/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230912.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, September 12, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 183

                            Headlines

02 GLOBAL: Judge Okays $85,000 FLSA Class Action Settlement
3D SYSTEMS: $4MM Class Suit Settlement Hearing Set November 21
ADAMAS PHARMACEUTICALS: Dismissed from Securities Suit
ADVANCE AMERICA: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Knuutila Alleges
ALL GREEN: Fails to Pay Driver's OT Wages Under FLSA, Waxler Says

AMERICAN GENERAL: Moriarty Wins Summary Judgment Bid
AMERICAN MERCHANDISING: FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified
APPLE INC: Bodenburg Sues Over Deceptive Cloud Storage Services
ARGO GROUP: Shareholder Suit Ongoing in New York
AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Suit Over Antitrust Violations Dismissed

AVIATOR NATION: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Dec. 15, 2024
AXON ENTERPRISE: Township Sues Over Self-Defense Market Monopoly
BANKROLL CAPITAL: Court OK's Bid to Conduct Class Cert. Discovery
BLACKSKY TECHNOLOGIES: Ortega Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Shareholder Suit Over Stock Price Nixed

BROOKLYN CRAB: Erkan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
C & G SPORTING GOODS: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Ct. Terminates Bid to Certify Class in Santiago
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Wiretapping Suit Over Keystroke Capturing Ended
CHETAK NEW YORK: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Torres Alleges

CIGNA CORP: Faces Suit Over Outright Denial of Insurance Claims
CIGNA GROUP: Faces Pelt Suit Over Unfair Claim Settlement Practices
COBHAM ADVANCED: Wightman May File Optional Reply by Sept. 28
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Faces Toothpaste False Ads Class Action
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Smith Seeks to Recover Nurses' Unpaid Wages

COMPANY NO. 5: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CONSOLIDATED WASTE: Conditional Class Cert Filing Due Sept. 15
COOKIES SF LLC: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
COREBRIDGE FINANCIAL: Applegate Files Suit in S.D. Texas
CORECIVIC INC: Inmates' Labor Suit to Proceed in S.D. Cal.

CORMEDIX INC: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Ongoing in NJ Court
CRUMBL LLC: Faces Watson Class Suit Over Hidden Service Fees
DIRECT ENERGY LP: Newman Class Action Transferred to S.D. Tex.
DIRECT ENERGY: Dickson TCPA Action Ongoing
DIRECT ENERGY: Faces Schafer Class Action

DIRECT ENERGY: Gant Action Pending in D.N.J.
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: SAHL Files Suit in C.D. California
DISH NETWORK: Court OK's Dismissal of 401(k) Mismanagement Suit
DISH NETWORK: Faces Owen-Brooks Suit Over Data Breach Incident
DISH NETWORK: Shareholder Sues Over SEC Filing

DOLGENCORP LLC: Faces Pressley Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Ga.
DOUG'S DINER: Fails to Pay OT Premiums Under FLSA, Zuniga Alleges
ETHICON INC: $300M Class Suit Win No Impact on Legal Firm's Results
FENIX INTERNATIONAL: Faces OnlyFans Suit Over Third Party Services
FIBROGEN INC: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Misleading Statements

FIBROGEN INC: Faces Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filing on FDA Report
FLORIDA HEALTH: Wagner Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
FLORIDA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Unfair Medicaid Coverage
FORD MOTOR: 7th Cir. Revives Antitrust Suit Over No-Poach Clauses
FRANKLIN COUNTY, VA: Class Action Mulled Over Attorneys' Shortage

FRUITFUL YIELD: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GAMESTOP CORP: Abdulhadi Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
GOLD SHEEP: Faces Wurm Class Suit Over Telephonic Sales Calls
GOLDMAN SACHS (ASIA): Dimissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal
GOLDMAN SACHS: F45 IPO Securities Suit Ongoing

GOOGLE LLC: Calif. Judge Set to Decertify Google Play Class Suit
GORES GUGGENHEIM: Breaches Fiduciary Duty, May Class Suit Alleges
HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Zariczny Suit Removed to C.D. California
HCA HEALTHCARE: Warren Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI
HEILIND ELECTRONICS: Hess Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages

HENSEL PHELPS: Trochez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
HILTON HOTELS: SCOTUS to Take Up Issue of Fail-Safe Classes
HIMS HEALTH: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HOLTGER BROS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Heesacker Alleges
HOSPITALITY STAFFING: Faces Data Breach Class Action Suit

HOT TOPIC: Faces Zuccaro Class Suit Over Fake Limited Time Sales
IMMUNITYBIO INC: Salzman Suit Over Anti-Tumor Drug Ongoing
INFOCISION INC: Williams Suit Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA
INSURANCE CORP: Customer Sues Over Third-Party Rebate Coverage
INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Sued Over Faulty System

KAISER FOUNDATION: Mercado Sues Over Unpaid Proper Compensations
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks Dismissal of Shareholder Suit
KANKAKEE HOSPITALITY: Karnes Files Rule 23 Class Certification Bid
KERN COUNTY, CA: Parties May Amend Settlement Deal in T.G. Suit

LEBANON VALLEY: Fails to Refund Tuition Fees, Alunni Says
MARATHON PETROLEUM: Law Firm to File Class Suit After Refinery Fire
MAXIMUS INC: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Valiente Says
MEXICAN BISTRO: Suries Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
MIDVALE INDEMNITY: 7th Circuit Affirms Class Action Dismissal

MIDVALE INDEMNITY: Dismissal Ruling in Privacy Suit Discussed
MIDVALE INDEMNITY: Maurice Wutscher Discusses Privacy Suit Ruling
MORENITA FRUIT: Romero Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
MURPHY OIL: Customers File Class Action Over Gas Overcharges
MY HERO DELI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Castro Alleges

NEW YORK TIMES: Attorneys' Fee Award Delays Settlement Approval
NEW YORK: Home Health Care Aides Sue Over Unpaid Overtime
NEWELL BRANDS: Faces Class Action Over Orthodontic Pacifiers
ORIGIN MATERIALS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 24
ORIGIN MATERIALS: Faces Class Action Over Securities Law Violations

ORIGIN MATERIALS: Faces Soto Suit Over 66.5% Stock Price Drop
ORRICK HERRINGTON: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Jensen Alleges
PALANTIR TECH: Consolidated Cupat Shareholder Suit Ongoing
PALANTIR TECH: Consolidated Shareholder Suit on SEC Filing Ongoing
PANDA EXPRESS: Agrees to Settle Delivery Fee Class Action for $1.4M

PRECISION DRILLING: 3rd Cir. Reverses Decision in FLSA Class Suit
PROBUILD CONSTRUCTION: Kennedays Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, McDaniel Says
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Trigg Says
QUEENSLAND: Youth Advocates Mull Suit Over Detaining of Children

RECKITT BENCKISER: $30MM Class Settlement Hearing Set on Oct. 19
RITE AID: Faces Anderson Suit Over Illegal Wiretapping
ROBLOX CORP: Faces Class Action Over Gambling Websites' Charges
SCULPTOR CAPITAL: Juan Monteverde Investigates Proposed Rithm Sale
SMASHTECH LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Camacho Suit Claims

STEADMAN PARKING: Talbot Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
TD AMERITRADE: Faces Data Breach Class Action in Nebraska
TD AMERITRADE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Jeanfort Alleges
TD AMERITRADE: Fails to Secure Consumers' Info, Jeanfort Alleges
TENNECO INC: Motion to Compel Arbitration in ERISA Suit Denied

TRILLIUM COMMUNITY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Hopkins Says
ULTIMATE FIGHTING: To Appeal Class Cert. Ruling in Antitrust Suit
UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL: Two Suits Over Student Fee Refunds Tossed
VALLEY NATIONAL: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, White Alleges
VERITIV CORP: Juan Monteverde Investigates Proposed Clayton Sale

WORKERS CREDIT: Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement Sought
XOOM ENERGY: Summary Judgment Bid vs Mirkin Partly Granted

                            *********

02 GLOBAL: Judge Okays $85,000 FLSA Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rhode Island Lawyers Weekly reports that a federal judge has
approved a proposed agreement to settle for $85,000 a class action
brought by employees of a chauffeured transportation company under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

"For the purposes of settlement, the Court finds that the proposed
Rule 23 Class, as defined in the settlement agreement between the
Parties, meets the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the Court
certifies the following proposed Rule 23 Class: 'All individuals
who, at any time during the period between September 16, 2019 to
May 12, 2022, were employed by Defendant as drivers and/or
chauffeurs,'" U.S. District Court Judge Mary S. McElroy wrote.

McElroy approved the settlement agreement after finding it was a
reasonable compromise of the claims of the Rule 23 class members.

"The Court finds that the Agreement: (a) is fair to all parties;
(b) reasonably resolves a bona fide disagreement between the
parties with regard to the merits of the claims of the Named
Plaintiff, the FLSA Collective and the Rule 23 Class members; and
(c) demonstrates a good faith intention by the parties that these
claims be fully and finally resolved, not subject to appellate
review, and not re-litigated in whole or in part at any point in
the future," McElroy said.

She went on to call the settlement agreement "fair, just,
reasonable and adequate to, and in the best interest of, the Rule
23 Class members. It achieves a definite and certain result for the
benefit of the Rule 23 Class Members that is preferable to
continuing litigation in which the Rule 23 Class Members would
necessarily confront substantial risk (including the risk of
non-certification of a class and the risk of loss), uncertainty,
delay, and cost."

The five-page decision is Bequir v. 02 Global Chauffered Service,
Inc., et al., Lawyers Weekly No. 52-073-23. [GN]

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

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED THE PUBLICLY-TRADED COMMON STOCK OF
3D SYSTEMS CORPORATION ("3DSC") FROM MAY 6, 2020, THROUGH MARCH 5,
2021, INCLUSIVE.
   
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, that a hearing
will be held on November 21, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. before the
Honorable Nicholas G. Garaufis, United States District Judge of the
Eastern District of New York, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Courtroom 4D
South, Brooklyn, NY 11201, for the purpose of determining: (1)
whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in the
above-captioned Action for consideration including the sum of
$4,000,000 should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the
Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether
the application of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees of
up to one-third plus interest of the Settlement Amount,
reimbursement of expenses of not more than $50,000, and a service
payment of no more than $21,500 in total to Plaintiffs, should be
approved; and (4) whether this Action should be dismissed with
prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement, dated
December 16, 2022 (the "Settlement Stipulation"). The Court
reserves the right to hold the Settlement Fairness Hearing
telephonically or by other virtual means. The Court appointed The
Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as Lead Counsel to represent you and the other
Settlement Class Members. However, you have the right to retain
your own counsel and the right to appear at the Settlement Fairness
Hearing through counsel of your choosing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DATED: JULY 18, 2023

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK [GN]

ADAMAS PHARMACEUTICALS: Dismissed from Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Supernus 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 8, 2023, that all claims against its
subsidiary Adamas Pharmaceuticals Inc. and certain of its former
directors and officers in federal court in the Northern District of
California (Case No. 4:19-cv-08051) have been dismissed with
prejudice, but claims against one of the individual defendants, who
may have certain rights to indemnification, remain.

On February 27, 2023, plaintiffs advised the court that plaintiffs
would proceed only on the remaining claim against one of the
individual defendants. The individual defendant filed an answer
denying the claim on April 28, 2023. No trial date has been set.

On December 10, 2019, said putative class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the federal securities laws was filed by Ali Zaidi
alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
Adamas and certain of Adamas's former directors and officers. On
October 8, 2021, the presiding judge dismissed the litigation, and
granted Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. On November 5,
2021, Plaintiffs filed their second amended class action
complaint.

On December 10, 2021, Adamas filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs opposed the motion to dismiss. On
January 13, 2023, the Court granted in part and denied in part
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (is a biopharmaceutical company
focused on developing and commercializing products for the
treatment of central nervous system diseases. Its neuroscience
portfolio includes approved treatments for epilepsy, migraine,
attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), hypomobility in
Parkinson’s Disease (PD), cervical dystonia, chronic sialorrhea,
dyskinesia in PD patients receiving levodopa-based therapy, and
drug-induced extrapyramidal reactions in adult patients. On
November 24, 2021, the company completed its acquisition of all the
outstanding equity of Adamas.


ADVANCE AMERICA: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Knuutila Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
TAMARA KNUUTILA; and JOSE GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ADVANCE AMERICA CASH
ADVANCE CENTERS, INC.; ADVANCE AMERICA CENTERS OF TENNESSEE, INC.
d/b/a ADVANCE AMERICA; and ADVANCE AMERICA CENTERS OF CALIFORNIA,
LLC d/b/a ADVANCE AMERICA, Defendants, Case No. 7:23-cv-04304-DCC
(D.S.C., Aug. 28, 2023) alleges that the Defendants breached their
duty and betrayed the trust of their clients, the Plaintiffs and
Class members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their
PII, thus enabling cybercriminals to steal and misuse it.

According to the complaint, on or about February 7, 2023,
cybercriminals foreseeably accessed the Defendants' inadequately
secured network containing the PII of the Plaintiffs and thousands
of other Class Members. Due to the Defendants' negligence and data
security failures, cybercriminals had access to, and now
potentially possess, everything they need to commit identity theft
and wreak havoc on the financial and personal lives of thousands of
individuals. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiffs and
Class members have already suffered damages. The Plaintiffs' PII
has been released to cybercriminals, Plaintiffs and Class members
are at imminent and impending risk of identity theft, says the
suit.

ADVANCE AMERICA CASH ADVANCE CENTERS INC. provides payday cash
advance services to middle-income working individuals in the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Harper Todd Segui, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
          GROSSMAN PLLC
          825 Low Country Blvd, Suite 101
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29465
          Telephone: (919) 600-5000
          Email: hsegui@milberg.com

               - and -

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

ALL GREEN: Fails to Pay Driver's OT Wages Under FLSA, Waxler Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GAGE WAXLER v. ALL GREEN TRANSPORT, LLC (AGT), a Michigan limited
liability company, and CHARLES E FISHER, an individual, Case No.
1:23-cv-00897 (W.D. Mich., Aug. 25, 2023) is a class action seeking
to recover overtime wage as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

All drivers at the Defendants' business, including the Plaintiff,
have been subject to the same employment policies and practices,
including policies and practices with respect to overtime, the suit
claims. AGT and Fisher allegedly improperly classified all its
drivers as independent contractors. Waxler and the FLSA Collective
worked more than 40 hours in one or more workweeks. But AGT and
Fisher did not pay them at least one-and-a-half times their regular
hourly rate for time worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the
Plaintiff claims.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and similarly
situated current and former drivers who elect to opt in pursuant to
FLSA, to remedy violations of the FLSA wage and hour provisions by
Defendants.

Plaintiff Waxler was hired as a secure transport driver. His duties
were to drive to and from marijuana facilities throughout
Michigan’s Upper and Lower Peninsulas to transport marijuana

AGT transports marijuana and cash for marijuana dispensaries and
growers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradley K. Glazier, Esq.
          Robert M. Howard, Esq.
          BOS & GLAZIER, P.L.C.
          940 Monroe Avenue, N.W., Suite 253
          Grand Rapids, MI 49503
          Telephone: (616) 458-6814

AMERICAN GENERAL: Moriarty Wins Summary Judgment Bid
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE L. MORIARTY, as
Successor-In-Interest to Heron D. Moriarty, Decedent, on Behalf of
the Estate of Heron D. Moriarty, and on Behalf of the Class, v.
AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No.
3:17-cv-01709-JO-WVG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jinsook Ohta
entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of the
Plaintiff on her breach-of-contract claim.

  -- The Plaintiff's declaratory relief claim is denied as moot.

  -- The Court has not reconsidered the previous summary judgment
     rulings on Plaintiff's UCL and bad faith causes of action.

  -- The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding pre- and

     post-judgment interest.

  -- Any motions regarding interest must be filed by August 24,
2023,
     and responses must be filed by August 31, 2023. The motion(s)

     will be submitted on September 1, 2023, without oral argument.


The Plaintiff also asks this Court to reconsider the Court's
September 27, 2022, order denying class certification, but
Plaintiff has not shown that reconsideration is warranted.

The Plaintiff's motion for class certification was denied primarily
because Plaintiff's proposed class was too broad and included many
policyholders still alive and not entitled to the same type of
damages as deceased policy holders.

The Plaintiff Moriarty sued Defendant American General Life
Insurance
Company for breach of contract after Defendant refused to pay the
life insurance benefits on her husband’s policy.

The Plaintiff contends that her husband's policy was still in force
at the time of his death under California Insurance Code Sections
10113.71(b) and 10113.72(c). The Court agrees and reconsiders its
September 7, 2022, order denying Plaintiff summary judgment on her
breach-of-contract claim.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qScBM7 at no extra charge.[CC]

AMERICAN MERCHANDISING: FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GUS L. SINGLETON IV, v.
AMERICAN MERCHANDISING SPECIALISTS, INC., Case No.
5:22-cv-00123-KDB-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Kenneth D. Bell
entered an order that:

   1. The Plaintiffs' Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claim is
      conditionally certified as a collective action on behalf of:

      "All current and former non-exempt employees who were paid by

      American Merchandising Specialists, Inc. to perform supplier

      maintenance and merchandising services in the United States
      between three years prior to the filing of the Complaint in
this
      matter and the present and were allegedly denied proper
overtime
      compensation as a result of Defendant's willful policies."

   2. The Plaintiff's proposed Notice, Reminder Notice, and Opt-In

      Consent Form are approved.

   3. The Defendant is instructed to provide to Plaintiffs'
Counsel,
      within 10 business days, an electronic list of all persons
who
      fit within the proposed collective, including each collective

      Member's: (1) name, (2) last known mailing address, (3) last

      known telephone number, (4) last known personal email
address,
      (5) dates and location of employment, (6) date of birth, and
(7)
      Social Security number (last four digits only).

   4. The Plaintiff's Counsel, within ten (10) business days of
      receiving the electronic file, shall send the Notice and
Opt-In
      Consent Form to all Collective Members via U.S. Mail, email,
and
      text message.

The action arises out of American Merchandising Specialists alleged
failure to pay overtime compensation to Plaintiff and similarly
situated employees who performed supplier maintenance and
merchandising services in violation of the FLSA.

American Merchandising provides retail merchandising and marketing
services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3P0IGJE at no extra charge.[CC]



APPLE INC: Bodenburg Sues Over Deceptive Cloud Storage Services
---------------------------------------------------------------
LISA BODENBURG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:23-cv-04409 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 25, 2023) alleges violation of the
California's False Advertising Law, California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, and California's Unfair Competition Law.

The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant failed to deliver the
cloud storage capacity that class members paid for and that the
Defendant contracted to deliver. Instead, in each instance, the
Defendant delivered 5 GB less of cloud storage than what it had
promised in exchange for receiving class members' iCloud monthly
subscription payments.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendant also sold iCloud
subscriptions to the putative class members by which the Defendant
represented to class members that, in exchange for paying the
Defendant monthly subscription fees, the Defendant would provide
them with additional cloud storage beyond the free 5 GB of storage
automatically provided to all. This additional cloud storage would
provide added capacity up to certain limits (measured in gigabytes
(GB) or terabytes (TB)) depending on the subscription plan
purchased.

In exchange for the monthly payment of $0.99, that subscriber
received only 45 GB of paid cloud storage, not the 50 GB of paid
storage he contracted for and was promised, says the suit.

APPLE INC. designs, manufactures, and markets smartphones, personal
computers, tablets, wearables and accessories, and sells a variety
of related accessories. The Company also offers payment, digital
content, cloud and advertising services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roy A. Katriel, Esq.
          THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM, P.C.
          2262 Carmel Valley Rd., Suite 201
          Del Mar, CA 92014
          Telephone: (619) 363-3333
          Facsimile: (866) 832-5852
          Email: rak@katriellaw.com

               - and -

         Ralph B. Kalfayan, Esq.
         Ian D. Krupar, Esq.
         THE KALFAYAN LAW FIRM, APC
         2262 Carmel Valley Rd., Suite 200
         Del Mar, CA 92014
         Telephone: (619) 232-0331
         Facsimile: (619) 232-4019
         Email: ralph@rbk-law.com
                 ian@rbk-law.com

ARGO GROUP: Shareholder Suit Ongoing in New York
------------------------------------------------
Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission in August 8, 2023, that it is
facing "The Police & Fire Retirement System City of Detroit v. Argo
Group International Holdings, Ltd., et al.," No. 22-cv-8971
(S.D.N.Y.), a securities class action lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York against
the Company and certain of its current and former officers filed on
October 20, 2022, alleging securities fraud violations under
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On January 18, 2023, U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan granted
the Police and Fire Retirement System City of Detroit and the
Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System’s joint motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff.

On March 27, 2023, lead plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action
Complaint, which alleges that from June 11, 2018 through August 9,
2022, defendants made false and misleading statements concerning
the company's reserves and underwriting standards. Defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May 26, 2023. Lead
plaintiffs filed an opposition to such motion on July 13, 2023, and
Defendants anticipate filing a reply on or before August 14, 2023.

Argo Group is an underwriter of specialty insurance products in the
property and casualty market.


AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Suit Over Antitrust Violations Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Shaver of MultiFamily Dive reports that Arlington,
Virginia-based REIT AvalonBay Communities has been released from a
class action suit surrounding antitrust allegations, the REIT
announced in a 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission released earlier this month.

AVB was among the defendants named in late 2022 and early 2023
cases alleging antitrust violations by RealPage and several owners
and operators of multifamily housing utilizing the company's
revenue management systems.

More than 30 class action suits have been filed against RealPage
and apartment owners and managers. These cases have been
consolidated into one suit that moved forward in U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee this month when Waverly
D. Crenshaw Jr., chief U.S. District Court judge for the Middle
District of Tennessee, deferred a series of motions asserting the
case should be dismissed, according to Bisnow.

After a ProPublica report investigated RealPage's pricing model in
October, a group of renters -- three in California and two in
Washington state -- of market-rate apartments sued Richardson,
Texas-based property management software and data analytics
provider RealPage and a number of large operators a week later,
alleging that they committed antitrust violations under the Sherman
Act. The five renters accused property managers of sharing
"competitively sensitive information with one another" by using
RealPage as a conduit.

In recent earnings calls, executives from Chicago-based Equity
Residential and Palo Alto, California-based Essex Property Trust
have defended their companies' actions.

"We think the claims are without merit, and we're going to defend
ourselves," said Equity CEO Mark Parrell. "We continue to feel
really confident in our prospects there."

In addition to Essex and EQR, managers named in the suit included:

Greystar Real Estate Partners.
Lincoln Property Co.
FPI Management.
MAA Communities.
Avenue 5 Residential.

Although AVB wasn't named in that suit, it was mentioned in
subsequent filings, including a suit brought in February by renters
Shaina Silverman and Tyler Kimbrough in United States District
Court in the Western District of Washington against RealPage,
Brookfield Residential Properties, Cushman & Wakefield, Equity
Residential, Greystar Real Estate Partners, TF Cornerstone and Rose
Associates.

AVB's recent 10-Q filing said that it engaged with the plaintiffs'
counsel to explain why it believed that the cases were without
merit as they pertained to the company. "Following these
discussions, the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal
in July 2023, which resulted in us being dismissed without
prejudice from these cases," it said in the filing.

On AVB's Q2 earnings call, CEO Benjamin Schall said he was unaware
of any other litigation the company was involved with related to
RealPage.

"We are pleased we've been dismissed from that class action
lawsuit," he said. "At this point, given its ongoing litigation in
the wider industry, we can't make any additional comments above
what we included in our disclosure in the earnings release." [GN]

AVIATOR NATION: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Dec. 15, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BOBBY ETRI, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AVIATOR NATION,
INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-08644-FMO-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Fernando M. Olguin entered an order granting joint stipulation
motion to extend deadlines:

         Event                           Old               New
                                          Deadline         Deadline


  Initial Expert Witness              Aug. 10, 2023     Sept. 25,
2023
  Disclosures

  Rebuttal Expert Witness             Sept. 11, 2023    Oct. 26,
2023
  Disclosures

  All fact and expert discovery       Oct. 11, 2023     Nov. 27,
2023
  shall be completed

  Motion for class certification      Oct. 31, 2023     Dec. 15,
2023.
  shall be filed

The previously scheduled remaining deadlines are hereby vacated.

Aviator Nation is a design company that has brought the
reproduction of retro t-shirts to the next level.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45rofN4 at no extra charge.[CC]

AXON ENTERPRISE: Township Sues Over Self-Defense Market Monopoly
----------------------------------------------------------------
TOWNSHIP OF HOWELL, MONMOUTH COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. AXON ENTERPRISE,
INC.; and SAFARILAND, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-07182 (D.N.J., Aug. 22,
2023) is class action complaint about Axon's scheme to unlawfully
obtain and maintain its monopolies in two highly lucrative law
enforcement and self-defense markets:

   -- long-range conducted energy weapons (CEWs), which are
      commonly known by Axon’s brand name, Tasers; and

   -- body-worn camera (BWC) systems, which allow police
departments to record, store, and use video evidence collected
while police officers are on duty.

Axon allegedly facilitated its monopolies over long-range CEWs and
BWC systems by acquiring its largest competitor in the BWC system
market, VieVu, from Safariland and signing 12-year non-compete,
market allocation, and no-poach agreements with Safariland to
prevent Safariland from challenging its monopolies in either
market. Axon enticed Safariland to agree to its acquisition by
granting Safariland a preferred supply contract for Taser
holsters.

Plaintiff Township of Howell is a township located in Monmouth
County, and is a public entity organized and existing pursuant to
the laws of New Jersey. The Plaintiff manages operations of Howell
Township Police, which directly purchased Taser-branded CEWs, their
components, BWCs, and/or a DEMS subscription at unlawfully inflated
prices.

