadlines as follows:

           Event                  Old Deadline         New
Deadline

  Plaintiffs' motion due:          Aug. 7, 2023     5 days from
                                                    resolution of
                                                    Rule 37.1(c)
issue
                                                    (to be
submitted
                                                     Aug. 14,
2023)

  Defendants' response due:        Sept. 7, 2023    30 days from
the
                                                    deadline for
                                                    Plaintiffs'
motion

  Plaintiffs' reply due:           Sept. 21, 2023   14 days from
the
                                                    deadline for
                                                    Defendants'
                                                    response

Hawaiian Airlines is the largest operator of commercial flights to
and from the U.S. state of Hawaii.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 4, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47NFFVV at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James Hochberg, Esq.
          JAMES HOCHBERG AAL, LLLC
          700 Bishop Street, Suite 2100
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 256-7382
          E-mail: jim@jameshochberglaw.com

                - and -

          John C. Sullivan, Esq.
          David Austin R. Nimocks, Esq.
          Jace R. Yarbrough, Esq.
          S|L LAW PLLC
          610 Uptown Boulevard, Suite 2000
          Cedar Hill, TX 75104
          Telephone: (469) 523-1351
          Facsimile: (469) 613-0891
          E-mail: john.sullivan@the-sl-lawfirm.com
                  austin.nimocks@the-sl-lawfirm.com
                  jace.yarbrough@the-sl-lawfirm.com

                - and -

          Walker Moller, Esq.
          SIRI | GLIMSTAD
          700 S. Flower Street, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 376-3739
          E-mail: wmoller@sirillp.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          John Rhee, Esq.
          Nickolas Kacprowski, Esq.
          Christine Belcaid, Esq.
          Richard Crum, Esq.
          DENTONS
          1001 Bishop Street Suite 1800
          Honolulu HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 441-6170
          E-mail: john.rhee@dentons.com
                  nickolas.kacprowski@dentons.com
                  christine.belcaid@dentons.com
                  rick.crum@dentons.com

HCA HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Halock reports that HCA Healthcare is the largest healthcare
provider in the U.S. made up of 182 hospitals and 2,300 health care
facilities spread across 20 states. On July 10, 2023, a cyberattack
came to light when the personal data of numerous patients appeared
online. It is estimated that the breach affected approximately 11
million HCA Healthcare patients, exposing their private
information. The compromised data, accessed unlawfully, comprised
patients' names, addresses, contact details, birth dates, service
dates, and details pertaining to future appointments. It is
believed that the information was exfiltrated from an external
storage location that was used to format patient email messages. In
response to the attack, internal IT disabled user access to the
storage location as an immediate containment measure. HCA
Healthcare promptly posted a notice on their website alerting the
public of the incident and assured patients that payment and
clinical information were not accessed in the attack.

This incident follows closely on the heels of another major breach
reported just six weeks prior, where John Hopkins fell prey to a
ransomware attack. In that instance, a Russian ransomware
collective leveraged a well-documented vulnerability in a file
transfer application used by a portion of the employees. Like John
Hopkins, a class action suit has been filed against HCA
Healthcare.

Basis of the Case
The plaintiffs in the case state that HCA Healthcare has a legal
duty of care to keep the private information of patients safe and
confidential. They are alleging that HCA Healthcare failed to
properly implement basic data security practices and reasonable
measures to protect private patient information from unauthorized
access. This includes obligations outlined by HIPAA legislation,
the FTC Act, and industry standards. They specifically state that
the defendant failed to adequately monitor the security of their
networks and systems that made an attack possible.

The lawsuit alleges that the plaintiffs and class members are due
compensation for both compensatory and consequential damages
incurred due to the data breach. These damages include, but are not
limited to, the expenses related to the prevention, detection, and
resolution of identity theft, tax fraud, and other unauthorized
uses of their personal information. Furthermore, the defendant is
obligated to enhance its data security mechanisms and supervision
procedures, in addition to complying with subsequent audits of
these systems and processes. The plaintiffs are also seeking the
defendant's continued commitment to providing satisfactory credit
monitoring services for all parties involved in the lawsuit.

Call to Action
Two primary protection methods to secure sensitive data are access
control and encryption. Proper access control ensures that only
authorized individuals have access to specific data or systems.
Access should be configured using the principle of least privilege
in which users are given the minimum level of access to perform
their job. This requires some method of identifying and
authenticating users including user credentials, multifactor
authentication (MFA), or biometric authentication. Access can be
granted by assigned permissions, access lists, or role-based access
control (RBAC) in which access is based on the role assigned to the
designated user. Access to privileged areas should be monitored and
regularly audited to identify any suspicious activity.

It is essential that organizations use robust encryption methods to
protect sensitive data while at rest or in transit. If the data is
accessed by an unauthorized party, the data will be unusable
without access to the decryption keys which should be thoroughly
protected. Encryption can be enforced using management policies
using such tools as Group Policy or an MDM provider. [GN]

HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN: Berry Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK BERRY, HENRIETTA
BROWN, NADINE LITTLE, DENNIS BARROW, VIRGINIA ROY, JOEL WESTVIG,
GINA MALLEK, AND DANIEL HUITING on behalf of themselves and a class
of similarly situated individuals; and ZACAH, v. HENNEPIN COUNTY;
HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERRIFF DAWANNA WITT, in her official capacity;
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS; MINNEAPOLIS MAYOR JACOB FREY, in his
individual and official capacity; current MINNEAPOLIS CHIEF OF
POLICE BRIAN O'HARA, in his official capacity; former MINNEAPOLIS
CHIEF OF POLICE MEDARIA ARRADONDO, in his individual capacity;
MINNEAPOLIS PARK AND RECREATION BOARD; POLICE OFFICERS JOHN DOES;
and POLICE OFFICERS JANE DOES, Case No. 0:20-cv-02189-WMW-JFD (D.
Minn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying
the following Class and naming Plaintiffs Patrick Berry, Henrietta
Brown, Dennis Barrow, Joel Westvig, and Daniel Huiting as Class
representatives pursuant to fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) & 23(b)(2):

   "All unhoused individuals residing in the City of Minneapolis
from
   October 19, 2018, to the present who have been, are now, or will
be
   subject to Defendants’ policies and practices as they relate
to
   encampment sweeps and property disposal."

The Plaintiffs seek a class action for injunctive relief to prevent
Defendants from continuing to engage in conduct that violates the
rights of Plaintiffs and putative Class members under the Fourth
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and
Article 1, Sections 7 and 10 of the Minnesota Constitution:

Hennepin County is a county in the U.S. state of Minnesota. The
county extends from Minneapolis to the suburbs and outlying cities
in the western part of the county.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 3, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45Eo3cS at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jennell K. Shannon, Esq.
          Wallace Hilke, Esq.
          Hannah Welsh, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR LLP
          80 South Eighth Street
          2000 IDS Center
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-2274
          Telephone: (612) 371-3211
          Facsimile: (612) 371-3207
          E-mail: shannonjk@ballardspahr.com
                  hilkew@ballardspahr.com
                  welshh@ballardspahr.com

                - and -

          Justin H. Perl, Esq.
          Dorinda L. Wider, Esq.
          Luke Grundman, Esq.
          MID-MINNESOTA LEGAL AID
          111 North Fifth Street, Suite #100
          Minneapolis, MN 55403-1604
          Telephone: (612) 746-3727
          Facsimile: (612) 746-3624
          E-mail: jperl@mylegalaid.org
                  dlwider@mylegalaid.org
                  lgrundman@mylegalaid.org

                - and -

          Teresa Nelson, Esq.
          Ian Bratlie, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF
          MINNESOTA
          Minneapolis, MN 55414
          Telephone: (651) 645-4097
          Facsimile: (651) 647-5948
          E-mail: tnelson@aclu-mn.org
                  ibratlie@aclu-mn.org

HOST INTERNATIONAL: Class Cert. Hearing Extended to Sept. 21
------------------------------------------------------------
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 Court entered an order granting joint motion for
continuance of class certification hearing.

  -- The class certification hearing is extended to Sept. 21,
2023.

Host International provides catering services to travelers.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 3, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44jISt9 at no extra charge.[CC]





HOWARD UNIVERSITY: Faces Whetstone Suit Over Shortchanging Retirees
-------------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN G. WHETSTONE, On behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. HOWARD UNIVERSITY, HOWARD UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES'
RETIREMENT PLAN, THE RETIREMENT PLAN COMMITTEE OF THE HOWARD
UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT PLAN, and JOHN/JANE DOES 1–10,
Case No. 1:23-cv-02409 (D.D.C., Aug. 17, 2023) sues the Defendants
for unlawfully shortchanging retirees of the Howard University
Employees' Retirement Plan by millions of dollars through their use
of outdated mortality tables in violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

According to the complaint, by using improper mortality tables to
calculate joint and survivor annuities and preretirement survivor
annuities for Plan participants, the Defendants have harmed the
financial security of Howard University's retirees and their loved
ones, to the Defendants' financial gain, the Plaintiff contends.

The Defendants disregarded their fiduciary duties, and elected to
use formulas that appear to be based on outdated actuarial
assumptions to calculate these types of benefits. These formulas
result in the Plaintiff and Class Members receiving less than the
"actuarial equivalent" of their vested benefits, in violation of
ERISA's actuarial equivalence requirements. Instead of receiving
the benefits to which they are entitled, the Plaintiff and the
Class have been and continue to receive benefits that are lower
than they should be, says the suit.

The Plaintiff brings this class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of himself and the
following Class:

         All Participants and Beneficiaries of the Plan who (1)
         began receiving benefits on or after six years prior to
         the date this Complaint is filed, (2) are receiving a
         joint and survivor annuity (JSA) with a survivor benefit
         of at least 50% and no more than 100% of the benefit paid

         during the retiree's life, or are receiving a qualified
         preretirement survivor annuity (QPSA), and (3) are
         receiving a benefit where the actuarial present value of
         their annuity as of the date benefits began was less than

         the actuarial present value of their age-65 single
         life annuity (SLA) using the applicable Treasury
         Assumptions as of the date benefits began.

Mr. Whetstone worked for HU for approximately 14 years. His
benefits began on September 1, 2018. He elected the 66 2/3% JSA
offered by the Plan as a "Qualified" JSA with his wife as the
beneficiary.

HU is a private, federally chartered research university in
Washington, D.C., that offers undergraduate, graduate, and
professional degrees.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elizabeth A. Brehm, Esq.
          Lisa R. Considine, Esq.
          Oren Faircloth, Esq.
          SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
          745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
          New York, NY 10151
          Telephone: (212) 532-1091
          E-mail: ebrehm@sirillp.com
                  lconsidine@sirillp.com
                  ofaircloth@sirillp.com

INDEPENDENT HOME: Class Cert Bid Filing Due June 11, 2024
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CURTIS ROBERTSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
INDEPENDENT HOME PRODUCTS LLC, Case No. 8:23-cv-01118-CEH-JSS (M.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell entered a case
management and scheduling order that:

  Mandatory Initial Disclosures               Aug. 31, 2023

  Certificate of Interested Persons           IMMEDIATELY
  and Corporate Disclosure Statement

  Motions to Add Parties or to Amend          Oct. 2, 2023
  Pleadings

  Deadline to Disclose Expert Reports
  Regarding Class Certification

           Plaintiff:                         April 9, 2024

           Defendant:                         April 30, 2024

  Class Certification Discovery Deadline      May 28, 2024

  Deadline for Moving for Class               June 11, 2024
  Certification

  Disclosure of Any Expert Reports

           Plaintiff:                         Sept. 17, 2024

           Defendant:                         Sept. 25, 2024

           Rebuttal:                          Oct. 15, 2024

  Discovery Deadline                          Jan. 3, 2025

  Dispositive Motions, Daubert, and           Feb 7, 2025
  Markman Motions

  Meeting In Person to Prepare Joint          May 9, 2025
  Final Pretrial Statement

  Joint Final Pretrial Statement              May 20, 2025

  All Other Motions Including Motions         May 27, 2025
  In Limine

  Final Pretrial Conference                   June 17, 2025

Independent Home specializes in cost-effective, safe and practical
walk-in tubs, bathing solutions.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 3, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45jtH4x at no extra charge.[CC]

INDIVIOR PLC: Settles End Payor Class Claims in Suboxone Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Josh White, writing for ShareCast, reports that addiction treatment
specialist Indivior announced on Aug. 21 that its US division has
settled claims made by the end payor class in the Suboxone
antitrust litigation. The FTSE 250 company said it expected to pay
$30m, which would be deducted from a reserved $188m for the
litigation. Meanwhile, Indivior US was preparing for a 30 October
trial related to other claims, but remained open to a settlement
there as well. [GN]

INFOARMOR INC: Munoz Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Lorena Munoz, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
individuals v. Infoarmor, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-01731-SMB (D.
Ariz., Aug. 21, 2023), is brought for their unlawful failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(hereinafter "FLSA").

The Plaintiff and the Collective Members were compensated on an
hourly basis and were not paid one-and-one-half times their regular
rates of pay for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in a given
workweek. This is an action for equitable relief, overtime wages,
unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the FLSA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff commenced employment with the Defendant as a Customer
Care Specialist on February 21, 2022.

The Defendant is an identity theft protection company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Barrat, Esq.
          WEILER LAW PLLC
          5050 N. 40th St., Suite 260
          Phoenix, AZ 85018
          Phone & Fax: 480.442.3410
          Email: jbarrat@weilerlaw.com
          Web: www.weilerlaw.com


INOTIV INC: Continues to Defend Grobler Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Inotiv Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for June 30, 2023
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11,
2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Grobler
securities class suit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana.

On June 23, 2022, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Indiana, naming the Company and Robert W. Leasure and Beth A.
Taylor as defendants, captioned Grobler v. Inotiv, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 4:22-cv-00045 (N.D. Ind.). The complaint alleged
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, based on alleged false and misleading
statements and material omissions regarding the Company's
acquisition of Envigo RMS and its regulatory compliance.

On September 12, 2022, Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement
System was appointed by the Court as lead plaintiff.

Thereafter, on November 14, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint against the same defendants, in addition to John
E. Sagartz and Carmen Wilbourn, that asserted the same claims along
with a claim under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act.

On November 23, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed a further amended
complaint against the aforementioned defendants asserting the same
claims as the amended complaint and further alleging that false and
misleading statements and material omissions were made concerning
the Company's non-human primate business.

The purported class in the operative complaint includes all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock
between September 21, 2021 and November 16, 2022, and the complaint
seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and
expenses of attorneys and experts, and other relief.

On January 27, 2023, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

That motion has been fully briefed since April 28, 2023, and is
currently pending.

While the Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter, the
Company believes the class action to be without merit and plans to
vigorously defend itself.

Inotiv purports to be a contract research organization which
provides nonclinical and analytical drug discovery and development
services and research models and related products and
services.[BN]


INTERLOCK SECURITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ferraro Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL FERRARO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff vs. INTERLOCK SECURITY GROUP, INC.; and DERRICK
LOPEZ, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00650 (M.D. Fla.,  August 22,
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 Ferraro was employed by the Defendants as a security
guard.

INTERLOCK SECURITY GROUP, INC. is in the security guard service
business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert S. Norell, Esq.
          ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.
          300 N.W. 70th Avenue Suite 305
          Plantation, FL 33317
          Telephone: (954) 617-6017
          Facsimile: (954) 617-6018
          Email: rob@floridawagelaw.com

JONES FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Anderson Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Cos. LLLP disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
June 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 11, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from
the Anderson class suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California.

On March 30, 2018, Edward Jones and its affiliated entities and
individuals were named as defendants in a putative class action
(Anderson, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The
lawsuit originally was brought under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended (the "Securities Act"), and the Exchange Act, as well as
Missouri and California law and alleges that the defendants
inappropriately transitioned client assets from commission-based
accounts to fee-based programs.

The plaintiffs requested declaratory, equitable, and exemplary
relief, and compensatory damages.

On July 9, 2019, the district court entered an order dismissing the
lawsuit in its entirety without prejudice.

On July 29, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
which eliminated certain defendants, withdrew the Securities Act
claims, added claims under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as
amended (the "Investment Advisers Act"), and certain additional
state law claims, and reasserted the remaining claims with modified
allegations.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs
subsequently withdrew their Investment Advisers Act claims, and on
November 12, 2019, the district court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss all other claims.

The plaintiffs appealed the district court's dismissal of certain
of their state law claims on jurisdictional grounds but did not
appeal the dismissal of the remaining claims.

On March 4, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed the district court's dismissal of those state law claims.


After further appellate proceedings in the Ninth Circuit,
defendants filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme
Court, which was denied on January 18, 2022.

On February 2, 2022, the defendants filed a renewed motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs' remaining state law claims.

On May 9, 2022, the court dismissed the second amended complaint
without prejudice.

On May 31, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint
alleging a single claim of breach of fiduciary duty under Missouri
and California law against a single defendant, Edward Jones, which
Edward Jones moved to dismiss on June 21, 2022.

The district court denied the motion to dismiss in an order filed
on October 26, 2022.

Edward Jones filed its answer to the third amended complaint on
November 14, 2022. Edward Jones denies the plaintiffs' allegations
and intends to continue to vigorously defend this lawsuit.

The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. operates as an investment
management company. The Company offers wealth management,
retirement savings, insurance, annuities, mutual funds, stocks,
investment strategies, financial planning, and advisory services.
Jones Financial serves customers in the United States and Canada.
[BN]


JONES FINANCIAL: Court Narrows Claims in Zigler Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Cos. LLLP disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
June 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 11, 2023, that the Home Office Gender Discrimination class
suit captioned Zigler v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. et al. was
partially dismissed by the court.

Edward Jones and JFC were named as defendants in the lawsuit
brought by a former employee in the Northern District of Illinois.


The initial complaint filed on September 1, 2022 alleged putative
class and collective claims under the Equal Pay Act of 1963
("EPA"), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Illinois
state laws of gender-based wage discrimination against a subset of
female home office associates whom the plaintiff described as "home
office financial advisor[s]."

The plaintiff amended the complaint on November 29, 2022, seeking
to expand the putative collective and class definitions to include
all female home office associates in any role.

Edward Jones and JFC filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on January 6, 2023.

On June 9, 2023, the district court granted in part and denied in
part the defendants' motion to dismiss, narrowing the plaintiff's
EPA claim and related state-law claim to one of her roles at the
company, limiting the plaintiff's Title VII claim and related
state-law claim to a disparate treatment theory of liability as
opposed to a disparate impact theory, and accepting the plaintiff's
agreement to dismiss JFC from the case without prejudice.

Edward Jones filed its answer to the amended complaint on June 23,
2023.

Edward Jones denies the allegations and intends to vigorously
defend this lawsuit.

The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. operates as an investment
management company. The Company offers wealth management,
retirement savings, insurance, annuities, mutual funds, stocks,
investment strategies, financial planning, and advisory services.
Jones Financial serves customers in the United States and Canada.
[BN]

JONES FINANCIAL: Loses Bid to Junk Dixon Discrimination Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Cos. LLLP disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
June 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 11, 2023, that the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri lifted the stay and denied the motion to
dismiss the gender and race discrimination class suit captioned
Dixon, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.

On March 9, 2022, Edward Jones and JFC were named as defendants in
the lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri.

The lawsuit was brought by a current financial advisor as a
putative collective action alleging gender discrimination under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, and by a former financial advisor as a
putative class action alleging race discrimination under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1981.

On April 25, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
reasserting the original claims with modified allegations and
adding claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
alleging race/national origin, gender, and sexual orientation
discrimination on behalf of putative classes of financial advisors.


The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 23, 2022, and on
September 15, 2022, the court stayed further proceedings in the
case pending a decision on the motion to dismiss.

On March 31, 2023, the district court denied the motion to dismiss
and lifted the stay of proceedings.

The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. operates as an investment
management company. The Company offers wealth management,
retirement savings, insurance, annuities, mutual funds, stocks,
investment strategies, financial planning, and advisory services.
Jones Financial serves customers in the United States and Canada.
[BN]

JUICE PLUS+ COMPANY: Wahab Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Juice Plus+
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Angela Wahab, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. The Juice Plus+
Company, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-07456-ALC (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 23,
2023).

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

The Juice Plus+ Company, LLC -- https://www.juiceplus.com/us/en --
provides food based nutritional products. The Company sells health
and wellness products such as added nutrition juice powder
concentrates made from fruits, vegetables, berries, and
grains.[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


KEVIN CARR: Seeks Denial of Antrim Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENJAMIN BRAAM, et al., v.
KEVIN CARR, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Wisconsin
Department of Corrections, Case No. 2:19-cv-00396-BHL (E.D. Wis.),
the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order denying Plaintiff
Alton Antrim's motion for class certification.

Antrim failed to meet his burden as to each of the Rule 23
requirements for class certification, the Defendant contends.

Portions of Antrim's motion are premised on the existence of a
Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim, but there is no
such claim. His due process claims were unequivocally dismissed by
this Court in its decision granting the Department's motion to
dismiss these claims. Any attempt to revive his Fourteenth
Amendment claims or rely on them as a basis for granting class
certification should be rejected, the Defendant adds.

The Plaintiff Antrim is a repeat convicted sex offender who is
subject to GPS monitoring while he is in Wisconsin. This case is on
remand from the Seventh Circuit where the only remaining issue is
whether Antrim's lifetime GPS monitoring requirement is an
unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. Antrim now seeks
class certification.

Antrim cannot demonstrate that his proposed class meets the
numerosity requirement. His motion describes a much larger group
than the proposed class, and then he merely assumes that the
subpart of that larger group that includes his proposed class must
meet the numerosity requirement. That guesswork does not warrant
certifying a class.

Antrim propose the following class:

   "all individuals not under criminal supervision who are subject
to
   lifetime GPS monitoring pursuant to Wis Stats. section
   301.48(2)(a), sections (1)–(3m) and (7).

