/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230929.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, September 29, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 196

                            Headlines

ABC PHONES: Court OK's Voluntary Dismissal, Solorio Case Closed
ACH FOOD: Fact Discovery in Heredia Due April 8, 2024
ADVANTAGE PLUS: Court Preliminarily Certifies Garrett Class Action
AGRO RESEARCH: Nov. 30 Extension to File Class Cert. Sought
ALLY FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Pay-to-Pay Fees, Sheridan Says

AMAZON.COM INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended Oct. 13
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over ADA Violations
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Fails to Accommodate Disabled Staff, White Says
AMERIVENTS CATERING: Kromah Sues Over Retained Tips Under FLSA
ANGEL TREE: Fails to Pay Drivers, Trimmers' OT Wages, Mendez Says

ARBOR REALTY: Plaintiffs Seek Initial Approval of Class Settlement
BATTERIES PLUS: Bross Has Until Feb. 16, 2024 to File Class Cert
BED BATH: Fails to Monitor Prudence of Plan's Investment, Suit Says
BERKELEY, CA: Faces Class Action Over Apartment Registration Fees
BEVERLY HILLS, CA: Police Dep't Faces Racial Profiling Class Suit

BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD: Abernathy Files Discrimination Class Action
BRADY MARTZ: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Quaife Suit Alleges
BRAUNFOTEL AND FRENDEL: Faces Suit Over Unfair Debt Collection
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Davenport Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Plaintiffs Must File Amended Complaint by Oct. 19

CABBAD FAMILY: Gachuz Sues Over Construction Workers' Unpaid Wages
CALIFORNIA: Agaton Sues Girardi, Law Firm for Unethical Conduct
CAPITAL PLUS: Greathouse Loses Class Certification Bid
CENTERRA GROUP: Court Stays Proceedings in Monarrez
CINEMARK USA: Discloses Customers Info to Meta, Marelich Alleges

COOK COUNTY, IL: Averts Correctional Officers' Class Action Suit
CS DISCO: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Nov. 20
CVS PHARMACY: Faces Jordan Suit Over Pink Eye Drops' False Ads
DELTA AIRLINES: Court Certifies Antitrust Class Action Suit
DEUTSCHE BANK: David Boies Hikes Hourly Billing Rate Amid Suit

DRINK NECTAR: Hydration Powders' Label, "False," Scheibe Alleges
DSM-FIRMENICH AG: Hogan Hits Fragrance Market Price-fixing
EARGO INC: Fazio Securities Class Action Suit Hearing Set
EL MONUMENTAL: Corsino Sues Over Bartenders' Unpaid Wages
ENTREE CORP: Faces Lopez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.

EXTRAORDINARY FLOORING: Hunter Alleges OT, Recordkeeping Violations
F21 OPCO: Moll Sues Over Unprotected Personal Health Info
FORDHAM UNIVERSITY: Refuses to Refund Tuition, Wallace Suit Says
FREEPORT PANCAKE: Court Approves Wage Class Action Settlement
GB PROVISIONS: Fails to Pay Server's Minimum Wages, Lupton Says

GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Chevrolet Traverse SUVs
GLOBAL ATLANTIC: Clancy Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info
GLOBAL ATLANTIC: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Guzman Claims
GOOGLE LLC: High Court Set to Rule on Settlement in October
GURUSHIVAY INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gomez Alleges

HAND HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Servers Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
HERTZ CORP: Fails to Pay Manager's OT Wages, Maharaj Alleges
HKE EXPRESS: Dominguez Suit Alleges Discrimination, Retaliation
HOMEADVISOR: Faces Fraud Charges Over Customer Leads
INCOMM PAYMENTS: Faces Class Action Over Prepaid Visa Debit Cards

INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Nov. 1
J. W. JUNG SEED: Frizzell Sues Over Managers' Unpaid Wages
JOHN HANCOCK: Zaben Sues Over Excessive Insurance Cost Charges
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Baughman Sues Over Mislabeled Decongestants
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Cronin Sues Over Mislabeled Decongestants