Howell Township is a township in Monmouth County, in the U.S. state
of New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael D. Fitzgerald, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL D.
          FITZGERALD
          Industrial Way West, Unit B
          Eatontown, NJ 07724
          P.O. Box 1067
          Oakhurst, NJ 07755
          Telephone: (202) 349-1482
          E-mail: mdfitz@briellelaw.com

               - and -

          Kellie Lerner, Esq.
          Jonathan Edelman, Esq.
          Ellen G. Jalkut
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          1325 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 2601
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 980-7400
          E-mail: klerner@robinskaplan.com
                  jedelman@robinskaplan.com
                  ejalkut@robinskaplan.com

               - and -

          Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
          Jessica N. Servais, Esq.
          Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN
          P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          E-mail: hmsilton@locklaw.com
                  jnservais@locklaw.com
                  jcbourne@locklaw.com

BANKROLL CAPITAL: Court OK's Bid to Conduct Class Cert. Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL BARACK; MICHELLE
BARACK; and GERALD BUSBEE, individually and on behalf of a class,
v. BANKROLL CAPITAL INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-00615-O (N.D. Tex.), the
Hon. Judge Reed O'Connor entered an order granting the Plaintiffs'
request for six months to conduct class discovery and to file a
motion for class certification.

  -- The Plaintiffs to file a motion for leave to conduct discovery
in
     support of class certification is no later than September 11,

     2023.

  -- Such motion shall propose specific dates by which Plaintiffs
     shall (1) conclude class discovery and (2) file a motion for
     class certification.

Bankroll Capital offers funding for small businesses.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44wWod2 at no extra charge.[CC]

BLACKSKY TECHNOLOGIES: Ortega Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lazaro D. Ortega, and other similarly situated individuals v.
BLACKSKY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-23354-XXXX (S.D.
Fla., Sept. 1, 2023), is brought to recover money damages for
unpaid regular and overtime wages and retaliation under the laws of
the United States, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("the
Act").

The Plaintiff was paid for 40 regular hours by direct deposits and
overtime hours in a separate check. The Defendant paid the
Plaintiff for overtime hours at his regular rate of $15.00 an hour.
Every week, the Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours, but he was
not paid for overtime hours as required by law. The Plaintiff
clocked in and out, and Defendant was in absolute control of the
Plaintiff's schedule and activities. The Defendant knew the hours
that the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals were
working. Therefore, the Defendant willfully failed to pay the
Plaintiff overtime wages, at the rate of time and a half his
regular rate, for every hour that he worked in excess of 40, in
violation of the FLSA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt,
full-time production employee from February 01, 2021, to August 08,
2023.

The Defendant is a technology Company, manufacturer of gate
arms.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BROOKDALE SENIOR: Shareholder Suit Over Stock Price Nixed
---------------------------------------------------------
Brookdale Senior Living Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that in September 2021, the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee dismissed
a putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the federal
securities laws filed in the federal court against the company and
several current and former executive officers. Plaintiffs have yet
to file an appeal.

In June 2020, said lawsuit asserted that the defendants made
material misstatements and omissions concerning the company's
business, operational and compliance policies, compliance with
applicable regulations and statutes, and staffing practices that
caused the company's stock price to be artificially inflated
between August 2016 and April 2020. The district court dismissed
the lawsuit and entered judgment in favor of the defendants.

Brookdale Senior Living Inc. together with its consolidated
subsidiaries is an operator of 672 senior living communities
throughout the United States. As of June 30, 2023, it owned 346
communities, representing a majority of the Company's community
portfolio, leased 295 communities, and managed 31 communities.


BROOKLYN CRAB: Erkan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brooklyn Crab, LLC.
The case is styled as Nihal Erkan, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Brooklyn Crab, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-06533 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 31, 2023).

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

Brooklyn Crab -- https://www.brooklyncrab.com/ -- is a tri-level
seafood shack offering buckets of crab and raw oysters with outdoor
seating and water views in Red Hook, Brooklyn.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


C & G SPORTING GOODS: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against C & G Sporting Goods,
LLC. The case is styled as Luis Mercedes, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. C & G Sporting Goods, LLC, Case
No. 1:23-cv-07716 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 30, 2023).

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

C & G Sporting Goods, LLC -- https://www.cgsportinggoods.com/ --
sell firearms and ammunition, hunting equipment, fishing bait and
tackle, archery, clothing, footwear, optics and camping
equipment.[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


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Ct. Terminates Bid to Certify Class in Santiago
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANTIAGO v. CAVALRY
PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-08332 (D.N.J.,
Filed Nov. 30, 2015), the Hon. Judge Michael A. Hammer entered a
terminating motion to certify class.

  -- The motion to certify the class will be terminated without
     prejudice, and the parties will be afforded ninety days from
the
     filing of the Order of Reference to Mediation to mediate the
     matter.

  -- If mediation is unsuccessful, Plaintiff may re-file the motion
to
     certify. The parties will meet and confer concerning the
     selection of a mediator and are referred to the list of
Court-
     certified mediators available on the District of New Jersey's

     website.

  -- On August 29, 2023, the parties will file a joint letter
     informing the Court whether they have agreed on the selection
of
     a mediator and, if so, the identity of the mediator.

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

Cavalry is a debt collection agency.[CC]

CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Wiretapping Suit Over Keystroke Capturing Ended
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-Q for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2023, that on February 21,
2023, the case captioned "Curd v. TCF CO. LLC," Civil Action No.
1:23-cv-00472-JMC was lodged at the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland but was voluntarily dismissed  on May
10, 2023.

The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated currently owns and operates 321
restaurants throughout the United States and Canada under brands
including The Cheesecake Factory, North Italia, Flower Child and a
collection of other FRC brands. Its bakery division operates two
facilities that produce baked products for its restaurants,
international licensees and third-party bakery customers.


CHETAK NEW YORK: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Torres Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CESAR TORRES, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. CHETAK NEW YORK LLC, (CHETAY NY LLC) and ARCHIT AMIN
individual, Case No. 2:23-cv-06958 (D.N.J., Aug. 22, 2023) seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law.

The Plaintiff was paid $16 per hour from 2018 until June 2023 and
was not paid any overtime, despite working 50 hours per week. He
asserts that the Defendants allegedly maintained a policy and
practice of requiring the Plaintiff and the FLSA collective
employees to work more than 40 hours per week without providing
them with any additional compensation.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover from the Defendants liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and/or attorneys'
fees and costs, pursuant to the FLSA and NJWHL and brings this
action individually and on behalf of all other and former
non-exempt workers who have been or were employed by the Defendants
for up to the last three years, through the entry of judgment in
this case and who have not compensated at least the overtime
compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

With NJWHL claims, the Plaintiff asserts the same pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of all non-exempt
personnel employed by the Defendants on or after the date that is
two years before the filing of the Complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant at its company located
at 351 Mill Rd. Edison, NJ 08837 to haul and company trucks within
New Jersey.

Chetak is a corporate entity principally engaged in the food
services industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lina Stillman, Esq.
          STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
          42 Broadway, 12t Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 203-2417
          E-mail: www.StillmanlegalPC.com

CIGNA CORP: Faces Suit Over Outright Denial of Insurance Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that Cigna Corporation
and Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company face a proposed class
action over their allegedly unlawful use of an algorithm to
systemically deny batches of insurance claims without conducting
individualized reviews.

According to the 22-page lawsuit out of California, insurance
companies are required under state law to conduct a "thorough,
fair, and objective" investigation into each submitted claim to
determine if the payment is medically necessary.

However, rather than employ medical directors to examine patient
records, review coverage policies and use their expertise to
approve or deny claims, Cigna instead uses an algorithm known as
PXDX -- which stands for "procedure-to-diagnosis" -- to
automatically review, process and deny thousands of claims at once,
the suit contends.

More specifically, the PXDX system uses an algorithm to identify
and deny claims based on "discrepancies between diagnoses and what
Defendants consider acceptable tests and procedures for those
ailments," the complaint explains. The filing claims that Cigna
doctors then sign off on the denials without opening each patient's
file to complete the legally-required process for reviewing patient
claims.

As a result of this automated process, thousands of patients who
have submitted bills to Cigna for medically necessary expenses
supposedly covered by their plan terms have had their claims
unfairly denied, the case argues. These covered members are
wrongfully left without coverage and forced to incur unexpected
bills, the suit relays.

"The scope of this problem is massive," the lawsuit says, citing a
March 2023 report by ProPublica. "For example, over a period of two
months in 2022, Cigna doctors denied over 300,000 requests for
payments using this method, spending an average of just 1.2 seconds
'reviewing' each request."

Per the filing, the PXDX system helps Cigna save money by allowing
it to deny claims it would have otherwise paid and cut labor costs
associated with conducting manual reviews.

"Cigna also utilizes the PXDX system because it knows it will not
be held accountable for wrongful denials," the case contends. "For
instance, Cigna knows that only a tiny minority of policyholders
(roughly 0.2%) will appeal denied claims."

The complaint further alleges that the defendants have failed to
provide policyholders with written statements informing them of the
insurance company's decision to deny their claim and listing the
reasons why their claim was denied, as required by California law.

The lawsuit looks to cover anyone who purchased health insurance
from Cigna in the United States during the applicable statute of
limitations period. [GN]

CIGNA GROUP: Faces Pelt Suit Over Unfair Claim Settlement Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PAIGE VAN PELT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE CIGNA GROUP, CIGNA CORPORATION, and CIGNA HEALTH
AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:23-cv-01135-OAW (D. Conn.,
Aug. 25, 2023) alleges that Cigna has leveraged its sophisticated
infrastructure and automated intelligence capabilities to
systematically defraud its consumers by denying medically necessary
claims en masse without appropriate physician review, in violation
of state and federal consumer protection laws.

According to the complaint, Cigna's practices thus, have caused the
Plaintiff and the putative Class to pay for medical services that
should have otherwise been approved under plan terms and enable
Cigna to save millions, if not billions, of dollars on its bottom
line. Cigna furthered this scheme to defraud the Plaintiff and the
Class through an automated intelligence system referred to as
“procedure-to-diagnosis" (referred to as "PxDx"). PxDx allows
Cigna medical directors to automatically deny a claim purportedly
on medical grounds without making a medically necessary
determination or even opening the patient file, leaving patients
with unexpected bills that should have been covered and paid.
Indeed, Cigna automatically denies claims because it knows that
most patients will either pay such bills or forego the procedures,
rather than deal with the hassle of appealing a denial, the suit
alleges.

The impact on Cigna's insureds is devastating. In a period of just
over two months, Cigna medical directors reportedly automatically
denied, without review, over 300,000 requests for payments,
spending an average of 1.2 seconds on each case. The Plaintiff and
the Class are therefore not receiving the benefits they have paid
for, and in many cases are left paying out-of-pocket for medical
care that should have been covered by Cigna.

The Plaintiff and the Class have been harmed through violations of
the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act through violating the
Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act and the Connecticut
Corrupt Organizations and Racketeering Activity Act, breach of
contract, as well as violations of the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, and unjust enrichment, says the suit.

The Plaintiff was enrolled in a self-funded Cigna Plan throughout
2018. The written terms of this Plan provided benefits for covered
health care services. The Plan further specified that Cigna
provides claim administration services to the Plan as the party
delegated with authority to interpret and apply the terms of
financial disbursement. The Plaintiff has Lynch Syndrome -- a type
of inherited cancer syndrome associated with a genetic
predisposition to different cancer types. In order to prevent
cancerous growths, the Plaintiff is required to have a colonoscopy
once every 1-2 years. In 2018, Cigna automatically denied coverage
for her colonoscopy and endoscopy, because the clinic coded it as
diagnostic instead of preventative. As a result, Plaintiff was
charged $3,200 which has since been sent to collections, the suit
further contends.

Cigna is one of the largest medical insurers in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          Amanda Rolon, Esq.
          Erin Green Comite, Esq.
          Anja Rusi, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
                  arolon@scott-scott.com
                  ecomite@scott-scott.com
                  arusi@scott-scott.com

                - and -

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Michael A. Innes, Esq.
          Jordan M. Steele, Esq.
          Zachary S. Bower, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI,
          BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, New Jersey 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
                  minnes@carellabyrne.com
                  jsteele@carellabyrne.com
                  zbower@carellabyrne.com

COBHAM ADVANCED: Wightman May File Optional Reply by Sept. 28
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wightman v. Cobham
Advanced Electronic Solutions, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-01784
(S.D. Cal., Filed Oct. 18, 2021), the Hon. Judge Daniel E. Butcher
entered an order setting briefing schedule.

  -- Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Certify
     Class, which is noticed for a hearing on Oct. 12, 2023, at
3:00
     p.m. in Courtroom 3A before the Honorable Todd W. Robinson.

  -- Pursuant to Section III.B.2 of the undersigned's Standing
Order
     for Civil Cases, the Defendant shall file its opposition on or

     before Sept. 14, 2023.

  -- The Plaintiff may file his optional reply, if any, on or
before
     Sept. 28, 2023.

The nature of suit states Labor Management Relations.

Cobham manufactures search and navigation equipment.[CC]

COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Faces Toothpaste False Ads Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that
Colgate, Taco Bell, Pacific Coast Producers, Tesla, A&W, Keurig Dr
Pepper, Curaleaf, DreamCloud and Inventure Foods have recently been
hit with a class action lawsuit or reached a class action
settlement.

Why: The class action lawsuits and settlements involve false
advertising claims.

Where: The class action lawsuits and settlements affect consumers
nationwide.

Companies filed or settled class action lawsuits involving false
advertising claims recently.

The companies are in the food, dental hygiene, automobile, mattress
and cannabis industries.

A consumer may choose to file a false advertising claim if they
believe they have been misled by a company about a product or
service.

Colgate class action claims company deceives consumers about
toothpaste tube recyclability
A pair of consumers filed a class action lawsuit against
Colgate-Palmolive Company earlier in August, arguing the company
falsely advertises its Colgate and Tom's of Maine brand toothpaste
tubes are recyclable.

The consumers claim the Colgate and Tom's of Maine toothpaste tubes
are only accepted at a "miniscule" amount of recycling centers.

"Defendant knows that the Products almost invariably end up in
landfills or incinerated because recycling facilities do not accept
them," the Colgate class action states.

Taco Bell falsely advertises amount of ingredients in some menu
items, class action says
A consumer filed a class action lawsuit against Taco Bell at the
end of July, arguing the Mexican fast food chain falsely advertises
the amount of beef and other ingredients in some of its products.

Taco Bell is accused of depicting in its advertisements and on its
menu boards that some of its menu items, including the Crunchwrap
Supreme and Mexican Pizza, among others, contain twice the amount
of ingredients than in reality.

Canner accused of falsely advertising tomatoes as
'preservative-free'
A class action lawsuit was filed against the largest tomato canner
in the United States in July over claims the company falsely
advertises that its tomatoes are "preservative-free" despite them
allegedly containing citric acid.

Pacific Coast Producers is accused of mislabeling that its tomatoes
are preservative-free to capitalize on a demand from consumers for
preservative-free food.

"Defendant clearly lists 'No Preservatives' on Products' label,
capitalizing on the preference of health-conscious consumers to
purchase foods that are free from preservatives," the Pacific Coast
class action states.

Tesla inflates estimated mileage range, class action says
A group of vehicle owners filed a class action lawsuit against
Tesla Motors earlier in August, claiming the automaker falsely
advertises the mileage range of its electric vehicles.

Tesla is accused of estimating the mileage range for its electric
vehicles as much as 26% more than their actual average range in an
effort to appeal to consumers.

"The electric vehicle's range is one of the most important features
that consumers generally consider when purchasing an electric
vehicle because it correlates to the distance they can travel
before needing to recharge the vehicle," the Tesla class action
states.

A&W, Keurig Dr Pepper to pay $15M over claims they falsely
advertised root beer, cream soda contained real vanilla
On the settlement side, A&W Concentrate and Keurig Dr Pepper agreed
to pay $15 million in July to resolve claims they falsely
advertised that their root beer and cream soda contained real
vanilla.

Consumers who purchased one or more A&W Root Beer or Cream Soda
products containing the statement "made with aged vanilla" on their
label from between Feb. 7, 2016, and June 2, 2023 can benefit from
the class action settlement.

Curaleaf to pay $100,000 to end claims it falsely advertised CBD
drops only contained CBD
Medical and recreational cannabis dispensary Curaleaf agreed to pay
$100,000 in July to put to bed claims the company falsely
advertised that its CBD drops only contained CBD when they
allegedly also contained THC.

The settlement will benefit a class of consumers in Oregon who,
after June 19, 2021, purchased Curaleaf Select CBD Drops labeled as
containing only CBD.

DreamCloud to refund consumers who purchased mattresses advertised
as made with US materials
The Federal Trade Commission began accepting claims in August for
settlement payments stemming from an agreement made by mattress
company DreamCloud to resolve claims the company falsely advertised
its mattresses are made from U.S. materials.

Consumers who purchased a mattress from DreamCloud's website after
being influenced by claims they were made with "USA-made premium
quality materials," from between Dec. 9, 2018, and Jan. 29, 2019,
or May 6, 2020, and June 26, 2020, are eligible for a refund.

Inventure Foods to pay $900,000 over claims it falsely advertised
TGI Friday's Mozzarella Stick Snacks contain real mozzarella
Inventure Foods agreed to pay $900,000 in July to end claims the
company falsely advertised its TGI Friday's brand Mozzarella Stick
Snacks contain real mozzarella cheese.

The settlement will benefit a nationwide class of consumers who
purchased a variety of different TGI Friday's Mozzarella Stick
Snacks from between Jan. 1, 2017, and July 31, 2022. [GN]

COMMUNITY HEALTH: Smith Seeks to Recover Nurses' Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
DARIUS SMITH, individually and for others similarly situated v.
COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE, INC. d/b/a COMPLETECARE HEALTH NETWORK, Case
No. 1:23-cv-11058 (D.N.J., Aug. 25, 2023) seeks to recover overtime
wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
Jersey Wage and Hour Law, as amended by the New Jersey Wage Theft
Act.

Mr. Smith and the Putative Class Members regularly worked more than
40 hours in a week. But CompleteCare did not pay them for all the
hours they worked. Also, CompleteCare automatically deducted 30
minutes a day from these employees' recorded work time for so
called "meal breaks." But Mr. Smith and the Putative Class Members
did not actually receive bona fide meal breaks. Instead,
CompleteCare required Mr. Smith and the Putative Class Members to
remain on-duty and perform compensable work throughout their
shifts, and CompleteCare continuously subjected them to work
interruptions during their unpaid "meal breaks," says the suit.

CompleteCare's auto-deduction policy allegedly also violates the
New Jersey Wage Payment Law, as amended by the New Jersey Wage
Theft Act by depriving Mr. Smith and the Putative Class Members of
earned wages (at their agreed hourly rates) for all hours worked.

Further, CompleteCare also only paid Mr. Smith and the Putative
Class Members for overtime hours that CompleteCare pre-approved. If
CompleteCare did not pre-approve the overtime hours, Mr. Smith and
the Putative Class Members were forced to work their "unapproved"
overtime hours "off the clock" (without pay) to complete their
patient care responsibilities, the suit added.

Mr. Smith worked for CompleteCare as Registered Nurse in Cumberland
County, New Jersey from September 2020 until November 2022.

CompleteCare is a system of health centers in southern New
Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-4635
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: crodriguez@bm.net

                - 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
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          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

COMPANY NO. 5: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Company No 5, LLC.
The case is styled as Luis Mercedes, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Company No 5, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-07714 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 30, 2023).

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

COMPANY NO 5, LLC is an Utah Domestic LLC.[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


CONSOLIDATED WASTE: Conditional Class Cert Filing Due Sept. 15
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dudley v. Consolidated
Waste Services, LLC et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00592 (E.D.N.Y., Filed
May 17, 2023), the Hon. Judge Therese Wiley Dancks entered an order
setting the following limited discovery deadlines during the Aug.
15, 2023 Rule 16 Conference:

  -- Conditional class certification                 Sept. 15, 2023

     motion to be filed by:

  -- Rule 33 and 34 Requests to be                   Sept. 29,
2023
     served by:

  -- Mandatory Mediation:                            Deferred

  -- Stipulated protective order to be               Oct. 20, 2023
     submitted for Court approval by:

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Consolidated offers waste management for residential and commercial
clients.[CC]

COOKIES SF LLC: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cookies SF, LLC. The
case is styled as Luis Mercedes, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Cookies SF, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-07709 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 30, 2023).

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

Cookies SF -- https://cookiessf.com/ -- is an inspirational
clothing and accessory brand destined to spark fire within the
budding fashion industr.[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


COREBRIDGE FINANCIAL: Applegate Files Suit in S.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Corebridge Financial,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Dawn Ann Applegate, Richard
Applegate, Jon Robus, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Corebridge Financial, Inc., American General
Life Insurance Co., Case No. 4:23-cv-03227 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 31,
2023).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CORECIVIC INC: Inmates' Labor Suit to Proceed in S.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------
Corecivic, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 8, 2023, that on June 12, 2023, the Supreme
Court dismissed the company's petition to appeal a class
certification ruling. The claims resulting in certified classes
will now proceed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California.

On May 31, 2017, two former ICE detainees, who were detained at the
company's Otay Mesa Detention Center (OMDC) in San Diego,
California, filed a class action lawsuit against the Company in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California. The complaint alleged that the company forces detainees
to perform labor under threat of punishment in violation of state
and federal anti-trafficking laws and that OMDC's Voluntary Work
Program (VWP) violates state labor laws including state minimum
wage law. ICE requires that CoreCivic offer and operate the VWP in
conformance with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
standards and ICE prescribes the minimum rate of pay for VWP
participants. The Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, exemplary
damages, restitution, penalties, and interest as well as
declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of former and current
detainees.

On April 1, 2020, the district court certified a nationwide
anti-trafficking claims class of former and current detainees who
participated in an ICE VWP at a CoreCivic facility. It also
certified a state law class of former and current detainees who
participated in a VWP wherever the company held ICE detainees in
California. The court did not certify any claims for injunctive or
declaratory relief. On March 10, 2021, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals granted CoreCivic's petition to appeal the class
certification ruling.

On June 3, 2022, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed
the class certification ruling.  Following the three-judge panel
affirmance, the Company petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a
discretionary appellate review, which was denied. On January 3,
2023, the Ninth Circuit Court granted the company's motion to stay
its mandate during the pendency of the company's petition for
Supreme Court review.

CoreCivic, Inc. owns partnership correctional, detention, and
residential reentry facilities. It is one of the largest prison
operators in the United States.


CORMEDIX INC: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Ongoing in NJ Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cormedix Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 8, 2023, that a consolidated suit "In re
CorMedix Inc. Securities Litigation," Case No. 2:21-cv
14020-JXN-CLW (October 13, 2021), is pending in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey is currently
ongoing.

Two putative class action lawsuits filed on or about July 22, 2021
and September 13, 2021, respectively, and appointed lead counsel
and lead plaintiff, a purported stockholder of the Company.

The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint on December 14, 2021, alleging violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
or the Exchange Act, along with Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
or the Securities Act.

On October 10, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended
consolidated complaint that superseded the original complaints in
"In re CorMedix Securities Litigation." In the second amended
complaint, the lead plaintiff seeks to represent two classes of
shareholders: (i) shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired
CorMedix securities between October 16, 2019 and August 8, 2022,
inclusive; and (ii) shareholders who purchased CorMedix securities
pursuant or traceable to the company's November 27, 2020 offering
pursuant to CorMedix's Form S-3 Registration Statement, its
Prospectus Supplement, dated November 27, 2020, and its Prospectus
Supplement, dated August 12, 2021. The second amended complaint
names as defendants the Company and twelve (12) current and former
directors and officers of CorMedix, namely Khoso Baluch, Robert
Cook, Matthew David, Phoebe Mounts, John L. Armstrong, and Joseph
Todisco and collectively with CorMedix, the "CorMedix Defendants"
as well as Janet Dillione, Myron Kaplan, Alan W. Dunton, Steven
Lefkowitz, Paulo F. Costa and Greg Duncan.

The second amended complaint alleges that the CorMedix Defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act (and Rule 10b-5), the
Officer Defendants violated Section 20(a), the Director Defendants,
CorMedix, Baluch, and David violated Section 11 of the Securities
Act, and that the Director Defendants, Baluch, and David violated
Section 15. In general, the purported bases for these claims are
allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions related to
the NDA submissions to the FDA for DefenCath, subsequent complete
response letters, as well as communications from the FDA related
and directed to the company's contract manufacturing organization
and heparin supplier. The company and the other Defendants filed
their motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on November
23, 2022; the lead plaintiff filed his opposition to the
Defendants’ motions to dismiss on January 7, 2023; and Defendants
filed their reply brief on February 6, 2023.

CorMedix Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing
and commercializing therapeutic products with its principal
executive office is located in Berkeley Heights, New Jersey.


CRUMBL LLC: Faces Watson Class Suit Over Hidden Service Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that Crumbl LLC faces a
proposed class action that alleges the gourmet cookie company
carefully conceals a hidden 2.95 percent "service fee" on its
mobile app.

The 35-page case says that Crumbl's hidden service fee causes
customers to pay more for the cookies than what's advertised on the
menu and constitutes an unfair and deceptive trade practice.

The suit describes Crumbl as the fastest-growing gourmet cookie
business in the country, with more than 600 franchisee stores
across 47 states. The Crumbl app is "a vital part" of the company's
business strategy, displaying the company's rotating menu of
flavors and facilitating orders, pick-ups, catering, shipping and
gifting, the filing relays. Even when ordering in a store, the case
says, a customer must still use the Crumbl app at the point of
sale.

According to the complaint, however, every time a consumer orders
through the Crumbl app, they are hit with a 2.95 percent service
fee, an added cost that is not reflected in the company's menu
prices.

"Despite the fact that Crumbl uniformly charges the Service Fee
through the Crumbl App, at no point is the Service Fee disclosed to
consumers," the lawsuit says.