Wisconsin Department of Corrections is an administrative department
in the executive branch of the state of Wisconsin responsible for
corrections in Wisconsin, including state prisons and community
supervision.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 3, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3P6MhY8 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joshua L. Kaul, Esq.
          Jody J. Schmelzer, Esq.
          S. Michael Murphy
          WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          Madison, WI 53707-7857
          Telephone: (608) 266-3094
          Facsimile: (608) 267-2223 (Fax)
          E-mail: schmelzerjj@doj.state.wi.us
                  murphysm@doj.state.wi.us

KEYCORP: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of October 3 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Aug. 20 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against KeyCorp ("Key" or the "Company") (NYSE: KEY) and
certain officers. The class action, filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division,
and docketed under 23-cv-01520, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Key securities between February 27, 2020 and
June 9, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to
recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and
certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Key
securities during the Class Period, you have until October 3, 2023
to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A
copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To
discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free,
Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares
purchased.

Key operates as the holding company for KeyBank National
Association, which provides various retail and commercial banking
products and services in the U.S. One of the Company's principal
sources of revenue is net interest income ("NII"), which is
calculated as the difference between interest income received on
earning assets (such as loans and securities) and loan-related fee
income, and interest expense paid on deposits and borrowings.

Key has repeatedly downplayed concerns regarding its liquidity
while touting the effectiveness of its long-term liquidity
strategy. For example, the Company has repeatedly assured investors
that its strong core deposit base, in conjunction other funds,
supports the Company's liquidity risk management strategy, and that
the Company's liquid asset portfolio, inter alia, exceeds the
estimated amount needed to manage through an adverse liquidity
event.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Key downplayed concerns with its liquidity while
overstating the effectiveness of its long-term liquidity strategy;
(ii) Key overstated its projected NII for the second quarter ("Q2")
and full year ("FY") of 2023, as well as related positive NII
drivers, while downplaying negative NII drivers; (iii) as a result,
Key was likely to negatively revise its previously issued NII
guidance; (iv) all the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to
negatively impact Key's business, financial results, and
reputation; and (v) as a result, Defendants' public statements were
materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.

On March 6, 2023, Key filed its presentation slides for the 2023
RBC Capital Markets Financial Institutions Conference as an exhibit
to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing, wherein the Company
disclosed that it had downwardly revised its FY 2023 guidance for
NII, stating that it expects FY 2023 NII to rise by 1% to 4%
(assuming a cumulative beta in the mid- to high 30s) compared to FY
2022, representing a significant reduction from the Company's prior
guidance that FY 2023 NII would rise 6% to 9% compared to FY 2022.
The Company attributed this negatively revised guidance to "Deposit
Beta and Funding Costs", explaining that "[m]arginal funding costs
are increasing with rising market interest rates, and are expected
to weigh on [NII.]"

On this news, Key's stock price fell $0.60 per share, or 3.31%, to
close at $17.55 per share on March 7, 2023.

On March 13, 2023, following the collapse of Silvergate Bank on
March 8, 2023, Silicon Valley Bank on March 10, 2023, and Signature
Bank on March 12, 2023, investors grew increasingly concerned about
Key's own liquidity. That same day, Odeon Capital Group LLC
downgraded the Company's stock to hold from buy and BofA Global
Research cut its price target on the Company's stock to $17 from
$20.

On this news, Key's stock price fell $6.59 per share, or 40.69%, to
close at $11.38 per share on March 13, 2023.

Then, on June 12, 2023, at the Morgan Stanley US Financials,
Payments, & CRE Conference, Key's Chief Financial Officer,
Defendant Clark H. I. Khayat, disclosed that the Company
anticipated Q2 2023 NII to be softer than earlier expected, "based
on funding mix and deposit cost pressures." At the same conference,
Key's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Defendant Christopher
M. Gorman, disclosed that clients are demanding higher interest
rates on their deposits, and that banks of Key's size are likely
facing higher capital and liquidity requirements by regulators.

On this news, Key's stock price fell $0.46 per share, or 4.31%, to
close at $10.22 per share on June 12, 2023.

Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later,
Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for
the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members.
See www.pomlaw.com.

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]

KILOLO KIJAKAZI: Campos Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAQUANA CAMPOS, on behalf
of herself and her minor child, K.C.; TOSHA ADAMS; NORMAN MARSH;
and BETTI RODNYANSKAYA, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of
Social Security, Case No. 1:21-cv-05143-VMS (E.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

  -- certifying a settlement class; and

  -- granting a final approval of this class action settlement,
     attorneys' fees, and litigation expenses.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 4, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45r5Jo3 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Danielle Tarantolo, Esq.
          Michelle Spadafore, Esq.
          Elizabeth Jois, Esq.
          Jessica Ranucci, Esq.
          NEW YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP
          100 Pearl Street, 19th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 613-5000
          Facsimile: (212) 750-0820
          E-mail: dtarantolo@nylag.org
                  mspadafore@nylag.org
                  ejois@nylag.org
                  jranucci@nylag.org

                - and -

          Sheila S. Boston, Esq.
          Carmela T. Romeo, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
          250 West 55th Street
          New York, NY 10019-9710
          Telephone: (212) 836-8000
          E-mail: sheila.boston@arnoldporter.com
                  carmela.romeo@arnoldporter.com

                - and -

          Kathryn Lang, Esq.
          Regan Bailey, Esq.
          Carol Wong, Esq.
          JUSTICE IN AGING
          1444 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 683-1997
          E-mail: klang@justiceinaging.org
                  rbailey@justiceinaging.org
                  cwong@justiceinaging.org

KISS NUTRACEUTICALS: Gamboa Seeks to Certify Class of Workers
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA GAMBOA on her own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KISS
NUTRACEUTICALS, KISS INDUSTRIES, LLC, COLE EVANS and GRANT DEAN,
Case No. 1:22-cv-01141-WJM-SKC (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order certifying case as a class action pursuant
to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23:

   "All production, inventory and shipping workers who worked
overtime
   hours and who were not paid overtime wages between May 9, 2019,
and
   the present."

The Plaintiff and all members of the proposed class were low-wage
assembly line workers employed in Defendants' cannabidiol ("CBD")
gummy manufacturing operation. Defendants misclassified their
employees as independent contractors and, as a result, refused to
pay them overtime wages.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, and penalties on her own behalf and on behalf of her
similarly situated co-workers.

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint her as class
representative and her counsel appointed as class counsel.

The Defendants are in the business of manufacturing CDB gummy
bears, among other products.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 4, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44hmpgo at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandt Milstein, Esq.
          MILSTEIN TURNER, PLLC
          2400 Broadway, Suite B
          Boulder, CO 80304
          Telephone: (303) 440-8780
          E-mail: brandt@milsteinturner.com

KLAUSSNER FURNITURE: Chavis Sues Over Layoff Without Prior Notice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TREY CHAVIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KLAUSSNER FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC.
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00876-UNA (D. Del., Aug. 10, 2023) is a
civil action against the Defendant for collection of unpaid wages
and benefits for 60 calendar days pursuant to the Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act of 1988.

The Plaintiff was employees of Defendant until he were terminated
as part of, or as a result of a mass layoff and/or plant closing
ordered by Defendant. As such, Defendant is liable under the WARN
Act for the failure to provide Plaintiff and the other similarly
situated former employees at least 60 days' advance written notice
of termination, as required by the WARN Act.

Plaintiff Chavis was an employee who was employed by Defendant and
worked at or reported to a facility located in Asheboro, North
Carolina until his termination without cause on or about August 7,
2023.

Klaussner Furniture Industries, Inc. manufactures furniture. The
Company produces sofas, loveseats, chairs, ottomons, sleeper sofas,
reclining furniture, occasional tables, and diningroom
furniture.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Huggett, Esq.
          MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
          300 Delaware Avenue Suite 800
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 888-1112
          Facsimile: (302) 888-1119

               - and -

          Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
          LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
          100 Church Street, 8th Fl
          New York, NY 10078
          Telephone: (212) 581-5005
          Facsimile: (212) 581-2122

               - and -

          Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
          M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
          THE GARDNER FIRM, PC
          182 St. Francis Street Suite 103
          Mobile, AL 36602
          Telephone: (251) 433-8100
          Facsimile: (251) 433-8181

L9 SPORTS: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against L9 Sports, LLC. The
case is styled as Maria DiMeglio, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. F L9 Sports, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-07442 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 22, 2023).

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

L9 Sports -- https://www.levelninesports.com/ -- specialized in
selling ski, snowboard, and bike equipment through our
website.[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


LEE'S HOUSE: Faces Lin Suit Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
MIN HUI LIN, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated Plaintiff v. LEE'S HOUSE RESTAURANT INC d/b/a Lee's House
SEN LIN a/k/a Shen Lin; and BAIQUN LIN, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-03111 (E.D. Pa., Aug. 11, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage
Payment and Collection Law, arising from Defendants' alleged
various willful and unlawful employment policies, patterns and
practices.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have willfully and
intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and PAMWA
and WPCL 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.

Plaintiff Min Hui Lin was employed by Defendants to work as a
delivery driver at Defendants' restaurant Lee's House.

Lee's House Restaurant Inc., d/b/a Lee's House, engages in the
restaurant business located in Darby, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tiffany Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Blvd Suite 110
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324

LENSAR INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due October 17
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP of Digital Journal reports that it has filed a
class action lawsuit against Lensar, Inc. (NASDAQ:LNSR) and certain
of its officers and directors on behalf of all persons or entities
that held Lensar common stock as of June 2, 2023, and had the right
to vote at the August 1, 2023 Special Meeting on the North Run
Control Proposal pursuant to the Proxy dated June 20, 2023, and
were damaged thereby (the "Class"). This action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and alleges claims
for violations of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a member of the Class, subject to Order of the Court,
you may file a motion to be appointed lead plaintiff no later than
60 days after the publication of this notice, which is October 17,
2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation.

This securities class action alleges that material misstatements
and omissions in the Proxy damaged Plaintiffs and other non-North
Run Lensar shareholders by, among other things, significantly
diluting their holdings in the Company and by causing their Lensar
holdings to be discounted from their already undervalued level
based on North Run becoming the controlling shareholder of the
Company.

Wolf Popper has successfully recovered billions of dollars for
defrauded investors. The firm's reputation and expertise have been
repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed the firm
to major positions in securities litigation. For more information,
please visit the Firm's website at www.wolfpopper.com.

For more information, please contact:

Carl L. Stine, Esq.
Wolf Popper LLP
845 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Tel.: (212) 451-9631
Email: cstine@wolfpopper.com
Website: www.wolfpopper.com [GN]

LINQ BUSLINES: Father of Crash Victim Mulls Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Naomi Neilson, writing for LawyersWeekly, reports that a parent of
one of the victims killed in the Hunter Valley bus crash has
flagged a potential class action lawsuit.

Adam Bray, the father of 29-year-old Zac Bray, has told Nine he is
considering launching a class action against Linq Buslines, the
company behind the bus that rolled in the NSW's Hunter region on 11
June, killing 10 people and injuring a further 25.

The bus had been travelling late at night to drive wedding guests
home from a reception in the Hunter Valley. The driver, Brett
Button, is currently before the courts on 62 criminal charges.

Mr Bray said he has been considering legal options and said he has
been speaking to the government about safety on buses.

"The areas in there are actually some of the things we've been
talking to [the NSW] government about, in terms of driver training,
driver psychometrics - you don't just pop anyone behind the
steering wheel of a bus with 37, 57 lives, one life on board," he
told Nine.

"It's the bus company. And then, broader than that, it's the
industry."

While he considers the class action, a petition has been created by
a social media page, Stop Bus Tragedies, to improve bus laws. The
petition had over 2,400 signatures at the time of writing.

It also comes as the NSW government releases the first Bus Industry
Taskforce Report, which had been expanded following the crash.

NSW Minister for Transport Jo Haylen instructed Transport NSW to
implement the report's recommendations, including improving bus
driver recruitment and retention, updating its training, and
providing further contracting within rural and regional areas.

"We promised the people of NSW we would take decisive action to
help deliver better bus services for our communities, and this Bus
Industry Taskforce First Report provides a clear roadmap on what we
need to do," Ms Haylen said. [GN]

MALONE UNIVERSITY: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Malone University.
The case is styled as Joseph Ortiz, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Malone University, Case No.
1:23-cv-00878 (W.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2023).

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

Malone University -- https://www.malone.edu/ -- is a private
Christian university in Canton, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MANUFACTURERS & TRADERS: Rainey Suit Removed to S.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Casey Rainey, individually and as Independent
ADM. of the estate of Linda Ann Castleberry, deceased and on behalf
of all those similarly situated v. Manufacturers & Traders Trust
Company d/b/a M&T Bank, Case No. CV-0091871 was removed from The
Galveston County Court No. 3, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas on Aug. 23, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00272 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Foreclosure Real Property.

Manufacturers & Traders Trust Company doing business as M&T Bank
Corporation -- https://www3.mtb.com/ -- is an American bank holding
company headquartered in Buffalo, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Shawnika LaShone Brooks, Esq.
          BARRETT DAFFIN FRAPPIER LLP
          4004 Beltline Rd., Suite 100
          Addison, TX 75001
          Phone: (972) 386-5040
          Fax: (972) 341-0566
          Email: shawnikb@bdfgroup.com


MEHMET ILHAN: Cunningham Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mehmet Ilhan. The
case is styled as Kelli Cunningham, for herself and all others
similarly situated v. Mehmet Ilhan doing business as: Red Onion,
MCA Contractors LLC, MGI Contractor LLC, Mustafa Akkan, Case No.
3:23-cv-22503-TKW-ZCB (N.D. Fla., Aug. 23, 2023).

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

Mehmet Ilhan doing business as Red Onion is a digital production
lab that.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeremiah Joseph Talbott, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JEREMIAH J TALBOTT PA - PENSACOLA FL
          900 E. Moreno St.
          Pensacola, FL 32503
          Phone: (850) 437-9600
          Fax: (850) 437-0906
          Email: jj@talbottlawfirm.com


MEMPHIS, TN: Appeals Ruling  in Rape Kit Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Julia Wilburn of Tennessee Bar Association reports that the city of
Memphis plans to appeal a court ruling by Judge Gina Higgins, which
allowed a group of plaintiffs to bring a class action lawsuit
against the city for failure to test over 12,000 rape kits.

The Commercial Appeal reports that the city's attorneys point to a
separate case involving Alicia Franklin as a basis for their
appeal. Franklin had filed a lawsuit against the city, alleging
inadequate investigation by the Memphis Police Department, and
while her case was dismissed, the city argues that the conflicting
rulings highlight the need for a uniform legal approach. The city
is seeking to pause the rape kit case while an appeal is pending.
[GN]

META PLATFORMS: Vigo County School to Join Social Media Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Loughlin, writing for Tribune-Star, reports that The Vigo
County School Corp. plans to join a class action lawsuit against
social media companies over claims that their addictive platforms
have contributed to youth mental health issues.

The School Board voted on Aug. 21 to join the lawsuit, based on the
administration's recommendation.

"Since social media services have become increasingly more
prevalent, the need for mental health supports among our students
and families have also increased significantly," Superintendent
Chris Himsel said during the meeting.

"Whether that's coincidence or cause, that's an issue for another
day, but that's what we've noticed," he said.

Students are not necessarily in a position to navigate and avoid
many of the addictive aspects of social media, he said.

The social media providers identified in the litigation "utilize
business practices that, in our opinion, prey upon and take
advantage of our children's naïveté and use these practices to
take advantage of the addictive nature of social media services as
a way of capturing the attention of our youth," he said.

The district is joining other Indiana districts in the litigation.
The law firm involved is Wagstaff & Cartmell of Kansas City, which
has teamed up with a national coalition of firms to represent
school districts in the matter.

In joining, one goal is to curtail some of those behaviors of the
social media companies "so we can reduce the impact of those
addictive practices," Himsel said.

Another goal is financial compensation to offset some of the costs
the school district incurs as it provides increased mental health
supports to address some of the issues students face resulting from
social media, Himsel said.

Districts who join the lawsuit will provide information about what
they've experienced in terms of an increased need for mental health
supports and increased levels of student distraction related to
social media, he said.

The social media providers included in the lawsuit are YouTube, Tik
Tok, Snap Chat and Meta (parent company of Facebook and
Instagram).

Himsel said he didn't know the timeline. He said there would be no
legal fees for the school district.

He shared with the board that during his time in the classroom
teaching high school students last year, social media distracted
students during instruction and it also impacted student peer
relationships.

In other matters, the board approved a new repair/replacement
self-insurance program for damaged Chromebooks.

Parents will have the option of participating in the self-insurance
program for $20 (per student). Funds collected would be used to
create a self-insurance fund to address repairs.

The proposal outlines what repair fees would be for damaged
Chromebooks, and those fees would be reduced for those who
participate in the self-insurance program.

The insurance program is for damages, whether accidental, due to
negligence or intentional.

"We are not talking about computer failure itself. If the
motherboard fails because it's an electronic issue with the company
that built the computer, there's not going to be a damage fee
associated with it," Himsel said. "We're talking about damage that
is associated with either intentional behavior or just simply not
taking good care of the device."

He added, "What we're trying to do is offer parents a more
affordable way of addressing the costs of those repairs."

The self insurance fund will help cover those costs "and make this
a sustainable program as well as try to reduce the total impact on
our parents," he said.

Whether a person purchases the insurance or not, for the first
incident involving damages, the repair fee is waived.

For those who purchase insurance, the second incident also will
have fees waived (for those who don't purchase it, damage repair
fees will be assessed for the second incident).

For the third incident involving damage (and any additional
incidents), both those who purchase the insurance and those who
don't will pay damage/repair fees, but those fees will be reduced
for those who purchase the insurance.

For example, a major repair, such as screen replacement, would cost
$75 for someone participating in the self-insurance program; that
same repair would cost $150 for someone without the insurance.

According to Himsel, "At the end of the day, we have to be able to
recover the cost of this to make this a sustainable program."

There have been some people who don't want the Chromebooks at all,
Himsel told the board.

He noted that many textbook companies are going digital, and the
district "has to have a way of delivering those textbooks. I
believe the trend will be eventually all of the books will be
digital and we will not see hard copies. I don't think that's too
far off in the distant future." [GN]

MONASH IVF: Faces Class Suit Over Using Embryos Without Consent
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lexie Jeuniewic and Melissa Brown of ABC report that patients are
accusing one of Australia's oldest and largest fertility services
of using their embryos for experimentation without consent, forging
signatures and burning documents.

In a new statement of claim filed in the Supreme Court of Victoria
as part of a class action, Monash IVF Group and scientists working
for the clinic are accused of using embryos that patients had
instructed to be discarded after they were identified as having
abnormalities.

A non-invasive genetic test is at the centre of a multi-million
dollar class action that alleges it may have produced
false-positives for abnormalities that led some patients not to
pursue transfer of the embryos.

Lawyer Michel Margalit is overseeing the class action which is
claiming aggravated damages for more than 700 registered members.

"The patients had only consented to those embryos being destroyed
but the allegation is that they were used for scientific purposes,"
she said.

Ms Margalit said the statement of claim also alleged that
signatures of patients on consent forms for the scientific study
involving the new test had "suspiciously similar handwriting".

"And there's also an allegation that one of the scientists who was
involved in the clinical study went on to burn paper evidence of
what had been done in the clinical trial," she said.

Ms Margalit said her clients have suffered financial loss and
significant mental harm.

She said the class action was seeking financial compensation, an
explanation from Monash IVF, and an apology.

Patient wonders if her daughter could have had a sibling
Monash IVF stopped using the non-invasive testing in October 2020,
but that was too late for Kirsty Jones.

After having one daughter, Ms Jones began receiving treatment from
Monash IVF in April 2020 to try to have a second child.

She agreed to the non-invasive test on three embryos after being
told it was "gold standard", was accurate and would not harm the
embryos.

She said two embryos were deemed abnormal.

A transfer of the third embryo was not successful.

"To learn that the result was negative was devastating," she said.

"But that was on top of this new news, this confronting and new
news, that actually the other two embryos I had … that they might
have been ok."

"I can't fathom how a health care provider, someone you put your
trust in, someone you hand your hope over to when you're going
through this journey could treat individuals in this way."

"It was a really, really challenging and emotional period of
time."

Ms Jones said the two embryos that had been deemed abnormal were
later found in storage and further testing cleared one of any
abnormalities.

A transfer of that embryo also failed to result in pregnancy.

"I'm so incredibly grateful to have my daughter who is a joy.

"She doesn't have a sibling and I can't help but always wonder
whether that was due to the decisions that were made at Monash
IVF."

Monash IVF is preparing its defence

In a statement, Monash IVF Group said it was preparing a defence to
the new allegations.

"This case has been challenging for many people and we are
committed to supporting those affected through this process," it
said.

"Our people are among the most highly qualified and experienced in
their fields and as an organisation we continue to provide
best-in-class reproductive care to assist our patients to build
their family.

"As this matter is currently the subject of ongoing legal
proceedings, it would be inappropriate to Monash IVF to comment
further." [GN]

NAIMA PHARMACY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Campos Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
EVA CAMPOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NAIMA PHARMACY CORP (D/B/A NAIMA PHARMACY);
QUEENS EXPRESS PHARMACY CORP. (D/B/A QUEENS EXPRESS PHARMACY);
WANAS ANIS KHALIL; and CHRISTINA KHALIL, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-06330 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2023) is an action against the
Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate wage
statements.

Plaintiff Campos was employed by the Defendants as a cashier.

NAIMA PHARMACY CORP owns and operates pharmacies, located at
Jackson Heights, NY 11372, under the name "Naima Pharmacy"n and
"Queens Express Pharmacy". [BN]

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


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Settles Suit Over Cancelled Hall of Fame Game
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Gay of Fox 59 reports that a proposed settlement has been
reached in a class action lawsuit surrounding the cancellation of
the 2016 NFL Pro Football Hall of Fame Game between the Green Bay
Packers and the Indianapolis Colts.

According to a news release sent this week, a judge in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio Eastern
Division has granted a motion for preliminary approval of the class
action settlement on July 11.

This comes after a class action lawsuit was brought forward against
the Pro Football Hall of Fame which stated the hall was liable for
canceling the game because of field conditions. According to the
original complaint, which was filed in August 2016, officials
claimed that the field was not prepared by the grounds crew for the
game after a used FieldTurf playing surface was installed.