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: McWhite Sues Over Sudafed PE Tablet False Ads
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: PE Drugs "Ineffective," Thorns Suit Claims
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Reinkraut Sues Over Sudafed PE Tablet False Ads
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Tuominen Sues Over Sudafed PE's Deceptive Ads
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Wright Sues Over Sale of Ineffective PE Drugs

KENVUE INC: Faces Class Action Over Sudafed Decongestant Efficacy
KENVUE INC: Sudafed PE Decongestant is Ineffective, McIntyre Says
KIA MOTORS: Settles Class Action Over Vehicle Engine Defects
KIMCO STAFFING: Faces Data Breach Class Action in California
KIMCO STAFFING: Fails to Secure Employees' Info, Pittman Alleges

KOPPERS RAILROAD: Faces Brock FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
LIV UNLTD: Williams Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Porters
LOS TRES: Fails to Pay Waitress Minimum & OT Wages, Jumbo Says
LOUISIANA: Subjects Prisoners to Inhumane Condition, VOTE Claims
LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Nov 14

LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Mclemore Suit Over 8.11% Stock Price Drop
MAPFRE USA: Conway Sues Over Disclosure of Drivers' License Info
MCDONALD'S CORP: Court Warns HR of No-Poach Agreements Amid Suit
MERRILL LYNCH: Antonio Pereira Sues Over Lender Liability
META PLATFORMS: Collect Data Without Consent, Dye Suit Alleges

META PLATFORMS: Collects Non-Users' Health Info, E.H. Suit Alleges
META PLATFORMS: Faces LLaMA Infringement Class Action
MGM RESORTS: Lassoff Sues Over Personal Info Negligent Handling
MIDFIRST BANK: Dudurkaewa Files Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
MIGHTY CRAB: Faces Chi Ming Yau Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D.N.Y.

MILANO BROTHERS: Bueno Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
MOBILE MINI: Smith Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometrics
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Settles Burnett Antitrust Class Suit for $55M
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Flores Appeals Arbitration Ruling to 2nd Cir.
NAVISTAR CANADA: Agrees to Settle MaxxForce Engines Suit for $14.5M

NETWORK SOLUTIONS: 40 Acres Appeals Ruling to 2nd Cir.
NEW MEXICO: NMHSD Files 10th Cir. Appeal
NEW YORK LIFE: LCG Seeks Confidential Docs Maintained Under Seal
NEW YORK, NY: Bid to Dismiss Held in Abeyance
NORTHSTAR ENERGY: Hamilton Seeks Piping Designers' OT Wages

ONTARIO: Court Endorses $33MM EMDC Class Action Settlement
OPENAI LP: Web Scraping Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
PANERA LLC: Luna Seeks to Recover Retained Gratuities Under NYLL
PEACOCK TV: Illegally Auto Renews Subscriptions, Winston Claims
PFIZER INC: Riccio Sues Over Products False Maximum Strength Ads

PREMIER NUTRITION: Appeals Attorney's Fees Ruling in Montera Suit
PRIME HYDRATION: Faces Class Action Over PRIME Sports Drinks
PRIMIS BANK: Kline Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Tlaib Suit Over Sale of Ineffective Drugs
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Cooper Alleges Failure to Secure Personal Info

QUEBEC: Sued Over COVID-19 Fatalities, Lack of Response Planning
QUINOA CORPORATION: Heyning Sues Over Mislabeled Pasta Product
RAD POWER: Faces Mason Class Suit Over E-Bikes' Defective Design
RE/MAX HOLDINGS: Settles Commission Class Action for $55 Million
RELIANT TERMITE: Fails to Pay Technicians' OT Wages, Roberts Says

ROSEBOX LLC: Fails to Pay Florists' OT Wages, Marquez Claims
ROTOCO LLC: Faces Trcka Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
SALESFORCE INC: Conceals True Cost of Subscription, Roy Alleges
SANZ CONSTRUCTION: Marcatoma Sues Over Carpenters' Unpaid OT
SECURITY CONSULTANTS: Fails to Pay All Hours Worked, Ortiz Says

SENSIO INC: Gibson-Roberts Sues Over Defective Pressure Cookers
SOSA CONTRACTORS: Guerra Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT
SOVOS COMPLIANCE: Fails to Protect Consumers' Info, Zide Alleges
STARBUCKS CORP: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Missing Fruit
STREAMLINE BUILDERS: Faces Aldana Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.