On the mobile order screen, the case shares, a breakdown appears of
a customer's subtotal, taxes and fees, tip amount, and order total.
Next to the taxes and fees line, however, is a small, light gray
question mark icon that's "nearly imperceptible to reasonable
consumers due to its color and font size," the suit relays. It is
only upon clicking this icon that a consumer can learn that a 2.95
percent service fee has been added to their order:

"Given that the vast majority of American consumers already expect
to pay sales tax on their purchase, Crumbl purposefully hides this
charge among state taxes where it is unlikely to be discovered by
reasonable consumers," the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit looks to cover all individuals in the United States who
made a purchase through the Crumbl app within the applicable
statute of limitations period. [GN]

DIRECT ENERGY LP: Newman Class Action Transferred to S.D. Tex.
--------------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in August 8, 2023, that the putative class
action against its subsidiary, Direct Energy LP, "Holly Newman v.
Direct Energy, LP" (September 2021, D. Md.) was transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Direct Energy filed its Motion to Dismiss but the Court denied its
motion stating the court does not have the benefit of all of the
facts.

On October 19, 2022, Direct Energy filed a Motion to Transfer Venue
asking the court to transfer the case to the Southern District. On
April 12, 2023, the court granted Direct Energy's Motion to
Transfer Venue.

NRG Energy, Inc. is an energy, smart home and services company
fueled by proprietary technologies and complementary sales channels
across the United States and Canada.


DIRECT ENERGY: Dickson TCPA Action Ongoing
------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in August 8, 2023, that putative class action
against its subsidiary, Direct Energy LP, "Matthew Dickson v.
Direct Energy," (January 2018, N.D. Ohio) was stayed pending the
outcome of an appeal to the Sixth Circuit based on the
unconstitutionality of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)
during the period from 2015-2020.

The Sixth Circuit found the TCPA was in effect during that period
and remanded the case back to the trial court. Direct Energy
refiled its motions along with supplements.

On March 25, 2022, the court granted summary judgment in favor of
Direct Energy and dismissed the case. Dickson appealed. The Sixth
Circuit found that Dickson has standing and reversed the trial
court's dismissal of the case. The case went back to the trial
court where Direct Energy sought a stay to file a petition for
review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

NRG Energy, Inc. is an energy, smart home and services company
fueled by proprietary technologies and complementary sales channels
across the United States and Canada.


DIRECT ENERGY: Faces Schafer Class Action
------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in August 8, 2023, that its subsidiary Direct
Energy is facing putative class action captioned "Richard Schafer
v. Direct Energy," (W.D. N.Y. Dec. 2019).

Said case is currently on appeal in the United States Court of
Appeals 2nd Circuit. The Second Circuit sent the matter back to the
trial court in December 2021. After discovery, Direct Energy filed
summary judgment. Direct Energy won summary judgment and Schafer
appealed. The appeal is fully briefed. Oral argument has not been
set.

NRG Energy, Inc. is an energy, smart home and services company
fueled by proprietary technologies and complementary sales channels
across the United States and Canada.


DIRECT ENERGY: Gant Action Pending in D.N.J.
--------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in August 8, 2023, that its subsidiary Direct
Energy is facing putative class action captioned "Andrew Gant v.
Direct Energy and NRG (August 2022, D.N.J.).

Direct Energy and NRG filed a Motion to Dismiss on October 18,
2022.

NRG Energy, Inc. is an energy, smart home and services company
fueled by proprietary technologies and complementary sales channels
across the United States and Canada.


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: SAHL Files Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Discover Financial
Services, et al. The case is styled as Support Animal Holdings,
LLC, Lennys Casita, LLC, individually, and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. Discover Financial Services, DFS Services,
LLC, Discover Bank, Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
2:23-cv-07131-DSF-RAO (C.D. Cal., Aug. 29, 2023).

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

Discover Financial Services -- http://www.discover.com/-- is an
American financial services company that owns and operates Discover
Bank, an online bank that offers checking and savings accounts,
personal loans, home equity loans, student loans and credit
cards.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          PORTNOY LAW FIRM
          1100 Glendon Avenue 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: (310) 692-8883
          Email: lesley@portnoylaw.com


DISH NETWORK: Court OK's Dismissal of 401(k) Mismanagement Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
DISH Network Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that on February 1, 2023, a
Magistrate Judge issued a recommendation that the defendants'
motion to dismiss the complaint be granted with regards to a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado against DISH, its Board of Directors, and its
Retirement Plan Committee alleging fiduciary breaches arising from
the management of its 401(k) Plan. On March 27, 2023, the district
court judge granted the motion.

On December 20, 2021, four former employees filed said action,
where the class comprised of all participants in the plan on or
after January 20, 2016, alleges that the plan had excessive
recordkeeping and administrative expenses and that it maintained
underperforming funds.

As permitted by the Court's order, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on April 10, 2023, which is limited to allegations
regarding the alleged underperformance of the Fidelity Freedom
Funds.

DISH Network Corporation is a holding company that operate two
primary business segments namely Pay-TV and wireless the latter of
which consists of retail wireless and 5G network deployment.


DISH NETWORK: Faces Owen-Brooks Suit Over Data Breach Incident
--------------------------------------------------------------
DISH Network Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that on May 9, 2023, Susan
Owen-Brooks, an alleged customer, filed a putative class action
complaint against the company in the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado.

She purports to represent a nationwide class of all individuals in
the United States who allegedly had private information stolen as a
result of the February 23, 2023 Cyber-security Incident (and a
North Carolina statewide subclass of the same individuals).

On behalf of the nationwide class, she alleges claims for
contractual breaches, negligence and unjust enrichment (and, on
behalf of the North Carolina subclass only, violation of the North
Carolina Deceptive Trade Practices Act), and seeks monetary
damages, injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment. Since that
filing, ten additional putative class action complaints have been
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, purporting to represent the same nationwide class of
people, and Owen-Brooks has filed an amended complaint. Certain of
the plaintiffs have filed a motion to have the cases consolidated.

DISH Network Corporation is a holding company that operate two
primary business segments namely Pay-TV and wireless the latter of
which consists of retail wireless and 5G network deployment.


DISH NETWORK: Shareholder Sues Over SEC Filing
----------------------------------------------
DISH Network Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that on March 23, 2023, a
securities fraud class action complaint was filed against the
company and Messrs. Ergen, Carlson and Orban in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado.

The complaint is brought on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of its securities during the February 22, 2021 to
February 27, 2023 class period. In general, the complaint alleges
that DISH Network's public statements during that period were false
and misleading and contained material omissions, because they did
not disclose that the company allegedly maintained a deficient
cyber-security and information technology infrastructure, were
unable to properly secure customer data and operations were
susceptible to widespread service outages.

DISH Network Corporation is a holding company that operate two
primary business segments namely Pay-TV and wireless the latter of
which consists of retail wireless and 5G network deployment.


DOLGENCORP LLC: Faces Pressley Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Ga.
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER PRESSLEY and MELISSA SMITH, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DOLGENCORP, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00170-RWS (N.D. Ga., August 23, 2023)
is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
wages and retaliation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Mr. Pressley has worked for Dollar General in Maysville, Georgia,
in June 2020.

Ms. Smith worked for Dollar General in Maysville, Georgia from 2013
until approximately October 2022.

The Plaintiffs were employed as cashiers, keyholders, and assistant
managers by Dollar General.

Dolgencorp, LLC is an operator of a discount store based in
Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         J. Daniel Cole, Esq.
         John L. Mays, Esq.
         PARKS, CHESIN & WALBERT, P.C.
         1335 Peachtree NE, Suite 2000
         Atlanta, GA 30309
         Telephone: (404) 873-8000
         Facsimile: (404) 873-8050
         E-mail: dcole@pcwlawfirm.com
                 jmays@pcwlawfirm.com

DOUG'S DINER: Fails to Pay OT Premiums Under FLSA, Zuniga Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL ANGEL ZUNIGA on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. DOUG'S DINER, INC., DOUG'S DAY DINER, LLC,
MILO, INC., COCO, INC., RICKEY BRUENING, INC., RICKEY BRUENING, and
LINDA HERNANDEZ, Case No. 1:23-cv-02176 (D. Colo., Aug. 25, 2023)
alleges that the Defendants refused to pay overtime premiums, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Zuniga worked 156.82 hours during the two-week pay
period running from January 16, 2023 through January 29, 2023.
During the two-week pay period running from February 27, 2023
through March 12, 2023, the Plaintiff Zuniga worked 125.99 hours.
The Defendants refused to pay the Plaintiff overtime premiums for
the hours he worked beyond 40 each workweek and 12 each workday
during these and all other pay periods during his tenure of
employment, the Plaintiff alleges.

Additionally, the Defendants willfully filed fraudulent information
returns, in violation of 26 U.S.C. section 7434, by paying part of
their employees' wages in cash and not reporting those wages to the
federal government, says the suit.

The Defendants also violated the Colorado Minimum Wage Act, as
implemented by the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards
Order because the COMPS requires employers to pay their employees
one-and-one-half times each employee's regular hourly rate of pay
for each hour worked beyond 40 each workweek and/or beyond 12 hours
each workday. The Defendants further violated the Colorado Wage
Claim Act ("CWCA"), which requires employers to pay their employees
all wages due.

The Plaintiff seeks, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, actual and liquidated damages, penalties, pre-
and post-judgment interest, and attorney fees and costs.

Plaintiff Miguel Zuniga was employed by the Defendants between 2021
and July 14, 2023.

Doug's Diner is a company that operates in the Restaurants
industry.[BN]

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

ETHICON INC: $300M Class Suit Win No Impact on Legal Firm's Results
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Nichols, writing for Business Australia, reports that a $300
million class action win by Shine Justice (ASX: SHJ) last year has
failed to translate into a profit bonanza for the listed legal firm
which on Aug. 29 posted an 89 per cent slump in net profit to $3.31
million.

Shine Justice, which scored the payout from Johnson & Johnson and
subsidiary Ethicon for women who suffered severe complications from
the company's defective pelvic mesh implants, has blamed delays in
court decisions and settlements to class actions for the latest
result.

The result was also materially impacted by Shine's decision to
write off a large portion of the interest expense it cost the group
to wage the Ethicon case.

The $32.4 million impairment to the company's unbilled impairment
asset followed the Federal Court's refusal to allow Shine to
recover all of its interest expenses for the expensive decade-long
class action, which was undertaken on a no-win no-fee basis.

The litigation on behalf of up to 12,000 Australian women who were
left with life-altering complications from faulty prolapse mesh and
tape implants was one of Australia's largest product liability
class actions.

Because of the complex nature of the case, which required Shine to
fork out to third parties including medical experts and barristers,
the company had to secure external disbursement funding to
proceed.

On 3 August 2023, the Federal Court dismissed Shine's application
to recover from the settlement fund the full amount of the interest
it had paid on the disbursement funding facility. As a result,
Shine decided to write off the asset from its books from the FY23
accounts.

Shine's CEO Simon Morrison has described the company's gross
operating cash flow (GOCF) of minus $3.9 million as a
'disappointing result' for the group, largely reflecting delays in
the resolution of cases and court approvals of class action
settlements achieved during the year.

Shine's GOCF for FY23 includes $15.6 million in professional fees
for the two Ethicon class actions which was paid to the
disbursement funder.

Apart from the Ethicon class actions, the company also secured a
$105 million settlement against US manufacturer Boston Scientific
relating to defective pelvic mesh implants, adding to a successful
year of litigation for Shine.

"Although the operating performance of the group was disappointing,
revenue increased due to growth in personal injuries, particularly
in Queensland, and in medical law and dust diseases," Morrison
says.

"While the revenue growth was pleasing, it was offset by increased
direct and indirect costs.

"GOCF in the year was affected by expenditure in growth activities,
including class action investigations, slower than anticipated case
resolution, as well as expenditure in marketing and recruitment.
Like many businesses, we were impacted by staff turnover."

Shine tackled the staff issues by attracting new staff following a
recruitment program launched in the UK.

On an adjusted basis, Shine recorded earnings before interest, tax,
depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) of $61.6 million, down from
$63.1 million in FY22. Revenue was $231.6 million, up 7.7 per cent
for the year.

However, Morrison says the year ahead is promising with the company
targeting EBITDA to be higher the then adjusted EBITDA of FY23.

"Shine Justice's business remains strong, with a committed and
talented team and the right strategy to deliver improving results
and grow earnings in new and existing markets," he says.

"Our pipeline of cases is strong. We are targeting a significant
improvement in cash generation as major cases are concluded and as
we implement improvements in our systems and processes for case
execution and cash collection.

"In addition, we have commenced a reduction in our cost base which
should assist EBITDA and GOCF in the future."

Shine Justice is not paying a final dividend. [GN]

FENIX INTERNATIONAL: Faces OnlyFans Suit Over Third Party Services
------------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Velasquez, writing for The Messenger Business, reports
that a lawsuit against Fenix International Limited, the
London-based parent company of OnlyFans, alleges that some of its
creators are failing to connect with their subscribers and instead
are using outside services to send explicit messages.

The class action, filed in federal court for the Northern District
of Illinois on Aug. 25, claims that certain creators on OnlyFans,
such as Riley Reid, Kimmy Granger and Gina Valentina, are not
forming genuine relationships with their subscribers, as they
advertise.

"Many of the interactions that they [subscribers] pay to have on
OnlyFans with some of the top revenue producing creators are not
'authentic' at all," the plaintiffs allege.  

The plaintiffs, Philip McFadden of DuPage County, Illinois, and
John DeFranza of Middlesex County, New Jersey, claim that OnlyFans
creators are using outside individuals and companies, such as
advertising firm Unruly Agency, to send "ghostwritten responses" on
their behalf, and even engaging in intimate "sexting" conversations
with fans.

The creators have not yet responded to the accusations in the court
case.

Riley Reid, one of the website's highest-earning creators, makes
between $600,000 and $800,000 every month. Kimmy Granger earns
between $175,000 and $292,000 a month. During a YouTube interview,
Gina Valentina said she has earned up to $200,000 a month.

According to the suit, Only Fans "popularity has mushroomed since
2020, [and it] recently claimed to have 150 million registered
users and to pay out over $5 billion dollars annually to its
content creators."

OnlyFans takes a 20% portion of the earnings creators make on the
platform, the lawsuit said. [GN]

FIBROGEN INC: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Misleading Statements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fibrogen, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 7, 2023, that it is facing lawsuits alleging
that defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
making materially false and misleading statements regarding
FibroGen's Phase 3 clinical studies data and prospects for U.S.
Food and Drug Administration approval.

Between April 2021 and May 2021, five putative securities class
action complaints were filed against FibroGen and certain of its
current and former executive officers in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.

On August 30, 2021, the court consolidated the actions and
appointed a group of lead plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed their
consolidated amended complaint on October 29, 2021 and a corrected
consolidated amended complaint on November 19, 2021. Complaint
alleges false and misleading statements between December 2018 and
June 2021 and seeks to represent a class of persons or entities
that purchased FibroGen securities between December 20, 2018 and
July 15, 2021.

On July 15, 2022, the court issued an order denying defendants'
motions to dismiss. Defendants answered the complaint on September
13, 2022 and discovery is ongoing. On January 27, 2023, plaintiffs
filed a motion for class certification.

On May 12, 2023, Defendants filed their opposition to plaintiffs'
motion for class certification and the plaintiffs filed their reply
on June 23, 2023. On June 8, 2023, plaintiffs filed a motion for
spoliation sanctions against Dr. Yu and the Company. Defendants
filed their opposition to the motion for spoliation sanctions on
July 17, 2023 and the plaintiffs' reply was due August 11, 2023 and
the hearing on both motions was scheduled for August 31, 2023.

FibroGen, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company headquartered in San
Francisco, California, with subsidiary offices in Beijing and
Shanghai.


FIBROGEN INC: Faces Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filing on FDA Report
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fibrogen, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 7, 2023, that on May 25, 2023, a complaint was
filed against the company, alleging that defendants violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and
misleading statements regarding FibroGen's Phase 3 clinical studies
data and prospects for U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval.
Said suit also invoked California state fraud claims.

The parties have stipulated to a briefing schedule on defendants'
forthcoming motion to dismiss, which will be due on September 20,
2023.

FibroGen, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company headquartered in San
Francisco, California, with subsidiary offices in Beijing and
Shanghai.


FLORIDA HEALTH: Wagner Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Brianna Wagner, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. FLORIDA HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER, INC.,
doing business as TAMPA GENERAL HOSPITAL, Case No. 23-CA-014367 was
removed from the Circuit Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit
in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, to the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida on Aug. 30, 2023,
and assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-01957.

Based on these allegations, the Plaintiff asserts six causes of
action against TGH: negligence, invasion of privacy (electronic
intrusion), breach of implied contract; unjust enrichment;
violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
("FDUTPA"),  and breach of fiduciary duty.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Elizabeth V. McNulty, Esq.
          Samantha M. Geraghty, Esq.
          EVANS FEARS SCHUTTERT MCNULTY MICKUS
          1 Park Plaza, Suite 500
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Phone: (949) 301-9464
          Facsimile: (949) 966-0706
          Email: emcnulty@efsmmlaw.com
                 sgeraghty@efsmmlaw.com


FLORIDA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Unfair Medicaid Coverage
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chianne D.; C.D., by and through her mother and Next Friend,
Chianne D.; and A.V., by and through her mother and Next Friend,
Jennifer V., v. Jason Weida, in his official capacity as Secretary
for the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, and Shevaun
Harris, in her official capacity as Secretary for the Florida
Department of Children and Families,, Case No.
3:23-cv-00985-MMH-LLL (M.D. Fla., Aug. 22, 2023) alleges that the
Defendants are terminating tens of thousands of Floridians from
Medicaid coverage without providing them adequate individualized
written notice of the reason for the termination and the
opportunity for a pre-termination fair hearing as the Constitution
and Medicaid Act require.

The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants have deprived, and
continue to deprive, the Plaintiffs of due process in violation of
the Fourteenth Amendment by: creating a risk of erroneous
deprivation of Medicaid coverage; failing to provide timely,
effective notice of the basis for the agency's decision or
enrollees' rights and responsibilities pertaining to their Medicaid
coverage; and failing to provide a meaningful opportunity for a
fair hearing and timely corrective action as needed prior to
termination of Medicaid coverage.

The Defendants routinely fail to include in the Medicaid notices
the legal or factual basis for the agency’s decision. Instead,
the notices use a set of standardized "reason codes" many of which
provide little or no explanation of the actual reason for the
agency's decision. As a result, the Plaintiffs and class members
are losing Medicaid coverage without meaningful and adequate
notice, leaving them unable to understand the agency's decision,
properly decide whether and how to contest their loss of Medicaid
coverage, or plan for a smooth transition of coverage that
minimizes disruptions in necessary care. Without Medicaid coverage,
Plaintiffs are unable to obtain care they need, including
prescription drugs, children’s vaccinations, and post-partum
care, says the suit.

The Plaintiffs seek preliminary and permanent declaratory and
injunctive relief to require the Defendants to stop terminating
Florida Medicaid enrollees until adequate notice and an opportunity
for a pre-termination fair hearing has been provided.

The Plaintiffs bring this case on behalf of a statewide class with
two subclasses, defined as:

        All Florida Medicaid enrollees who are members of either of

        the two subclasses listed below and who on or after March
        31, 2023, have been or will be found ineligible for
        Medicaid coverage.

        Subclass A: Individuals issued a written notice that
        includes no reason code or only uses reason code(s) that do

        not identify the eligibility factor(s) Defendants relied on

        to determine the individual is ineligible for Medicaid.

        Subclass B: Individuals issued a written notice that relies

        on a reason code that states the individual or household is

        over income for Medicaid eligibility but does not identify

        the household income used in the eligibility determination

        or the applicable income standard.

AHCA is designated as the "single state agency" to administer the
state's Medicaid plan.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Katy DeBriere, Esq.
          Miriam Harmatz, Esq.
          Lynn Hearn, Esq.
          FLORIDA HEALTH JUSTICE PROJECT
          3900 Richmond Street
          Jacksonville, FL 32205
          Telephone: (352) 496-5419
          E-mail: debriere@floridahealthjustice.org
                  harmatz@floridahealthjustice.org
                  hearn@floridahealthjustice.org

               - and

          Sarah Grusin, Esq.
          Miriam Heard, Esq.
          Amanda Avery, Esq.
          Jane Perkins, Esq.
          NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM
          1512 E. Franklin Street, Suite 110
          Chapel Hill, NC 27541
          Telephone: (919) 968-6308
          E-mail: grusin@healthlaw.org
                  heard@healthlaw.org
                  avery@healthlaw.org
                  perkins@healthlaw.org

FORD MOTOR: 7th Cir. Revives Antitrust Suit Over No-Poach Clauses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Swap Agrawal, writing for onlabor, reports that in the news and
commentary, UAW members authorize strikes against the Big Three and
the Seventh Circuit revives an anti-trust lawsuit over McDonald's
use of no-poach clauses.

On Aug. 25, the United Auto Workers (UAW) President Shawn Fain
announced that 97 percent of its members had voted to authorize
strikes against the Big Three auto companies -- Ford, General
Motors, and Stellantis -- if the union and companies are unable to
negotiate new contracts before the current agreements expire on
September 14. As Jacqueline previously reported, the union is
asking for elimination of the two-tiered wage system and a 40%
raise over a four-year period, as well as the re-establishment of
cost-of-living allowances and defined benefit pensions and retiree
healthcare, the right to strike over plant closures, significant
increases to current retiree benefits, and more paid time off to be
with family.

"Our members' expectations are high because Big Three profits are
so high," said President Fain. "The Big Three made a combined $21
billion in profits in just the first six months of this year.
That's on top of the quarter-trillion dollars in North American
profits they made over the last decade. While Big Three executives
and shareholders got rich, UAW members got left behind. Our message
to the Big Three is simple: record profits mean record contracts."
Fain was elected as a militant reform candidate amid widespread
member dissatisfaction with the previous UAW leadership due to
plant closings, contract concessions, and corruption scandals.

UAW's Big Three contract renegotiation is the latest in a series of
high-profile labor disputes over the past year, including the
ongoing SAG-AFTRA and WGA strikes, Teamsters' showdown with UPS,
and a threatened railway strike thwarted by the Biden
administration earlier this year. Axios reported that UAW's strike
fund totals over $825 million, meaning that the union could strike
all three automakers for 12 weeks before the fund is exhausted.
Meanwhile, the Anderson Economic Group estimates that a work
stoppage by nearly 150,000 UAW workers at GM, Ford and Stellantis
would cost more than $5 billion after 10 days, and Deutsche Bank
estimates that a strike would cost each affected automaker about
$400 million to $500 million per week of production. Moreover, many
smaller parts manufacturers and suppliers may not be able to
survive a prolonged strike.

On Aug. 25, the Seventh Circuit revived an anti-trust class action
lawsuit against McDonald's over its use of no-poach clauses in
franchise contracts. These clauses, which until recently were part
of every McDonald's franchise agreement, prevented franchise
operators from soliciting or hiring any person employed by a
different franchise, or by McDonald's itself, until six months
after the last date that person had worked for McDonald's or
another franchise. The two plaintiffs in this case, Leinani
Deslandes and Stephanie Turner, worked for McDonald's franchises
while these clauses were in force and were unable to take
higher-paying offers at other franchises. They argue that no-poach
clauses violate antitrust laws by reducing competition for fast
food workers to the benefit of franchise owners.

The district court had rejected plaintiffs' arguments that
no-poach clauses were per se illegal, stating that the clauses were
not naked restraints on trade but rather ancillary to -- and
justified by -- each new restaurant's expanded output. The trial
court also found plaintiff's complaint deficient under the Rule of
Reason because it did not allege that McDonald's and its franchises
collectively have market power in the labor market for restaurant
workers. Miriam previously covered the district court's decision
here. However, Judge Easterbrook wrote for the Seventh Circuit that
the district court "jettisoned the per se rule too early." The
panel found that the district court erred by treating "benefits to
consumers (increasing output) as justifying detriments to workers
(monopsony pricing)." The case is now remanded to the district
court to consider whether the no-poach clause protected the
franchises' investments in training or allowed them to appropriate
the value of workers' own investments. [GN]

FRANKLIN COUNTY, VA: Class Action Mulled Over Attorneys' Shortage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Probert, writing for Tri-City Herald, reports that after
five months of a critical shortage of attorneys to represent
criminal defendants in Franklin County, the problem has eased in
August.

But attorney Sheri Oertel said the relief is too little too late
for all those who lost their right to an attorney for months. The
county now is facing a possible lawsuit.

Oertel, who previously worked as a public defense attorney in
Franklin County, is currently the felony resource attorney for the
Washington Defender Association.

The organization is looking for a lawyer or group to challenge the
decision by Benton-Franklin Superior Court judges that left about
80 defendants without legal representation for so long.

For some defendants, the delay has gone on for months.

"If we get an attorney who wants to work on a single case rather
than try to certify a class (action lawsuit), it still benefits the
group as a whole," she told the Herald.

A person is constitutionally entitled to a trial two months after
being formally charged if they're in jail and haven't agreed to the
delay. Or a trial must begin within three months if the person is
out of custody.

The constitution also promises an attorney if they can't afford one
to defend themselves.

The problem in Franklin County started in March after Franklin
County had trouble replacing two public defense lawyers after their
contracts ended. That left the county's Office of Public Defense
unable to provide attorneys to some suspects.

Attorney Larry Zeigler, the public defense manager, said he was
focused getting help first to those who accused of committing
violent crimes and were in jail. At the time, the county was
averaging about 80 defendants who needed an attorney.

After about five months, the Office of Public Defense was able to
hire two new attorneys to start handling the backlog. "We got our
noses above the waterline," Zeigler said.

"We got our noses above the waterline," Zeigler said.

DEFENSE ATTORNEYS During the shortage, the Superior Court judges
told the Herald in a joint statement that they were looking at
every option to help deal with the problem.
They had the option to hire defense attorneys, who would get paid
out of the county's budget.

County officials said the amount of money necessary would have been
too much.