The lawsuit claimed that officials failed to inform fans that the
game had been canceled and encouraged fans to "continue to purchase
food, beverages and souvenirs at the stadium as they waited for a
game that would never start."

"It was not until approximately 8 p.m. that Hall of Fame President
David Baker finally told the fans, many of who had traveled from
around the country, that the game was cancelled," the complaint
reads.

The lawsuit stated that the damages fans suffered because of this
decision included the ticket costs, lodging and travel expenses,
costs associated with items purchased on the day of the game and
the missed hours and days of employment for those who took vacation
time to attend the game. The release said that the Pro Football
Hall of Fame "denies any wrongdoing and the Court has not decided
the merits of these allegations."

If the settlement is approved, a fund will be created totaling
$750,000. The release said that class members eligible to receive
compensation are required to submit a timely and valid claim form.
Individuals have two options to make a claim:

Make a claim based on the submission of documented expenses;
Make a claim based on the submission of expenses that are not
supported by documentation.

Through the settlement, individuals may be eligible to receive
compensation if they paid for and/or acquired tickets to the game.
However, the release said that individuals may not benefit from the
settlement if they previously accepted reimbursement from the Pro
Football Hall of Fame by completing the "2016 Pro Football Hall of
Game Reimbursement Election Form."

Individuals are able to do nothing, exclude themselves or object to
the settlement, according to the release. The court is expected to
host a hearing on Nov. 17 to consider the final approval of the
settlement.

For more information, and to download a Claim form, visit the class
action suit's website. Forms are required to be submitted online or
postmarked by Oct. 9. [GN]

NEW SOUTH WALES: Faces Class Suit Over Fatal Wedding Bus Crash
--------------------------------------------------------------
1News reports that the father of one of the victims of the fatal
Hunter Valley bus crash plans to lead a class action lawsuit over
the horrific tragedy, as he fights for industry reform.

Ten people were killed when the bus they were travelling in rolled
near Greta in the NSW Hunter on June 11.

Another 25 people were injured in the incident, which took place
late at night as guests were being driven home from a wedding
reception.

Adam Bray, who lost his 29-year-old son Zac in the crash, told
Nine's Today show on August 18, 2023 he had been spurred to take
action to improve bus safety, in particular the issue of
seatbelts.

Bray recently met with NSW Premier Chris Minns, the state's
transport minister and the head of NSW buses about his campaign to
make seatbelts mandatory on buses.

"I have never shed so many tears with total strangers in my life
but the empathy was phenomenal. The commitment was extraordinary,"
he said.

A website is being created but in the meantime, a Facebook page
called Stop Bus Tragedies has been set up so people can sign a
petition to improve laws around bus safety.

"If you jump on there, there is a petition to sign. A lot to do,
item one is seatbelts with seatbelt monitoring for the driver so
everyone is buckled up. We do it on a plane and car, do it on a
bus," said Mr Bray.

Bray has been reading through federal law regarding the chain of
responsibility for the incident and wants the Director of Public
Prosecutions to upgrade some charges to manslaughter.

He's also flagged a class action lawsuit against the bus company,
Linq Buslines, to address the broader issue of responsibility for
the crash.

"The areas in there are actually some of the things we've been
talking to (the NSW) government about, in terms of driver training,
driver psychometrics - you don't just pop anyone behind the
steering wheel of a bus with 37, 57 lives, one life on board," he
said.

"It's the bus company. And then, even broader than that, it's the
industry," he said.

Bray has met with industry representatives in recent weeks and says
he was given what he branded excuses.

"It's profit over safety," he added.

The pain of losing his son is still raw.

"The realisation that your life is scarred and will be forever
surrounded by trauma and grief is hard," Bray said.

"You think you're going OK and then there are triggers which set
you off."

The bus driver, Brett Button, remains before the courts facing 62
charges. [GN]

NEW YORK DMV: Ugo-Alum Files Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New York State
Department of Motor Vehicles. The case is styled as Uchenna
Ugo-Alum, Asher Berkovic, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles,
Commissioner Mark J.F. Schroeder, in his official capacity; Dep.
Comm'r, GC Joshua Vinciguerra, in his official and personal
capacities; Dep. Comm'r, CI Sayra Craft, in her official and
personal capacities; First Asst. Counsel Christine M. Legorius, in
her official and personal capacities; Case No. 1:23-cv-07458
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Civil Right
Denial of Due Process.

The New York State Department of Motor Vehicles --
http://dmv.ny.gov/-- is the department of the New York state
government responsible for vehicle registration, vehicle
inspections, driver's licenses, learner's permits, photo ID cards,
and adjudicating traffic violations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory Alan Frank, Esq.
          FRANK LLP
          305 Broadway, Ste. 700
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 682-1853
          Fax: (212) 682-1892
          Email: gfrank@frankllp.com


OCUGEN INC: Securities Class Suit Reply Brief Due September
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ocugen Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for June 30, 2023
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 21,
2023, that the lead plaintiff's reply brief in securities class
suit is due in September 2023.

In June 2021, a securities class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and certain of its agents in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ("Court") (Case No.
2:21-cv-02725) that purported to state a claim for alleged
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, based on statements made by the Company concerning the
announcement of the Company's decision to pursue the submission of
a BLA for COVAXIN for adults ages 18 years and older rather than
pursuing an EUA.

In July 2021, a second securities class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain of its agents in the Court (Case
No. 2:21-cv-03182) that also purported to state a claim for alleged
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on the same statements as the
first complaint.

The complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
and other costs.

In March 2022, the Court consolidated these two related securities
class action lawsuits and appointed Andre Galan Bernd Benayon to
serve as lead plaintiff.

The lead plaintiff's amended complaint was filed in June 2022.

In March 2023, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
with prejudice.

The lead plaintiff has appealed to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit regarding the order that was entered
in March 2023, which dismissed the action with prejudice.

The lead plaintiff's appellant's brief and joint appendix were
filed in July 2023.

The Company's appellees' brief was filed in August 2023, and the
lead plaintiff's reply brief is due in September 2023.

Ocugen, Inc. operates as a clinical stage biopharmaceutical
company. The Company offers products for improving the body's
ability to regenerate healthy cartilage, joint function, and
prevention of degenerative diseases. Ocugen serves patients and
orthopedist throughout the United States.[BN]



OCWEN FINANCIAL: Court Dismisses Munoz Suit
-------------------------------------------
Ocwen Financial Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California dismissed all
of the plaintiffs' claims for lack of standing and entered judgment
in favor of PHH with regards to a putative class action filed in
2008 in against its primary operating subsidiary, PHH Mortgage
Corporation (PHH) and related entities alleging that PHH's legacy
mortgage reinsurance arrangements between its captive reinsurer,
Atrium Insurance Corporation, and certain mortgage insurance
providers violated RESPA. The case is captioned "Munoz v. PHH
Mortgage Corp. et al."

In June 2015, the court certified a class of borrowers who obtained
loans with private mortgage insurance through PHH's captive
reinsurance arrangement between June 2007 and December 2009. PHH
asserted numerous defenses to the merits of the case. Following
pre-trial developments in August 2020, the only issues remaining
for trial were whether the plaintiffs had standing to bring their
claims and whether the reinsurance services provided by PHH's
captive reinsurance subsidiary, Atrium, were actually provided in
order for the safe harbor provision of RESPA to apply.

In January 2022, the court denied a motion by the plaintiffs to
enter new evidence and a motion by PHH to decertify the class,
which motion PHH may renew if the case ultimately goes to trial.
Following the entry of this order, at the request of the parties,
the court dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims for lack of
standing and entered judgment in favor of PHH. The plaintiffs
appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, and on February 24, 2023 that court reversed and remanded
for further proceedings.

Ocwen Financial Corporation is a non-bank mortgage servicer and
originator providing solutions to homeowners, clients, investors
and others through its primary operating subsidiary, PHH Mortgage
Corporation. It is headquartered in West Palm Beach, Florida with
offices and operations in the United States, the United States
Virgin Islands, India and the Philippines.



OCWEN FINANCIAL: Faces Weiner Suit in California
------------------------------------------------
Ocwen Financial Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that it is a defendant in a
certified class action in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern
District of California where the plaintiffs claim Ocwen marked up
fees for property valuations and title searches in violation of
California state law. The case is captioned "Weiner v. Ocwen
Financial Corp., et al."

In May 2020, the court ruled that plaintiff's recoverable damages
are limited to out-of-pocket costs, i.e., the amount of marked-up
fees actually paid, rather than the entire cost of the valuation
that plaintiffs sought. Following further pre-trial developments,
the court scheduled the trial for November 27, 2023.

Ocwen Financial Corporation is a non-bank mortgage servicer and
originator providing solutions to homeowners, clients, investors
and others through its primary operating subsidiary, PHH Mortgage
Corporation. It is headquartered in West Palm Beach, Florida with
offices and operations in the United States, the United States
Virgin Islands, India and the Philippines.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Settlement in Thacker Suit Wins Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------
Ocwen Financial Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that in the case captioned
"Thacker v. PHH Mortg. Corp., et al." (N.D. W.V.), the parties
executed a settlement agreement which was granted final approval by
the court in November 2022.

Said action challenged, under state and federal law, the company's
practice of charging borrowers a fee to use certain optional
payment methods.

Ocwen Financial Corporation is a non-bank mortgage servicer and
originator providing solutions to homeowners, clients, investors
and others through its primary operating subsidiary, PHH Mortgage
Corporation. It is headquartered in West Palm Beach, Florida with
offices and operations in the United States, the United States
Virgin Islands, India and the Philippines.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Tentative Settlement Reached in Forest Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Ocwen Financial Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that in the case captioned
"Forest v. PHH Mortg. Corp., et al. (D. R.I.), the company has
reached a tentative settlement with the class plaintiffs.

Said action challenged, under state and federal law, the company's
practice of charging borrowers a fee to use certain optional
payment methods.

Ocwen Financial Corporation is a non-bank mortgage servicer and
originator providing solutions to homeowners, clients, investors
and others through its primary operating subsidiary, PHH Mortgage
Corporation. It is headquartered in West Palm Beach, Florida with
offices and operations in the United States, the United States
Virgin Islands, India and the Philippines.


PALM BEACH ATLANTIC: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Palm Beach Atlantic
University, Inc. The case is styled as Joseph Ortiz, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Palm Beach
Atlantic University, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00879 (W.D.N.Y., Aug.
23, 2023).

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

Palm Beach Atlantic University -- https://www.pba.edu/ -- is a
private Christian university in West Palm Beach, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PEI OHIO INC: Cervantes Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Joseph Cervantes, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. PEI OHIO, INC., a corporation;
AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC., a corporation; and
Does 1 through 50, inclusive, was removed from the California
Superior Court, County of San Bernardino, to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 23,
2023, and assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-01580.

On July 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed and served the operative First
Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Plaintiff alleges that one or more
Defendants procured his background report without first providing
him with a compliant disclosure and obtaining his authorization.
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) “by failing to provide
Plaintiff and Class members with ‘clear and conspicuous’ notice
in a written document that consists solely of the disclosure that
they may procure reports for employment purposes.”[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Rod M. Fliegel, Esq.
          Kurt R. Bockes, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          333 Bush Street, 34th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415.433.1940
          Fax: 415.399.8490
          Email: rfliegel@littler.com
                 kbockes@littler.com

               - and -

          Nasim S. Tourkaman, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107
          Phone: 310.553.0308
          Fax: 310.553.5583
          Email: ntourkaman@littler.com

               - and -

          John K. Beckley, Esq.
          AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
          3333 Fairview Road, M/S A451
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: 714.885.1319
          Fax: 714.885.1307
          Email: beckley.john@ace.aaa.com


PEPPER'S PERFORMANCE: Wahab Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pepper's Performance
Eyewear, Inc. The case is styled as Angela Wahab, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Pepper's Performance
Eyewear, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-07459 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2023).

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

Peppers Eyeware -- https://peppersusa.com/ -- offers performance
polarized sunglasses for active lifestyles.[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


PERFORMANCE HEALTH: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Ballard Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JORDINN BALLARD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. PERFORMANCE HEALTH TECHNOLOGY, LTD., Defendant, Case
No. 6:23-cv-01173-AA (D. Ore., Aug. 10, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
third-party beneficiary contract, and violation of Oregon's
Unlawful Trade Practices Act, unjust enrichment, breach of
fiduciary duty, and declaratory judgment.

On July 27, 2023, PHT sent out data breach notice letters to
individuals whose information was compromised as a result of the
hacking incident.

The suit asserts that the potential for improper disclosure and
theft of Plaintiff's and Class members' private information was a
known risk to PHT, and thus PHT was on notice that failing to take
necessary steps to secure the private information left it
vulnerable to an attack. The Plaintiff's and Class Members'
identities are now at risk because of PHT's negligent conduct as
the Private Information that PHT collected and maintained is now in
the hands of data thieves and other unauthorized third parties,
says the suit.

The Plaintiff brings this class action against PHT for its alleged
failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated patients' personally identifiable information
and protected health information, including first and last names,
dates of birth, Social Security numbers, home addresses, member and
plan ID numbers, email addresses, authorization information,
medical diagnoses and procedure codes, and claim and billing
information from criminal hackers.

Performance Health Technology, Ltd. is a company that provides
health care plans with a variety of tasks, including customer
service, enrollment, and payment services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul B. Barton, Esq.
          Alex Graven, Esq.
          OLSEN BARTON LLC
          4035 Douglas Way, Suite 200
          Lake Oswego, OR 97035
          Telephone: (503) 468-5573
          E-mail: paul@olsenbarton.com
                  alex@olsenbarton.com

               - and -

          Mason A. Barney, Esq.
          Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
          SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
          745 Fifth Avenue. Suite 500
          New York, New York 10151
          Telephone: (212) 532-1091
          E-mail: mbarney@sirillp.com  
                  tbean@sirillp.com

               - and -

          Jennifer S. Czeisler, Esq.
          STERLINGTON PLLC
          One World Trade Center, 85th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 433-2993
          E-mail: jennifer@sterlingtonlaw.com

               - and -

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

PHH MORTGAGE: Settlement in Torliatt Suit Wins Final Nod
--------------------------------------------------------
Ocwen Financial Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that in the case captioned
"Torliatt v. PHH Mortg. Corp., et al.," the parties executed a
settlement agreement which was granted final approval by the court
in November 2022. Said action challenged, under state and federal
law, the company's practice of charging borrowers a fee to use
certain optional payment methods.

Ocwen Financial Corporation is a non-bank mortgage servicer and
originator providing solutions to homeowners, clients, investors
and others through its primary operating subsidiary, PHH Mortgage
Corporation. It is headquartered in West Palm Beach, Florida with
offices and operations in the United States, the United States
Virgin Islands, India and the Philippines.


PHH MORTGAGE: Settlement Reached in Morris Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Ocwen Financial Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that its primary operating
subsidiary, PHH Mortgage Corporation, has reached a settlement with
regards to a class action challenging, under state and federal law,
its practice of charging borrowers a fee to use certain optional
payment methods. The case is captioned "Morris v. PHH Mortgage
Corp., et al." (S.D. Fla.).

The parties' settlement agreement was granted final approval by the
court on June 16, 2023.

Ocwen Financial Corporation is a non-bank mortgage servicer and
originator providing solutions to homeowners, clients, investors
and others through its primary operating subsidiary, PHH Mortgage
Corporation. It is headquartered in West Palm Beach, Florida with
offices and operations in the United States, the United States
Virgin Islands, India and the Philippines.


PIZZETTE LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Domingo Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARCO JOAQUIN TOMAS DOMINGO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PIZZETTE LLC d/b/a
PIZZETTE; MARQUET WILLIAMSBURG INC. d/b/a MOMINETTE BISTRO; and
STEVEN MARK SCIACCA, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-06311 (E.D.N.Y.,
August 28, 2023) is an action against the Defendant's failure to
pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff Domingo was employed by the Defendants as a kitchen
staff.

PIZZETTE LLC d/b/a PIZZETTE owns and operates restaurants and
bakery at Brooklyn, NY 11206. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Emiliano Perez, Esq.
          THE PEREZ LAW GROUP
          1180 6th Avenue, 8th Fl.
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 300-7808

POKE FIDI: Fails to Pay Server's Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SANDY YUWONO, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and
the Class v. POKE FIDI LLC d/b/a CHIKARASHI FIDI, POKE NYC LLC
d/b/a CHIKARASHI CHINATOWN, POKE NOMAD LLC d/b/a CHIKARASHI NOMAD,
CANAL ARCADE LLC d/b/a NAKAJI, ABC CORPORATION d/b/a KONO, MICHAEL
JONG LIM, IVY TSANG a/k/a IVY CHU, JONATHAN CHU, and SELWYN CHAN,
Case No. 523927/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Aug. 17, 2023) seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages pursuant to Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff specifically seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages
due to an invalid tip credit; unpaid wages, including overtime, due
to time-shaving; unpaid spread of hours premium; unpaid tip
compensation due to an invalid tip pooling policy; unlawfully
retained gratuities; compensation for improperly deducted meal
credits; statutory penalties; liquidated damages; and attorney's
fees and costs.

During his employment, the Plaintiff regularly worked at least 45
hours per week, but never received any overtime compensation for
hours worked in excess of 40 per week, the suit alleges. Despite
the fact that the Plaintiff had a set schedule, the Defendants
required the Plaintiff to stay late and perform work up to and
until 1:00 a.m. as needed, the Plaintiff claims.

The Defendants also automatically deducted 30 minutes per shift
from the Plaintiff's wages as a meal break. However, the Plaintiff
was unable to take a free and clear 30 minute meal break each shift
because the Restaurant was too busy, and the Defendants required
the Plaintiff to work during his supposed meal break, the Plaintiff
adds.

The Plaintiff brings claims for relief as a collective action
pursuant to FLSA Section, on behalf of all current and former
non-exempt, front-of-house and back-of-house employees (including
delivery persons, kitchen workers, cooks, servers, runners,
bartenders, and barbacks) employed by the Defendants on or after
the date that is six years before the filing of the Complaint.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a server for
the Defendants' "Chikarashi Isso" located at 38 Rector Street, New
York on October 25, 2021 until January 1, 2022, when the Restaurant
permanently closed.

Chikarashi is counter-service place offering gourmet poke bowls
fusing Hawaiian & Japanese flavors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          Anne Seelig (AS 3976)
          148 W. 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 465-1180
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

POLK COUNTY, FL: Teacher's Union Files Class Action Grievance
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Petit of ABC Action News reports that as dozens of Polk
County Schools deal with air conditioning issues, a class action
grievance meeting between the Polk Education Association and the
school district occurred on August 18, 2023.

"You can't learn in an environment that's 80, 85, 90 degrees. It's
just not conducive to teaching and learning," said Polk Education
Association President Stephanie Yocum.
According to the Polk Education Association, 61 Polk County schools
have reported varying levels of issues with air conditioning.

The teacher's union filed a class action grievance against Polk
County Public Schools last week. The formal complaint said the
district violates teacher contracts to provide a comfortable and
healthy environment. Since then, the district said maintenance
crews have been working overtime to make repairs.

"Majority of schools are over 30 years old. Before 1970 we weren't
even putting AC into schools. It's going to be a long process,
unfortunately," said Jason Pitts, PCPS Deputy Superintendent Chief
of Staff.

The teacher's union said the grievance filed last week was to
pressure PCPS, and it worked.

According to the school district, since August 1, the maintenance
department has received 755 work orders for AC problems. More than
600 of those orders have been closed out.

"We've purchased over 500 portable AC systems to dispatch. Those
will be dispatched in September. We are using all available
contractors. We have approved overtime for all of our maintenance
staff to work nights and weekends," Pitts said.

In the meantime, schools can relocate students to rooms with
working AC.

At August 18, 2023's grievance meeting, the teacher's union pressed
the district to implement better policies and procedures, including
preventative maintenance.

"They need policies and procedures to change in this district on
how they deal with work orders, how they deal with communication
when the work orders are put in, and the status. How they deal with
AC in the summertime because most of our employees aren't here
during the summer," said Yocum.

The district will provide the teachers union a timeline of where
they are at with completing work orders next week. [GN]

PREMIUM RETAIL: Fails to Pay Merchandiser's Minimum & OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA YOUNG AND PHILLIP JACKSON, as "aggrieved employees" on
behalf of other similarly situated "aggrieved employees" under the
Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004, v. PREMIUM RETAIL
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-01515-CAB-BGS (S.D. Cal., Aug. 17,
2023) alleges that the Defendant failed to pay minimum and overtime
wages.

The Plaintiffs and Class Members are regularly required to drive
between different jobsites during the workday. The length of
Plaintiffs' assignment at each jobsite varies from 30 minutes to as
long as eight (8) hours. However, the Defendant does not include
time that the Merchandisers spend driving between different
jobsites in its computations of hours worked, depriving the
Plaintiffs and Class Members of wages earned, including minimum
wage, straight time, and overtime compensation, the lawsuit
contends.

The Plaintiffs' and Class Members' off the clock work, including
time spent sorting materials and traveling to and from jobsites
further extended the workdays of the Plaintiffs and Class members
in excess of eight hours in a workday and in excess of 40 hours in
a workweek. However, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiffs and
Class Members for all hours worked in excess of eight or twelve in
a day and 40 hours in a workweek, the lawsuit alleges.

The Plaintiffs seek all available remedies under California
wage-and-hour laws, including the Private Attorneys General Act
("PAGA") of the California Labor Code.

The California Class are all current and former hourly-paid Retail
Specialists, Retail Zone Specialists, Retail Merchandisers, Reset
Team Leads, Merchandising Team Members, and other similar roles who
have worked for Premium in California from March 14, 20181 until
resolution of this action (the "California Class").

The aggrieved employees are all current and former hourly-paid
Retail Specialists, Retail Zone Specialists, Retail Merchandisers,
Reset Team Leads, Merchandising Team Members, and other similar
roles who have worked for Premium in California between April 30,
2020, and the present (the "PAGA Aggrieved Employees").

Plaintiff Young has worked for Defendant as a Retail Merchandiser
in California from January 6, 2020 to the present. Plaintiff Young
is a non-exempt employee and is compensated on an hourly basis.