TANDEM DIABETES: Faces Lowe Suit Over Share Price Drop
THERMO FISHER: Dimou Sues Over Breach Fiduciary Duties Under ERISA
TMC HEALTH: Discloses Personal Info to Third Parties, Williams Says
TOYOTA MOTOR: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Cruz Suit Alleges
UKG INC: KPC Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set October 3

UNITEDLEX: Faces Class Action Over March Data Breach
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS: Suarez Alleges Failure to Secure Info
USAA GENERAL: Tarkett Sues Over Unpaid Equity Surplus Amount
VIDEOTRON LTEE: Faces Class Suits in Quebec Over Unlawful Charges
WALMART INC: Court Dismisses Suit Over Deceptive Hydrogen Peroxide

WELLS FARGO: Wins $800 Million Class Suit Over Liquidation
WORLD OIL: Fails to Pay All OT Hours Worked, Mercado Suit Alleges
YARDI SYSTEMS: Duffy Sues Over Price-Fixing Conspiracy
YOUR WIRELESS: Faces Claudio Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
Z & S ENTERPRISES: Khan Seeks to Recover Clerks' Minimum & OT Wages


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Senate Committee Calls Out J&J's Ch. 11 Efforts


                            *********

ABC PHONES: Court OK's Voluntary Dismissal, Solorio Case Closed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PRISCILLA SOLORIO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ABC
PHONES OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-01051-JLT-CDB
(E.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order directing clerk of Court to
close case and adjust the docket to reflect Voluntary dismissal
pursuant to rule 41(a)(1) of the federal Rules of civil procedure.

The action was removed from Kern County Superior Court on July 30,
2020. The parties filed a notice of settlement on August 7, 2023.

In light of the parties' filing that is consistent with Rule
41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and the Court's finding above that under the
circumstances, Rule 23(e) does not require Court approval of the
dismissal, this action has been terminated by operation of law
without further order of the Court.

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to CLOSE the
file in this case and adjust the docket to reflect voluntary
dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1).

ABC was founded in 1996. The Company's line of business includes
providing two-way radiotelephone communication services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 5, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46dcIRE at no extra charge.[CC]


ACH FOOD: Fact Discovery in Heredia Due April 8, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARIDAD HEREDIA, et al.,
v. ACH FOOD COMPANIES, INC., Case No. 7:22-cv-05366-PMH (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Philip M. Halpern entered a civil case discovery
plan
and scheduling order as follows:

  -- Any motion to amend or to join additional       Oct. 9, 2023
     parties shall be filed by:

  -- Initial disclosures pursuant to Fed             Sept. 28, 2023

     R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) shall be completed
     by:

  -- Fact Discovery:                                 April 8, 2024

  -- Initial requests for production of              Sept. 28,
2023
     documents shall be served by:

ACH produces and markets cooking oils, spices and seasonings, and
baking ingredients.

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

ADVANTAGE PLUS: Court Preliminarily Certifies Garrett Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cecil C Garrett, v.
Advantage Plus Credit Reporting Incorporated, Case No.
2:21-cv-02082-DJH (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Diane J. Humetewa
entered an order preliminarily certifying lawsuit, for settlement
purposes only, as a class action on behalf of the following class
of plaintiffs with respect to the claims asserted in the Lawsuit:

   "All natural persons who were the subject: (1) of a consumer
report
   furnished by Defendant Advantage Plus Credit Reporting
Incorporated
   to a third party from December 8, 2019, through November 2021;
(2)
   where the consumer report contained a notation that the consumer

   was deceased from at least one of Experian, Equifax, or Trans
   Union; and (3) where at least one other of Experian, Equifax, or

   Trans Union did not contain a deceased notation."

The Court appoints as Class Representative: Plaintiff Cecil C.
Garrett.

The Court appoints as Class Counsel: E. Michelle Drake and Joseph
C. Hashmall, Berger Montague PC, 1229 Tyler St. NE, Ste. 205,
Minneapolis, Minnesota.