The judges also could dismiss the cases or release suspects to give
the county more time to find defense attorneys before they had to
hold a trial.

Judges declared it was an unforeseen emergency that warranted
continuing the cases when the suspect didn't have a lawyer.

But Oertel told the Tri-City Herald that was the improper. She said
the judges can't find good cause to violate someone's civil
rights.

"Checks and balances fail when one branch colludes with one or more
other branches," she said. "Here the judges are colluding with both
the prosecutors and the Office of Public Defense administrators."

The association has been actively seeking an attorney to challenge
the rulings that kept extending the time suspects spent in jail,
Oertel said.

Even with recent improvements, Oertel said they have dozens of
people who have been denied their rights.

"Precedent is clear, once the . . . speedy trial right is violated,
anything occurring beyond that doesn't matter, the case must be
dismissed," she told the Herald. "If this occurs, it will cause
hundreds of cases in Franklin County and likely 70-100 in Benton
County to be overturned and dismissed."

She said the judges were told by a state Supreme Court justice that
keeping defendants in jail past the speedy trial deadline would
violate their rights.

The Superior Court judges said they couldn't comment on the
potential case.

"It is each judge's duty to decide a case according to the law and
the facts," they told the Tri-City Herald in a joint statement. "A
party, who feels aggrieved by the court's decision, may seek
appellate review as provided by the rules of appellate procedure."

DOZENS OF CASES DELAYED

Oertel said she can point to dozens of cases where defendants are
having to make decisions where they needed an attorney's advice.

One of the most dramatic is the case of Jose M. Flores Ramirez, 35,
who was charged in connection with a May 2021 Pasco assault.

Ramirez told detectives he hit a man with a metal pipe after his
mother was insulted.

Prosecutors initially charged him in July 2021 with second-degree
assault, but the charge was dismissed in January 2022. According to
court documents, they were planning to file the case in District
Court.

The prosecutors attempted to put Flores Ramirez into a diversion
program, but he failed to complete community service.

Then, prosecutors filed the charge again in February 2023. He
entered a plea, but was never given an attorney during his
arraignment.

When he failed to show up for his next hearing a warrant was
issued, and he was arrested. Since then, he's been in jail without
a lawyer assigned.

After two months, he was fed up being in jail and declared in court
on Aug. 8 that he wanted to plead guilty.

Attorney Tim Dickerson was assigned within days. He pointed out
that Flores Ramirez continued to want to plead guilty, even after a
key witness died, according to court documents.

Dickerson asked for his client to be released because he believed
his client just wanted to work.

Deputy Prosecutor Daniel Stovern argued against the change because
Flores Ramirez didn't finish his community service.

The hearing ended with a decision that the prosecutor couldn't
accept a guilty plea given that it didn't seem that Flores Ramirez
was informed about the potential immigration consequences.

If Flores Ramirez is released, he has an outstanding warrant in
Benton County and would end up needing to face those charges too.
[GN]

FRUITFUL YIELD: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Fruitful Yield,
Inc. The case is styled as Seana Cromitie, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. The Fruitful Yield, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-07677 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 29, 2023).

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

Fruitful Yield -- https://www.fruitfulyield.com/ -- is an
e-commerce site that provides natural health products including
vitamins, herbs, beauty, sports supplements.[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


GAMESTOP CORP: Abdulhadi Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ali Abdulhadi, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. GameStop Corp., Case No. 2:23-cv-07197 (C.D. Cal., Aug.
30, 2023), is brought to secure redress against the Defendant for
its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website
to be fully and equally accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.

The Defendant’s denial of full and equal access to its website,
and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby
and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiffs’ rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA") and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act ("UCRA").

The Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Defendant to
enforce Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("Title
III"), which requires, among other things, that a public
accommodation not deny persons with disabilities the benefits of
its services, facilities, privileges and advantages; provide such
persons with benefits that are equal to those provided to
nondisabled persons; provide auxiliary aids and services--including
electronic services for use with a computer screen reading
program--where necessary to ensure effective communication with
individuals with a visual disability, and to ensure that such
persons are not excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise
treated differently than sighted individuals; and utilize
administrative methods, practices, and policies that provide
persons with disabilities equal access to online content.

Because Defendant’s website, www.gamestop.com, (the "Website" or
"Defendant’s website"), is not fully or equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of the ADA, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.

The Defendant is a gaming store that offers the website
www.gamestop.com to the public.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Sibilia, Esq.
          OCEANSIDE LAW CENTER APC
          P.O. Box 861
          Oceanside, CA 92049
          Phone: (760) 666-1151
          Fax: (818) 698-0300


GOLD SHEEP: Faces Wurm Class Suit Over Telephonic Sales Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHARMING WURM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GOLD SHEEP, LLC, Case No. CACE-23-017313 (Fla. Cir.,
Aug. 22, 2023) alleges that the Defendant transmit a phone number
that was not capable of receiving phone calls when it made
Telephonic Sales Calls by text message, in violation of the Caller
ID Rules of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

Specifically, the Defendant transmitted (844) 399-7261 to the
Plaintiff's Cell Phone's caller identification service when it made
the Gold Sheep Text Message Sales Calls. The Plaintiff called (844)
399-7261 and call could not be completed, the Plaintiff claims.

The Plaintiff and the members of the Plaintiff Class are entitled
to $500 in liquidated damages against the Defendant for each
violation of the Caller ID Rules, a declaration that the
Defendant's actions violate the FTSA's Caller ID Rules, and an
injunction requiring the Defendant to transmit to Plaintiffs'
caller identification services a telephone number that is capable
of receiving telephone calls, says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons defined as:

        All persons and entities that reside in Florida whose
        Caller identification service was transmitted a
        telephone number that was not capable of receiving
        telephone calls when Gold Sheep Text Message Sales Calls
        were made to them, since July 1, 2021.

The Plaintiff resides in Broward County, Florida, and is the
regular user of a cellular telephone number that receives
Defendant's telephonic sales calls.

Gold Sheep sells various goods to persons throughout the country,
including Florida, through its online store.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
          Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
          SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
          974 Howard Ave.
          Dunedin, FL 34698
          Telephone: (202)709-5744
          Facsimile: (866)893-0416
          E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com
                  shawn@sjlawcollective.com

GOLDMAN SACHS (ASIA): Dimissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 (Asia) L.L.C. (GS Asia) is among the underwriters named as
defendants in a putative securities class action filed on September
14, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York relating to Waterdrop Inc.'s $360 million May 2021 initial
public offering of ADS.

In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Waterdrop
and certain of its officers and directors. On May 15, 2023, the
court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint with prejudice.

GS Asia underwrote 15,300,000 ADS representing an aggregate
offering price of approximately $184 million. On February 21, 2022,
the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and on February 3, 2023,
the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On March 6, 2023, plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

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: F45 IPO Securities Suit 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 underwriters named as
defendants in an amended complaint for a putative securities class
action filed on May 19, 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas relating to F45 Training Holdings Inc.'s
(F45) approximately $350 million July 2021 initial public offering
of common stock.

In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include F45,
certain of its officers and directors and certain of its
shareholders. GS&Co. acted as a qualified independent underwriter
for the offering and underwrote 8,303,744 shares of common stock
representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $133
million.

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 LLC: Calif. Judge Set to Decertify Google Play Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a U.S. judge
plans to free Google from having to defend against a class action
by 21 million consumers who claimed it violated federal antitrust
law by overcharging them in its Google Play app store.

The Aug. 28 decision by U.S. District Judge James Donato in San
Francisco could significantly reduce damages that Google, a unit of
Alphabet (GOOGL.O), might owe over the distribution of Android
mobile applications.

Consumers claimed they would have paid less for apps and enjoyed
expanded choice but for Google's alleged monopoly. Google has
denied wrongdoing.

Donato said his Nov. 2022 class certification order should be
thrown out because his decision, also announced on Aug. 28, not to
let an economist testify as an expert witness for the consumers
eliminated an "essential element" of their argument for
certification.

The judge said he couldn't decertify the class immediately because
Google had been appealing his November order. He directed lawyers
for Google and the consumers to try resolving that issue before a
Sept. 7 hearing.

The class action included consumers from 12 U.S. states and five
territories, who were not part of a similar case against Google
brought by various state attorneys general.

Class actions let plaintiffs sue as a group, and potentially obtain
larger recoveries at lower cost than if they were forced to sue
individually.

Lawyers for the consumers did not immediately respond to requests
for comment. Google and its lawyers did not immediately respond to
similar requests.

The case is part of wide-ranging antitrust litigation that includes
38 states and the District of Columbia, and companies including
Epic Games and Match Group (MTCH.O).

The case is In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California, No. 21-md-02981.
[GN]

GORES GUGGENHEIM: Breaches Fiduciary Duty, May Class Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY MAY, ELIZABETH MAY, VIRGIL ECOFFEY, and TERRY JANDREAU,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
GORES GUGGENHEIM SPONSOR LLC, ALEC E. GORES, ANDREW M. ROSENFIELD,
MARK R. STONE, ANDREW MCBRIDE, RANDALL BORT, ELIZABETH MARCELLINO,
NANCY TELLEM, AEG HOLDINGS, LLC, GGP SPONSOR HOLDINGS, LLC, and GG
SPONSOR, LLC, Case No. 2023-0863 (Del. Ch., Aug. 22, 2023) is a
verified class action complaint on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all
other similarly situated former stockholders of Gores Guggenheim,
Inc. ("GGI") who were entitled to redeem their shares in connection
with GGI's merger with Legacy Polestar Defendants.

The Plaintiffs assert breach of fiduciary duty claims arising from
the Merger and unjust enrichment claims against all Defendants and
seek monetary and/or rescissory damages against Defendants for
their breaches of fiduciary duty owed to GGI stockholders arising
out of the deprivation of their right to a fully informed decision
whether to redeem their GGI shares or to invest in the Merger.

Alternatively, the action seeks an equitable reopening of the
redemption window for public stockholders who purchased GGI stock,
were entitled to redeem their shares, and continue to hold such
stock, to allow such Polestar stockholders to exchange their GGI
Class A shares (now Polestar shares) for $10 per share, plus
interest.

Plaintiffs Terry May and Elizabeth May have continuously held, and
been the beneficial owners of, GGI stock since June 10, 2022,
including prior to the redemption deadline, and were entitled to
redeem their GGI shares.

Plaintiff Virgil Ecoffey has continuously held, and been the
beneficial owner of, GGI stock since September 29, 2021, including
prior to the redemption deadline, and was entitled to redeem his
GGI shares.

Plaintiff Terry Jandreau has held, and been the beneficial owner
of, GGI stock since November 18, 2021, including prior to the
redemption deadline, and was entitled to redeem his GGI shares.

Defendant Sponsor is a Delaware limited liability company and an
affiliate of The Gores Group, LLC. The Sponsor was incorporated in
2020 and is based in Boulder, Colorado.

The Legacy Polestar Defendants include Automotive Holding Limited,
Polestar Automotive Pte. Ltd., Polestar Holding AB, Polestar
Automotive Holding UK Limited, and PAH UK Merger Sub Inc.,

The Controller Defendants formed GGI, then a Delaware company and
now a foreign company renamed Polestar, as a special purpose
acquisition company. The Controller Defendants took GGI public as a
shell company and subsequently merged it with private company
Legacy Polestar in the Merger.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael J. Barry, Esq.
          Kelly L. Tucker, Esq.
          David Wissbroecker, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          123 Justison Street, 7th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 622-7000
          Facsimile: (302) 622-7100
          E-mail: mbarry@gelaw.com
                  ktucker@gelaw.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          Gregory E. Del Gaizo, Esq.
          Mario D. Valdovinos, Esq.
          Randall J. Baron, Esq.
          Benny C. Goodman III, Esq.
          Erik W. Luedeke, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
           & DOWD LLP
          5060 Shoreham Place, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990

               - and -

          Michael Klausner, Esq.
          559 Nathon Abbott Way
          Stanford, CA 94305
          Telephone: (650) 740-1194
          E-mail: klausner@stanford.edu

HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Zariczny Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Frederick Zariczny, on behalf of himself, all
other similarly situated, and the general public v.
HARLEY-DAVIDSON, INC., a Wisconsin corporation, and DOES 1 through
20, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV12316 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. 30, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-07188.

On behalf of himself and the putative class, Plaintiff asserts
claims for: Strict Products Liability — Design Defect —
Consumer Expectation; Strict Products Liability — Design Defect
— Risk-Benefit; Strict Products Liability — Design Defect —
Failure to Warn; Products Liability — Negligence; Express
Warranty; Implied Warranty of Merchantability; Implied Warranty of
Fitness for Particular Purpose; Unfair Business Practices; and
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Dommond E. Lonnie, Esq.
          Abirami Gnanadesigan, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT LLP
          444 South Flower Street, Suite 2200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 457-1800
          Facsimile: (213) 457-1850
          Email: DLonnie@dykema.com
                 AGnanadesigan@dykema.com


HCA HEALTHCARE: Warren Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Warren, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HCA Healthcare, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00925 (M.D.
Tenn., Aug. 30, 2023), is brought arises out of the Defendant’s
failure to safeguard the Personally Identifiable Information
("PII") and Protected Health Information ("PHI") (together,
"Private Information") of the patients from hospitals and physician
groups that it owned or operated.

The Defendant’s failure to safeguard information resulted in
unauthorized access to its information systems on or around July
2023, and the compromised and unauthorized disclosure of that
Private Information, causing widespread injury and damages to
Plaintiff and the proposed Class members.

As a result of this data breach ("Breach"), the Private Information
of patients at hospitals and medical facilities owned or operated
by Defendant, were stolen and "made available by an unknown and
unauthorized party on an online forum." The list of information
exposed from the breach includes: "Patient name, city, state and
zip code; Patient email, telephone number, date of birth, gender;
and Patient service date, location and next appointment date."

The Defendant’s investigation concluded, "that the list contains
27 million rows of data that includes information for approximately
11 million HCA Healthcare patients." As a result of Defendant’s
failure to safeguard Plaintiff’s and Class members Private
Information, Plaintiff and Class members now face a lifetime risk
of identity theft due to the nature of the information lost, and a
diminution in the value of their private data, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a patient of Grand Strand Medical Center which is
an affected facility listed in Defendant’s Data Security Incident
announcement.

The Defendant is a healthcare organization "comprised of 182
hospitals and 2,300+ sites of care in 20 states and the United
Kingdom."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake G Abbott, Esq.
          Paul Doolittle, Esq.
          POULIN WILLEY & ANASTOPOULO
          32 Ann Street
          Charleston, SC 29403
          Phone: (803) 222-2222
          Email: blake@akimlawfirm.com
                 pauld@akimlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Mark P. Chalos, Esq.
          Kenneth S. Byrd, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &
          BERNSTEIN, LLP
          222 2nd Ave S #1640
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Phone: 615-313-9000
          Email: mchalos@lchb.com
                 kbyrd@lchb.com

               - and -

          Jason L. Lichtman, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLC
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013-1314
          Phone: 212-355-9500
          Email: jlichtman@lchb.com

               - and -

          Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
          Jalle H. Dafa, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLC
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Phone: 415-956-1000
          Email: msobol@lchb.com
                 jdafa@lchb.com


HEILIND ELECTRONICS: Hess Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Iedia Hess, other similarly situated persons employed v. HEILIND
ELECTRONICS, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-07200 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 31,
2023), is brought under the California IWC Wage Order No. 4 or a
substantially similar Wage Order and the California Labor Code as a
result of the Defendants failure to pay minimum wage and overtime
work.

The Plaintiff was told when hired that the position would not
include overtime. However, after she started working for the
Defendant, she was given a workload that could only be completed
with overtime work. She therefore worked longer than usual hours,
including more than 8 hours in a day and more than 40 hours in a
week. the Defendant told the Plaintiff that the company did not pay
overtime and that overtime would be volunteering for the company.
This reflects an intentional and willful failure of the company to
pay wages in compliance with the law.

The Plaintiff was routinely required to present for work about 30
minutes before the official starting time, and was not paid for
working and being available during such times. The Plaintiff
routinely worked overtime, putting in 60 hours per week at times.
Yet, she was only paid for 40 hours of work per week. the Plaintiff
was repeatedly called and required to do work during her unpaid
30-minute meal period, but was not paid for the work performed
during that time nor paid a premium as required by California law
for non-compliance with meal period rules in the Cal. Labor Code
and Industrial Wage Orders. the Defendant not only failed to pay
the overtime rate for overtime hours worked, but failed to pay
anything at all for such hours. In this way the Defendant violated
both the overtime and minimum wage rules, says the complaint.

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

Heilind Electronics is one of the world's leading distributors for
interconnect, electromechanical, and sensor products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HENSEL PHELPS: Trochez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Claudia Trochez, individually, and on behalf of all other aggrieved
employees v. HENSEL PHELPS CONSTRUCTION CO., a Colorado
Corporation; HENSEL PHELPS DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Delaware Company;
HENSEL PHELPS PARENT 1 INC., a Delaware Corporation; HENSEL PHELPS
PARENT 2 INC., a Delaware Corporation; HENSEL PHELPS SERVICES, LLC
a Delaware Company; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV21068
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles cty., Aug. 31, 2023), is brought
seeking penalties under Labor Code for failure to pay minimum wages
and overtime wages.

The Defendants violated various provisions of the California Labor
Code. The Defendants implemented policies and practices which led
to unpaid wages resulting from Defendant's: failure to accurately
pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages; failure to
provide meal periods before the end of the fifth hour worked and
failure to pay an additional hour's of pay in lieu of providing a
meal period before the end of the fifth hour worked; failure to
authorize and permit rest breaks for every four hours or major
fraction thereof worked and failure to pay an additional hour's of
pay in lieu of providing a rest period; failing to pay all wages
earned and owed upon separation from Defendant's employ; and
failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements; knowingly and
intentionally failing to maintain accurate and complete records;
and failure to indemnify for necessary business expenses, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed as General Foreman. Plaintiff's duties
as a General Foreman included making timesheets, work plans,
transporting employees, and ensuring the safety of Printed on
recycled paper.

HENSEL PHELPS DEVELOPMENT, LLC is a Delaware Company operating in
and authorized to conduct business in the State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald W. Makarem, Esq.
          Samuel Almon, Esq.
          Daniel J. Bass, Esq.
          MAKAREM & ASSOCIATES APLC
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2440
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-1760
          Phone: (310) 312-0299
          Fax: (310) 312-0296


HILTON HOTELS: SCOTUS to Take Up Issue of Fail-Safe Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel of Reuters reports that in almost every federal
appellate circuit in the U.S., class action plaintiffs who try to
premise their class definition on a defendant's liability will be
bounced out of court without a backward glance.

That's because most circuits categorically prohibit so-called
fail-safe classes, in which class membership is based on wrongdoing
by the defendant.

The easiest way to understand the concept is by example. In a
securities class action, for instance, a fail-safe class would be
defined as "all investors who were defrauded by Company X." Class
membership, as you can see, rests on the merits of the allegations
against Company X.

The problem with such circular classes is that they leave
defendants open to follow-on litigation. Consider the fail-safe
investor class suing Company X in my example above. Let's say
Company X litigates the class action all the way to a judgment that
it is not liable for fraud.

Great for Company X, right? But not as great as you might think.

That's because, under the fail-safe class definition, the judgment
in favor of Company X means that no Company X investors are
actually class members. And that, in turn, means that no investors,
except for the name plaintiffs in the class action, are bound by
Company X's exoneration.

Despite prevailing on its liability in the class action, Company X
might nevertheless have to fend off a succession of suits by
individual investors who would have been in the class if the
company had been found liable.

For defendants, in other words, fail-safe classes are a lose-lose
proposition, which is why most appellate courts have adopted a
free-standing rule to bar them.

Only two federal circuits have refused to endorse a categorical
prohibition on fail-safe classes: the 5th Circuit, in a 2012 case
involving servicing fees levied against bankrupt mortgage holders,
and the District of Columbia Circuit, in a ruling last April in a
retirement benefits case against Hilton Hotels.

Hilton (HLT.N) has now asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the
issue of fail-safe classes, which it says is of  "exceptional legal
importance."

The hotel chain's lawyers at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett argued in
an Aug. 21 petition for Supreme Court review that unless the
justices resolve the split, prospective class action plaintiffs
will be incentivized to shop for a forum where they can win
certification of a class that, by definition, gives plaintiffs a
second chance to sue defendants who win liability judgments.

The plaintiffs' lawyer in the Hilton retirement benefits case,
Stephen Bruce of the Stephen R. Bruce Law Offices, did not respond
to a phone message requesting comment. Hilton also did not respond
to my query.

I predicted back in April, when I told you about the D.C. Circuit's
ruling, that Hilton might ask for Supreme Court review. I also
said, however, that the appellate judges in Hilton's case --
Patricia Millett, Sri Srinivasan and Harry Edwards – downplayed
the significance of their holding that fail-safe classes are not
categorically prohibited.

Millett's opinion stressed that the federal procedural rule for
class actions, Rule 23, already includes requirements that will
preclude certification of almost every proposed fail-safe class.
She and her colleagues said it was preferable to apply Rule 23 as
written rather than to deploy a free-standing prohibition that is
"textually untethered and potentially disuniform."

That language, I said, might discourage the Supreme Court from
taking the case. But Hilton has offered the justices an alternative
reason to grant review: The D.C. Circuit, it argued, should not
have allowed plaintiffs to appeal the trial court decision denying
class certification because their lawyer failed to seek
interlocutory appeal after two previous rejections.

Hilton's petition asserted that plaintiffs' third bid for class
certification was not materially different than their second
rejected motion. And the third class-certification ruling from U.S.
District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of Washington, D.C., Hilton
said, was not much different than her second decision, which said
the class was impermissibly defined as a fail-safe class.

The D.C. Circuit concluded that plaintiffs hadn't surrendered their
right to seek an interlocutory appeal by waiting until the third
go-round because Kollar-Kotelly had explicitly invited their lawyer
to try to reformulate the class definition. Only in her third
ruling, the appeals court said, did the trial judge definitively
shut the door on further attempts to certify the class, so it would
have been premature for the plaintiffs to appeal before then.

Hilton told the Supreme Court that the D.C. Circuit's analysis is
at odds with decisions from other circuits that have refused to
allow plaintiffs to seek interlocutory appeals based on successive
class certification decisions. Those appellate courts, including
the 3rd, 7th and 9th Circuits, have said that plaintiffs can't be
allowed a new chance at an appeal every time the trial court denies
a renewed motion for class certification.

The 7th Circuit laid down a categorical rule against such appeals
in a 2007 decision, concluding that "the time limit would not be
worth anything if it restarted with each new motion." The 9th
Circuit, in a 2020 ruling, held that class action litigants may
only appeal successive trial court decisions on class certification
when the new ruling materially changes the status quo – by
granting certification after a previous denial, for instance, or by
changing the composition of the class.

Most recently, the 3rd Circuit aligned earlier this month with the
9th Circuit, writing that plaintiffs are allowed to seek
interlocutory class certification appeals "only when the modified
order materially alters the original order granting (or denying)
class certification."

Hilton said that on this issue, as well as the fail-safe class
prohibition, the Supreme Court must step in to be sure that federal
appeals courts are all on the same page.

The justices have been stingy about reviewing class action issues
of late, refusing to resolve a clear circuit split on incentive
fees for lead plaintiffs and to take up the issue of whether
classes can be certified if more than a handful of class members
have not been injured.

We'll see if Hilton can reverse that trend. [GN]

HIMS HEALTH: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hims Health And
Wellness. The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hims Health And
Wellness, Case No. 1:23-cv-07650-AT (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 29, 2023).

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

Hims -- https://www.forhims.com/ -- is a one-stop telehealth
service for men's wellness and care, providing treatment options
for hair loss, ED & more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HOLTGER BROS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Heesacker Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
JACK HEESACKER, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HOLTGER BROS., INC., Defendant, Case No.
23-cv-1134 (E.D. Wis., Aug. 28, 2023) is an action against the
Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
provide meals, and provide accurate wage statements.

Plaintiff Heesacker was employed by the Defendant as a laborer.

HOLTGER BROS., INC. was founded in 1946 and is a family owned and
operated turnkey utility contractor.

          David C. Zoeller, Esq.
          Aaron J. Bibb, Esq.
          HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
          Post Office Box 2155
          Madison, Wisconsin 53701-2155
          Telephone: (608) 257-0040
          Facsimile: (608) 256-0236
          Email: dzoeller@hq-law.com
                 abibb@hq-law.com

HOSPITALITY STAFFING: Faces Data Breach Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Anne Bucher, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that plaintiff
Joshua Cariola filed a class action lawsuit against Hospitality
Staffing Solutions LLC.

Why: The staffing company allegedly failed to implement adequate
safeguards to protect sensitive employee data, leaving it
vulnerable to a cyberattack.

Where: The Hospitality Staffing Solutions lawsuit was filed in
Georgia federal court.

Hospitality Staffing Solutions LLC is facing a class action lawsuit
in the wake of a targeted cyberattack that allegedly compromised
the highly employee data of more than 100,000 employees and former
employees.

The information compromised in the data breach includes personally
identifying information (PII) such as names, addresses, Social
Security numbers, driver's license numbers, and financial account
information, the Hospitality Staffing Solutions lawsuit explains.

Hospitality Staffing Solutions lawsuit says company failed to
adequately protect employee data

Plaintiff Joshua Cariola claims that Hospitality Staffing Solutions
maintained its computer system and network in a manner that left it
vulnerable to cyber attacks and failed to take steps to protect
employees' PII from a potential data breach.

By failing to adequately protect employees' PII, the staffing
company failed to comply with industry standards and with Federal
Trade Commission guidelines for data security practices, Cariola
alleges.

"Armed with the private information accessed in the data breach,
data thieves can commit a variety of crimes" in the putative class
members' names, such as opening bank accounts, taking out loans,
obtaining medical services, filing fraudulent tax returns, and
giving false information to police during arrest, the Hospitality
Staffing Solutions lawsuit says.