Plaintiff Phillip Jackson worked for the Defendant as a Retail
Merchandiser in California, Pennsylvania, Nevada, and New Jersey
from October 2021 to August 2023.

Premium is a retail solutions company that provides retail
merchandising, strategy, and support to companies nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
          Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
          Mariyam Hussain, Esq.
          Olivia Lanctot, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          401 B Street, Suite 2000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 489-0300
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: apiazza@bm.net
                  crodriguez@bm.net
                  mhussain@bm.net
                  olanctot@bm.net

PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Sued Over Failure to Maintain Cybersecurity
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Casey, Lawrence Maloney, and Ruth Maloney, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE
CORPORATION, Case No. 1:23-cv-11913-NMG (D. Mass., Aug. 22, 2023),
is brought seeking to remedy Defendant's negligent failure to
implement and maintain reasonable cybersecurity procedures that
resulted in a data breach, which occurred on or about May or June
2023 (the "Data Breach").

The Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs'
and Class Members' protected personally identifiable information,
including without limitation, full names, dates of birth, and
Social Security numbers (these types of information, inter alia,
being hereafter referred to, collectively, as "personal
identifiable information" or "PII"). Defendant's actions resulting
in the Data Breach has impacted approximately forty million people,
through more than 600 organizations, including pension fund
management companies, corporations, government agencies, and law
and accounting firms.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's inadequate data
security, and breach of its duty to handle PII with reasonable
care, Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII have been accessed by
hackers and exposed to an untold number of unauthorized
individuals. Plaintiffs and Class Members are now at a
significantly increased and certainly impending risk of fraud,
identity theft, misappropriation of health insurance benefits,
intrusion of their health privacy, and similar forms of criminal
mischief, risk which may last for the rest of their lives.
Consequently, Plaintiffs and Class Members must devote
substantially more time, money, and energy to protect themselves,
to the extent possible, from these crimes, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs received the Notice dated July 21, 2023, from
Pension Benefit Information LLC.

Progress Software is a Massachusetts-based company that develops
and sells a variety of software for businesses, including the
secure file transfer application MOVEit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          Amanda M. Rolon, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Phone: 212-223-6444
          Facsimile: 212-223-6334
          Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
                 arolon@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C.
          1575 McFarland Road, Suite 305
          Pittsburgh, PA 15216
          Phone: (412) 391-5164
          Fax: (412) 471-1033
          Email: yateslaw@aol.com


QANTAS AIRWAYS: Fails to Refund COVID Cancelled Flights, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that Qantas has been hit with a class action
lawsuit seeking millions of dollars in refunds and compensation for
customers who had flights cancelled following the COVID outbreak.

Echo Law filed the lawsuit against Australia's national carrier in
the Federal Court on Aug. 21, alleging the airline misled customers
about their refund options, withheld funds, and engaged in a
"pattern of unconscionable conduct".

Qantas has completely rejected the allegations and said it had not
been served a claim as of midday on Aug. 21.

The action comes one month after Qantas launched a campaign to
encourage customers to use the remaining $400 million in flight
credits held by the airline, and after Australia's consumer
watchdog indicated its probe into the issue was almost complete.

It is also a few months ahead of CEO Alan Joyce stepping down after
15 years in the job and handing over to Vanessa Hudson in
November.

Backed by litigation funder CASL, the lawsuit alleges Qantas
breached Australia Consumer Law by failing to immediately issue
refunds when flights were cancelled in 2020 and by retaining
customers' funds.

Echo Law partner Andrew Paull said Qantas initially only offered
customers access to use "travel credits with strict conditions"
rather than returning their payments.

"We allege Qantas breached the law by failing to be transparent and
immediately issue refunds to customers when flights were
cancelled," he said.

"While COVID posed major disruption to air travel and resulted in
cancellations that no airline wished to make, that is no excuse for
Qantas to take advantage of its own customers and effectively treat
them as providers of over $1 billion in interest-free loans."

In a statement Qantas also rejected the allegation it had enjoyed
significant financial benefits during COVID saying it had lost
"more than $25 billion in revenue and posted statutory losses of $7
billion during the pandemic".

In February the airline posted a $1 billion half-year net profit
and is expected to announce its profits for the financial year on
Aug. 17.

Mr Paull said some Qantas customers had been forced to spend more
money with the airline to use their original flight credits, while
others may not be able to use the credit before it expired on
December 31, 2023.

"While Qantas has talked in recent weeks of giving customers the
option of requesting a refund, this is both too little and too
late," he said.

"That money ought to have been automatically returned to customers,
in most cases more than three years ago, and we are seeking both
refunds of all remaining credits as well as compensation for the
time customers have been out of pocket."

Qantas said that it had always been clear to customers that "they
are entitled to a refund" if a flight was cancelled and that
thousands have already made claims.

Qantas has extended the expiry date on travel credits issued in
2020 three times, and in July launched a campaign to encourage
customers to find and use flight credits from 2020.

The airline said it held about $400 million in COVID-era credits
and more than $1 billion had been claimed by Qantas and Jetstar
customers.

Qantas chief customer officer Markus Svensson said many travel
credits were for between $100 and $500 and could be located using
an online tool.

"We'll keep reaching out directly to customers, particularly ahead
of these credits expiring at the end of this year," he said.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is also
investigating Qantas' handling of credits and refunds after issuing
a warning to the airline in 2020 and receiving a complaint from
consumer group Choice in April 2022. [GN]

QTC COMMERCIAL: Ross Sues Over Failure to Protect PII
-----------------------------------------------------
Diva D. Ross, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated and on behalf of the general public v. QTC Commercial
Services, LLC, d/b/a IMX Medical Management Services, Case No.
2:23-cv-03214-JHS (E.D. Pa., Aug. 21, 2023), is brought to seek
redress Defendant's unlawful, willful and wanton failure to protect
the personal identifiable information ("PII") of approximately
7,594 individuals that was exposed in a major data breach of IMX's
network in violation of its legal obligations.

Between June 2022 and October 2022, an unknown actor gained access
to IMX's inadequately protected computer systems. As a result,
Plaintiff and the Class Members have had their PII exposed (the
"Data Breach"). In carrying out its business, IMX obtains,
collects, uses, and derives a benefit from the PII of Plaintiff and
the Class. As such, Defendant assumed the legal and equitable
duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that
information from unauthorized access and intrusion.

The Data Breach was discovered in September 1, 2022, when Defendant
discovered initial indicators of a security incident involving
malware on laptop. IMX investigated the attack and found additional
malware throughout its network. The investigation confirmed that
certain IMX systems containing confidential and personal
information had been accessed without authorization from June 2022
to October 2022.

According to IMX, the PII exposed in the Breach included Social
Security numbers. The breach also exposed Class Members' medical
information. Around July 2023, IMX began notifying Plaintiff and
Class Members of the Data Breach. Due to Defendant's negligence,
cybercriminals obtained everything they need to commit identity
theft and wreak havoc on the financial and personal lives of
thousands of individuals, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a citizen of Galveston, Texas.

The Defendant provides medical evaluation and review services to
insurance carriers, third-party administrators, employers, law
firms, and other businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Randi Kassan, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, New York 11530
          Phone: (212) 594-5300
          Email: rkassan@milberg.com

               - and -

          David K. Lietz, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          5335 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 440
          Washington, DC 20015
          Phone: 866.252.0878
          Email: dlietz@milberg.com

               - and -

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Phone: (405) 235-1560
          Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Lens Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Debt
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lilian Lens, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED, Case No. CACE-23-017245
(17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Aug. 21, 2023), is brought
sues the Defendant for violating the Florida Consumer Collection
Practices Act ("FCCPA") by an unlawful collection of debt due to
sending the communication between a time zone without prior
consent.

On a date better known by Defendant, Defendant began attempting to
collect a debt (the "Consumer Debt") from Plaintiff. The Consumer
Debt is an obligation allegedly had by Plaintiff to pay money
arising from a transaction between the creditor of the Consumer
Debt, Defendant, and Plaintiff (the "Subject Service"). The
Plaintiff is the alleged debtor of the Consumer Debt. On July l,
2023, Defendant sent an electronic mail communication to Plaintiff
(the "Communication").

The Communication advised Plaintiff "Your bill is ready. Amount
due: $31.35. Due date: UPON RECEIPT." The Communication was sent by
Defendant to Plaintiff at 3:07 AM in Plaintiffs zone. The
Communication was received by Plaintiff from Defendant at 3:07 AM
in Plaintiffs zone. The Defendant did not have the consent of
Plaintiff to communicate with Plaintiff between the hours of 9:00
PM and 8:00 AM. As such, by Defendant sending the Electronic
Communication, the Defendant violated the FCCPA, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person, and a citizen of the State of
Florida, residing in Broward County, Florida.

The Defendant is a Delaware Corporation, with its principal place
of business located in Estero, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th St., Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: 954-907-1136
          Fax: 855-529-9540
          Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                 jen@jibraellaw.com


RBH DESIGNS: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RBH Designs, LLC. The
case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. RBH Designs, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-07472 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2023).

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

RBH Designs LLC -- https://www.rbhdesigns.com/ -- is a family owned
and operated company with over 20 years of experience, specializing
in high performance outdoor apparel, vapor barrier apparel, warmest
mitts, warmest socks, radio frequency shielding clothing and much
more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


REGAL REXNORD: Perez Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Wisconsin
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Regal Rexnord
Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Luis Perez, Jose Molla,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Regal
Rexnord Corporation, Thomson Technology Power Systems ULC, Case No.
3:23-cv-00572-wmc (W.D. Wis., Aug. 22, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

Regal Rexnord Corporation -- http://www.regalrexnord.com/-- is a
manufacturer of electric motors and power transmission components
headquartered in Beloit, Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Benjamin Widlanski, Esq.
          Brandon Michael Sadowsky, Esq.
          Robert Neary, Esq.
          Tal J. Lifshitz, Esq.
          KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON
          2525 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Ste. 9th Floor
          Miami, FL 33134
          Phone: (305) 372-1800
          Fax: (305) 372-3508
          Email: bwidlanski@kttlaw.com
                 bsadowsky@kttlaw.com
                 rn@kttlaw.com
                 tjl@kttlaw.com


REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces RICO Suit Over Medical Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that it is facing class
action filed by the Medical Mutual of Ohio (MMO) and Commercial
Workers Union Welfare Service Benefit Fund (Local 464A) in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on February 23,
2022 and June 17, 2022, respectively.

These lawsuits allege causes of action under state law and the
federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)
and seek monetary damages and equitable relief. These are in
relation to Patient Assistance Organization Support.

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals is party to a global, strategic
collaboration with Sanofi to research, develop, and commercialize
fully human monoclonal antibodies

On December 29, 2021, the lawsuits filed by UHC and Humana were
stayed.


RES-CARE INC: Saldana Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Erika Saldana, on behalf of herself individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. RES-CARE, INC. d/b/a BRIGHTSPRING
HEALTH SERVICES, Case No. 3:23-cv-00435-BJB (W.D. Ky., Aug. 21,
2023), is brought arising out of the recent cyberattack and data
breach ("Data Breach") resulting from BrightSpring's failure to
implement reasonable and industry standard data security
practices.

The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information
which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding that
Defendant would protect it against disclosure--was compromised and
unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach. BrightSpring collected
and maintained certain personally identifiable information of
Plaintiff and the putative Class Members, who are (or were)
employees at BrightSpring.

The PII compromised in the Data Breach included Plaintiff's and
Class Members' full names, addresses, dates of birth, and Social
Security numbers (collectively, "personally identifiable
information" or "PII"). The PII compromised in the Data Breach was
exfiltrated by cyber-criminals and remains in the hands of those
cyber-criminals who target PII for its value to identity thieves.

The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class
Members PII––and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly
sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted PII was
compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and
omissions and their utter failure to protect employees' sensitive
data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members'
PII because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities
of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk to
victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective
lifetimes, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a former employee at BrightSpring that worked at
the Defendant until June 2023.

The Defendant is a "leading provider of complementary home- and
community-based health services for complex populations in need of
specialized and/or chronic care."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John C. Whitfield, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
          19 North Main Street
          Madisonville, KY 42431
          Phone: 270.821.0656
          Fax: 270.825.1163
          Email: jwhitfield@milberg.com

               - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (866) 252-0878
          Email: gklinger@milberg.com


RESIDENCE INN: Kyri Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Lien Kyri, an individual, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. RESIDENCE INN BY MARRIOTT,
LLC, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV16052 was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on Aug. 17, 2023, and assigned Case
No. 2:23-cv-06777.

The Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint that "Defendant has a
consistent policy and practice of 'time shaving' meaning that
Defendant intentionally pays less than time punches show;" "has a
consistent policy and practice of reducing hours to avoid paying
for all time actually worked;" "would not count daily overtime
worked over 8 hours per day at the overtime pay rate and would only
recognize overtime if the weekly aggregate hours added together
exceeds 40  hours per week;" and failed to provide legally
complaint meal and rest period.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Barbara J. Miller, Esq.
          John D. Hayashi, Esq.
          Kevin J. Bohm, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653
          Phone: +1.714.830.0600
          Fax: +1.714.830.0700
          Email: barbara.miller@morganlewis.com
                 john.hayashi@morganlewis.com
                 kevin.bohm@morganlewis.com


RESONETICS LLC: Reyes Suit Removed to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jennifer Reyes, an individual, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v.
RESONETICS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 37-2023-00030454-CU-OE-CTL was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California on Aug. 23, 2023, and assigned Case
No. 3:23-cv-01552-RBM-BGS.

On July 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed an unverified Class Action
Complaint against Resonetics which sets forth the following causes
of action: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Wages and
Overtime Under Labor Code; Meal-Period Liability Under Labor Code;
Rest-Break Liability Under Labor Code; Reimbursement of Necessary
Expenditures Under Labor Code; Violation of Labor Code; Failure to
Keep Required Payroll Records Under Labor Code; Penalties Pursuant
to Labor Code; Violation of Business & Professions Code et set; and
Failure to Make Proper Disclosure in Violation of the FCRA.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Guillermo A. Escobedo, Esq.
          Lana B. Nassar, Esq.
          Lisa Xu, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          225 Broadway, Suite 1800
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 573-4900
          Facsimile: (619) 573-4901
          Email: Guillermo.Escobedo@jacksonlewis.com
                 Lana.nassar@jacksonlewis.com
                 Lisa.Xu@jacksonlewis.com


RESORT LIFESTYLE: Pierson Sues Over Non-Payment of Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Pierson, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
employees v. RESORT LIFESTYLE COMMUNITIES, Case No.
2:23-cv-01512-NBF (W.D. Pa., Aug. 21, 2023), is brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) to recover damages for
non-payment of overtime wages.

The Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours in one or more workweeks
during her employment. On average the Plaintiff worked 45 to 50 or
more hours per workweek. the Plaintiff was non-exempt under the
FLSA. The Plaintiff was not paid any overtime pay. The Defendant
did not maintain accurate records of the time worked by the
Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was entitled to overtime pay (1 1/2 the
regular rate of pay) when working more than 40 hours in a workweek.
The Plaintiff was required to comply with common company policies
and practices established and enforced throughout the facilities
nationwide by a common chain-of-command. The Defendant's failure to
pay the Plaintiff overtime pay when working more than 40 hours in a
workweek was and is a violation of the FLSA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Senior Living
Consultant (SLC) from December 18, 2022, until May 9, 2023.

RLC is a company operating facilities throughout the United States
specializing in providing all-inclusive, independent, resort-style
55-and-over senior living retirement communities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Chivers, Esq.
          First & Market Building, Suite 650
          100 First Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1514
          Phone: (412) 227-0763
          Fax: (412) 774-1994
          Email: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com

               - and -

          John R. Linkosky, Esq.
          JOHN LINKOSKY & ASSOCIATES
          715 Washington Avenue
          Carnegie, PA 15106
          Phone: (412) 278-1280
          Fax: (412) 278-1282
          Email: linklaw@comcast.net


RHG & COMPANY: Wahab Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RHG & Company, Inc.
The case is styled as Angela Wahab, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. RHG & Company, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-07449 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2023).

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

RHG Products Company is a developer tools company located in Castle
Rock.[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


RIPPLE BEHAVIOR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chochola Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
CHEYENNE CHOCHOLA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RIPPLE BEHAVIOR SOLUTIONS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. Case No. 23-cv-1106 (E.D. Wi., August 22, 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 Chochola was employed by the Defendant as a community
living assistant.

RIPPLE BEHAVIOR SOLUTIONS, LLC is a consulting and mental health
care service center. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ROBLOX CORP: Faces Suit for Facilitating Illegal Child Gambling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Frank McDougall, writing for Game Is Hard, reports that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Roblox, alleging that the
popular gaming platform has facilitated illegal child gambling. The
lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of California by two
mothers, Rachel Colvin and Danielle Sass, who claim that their
children have lost "thousands" of Robux, Roblox's virtual currency,
by gambling on third-party sites.

Roblox is a platform that allows users, mostly children, to create
and play games. However, the suit alleges that sites such as
Bloxflip, RBLXWild, and RBXFlip, which are not affiliated with
Roblox, are running illegal gambling operations that specifically
target children. These sites allow users to connect their Roblox
accounts and gamble using Robux, with games like roulette offering
the chance to win or lose virtual currency.

The plaintiffs argue that Roblox could have taken measures to
prevent or stop these gambling websites from targeting children, as
they make up a significant portion of Roblox users. While Roblox
itself does not directly participate in gambling, it earns a 30%
fee on transactions made with Robux, including those that occur on
gambling sites, which means it profits from them.

This lawsuit comes at a time when Roblox is already facing
criticism for its handling of advertising to children. In May, the
Children's Advertising Unit of the nonprofit BBB National Programs
found that Roblox did not clearly differentiate between ads and
content on the platform. Last year, the watchdog group Truth in
Advertising also filed a complaint with the FTC regarding Roblox's
practices.

It remains to be seen how this lawsuit will proceed and what impact
it may have on Roblox's operations. However, it highlights the
potential risks associated with children accessing and engaging in
gambling activities on gaming platforms. [GN]

SAFEWAY INCORPORATED: Ehrmantraut Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Safeway Incorporated.
The case is styled as Ashley Ehrmantraut, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Safeway Incorporated,
Case No. 2:23-cv-01739-JFM (D. Ariz., Aug. 22, 2023).

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

Safeway, Inc. -- https://www.safeway.com/ -- is an American
supermarket chain founded by Marion Barton Skaggs in April 1915 in
American Falls, Idaho.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SALCEDO CARGO: Bloise Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Bloise, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. SALCEDO CARGO EXPRESS, INC., and CHRISTIAN A. CABRERA,
and MARGIIT CABRERA CANAAN, individually, Case No. 1:23-cv-07462
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2023), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") to
recover from the Defendants: unpaid minimum wages; unpaid overtime
compensation; unpaid "spread of hours" premium for each day he
worked in excess of 10 hours; liquidated damages; statutory
penalties pursuant to the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act;
prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and attorneys' fees and
costs.

During Plaintiff's employment by Defendants, he worked well over 40
hours per week. He generally worked approximately 60 hours per
week, and sometimes more. Plaintiff was not paid minimum wages or
overtime wages. For example, in 2019 and 2019, Plaintiff was paid
an average hourly tegular rate of $5.00 per hour, partly in cash,
and he worked approximately 60 hours per week. Work performed above
40 hours per week was not paid at time and one-half the statutory
minimum rate of pay as required by state and federal law. The
Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a
policy of not paying either the FLSA minimum wage or the New York
State minimum wage to the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees.

The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with
a policy of not paying Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees either the FLSA overtime rate (of time and one-half), or
the New York State overtime rate (of time and one-half), in direct
violation of the FLSA and New York Labor Law and the supporting
federal and New York State Department of Labor Regulations, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a driver and
driver's helper for Defendants' cargo transportation company.

The Defendants operate a cargo transportation company known as
"Salcedo Cargo Express."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Jeziorkowski, Esq.
          VALIANT LAW
          303 Old Tarrytown Road - 2nd Floor
          White Plains, NY 10603
          Phone: (914) 595-6702
          Fax: (909) 677-2290
          Email: iü@valiantlaw.com

               - and -

          Peter H. Cooper
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          60 East 42nd street - 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: (212) 209-3933
          Fax: (212) 209-7102
          Email: pcooper@cpclaw.com


SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF: Altmann Files Suit in D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against San Diego County
Sheriff's Department, et al. The case is styled as Mary Fitzgerald
Altmann, and all those similarly situated v. San Diego County
Sheriff's Department, Kelly A Martinez, Principal Sheriff; Ken
Jones, Commander; Lieutenant M. Arens, Sergeant Morreale, Deputy
Murray, Deputy Guerro, Deputy Bentley, Deputy Rogers, Ryan Garcia,
Case No. 3:23-cv-01513-BAS-SBC (S.D. Cal., Aug. 17, 2023).

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

The San Diego Sheriff department -- https://www.sdsheriff.gov/ --
was formed in 1850, and since then it has served a diverse county
consisting of many constituents with competing interest.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


SANSUM CLINIC: Discloses Info to FB Without Consent, Rose Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW ROSE, JEREMY LEBMAN and PATRICIA HERVEY, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SANSUM
CLINIC and META PLATFORMS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-06538
(C.D. Cal., Aug. 10, 2023) seeks damages associated with Sansum
Clinic's violation of Plaintiffs' privacy rights under the
California Information Protection Act, Federal Wiretap Act, and
California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, and common
law claims for invasion of privacy, breach of contract, negligence,
and intrusion upon seclusion.

The suit is a putative class action brought on behalf of the
Plaintiff and all persons, users, prospective patients, and current
patients who visited the Defendant's website,
https://www.sansumclinic.org/, utilized the Website for its various
intended purposes, and had their private health conditions,
identities, actual or potential medical treatments, and the
hospitals they visited or may visit allegedly disclosed to Facebook
without their knowledge or consent.