The Court appoints as Settlement Administrators: E. Michelle Drake
and Joseph C. Hashmall, Berger Montague PC, 1229 Tyler St. NE, Ste.
205, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Advantage is a "consumer reporting agency" which assembles consumer
credit information "for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports
to third parties."

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 6, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Zpq8rA at no extra charge.[CC]

AGRO RESEARCH: Nov. 30 Extension to File Class Cert. Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESUS ROMERO; KEN
BERNARDS; PETER HOFFMANN; LUCIA HOSSFELD; TIM PORTER; HOSSFELD
VINEYARDS INC.; HOSSFELD VINEYARDS WINE CO.; and PORTER FAMILY
VINEYARDS, LLC, individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. AGRO RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL LLC; ANDAMAN AG
CORPORATION; WILBUR-ELLIS COMPANY, LLC.; SENTINEL BIOLOGICS, INC.;
and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-00518-JD (N.D.
Cal.), the Parties conferred and agreed to request the following
amendment to the Scheduling Order:

          Deadline                  Current           Proposed

  Pltfs. To Complete Limited          N/A           Oct. 30, 2023
  Discovery as to ARI’s Ability
  to Satisfy a Judgment

  Pltfs. to File Class Cert        Sept. 7, 2023    Nov. 30, 2023
  Motion

  ARI to File Class Cert           Sept. 21, 2023   Dec. 14, 2023
  Opposition

  Pltfs. To File Class Cert        Sept. 28, 2023   Dec. 21, 2023
  Reply

  Trial                            June 24, 2024    No Change

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4676ZwM at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert S. Arns, Esq.
          Jonathan E. Davis, Esq.
          Shounak S. Dharap, Esq.
          Katherine A. Rabago, Esq.
          ARNS DAVIS LAW
          515 Folsom St., 3rd Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 495-7800
          Facsimile: (415) 495-7888
          E-mail: rsa@arnslaw.com
                  jed@arnslaw.com
                  ssd@arnslaw.com
                  kar@arnslaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kelly M. Breen, Esq.
          DOWNEY BRAND LLP
          Sacramento 621 Capitol Mall 18th Floor
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 444.1000
          Facsimile: (916) 444-2100

ALLY FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Pay-to-Pay Fees, Sheridan Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL C. SHERIDAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALLY FINANCIAL, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:23-cv-00616 (S.D. W.Va., September 18, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the West Virginia Consumer
Credit and Protection Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's collection of pay-to-pay fees
to West Virginia borrowers. According to the complaint, Ally
regularly passes its collection costs for monthly loan payments to
borrowers when they make their payments by telephone or online
("Pay-to-Pay transactions"). However, collection of pay-to-pay fees
in these transactions plainly violates West Virginia debt
collection law (CCPA). The Plaintiff brings this class action
lawsuit individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
putative class members to recover the unlawfully charged pay-to-pay
fees and to enjoin the Defendant from continuing to charge these
unlawful fees.

Ally Financial, Inc. is a financial services firm, with its
principal offices at 500 Woodward Avenue, 10th Floor, Detroit,
Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Patricia M. Kipnis, Esq.
         BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
         1622 Locust Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19102
         Telephone: (215) 274-9331
         E-mail: PKipnis@baileyglasser.com

                 - and -

         Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
         BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
         209 Capitol Street
         Charleston, WV 25301
         Telephone: (304) 345-6555
         E-mail: JMarshall@baileyglasser.com

AMAZON.COM INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended Oct. 13
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YASMINE MAHONE, an
individual, and BRANDON TOLE, an individual, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC.,
a Delaware corporation, AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC; a Delaware Limited
Liability Company; AMAZON.COM DEDC, LLC; a Delaware Limited
Liability Company; and AMAZON.COM KYDC LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company Case No. 2:22-cv-00594-MJP (W.D. Wash.), the Hon.
Judge Marsha J. Pechma entered and order on stipulated motion to
extend certain class certification-related deadlines:

   (1) The parties' initial submissions under        Sept. 14,
2023
       LCR 37 shall be served on:

   (2) The parties' responses shall be               Sept. 21,
2023
       served on:

   (3) The parties' replies shall be                 Sept. 25,
2023
       served on:

   (4) The parties will file the joint               Sept. 25,
2023
       motion with the Court on:

   (5) The deadline to complete class                Oct. 6, 2023
       Discovery:

   (6) The deadline for Plaintiffs' Class            Oct. 13, 2023
       Certification Motion

   (7) The deadline for the Defendants'              Dec. 15, 2023
       Response to the Motion for
       Class Certification:

   (8) Deadline for Plaintiffs' Reply:               Jan. 15, 2024

Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company focusing
on e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital
streaming, and artificial intelligence.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 5, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sZqJ79 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Kalish, Esq.
          HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
          600 Stewart Street, Suite 901
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 826-5354
          E-mail: dkalish@hkm.com

                - and -

          Brian J. Lawler, Esq.
          PILOT LAW, P.C.
          4632 Mt. Gaywas Dr.
          San Diego, CA 92117
          Telephone: (619) 255-2398
          E-mail: blawler@pilotlawcorp.com

                - and -

          Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq.
          STONEBARGER LAW, APC
          101 Parkshore Dr., Suite 100
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Telephone: (916) 235-7140
          E-mail: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com

                - and -

          Kevin L. Wilson, Esq.
          KEVIN WILSON LAW PLLC
          3110 Horton Avenue
          Louisville, KY 40220
          Telephone: (502) 276-5050
          E-mail: kevin@klwilsonlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Andrew E. Moriarty, Esq.
          Heather L. Shook, Esq.
          Shannon McDermott, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
          Seattle, WA 98101-3099
          Telephone: (206) 359-8000
          Facsimile: (206) 359-9000
          E-mail: AMoriarty@perkinscoie.com
                  HShook@perkinscoie.com
                  SMcDermott@perkinscoie.com

                - and -

          Jason C. Schwartz, Esq.
          Brian A. Richman, Esq.
          Lauren M. Blas, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20036-5306
          Telephone: (202) 955-8500
          Facsimile: (202) 467-0539
          E-mail: JSchwartz@gibsondunn.com
                  BRichman@gibsondunn.com
                  LBlas@gibsondunn.com

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over ADA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Peter Hayes, writing for Bloomberg Law, report that American
Airlines Inc. is facing class action claims that it fails to engage
in an interactive process with employees with disabilities, as
required by the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Lead plaintiff Santrise White alleges that American also refuses to
accommodate, impermissibly terminates, and fails to rehire
employees with disabilities, according to the complaint filed on
Sept. 18 in the US District Court for the Western District of
Texas.

White alleges that she suffers from a disability that causes
swelling in her legs due to a build-up of lymph fluid.

The airline ignored her request to wear tennis shoes. [GN]



AMERICAN AIRLINES: Fails to Accommodate Disabled Staff, White Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
SANTRISE WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:23-cv-01164 (W.D. Tex., September 18, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of Title I of the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's policies and procedures
violated the ADA by refusing to engage in its own interactive
processes with its employees with disabilities, refusing to
accommodate employees with disabilities, impermissibly terminating
employees with disabilities, and failing to rehire employees with
disabilities. The Plaintiff and similarly situated employees seek
monetary, injunctive, and/or equitable relief, including
compensatory and putative damages from American Airlines as a
result of its unlawful acts.

American Airlines, Inc. is an airline company headquartered in Fort
Worth, Texas. [BN]

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

AMERIVENTS CATERING: Kromah Sues Over Retained Tips Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
CECE KROMAH, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. AMERIVENTS CATERING LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-08152 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 14, 2023) sues the Defendant for
unlawfully retaining gratuities under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and asserts on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly
situated current and former employees, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23 (a) and (b), that the Defendant willfully violated the New York
Labor Law by: unlawfully retaining gratuities, failing to provide
the Notice and Acknowledgement of Payrate and Payday, and failing
to provide an accurate wage statement.