As a result, those affected by the Hospitality Staffing Solutions
data breach have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries such
as "loss of time, mitigation expenses, and anxiety" over the
potential misuse of their PII, Cariola alleges.

Plaintiff says he lost time and money due to Hospitality Staffing
Solutions data breach
Cariola says he received a letter from Hospitality Staffing
Solutions dated August 1 informing him about the data breach, in
which unauthorized actors reportedly accessed employees' PII during
a cyberattack between March 2 and June 2.

The letter notified him that he could reach out to the Federal
Trade Commission and/or his state's attorney general for more
information about how to protect himself from identity theft.

On June 22, Cariola says he found out $1,500 had been deducted from
an account that he provided to the staffing company in order to
receive his pay. To date, he says he has not been reimbursed for
this money, and he has spent significant time and money dealing
with the harms posed by the data breach.

The Hospitality Staffing Solutions lawsuit asserts claims for
negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and
breach of fiduciary duty.

Has your personal information been compromised in a data breach?
Tell us what you think about this Hospitality Staffing Solutions
lawsuit in the comments!

Cariola is represented by James M. Evangelista of Evangelista
Worley LLC and Carl V. Malstrom of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
Herz LLC.

The Hospitality Staffing Solutions lawsuit is Joshua Cariola v.
Hospitality Staffing Solutions LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03689-AT, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
Atlanta Division. [GN]

HOT TOPIC: Faces Zuccaro Class Suit Over Fake Limited Time Sales
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMIE ZUCCARO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HOT TOPIC, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-01242-MO (D. Or.,
Aug. 25, 2023) alleges that the Defendant advertises fake sales,
fake list prices, and fake limited time sales, in violation of the
Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act.

By advertising regular list prices and supposedly time-limited
discounts, the Defendant's website creates an illusion that
consumers are receiving a limited-time discount if they buy now. In
truth, however, the Defendant's Products are always on sale, and
these sales persist indefinitely. Everything about the Defendant's
price and purported discount advertising is false. The list prices
Defendant advertises are not actually the Defendant's regular
prices (the prices it usually charges), because the Defendant's
Products are always available for less than that, the Plaintiff
says.

As a result, the Defendant's listed prices are not the Defendant's
true prices, or former prices, or the prevailing market prices for
the Defendant's Products. Nor are its purported price reductions
true price reductions. The Plaintiff and Oregon Subclass members
would not have purchased the Products at the prices they paid, if
they had known that the advertised prices and discounts were false,
the suit asserts.

The Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of herself and the Oregon Subclass,
the greater of statutory damages of $200 or actual damages;
punitive damages; appropriate equitable relief and/or restitution;
and attorneys' fees and costs.

Ms. Zuccaro bought items from the Defendant from its website,
HotTopic.com

Hot Topic makes, sells, and markets clothing and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

IMMUNITYBIO INC: Salzman Suit Over Anti-Tumor Drug Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
ImmunityBio, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 8, 2023, that on June 30, 2023, a putative
securities class action complaint, captioned "Salzman v.
ImmunityBio, Inc. et al.," No. 3:23-cv-01216-BEN-WVG, was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
against the company and three of its officers and/or directors,
asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

Stemming from the company's disclosure on May 11, 2023 that it had
received a Complete Response Letter from the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA CRL) stating, among other things, that it could
not approve the company's (Biologics License Application) BLA for
its product candidate, "Anktiva" in combination with BCG for the
treatment of patients with BCG-unresponsive NMIBC with CIS with or
without Ta or T1 disease, in its present form due to deficiencies
related to its pre-license inspection of the company's third-party
CMOs, the complaint alleges that the defendants had previously made
materially false and misleading statements and/or omitted material
adverse facts regarding its third-party clinical manufacturing
organizations and the prospects for regulatory approval of the
BLA.

ImmunityBio, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company
developing next-generation therapies and vaccines that complement,
harness, and amplify the immune system to defeat cancers and
infectious diseases. We strive to be a vertically-integrated
immunotherapy company designing and manufacturing our products so
they are more effective, accessible, more conveniently stored, and
more easily administered to patients.


INFOCISION INC: Williams Suit Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. INFOCISION INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-01633 (N.D. Ohio,
Aug. 22, 2023) alleges that the Defendant failed to pay its Call
Center Representative and Communicators for all work performed and
for hours worked in excess of 40 per week, in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant does not compensate its
CCRs for all work performed. Instead, the Defendant requires its
CCRs to perform compensable work tasks before their scheduled
shifts when they are not logged into the Defendant's timekeeping
system.

In particular, the Defendant required its CCRs to begin work before
their scheduled shifts and perform several off-the-clock tasks,
including booting up computers, logging into numerous software
programs, and logging into phones. The CCRs only clocked in and
received compensation after this preliminary work was completed,
though they were required to perform this work in order to be
"phone ready" when their scheduled shifts began, the lawsuit
asserts.

Despite its ability to track the amount of time the Plaintiff and
other CCRs spend in connection with the pre-shift boot-up and login
process and technical downtime, the Defendant failed to pay the
Plaintiff and other CCRs for the off-the-clock work they performed
each shift, thus breaching its contracts  with its CCRs, the
lawsuit alleges.

The CCRs who elect to participate in this FLSA collective action
seek compensation for all off-the-clock, pre-shift work performed
for the Defendant, and for all hours worked in excess of 40 per
week, an equal amount for liquidated damages, prejudgment interest,
and attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiff Angela Williams worked for the Defendant as an hourly
remote CCR from October 2021 until August 2023.

The Defendant provides a full spectrum of direct marketing
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

INSURANCE CORP: Customer Sues Over Third-Party Rebate Coverage
--------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Lazaruk, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that an ICBC
customer has launched a class-action lawsuit for a rebate of
third-party liability premiums paid for out-of-province coverage
during the period British Columbians couldn't leave the province
because of the COVID lockdown.

The Insurance Corp. of B.C. was negligent and "unjustly enriched"
itself by collecting those premiums for out-of-province coverage
for May 1, 2021, to July 1, 2021, according to the lawsuit filed in
B.C. Supreme Court. The insurer "caused the plaintiff and the
proceeding class to pay to ICBC for an insurance product which did
not exist," alleged the lawsuit, filed on behalf of 2.5 million
insured drivers.

The lawsuit has to be certified as a class action by the courts
before it can proceed.

ICBC has yet to file its response, but in an emailed statement said
it's "simply untrue" there were no liability risks for B.C. drivers
during those two months. B.C. law requires drivers to carry
third-party liability coverage, it added.

The representative plaintiff, Erik Watson-Hurthig of Vancouver,
wants ICBC to return the $40 he paid for third-party premiums for
those two months, beginning when ICBC introduced no-fault insurance
on May 1, 2021, and ending with the return of non-essential travel,
on July 1, 2021.

Under B.C.'s no-fault insurance, B.C. drivers no longer require
third-party liability insurance to protect themselves from being
sued for causing an accident against another B.C. driver because
B.C.-insured drivers can no longer sue one another.

But third-party insurance is still necessary when British
Columbians drive in some U.S. states and other parts of Canada
where the possibility of lawsuits continue, or for the possibility
the driver damages property other than another vehicle in or out of
B.C.

Mandatory basic insurance for B.C. drivers includes a minimum of
$200,000 in third-party liability and extended coverage up to $5
million is optional for a higher premium.

Watson-Hurthig paid $220 in 2021 for 12 months of third-party
liability coverage, or about $20 a month, his lawyer, Nathan
McQuarrie said in an email.

The claim said non-essential travel was restricted in B.C. from
March 19, 2020, until June 15, 2021, by ministerial orders and that
from June 15, 2021, to July 1, 2021, "recreational travel outside
B.C. was not permitted." It said travel restrictions were also
imposed by the Canadian and U.S. governments.

"As a result of the travel restrictions during the restricted
period, ICBC was charging premiums for third-party liability
coverage that could not be used by any ICBC insureds during the
restricted period," the claim says.

The claim said Watson-Hurthig expected ICBC to refund that portion
of his premiums, but a year later, in May 2022, "no such rebate
arrived."

"The plaintiff did not need to pay the premiums as there existed no
reason to maintain third-party coverage during the period in which
he could not leave the territorial boundaries of British Columbia,"
it said. "However, ICBC charged the plaintiff premiums for
third-party liability coverage for bodily injury and property
damage, when it was impossible for the plaintiff to be liable for
third-party damages under B.C.'s no-fault regime."

McQuarrie said there are 2.5 million potential class members based
on B.C. residents who paid premiums for those two months and did
not operate a vehicle outside of B.C. between May 1, 2021, and July
1, 2021.

The claim said in addition to a rebate for the premiums paid, which
would vary for individual drivers depending on their age and
driving record and if they opted for extended coverage, it was
seeking damages for ICBC's alleged negligence and breach of
contract as well as punitive damages. McQuarrie said those amounts
can vary.

ICBC said in its email it issued two rebates for a total of $950
million to drivers to offset the reduction of risks caused by the
COVID-19 pandemic, including travel restrictions.

And there were times when some B.C. drivers were allowed to leave
the province in their vehicles during the pandemic and they would
have needed third-party liability coverage for those trips, it
said. [GN]

INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Sued Over Faulty System
--------------------------------------------
Interactive Brokers 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 8, 2023, that it is facing a class
action filed on December 18, 2015, where a former individual
customer filed a purported complaint against IB LLC, IBG, Inc., and
Thomas Frank, Ph.D., the company's Executive Vice President and
Chief Information Officer, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut.

The complaint alleges that a purported class of IB LLC's customers
were harmed by alleged "flaws" in the computerized system used to
close out (i.e., liquidate) positions in customer brokerage
accounts that have margin deficiencies. The complaint seeks, among
other things, undefined compensatory damages and declaratory and
injunctive relief.

On September 28, 2016, the District Court issued an order granting
the company's motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, and
without providing plaintiff leave to amend. On September 28, 2017,
the plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit. On September 26, 2018, the Court of Appeals
affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's claims of breach of contract
and commercially unreasonable liquidation but vacated and remanded
back to the District Court plaintiff's claims for negligence. On
November 30, 2018, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint.
The company filed a motion to dismiss the new complaint on January
11, 2019, which was denied on September 30, 2019.

On December 9, 2019, the company filed a motion requesting that the
District Court certify to the Connecticut Supreme Court two
questions of Connecticut law directly relevant to the motion to
dismiss. The Court denied the company's motion to certify on May
15, 2020. The plaintiff served a motion for class certification on
March 18, 2022. The motion is now fully briefed. The court has not
yet set a date for oral argument. On March 25, 2022, the plaintiff
also filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint, which was
granted on July 5, 2022. The plaintiff filed his third amended
complaint on July 14, 2022. The company's answer was filed on July
26, 2022.

Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. is a Delaware holding company whose
primary asset is its ownership of approximately 24.8% of the
membership interests of IBG LLC, which, in turn, owns operating
subsidiaries. IBG, Inc. together with IBG LLC and its consolidated
subsidiaries, is an automated global electronic broker specializing
in executing and clearing trades in stocks, options, futures,
foreign exchange instruments, bonds, mutual funds exchange-traded
funds and precious metals on more than 150 electronic exchanges and
market centers around the world and offering custody, prime
brokerage, securities and margin lending services to customers.


KAISER FOUNDATION: Mercado Sues Over Unpaid Proper Compensations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bert Mercado, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved
Employees v. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, a Nonprofit Corporation,
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV20894 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 30, 2023), is brought pursuant to the
California Labor Code as a result of the Defendants failure to pay
the Plaintiff proper compensations.

The Defendants failed to provide employment records in violation of
Labor Code; failed to pay overtime and double time in violation of
Labor Code and the applicable Wage Orders; failed to provide rest
and meal periods in violation of Labor Code, and the applicable
Wage Orders; failed to pay minimum wage in violation of Labor Code,
and the applicable Wage Orders; failed to keep accurate payroll
records and provide itemized wage statements in violation of Labor
Code, and the applicable Wage Orders, failed to pay reporting time
wages in violation of California Code of Regulations, Title 8;
failed to pay split shift wages in violation of California Code of
Regulations failed to pay all wages earned on time in violation of
Labor Code; failed to pay all wages earned upon discharge or
resignation in violation of Labor Code; failed to reimburse
necessary, business related expenses in violation of Labor Code;
failed to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual in violation
of Labor Code; employers, and individuals acting on behalf of
employers, violating or causing to be violated a section of the
Labor Code or any Wage Order in violation of Labor Code, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants with the job title of
Registered Nurse on May 5, 2008.

Kaiser Foundation Hospitals is a Nonprofit Corporation, licensed to
do business and actually doing business in the State of
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
          Melissa Robinson, Esq.
          HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
          801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Phone: 1-818-696-2306
          Facsimile: 1-818-696-2307
          Email: haig@hbklawyers.com
                 melissa@hbklawyers.com


KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kandi Technologies 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 8, 2023, that a motion to dismiss was
granted in part and denied in part in September 2022. Discovery is
ongoing as to the remaining claims and defendants.

This is in regards to a June 2020 putative securities class action
was filed against Kandi and certain of its current and former
directors and officers in California federal court. This action was
transferred to the New York federal court in September 2020, Kandi
moved to dismiss in March 2021, and that motion was granted in
October 2021. The plaintiff in this case subsequently filed an
amended complaint, Kandi moved to dismiss that complaint in January
2022.

Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. is a producer and manufacturer of
electric vehicle products, EV parts, and off-road vehicles for sale
in the Chinese and the global markets. It is headquartered in
Jinhua City, Zhejiang Province, People's Republic of China and
conducts its primary business operations through its wholly-owned
subsidiaries, Zhejiang Kandi Vehicles Co., Ltd. and SC Autosports,
LLC and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Kandi America Investment,
LLC.


KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks Dismissal of Shareholder Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Kandi Technologies 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 8, 2023, that it moved to dismiss a
December 2020 putative securities class action filed against Kandi
and certain of its current officers in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.in February 2022. Said
motion remains pending.

The complaint generally alleges violations of the federal
securities laws based on claims made in a report issued by
Hindenburg Research in November 2020, and seeks damages on behalf
of a putative class of shareholders who purchased or acquired
Kandi’s securities prior to March 15, 2019.

Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. is a producer and manufacturer of
electric vehicle products, EV parts, and off-road vehicles for sale
in the Chinese and the global markets. It is headquartered in
Jinhua City, Zhejiang Province, People's Republic of China and
conducts its primary business operations through its wholly-owned
subsidiaries, Zhejiang Kandi Vehicles Co., Ltd. and SC Autosports,
LLC and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Kandi America Investment,
LLC.


KANKAKEE HOSPITALITY: Karnes Files Rule 23 Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERICA KARNES, on behalf of
herself and all similarly situated individuals, v. KANKAKEE
HOSPITALITY, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No.
2:22-cv-02253-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff files motion for
Rule 23 Class Certification.

The proposed classes are ascertainable, sufficiently numerous, and
satisfy commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements of Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(a), and otherwise satisfy the predominance and
superiority requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), the Plaintiff
contends.

Within the past 5 years Defendant has required at least 195 of its
employees, including Plaintiff, to scan their fingers on a Timeco
Systems biometric timekeeping device ("Timeco device") for the
purpose of monitoring and maintaining the amount of time worked by
these individuals.

However, prior to collecting, using, possessing, and/or obtaining
this biometric information and/or biometric identifiers
(biometrics), the Defendant failed to first obtain written consent
from Plaintiff and all other employees who were required to scan
their fingerprints on the Timeco device.

The Complaint alleges that Defendant committed violations of
Illinois law under the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act.

The Defendant operates the Hilton Garden Inn - a hotel located in
Kankakee, Illinois.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 15, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OUZPVf at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan Richards, Esq.
          USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS -
          JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
          1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 871-0050
          E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  natalie@usaemploymentlawyers.com
                  lawclerk@usaemploymentlawyers.co

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew L. Mcbride III, Esq.
          161 N. Clark, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (847) 394-3300
          E-mail: mmcbride@mcbridelawpc.com

KERN COUNTY, CA: Parties May Amend Settlement Deal in T.G. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as T.G. et al., v. KERN
COUNTY, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00257-CDB (E.D. Cal.), the Court
entered an order on stipulated request to amended final approval
order and modify settlement agreement as follows:

  -- The Court grants the parties' stipulated request to modify the

     class action settlement agreement to the extent of
incorporating
     the Second Addendum and the set extended timetable.

  -- Likewise, the Court finds that the settlement agreement
remains
     fundamentally fair, adequate and reasonable, with the
     incorporation of the parties' proposed amendment.

The case involves a governmental participant, and implementation of
the Schools Plan is a vital component of the injunctive relief
sought by the Plaintiffs.

On June 5, 2020, the Court granted final approval of the parties'
proposed class action settlements and granted Plaintiffs' motion
for fees and costs.

On June 5, 2020, the Court granted final approval of the parties'
proposed class action settlements and granted Plaintiffs' motion
for fees and costs.

Kern is a county located in the U.S. state of California and spans
the southern end of the Central Valley.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47VLVe7 at no extra charge.[CC]

LEBANON VALLEY: Fails to Refund Tuition Fees, Alunni Says
---------------------------------------------------------
DOMINIC ALUNNI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LEBANON VALLEY COLLEGE, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-01424-CCC (M.D. Pa., Aug. 25, 2023) is a class action for
damages and restitution resulting from the Defendant's retention of
the tuition and fees paid by the Plaintiff and the other putative
Class members for in-person education and services not being
provided.

According to the complaint, on March 2020, in response to the
outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the virus that causes the
COVID-19 disease, the Defendant, like many other colleges and
universities, transitioned to remote online-only education,
canceled on-campus recreational events, canceled student activity
events, and ordered students to refrain from going on campus. As a
result, all on-campus education, services, and amenities were no
longer available to Defendant's students for the remainder of the
Spring 2020 semester. Accordingly, the Defendant's students lost
the benefits of the bargain for services and the experience they
paid for but could no longer access or use following the school’s
transition to remote learning in March 2020, says the suit.

By not giving prorated refunds for tuition or fees charged for
on-campus education and services not provided, the Defendant
breached its contracts with its students or was otherwise unjustly
enriched. It is unfair and unlawful for the Defendant to retain
tuition and fees for campus-based in-person education and services
not being provided and to pass the financial losses on to its
students, the suit asserts.

LEBANON VALLEY COLLEGE is a private college founded in 1866. LVC is
composed of three colleges that offer dozens of major fields for
undergraduate students, as well as a number of graduate programs.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MARATHON PETROLEUM: Law Firm to File Class Suit After Refinery Fire
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Swanson, writing for WDSU News, reports that a local law firm
is drafting a class-action suit against Marathon. Attorneys with
Wright and Gray say they have received at least 50 calls after the
refinery fire in Garyville. There is also a leak of the toxic
chemical naphtha.

"We have heard several people say that they're starting to have
some respiratory issues and issues with their eyes and things of
that nature. All of the stuff that comes with a chemical exposure,"
said attorney Daryl Gray.

His firm is trying to determine the legal exposure for Marathon
after a chemical leak and large fire sent black smoke plumes into
the air.

Gray says with cases like this it's better to take action sooner
rather than later

"Legal action needs to take place quickly, because you want to
preserve whatever evidence is out there to make sure we can tell
the full story," Gray said.

Beyond health concerns, Gray says the fire impacted people's
livelihoods with evacuations and closures near the refinery for
several hours.

"Whenever you have a situation like this that requires evacuation
and or area to be shut down, you're going to have concerns from
business owners in the area losing profits."

The firm is still on a fact-finding mission for now to get to the
bottom of how the fire started and if it was preventable.

"We don't know what brought this whole situation about, but it
comes from some form of negligence," Gray said.

His firm is working on a petition for damages that should be filed
in the coming days.

Officials from Marathon maintain there were no off-site impacts
from the fire. We reached out to them about the potential legal
action. So far the company has not responded. [GN]

MAXIMUS INC: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Valiente Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Heriberto Valiente, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Maximus, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-23281 (S.D.
Fla, Aug. 27, 2023) alleges that the Defendant failed to protect
the personally identifiable information and personal health
information from unauthorized access by cybercriminals on June 12,
2023.

The PII and PHI included first and last names, addresses, account
numbers, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, medical
information, such as medical treatments, provider name, dates of
service, diagnosis/procedures, account or record numbers, health
insurance information, and/or prescriptions.

Though promptly aware of this breach, the Defendant only notified
the Plaintiff of the Data Breach in a letter dated August 11, 2023.
According to the Breach Notice, the unauthorized access was the
result of using MOVEit Transfer, a third-party software
application. By allowing their PII and PHI to be compromised, the
Plaintiff, on behalf of his children, was deprived of the full
monetary value of their information in connection with their
relationship with the Defendant, the suit asserts.

The Plaintiff, Plaintiff's children and the Class suffered and will
continue to suffer damages including loss of their information and
loss of money and costs incurred because of increased risk of
identity theft.

The Plaintiff was a beneficiary of any relationship between the
vendors and the Defendant.

Maximus provides administrative and healthcare services to the
Florida Healthy Kids Corporation to support Florida's health
insurance program for children.[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

MEXICAN BISTRO: Suries Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
----------------------------------------------------------
FANCISCO SURIEL, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. MEXICAN BISTRO CORP. d/b/a LA CATRINA MEXICAN BISTRO, LA CATRINA
MEXICAN GRILL CORP. d/b/a LA CATRINA MEXICAN BISTRO, and ANGEL
TEJADA, individually, Case No. 1:23-cv-07600 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 27,
2023) alleges that the Defendants fail to pay minimum and overtime
wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
Labor Law.

From May 2021 to November 2021, the Plaintiff worked 45 hours per
week, and was paid $240 per week. This salary was not inclusive of
overtime hours worked. Rather, the Plaintiff was only paid for the
first 40 hours that he worked, says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks all unpaid wages, unlawfully retained tips, pre
and post judgment interest, liquidated damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, and all other appropriate legal and
equitable relief.

The Plaintiff also brings this action against Angel Tejada for
engaging in retaliatory behavior against the Plaintiff under the
FLSA and the NYLL.

The Plaintiff commenced his employment with the Defendants on May
4, 2021.

La Catrina is a Mexican restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
          225 Broadway, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 323-6980

MIDVALE INDEMNITY: 7th Circuit Affirms Class Action Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin Law Journal reports that on Aug. 22, 2023, the 7th
Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the case styled
Alp Baysal v. Midvale Indemnity Company.

Midvale implemented an "instant quote" feature on their websites,
allowing individuals to receive quick auto insurance quotes upon
providing basic identification details. The system automatically
filled in certain data, including the applicant's driver's license
number. Interestingly, by inputting a stranger's name and home
address, one could trigger the form to unveil the driver's license
number of that unrelated individual. Due to suspicious activities
implying misuse, Midvale halted the autofill function and informed
those whose information had been inappropriately exposed. In
response, three individuals who had received these notifications
initiated a class action lawsuit under the Driver's Privacy
Protection Act, denoted as 18 U.S.C. 2721–25.

The district court determined that the plaintiffs lacked standing
due to their inability to demonstrate a concrete harm resulting
from the disclosure, and this absence of harm could not be linked
to the exposure itself. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld
this decision, noting that even the applicability of the Act in
this context is dubious. The Act's main provisions are aimed
primarily at state officials rather than private entities.
Moreover, a driver's license number is not inherently invasive or
potentially embarrassing; it represents a neutral piece of
information sourced from public records. This detail is commonly
known to numerous private actors and is willingly shared with
banks, insurers, hotels, and similar entities. The plaintiffs have
not convincingly alleged that Midvale's revelation of their
driver's license numbers led to any form of harm. Additionally, the
release of a number commonly used by both public and private
entities does not align with any established legal tort.

Affirmed.

Decided 08/22/23

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Alp Baysal v. Midvale Indemnity Company

Case No.: 22-1892

Officials: Sykes, Chief Judge, and Easterbrook and Ripple, Circuit
Judges.

Focus: Driver's Privacy Protection Act-Class Action [GN]

MIDVALE INDEMNITY: Dismissal Ruling in Privacy Suit Discussed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP disclosed that on August 22, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the
dismissal of a proposed class action alleging that defendant
insurance companies leaked the plaintiffs' drivers license numbers,
holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue the insurance
companies.

In a split decision, the majority opinion held that plaintiffs
failed to establish standing to bring a lawsuit under the Driver's
Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) based on the unauthorized disclosure
of their driver's license numbers through a form on defendant's
website. The majority held that plaintiffs failed to allege a
concrete injury, writing that allegations that plaintiffs are
worried about future identity theft stemming from the disclosure
are insufficient for standing, focusing on legitimate reasons why
driver's license numbers are commonly exposed to third-parties.

The majority further held that plaintiffs failed to allege that
false unemployment benefit applications submitted in their name
were traceable to the disclosure of their driver's license number,
dooming their standing claim. In a dissent, Judge Kenneth Ripple
disagreed with the majority's conclusion that plaintiffs failed to
make sufficient allegations to justify standing, reasoning that the
DPPA contemplates a private right of action for the types of harms
suffered by the plaintiffs and that plaintiffs adequately alleged
that they suffered harm from false unemployment benefit
applications submitted as a result of the driver's license number
leak.

The case is styled ALP BAYSAL, THOMAS MAXIM, and SANDRA ITALIANO v.
MIDVALE INDEMNITY COMPANY and AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, S.I.

A copy of the ruling is available at:
https://buckleyfirm.com/sites/default/files/InfoBytes%20-%207th%20Circuit%20affirms%20dismissal%20of%20proposed%20Driver%E2%80%99s%20Privacy%20Protection%20Act%20class%20action%202023.08.24.pdf
[GN]

MIDVALE INDEMNITY: Maurice Wutscher Discusses Privacy Suit Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Miller, Esq., of Maurice Wutscher LLP, in an article for
Lexology, disclosed that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit recently affirmed a trial court's dismissal of a purported
data leak class action alleging unauthorized disclosure of driver's
license numbers. In so ruling, the Court held that the plaintiffs
did not demonstrate a concrete injury traceable to the disclosure
of their driver's license numbers, and therefore lacked Article III
standing.