According to the complaint, the Defendant shares the personally
identifiable information to Facebook. Because the user's Facebook
ID uniquely identifies an individual's Facebook user account,
Facebook -- or any other ordinary person -- can use it to quickly
and easily identify the account holder and view that user's
corresponding Facebook profile. Without Facebook's unlawful data
collection, Plaintiffs would not have been subjected to
personalized advertisements based on their private health
information(PHI), including advertisements shown based on the
sensitive PHI users provided to the Website, the suit claims.

Sansum Clinic is a non-profit health system company with
headquarters in Santa Barbara, California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Mark S. Reich, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          55 Broadway, 4th Floor, Suite 427
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          E-mail: mreich@zlk.com

SARTHAK EXPRESS: Kumar Sues Over Truck Drivers' Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
RAJAT KUMAR, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated Plaintiff v. SARTHAK EXPRESS INC; and RAKESH VIRDHI
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-04385 (D.N.J., Aug. 11, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendants for alleged violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the
New Jersey Wage Payment Law arising from Defendants' various
willful and unlawful employment policies, patterns and practices.

Plaintiff Kumar was employed by Defendants to work as a truck
driver for Defendant Sarthak Express from August 1, 2022 to March
10, 2023. He alleges the Defendants' failure to pay proper
overtime, failure to pay earned wages, and failure to pay minimum
wages.

Sarthak Express Inc. is a truck company organized under the laws of
the State of New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron B. Schweitzer, Esq.
          Tiffany Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Blvd Suite 110
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324

SENTECH SERVICES: Bobo Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Michael Bobo and Johnny Parker, on behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly situated, known and
unknown v. SENTECH SERVICES, INC., and UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.,
was removed from the Circuit Court of the Cook County, Chancery
Division, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on Aug. 17, 2023, and assigned Case No.
1:23-cv-05639.

The Plaintiffs claim that Sentech assigned "over 500 hourly
laborers," including Plaintiffs, to work at a facility located in
in Bensenville, Illinois "in the three years prior" to the filing
of their Complaint. The Plaintiffs claim that Sentech underpaid
them in connection with that work. Plaintiffs further allege that
"Defendants required them to wait upwards of two hours before they
were either allowed to undergo a security screening process…and
then clock-in or told to go home without being given the
opportunity to clock-in." The Plaintiffs claim that when they were
sent home, they "were not paid a minimum of 4 hours of pay" but
rather, "no wages." Based on these and other allegations,
Plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of themselves and potential
class members for various violations of the Illinois Minimum Wage
Law ("IMWL"), the Illinois Day and Temporary Labor Services Act
("IDTLSA"), and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act
("IWPCA"), as well as a common law claim for quantum meruit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
          Joseph E. Salvi, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 W. Washington St., Ste 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
                 msalas@flsalaw.com
                 jsalvi@flsalaw.com

               - and -

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          Deirdre Aaron, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Rd., Ste 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Email: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
                 daaron@winebrakelaw.com
                 Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen

               - and -

          Krysten Connon, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston St., Ste 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Email: ssb@llrlaw.com
                 kconnon@llrlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gary R. Clark, Esq.
          QUARLES & BRADY LLP
          300 N. LaSalle Dr., Suite 4000
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Phone: 312-715-5040
          Fax: 312-715-5155
          Email: gary.clark@quarles.com


SEVEN STORIES PRESS: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Seven Stories Press,
Inc. The case is styled as Damon Jones, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Seven Stories Press, Inc., Case
No. 1:23-cv-07334 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 18, 2023).

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

Seven Stories Press -- http://www.sevenstories.com/-- is an
independent American publishing company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SHIFT4 PAYMENTS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 19
----------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer & Holzer, LLC informs investors that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Shift4 Payments, Inc. ("Shift4," or the
"Company") (NYSE: FOUR). The lawsuit alleges Shift4 made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and compliance policies, including: (i) Shift4 had inadequate
disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over
financial reporting; (ii) as a result, Shift4 failed to properly
account for customer acquisition costs, thereby artificially
inflating its net cash provided by operating activities; (iii)
accordingly, Shift4 would likely be forced to restate one or more
of its previously issued financial statements; (iv) Shift4 employed
accounting maneuvers in connection with, among other things, its
mass strategic buyout program and sponsor bank merchant settlement
account, that were designed to present an inaccurate picture of the
Company's performance, its underlying business quality, and its
earnings power; and (v) all the foregoing, once revealed, was
likely to negatively impact Shift4's reputation and business.

If you bought shares of Shift4 between November 10, 2021 and April
18, 2023, and you suffered a significant loss on that investment,
you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey
Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com or Joshua Karr, Esq.
at jkarr@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832
or you may visit the firm's website
https://holzerlaw.com/case/shift4/ to learn more.

The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the
case is October 19, 2023.

Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law
firm for 2021 and 2022, dedicates its practice to vigorous
representation of shareholders and investors in litigation
nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative
litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys
have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of
dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate
misconduct. More information about the firm is available through
its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm.
Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this
promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney
responsible for its content.

CONTACT:
Corey Holzer, Esq.
(888) 508-6832 (toll-free)
cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN]

SHREDLY LLC: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shredly LLC. The case
is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Shredly LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-07473
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2023).

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

SHREDLY -- https://shredly.com/ -- is a women's mountain bike and
outdoor apparel company that combines art and fashion to create
beautiful performance and lifestyle apparel.[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


SIMMONS FIRST: Wins Suit vs Wilkins on Overdraft Fees
-----------------------------------------------------
Simmons First National Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report for June 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 4, 2023, that the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas ruled on the Company's favor
on the Wilkins class suit.

On July 14, 2023, the district court denied plaintiffs' motion to
reconsider the court's February 9, 2023 ruling, and ruled in favor
of Simmons Bank on the outstanding issues.

On June 29, 2020, Shunda Wilkins, Diann Graham, and David Watson
filed a putative class action complaint against Simmons Bank in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.


The complaint alleged that Simmons Bank improperly charges multiple
insufficient funds or overdraft fees when a merchant resubmits a
rejected payment request.

The complaint asserted claims for breach of contract and unjust
enrichment. Plaintiffs sought to represent a proposed class of all
Simmons Bank checking account customers who were charged multiple
insufficient funds or overdraft fees on resubmitted payment
requests.

Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages, costs, attorney's fees,
pre-judgment interest, an injunction, and other relief as the Court
deems proper for themselves and the purported class.

Simmons Bank denied the allegations and has vigorously defended the
matter.

On February 9, 2023, the district court denied plaintiffs' motion
for class certification, granted Simmons Bank's motion for summary
judgment in part, and granted Simmons Bank's motion to exclude
testimony of plaintiffs' expert.

On July 14, 2023, the district court denied plaintiffs' motion to
reconsider the court's February 9, 2023 ruling, and ruled in favor
of Simmons Bank on the outstanding issues.

Simmons First National Corporation is a multibank holding company.
The Bank offer various loans, credit card services, checking and
savings accounts, personal and corporate trust services, and other
products and services through offices located in Arkansas.



SLASHOP INC: Shea Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Slashop, Inc. The
case is styled as Kimberly Shea, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Slashop, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-07488-JPC (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2023).

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

Slashop, Inc. -- https://slashop.com/ -- created a range of
pet-friendly bamboo bed sheets, quilts, pajamas and loungewear that
are pet hair resistant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Schlachet, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARK SCHLACHET
          Phone: (216) 896-0714
          Fax: (216) 514-6406
          Email: markschlachet@me.com


SMARTLINK LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Coleman Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
JACUBB COLEMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SMARTLINK, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-23214-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 23, 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 Coleman was employed by the Defendant as a real estate
specialist.

SMARTLINK, LLC provides IT services. The Company offers asset and
inventory management, IT, network real estate, and other services.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith M. Stern, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
          80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 2000
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 901-1379
          Facsimile: (561) 288-9031
          Email: employlaw@keithstern.com

SOUTH32 LTD: Sued Over Workers' Inadequate Training, Equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Arnold of Catholic News Agency reports that the Southern
African Catholic Bishops' Conference began the process of filing a
class-action suit against a global mining company on behalf of
current and former miners who turned to the Church for help after
contracting incurable lung diseases.

An application for certification of a class action, initiated by
the conference's Commission for Justice and Peace, accuses the
mining company South32 of failing to provide workers with adequate
training, equipment, and a safe working environment. The
application alleges that the company failed to create procedures
and protections required by law and asks the court to order
compensation to be paid to those workers.

Cardinal-elect Stephen Brislin, the archbishop of Cape Town, said
in a statement that the bishops took the initiative to assist the
miners because ex-employees do not receive legal assistance from
the unions of which they were formerly members while working.

"Ex-mine workers are no longer under trade unions, and this renders
them voiceless and incapable of demanding social justice for the
sickness that they incurred while working in the mines," the
archbishop said in a statement.

"Very often workers do not have the means to seek legal recourse
from large companies which have huge resources at their disposal,"
Brislin added. "The Church is always concerned about the well-being
of people with whom we work and live. It is thus incumbent on the
Church to give assistance where it can so that the rights of the
vulnerable are respected and so that they can access compensation
that is legally due to them. Many companies are amenable to
settling such cases, but in some instances court action is
necessary."

The application states that coal mine dust can lead to lung
diseases, such as pneumoconiosis and chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease (COPD). A person with COPD has breathing difficulties and
airflow limitations. The application alleges that both diseases are
preventable, but miners still contracted them because of inadequate
procedures and protections.

Coal miners who contracted either of these diseases after working
in one of South32's mines would receive payments. Dependents of
coal miners who died from one of those illnesses would also receive
compensation. The application covers actions from March 12, 1965,
until the present.

South32 is a multibillion-dollar metal mining company based in
Perth, Australia, that operates in six countries. It has three
operations in South Africa. The mining industry employs about half
a million people in South Africa and accounts for about 8% of the
country's gross domestic product.

A 65-year-old man who was diagnosed with lung disease after working
in one of the mines from 1981 until 2016, Jan Nkosi, said in a
statement that he experiences constant chest pain.

"At night I have to sleep in a particular position to try to
relieve the chest pain," Nkosi, who is named in the application,
added. "My coughing and wheezing sometimes wakes me up at night.
When I walk quickly it feels like my chest is blocked, and I must
stop and rest for a while. When I walk up an incline, I experience
chest pain and can only walk very slowly. I often run out of
breath."

When reached for comment, a spokesperson for South32 confirmed with
CNA that it has been served with an application for certification
of a class action on behalf of mine workers in South Africa. The
organization owned and operated South Africa Energy Coal from 2015
to 2021.

"This matter is currently being considered by the business," a
spokesperson said. "We are unable to comment further at this point
in time."

A statement from the bishops cited the Catholic social teachings
maintained in Pope Leo XIII's 1891 encyclical on capital and labor,
Rerum Novarum. The statement noted that "the Church has been close
to the suffering of unskilled and vulnerable workers in the context
of unbridled industrialization and its support for the coal mine
workers is a concrete manifestation of its defense of the dignity
of work which is a function of God's creation." [GN]

SPORTSWEAR INC: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sportswear, Inc. The
case is styled as Felix Castro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Sportswear, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-07288
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2023).

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

Sportswear, Inc. doing business as Prep Sportswear --
http://www.prepsportswear.com/-- is a consumer brand manufacturer
and e-commerce leader in the school, college, youth sports, and
active lifestyle markets.[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


SPRUCE POWER: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Spruce Power Holding Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for June 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on August 10, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself
from consolidated securities class suits in New York.

On March 8, 2021, two putative securities class action complaints
were filed against the Company, and certain of its current and
former officers and directors in the federal district court for the
Southern District of New York.

Those cases were ultimately consolidated, and a lead plaintiff was
appointed in June 2021.

On July 20, 2021, an amended complaint was filed alleging that
certain public statements made by the defendants between October 2,
2020, and March 2, 2021, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The Company is vigorously defending the lawsuit as it believes that
the allegations asserted in the amended complaint are without
merit.

Spruce Power Holding Corporation is an owner and operator of
distributed solar energy assets. The Company provides
subscription-based services for homeowners and small businesses to
own and maintain rooftop solar and battery storage, as well as
offers as-a-service model to access new technology without making a
significant upfront investment and incurring maintenance costs.

Address

ST. DOMINIC HEALTH: Class Cert Bid Filing Due April 15, 2024
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GLENDA BOSWELL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ST.
DOMINIC HEALTH SERVICES, INC., ET AL., Case No.
3:23-cv-00151-CWR-LGI (S.D. Miss.), the Hon. Judge Keysha Greer
Isaac entered a class certification scheduling order as follows:

  -- The deadline to file any motions to amend        Aug. 31,
2023
     the pleadings or to join additional parties
     is:

  -- The deadline for the Defendants to respond      Sept. 20,
2023
     To the Plaintiffs' amended complaint,
     if any, is:

  -- Discovery must be completed by:                 Jan. 2, 2024

  -- Daubert motions challenging the parties'        March 4, 2024
     Class certification experts must be filed
     by:

  -- Plaintiffs' motion for class certification:     April 15,
2024

St. Dominic offers cancer, adult patient care, medical cancer and
radiation therapies.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3P6HINp at no extra charge.[CC]

STABILITY AI: Seeks to Stay Discovery in Andersen Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH ANDERSEN, an
individual; KELLY MCKERNAN, an individual; KARLA ORTIZ, an
individual, v. STABILITY AI LTD., a UK corporation; STABILITY AI,
INC., a Delaware corporation; MIDJOURNEY, INC., a Delaware
corporation; DEVIANTART, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
3:23-cv-00201-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants file administrative
motion to continue case management conference and Stay discovery
pending Resolution of dispositive
Motions:

In the event the Court dismisses the Complaint in its entirety as
to one or more Defendants with leave to amend, Defendants request a
further stay of discovery and all obligations under FRCP 26 as to
all Defendants or, at a minimum, as to the Defendants for whom the
Complaint was dismissed in its entirety, until any amended pleading
is filed and all motions to dismiss or strike such amended pleading
are resolved.

Stability AI is an artificial intelligence-driven visual art
startup that designs and implements open AI tools.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 3, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QO6Utm at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brittany N. Lovejoy, Esq.
          Andrew M. Gass, Esq.
          Michael H. Rubin, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
          Telephone: (415) 391-0600
          E-mail: andrew.gass@lw.com
                  michael.rubin@lw.com
                  brittany.lovejoy@lw.com

                - and -

          Judd D. Lauter, Esq.
          Angela L. Dunning, Esq.
          J. Asheton Lemay, Esq.
          Kayla Blaker, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          3175 Hanover Street
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130
          Telephone: (650) 843-5000
          Facsimile: (650) 849-7400
          E-mail: adunning@cooley.com
                  alemay@cooley.com
                  kblaker@cooley.com
                  jlauter@cooley.com

                - and -

          Mark A. Lemley, Esq.
          LEX LUMINA PLLC
          745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
          New York, NY 10151
          Telephone: (646) 898-2055
          Facsimile: (646) 906-8657
          E-mail: mlemley@lex-lumina.com

                - and -

          Nicole M. Jantzi, Esq.
          Paul M. Schoenhard, Esq.
          Michael C. Keats, Esq.
          Amir R. Ghavi, Esq.
          FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER &
          JACOBSON LLP
          801 17th Street NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 639-7254
          E-mail: nicole.jantzi@friedfrank.com
                  paul.schoenhard@friedfrank.com
                  michael.keats@friedfrank.com
                  amir.ghavi@friedfrank.com

STATE FARM MUTUAL: Yancey Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Joseph Yancey, Simone Gully, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company, Case No. 4:23-cv-00377 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois on Aug. 22, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-05927 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract.

State Farm Insurance -- https://www.statefarm.com/ -- is a group of
mutual insurance companies throughout the United States with
corporate headquarters in Bloomington, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
          Jacob L. Phillips, Esq.
          Joshua Jacobson, Esq.
          NORMAND PLLC
          3165 McCrory Place, Suite 175
          Orlando, FL 32803
          Phone: (407) 603-6031
          Email: janna.sherwood@normandpllc.com
                 jacob.phillips@normandpllc.com
                 josh.jacobson@normandpllc.com

               - and -

          Nolan D. Drafahl, Esq.
          DRAFAHL LAW FIRM
          1401 S. Brentwood Blvd., Suite 950
          St. Louis, MO 63144
          Phone: (314) 300-6260
          Email: nolan@drafahl-law.com

               - and -

          Edwin Lee Lowther, III, Esq.
          Joseph Henry Bates, III, Esq.
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          519 W. 7th Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Phone: (501) 312-8500
          Email: llowther@cbplaw.com
                 hbates@cbplaw.com

The Defendant are represented by:

          Eric L Robertson, Esq.
          WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP
          370 17th Street, Suite 4500
          Denver, CO 80202
          Phone: (303) 244-1800
          Email: robertson@wtotrial.com

               - and -

          Peter W. Herzog, III
          WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP
          211 North Broadway, Suite 2825
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Phone: (314) 326-4129
          Email: PHerzog@wtotrial.com


STEEL DYNAMICS: Baird Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
----------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Baird, Michael Sanderson and Brandon Thompson,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
STEEL DYNAMICS, INC., THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF STEEL DYNAMICS,
INC., THE STEEL DYNAMICS, INC. INVESTMENT COMMITTEE and JOHN DOES
1-30, Case No. 1:23-cv-00356 (N.D. Ind., Aug. 22, 2023), is brought
pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA"), against the Plan's fiduciaries, which include Steel
Dynamics, Inc. ("SDI" or "Company") and the Board of Directors of
Steel Dynamics, Inc. and its members during the Class Period
("Board") and the Steel Dynamics, Inc. Investment Committee and its
members during the Class Period ("Committee") for breach of
fiduciary duties.

To safeguard Plan participants and beneficiaries, ERISA imposes
strict fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence upon employers and
other plan fiduciaries. Fiduciaries must act "solely in the
interest of the participants and beneficiaries," with the "care,
skill, prudence, and diligence" that would be expected in managing
a plan of similar scope. These twin fiduciary duties are "the
highest known to the law."

At all times during the Class Period, the Plan had at least one
billion ($1B) dollars in assets under management. At the Plan's
fiscal year end in 2021 and 2020, the Plan had over $2 billion
dollars and $1.5 billion dollars, respectively, in assets under
management that were/are entrusted to the care of the Plan's
fiduciaries. The December 31, 2021 Auditor Report of the Steel
Dynamics, Inc. Profit Sharing and Retirement Savings Plan ("2021
Auditor Report") at 6.

The Plan's assets under management makes it a jumbo plan in the
defined contribution plan marketplace, and among the largest plans
in the United States. In 2019, only 0.1 percent (776 of 603,217) of
Plans in the country had more than $1 billion in assets under
management.

In addition, this was true at the start of the Class Period in 2017
where, again, only 0.1 percent (695 of 569,257) of 401(k) plans in
the country were as large as the Plan. As a jumbo plan, the Plan
had substantial bargaining power regarding the fees and expenses
that were charged against participants' investments. Defendants,
however, did not try to reduce the Plan's expenses or exercise
appropriate judgment to scrutinize each investment option that was
offered in the Plan to ensure it was prudent.

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

The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of
participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the
fiduciary duty of prudence, in violation of the ERISA. Their
actions were contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary and cost
the Plan and its participants millions of dollars. Based on this
conduct, Plaintiffs assert claims against Defendants for breach of
the fiduciary duty of prudence and failure to monitor fiduciaries,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs participated and invested in the Plan.

Steel Dynamics is one of the largest domestic steel producers and
metal recyclers in the United States with one of the most
diversified, high-margin product offerings in the domestic steel
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

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


STELLANTIS NV: Stichting Car Claims Certified as Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Haas, Jeffrey Kleywegt, Andre Reznitchenko, Robert van Vugt
and Gijs Wanders report that Stichting Car Claim has been given the
green light to bring a class action suit against car makers
Peugeot, Citroën, DS and Opel, their - former - parent companies
Stellantis and General Motors, and their Dutch importer and
official Dutch dealerships. The Amsterdam District Court gave a
ruling to such effect on 16 August 2023. As early as in 2019, Car
Claim waged a successful legal campaign against Volkswagen, Audi,
Škoda, SEAT and their Dutch dealers. This proven track record
turned out a relevant consideration for the court's decision.

AKD's experts advise and assist Stichting Car Claim in these new
proceedings. Headed by Patrick Haas, the AKD team consists of Andre
Reznitchenko, Jeffrey Kleywegt, Robert van Vugt and Gijs Wanders.
[GN]

STONE & SAUNDERS: Newman Files TCPA Suit in D. Colorado
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stone & Saunders Ltd.
The case is styled as Edward G. Newman Jr., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Stone & Saunders Ltd.,
Case No. 1:23-cv-02108-MEH (D. Colo., Aug. 18, 2023).

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

Stone & Saunders -- https://www.stonesaunders.com/ -- is a
collection firm that was founded in 2008 and is based in Columbus,
Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          237 South Dixie Highway, 4th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33133
          Phone: (305) 469-5881
          Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com


STORMY KROMER: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Stormy Kromer
Mercantile Co., Inc. The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. The Stormy
Kromer Mercantile Co., Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-07477 (S.D.N.Y., Aug.
23, 2023).

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

Stormy Kromer -- https://www.stormykromer.com/ -- is the iconic
wool winter cap with earflaps made since 1903 now with jackets,
vests, shirts, mittens, accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick William Gallagher, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: pgallagher@mizrahikroub.com


STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: Continues to Defend Winter Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Stronghold Digital Mining Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for June 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on August 10, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself
from the Winter class suit in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

On April 14, 2022, the Company, and certain of our current and
former directors, officers and underwriters were named in a
putative class action complaint filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the Company made
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material facts in
violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. §77k and
Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the
"Securities Act"), about the Company’s business, operations, and
prospects in the Company's registration statement on Form S-1
related to its initial public offering, and when subsequent
disclosures were made regarding these operational issues when the
Company announced its fourth quarter and full year 2021 financial
results, the Company's stock price fell, causing significant losses
and damages.

As relief, the plaintiffs are seeking, among other things,
compensatory damages.

On August 4, 2022, co-lead plaintiffs were appointed.

On October 18, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

On December 19, 2022, the Company filed a motion to dismiss.

On February 17, 2023, the plaintiffs filed an opposition to the
defendant's motion to dismiss.