According to the complaint, the Defendant classified Plaintiff as a
non-exempt employee and paid her an hourly rate plus a minimal
share of tips. The Plaintiff's primary duties involve taking drink
orders from customers, fulfilling the orders, and handling payments
from customers including cash and credit tips for her service.
Pursuant to the Defendant's policy, the Plaintiff and other
employees pool their tips, which are paid out daily at the end of
each shift by a supervisor. The Defendant's supervisors allegedly
receive an equal/full portion of the pooled tips at the expense of
the fair disbursement of tips to bartenders. For example, at the
Kentucky Derby in 2023, the Plaintiff received more than $700.00 in
tips from customers for her service, yet was only tipped out $40.00
for that day's work. From speaking with them and observing them,
the Plaintiff knows that other employees of the Defendant, like
her, had their tips unlawfully withheld by the Defendant, the
lawsuit claims.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a bartender since
2020.

The Defendant provides hospitality staff, such as bartenders, to
event organizers in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
          Frank J. Tantone, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10017-6705
          Telephone: (212) 392-4772
          E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com
                  frank@lipskylowe.com

ANGEL TREE: Fails to Pay Drivers, Trimmers' OT Wages, Mendez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALVARO MENDEZ, JOSE CASTANEDA, and JENCER CARILLO REYES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
ANGEL TREE SERVICE LLC (ATS) and SEBASTIAN MEJIA, Case No.
2:23-cv-20420 (D.N.J., Sept. 18, 2023) sues the Defendants for
failing to pay overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey
Wage Payment Law.

The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants have engaged in their
unlawful conduct pursuant to a corporate policy of minimizing labor
costs and denying employees compensation. The Defendants' unlawful
conduct has been intentional, willful and in bad faith, and has
caused significant damages to the Plaintiffs and the FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs.

Mr. Mendez and Mr. Castaneda typically worked approximately 72
hours per week. Mr. Mendez was compensated at a fixed hourly rate
of $35 per hour for all hours worked, including those over 40 per
week. Mr. Castaneda was compensated at a fixed hourly rate of $18
per hour for all hours worked, including those over 40 per week,
the lawsuit claims.

The Defendants also reported fraudulent information to the IRS in
violation of 26 U.S.C. section 7434 by filing W-2 Forms with false
information regarding the wages paid to the Plaintiffs, thereby
decreasing Defendants' tax liability. As the Defendants did not
have a good faith basis to believe that their failure to pay
overtime wages complied with the law, the Plaintiffs and the FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs are entitled to liquidated damages equal to
100% of their unpaid wages, added the lawsuit.

Mr. Mendez was employed by the Defendants as a driver and trimmer
from June 2021 until September 2022.

Mr. Castaneda was employed by the Defendant as a trimmer from
September 2020 until September 2021.

ATS provides tree removal, trimming, stump removal, and other
landscaping services to residential and commercial locations
throughout New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan Trinidad-Lira, Esq.
          KATZ MELINGER PLLC
          370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1512
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 460-0047
          E-mail: jtrinidadlira@katzmelinger.com

ARBOR REALTY: Plaintiffs Seek Initial Approval of Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CASA DE MARYLAND, INC., et
al, v. ARBOR REALTY TRUST, INC., et al, Case No. 8:21-cv-01778-DKC
(D. Md.), the Plaintiffs Anita Ramirez, Ramiro Lopez, Ervin Obdulio
Rodas, Jesus Gonzalez, Maria Arely Bonilla, Maria Lara, and Norma
Guadalupe Beltran file an unopposed motion for preliminary approval
of class settlement, appointment of Plaintiffs as class
representatives and their counsel as class counsel, certification
of the class for settlement only and setting a final approval
hearing and notice in this action.