The case is Baysal v. Midvale Indemnity Company

An auto insurance company created an "instant quote" feature on
their websites. Anyone who supplied basic identifying information
could receive a quote for auto insurance. Each site would autofill
some information, including the number of the applicant's driver's
license. Anyone could enter a stranger's name and home address,
which caused the form to disclose the number of the stranger's
driver's license.

The insurer discontinued the autofill feature after observing
unusual activity suggesting misuse and notified people whose
information had been disclosed improperly. Three consumers who
received the insurer's notice filed a purported class action under
the federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), 18 U.S.C.
2721–25.

The trial court held that the consumers lacked standing, having
failed to show a concrete injury traceable to the disclosure.

On appeal, the consumers contended that the disclosure injured them
by causing worry and anxiety, which led to other steps, such as
paying for credit monitoring. However, the Seventh Circuit held
that worry and anxiety are not the kind of concrete injury
essential for Article III standing. See Wadsworth v. Kross,
Lieberman & Stone, Inc., 12 F.4th 665, 668–69 (7th Cir. 2021).
Additionally, the Court noted that the expense of credit-monitoring
did not stem from the asserted wrong because a driver's license
number cannot be used to obtain credit in someone else's name. See
Amnesty International USA, 568 U.S. 398, 416 (2013).

The consumers also alleged that bogus unemployment insurance claims
were filed in New York in the names of two of them, but the Seventh
Circuit observed that the complaint was silent on what harm came
from the purported insurance claims or how knowledge of a driver's
license number could facilitate this kind of fraud. A suit fails
for lack of standing unless the complaint plausibly alleges
concrete injury caused by the asserted wrong. See, e.g., Department
of Education v. Brown, 143 S. Ct. 2343 (2023). Here, the Court held
that the complaint did not do so.

In response, the consumers maintained that a violation of the DPPA
is enough by itself to establish standing because Congress provided
for an award of "liquidated damages" when actual damages cannot be
shown. 18 U.S.C. §2724(b)(1). However, the Seventh Circuit held
that this line of argument is incompatible with TransUnion LLC v.
Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021), and Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578
U.S. 330 (2016).

Specifically, Spokeo and TransUnion rejected the proposition that
Congress can create standing just by requiring payment in the
absence of an injury. Nevertheless, the Court pointed out that
these decisions did mandate that courts should respect a
legislative determination that concrete harms need remedies. The
DPPA here does not identify any particular compensable harm, so the
Court noted that TransUnion and Spokeo say that, in this situation,
courts should inquire whether what the plaintiff asserts as an
injury has a historical or common-law analog.

The Seventh Circuit could not identify any states that make
disclosure of a driver's license number tortious and remarked that
the consumers could not either. The Court reasoned that this is
because a driver's license number is not potentially embarrassing
or an intrusion on seclusion; it is a neutral fact derived from a
public records system, a fact legitimately known to many private
actors and freely revealed to banks, insurers, hotels, and others.

Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit concluded that the consumers did
not plausibly allege that the insurer's disclosure of their
driver's license numbers caused them any injury, and the disclosure
of a number in common use by both public and private actors does
not correspond to any tort. Thus, the Court affirmed the trial
court's dismissal of the consumers' claims for lack of standing.
[GN]

MORENITA FRUIT: Romero Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
ARACELI VAZQUEZ ROMERO, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. LA MORENITA FRUIT MARKET CORP (D/B/A LA
GUADALUPE FRUITS & VEGETABLES), GABINO ARTURO RAMOS, and PAMELA
RAMOS MEJIA, Case No. 1:23-cv-06300 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 22, 2023) seeks
to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law as well as seeks
"spread of hours" pay for any day in which Plaintiff had to work
over 10 hours a day, pursuant to the "Spread of Hours Wage Order",
including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants maintained a policy and
practice of requiring the Plaintiff Vazquez and other employees to
work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum
wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law
and regulations.

Plaintiff Vazquez's pay did not vary even when she was required to
stay later or work a longer day than her usual schedule. For
example, starting in May 2022, the Defendants required the
Plaintiff Vazquez to work up to an additional 4 hours past her
scheduled departure time two times a month and did not pay her for
the additional time she worked. The Defendants also never granted
Plaintiff Vazquez any breaks or meal periods of any kind, the suit
says.

Plaintiff Vazquez seeks certification of this action as a
collective action on behalf of herself, individually, and all other
similarly situated employees and former employees of the Defendants
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

Plaintiff Vazquez was employed by the Defendants at La Guadalupe
Fruit & Vegetable from March 2022 until May 24, 2023.

La Morenita is a mini market located in the neighborhood of Sunset
Park, Brooklyn.[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

MURPHY OIL: Customers File Class Action Over Gas Overcharges
------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that
consumers recently filed class action lawsuits against Murphy Oil
USA, Speedway LLC, Love's Travel Stops & Country Stores and Fred
Meyer Stores.

Why: The Murphy Oil, Speedway and Love's lawsuits claim the trio
knowingly overcharges drivers who purchase premium motor fuel at
their gas stations. Fred Meyer is accused of failing to refund
customers who use a debit card to prepay for more gas than they end
up pumping into their vehicles.

Where: The gas station class action lawsuits affect consumers
nationwide.

Consumers recently targeted gas station companies with class action
lawsuits, claiming they are not getting the benefit of their
bargain at the pump.

The consumers claim individuals who purchase premium gasoline end
up with residual amounts of regular gas as part of the first gallon
pumped into their vehicles due to a single-nozzle fuel dispensing
system.

The gas station companies are accused of not only knowing they
overcharge their customers, but actively choosing not to issue them
refunds despite there being no law in place saying they cannot.

Murphy Oil knowingly overcharges drivers who purchase premium fuel,
class action says
A consumer filed a class action lawsuit against Murphy Oil USA in
June, arguing drivers who purchase premium fuel at the company's
gas stations receive a "significant" amount of regular or mid-grade
gas as part of their first gallon pumped.

The consumer claims Murphy Oil uses a single-nozzle fuel dispensing
system for its gas pumps that he argues retains a residual amount
of motor fuel after each completed pump, which is then passed onto
the next driver.

"Premium customers regularly paid the premium price for the first
gallon of motor fuel for which they did not receive a gallon of
premium motor fuel in return," the Murphy Oil class action states.


Murphy Oil is accused of knowing it allegedly overcharges its
customers and making an active choice not to issue them refunds
despite no laws allegedly preventing them from doing so.

Speedway knowingly overcharges premium gasoline purchasers, class
action says
A consumer filed a class action lawsuit against Speedway in June,
arguing the company overcharged drivers from 36 states who
purchased premium motor fuel from its gas stations.

The consumer claims drivers who purchase premium motor fuel from
Speedway gas stations on a pump someone used right before them to
purchase regular or mid-grade gas typically receive about one-third
of a gallon of the lesser-grade gas as part of the first gallon.

Speedway is accused of knowing it allegedly overcharges drivers who
purchase premium motor fuel but actively choosing not to refund
them for the difference despite no law existing saying they cannot.


"Speedway has made a business decision to retain the overcharge as
a profit as opposed to refunding the same to premium customers,"
the Speedway class action states.

Love's overcharges customers who purchase premium gasoline, class
action says
A consumer filed a class action lawsuit against Love's Travel Stops
& Country Stores in June, arguing the company overcharges customers
who purchase premium motor fuel at its gas stations.

Love's is accused of using a single-nozzle fuel system for its gas
pumps that allegedly causes them to retain a significant amount of
motor fuel at the end of each pump, causing the following driver to
allegedly get the excess as part of their first gallon.

The consumer argues that around 70% of drivers fill up with regular
or mid-grade fuel, meaning those who purchase premium gasoline
often end up receiving the lesser-grade fuel as part of their first
gallon.

"Premium customers, therefore, regularly paid the premium motor
fuel price for a gallon that contained a significant amount of
lower-grade motor fuel," the Love's class action states.

Fred Meyer fails to refund customers who prepay for more gas than
they pump, class action claims
In other news involving a gas station, a consumer filed a class
action lawsuit Fred Meyer Stores earlier in August, arguing it
fails to refund gas station customers who use a debit card to
prepay for gas and then pump less than they paid for.

Fred Meyer is accused of telling its customers they will receive a
credit back to their account for any fuel they prepaid for that
does not end up being pumped but failing to actually do so.

In addition, the consumer behind the complaint argues they also
received a double charge on their debit card account on more than
one occasion after prepaying for gasoline at a Fred Meyer gas
station.

"Fred Meyer's actions in retaining the value of Mr. Shields' and
putative class members' unpumped gasoline and double charges for
gasoline were and are capable of deceiving a substantial portion of
the public," the Fred Meyer class action states. [GN]


MY HERO DELI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Castro Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
ELVIN CASTRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MY HERO DELI, INC.; DOMINICK FARESE; and
ANTHONY FARESE, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-06398 (E.D.N.Y., Aug.
27, 2023) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay
minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals, and provide
accurate wage statements.

Plaintiff Castro was employed by the Defendants as a staff.

is a retail establishment selling prepared foods, located at North
Merrick, County of Nassau and State of New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Gary Rosen, Esq.
           ROSEN LAW LLC
           216 Lakeville Road
           Great Neck, NY 11020
           Telephone: (516) 437-3400
           Email: grosen@rosenlawllc.com

NEW YORK TIMES: Attorneys' Fee Award Delays Settlement Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq., and Katelynn Gray, Esq., of Duane
Morris, disclosed that in Moses v. N.Y. Times Co., No. 21-2556,
2023 WL 5281138 (2d Cir. Aug. 17, 2023), Objector-Appellant Eric
Isaacson ("Isaacson") was successful in appealing an order of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York approving
a class action settlement, and attorneys' fee award, and an
incentive award in a class action against the New York Times (the
"NYT") alleging violations of California's Automatic Renewal Law.
The Second Circuit's opinion is a case study for corporate counsel
on the attributes of class action settlements that courts are apt
to reject during the approval process.

Background Of The Case

Plaintiff Maribel Moses ("Moses") brought a class action on behalf
of similarly-situated subscribers in California against the NYT
alleging it violated the California Automatic Renewal Law ("ARL")
by enrolling consumers who sign up for a NYT subscription, either
through its website or the App, in a renewing subscription without
providing the requisite disclosures and authorizations.

The parties engaged in informal discovery and mediation right off
the bat and reached an agreement which settled the claims of
876,606 persons. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, NYT
agreed to implement business reforms to comply with the ARL, and to
provide class members with Access Codes valid for a one-month free
subscription to a NYT product, or a pro rata cash payment. A $1.65
million non-reversionary settlement fund was established to pay all
approved claims, attorneys' fees of up to $1.25 million, and a
court-approved incentive award to Moses of up to $5,000.

The district court preliminarily approved the settlement agreement
on May 12, 2021 and conditionally certified the class for
settlement purposes. Of the 876,606 persons, three class members,
including Isaacson, objected to the settlement. Isaacson's
arguments were focused on the fairness of the settlement, the
attorneys' fees calculation, and the lawfulness of the incentive
award. In approving the settlement, the district court applied a
presumption of fairness standard and found it was reached in
"arm's-length negotiation between experienced, capable counsel . .
. after a nine-hour mediation before a neutral third party." Id. at
8. The district court further found the relief afforded to the
class was "commensurate with the harm alleged" and that the
incentive award was appropriate under Second Circuit precedent. Id.
at 9. With respect to the proposed attorneys' fee award, the
district court found the Access Codes were not coupons under the
Class Action Fairness Act's ("CAFA") coupon settlement provisions,
which includes various restrictions on the award of attorneys'
fees. Instead, the district court looked to the value of the entire
settlement in determining whether the award was appropriate and
ruled that given its face value of $5,563,000, $1.25 million in
attorneys' fees (22.5% of the total face value of the settlement)
was reasonable. The attorneys' fee award constituted 76% of the
$1.65 million settlement fund.

Isaacson appealed the judgement to the Second Circuit.

Second Circuit's Decision To Vacate The District Court's Judgment

In vacating the district court's judgement, a three-judge panel of
the Second Circuit agreed with Isaacson that the district court
applied the wrong legal standard when it approved the proposed
settlement and wrongly concluded that the Access Codes were not
"coupons" under the CAFA.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) requires court approval when
settling claims of a certified class and provides that a district
court may only approve a class-wide settlement after a hearing and
only on finding that it is "fair, reasonable, and adequate."
Acknowledging the nine factors historically used to evaluate the
fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of a class settlement, and
without displacing them, the panel pointed to the 2018 revisions to
Rule 23(e)(2), which include a list of four considerations district
courts must evaluate, one of which is whether the "proposal was
negotiated at arm's length." The inclusion of this factor, the
panel held, "prohibit courts from applying a presumption of
fairness to proposed settlements arising from an arms-length
agreement." Id. at 13. Instead, the panel explained, courts must
consider all four factors outlined in Rule 23(e)(2) "holistically,"
which includes, among other considerations, taking into account the
terms of any proposed award of attorney's fees. Id.

Isaacson argued, and the panel agreed, that the district court
erred when it presumed the proposed settlement was fair because it
was reached in an arm's-length negotiation, and further abused its
discretion when it failed to evaluate such fairness in light of the
attorneys' fee and incentive awards. Notably, the panel opined "the
error does not automatically require the reversal of the
settlement's approval", and that it is "possible" the district
court's errors could be "harmless." Id. at 22. In this case
however, the panel found the error could not be "written off as
harmless" given the fee awards were "intimately intertwined with
the settlement." Id. at 22-23. In fact, the panel pointed out that
the amount of attorneys' fees and incentive payment awarded
directly impacted the amount of funds available for pro rata
distribution to class members. As such, the district court was
required to consider these fees, not just separately, but together
with the other requisite considerations.

With respect to the attorneys' fee award, the panel agreed with
Isaacson that the Access Codes were coupons "under the plain
meaning of the word," i.e., digital vouchers provided to class
members valid only for "select products or services." Id. at 29,
32. The fact that the class members had the option to take cash
relief was not of import, the panel found. As such, since the
Access Codes were coupons, the district court was required to apply
the CAFA's coupon settlement provisions when calculating the
attorneys' fee awards, which looks to the redemption value of the
coupons, as opposed to the face value of the settlement. On remand,
the panel said the district court must evaluate the settlement both
in light of the fee award and comply with the CAFA's coupon
settlement requirements when determining the amount of such an
award.

The one argument of Isaacson's shot down by the panel was his
challenge to the approval of the $5,000 incentive award. It refused
to reverse established precedent in the Second Circuit or depart
from Rule 23, which allows incentive awards that are fair and
appropriate.

The panel ultimately vacated and remanded the district court's
order approving the settlement and the attorneys' fees award. At
that same time, it did not opine on the fairness of the settlement
or suggest that it must be overturned.

Implications For Corporate Defendants

The Second Circuit's ruling is a perfect example of how an
attorneys' fee award that is not thought through can serve to
delay, and potentially derail, the class action settlement process.
It is not enough to simply consider it on its own, but the proposed
attorneys' fee award must be considered holistically with all the
Rule 23(e)(2) factors in determining whether the ultimate proposal
is fair, reasonable, and adequate. [GN]

NEW YORK: Home Health Care Aides Sue Over Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------
Raga Justin, writing for Times Union, reports that home health care
aides filed a lawsuit against the state Department of Labor that
seeks to have the agency re-open investigations into workers'
claims of systemic overtime wage theft that were allegedly
abandoned because of union agreements.

Home care workers, traditionally low-paid, have been urging state
lawmakers for higher wages and more protections in their industry,
which provides often round-the-clock care for elderly and disabled
New Yorkers.

The class-action lawsuit was filed on behalf of numerous workers
from New York City and alleges that the home care agencies that
employ them "systematically steal their wages by paying them for
only 13 of the 24 hours of each shift, even when the aides do not
receive at least five hours of uninterrupted sleep and three hours
for meal breaks."

As a result of the extra labor, home aides often make less than
minimum wage and receive little overtime pay, leading hundreds to
appeal to the Department of Labor to recover those wages. According
to the lawsuit and related court documents, filed in state Supreme
Court in Albany, the department conducted investigations into
claims of wage theft and found "overwhelming" corroborating
evidence that employers were willfully depriving employees of fair
labor conditions and compensation.

But the agency, which began investigating several similar
complaints in 2019, closed its investigations in April, citing a
new agency policy that they would no longer investigate claims made
by workers whose unions had entered into mandatory arbitration
agreements with employers -- if the union agreements cover the
aides' claims.

The plaintiffs, some of whom said they were unaware that their
union was opening claims on their behalf and that they had not seen
a fraction of what they were owed returned to them, said that
without the state Department of Labor agreeing to intervene, they
"have no meaningful recourse for obtaining their unpaid wages and
no effective mechanism for ending the egregious wage theft that
pervades the home care industry."

The court filing comes as the Department of Labor has faced
scrutiny in a separate but related matter of diminished wage
recovery, an effort the agency is tasked with that has faltered in
recent years. ProPublica recently reported that thousands of wage
theft victims in New York have gone without their full pay for
years, even when their employers were ordered to fully compensate
them. The story found the understaffed Department of Labor has
failed to fully recover millions in back wages for those workers.

Home care agencies are allowed to skirt overtime and minimum wage
provisions under the "13-hour rule," an interpretation of Labor Law
that allows agencies to pay live-in caregivers who work 24-hour
days for only 13 hours, as long as the aides get eight hours of
uninterrupted sleep and three hours of meal breaks. But the lawsuit
alleges that the department had repeatedly failed to enforce that
rule, tacitly allowing home care agencies to reap the benefits of
paying for a 13-workday without any of the other worker
protections.

The five plaintiffs suing the department are all women in their 60s
who have "struggled to meet their basic needs and those of their
families," the lawsuit claimed. According to estimates, the
majority of home care workers are women of color and many are
immigrants.

New York faces a home care worker shortage that ranks among the
worst in the country.

Despite the new litigation, the Department of Labor has continued
to pursue investigations of employers underpaying home care
employees.

In early August the department announced two settlements totaling
$113,800 in cases in which employers in Brooklyn and Staten Island
had denied adequate sleep time to home care aides during 24-hour
shifts -- and underpaid them for hours worked. The agency said its
Division of Worker Protection has more than 50 active
investigations involving home health care agencies allegedly
committing wage and work-hours violations.

The agency said that in the past decade it has recovered and
dispersed more than $360 million in owed wages and identified more
than a million misclassified workers. [GN]

NEWELL BRANDS: Faces Class Action Over Orthodontic Pacifiers
------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a
proposed class action lawsuit claims the makers of NUK pacifiers
have misled consumers by falsely representing that their
"orthodontic" pacifiers promote healthy oral and orofacial
development in children.

The 36-page lawsuit says that Newell Brands, Inc. and Graco
Children's Products, Inc. -- who together sell NUK-brand pacifiers
-- have violated New York law by deceptively using the term
"orthodontic" in advertising and on product packaging to convey
that the items improve dental health development by correcting
improperly positioned teeth and jaws.

However, contrary to the products' representations, NUK
"orthodontic" pacifiers "cannot and do not" improve or support
healthy oral and orofacial development and, in fact, put children
at a greater risk of developing several kinds of dental
malocclusions -- that is, deviations from ideal teeth alignment,
the suit alleges.

The NUK pacifiers are sold through online retailers such as Amazon
and in stores including Target, Walgreens, CVS, Walmart, Buybuy
Baby and Safeway, the case relays. Per the complaint, the products
at issue include at least:

NUK Orthodontic Pacifiers;
NUK Space Orthodontic Pacifiers;
NUK Latex Orthodontic Pacifiers;
NUK Sports Orthodontic Pacifiers;
NUK Confetti Orthodontic Pacifiers;
NUK Fashion Orthodontic Pacifiers;
NUK Sensitive Orthodontic Pacifiers; and
NUK Juicy Orthodontic Pacifiers.

According to the filing, statements on the packaging claim the
pacifiers have a "100% baby approved orthodontic shape" that
"Naturally Fits Baby's Mouth for Healthy Oral Development." On the
NUK website, the defendants similarly represent that the
"orthodontic" pacifiers are "flatter to allow more room for a
natural sucking motion, slimmer to reduce pressure on the jaw and
teeth, and narrower to prevent teeth misalignment," the lawsuit
adds.

The suit argues, however, that marketing a pacifier as
"orthodontic" is misleading because "no pacifier is capable of
promoting oral development," and prolonged pacifier use can cause
substantial harm by impeding a child's dental and orofacial
structural growth.

As the case tells it, clinical studies consistently show that
"there is no advantage or benefit" to using a so-called
"orthodontic" pacifier over a traditional one, as continued use of
an "orthodontic" product leads to the same risks and harms
associated with a persistent non-nutritive sucking habit.

"Children who use pacifiers to continue non-nutritive sucking
habits have an increased risk of dental malocclusions . . . of
primary teeth, which, in turn, may interfere with a child's
chewing, swallowing, speech, and jaw development and function," the
complaint explains. "Dental malocclusions and teeth misalignment
may also have a significant adverse effect on a child's
psychosocial development, self-image, and social well-being."

The filing contends that despite "ample dental and orthodontic
studies and literature demonstrating the contrary," the companies
behind NUK pacifiers consistently represent their "orthodontic"
products as supportive of healthy dental development and omit the
material facts that the items can be detrimental to children's oral
and orofacial growth.

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone who purchased NUK
"orthodontic" pacifiers in New York within the applicable statute
of limitations period. [GN]

ORIGIN MATERIALS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 24
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Kuznicki Law PLLC issues this
alert to shareholders of Origin Materials, Inc. (NYSE: ORGN), if
they purchased the Company's securities between February 23, 2023,
and August 9, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Shareholders have until October 24, 2023 to file lead plaintiff
applications in the securities class action lawsuit.

Shareholders are encouraged to contact us at
https://kclasslaw.com/cases/securities/nyse-orgn/, by calling
toll-free at 1-833-835-1495 or by email (dk@kclasslaw.com).

Kuznicki Law PLLC is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to
responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:

Daniel Kuznicki, Esq.
Kuznicki Law PLLC
45 Central Avenue, Suite 344
Cedarhurst, NY 11516
Email: dk@kclasslaw.com
Phone: (347) 696-1134
Cell: (347) 690-0692
Fax: (347) 348-0967
https://kclasslaw.com [GN]

ORIGIN MATERIALS: Faces Class Action Over Securities Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of securities of Origin Materials, Inc. (NASDAQ: ORGN,
ORGNW) between February 23, 2023 and August 9, 2023, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important October 24, 2023
lead plaintiff deadline.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Origin securities during the Class Period
you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of
pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Origin class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=18703 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email [email protected] or
[email protected] for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 24, 2023.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually
litigate securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that
refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the
cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents
investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in
securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.
Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class
action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was
Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of
securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds
of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm
secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner
Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar.
Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and
Super Lawyers.

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants made
false and/or misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically,
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose to investors that: (1) Origin would not be able to meet
its previously announced timeline for the construction of the
Origin 2 plant; (2) demand for PX had dropped such that it would
not be the production focus of Origin 2; (3) Origin could not
construct Origin 2 at its previously disclosed cost; (4) Origin
could not construct Origin 2 at the scale it had previously
identified; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

To join the Origin class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=18703 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email [email protected] or
[email protected] for information on the class action.

No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

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

Contact Information:

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

ORIGIN MATERIALS: Faces Soto Suit Over 66.5% Stock Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio F. Soto, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Origin Materials, Inc., Richard J. Riley, John Bissell,
and Nate S. Whaley, Case No. 2:23-cv-01816-WBS-JDP (E.D. Cal., Aug.
25, 2023) is a class action against all the Defendants for
violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 on behalf of the class of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Origin securities between February
23, 2023, and August 9, 2023, inclusive.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects.

Specifically, the Defendants misled investors by failing to
disclose that

     (1) Origin would not be able to meet its previously announced

         timeline for the construction of the Origin 2 plant;

     (2) demand for paraxylene (PX) had dropped such that it would

         not be the production focus of Origin 2;

     (3) Origin could not construct Origin 2 at its previously
         disclosed cost; and

     (4) Origin could not construct Origin 2 at the scale it had
         previously identified.

As a result of the materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failures to disclose, Origin's securities traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

On August 9, 2023, after the market closed, Origin announced that
it was significantly delaying the timeline for construction on its
Origin 2 commercial plant and changing the product slate at Origin
2 from a focus on PX to a focus on furandicarboxylic acid (FDCA).
On this news, Origin's stock price fell $2.88 per share, or 66.5%,
to close at $1.45 per share on August 10, 2023.

The Plaintiff and the Class have sustained damages because they
purchased Origin stock at an inflated price, which declined in
value as a result of the corrective disclosures, the lawsuit
asserts.

Origin is a sustainable materials company founded in 2008 by
chemical engineering students at the University of California,
Davis.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          400 Concar Drive
          San Mateo, CA 94402
          Telephone: (650) 781-0025
          E-mail: jake@blockleviton.com

ORRICK HERRINGTON: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Jensen Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT D. JENSEN, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE,
LLP, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-04433-KAW (N.D. Cal., Aug. 28,
2023) seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for the harms caused
to the Plaintiff and the Class regarding the massive and
preventable data breach of Defendant's inadequately protected
computer network.

According to the complaint, on March 13, 2023, hackers infiltrated
and accessed the inadequately protected computer systems of the
Defendant and stole the sensitive personal information of over
152,818 of those individuals. Following an investigation, the
Defendant determined that cybercriminals gained unauthorized access
to its systems on March 7, 2023.

As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and the Class have
suffered damages. Plaintiff has experienced a flood of spam
telephone calls from unknown persons since the Data Breach. Now
that their Personal Information has been released into the criminal
cyber domains, the Plaintiff and the Class are at imminent risk of
identity theft. And this will continue, as they must spend their
time being extra vigilant, due to Defendant's failures, to try to
prevent being victimized for the rest of their lives, says the
suit.

ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP operates as an international law
firm. The Firm's areas of practice include finance, corporate and
technology, compensation and benefits, global infrastructure,
litigation, and real estate. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert S. Green, Esq.
          Emrah M. Sumer, Esq.
          GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
          2200 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 101
          Larkspur, CA 94939
          Telephone: (415) 477-6700
          Facsimile: (415) 477-6710
          Email: gnecf@classcounsel.com

               - and -

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com

PALANTIR TECH: Consolidated Cupat Shareholder Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Palantir 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 8, 2023, that on September 15, 2022,
a putative securities class action complaint was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado,
captioned "Cupat v. Palantir Technologies Inc., et al.," Case No.
1:22-cv-02384, naming the company and certain current and former
officers and directors as defendants.

The suits allege false and misleading statements about Palantir's
business and prospects, and purport to allege claims under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, and seek unspecified damages and remedies
under Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20(A) of the Exchange Act and
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act.

This action was subsequently were consolidated as "Cupat v.
Palantir Technologies Inc., et al.," Lead Civil Action No.
1:22-cv-02834-CNS-SKC, consolidated with civil actions
1:22-cv-02805-CNS-SKC and 1:22-cv-02893-CNS-SKC.

Palantir Technologies Inc. builds and deploys software platforms
that serve as the central operating systems for its customers.


PALANTIR TECH: Consolidated Shareholder Suit on SEC Filing Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Palantir 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 8, 2023, that on November 4, 2022, a
putative securities class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado, captioned
"Shijun Liu, individually and as Trustee of the Liu Family Trust
2019 v. Palantir Technologies Inc., et al.," Case No.
1:22-cv-02893, respectively, naming the company and certain current
and former officers and directors as defendants.

The suit alleges false and misleading statements about Palantir's
business and prospects, and purport to allege claims under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, and seek unspecified damages and remedies
under Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20(A) of the Exchange Act and
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act.

This action was subsequently consolidated as "Cupat v. Palantir
Technologies Inc., et al.," Lead Civil Action No.
1:22-cv-02834-CNS-SKC, consolidated with civil actions
1:22-cv-02805-CNS-SKC and 1:22-cv-02893-CNS-SKC.

Palantir Technologies Inc. builds and deploys software platforms
that serve as the central operating systems for its customers.


PANDA EXPRESS: Agrees to Settle Delivery Fee Class Action for $1.4M
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Panda Express agreed to pay $1.4
million to resolve claims it charged illegal service fees on
delivery orders.

The settlement benefits consumers who placed a delivery order
through Panda Express' website or mobile app between July 17, 2020,
and Feb. 16, 2022, and were charged a service fee in connection
with their order.

According to the class action lawsuit, Panda Express customers were
misled about delivery fees and related expenses. Consumers claim
they were harmed when Panda Express charged unexpected service fees
on delivery orders.

Panda Express is an American Chinese fast-food restaurant with
locations around the country.

Panda Express hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $1.4
million settlement to resolve the delivery fee class action
lawsuit.

Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive either
a cash payment or two product vouchers. Cash payments will vary
depending on the number of participating class members, but are
capped at $10 each. Vouchers are redeemable for one medium entree
through Panda Express' mobile app.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is Sept. 8, 2023.

The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Nov.
8, 2023.

In order to receive a settlement payment, class members must submit
a valid claim form by Jan. 10, 2024.

Who's Eligible
Consumers who placed a delivery order through Panda Express'
website or mobile app between July 17, 2020, and Feb. 16, 2022, and
were charged a service fee in connection with their order.

Potential Award
$10 cash payment or two entree vouchers

Proof of Purchase
N/A

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
01/10/2024

Case Name
Ross, et al. v. Panda Restaurant Group Inc., et al., Case No.
21STCV03662, in the California Superior Court for Los Angeles
County

Final Hearing
11/08/2023

Settlement Website
DeliveryServiceFeeSettlement.com

Claims Administrator
Ross v. Panda Settlement Administrator
PO Box 5113
Portland, OR 97208-5113
855-954-2165

Class Counsel
Jeffrey Kaliel
KALIELGOLD PLLC

Defense Counsel
Mark Kemple
GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP [GN]

PRECISION DRILLING: 3rd Cir. Reverses Decision in FLSA Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stacy Thomas, writing for Human Resources Director, reports that a
recent court decision on a "donning and doffing" case involving oil
rig workers will make employers more vulnerable to Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) lawsuits, a class action attorney said.

The case in question, Tyger v. Precision Drilling Corp., is a class
action suit in which oil rig workers for Precision Drilling Corp.
wanted to be paid for time spent "donning and doffing" gear before
and after work.

Precision argued that they shouldn't have to, under the
Portal-to-Portal Act, which defines "preliminary" and
"postliminary" work activities as non-compensatory. The District
Court agreed and dismissed the case.

But in an Aug. 16 decision, the Appeals Court for the Third Circuit
rejected that decision.

"If you're a worker, or you're a plaintiff's lawyer, and you read
this case, you're very gung-ho about it, because it says that this
is the sort of case that can stick in the court," Gerald L.
Maatman, Duane Morris' class-action chair, told HRD. "This is a
very pro-plaintiff ruling -- it makes it harder if you're an
employer to comply with the law."

Law alone can't decide if safety gear is 'indispensable' or
'intrinsic'
The decision is significant because it means lawsuits against
employers around payment for safety gear donning and doffing, and
related activities, will be decided case-by-case and based on
whether they are deemed to be "intrinsic" or "integral" to primary
work, he said. The Precision oil rig workers are required by
workplace safety rules to wear protective gear including
flame-retardant coveralls and steel-toed shoes, and to walk to and
from changing stations to safety meeting locations. If their case
makes it to trial, a jury will decide if those activities should be
compensated.

"What I thought was telling about the case is that the Third
Circuit reversed a very substantial ruling, a ruling involving a
case where 1,000 people were involved," said Maatman, who is based
in Chicago. "This ruling suggests that it depends on the job,
depends on the circumstances. So, if compliance with the law is
tough, this ruling makes it even tougher."

In a similar case in 2022, a judge decided workers should not be
paid by Amazon for walking through metal detectors before and after
work, as that activity was deemed preliminary and postliminary by
the judge.

What is 'integral' protective gear?
In a discussion around what determines "intrinsic" or "integral"
activities, the appeals court decided that rules of law alone
cannot decide if employees should be paid for time in question --
it is a matter of "circumstance and fact", says Maatman. If an
employer is brought to court over a dispute, they will no longer be
able to depend on the Port-to-Port Act as a defence.

In its decision, the appeals court defined what constitutes
protective gear that is integral or intrinsic to work and therefore
eligible for compensation.

Location was identified as relevant, meaning whether employees
could don and doff at home could be important to a decision. The
court stated that not all employees needed to change at work for it
to be compensable; the question is whether workers have a
"meaningful option" to change at home. If they do not, then it can
be considered integral.

Precision attempted to claim that its workers' safety gear was
generic, therefore not integral to work, but the appeals court
disagreed:

"The more specialized the gear, the more likely it is integral…
But even generic gear can be intrinsic. Precision tries to equate
'intrinsic' with 'unique' or at least 'unusual.' That is not so:
balls are common to many sports but are still integral to them,"
the judge's decision read.

Workplace safety gear guidelines for HR
In light of this decision, Maatman said, it's important for HR
professionals to look at their compensation and overtime policies
around donning and doffing, or any other preliminary or
postliminary activities, to assess whether they could be integral
to employees' work.

If the employees are unionized, it needs to be determined if the
collective bargaining agreement addresses this issue, and if not,
if it should be.

In non-union scenarios, employers will have some judgment calls to
make, he says.

"One of the things that's important to realize is that the
Department of Labor takes a very expansive view of what an
employer's obligations are, and will interpret the laws in a way
that are very pro-worker," Maatman said.

"What is so difficult here, from a compliance standpoint, is it's
not a hard and fast rule. So it's going to be different for every
employer, it's going to be different for every job. Judgments will
have to be made by corporations as to their compliance strategies."
[GN]

PROBUILD CONSTRUCTION: Kennedays Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Llinos Kent and Logan Tennyson, of Kennedays, disclosed that in the
recent decision of Wadren Pty Ltd v ProBuild Constructions (Aust)
Pty Ltd & Ors [2023] VSC 348, the Supreme Court of Victoria
provided some useful guidance on the extent of the Court's powers
to order preliminary discovery of insurance documents and
information in circumstances where an insured is in liquidation.

Whilst it is clear that the Court will order the discovery of
insurance policies to enable prospective plaintiffs to assess what
insurance cover is available to the prospective defendant, it is
not a foregone conclusion that it will order discovery or
information relevant to the extent of cover available more
generally or coverage correspondence between insureds and
insurers.

In this article, we provide a summary of the decision and consider
the key findings.

Key findings
Preliminary discovery under rr 32.03 and 32.05 Supreme Court
(General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 Vic (Rules) does not extend to
information about the likely recovery of a claim.
The Supreme Court of Victoria rejected the plaintiffs' submission
that 'rule 32.05 enables an applicant who believes that he or she
may have a cause of action to obtain sufficient information to know
whether the risk of litigation is worthwhile'.

Summary of decision
The facts
On or about 21 March 2014, Wadren Pty Ltd (Wadren) and Probuild
Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd (Probuild), the First Defendant in
these proceedings, entered into a contract, where Probuild was to
undertake construction works for the Pacific Werribee Shopping
Centre (Centre). Wadren and QIC Werribee Pty Ltd (QIC) are
co-owners of the Centre.

The works were completed by Probuild in 2017. Wadren subsequently
alleged that there were extensive structural and non-structural
defects at the Centre, allegedly caused by Probuild. Wadren claimed
the damage caused by the defects would amount to between
$331,800,000 and $356,800,000 (Claim).

On 23 February 2022, Probuild went into voluntary administration.
On 21 July 2022, a deed of company arrangement was executed.

Accordingly, before commencing proceedings against Probuild, Warden
and QIC needed to ascertain:

whether proceedings could be commenced;
who should be named as defendants; and
what relief will be available (which depended on whether any
relevant policies responded to the Claim).
Application for preliminary discovery

Probuild had the benefit of professional indemnity policies with a
combined limit of liability of $50,000,000 for any one occurrence
and in the aggregate for all claims made during the period of
insurance.

In summary, Warden and QIC sought preliminary discovery of
documents to identify:

AIG's co-insurers and Probuild's excess layer insurers;
the nature and content of any insurance policy;
whether the policy provides cover to Probuild, including details of
the extent of any claims that have been made and paid out on the
policies. Additionally, a copy of Probuild's notification of the
claim to its insurers;
whether any other claims have been made upon the applicable
professional indemnity insurance policy/ies, including details of
any settlements of such claims.

The judgment
The Court determined that preliminary discovery does not extend to
information about the likely recovery of a claim, and rejected the
plaintiffs' argument that the relevant rules allow prospective
plaintiffs to test whether litigation will be "worthwhile".

The Court agreed with the plaintiffs that insurers are required to
disclose documents evidencing confirmation or denial of indemnity,
as they are a class of documents sought to go to what defences may
be available to insurers, and relate to the question of whether the
plaintiffs have the right to obtain relief. However, the Court
disagreed that plaintiffs are entitled to disclosure of information
in relation to whether limits of indemnity, available under the
primary professional indemnity policies, have been eroded.

The Court stated there was a distinction to be drawn between:

what information is sufficient to enable plaintiffs to decide
whether to commence a proceeding; and
documents relating to the question of whether the plaintiffs have
the right to obtain relief.
The Court concluded that an applicant is entitled to documents
evidencing:

what defences are available to the respondent;
the possible strength of those defences;
the extent of the respondent's breach; and
the likely quantum of any damages award.
The Court found that documents "should not be produced merely for
the purpose of determining the extent of claims that have been made
on any particular policy or the amount of funds that may be
available if the plaintiffs are ultimately successful in this
proceeding" (at [129]).

The Supreme Court of Victoria has taken a narrower approach to the
basis for preliminary discovery than that adopted in the Federal
Court. In another matter where the insured was in liquidation,
Thawey J was of the view that grounds for disclosure included
obtaining information about the financial circumstances of the
insured defendant in order to assess whether to proceed against the
defendant (Watson v Dixon Advisory and Superannuation Services Ltd
(ACN 103 071 665) [2022] FCA 1273). In that case, Thawey J ordered
partial discovery of the policy so that the applicant could have
sufficient information to inform it as to whether it:

was commercially viable to prosecute the claim; and
should seek leave to proceed against the respondent.
Thawey J concluded this included providing details of policy
wording as to liability, details of the exclusions, relevant
sub-limits and limits, to include overall limits of the policies in
question. Thawey J rejected insurers' argument that to provide this
information would provide a commercial advantage to the class
action in negotiations, allowing the applicant to tailor its claims
to avoid engaging the exclusions.

Comment
The decision provides useful guidance on the extent of the Court's
powers to order preliminary discovery of insurance documents and
information. Although a Court will order the discovery of insurance
policies to enable prospective plaintiffs to assess what insurance
cover is available to the prospective defendant, certainly in
Victoria it is unlikely to order discovery or information relevant
to the extent of cover available more generally (to include erosion
of limits) or coverage correspondence between insureds and
insurers. However, the Federal Court jurisdiction may differ, with
recent decisions ordering discovery of policy information to allow
parties to assess the commercial viability of pursuing a claim.
Such orders are of course at the Federal Court's (broad)
discretion.

Certain commercially sensitive insurance documents and information,
such as whether the limits of indemnity available under the
policies have been eroded by other claims, are unlikely to be
ordered to be discovered to prospective plaintiffs.

Despite this judgment, we expect that prospective plaintiffs will
continue to seek discovery of insurance documents and information,
testing the present position, in order to obtain information to
determine the extent of their possible recovery. This is likely to
occur in cases where the prospective defendant is in liquidation or
in class actions, most likely through preliminary discovery
applications (though of course there are other mechanisms for
discovery available). [GN]

PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, McDaniel Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JERRY MCDANIEL and BARBARA C. CRUCIATA, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE
CORPORATION and MAXIMUS FEDERAL SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 1:23-cv-11939-NMG (D. Mass., August 23, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, breach of third-party
beneficiary contract, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and
declaratory and injunctive relief.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiffs and similarly situated customers stored within their
network systems following a data breach determined approximately
May 27, 2023, through May 31, 2023. The Defendants also failed to
timely notify the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals
about the data breach. As a result, the PII of the Plaintiffs and
Class members were compromised and damaged through access by and
disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the
suit.

Progress Software Corporation is a software company, with its
principal place of business located at 15 Wayside Road, Suite 4,
Burlington, Massachusetts.

Maximus Federal Services, Inc. is a company that provides appeals
services in support of Medicare, headquartered in McLean, Virginia.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Kristen A. Johnson, Esq.
         HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
         1 Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Floor
         Boston, MA 02109
         Telephone: (617) 482-3700
         Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
         E-mail: kristen@hbsslaw.com

                 - and -

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

                 - and -

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

                 - and -

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

                 - and -

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

                 - and -

         Jeffrey Brown, Esq.
         LEEDS BROWN LAW
         One Old Country Road, Suite 347
         Carle Place, NY 11514
         E-mail: JBrown@LeedsBrownLaw.com

                 - and -

         Jason Sulzer, Esq.
         THE SULZER LAW GROUP
         270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800
         New York, NY 10016
         E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com

PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Trigg Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROXANNE TRIGG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
1:23-cv-01632-CEF (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 22, 2023) sues the Defendant for
failing to properly secure and safeguard the personally
identifiable information that it collected and maintained from her
and the Class Members as part of its regular business practices.

At the time of the Data Breach –– approximately May 19, 2023,
through June 1, 2023 –– the Defendant retained the Plaintiff's
Private Information in its system. The Private information includes
names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license
numbers, telephone numbers, email addresses, and financial
information.

On August 1, 2023, the Defendant began sending the Plaintiff and
other Data Breach victims a Notice of Data Breach letter.

As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and tens of thousands
of Class Members, suffered concrete injury including lost or
diminished value of their Private Information; lost opportunity
costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual
consequences of the Data Breach; invasion of privacy; loss of
benefit of the bargain; an increase in spam calls, texts, and/or
emails; and the continued and certainly increased risk to their
Private Information. The Plaintiff is at a present risk and will
continue to be at increased risk of identity theft and fraud for
years to come, says the suit.

The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those
similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding
of Class Members' Private Information that it collected and
maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice
to the Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had
been subject to the unauthorized access by an unknown third party
and precisely what specific type of information was accessed.

The Plaintiff seeks remedies including compensatory damages and
injunctive relief including improvements to the Defendant's data
security systems, future annual audits, and adequate credit
monitoring services funded by the Defendant.

The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former customers of
the Defendant.

The Defendant provides insurance products such as auto and property
insurance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John A. Love, Esq.
          LOVE CONSUMER LAW
          2500 Northwinds Parkway, Suite 330
          Alpharetta, GA 30009
          Telephone: (404) 855-3600
          Facsimile: (404) 301-2300
          E-mail: tlove@loveconsumerlaw.com

                - and -

          Maureen M. Brady, Esq.
          MCSHANE & BRADY, LLC
          1656 Washington Street, Suite 120
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 888-8010
          Facsimile: (816) 332-6295
          E-mail: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com

                - and -

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

QUEENSLAND: Youth Advocates Mull Suit Over Detaining of Children
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tanisha Williams, writing for SBS, reports that youth justice
advocates and lawyers are looking into a class action lawsuit
against the Queensland government who may have been illegally
detaining children for decades.

The state government rushed controversial new laws through
parliament that will allow children to be locked up in adult
prisons and watch houses for the next three years.

Queensland's youth justice minister, Di Farmer, told media that the
legislation, which requires a suspension of the state's Human
Rights Act, followed advice from the state's solicitor general.

It has been reported by The Guardian that the advice indicates
children had previously been unlawfully detained.

"There's no transparency or accountability in relation to what that
legal advice is," said human rights lawyer Debbie Kilroy.

"I'd strongly suggest that the government make that advice public,
so at least we can understand what has been done and why it has
been done, because it looks very racially motivated."

The amendments were tabled by Police Minister Mark Ryan on
Aug. 23 during debate on a Child Protection Bill, and passed
through parliament late on Aug. 24.

Buried amongst 57 pages of amendments, the Queensland government
also made provisions to retroactively exempt itself from litigation
for any likely unlawful practice in the past.

Earlier in August, a Queensland court ordered the immediate
transfer of three children who had been locked up in watch houses
for extended periods. The government conceded it had no lawful
basis for detaining them in police holding cells.

"We are concerned as always, as lawyers are and hopefully the
community, about retrospective laws," says Ms Kilroy.

"It's not good . . . so we want to have a look at that and in these
amendments.

"It's about appropriate orders [not being] made under those
sections of the Act to hold children.

"We need to look at that legally, because 30 years is a long time.
That's a lot of children that have been harmed and held illegally
in the watch house without the relevant orders made by a court."

Ms Kilroy said she and her organisation, Sisters Inside, are
working with KCs at the moment on possible litigation.

"We are very concerned about the harms being perpetrated on
children and those children are Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander children."

Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk defended Labor's decision
to fast-track the proposed law changes, saying it was "standard
practice" and that it was their duty "to keep to community safe."

But advocates say "draconian" laws for children are not the
answer.

"We've got to stop harming children," says Ms Kilroy.

"If we want to live in a community, where we're all safe, then all
harm must end for everybody." [GN]

RECKITT BENCKISER: $30MM Class Settlement Hearing Set on Oct. 19
----------------------------------------------------------------
If you purchased and/or paid for some or all of the price of
Suboxone or its AB-rated generic equivalents, you could receive a
payment from a class action lawsuit.

Your rights may be affected by a proposed settlement in a class
action lawsuit filed against Defendants Reckitt Benckiser
Pharmaceutical, Inc., Reckitt Benckiser Group plc (the "Reckitt
Defendants"), and Indivior, Inc. ("Indivior") (collectively, the
"Defendants") regarding the prices paid for Suboxone (Co-Formulated
Buprenorphine/Naloxone). The case name is In Re: Suboxone
(Buprenorphine Hydrochloride and Nalaxone) Antitrust Litigation,
Civil Action No. 2:13-md-02445-MSG (E.D. Pa.) (the "Lawsuit"). The
Lawsuit, which is pending in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, claims that Defendants
violated state antitrust, consumer protection and unjust enrichment
laws in the United States, harming competition and causing class
members to overpay for Suboxone. Defendants deny that they violated
any laws. The Court dismissed the claims against the Reckitt
Defendants.

The Court has preliminarily approved a proposed settlement between
the Class and Indivior (the "Settlement"). The proposed Settlement
will provide for the payment of $30 million (the "Settlement Fund")
to resolve the Class claims against Indivior. The full text of the
proposed Settlement Agreement, dated as of August 14, 2023, is
available at www.SuboxAntitrust.com.

The Court has scheduled a hearing to decide whether to approve the
Settlement, the plan for allocating the Settlement Fund to the End
Payor Class, and the request of Class Counsel for payment of
attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses, and service awards to
the End Payor Plaintiffs to be paid from the Settlement Fund (the
"Fairness Hearing"). The Fairness Hearing is scheduled for October
19, 2023, at 1:30 p.m., before Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg at the
James A. Byrne U.S. Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA
19106.

Who Is Included?

You may be a member of the End Payor Class if you are an individual
or entity who purchased and/or paid for some or all of the purchase
price for Co-Formulated Buprenorphine/Naloxone ("Suboxone") in AL,
AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME,
MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OK, OR,
PA, PR, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, and DC
between December 22, 2011 and  August 21, 2023 (the "Class
Period").

A more detailed notice, including the exact Class definition and
exceptions to Class membership, is available at
www.SuboxAntitrust.com.

Your Rights and Options

DO NOTHING: If you did not request exclusion from the Class by
April 17, 2022, you are a member of the Class and by doing nothing
you will remain in the Class, but will not be entitled to share in
any distribution from the Settlement Fund. You will be bound by any
decision of the Court in this Lawsuit, including rulings on the
Settlement.

SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM: If you did not exclude yourself from the Class
prior to the April 17, 2022 deadline and believe you are a Class
Member, you will need to complete and return a Claim Form to obtain
a share of the Net Settlement Fund. The Claim Form, and information
on how to submit it, are available on the website,
www.SuboxAntitrust.com. Claim Forms must be postmarked (if mailed)
or received (if submitted online) on or before February 17, 2024.

EXCLUDE YOURSELF FROM THE CLASS: If you exclude yourself from the
Class (i.e., opt out), you will not be bound by any orders and
judgments of the Court on the issues and you will not give up your
right to sue Indivior as part of any other lawsuit for the issues
raised in this case.  The deadline to exclude yourself from the
Class is October 12, 2023.  Specific instructions on how to request
exclusion are included in the Long-Form Notice available on the
website, www.SuboxAntitrust.com.

OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT: If you object to all or any part of the
Settlement, the request for attorneys' fees, reimbursement of
expenses, or the award of service awards to named End Payor
Plaintiffs, or desire to speak in person at the Fairness Hearing,
you must file a written letter of objection and/or a notice of
intention to speak along with a summary statement with the Court
and with Co-Lead Counsel and counsel for the Defendants by October
5, 2023. Specific instructions are included in the Long-Form Notice
available on the website, www.SuboxAntitrust.com.

Want More Information?
Go to www.SuboxAntitrust.com, call 1-877-311-3735, email
info@SuboxAntitrust.com, or write to Settlement Administrator
54388, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173080, Milwaukee, WI 53217.

The deadlines contained in this Notice may be amended by Court
Order, so check the Settlement website for any updates. Please do
not call the Court or the Clerk of the Court for information about
the Settlement. [GN]

RITE AID: Faces Anderson Suit Over Illegal Wiretapping
------------------------------------------------------
MARYLOU ANDERSON; AUTUMN BLAZE; CALDER DUFFY; and NASHERE MCGEE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. RITE AID CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-03332 (E.D. PA., Aug. 25, 2023) alleges violation of the
Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act.

According to the complaint, unbeknownst to Tracked Users, Rite Aid
employs tracking tools on the Website, https://riteaid.com/ which
intercept communications between Tracked Users and the Website. The
tracking tools, which were created by Google and Meta (collectively
referred to herein as the "Tracking Entities") send the Tracking
Entities information relating to Tracked Users' searches on the
Website.

The Website does not provide Tracked Users with notice that the
Website's use of a Search Bar would cause their Queries to be
shared with the Tracking Entities, that viewing items or adding
items to a cart will result in detailed information about those
items being intercepted by the Tracking Entities, or that such
interceptions will be used to benefit the Defendant and Tracking
Entities separate from the services being rendered to the Visitor,
the suit alleges.

RITE AID CORPORATION operates retail drugstores. The Company is
also involved in pharmacy benefit management marketing prescription
plans and selling other managed health care services to employers,
health plans and their members, and government-sponsored employee
benefit programs. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Russell D. Paul, Esq.
          Jacob M. Polakoff, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          Email: rpaul@bm.net
                 jpolakoff@bm.net

              - and -

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

ROBLOX CORP: Faces Class Action Over Gambling Websites' Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Nowacky, writing for Game Is Hard, reports that plaintiffs
Rachelle Colvin, Danielle Sass, and their minor children have filed
a class action lawsuit against Roblox Corporation, Satozuki, Studs,
and RBLXWild. The lawsuit claims that these companies use the
Roblox platform to enable minors to gamble with the site's digital
currency, Robux. The class action was filed in federal court in
California.

According to the lawsuit, minors first need to acquire Robux within
the Roblox system, which can be obtained through purchases using
money, a parent's credit card, or a gift card. Once the minor has
Robux, they can access the defendants' gambling websites outside of
Roblox and use the virtual casino to gamble with their Robux.
Roblox allegedly keeps track of these electronic transfers and is
aware of each transaction that occurs within its ecosystem.