On March 20, 2023, the Company filed a reply brief in further
support of its motion to dismiss.

On June 13, 2023, the Company made oral arguments in support of its
motion to dismiss.

On August 10, 2023, the court largely denied the motion to dismiss.


The defendants continue to believe the allegations in the complaint
are without merit and intend to defend the suit vigorously.

Stronghold Digital Mining, Inc. (NASDAQ: SDIG), a crypto asset
mining company, focuses on mining Bitcoin in the United States. It
also operates coal refuse power generation facility. The company
was incorporated in 2021 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.

STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: Judge Grants in Part Motion to Dismiss Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP on Aug. 21 disclosed that on August 10,
2023, Judge Ronnie Abrams of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in
part a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action
alleging that a cryptocurrency mining company (the "Company") and
certain of its officers and directors violated Sections 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities
Act"). Winter v. Stronghold Digital Mining, Inc., No. 22-CV-3088
(RA), 2023 WL 5152177 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2023). Plaintiffs allege
that the Company made false and misleading statements in its
registration statement and prospectus filed in connection with the
Company's October 2021 initial public offering ("IPO") regarding
the Company's supply chain risks. The Court granted the motion to
dismiss the Section 12(a)(2) claim of one plaintiff for lack of
standing, but otherwise denied the motion to dismiss.

The Company is engaged in Bitcoin mining, i.e., using computers to
solve cryptographic puzzles to correctly guess a new "hash," which
results in the creation of new Bitcoin. Plaintiffs allege that the
Company entered into an agreement with a manufacturer of
cryptocurrency miners (the "Manufacturer") to purchase 15,000
Bitcoin miners in April 2021. In the Company's offering materials
filed on October 19, 2021, the Company stated that it "anticipated"
that (i) the Manufacturer would deliver 2,500 miners by October 31,
2021; 5,000 miners by November 30, 2021; 5,000 miners by December
31, 2021; and the remaining 2,500 miners by January 2022; and (ii)
the Company's total hash rate capacity would equal 2,100 PH/s by
December 2021. Plaintiffs allege that in November 2021, within
three weeks of the Company's IPO, the Company disclosed publicly
that the Manufacturer would not be able to deliver the Bitcoin
miners within the timeline that the Company had set forth in its
registration statement. Plaintiffs allege that the Company
disclosed on March 29, 2022, that it (i) only received 3,300 of the
15,000 miners it had ordered from the Manufacturer, and (ii) failed
to achieve the total hash rate it projected in the offering
materials, in part because of Manufacturer's failure to deliver the
miners. On March 30, 2022, plaintiffs allege that the Company's
stock price dropped by approximately 35%. Plaintiffs allege that
the Company's offering materials contained false and misleading
statements because, at the time of the IPO, the Company was aware
that (i) power outages in China would prevent the Manufacturer's
timely delivery of the miners, (ii) the Manufacturer did not have
the necessary parts on hand to build the Company's allotment of
Bitcoin miners, and (iii) the Company had not yet fully paid the
Manufacturer for the miners even though payment was due.

The Court first addressed the Company's argument that the claims
should be dismissed because plaintiffs did not allege that the
Company knew or should have known that the Manufacturer would not
be able to deliver the required number of Bitcoin miners. The Court
rejected the Company's argument because scienter is not a
requirement of the Section 11 and 12(a)(2) claims pleaded in the
litigation. In applying this reasoning, the Court distinguished
cases holding that Section 11 and 12(a)(2) claims must be dismissed
when allegedly omitted risks were neither known nor knowable at the
time of the challenged offering. According to the Court, those
decisions did not require dismissal because plaintiffs "plausibly
allege that [the Company]'s statement that it ‘anticipated' the
delivery of miners described in the Offering Materials was
materially false or misleading at the time of the IPO." The Court
emphasized that plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged that, at the
time of the IPO, the Company's payment to the Manufacturer was
behind schedule, there were known power outages in China in
September and October 2021 that would impact the manufacturing of
the Bitcoin miners, and, according to a confidential witness, the
Company's vice president stated in October 2021 that the
manufacturer would not be able to deliver the Bitcoin miners on
time. The Court noted that the Company's "knowledge" argument was
more appropriate for a motion for summary judgment in the context
of "due diligence" or "reasonable care" affirmative defenses.

The Court next addressed the Company's argument that the "bespeaks
caution" doctrine required dismissal because of "the cautionary
language in the IPO materials." The Court held that "[t]he doctrine
does not apply . . . where a risk disclosed by Defendants has
already transpired at the time the statements at issue were made."
Regarding the Company's argument that misstatements about the
delivery dates were immaterial, the Court held that the question
was inappropriate for a motion to dismiss because, "absent fact
discovery, the Court cannot determine that any delay in the
shipment of miners would have been immaterial to investors given
their alleged importance to [the Company]'s operations." The Court
also held that defendants' negative causation arguments were best
left for summary judgment.

Finally, the Court dismissed the Section 12(a)(2) claim asserted by
one of the plaintiffs for lack of standing. Defendants argued that
plaintiff in question alleged only that he purchased securities
"pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Materials" and did not
allege that he had purchased the Company's shares directly from the
Company in a public offering. Plaintiffs did not contest this
point, and the Court dismissed the 12(a)(2) claim of this
particular plaintiff.

Winter v. Stronghold Digital Mining, Inc. [GN]

SUBWAY RESTAURANTS: Court OK's Amin Bid to Dismiss Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NILIMA AMIN, v. SUBWAY
RESTAURANTS, INC., et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00498-JST (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar entered an order granting the
Plaintiff's motion to dismiss and denying the Defendants' motion
for sanctions:

   -- The Court grants Amin's motion to dismiss with prejudice.

   -- The clerk shall close the file and enter judgment. Subway's
      motion for sanctions is denied.

Subway places great weight on Plaintiff's counsel's litigation
behavior, and the Court agrees that Amin's counsel's conduct was
blameworthy.

Counsel failed to meet deadlines, including deadlines to serve
discovery responses; failed to serve expert disclosures; failed to
file all of the supplemental materials ordered by Judge Cisneros on
March 17, 2023; filed an untimely and false declaration with Judge
Cisneros regarding their failure to comply with discovery
deadlines.

The Plaintiff in this putative class action contends that Subway
misrepresents the content of its tuna products.

Subway serves freshly made-to-order sandwiches, wraps, salads and
bowls.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YUuiav at no extra charge.[CC]

SUNTRUST BANKS: Randle Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRACY RANDLE, ALLISON
TAYLOR, ARTHUR BOYD, and TAHIR JOHNSON on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, v. SUNTRUST BANKS, INC., SUNTRUST
INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC., TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION, and TRUIST
INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-01525-TJK (D.D.C.), the
Plaintiffs request that the Court enter the Order:

   (1) certifying a settlement class:

       "all individuals who were employed by STIS as a financial
       advisor at any time between June 24, 2014, and February 17,

       2021, and who self-identified to STIS as African American
       and/or Black, as reflected in Defendants' workforce data
that
       was used to develop the class list provided by Defendants to

       Plaintiffs' counsel;"

       The Settlement Class meets all the requirements for
       certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)
and
       Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3)."

   (2) preliminarily approving the proposed class action
settlement;

   (3) appointing Plaintiffs’ counsel and the class
representatives;

   (4) approving and directing distribution to the class of notice
of
       the settlement; and

   (5) setting a schedule for the final approval process.

The Plaintiffs submit the parties' proposed class settlement, which
provides a $14 million settlement fund and meaningful programmatic
relief to increase opportunities for a class of African American
and Black Financial Advisors ("African American FAs") who were
employed by the Defendants.

After more than five years of litigation, and more than two years
of contentious and hard-fought settlement negotiations with the
assistance of a highly experienced mediator, the parties have
agreed to a Settlement that is fair, reasonable and adequate.

In April 2017, Plaintiff Tracy Randle, an African American former
STIS financial advisor (FA), retained Plaintiffs' counsel to
represent her with respect to her claims of race discrimination
against the Firm.

After extensive investigation, the Plaintiff Randle filed a
representative charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in May 2017, alleging STIS was
engaged in a company-wide pattern or practice of race
discrimination and employed policies or practices that have an
unlawful disparate impact on African American Advisors.

SunTrust is a super-regional bank holding company.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 4, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47IHwLy at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Linda D. Friedman, Esq.
          Suzanne E. Bish, Esq.
          George S. Robot, Esq.
          STOWELL & FRIEDMAN, LTD.
          303 W. Madison St., Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 431-0888
          E-mail: lfriedman@sfltd.com
                  sbish@sfltd.com
                  grobot@sfltd.com

SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Settlement in WDS Union Suit OK'd
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Retail Wholesale
Department Store Union Local 338 Retirement Fund v. Synchrony
Financial, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-01818-VAB (D. Conn.), the Hon.
Judge Victor A. Bolden entered an order approving the Class action
settlement, approving plan of allocation, and approving application
for attorney's fees and costs.

   (1) Only the following three individuals, entities, or
       organizations identified by 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:

       Name City, State

       1. Ryan J. Cap Chicago, IL

       2. John W. Harrison Gambrills, MD

       3. Timothy S. Truesdell Mt. Pleasant, SC

   (2) Accordingly, the Action and all of the claims asserted
against
       Defendants in the Action by Plaintiffs and Class Members are

       dismissed with prejudice as to all Defendants.

   (3) The Parties shall bear their own costs and expenses, except
as
       otherwise expressly provided in the Stipulation.

   (4) The Court finds and concludes that the Parties and their
       respective counsel have complied in all respects with the
       requirements of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure
       in connection with the institution, prosecution, defense,
and
       settlement of the Action.

Synchrony Financial is a consumer financial services company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44hmG2U at no extra
charge.[CC] 


TACOS JAM: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Espinoza Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO LEONEL HERNANDEZ ESPINOZA, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TACOS JAM LLC (D/B/A TULUM
TACOS & TEQUILA), ATHANASIOS D MITSIOS, and NICOLAS GEERAERTS,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-06082 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 11, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendants for unpaid overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and for violations of the
New York Labor Law and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage
orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor, including applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiff Hernandez was employed by Defendants at Tulum Tacos &
Tequila from approximately December 2022 until June 1, 2023 as a
cook, food preparer, and dishwasher. Other than failing to pay
"spread of hours" and overtime wages, the Defendants also fail to
provide written wage notices and accurate wage statements and fail
to pay in a regular weekly basis, the Plaintiff asserts.

Tacos Jam LLC, d/b/a Tulum Tacos & Tequila, owns, operates, and
controls a Mexican restaurant located in Mineola, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

TALARIS THERAPEUTICS: Juan Monteverde Probes Tourmaline Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:

Talaris Therapeutics Inc. (Nasdaq: TALS), relating to its proposed
merger with Tourmaline Bio, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement,
TALS shareholders are expected to own approximately 21.3% of the
combined company. Click here for more information:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/talaris-therapeutics-inc. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.

Quotient Technology Inc. (NYSE: QUOT ), relating to its proposed
sale to Neptune Retail Solutions. Under the terms of the agreement,
QUOT shareholders are expected to receive $4.00 in cash per share
they own. Click here for more information:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/quotient-technology-inc. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.

New Relic, Inc. (NYSE: NEWR ), relating to its proposed sale to
Francisco Partners. Under the terms of the agreement, NEWR
shareholders will receive $87.00 in cash per share they own. Click
here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/new-relic-inc. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.

eMagin Corp. (NYSE: EMAN ), relating to its proposed sale to
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. Under the terms of the agreement, EMAN
shareholders are expected to receive $2.08 in cash per share they
own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/emagin-corp. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.

              About Monteverde & Associates PC

We are a national class action securities and consumer litigation
law firm that has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders
and is committed to protecting investors and consumers from
corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates lawyers have
significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and
Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by
recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr.
Monteverde, who leads the legal team at the firm, has been
recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities
Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019 and a Super Lawyers Honoree in
Securities Litigation in 2022-2023. He has also been selected by
Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2023 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's
recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory
that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the
Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm
successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a
writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States
Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019).
Also, over the years the firm has recovered or secured over a dozen
cash common funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class
action cases.

If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and
wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments
free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E.
Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.

Contact:

Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.

MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]

TAPESTRY INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Amended to Feb. 27, 2024
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SABRINA REED,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, v. TAPESTRY, INC. which will do business in
California as COACH LEATHERWARE CALIFORNIA, INC., a Maryland
corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
5:22-cv-04546-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman
entered an order granting joint stipulation to continue deadlines
for completing private mediation and for filing motion for class
certification.

   1. The deadline for completing private mediation is continued
from
      September 1, 2023, to January 30, 2024.

   2. The class certification briefing schedule is amended as
follows:

           Event                         Original        New
                                         Deadline        Deadline

  Deadline to file motion for         Sept. 8, 2023    Feb. 27,
2024
  class certification

  Deadline to file opposition         Nov. 9, 2023     Apr. 23,
2024
  to motion for class certification

  Deadline to file reply to motion    Dec. 15, 2023    May 21,
2024
  for class certification

Tapestry is an American multinational luxury fashion holding
company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YOIu4H at no extra charge.[CC]


TAPESTRY INC: Class Certification Discovery Due Jan. 17, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HUONG THU NGUYEN-WILHITE,
v. TAPESTRY, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-03339-JLR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon entered a scheduling order as follows:

   1. Initial disclosures shall be completed by August 11, 2023.

   2. Any motion for leave to amend or join additional parties
shall
      be filed no later than September 29, 2023.

   3. All discovery regarding issues pertaining to class
certification
      shall be completed by January 17, 2024.

   4. The parties shall file their anticipated cross-motions
regarding
      class certification by February 14, 2024.

   5. Oppositions are due by March 13, 2024. Replies, if any, are
due
      by March 27, 2024.

Tapestry is an American multinational luxury fashion holding
company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 3, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3E5IR1n at no extra charge.[CC]


TAPESTRY INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Feb. 27, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SABRINA REED,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, v. TAPESTRY, INC. which will do business in
California as COACH LEATHERWARE CALIFORNIA, INC., a Maryland
corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
5:22-cv-04546-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order that:

   1. The Parties propose continuing the deadline for completing
      private mediation to January 30, 2024.

   2. The Parties propose the following modifications to the class

      certification briefing schedule:

          Event                      Original        Proposed New
                                      Deadline        Deadline

  Deadline to file motion for      Sept. 8, 2023     Feb. 27, 2024
  class certification

  Deadline to file opposition      Nov. 9, 2023      Apr. 23, 2024
  to motion for class
  certification

  Deadline to file reply to        Dec. 15, 2023     May 21, 2024
  motion for class
  certification

Tapestry is an American multinational luxury fashion holding
company.

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Bevin Allen Pike, Esq.
          Daniel S. Jonathan, Esq.
          Trisha K. Monesi, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 229-1000
          Facsimile: (310) 229-1001
          E-mail: Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com
                  Daniel.Jonathan@capstonelawyers.com
                  Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com

                - and -

          Gregory W. Knopp, Esq.
          Sehreen Ladak, Esq.
          Jennifer J. Mcdermott, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 557-2900
          Facsimile: (310) 557-2193
          E-mail: gknopp@proskauer.com
                  sladak@proskauer.com
                  jmcdermott@proskauer.com

TARGET CORPORATION: Alonso Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Maria B. Alonso, an individual and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota
Corporation; EXACT STAFF, INC., a California corporation; and DOES
1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2309691 was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on Aug. 23, 2023, and assigned Case No.
5:23-cv-01705.

The Plaintiff’s Complaint contains eight causes of action
alleging: failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay minimum
wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest
periods; failure to timely pay wages owed upon separation from
employment; failure to provide accurate wage statements; failure to
timely pay wages during employment; and unfair competition.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Julie A. Dunne, Esq.
          Matthew Riley, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          4365 Executive Drive, Suite 1100
          San Diego, CA 92121-2133
          Phone: 858.677.1400
          Fax: 858.677.1401
          Email: julie.dunne@us.dlapiper.com
                 matthew.riley@us.dlapiper.com


TARGET CORPORATION: General Pretrial Management Entered in Alonzia
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAVEN ALONZIA, v. TARGET
CORPORATION, Case No. 1:23-cv-06716-JPO-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general Pretrial
management:

  -- All pretrial motions and applications, including those related
to
     scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or
for
     judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary

     judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23)

     must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this
Court's
     Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's

     website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses.

  -- Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must
be
     initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery
set
     by the Court.

  -- Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting
     discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need
for
     such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil
Rule
     37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices.

Target is an American retail corporation that operates a chain of
discount department stores and hypermarkets.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 3, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sdxD8g at no extra charge.[CC]


TEACHERS INSURANCE: Andersen Files Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Teachers Insurance
and Annuity Association of America. The case is styled as Robin
Andersen, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v.
Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America, Case No.
1:23-cv-07437-UA (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 22, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.

The Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America-College
Retirement Equities Fund -- https://www.tiaa.org/public -- is a
Fortune 100 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:

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


TEMASEK HOLDINGS: Cabo Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Leandro Cabo, Vitor Vozza, Kyle Rupprecht,
Warren Winter, Sunil Kavuri, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited,
Temasek International (USA) LLC, Softbank Group Corp., SB Group US,
Inc., SoftBank Investment Advisers (UK) Limited, SoftBank Global
Advisers Limited, Sino Global Capital Limited, Sino Global Capital
Holdings, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-03974 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Aug. 23,
2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-23212 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Temasek Holdings Limited, or simply Temasek --
https://temasek.com.sg/ -- is a global investment company owned by
the Government of Singapore.[BN]

TGI FRIDAYS: Gragnano Seeks to Certify Employee Class & Subclasses
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAYDEN GRAGNANO, MICHELLE
MCCOLLUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. TGI FRIDAYS INC., a New York corporation; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 8:22-cv-00392-FWS-JDE (C.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiff Gragnano will move the Court, pursuant to Rules 23(a)
and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for an order
certifying the following classes:

    -- Class

       All non-exempt employees of Defendant TGI Fridays Inc. in
       California during the period of February 1, 2020, through
the
       date of class certification (class period);"

    -- Meal Break Subclass

       "All non-exempt employees of Defendant TGI Fridays Inc. in
       California who worked one or more shifts over five hours
during
       the Class Period;" and

    -- Rest Break Subclass

       "All non-exempt employees of Defendant TGI Fridays Inc. in
       California who worked one or more shifts over 3.5 hours
during
       the Class Period.

The Plaintiff further requests that the Court appoint Matern Law
Group, PC, Matthew J. Matern, Mikael H. Stahle, and Kayvon
Sabourian and Aegis Law Firm, PC, Kashif Haque, and Fawn F. Bekam
as Class Counsel for the proposed Classes and Hayden Gragnano as
Class Representative for the proposed Classes.

TGI Friday's operates a chain of restaurants.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Mikael H. Stahle, Esq.
          Kayvon Sabourian, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
          E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
                  mstahle@maternlawgroup.com
                  ksabourian@maternlawgroup.com

                - and -
          Kashif Haque, Esq.
          Fawn F. Bekam, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
          9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 379-6250
          Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
          E-mail: fbekam@aegislawfirm.com

TOYOTA MOTOR: Settles Class Suit for $78.5M Over Air Bag Control
----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Toyota agreed to pay a $78.5 million
settlement to resolve claims its vehicles were equipped with
defective air bag control units that could malfunction during a
crash.

The settlement benefits current and former owners and lessees of
2011-2019 Toyota Corolla, 2011-2013 Toyota Corolla Matrix,
2012-2018 Toyota Avalon, 2013-2018 Toyota Avalon HV, 2012-2019
Toyota Tacoma, 2012-2017 Toyota Tundra and 2012-2017 Toyota Sequoia
vehicles. Drivers can look up their vehicle VIN on the settlement
website to check their eligibility.

According to the automotive class action lawsuit, Toyota equipped
some of its vehicles with defective air bag control units. These
components allegedly malfunction during collisions, preventing the
air bags from deploying.

Toyota is a global vehicle brand based in Japan.

Toyota hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $78.5 million
settlement to resolve the air bag defect class action lawsuit.

Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive
reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses related to their vehicle
if their vehicle has been recalled due to the air bags. If class
members own or lease a vehicle that was not covered by an air bag
recall, they may be able to receive up to $250 in a residual
distribution payment. These payments will vary depending on the
funds leftover after reimbursements are paid to recall customers.

The settlement also provides a robust inspection program, an
extended new parts warranty and an outreach program for recalled
vehicles.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is Oct. 20, 2023.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Nov.
16, 2023.

To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by the claim deadline. Although the official claim
deadline has not been determined, claims will be due to the
settlement administrator no earlier than Dec. 16, 2026.

Who's Eligible
Current and former owners and lessees of 2011-2019 Toyota Corolla,
2011–2013 Toyota Corolla Matrix, 2012–2018 Toyota Avalon,
2013–2018 Toyota Avalon HV, 2012–2019 Toyota Tacoma,
2012–2017 Toyota Tundra and 2012–2017 Toyota Sequoia vehicles

Potential Award
Varies

Proof of Purchase
Documentation of out-of-pocket expenses

Claim Form
CLICK HERE TO FILE A CLAIM »
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.

Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.

Claim Form Deadline
12/16/2026

Case Name
In re: ZF-TRW Air Bag Control Units Product Liability Litigation,
Case No. 2:19-ml-02905-JAK-MRW, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California

Final Hearing
11/16/2023

Settlement Website
AirBagControlUnitSettlement.com

Claims Administrator
Toyota Air Bag Control Unit Settlement
c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC
P.O. Box 225391
New York, NY 10150-5391
info@air bagcontrolunitsettlement.com
833-747-5737

Class Counsel
Roland Tellis
BARON & BUDD PC

David Stellings
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP

Defense Counsel
John P Hooper
KING & SPALDING LLP [GN]

TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Parties Seek Scheduling Order for Class Status
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BOAGF Holdco LP, on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated, v. TRANSAMERICA LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:23-cv-00032-CJW-MAR (N.D. Iowa), the
Parties submit the following Agreed Motion Re: Proposed Scheduling
Order for Class Certification Motion Deadline and Briefing
Schedule.

The Parties met and conferred and agreed upon a briefing schedule
for Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Parties seek an
Order entering the following deadlines:

   a. Plaintiff shall file its motion for class certification on or

      before May 6, 2024;

   b. The Defendant shall file its opposition to Plaintiff's motion
on
      or before June 10, 2024; and

   c. The Plaintiff shall file its reply in support of its motion
on
      or before July 15, 2024.

On June 12, 2023, the Parties filed a Proposed Scheduling Order and
Discovery Plan, which included a proposed class certification
motion deadline and briefing schedule.

On July 10, 2023, the Parties held a Rule 16(b) Scheduling
Conference before the Court (Magistrate Judge Mark Roberts
presiding). There, the Parties discussed with the Court the timing
of discovery, dispositive motions, and trial, and agreed to submit
a further Proposed Scheduling Order and Discovery Plan including
the revised deadlines that Judge Roberts announced.

On July 24, 2023, the Parties submitted a revised Scheduling Order
and Discovery Plan, which included a proposed class certification
motion deadline and briefing schedule.

On July 25, 2023, the Court entered a Scheduling Order and
Discovery Plan setting the Completion of Discovery for July 31,
2024, a dispositive motions deadline of August 12, 2024, and Trial
Ready date of January 9, 2025.

The Scheduling Order did not include a class certification motion
deadline and briefing schedule.

The Plaintiff filed its class action complaint on October 27, 2022,
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California.

On May 11, 2023, that court transferred this matter to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.

Transamerica offers life, health, and dental insurance.

A copy of the Parties motion dated Aug. 4, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3smhnlw at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Eugene Deegan, Jr., Esq.
          TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
          111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60601-3713
          Telephone (312) 836-4052
          E-mail: pdeegan@taftlaw.com

                - and -

          Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
          Glenn Charles Bridgman, Esq.
          Michael Gervais, Esq.
          Rohit D. Nath, Esq.
          Kim C. Page, Esq.
          Jasjaap Singh Sidhu, Esq.
          Ryan C. Kirkpatrick, Esq.
          Seth Ard, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
          1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone (310) 789-3100
          Facsimile (310) 789-3150
          E-mail: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
                  gbridgman@susmangodfrey.com
                  mgervais@susmangodfrey.com
                  rnath@susmangodfrey.com
                  kpage@susmangodfrey.com
                  jsidhu@susmangodfrey.com
                  rkirkpatrick@susmangodfrey.com
                  sard@susmangodfrey.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Thomas F. A. Hetherington, Esq.
          Jarrett E. Ganer, Esq.
          Erin B. Taylor, Esq.
          Hutson B. Smelley, Esq.
          Micah A. Grodin, Esq.
          MCDOWELL HETHERINGTON LLP
          1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2400
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 337-5580
          Facsimile: (713) 337-8850
          E-mail: tom.hetherington@mhllp.com
                  jarrett.ganer@mhllp.com
                  erin.taylor@mhllp.com
                  hutson.smelley@mhllp.com
                  micah.grodin@mhllp.com

                - and -

          Timothy J. Hill, Esq.
          Ryan S. Fisher, Esq.
          BRADLEY & RILEY PC
          2007 First Avenue SE
          Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52406-2804
          Telephone: (319) 363-0101
          Facsimile: (319) 363-9824
          E-mail: thill@bradleyriley.com
                  rfisher@bradleyriley.com

TYLER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Over Software Defects
------------------------------------------------------------
Russ Bowen, writing for WNCN, reports that "People think that
they've done everything that they have to do to get a clean record
and yet maybe not," said attorney Zack Ezor.

The "people" Ezor is referring to are clients who claim they are
among the hundreds who have been unlawfully detained.

The arrests are blamed on flaws in the new software system eCourts,
which was rolled out in Wake, Johnston, Harnett and Lee counties
last February. They are serving as pilot counties before the $100
million eCourts system launches across the rest of the state.

"The fact remains that these problems are persisting, and you know
even months into this now we're still hearing from people every
single week about defects in the system," said Ezor.

Multiple attorneys have told CBS 17 that those defects have
included slowdowns, courtroom backlogs, inaccessibility to client
files and private information being made public.

But it's the arrests, after charges have been dismissed, that are
at the center of accusations in a class action complaint filed
against software company Tyler Technologies.

"It's just completely upended their lives, it's caused them to
spend more time in jail than they should, it's caused them to lose
jobs, it's caused them to live with the uncertainty of ‘am I
going to be picked up on something that I thought was resolved',"
said Ezor.

Ezor is one of the attorneys who filed the complaint.

In a request for comment Tyler Technologies released a statement to
CBS 17 that said "as a standard practice, we do not comment on
pending litigation."

Tyler is no stranger to being sued. The company has faced
litigation for its court software in other states.

While there have been improvements since the North Carolina
four-county launch, Ezor said more needs to be done to prevent
additional unlawful arrests.

"Just a way to make sure if somebody comes to you and says woe this
is wrong, just check the system you'll see my charges have been
dismissed. That you can take a look, take care of it, maybe handle
it on paper if you need to but just something to make sure that if
these problems continue to arise, which we think they will, there's
an out," he said.

As for the motivation behind the lawsuit, Ezor said it's as much
about the future as it is about the past.

"Every person that we've talked to they've said 'I called you
because I don't want this to happen to someone else. I've called
you because I know that the chance of me getting some sort of
justice, compensation or whatever might be low, but I just know
this is going to be rolled out more broadly and I don't want this
to keep happening'," Ezor said.

The defendants in the class action complaint were served on Aug. 21
and they have 30 days to respond. [GN]

UNITED HEALTHCARE: Binter Sues Over Illegal Pre-Recorded Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROB BINTER JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., a
Minnesota registered corporation, Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-01063-LA (E.D. Wis., Aug. 10, 2023) seeks to stop the
Defendant from violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by
placing pre-recorded calls without consent; as well as injunctive
and monetary relief for all persons injured by Defendant's alleged
conduct.

According to the complaint, Defendant UHC places pre-recorded calls
to offer its house calls services, often without the appropriate
consent necessary to place such calls. Defendant UHC even has a
history of placing calls to consumers who do not have insurance
through UHC or consent to call them, says the suit.

The unauthorized telephone calls that Plaintiff received from or on
behalf of Defendant has harmed Plaintiff in the form of annoyance,
nuisance, and invasion of privacy, occupied his phone line and
device, and disturbed the use and enjoyment of his phone, the suit
asserts.

United Healthcare Services sells health insurance plans to
consumers throughout the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          COLEMAN PLLC
          66 West Flagler Sreet Suite 900
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (877) 333-9427
          E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com

               - and -

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          237 South Dixie Highway, Floor 4
          Coral Gables, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 469-5881
          E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com

UNITED HEALTHCARE: Jubran Files Suit in D. Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United HealthCare
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Mohammed Al Jubran, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. United HealthCare
Services, Inc. doing business as: UnitedHealthcare Student
Resources, Case No. 0:23-cv-02580-PAM-DJF (D. Minn., Aug. 23,
2023).

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

United Healthcare Services, Inc. -- https://www.uhc.com/ -- was
founded in 1974. The company's line of business includes providing
hospital, medical, and other health services to subscribers or
members.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip Joseph Krzeski, Esq.
          Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
          CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: (612) 767-3613
          Fax: (612) 336-2940
          Email: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com
                 bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com


UNITED PARCEL: Todd Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Parcel
Service, Inc. The case is styled as Joshua Todd, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2023-0009034 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Aug.
21, 2023).

The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."

United Parcel Service -- https://www.ups.com/ -- is an American
multinational shipping & receiving and supply chain management
company founded in 1907.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Nourmand, Esq.
          THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
          8822 W Olympic Blvd.
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Phone: +1 310-553-3600


UNUM GROUP: Williams Files Suit in E.D. Tennessee
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against UNUM Group. The case
is styled as Kim Williams, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. UNUM Group, Case No. 3:23-cv-00549-slc (E.D.
Tenn., Aug. 18, 2023).

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

Unum Group -- http://www.unum.com/-- is an American insurance
company headquartered in Chattanooga, Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com


USA TODAY: Fails to Pay Site Editors' OT Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW STEVENS, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. USA TODAY SPORTS MEDIA GROUP, LLC and GANNETT
CO., INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-01367-YK (M.D. Pa., Aug. 17, 2023)
alleges that the Defendants failed to pay overtime wage under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff regularly worked 70 hours per week, but was never
paid an overtime premium for hours worked in excess of 40 in a
week. From July 2020 through the end of his employment as Site
Editor, Mr. Stevens was paid $2,250 to $3,500 per month, which
included flat monthly payments of $2,250, plus modest bonuses if
certain production metrics were met such as reader page views. Mr.
Stevens' pay was thus approximately $7.47 to $11.63 per hour
(without any overtime premium), or $6.16 to $9.58 per hour
(accounting for overtime hours as being 1.5x regular time hours).
This is less than the federal and Pennsylvania minimum wage
required by the PMWA, the lawsuit claims.

The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a collective action on behalf
of himself and the following class of potential opt-in litigants:

        All current or former Site Editors who performed work in
        the United States for USA Today Sports Media Group within
        the past three years and who were classified as independent

        contractors (the "FLSA Class" or "Site Editors").

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a Site Editor from
January 2017 through August 2021.

USA Today is a media company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Goodley, Esq.
          Ryan P. McCarthy, Esq.
          GOODLEY MCCARTHY LLC
          1650 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 394-0541
          E-mail: james@gmlaborlaw.com
                  ryan@gmlaborlaw.com

USA VEIN CLINICS: Gallardo Sues Over Labor Code Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Crystal Gallardo, on behalf of the State of California, and others
similarly situated and aggrieved v. USA VEIN CLINICS, INC., a
California Corporation; USA VASCULAR CENTERS OF LOS ANGELES P.C., a
California Corporation; USA VEIN CLINICS OF CHICAGO LLC, an
Illinois Limited Liability Company; MMPS OF CALIFORNIA INC., a
California Corporation; MEDICAL MANAGEMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
INC., an Illinois Corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No.
23STCV19753 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 17, 2023), is
brought pursuant to California's Private Attorney General Act
("PAGA"), to recover civil penalties (75% payable to the Labor and
Workforce Development Agency and 25% payable to Aggrieved
Employees) for the Defendants' violations of the California Labor
Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants created a uniform set of
policies, practices and/or procedures concerning, inter alia,
hourly and overtime pay, time-keeping practices, meal and rest
periods, reimbursement of business expenses and other working
conditions that were distributed to, and/or applied to the
Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees, and further that the Defendants
uniformly compensated and controlled the wages of the Plaintiff and
other Aggrieved Employees in a uniform manner. Thus, the Defendants
collectively 22 exercised the right to control the wages, hours and
working conditions of the Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees. As
such, the Defendants collectively held the right to control
virtually every aspect of the Plaintiff's and the Aggrieved
Employees' employment, including the instrumentality that resulted
in the illegal conduct for which the Plaintiff seeks relief in this
Complaint, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an ultrasound
technician and/or similar title(s) and/or position(s) from the end
of August 2022 through November 11, 2022.

The Defendants own, operate, or otherwise manage vein treatment
centers throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zachary M Crosner, Esq.
          Jamie Serb, Esq.
          Brandon Brouillette, Esq.
          CROSNER LEGAL, PC
          9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Phone: (866) 276-7637
          Fax: (310) 510-6429
          Email: zach@crosnerlegal.com
                 jamie@crosnerlegal.com
                 bbrouillette@crosnerlegal.com


UUUUU INC: Morgan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against UUUUU Inc. The case
is styled as Paradise Morgan, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. UUUUU
Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-07338 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 18, 2023).

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

UUUUU -- https://uuuuuofficial.com/ -- creates and sells nail
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



VACAVILLE FRUIT CO: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vacaville Fruit Co.,
Inc. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Vacaville Fruit Co., Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-07380-JHR (S.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 21, 2023).

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

Vacaville Fruit Company -- https://vacavillefruit.com/ -- continues
the tradition of offering nutritious, full flavored, and
beautifully arranged gift baskets, cello bags, pouches and tubs of
premium selected dried fruits and nuts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VAXART INC: Faces Chan Action in California Court
-------------------------------------------------
Vaxart, 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 January 8, 2021, a purported
shareholder, Phillip Chan, commenced a pro se lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California titled "Chan
v. Vaxart, Inc. et al." opting out of the consolidated "Himmelberg
v. Vaxart, Inc. et al." and "Hovhannisyan v. Vaxart, Inc. et al."
class actions.

Vaxart Biosciences, Inc. is into the discovery and development of
oral recombinant protein vaccines, based on its proprietary oral
vaccine platform.


VERTAFORE INC: Data Breach Suit Over Drivers' License Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roper Technologies, 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 Roper's subsidiary,
Vertafore, Inc., had been named in three putative class actions,
all of which are now dismissed.

There were two in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas namely Allen, et al. v. Vertafore, Inc., Case
4:20-cv-4139, filed December 4, 2020 and "Masciotra, et al. v.
Vertafore, Inc." (originally filed on December 8, 2020 as Case
1:20-cv-03603 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado and subsequently transferred), and one in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas captioned
"Mulvey, et al. v. Vertafore, Inc.," Case 3:21-cv-00213-E, filed
January 31, 2021).

In July 2021, the court granted Vertafore's motion to dismiss the
Allen Case, with the dismissal affirmed by the U.S. Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals, effectively concluding the litigation. In July
2021, the plaintiff in the Masciotra case voluntarily dismissed his
action without prejudice. In February 2023, the court granted
Vertafore's motion to dismiss the Mulvey case, and the plaintiff
failed to appeal the dismissal effectively concluding the matter.
Both the Allen and Mulvey cases purported to represent
approximately 27.7 million individuals who held Texas driver's
licenses prior to February 2019.

The cases revolve around a November 2020 Vertafore announcement
that as a result of human error, three data files were
inadvertently stored in an unsecured external storage service that
appears to have been accessed without authorization. The files,
which included driver information for licenses issued before
February 2019, contained Texas driver license numbers, as well as
names, dates of birth, addresses and vehicle registration
histories. The files did not contain any Social Security numbers or
financial account information. These cases sought recovery under
the Driver's Privacy Protection Act.

Roper Technologies Inc. is into industrial instruments for
measurement, display, and control and is based in Sarasota,
Florida.

WALKING DEPOT: Wahab Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Walking Depot
Corporation. The case is styled as Angela Wahab, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Walking Depot
Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-07461 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2023).

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

Walking Depot -- https://www.walkingdepot.com/ -- is a Retail,
Apparel & Accessories, and Department Stores, Shopping Centers &
Superstores company located in Broomall, Pennsylvania.[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


WERFEN USA: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Degroat Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
ALLEN DEGROAT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WERFEN USA LLC, Defendant, Case No.
7:23-cv-07490 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2023) is an action against the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff Degroat was employed by the Defendant as a machine
operator.

WERFEN USA LLC is a worldwide developer, manufacturer and
distributor of specialized diagnostic instruments, related
reagents, automation workcells, and data management solutions for
use primarily in hospitals and independent clinical laboratories.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC
          490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Telephone: (631) 257-5588
          Email: promero@romerolawny.com

WEST VIRGINIA: Court Certifies Class Suit Over Foster Care System
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Minor of 12 WBoy reports that a federal district judge in West
Virginia has certified class-action status for a lawsuit filed on
behalf of the approximately 6,100 children in the state's foster
care system.

The plaintiffs allege children are referred to the foster care
system in West Virginia at a rate more than one-and-a-half times
the national average, and that those children are often placed
out-of-state or isolated in inadequate facilities.

The group also claims that the foster system is overloaded and
understaffed and that children who age out of the system aren't
prepared for life after foster care. A national nonprofit advocacy
group called A Better Childhood is acting as counsel for the
children along with the law firm of Shaffer and Shaffer and the
nonprofit Disability Rights of West Virginia.

"This is a careful, thoughtful decision, which will allow us to
fully represent all these children and finally prove that the
state's foster care system exposes children to the unreasonable
risk of serious harm," said Marcia Robinson Lowry, lead plaintiff
and Executive Director of A Better Childhood. [GN]

WESTERN DIGITAL: Faces Two More Class Suits Over SanDisk SSDs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Taylor of Fagen Wasanni Technologies reports that Western
Digital is being hit with two more class-action lawsuits related to
its SanDisk Extreme series and My Passport portable SSDs. These
cases bring the total number of lawsuits filed against Western
Digital to three in just two days. Customer complaints in May
revealed that SanDisk Extreme SSDs were wiping data and becoming
unmountable, and similar complaints have been reported recently as
well. Western Digital released a firmware update in late May, but
customer complaints of lost data were not addressed.

The lawsuits filed seek class-action certification, which may take
a while for a judge to officially determine. However, the lawyers
representing the plaintiffs believe that class-action certification
will not be a major barrier because of the common firmware defect
across all devices. The lawsuits reference previous reports of
similar complaints and include new accounts of data loss
experienced by the plaintiffs.

One of the lawsuits mentions that the plaintiffs purchased multiple
SanDisk Extreme SSDs, including 2TB and 4TB models, and lost all
the data stored on several drives. Another complaint mentions the
failure of two drives within minutes and efforts to recover the
data costing nearly $8,000.

Western Digital has officially confirmed that the affected drives
include the SanDisk Extreme Portable 4TB and 2TB, SanDisk Extreme
Pro Portable 4TB, 2TB, and 1TB, and Western Digital My Passport 4TB
models. The lawsuits claim that the defective SSDs, with the risk
of permanent data loss, have rendered the drives worthless for
reliable data storage.

The cases seek restitution, including damages, and for Western
Digital to stop selling the affected drives until the issues are
fully disclosed on all labels, packaging, and advertising. Western
Digital has not provided any comment on the pending litigation.
[GN]

WESTERN ILLINOIS: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Cesca
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cesca v. Western Illinois
University Board of Trustees, et al., Case No.
4:23-cv-04043-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. 3, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qEFknw at no extra charge.[CC]


WESTFIELD, MA: Denies Allegations in Wage Theft Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Clark, writing for The Westfield News, reports that the city
of Westfield denied all the allegations in a wage theft lawsuit
filed by a veteran city police officer, and it also asked the court
to move the case from district to superior court.

In late June, Jason Perron, a 24-year veteran of the Police
Department, filed the suit alleging the city failed to pay patrol
officers who worked regular and overtime shifts for the full time
that they worked.

Perron filed the lawsuit on behalf of himself and at least 77
members of the Westfield Patrol Officers Coalition, asking the
court to designate the suit as a "class action." [GN]

WHISKERS HOLISTIC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Whiskers Holistic Pet
Care, Inc. The case is styled as Randy Sanchez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Whiskers Holistic Pet
Care, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06206-NGG-JRC (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 17,
2023).

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

Whiskers Holistic Pet Care, Inc. -- https://whiskersholistic.com/
-- is a pet store offering alternatives in pet health care.[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


WILDFLOUR BAKERY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ford Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
CELIA FORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WILDFLOUR BAKERY AND CAFE, LLC; KANAN BAKING
CO.; GREG YULISH; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 23STCV20084 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 22, 2023)
is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum
wages, overtime compensation, provide meals, rest periods, and
provide accurate wage statements.

Plaintiff Ford was employed by the Defendants as a quality
assurance manager.

WILDFLOUR BAKERY AND CAFE, LLC owns and operates a bakery in Los
Angeles County. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

WINDSOR PROPERTY: Forget FCRA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as William Forget, Melissa Martinez, individually
and on behalf of other similarly situated v. Windsor Property
Management Company doing business as: WINDSOR 335, Columbia Debt
Recovery, LLC, Case No. CACE-23-015737 was removed from 17th
Judicial Circuit, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on Aug. 18, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:23-cv-61598-AHS to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

Windsor Property Management Company doing business as WINDSOR 335
-- https://www.windsor335.com/ -- is an apartment rental agency in
Plantation, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack Dennis Card, Jr. Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A.
          Suite 201
          North Palm Beach, FL 33408
          Phone: (561) 822-3446
          Fax: (305) 574-0132
          Email: Dcard@Consumerlaworg.com

               - and –

          Jordan Alexander Shaw, Esq.
          Lauren Nicole Palen, Esq.
          Zachary Dean Ludens, Esq.
          ZEBERSKY PAYNE SHAW LEWENZ LLP
          110 SE 6th St, suite 2150
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 361-3633
          Fax: (954) 989-7781
          Email: jshaw@zpllp.com
                 lpalen@zpllp.com
                 zludens@zpllp.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Anna Marie Gamez, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT
          701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (305) 789-7467
          Fax: (305) 789-7799
          Email: annie.hernandezgamez@hklaw.com

               - and –

          Philip E. Rothschild, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT
          515 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 468-7881
          Email: phil.rothschild@hklaw.com

               - and –

          Sydney Brooke Alexander, Esq.
          HOLLAND, KNIGHT
          17254 SW 12th St.
          Pembroke Pines, FL 33029
          Phone: (954) 496-1665
          Email: sydney.alexander@hklaw.com


WINTERGREEN NORTHERN: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wintergreen Northern
Wear LLC. The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Wintergreen Northern
Wear LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-07474 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2023).

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

Wintergreen Northern Wear LLC --
https://www.wintergreennorthernwear.com/ -- is a family-owned
retailer specializing in outdoor apparel such as jackets, pants &
shorts for all ages.[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


WOLVERINE WORLD WIDE: Wahab Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wolverine World Wide,
Inc. The case is styled as Angela Wahab, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., Case
No. 1:23-cv-07464 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2023).

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

Wolverine World Wide, Inc. -- http://www.wolverineworldwide.com/--
is a publicly traded American footwear manufacturer based in
Rockford, Michigan.[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


WONDEREN STROOPWAFELS: Martinez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wonderen Stroopwafels
LLC. The case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Wonderen
Stroopwafels LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-07392 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 21,
2023).

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

Wonderen Stroopwafels LLC -- https://wonderenstroopwafels.com/ --
is a cookie shop offering Stroopwafels.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WRIGHT TRAFFIC: Johnson Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wright Traffic
Control, Inc. The case is styled as Precious Johnson, Nicholas
Greathouse, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Wright Traffic Control, Inc., W.D. Wright Contracting,
Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-01500-LPL (W.D. Pa., Aug. 22, 2023).