While minors can potentially win and increase their Robux through
gambling, the lawsuit states that it is more likely for them to
lose Robux in the process. Roblox allegedly profits from this
gambling activity by charging a 30% fee to exchange Robux back into
cash for the gambling websites. The class action claims that this
alleged scheme generates millions in annual cash fee payments for
Roblox.

This lawsuit comes after Roblox recently agreed to pay $10 million
as part of a class action settlement to resolve claims that it took
advantage of children by allowing excessive purchases and
subsequently deleting related content to cover it up.

The plaintiffs are represented by Weitz and Luxenberg, PC and
Johnson Firm. The case is Colvin, et al. v. Roblox Corp., et al.,
Case No. 3:23-cv-04146, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California. [GN]

SCULPTOR CAPITAL: Juan Monteverde Investigates Proposed Rithm Sale
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:

Sculptor Capital Management Inc. (NYSE: SCU), relating to its
proposed sale to Rithm Capital Corp. Under the terms of the
agreement, Class A SCU shareholders are expected to receive $11.15
in cash per share they own. Click here for more information:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/sculptor-capital-management-inc. It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

American National Bankshares Inc. (Nasdaq: AMNB), relating to its
proposed sale to Atlantic Union Bankshares Corp. Under the terms of
the agreement, AMNB shareholders will receive 1.35 shares of
Atlantic per share they own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/american-national-bankshares-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.

Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq: RETA), relating to its
proposed sale to Biogen, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement,
RETA shareholders are expected to receive $172.50 in cash per share
they own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/reata-pharmaceuticals-inc. 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]

SMASHTECH LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Camacho Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA CAMACHO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SMASHTECH, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
5:23-cv-01060 (W.D. Tex., Aug. 25, 2023) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

SMASHTECH, LLC is a marketing and advertising company offering
technology marketing 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
          Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
          Telephone: (954) 400-4713  

STEADMAN PARKING: Talbot Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN TALBOT, individually and on behalf of all putative class
members v. STEADMAN PARKING SERVICES, LLC, CONSOLIDATED EDISON
COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC., E. C. I. BLDG. CORP. and ALFRED
STEADMAN, Case No. 654058/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Aug. 22, 2023) seeks to
recover prevailing wages, daily overtime and supplemental benefits
for work that he performed on Con Edison and ECI projects, pursuant
to the New York Common law as well as seeks for unpaid minimum
wages, unpaid overtime, unpaid wages, unpaid spread-of-hours
premiums, unreimbursed business expenses and for the Defendants'
failure to provide proper wage notices and wage statements,
pursuant to New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was compensated on a biweekly basis at all relevant
times and thus did not receive timely wages despite being a manual
worker. The Plaintiff additionally seeks to recover untimely wage
compensation and other damages pursuant to NYLL for Defendants'
failure to properly pay him his wages within seven calendar days
after the end of the week in which those wages were earned. The
Plaintiff further brings claim for unpaid call-in pay pursuant to
NY Comp. Codes R. & Regs. against Defendants Steadman Parking
Services LLC and Alfred Steadman.

Mr. Talbot worked for the Defendants as a flagger and spotter from
July or August 2015 through August 30, 2017.

Steadman is in the business of reserving parking spaces and
providing construction flagging services for customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
          Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
          Kristen E. Boysen, Esq.
          PELTON GRAHAM LLC
          111 Broadway, Suite 1503
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 385-9700
          Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
          E-mail: Pelton @PeltonGraham.com
                  Graham@PeltonGraham.com
                  Boysen@PeltonGraham.com

TD AMERITRADE: Faces Data Breach Class Action in Nebraska
---------------------------------------------------------
Skye Witley, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that personal
investment companies TD Ameritrade Inc. and its parent Charles
Schwab Corp. neglected cybersecurity protections that would have
prevented cyberthieves from taking sensitive customer data,
according to a lawsuit filed in Nebraska federal court.

Approximately 61,000 TD Ameritrade customers had Social Security
numbers, financial account information, and other sensitive data
exfiltrated by hackers, said the proposed class action filed in the
US District Court for the District of Nebraska.

The data was stolen after cybercriminals exploited a vulnerability
in the MOVEit file-transfer system, used by businesses and
government agencies to move data. Since the hacking campaign began
in June, more than a dozen companies have been hit with class
actions seeking retribution over exposed information.

Plaintiff Keren Jeanfort said in the complaint that exposure of her
private data increases her risk of suffering from financial fraud
or identity theft and is seeking recovery for the diminished value
of her information and time spent addressing the breach.

TD Ameritrade ignored cybersecurity best practices such as regular
security audits that are recommended by the industry and government
agencies including the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security
Agency, the complaint said. Charles Schwab, which acquired TD
Ameritrade in 2019, was also named as a defendant in the lawsuit.

"Generic and conclusory allegations are often devoid of accuracy
and context," Schwab spokesperson Tatiana Stead said in an emailed
comment to Bloomberg Law responding to the suit. "Our focus is
protecting our clients. We do that by not only standing by them in
such matters but by thoroughly investigating any incident that may
affect them," Stead said.

Both companies are accused of negligence, unjust enrichment, and
breach of implied contract.

The law firm Wagstaff & Cartmell is representing Jeanfort.
Attorneys for Schwab and TD Ameritrade have not yet entered an
appearance.

The case is Jeanfort v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., D. Neb., No.
8:23-cv-00380, complaint filed 8/25/23. [GN]

TD AMERITRADE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Jeanfort Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
FORTUNO JEANFORT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TD AMERITRADE, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 8:23-cv-00381 (D. Neb., Aug. 28, 2023) seeks to redress
the Defendant's unlawful, willful and wanton failure to protect the
personal identifiable information of the Plaintiff and the Class
that was exposed in a major data breach of the Defendant's files
saved on the MOVEit server in violation of its legal obligations.

According to the complaint, between May 28, 2023 and May 30, 2023,
an unknown actor gained access to TD Ameritrade's files that were
saved on its MOVEit server. As a result, Plaintiff and the Class
Members have had their personal identifiable information exposed.
It is believed that the well-known Russian cybergang, CL0P is the
source of the attack.

Due to the Defendant's negligence, cybercriminals obtained
everything they need to commit identity theft and wreak havoc on
the financial and personal lives of thousands of individuals, says
the suit.

TD AMERITRADE, INC. provides investment advisory and brokerage
services. The Company offers custody, investment management, and
financial planning services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (866) 252-0878
          Email: gklinger@milberg.com

               - and -

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560

TD AMERITRADE: Fails to Secure Consumers' Info, Jeanfort Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
KEREN JEANFORT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TD AMERITRADE, INC., and THE CHARLES SCHWAB
CORPORATION, Case No. 8:23-cv-00380 (D. Neb., Aug. 25, 2023)
contends that the Defendants failed to reasonably secure, monitor,
and maintain Personally Identifiable Information provided by
consumers.

The private information includes names, Social Security numbers,
financial account information, dates of birth, other government
identification numbers, and other personal identifiers of
consumers.

On May 30, 2023, the Defendants became aware of an alert issued by
Progress Software addressing a critical vulnerability affecting
MOVEit, a software tool used widely by businesses and government
agencies, including the Defendants, to transfer data. With no
explanation for their nine-week delay, on August 3, 2023, the
Defendants started notifying the approximately 61,000 unfortunate
customers whose PII was stolen over two months ago. To date, the
Defendants have not revealed most of the findings of the
investigation it commissioned, the Plaintiff claims.

As a result, the Plaintiff and other consumers suffered present
injury and damages in the form of identity theft, loss of value of
their PII, out-of-pocket expenses and the value of their time
reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the
unauthorized access, exfiltration, and subsequent criminal misuse
of their sensitive and highly personal information.

The Plaintiff and Class Members seek to remedy these harms and
prevent any future data compromise on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and
stolen as a result of the Data Breach and remains at risk due to
inadequate data security.

Plaintiff Jeanfort is a resident and citizen of Florida, where he
intends to remain. He received a "Notice of Data Breach" letter
dated August 3, 2023, on August 22, 2023 from "TD Ameritrade Client
Services."

TD Ameritrade is a stockbroker that offers an electronic trading
platform for the trade of financial assets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
          Eric D. Barton, Esq.
          WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL, LLC
          4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 701-1100
          E-mail: thudson@wcllp.com
                  ebarton@wcllp.com

                - and -

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

TENNECO INC: Motion to Compel Arbitration in ERISA Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq., and Derek Franklin, Esq., of Duane
Morris, disclosed that in Parker, et al. v. Tenneco Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:23-CV-10816 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 21, 2023), Judge George
Steeh of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan denieda motion to compel arbitration based on finding an
ERISA class action waiver in an arbitration agreement
unenforceable. The Court determined that Plaintiffs'
breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim under the ERISA "seeks relief for
the [Benefits] plan as a whole," and that "the harm (and the
recovery) is to the Plan, rather than to plaintiffs specifically."
Id. at 14-15. In turn, the Court concluded that compelling
arbitration and enforcing the class action waiver would prevent
plan participants from seeking plan-wide remedies conferred by the
ERISA statute. For these reasons, the Parker decision is
instructive for employers seeking to implement an enforceable class
action wavier and configure arbitration agreements that are best
suited to account for the possibility of a class action waiver
being nullified.

Case Background

The group of Plaintiffs in the Parker lawsuit were led by Tanika
Parker, a current employee of DRiV Automotive Inc. ("DRiV"), and
Andrew Farrier, a former worker for Tenneco Inc. ("Tenneco"). DRiV
and Tenneco were two of several affiliated entities named as
Defendants in the case. Parker and Farrier, participants in
ERISA-covered 401(k) plans (the "Plans") sponsored by their
respective employers, alleged that Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties under the ERISA by failing to prudently monitor
and control the Plans' investments and expenses. Defendants moved
to compel arbitration of Plaintiffs' claims on an individual basis,
pursuant to an Arbitration Procedure adopted by the Plans
containing language barring participants from bringing ERISA claims
as a group or class. The Arbitration Procedure also provided that,
if the class action waiver was found unenforceable or invalid by a
court, the entire arbitration procedures would become null and
void.

Eastern District of Michigan Opinion

In denying Plaintiffs' motion to compel arbitration, Judge Steeth
ruled that the class action waiver within the Arbitration Procedure
was unenforceable because it "limits a participant's substantive
right under ERISA by prohibiting plan participants from bringing
suit." Id. at 15.

The Court's reasoning cited an April 2022 Sixth Circuit decision in
Hawkins v. Cintas Corp., 32 F.4th 625, 630 (6th Cir. 2022), which
held that breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims under the ERISA are
"brought in a representative capacity on behalf of the plan as a
whole." Id. at 10. The Court also quoted the explanation in the
Hawkins decision that, although an ERISA breach-of-fiduciary-duty
claim is typically brought by individual plaintiffs, "it is the
plan that takes legal claim to the recovery, suggesting that the
claim really 'belongs' to the Plan," and that "an arbitration
agreement that binds only individual participants cannot bring such
claims into arbitration." Id. at 12.

Consistent with that rationale, the Court in Parker held that the
ERISA class action waiver in the Arbitration Procedure at issue was
unenforceable because it would preclude Plan participants from
pursuing "plan-wide remedies" provided for under the ERISA statute
that cannot be waived by an agreement. Id. at 15. According to the
Court, this would occur by the class action waiver "(1) prohibiting
participants from bringing suit in a representative capacity on
behalf of the plan, and (2) limiting relief to losses attributable
to individual participant accounts, as opposed to plan-wide
remedies." Id.

Given that the Arbitration Procedure provided that it "shall be
rendered null and void in all respects" if the class action waiver
were to be "found unenforceable or invalid by the court," the Court
declared the entire Arbitration Procedure null and void and denied
Defendants' motion to compel arbitration. Id. at 15-16.

Implications for Class Action Defendants

As federal courts continue to issue decisions limiting the
application of class action waivers relative to claims under the
ERISA, it remains critical for businesses and employers to
regularly review their arbitration agreements and class action
waiver language to ensure legal compliance. Any business trying to
implement an enforceable class action waiver should carefully
consider the potential risks of extending that language to cover
plan mismanagement claims under the ERISA. Businesses should also
review their arbitration procedures to ensure they are best
positioned to function independently of a potentially unenforceable
class action waiver. [GN]

TRILLIUM COMMUNITY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Hopkins Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER HOPKINS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRILLIUM COMMUNITY HEALTH PLAN,
INC.; PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION; and PERFORMANCE HEALTH
TECHNOLOGY, LTD., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01259-YY (D. Or.,
Aug. 28, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for their
failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable
information including, but not limited to, the Plaintiff's and
Class Members' names, dates of birth, social security numbers,
demographic information, addresses, member and plan ID numbers,
email addresses, authorization information, diagnosis and procedure
codes, and claim and billing information.

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

Allegedly, the Defendants' unreasonable and inadequate data
security practices that resulted in the Data Breach, Plaintiff and
Class Members are at a current and ongoing risk of identity theft
and have suffered numerous actual and concrete injuries and
damages.

TRILLIUM COMMUNITY HEALTH PLAN INC. operates as a medical insurance
firm. The Company provides health insurance plans for individuals,
families, and small businesses. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew S. Kirkpatrick, Esq.
          KIRKPATRICK LAW, LLC
          7505 SE 18th Avenue
          Portland, OR 97202
          Telephone: (503) 901-8739
          Facsimile: (503) 894-7846
          Email: MattK@MKirkpatrickLaw.com

ULTIMATE FIGHTING: To Appeal Class Cert. Ruling in Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael McCann, writing for Sportico, reports that do workers have
an inherent right to see their compensation grow at the same rate
as their company's revenue?

There's no law or case precedent in the U.S. that compels that
result. But in a new court filing, UFC warns

Cung Le, et al. v. Zuffa (UFC)
could trigger novel and disruptive economic rules for American
businesses.

On Aug 23, UFC petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit for permission to appeal a district court judge's class
certification of an antitrust lawsuit brought by six former UFC
fighters.

UFC contends Judge Richard Boulware's Aug. 10 order could "unleash
a new breed of antitrust class actions" that pose "drastic and
unprecedented consequences" and "put courts in the role of
effectively setting compensation" for workers.

Boulware certified a class that consists of over 1,200 fighters who
were in one or more UFC bouts that took place, or were broadcast,
in the U.S. from Dec. 16, 2010, to June 30, 2017.

As the plaintiffs see it, UFC has abused its position as the
leading MMA promotions company to pay fighters less. They depict
UFC as a monopsony, with too much market control over the buying of
elite pro MMA fighters' services.

UFC seeks for the Ninth Circuit to intervene and reverse the class
certification, arguing the case presents "an important opportunity
to clarify the certification requirements for class actions
alleging suppression of compensation."

The petition criticizes Boulware for "embracing" an "unprecedented
theory" that UFC has violated antitrust law "by not increasing the
compensation of fighters in direct proportion" to growth in
revenues.

UFC warns this theory will incentivize "workers and contractors" in
other industries to claim injury under antitrust law if their
"individual compensation levels did not grow at the same rate as
the company's overall revenue." MMA and pro sports in general are
obviously different from many workplaces, but a court ruling on
worker compensation in one situation can become precedent for
others.

Although UFC fighters' compensation levels vary by how often a
fighter fights and wins, fighters collectively receive a smaller
share of revenue compared to players in the four major team-based
sports (NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL).

But UFC has pushed back, noting UFC fighter compensation has
increased by over 600% since 2005. NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL players
have also unionized and negotiated shares of revenue as part of the
give-and-take of collective bargaining. UFC fighters are
contractors who individually negotiate compensation.

UFC insists grouping fighters together fails to meet the necessary
elements of class certification under federal law. Such grouping,
UFC argues, "erroneously" glosses over "individualized differences"
in fighters' contracts. Some superstars, like Conor McGregor or Jon
Jones, have earned many millions of dollars while less prominent
and less successful fighters earn far less.

Even if the aggregate pool of compensation for fighters would be
higher with a greater share of revenue, UFC contends "that proves
nothing about the impact on each individual fighters' pay." The
fighters therefore shouldn't be in the same litigation class, UFC
argues.

UFC also depicts the fighters' calculation of alleged damages of
$1.6 billion, which under antitrust law could be automatically
trebled to $4.8 billion, as illogically excessive.

Those figures "vastly exceed" the $235 million in net income
Zuffa—UFC's owner and operator—reported during the class
period. That net income would only cover about 15% of $1.6 billion
and just 5% of $4.8 billion.

The former fighters will contest these arguments in a forthcoming
court filing. They'll likely stress Boulware supported many of
their arguments and illuminate anti-competitive features of MMA
earning opportunities.

UFC would probably respond by emphasizing how competing MMA
promotions have landed lucrative media and broadcast contracts and
how some prominent fighters have turned down UFC to join rivals. In
May, Francis Ngannou rejected what was reportedly the largest UFC
contract offer outside of McGregor to join the Professional
Fighters League. It's difficult to envision a comparable athlete in
football, basketball, baseball or hockey turning down the NFL, NBA,
MLB or NHL, respectively, for another league.

Le v. Zuffa has been in court since 2014 and will probably remain
in litigation for several more years.

A settlement is always a possibility. Minor league baseball players
who sued MLB over wages in 2014 reached a settlement with the
league last year.

But negotiating a settlement could prove challenging. If UFC agrees
to change its business model to peg fighter compensation to
revenue, it's not clear how that would individually impact fighters
or those who work other jobs at UFC.[GN]

UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL: Two Suits Over Student Fee Refunds Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
WFTV9 reports that adding to a series of similar rulings across the
state, an appeals court on Aug. 25 rejected two lawsuits alleging
the University of Central Florida should be required to refund
money to students because of a campus shutdown early in the
COVID-19 pandemic.

A panel of the 6th District Court of Appeal turned down arguments
that UCF breached contracts by not providing on-campus services
funded by student fees.

Students Sara Goldstein and Shaunna Wilson were the named
plaintiffs in the potential class-action lawsuits. The Aug. 25
decisions only gave a detailed explanation of the Goldstein case,
saying a circuit judge dismissed it based on sovereign immunity, a
legal concept that helps shield government agencies from
liability.

Under sovereign immunity, agencies can face lawsuits if it is shown
that contracts have been breached. But the appeals court said
"Goldstein's complaint incorporates no such documents containing
express terms requiring UCF to provide on-campus or in-person
services in exchange for the fees."

"We are mindful of the effects COVID-19 had on the loss of certain
college experiences for thousands of students across the state,"
said the eight-page ruling, written by Judge John Stargel and
joined by Judges Carrie Ann Wozniak and Jared Smith. "We are also
mindful of the additional responsibilities at state institutions of
higher learning to accommodate the health, safety, and education
needs of their students during the pandemic. There is simply no
basis for us to ignore sovereign immunity in this matter, and UCF
has taken no action requiring us to apply the breach of contract
exception."

The UCF lawsuits were among numerous cases filed against colleges
and universities in Florida and across the country after campuses
were temporarily shut down because of the pandemic, forcing
students to take classes remotely. Many of the lawsuits have
focused on seeking refunds of fees that students paid for such
things as transportation, health-care and athletic services that
were not provided because of the shutdowns.

Florida appellate courts have issued a series of rulings rejecting
lawsuits filed against schools including the University of Florida,
Florida International University, Florida Atlantic University,
Florida A&M University, Miami Dade College and the private
University of Miami.

Amid the swirl of cases, the state Supreme Court said in July it
will hear arguments in a lawsuit filed by University of Florida
graduate student Anthony Rojas. The 1st District Court of Appeal
ruled in favor of UF in that case.

Read: UCF police report uptick in scams targeting students

But one exception has been a class-action lawsuit filed against the
University of South Florida by student Valerie Marie Moore. The 2nd
District Court of Appeal last year refused a request by USF to
dismiss the case, and the Supreme Court on Jan. 5 declined to take
up an appeal by USF.

Hillsborough County Circuit Judge Darren Farfante in August
certified the USF case as a class action.

In the Aug. 25 ruling in the Goldstein lawsuit against UCF, the 6th
District Court of Appeal drew a distinction with the University of
South Florida case.

"Unlike the instant (Goldstein) case, Moore proffered documents
including student registration agreements that stated, 'By clicking
'Submit Changes' below, I am entering into a legal, binding
contract with USF' and incorporated university publications and
registration policies that could include express promises to
provide specific services in exchange for the payment of tuition,"
Stargel wrote. [GN]

VALLEY NATIONAL: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, White Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRIDGETTE WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. VALLEY NATIONAL BANCORP dba VALLEY BANK, Case No.
8:23-cv-01897-SDM-AEP (M.D. Fla., Aug. 22, 2023) sues the Defendant
for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personally
identifiable and financial information of the Plaintiff and the
Class members, including names, dates of birth, home addresses,
phone numbers, Social Security numbers, and email addresses.

In the course of its business, the Defendant is entrusted with an
extensive amount of the Plaintiff's and the Class members' PII,
which the Defendant then shared with its vendor Progress Software.
Between May 27, 2023, and May 31, 2023, an intruder gained entry to

The Defendant's vendor's database, accessed Plaintiff's and the
Class members' PII, and exfiltrated information. The Defendant did
not notify the Plaintiff and the Class members of the incident
until July 25, 2023. The Plaintiff and the Class members now face a
lifetime risk of identity theft, which is heightened here by the
loss of Social Security numbers, says the suit.

Allegedly, the Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff
and the Class members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or
negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable
measures to ensure their PII was safeguarded, failing to take
available steps to prevent an unauthorized disclosure of data, and
failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols,
policies and procedures regarding the encryption of data in the
possession of its vendor, the Plaintiff alleges.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose PII
was compromised because of the Defendant's failure to: adequately
protect their PII; warn of the Defendant's inadequate vendor
related information security practices; effectively oversee,
supervise, and secure equipment and the database containing
protected PII using reasonable and effective security procedures
free of vulnerabilities and incidents; and adequately supervise and
oversee its vendor with whom it shared the Plaintiff's and the
Class Members' PII.

The Defendant operates a national bank with approximately $64
billion in assets.[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

VERITIV CORP: Juan Monteverde Investigates Proposed Clayton Sale
----------------------------------------------------------------
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:

Veritiv Corp. (NYSE: VRTV), relating to its proposed sale to an
affiliate of Clayton, Dubilier & Rice LLC. Under the terms of the
agreement, VRTV shareholders will receive $170.00 in cash per share
they own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/veritiv-corp. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.

Chase Corp. (NYSE: CCF), relating to its proposed sale to an
affiliate of investment funds managed by KKR. Under the terms of
the agreement, CCF shareholders are expected to receive $127.50 in
cash per share they own. Click here for more information:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/chase-corp. It is free and there is
no cost or obligation to you.

American Equity Investment Life Holding Co. (NYSE: AEL), relating
to its proposed sale to Brookfield Reinsurance. Under the terms of
the agreement, AEL shareholders are expected to receive 0.49707
shares of Brookfield and $38.85 in cash per share they own. Click
here for more information:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/american-equity-investment-life-holding-co.
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

Arlington Asset Investment Corp. (NYSE: AAIC), relating to its
proposed sale to Ellington Financial Inc. Under the terms of the
agreement, AAIC shareholders will receive 0.3619 shares of
Ellington and $0.09 in cash per share they own. Click here for more
information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/arlington-asset-investment-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]

WORKERS CREDIT: Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIOMY ENCARNACION,
Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, v.
WORKERS CREDIT UNION, DOES 1 THROUGH 100, Case No.
4:21-cv-40077-MRG (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order granting unopposed motion for preliminary approval of
class action settlement and certification of settlement class.

Workers Credit provides solutions to help business process debit
cards, credit cards, and mobile payments.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3L0aFrO at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christine M. Craig, Esq.
          SHAHEEN & GORDON PA
          353 Central Ave, Ste 200
          Dover, NH 03821
          E-mail: CCraig@ShaheenGordon.com

                - and -

          Elaine S. Kusel, Esq.
          Richard D. McCune, Esq.
          MCCUNE LAW GROUP, MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO
          VERCOSKI KUSEL WECK BRANDT, APC
          3281 East Guasti Road, Suite 100
          Ontario, CA 91761
          Telephone: (909) 557-1275
          Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
          E-mail: esk@mccunewright.com
                  rdm@mccunewright.com

XOOM ENERGY: Summary Judgment Bid vs Mirkin Partly Granted
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSANNA MIRKIN and BORIS
MIRKIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. XOOM ENERGY, LLC, and XOOM ENERGY NEW YORK, LLC, Case
No. 1:18-cv-02949-ARR-RER (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Allyne R. Ross
entered an order granting in part and denying in part Xoom's motion
for summary judgment.

"Specifically, I grant summary judgment for XOOM as to Boris
Mirkin's claim for breach of contract because he was neither a
party to nor a third-party beneficiary of the contract," Judge Ross
said.

I deny summary judgment as to Susanna Mirkin's claim for breach of
contract because she contracted to receive residential electricity
from XOOM and there is a genuine dispute as to whether XOOM
breached the contract, the Judge added.

The Plaintiffs Susanna Mirkin and Boris Mirkin, a married couple
residing together in Brooklyn, bring this putative class action
against the defendants

The Mirkins' amended complaint asserts a claim for breach of that
contract, alleging that XOOM charged them exorbitant rates.
Following discovery, XOOM moved for summary judgment, principally
arguing that it had no contract with Boris Mirkin and that it did
not breach its contract with Susanna Mirkin.

In 1996, New York deregulated its energy markets with the goal of
fostering competition and lowering rates for consumers. Pls.’
56.1 ¶¶ 48–50. Deregulation allowed the proliferation of ESCOs
like XOOM, which purchase energy from producers on the wholesale
market and sell it to consumers.

In March 2013, Boris Mirkin applied under his wife's name to
receive residential electricity service through XOOM's SimpleFlex
variable rate plan.

XOOM is an independent energy retailer that supplies natural gas,
electricity and renewable energy to residential, small business,
mid-market and large commercial customers.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47OeJoZ at no extra charge.[CC]


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2023. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***