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

Wright Traffic Control, Inc. (WTC) --
https://www.wrighttrafficcontrol.com/ -- is a union flagging
company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq.
          LAZZARO LAW FIRM LLC
          34555 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 250
          Moreland Hills, OH 44022
          Phone: (216) 696-5000
          Fax: (216) 696-7005
          Email: matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com


WYNDHAM VACATION: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wyndham Vacation
Ownership, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jesse Garcia,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc. d/b/a Wyndham, Travel + Leisure
Clubs and Rentals, LLC d/b/a, Travel + Leisure, Co., Case No.
CGC23608538 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Aug. 21, 2023).

The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."

Wyndham Destinations -- https://www.wyndhamdestinations.com/ -- is
the largest vacation ownership company, with 230 vacation club
resort locations across the globe.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Ottinger, Esq.
          OTTINGER EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
          535 Mission St 14th Floor,
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415-508-7786
          Email: robert@ottingerlaw.com


XPO LOGISTICS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 15, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MILTON QUINONES, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
v. XPO LOGISTICS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; XPO LOGISTICS
CARTAGE, LLC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100
inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-01301-AB-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order setting revised case deadlines
as follows:

  Deadline for Plaintiff’s Motion for Class       Feb. 15, 2024
  Certification

  Deadline for Defendants' Opposition to          Apr. 18, 2024
  Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification

  Deadline for Plaintiff's Reply in Support       May 2, 2024
  of Motion for Class Certification

  Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Class         May 17, 2024
  Certification

  Post-Decisional Status Conference               Within 30 days of

                                                  ruling on class
                                                  certification
                                                  motion.

  Trial                                           Feb. 25, 2025

  Final Pretrial Conference                       Feb. 7, 2025

XPO is a provider of less-than-truckload freight transportation.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 3, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45gcglt at no extra charge.[CC]

YAMAHA MOTOR: Faces Higgins Class Suit Over Fuel Level Defects
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action claims that Yamaha WaveRunners are plagued with defects that
cause the fuel gauge to falsely report low fuel levels—making it
impossible for a rider to accurately gauge how much range the
watercraft has left.

The 11-page lawsuit says that although defendant Yamaha Motor
Corporation, USA markets WaveRunners as fuel-efficient "luxury"
personal watercraft meant for touring larger bodies of water, the
products can safely be used for only about one-half of their
designed range because their fuel gauges behave "erratically."

The plaintiff, an Illinois man who purchased a new 2022 Yamaha
FX1800F-XA Triton for $23,190 last year, says that the watercraft's
fuel gauge will read "full" for about one to two hours of riding
and then drop down to near zero when the tank is still
approximately 50 to 55 percent full.

According to the plaintiff, the fuel gauge will plummet to "empty"
when the gas tank is still at about 40 to 45 percent capacity,
which triggers an "extremely annoying and disconcerting" low fuel
warning alarm.

"There is no way to silence the fuel alarm for the return trip back
shore," the complaint says. "Once the fuel alarm sounds, the
computer software for the dash locks out the touchscreen if there
is any throttle input."

Per the complaint, the alarm will turn off and the fuel gauge will
turn to "normal" when the watercraft is idling, but the noise will
restart and the fuel gauge will jump down to empty once the engine
is throttled.

The filing further contends that the WaveRunner's trip computer
screen, which is meant to display how much fuel a rider has used,
resets this amount to zero each time the watercraft is turned off
for a short period of time.

The plaintiff contends that the defects "substantially impair the
use and enjoyment of the watercraft," especially since he is unable
to safely journey too far from the shore.

Yamaha's alleged knowledge of the issues
According to the suit, Yamaha has long been aware of the products'
fuel gauge problem but offers no remedy for the alleged defects.

After complaining about the issues on the Better Business Bureau's
website, the plaintiff received a response from Yamaha informing
him that it was "working diligently on a fix for the fuel gauge
concern" and that "[o]ne of our Yamaha representatives will make
contact with you to discuss your concerns more in depth," the case
relays.

However, this message was "false and not made in good faith," given
that no one from the company has reached out to the plaintiff, the
lawsuit claims.

The plaintiff also says that when he requested repairs from Nielsen
Enterprises, an authorized Yamaha dealer from which he purchased
the watercraft, the company said "it was familiar with the problem"
but that Yamaha "had no solution."

The filing argues that the plaintiff and other WaveRunner owners,
many of whom have voiced similar complaints online, would not have
bought the watercraft, or would have paid much less, had they known
they would be unable to tour larger bodies of water due to the fuel
gauge problems.

Who's covered by the lawsuit?
The case looks to represent anyone who purchased a Yamaha
watercraft within the past four years.

I own a Yamaha WaveRunner. How can I join the lawsuit?
Generally, you don't need to do anything to join a class action
lawsuit when it's first filed. It's usually only if and when the
suit settles that people covered by the deal—known as class
members—would need to take action. In the event of a settlement,
class members may be notified directly by email or regular mail
with instructions on what to do next.

Keep in mind, class actions can take months or even years to be
resolved. If you've purchased a Yamaha WaveRunner, or just want to
keep up with class action lawsuit and settlement news, sign up for
ClassAction.org's free weekly newsletter. [GN]

ZA & D SERVICE: Kasseris FLSA Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Panagiotis Kasseris, individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated employee v. ZA & D Service Station,
Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01116 was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York on Aug. 21, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-06281-BMC to the
proceeding.

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

ZA & D Service Station -- https://www.zadautorepair.com/ -- has
been in business since 1989 offering Auto Service Repair, Diesel
Repair.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Derrick Storms, Esq.
          SOLOMOS & STORMS
          33-08 Broadway
          Astoria, NY 11106
          Phone: (718) 278-5900
          Email: derrick@solomosstorms.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kevin Sean O'Donoghue, Esq.
          KEVIN O'DONOGHUE
          1 Pierrepont Plaza, 12 Floor, Ste. 335
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (646) 450-2141
          Email: kevin@kodpllc.com


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Defends 3,432 Active Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation, and its business segment, Air &
Liquid Processing, has recorded 3,432 total active claims, for the
six months ended June 30, 2023, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Claims have been asserted alleging personal injury from exposure to
asbestos-containing components historically used in some products
manufactured by predecessors of Air & Liquid.  Air & Liquid, and in
some cases the Corporation, are defendants (among a number of
defendants, often in excess of 50 defendants) in claims filed in
various state and federal courts.

The Corporation and Air & Liquid are parties to a series of
settlement agreements ("Settlement Agreements") with insurers
having coverage obligations for the Asbestos Liability (the
"Settling Insurers"). Under the Settlement Agreements, the Settling
Insurers accept financial responsibility, subject to the terms and
conditions of the respective agreements, including overall coverage
limits, for pending and future claims for the Asbestos Liability.
The Settlement Agreements encompass the majority of insurance
policies providing coverage for claims for the Asbestos Liability.


A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5sxdnr88  

ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNS Sub Has 55 Pending Claims as of June 30, 2023
------------------------------------------------------------------
Steel Partners Holdings L.P.'s majority owned subsidiary, BNS Sub,
has been named as a defendant in multiple alleged asbestos-related
toxic-tort claims filed over a period beginning in 1994 through
June 30, 2023, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "There remained approximately 55 pending
asbestos claims as of June 30, 2023. BNS Sub believes it has
significant defenses to any liability for toxic-tort claims on the
merits. None of these toxic-tort claims has gone to trial and,
therefore, there can be no assurance that these defenses will
prevail. BNS Sub has insurance policies covering asbestos-related
claims for years beginning 1974 through 1988. BNS Sub annually
receives retroactive billings or credits from its insurance
carriers for any increase or decrease in claims accruals as claims
are filed, settled or dismissed, or as estimates of the ultimate
settlement costs for the then-existing claims are revised. As of
both June 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022, BNS Sub has accrued
$1,462 and $1,418 respectively, relating to the open and active
claims against BNS Sub. This accrual includes the amount of unpaid
retroactive billings submitted to the Company by the insurance
carriers and also the Company's best estimate of the likely costs
for BNS Sub to settle these claims outside the amounts funded by
insurance. There can be no assurance that the number of future
claims and the related costs of defense, settlements or judgments
will be consistent with the experience to-date of existing claims
and that BNS Sub will not need to significantly increase its
estimated liability for the costs to settle these claims to an
amount that could have a material effect on the consolidated
financial statements."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/568ewprx

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Has $446MM Reserves at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Carolinas has recognized asbestos-related reserves of
$446 million at June 30, 2023, and $457 million at December 31,
2022, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced numerous claims for
indemnification and medical cost reimbursement related to asbestos
exposure. These claims relate to damages for bodily injuries
alleged to have arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos in
connection with construction and maintenance activities conducted
on its electric generation plants prior to 1985.

Duke Energy Carolinas has third-party insurance to cover certain
losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages above an
aggregate self-insured retention. Receivables for insurance
recoveries were $595 million at June 30, 2023, and at December 31,
2022. These amounts are classified in Other within Other Noncurrent
Assets and Receivables within Current Assets on the Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheets. Any future payments up to the policy
limit will be reimbursed by the third-party insurance carrier. Duke
Energy Carolinas is not aware of any uncertainties regarding the
legal sufficiency of insurance claims. Duke Energy Carolinas
believes the insurance recovery asset is probable of recovery as
the insurance carrier continues to have a strong financial strength
rating.

The reserve for credit losses for insurance receivables is $12
million for Duke Energy and Duke Energy Carolinas as of June 30,
2023, and December 31, 2022. The insurance receivable is evaluated
based on the risk of default and the historical losses, current
conditions and expected conditions around collectability.
Management evaluates the risk of default annually based on payment
history, credit rating and changes in the risk of default from
credit agencies.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yn6ddtuu


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Corporation has named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging
personal injury from exposure to asbestos allegedly contained in or
accompanying our products, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
  
The Company states, "We are a co-defendant with numerous other
defendants in these lawsuits and intend to vigorously defend
ourselves against these claims.  The claims in our current lawsuits
are similar to those made in previous asbestos lawsuits that named
us as a defendant.  Such previous lawsuits either were dismissed
when it was shown that we had not supplied products to the
plaintiffs' places of work, or were settled by us for immaterial
amounts.

"As of June 30, 2023, we are subject to the claims noted above, as
well as other legal proceedings and potential claims that have
arisen in the ordinary course of business.  Although the outcome of
the lawsuits, legal proceedings or potential claims to which we are
or may become a party cannot be determined and an estimate of the
reasonably possible loss or range of loss cannot be made for the
majority of the claims, we do not believe that the outcomes, either
individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse
effect on our results of operations, financial position or cash
flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5t4bxuu6


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Met-Pro Has 261 Pending Exposure Cases
-------------------------------------------------------
CECO Environmental Corp.'s subsidiary, Met-Pro Technologies LLC
("Met-Pro"), beginning in 2002, has been named in asbestos-related
lawsuits filed against a large number of industrial companies
including, in particular, those in the pump and fluid handling
industries, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Based upon the most recent information available to the Company
regarding such claims, there were a total of 261 cases pending
against the Company as of June 30, 2023 with Illinois, New York,
Pennsylvania and West Virginia having the largest number of cases,
as compared with 247 cases that were pending as of December 31,
2022. During the six months ended June 30, 2023, 71 new cases were
filed against the Company, and the Company was dismissed from 46
cases and settled 11 cases. Most of the pending cases have not
advanced beyond the early stages of discovery, although a number of
cases are on schedules leading to or scheduled for trial. The
Company believes that its insurance coverage is adequate for the
cases currently pending against the Company and for the foreseeable
future, assuming a continuation of the current volume, nature of
cases and settlement amounts. However, the Company has no control
over the number and nature of cases that are filed against it, nor
as to the financial health of its insurers or their position as to
coverage.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/bddk3hdx



ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Faces 512 PI Lawsuits as of June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
MRC Global Inc., as of June 30, 2023, is a named defendant in
approximately 512 lawsuits involving approximately 1,077 claims,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "We are one of many defendants in lawsuits that
plaintiffs have brought seeking damages for personal injuries that
exposure to asbestos allegedly caused. Plaintiffs and their family
members have brought these lawsuits against a large volume of
defendant entities as a result of the defendants' manufacture,
distribution, supply or other involvement with asbestos, asbestos
containing-products or equipment or activities that allegedly
caused plaintiffs to be exposed to asbestos. These plaintiffs
typically assert exposure to asbestos as a consequence of
third-party manufactured products that our MRC Global (US) Inc.
subsidiary purportedly distributed. No asbestos lawsuit has
resulted in a judgment against us to date, with a majority being
settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved. Applicable third-party
insurance has substantially covered these claims, and insurance
should continue to cover a substantial majority of existing and
anticipated future claims. Accordingly, we have recorded a
liability for our estimate of the most likely settlement of
asserted claims and a related receivable from insurers for our
estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that the amounts of
recovery are probable. It is not possible to predict the outcome of
these claims and proceedings. However, in our opinion, the
likelihood that the ultimate disposition of any of these claims and
legal proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our
condensed consolidated financial statements is remote."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/r2ej8x45


ASBESTOS UPDATE: OfficeMax Defends Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------
The ODP Corporation's subsidiary OfficeMax, is named as a defendant
in a number of lawsuits, claims, and proceedings arising out of the
operation of certain paper and forest products assets prior to
those assets being sold in 2004, for which OfficeMax agreed to
retain responsibility, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Also, as part of that sale, OfficeMax agreed to retain
responsibility for all pending, threatened and future proceedings
alleging asbestos-related injuries arising out of the operation of
the paper and forest products assets prior to the closing of the
sale. The Company has made provision for losses with respect to the
pending proceedings. Additionally, as of July 1, 2023, the Company
has made provision for environmental liabilities with respect to
certain sites where hazardous substances or other contaminants are
or may be located. For these liabilities, the Company's estimated
range of reasonably possible losses was approximately $15 million
to $25 million. The Company regularly monitors its estimated
exposure to these liabilities. As additional information becomes
known, these estimates may change, however, the Company does not
believe any of these OfficeMax retained proceedings are material to
the Company's financial position, results of operations, or cash
flows.

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

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Republic Has $85.7MM Net A&E Loss Reserves
---------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corporation, as of June 30, 2023, has
reported $85.7 million net asbestos and environmental loss
reserves, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Old Republic International states, "The Company's reserve for loss
and loss adjustment expenses represents the accumulation of
estimates of ultimate losses payable, including incurred but not
reported losses and loss adjustment expenses. The establishment of
loss reserves by the Company's insurance subsidiaries is a
reasonably complex and dynamic process influenced by a large
variety of factors. Consequently, reserves established are a
reflection of the opinions of a large number of persons, of the
application and interpretation of historical precedent and trends,
of expectations as to future developments, and of management's
judgment in interpreting all such factors. At any point in time,
the Company is exposed to the possibility of higher or lower than
anticipated loss costs and the resulting changes in estimates are
recorded in operations of the periods during which they are made.

"The increase in the second quarter and first six months 2023
consolidated loss and loss adjustment expense ratio is due to a
change in mix commensurate with the drop in Title Insurance
premiums which carry lower loss and loss adjustment expense
ratios.

"Management believes that its overall reserving practices have been
consistently applied over many years, and that its aggregate net
reserves have generally resulted in reasonable approximations of
the ultimate net costs of losses incurred. However, no
representation is made nor is any guaranty given that ultimate net
losses and related costs will not develop in future years to be
significantly greater or lower than currently established reserve
estimates. In management's opinion, such changes in net losses and
related costs are not likely to have a material effect on the
Company's consolidated financial position, although it could
materially affect its consolidated results of operations for any
one annual or interim reporting period."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/37cens6c

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Paramount Global Reports 20,750 Pending Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paramount Global is a defendant in lawsuits claiming various
personal injuries related to asbestos and other materials, which
allegedly occurred as a result of exposure caused by various
products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally
prior to the early 1970s, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "As of June 30, 2023, we had pending
approximately 20,750 asbestos claims, as compared with
approximately 21,580 as of December 31, 2022. During the second
quarter of 2023, we received approximately 740 new claims and
closed or moved to an inactive docket approximately 1,630 claims.
We report claims as closed when we become aware that a dismissal
order has been entered by a court or when we have reached agreement
with the claimants on the material terms of a settlement.
Settlement costs depend on the seriousness of the injuries that
form the basis of the claims, the quality of evidence supporting
the claims and other factors. Our total costs for the years 2022
and 2021 for settlement and defense of asbestos claims after
insurance recoveries and net of tax were approximately $57 million
and $63 million, respectively. Our costs for settlement and defense
of asbestos claims may vary year to year and insurance proceeds are
not always recovered in the same period as the insured portion of
the expenses.

"Filings include claims for individuals suffering from
mesothelioma, a rare cancer, the risk of which is allegedly
increased by exposure to asbestos; lung cancer, a cancer which may
be caused by various factors, one of which is alleged to be
asbestos exposure; other cancers, and conditions that are
substantially less serious, including claims brought on behalf of
individuals who are asymptomatic as to an allegedly
asbestos-related disease. The predominant number of pending claims
against us are non-cancer claims. It is difficult to predict future
asbestos liabilities, as events and circumstances may impact the
estimate of our asbestos liabilities, including, among others, the
number and types of claims and average cost to resolve such claims.
We record an accrual for a loss contingency when it is both
probable that a liability has been incurred and when the amount of
the loss can be reasonably estimated. Our liability estimate is
based upon many factors, including the number of outstanding
claims, estimated average cost per claim, the breakdown of claims
by disease type, historic claim filings, costs per claim of
resolution and the filing of new claims, as well as consultation
with a third party firm on trends that may impact our future
asbestos liability. While we believe that our accrual for matters
related to our predecessor operations, including environmental and
asbestos, are adequate, there can be no assurance that
circumstances will not change in future periods, and as a result
our actual liabilities may be higher or lower than our accrual."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2uk3kv9d

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Faces 112 Exposure Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. is a co-defendant in 112 cases asserting
claims on behalf of 162 plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Historically, we have been dismissed from
asbestos cases.  We intend to vigorously defend these cases and
believe we will continue to be successful in being dismissed from
such cases.

"While it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the
unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation, and although
our results of operations and cash flows for a particular period
could be adversely affected by asbestos-related lawsuits, claims
and proceedings, management believes that the ultimate resolution
of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our
financial condition, liquidity or results of operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yjjum4zh


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Perrigo Co. Defends 92 Product Liability Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc has been named, together with other
manufacturers, in product liability lawsuits in a variety of state
courts alleging that the use of body powder products containing
talcum powder causes mesothelioma and lung cancer due to the
presence of asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

All but one of these cases involve legacy talcum powder products
that have not been manufactured by the Company since 1999. One of
the pending actions involves a current prescription product that
contains talc as an excipient. As of July 18, 2023, the Company is
currently named in 92 individual lawsuits seeking compensatory and
punitive damages and has accepted a tender for a portion of the
defense costs and liability from a retailer for one additional
matter. The Company has several defenses and intends to
aggressively defend these lawsuits. Trials for these lawsuits are
currently scheduled throughout 2023, 2024 and 2025, with the
earliest trial date in September 2023.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/zej8up9b


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Faces Numerous Product Liability Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. is a defendant in numerous cases, related to its
pharmaceutical and other products wherein plaintiffs in these cases
seek damages and other relief on various grounds for alleged
personal injury and economic loss, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Between 1967 and 1982, Warner-Lambert owned
American Optical Corporation (American Optical), which manufactured
and sold respiratory protective devices and asbestos safety
clothing. In connection with the sale of American Optical in 1982,
Warner-Lambert agreed to indemnify the purchaser for certain
liabilities, including certain asbestos-related and other claims.
Warner-Lambert was acquired by Pfizer in 2000 and is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Pfizer. Warner-Lambert is actively engaged in the
defense of, and will continue to explore various means of
resolving, these claims.

"Numerous lawsuits against American Optical, Pfizer and certain of
its previously owned subsidiaries are pending in various federal
and state courts seeking damages for alleged personal injury from
exposure to products allegedly containing asbestos and other
allegedly hazardous materials sold by Pfizer and certain of its
previously owned subsidiaries."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/46pnc3df


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Has 557 Exposure Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation has reported 557 claims outstanding as of June
30, 2023, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "For the six months ended June 30, 2023, 52
claims were dismissed and 9 claims were settled. Settlements
totaled approximately $2.2 million for the six months ended June
30, 2023.

"We, like many other industrial companies, have been named as a
defendant in a number of lawsuits filed in courts across the
country by persons alleging personal injury from exposure to
products containing asbestos. We have never mined, milled,
manufactured or marketed asbestos; rather, we made and provided to
industrial users a limited number of products that contained
encapsulated asbestos, but we stopped manufacturing these products
in the late 1980s. Most of the claims filed against us involve
numerous defendants, sometimes as many as several hundred.

"We recognize a liability for asbestos-related contingencies that
are probable of occurrence and reasonably estimable. In connection
with the recognition of liabilities for asbestos-related matters,
we record asbestos-related insurance receivables that are deemed
probable."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5n7rcxc9


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Faces Exposure Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company has been named as a defendant in a
number of cases alleging injuries that the lawsuits claim resulted
from exposure to asbestos-containing products, apparently based on
its historic use of vermiculite in certain of its products,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.  

In many of these cases, the complaints are not specific about the
plaintiffs' contacts with the Company or its products. The cases
vary, but complaints in these cases generally seek unspecified
monetary damages (actual, compensatory, consequential and punitive)
from multiple defendants. The Company believes that the claims
against it are without merit and is vigorously defending against
them. No accruals have been recorded in the Company's condensed
consolidated financial statements as the likelihood of a loss is
not probable at this time; and the Company does not believe a
reasonably possible loss would be material to, nor does it expect
the ultimate resolution of these cases will have a material adverse
effect on, the Company's financial condition, results of operations
or cash flows. There can be no assurance that future developments
related to pending claims or claims filed in the future, whether as
a result of adverse outcomes or as a result of significant defense
costs, will not have a material effect on the Company's financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2rs77rnx


                            *********

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 ***