Arbor is a nationwide real estate investment trust and direct
lender, providing loan origination and servicing for multifamily,
seniors housing, healthcare and other diverse commercial real
estate assets.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 6, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EFSfJm at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan Nace, Esq.
          Zachary Kelsay, Esq.
          NIDEL & NACE, P.L.L.C.
          One Church Street, Suite 802
          Rockville, MD 20850
          Telephone:(202) 780-5153
          E-mail: jon@nidellaw.com
                  zach@nidellaw.com

                - and -

          P. Joseph Donahue, Esq.
          THE DONAHUE LAW FIRM, LLC
          18 West Street
          Annapolis, MD 21401
          Telephone: (410) 280-2023
          E-mail: pjd@thedonahuelawfirm.com

BATTERIES PLUS: Bross Has Until Feb. 16, 2024 to File Class Cert
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRITTNEY BROSS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BATTERIES PLUS, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01468-WCG (E.D. Wis.), the
Hon. Judge William C. Griesbach entered an order amending
scheduling order as follows:

           Event             Current Deadline        Amended
Deadline

  Discovery Deadline         October 2, 2023         December 4,
2023

  Motions to Compel       45 days after service     Motions on any
  Discovery                  response               currently
served
                                                    discovery must
be
                                                    filed by
October
                                                    20, 2023.

  Plaintiff's Expert         October 16, 2023       December 15,
2023
  Witness Disclosure

  Defendant's Expert         November 16, 2023      January 19,
2024
  Witness Disclosure

  Motion for Class           December 15, 2023      February 16,
2024
  Certification

  Final Lists of             May 5, 2024            June 24, 2024
  Witnesses & Exhibits

  Motions for Summary        March 15, 2024          May 10, 2024
  Judgment

Batteries Plus manufactures and distributes a range of batteries
and bulbs to its clients.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sYQogc at no extra charge.[CC]

BED BATH: Fails to Monitor Prudence of Plan's Investment, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL HARVEY and LELA LAPLANTE, as representatives of a class of
similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the BED BATH & BEYOND,
INC. (BBB) 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN v. BED BATH & BEYOND, INC. 401(K)
SAVINGS PLAN COMMITTEE and LAURA CROSSEN, Case No. 2:23-cv-20376
(D.N.J., Sept. 14, 2023) alleges that the Defendants failed to
monitor the prudence of the Plan's investment in the MassMutual
Guaranteed Interest Account (GIA), certified false and misleading
statements concerning the risk of loss to Plan participants
invested in the GIA, and failed to take action to avoid the
multi-million dollar losses that followed, in violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant Committee failed to
satisfy its duty of prudence pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section
1104(a)(1) with respect to monitoring the Plan's investment in the
GIA and timely removing the GIA from the Plan, resulting in losses
to the Plan and the individual accounts of the Plaintiffs.

The Plan was a defined contribution retirement plan sponsored by
BBB. The purpose of the Plan was to provide retirement benefits to
BBB employees by allowing them to defer wages pre-tax and invest in
an array of investment options selected and monitored by the
Committee.

BBB filed for bankruptcy on April 23, 2023. BBB's bankruptcy
triggered termination of the MassMutual Contract and a market value
adjustment to participant account balances in the Plan. The market
value adjustment was substantial and negative, wiping out around
10% of the value of participants' principal preservation accounts,
totaling more than $5 million, the lawsuit claims.

Had the Defendant Committee undertaken this prudent process, it
would have terminated the MassMutual Contract by notice and avoided
the risk of Plan losses that could result from BBB's bankruptcy and
a decrease in value of the GIA's underlying portfolio. BBB
terminated the Plan effective August 1, 2023. All participant
balances will be distributed from the Plan by October 16, 2023. The
Plaintiffs seek recovery for losses to the Plan due to Defendants'
fiduciary breaches and equitable relief on behalf of the Plan as a
whole.

The Plaintiffs are adequate to bring this derivative action on
behalf of the Plan, and their interests are aligned with the Plan's
other participants and beneficiaries. The Plaintiffs do not have
any conflicts of interest with any participants or beneficiaries
that would impair or impede their ability to pursue this action.
The Plaintiffs have retained counsel experienced in ERISA
litigation and intend to pursue this action vigorously on behalf of
the Plan.

Plaintiff Paul Harvey was a longtime BBB employee who participated
in the Plan. Around 50% of his Plan account was invested in the
GIA. In August 2023, his GIA balance suffered around a 10% loss.
Plaintiff Harvey's distribution from the Plan would be higher if
not for the Defendants failures to monitor Plan investments, report
accurate information, and take action to avoid losses to the Plan.

Plaintiff Lela LaPlante was a BBB employee who participated in the
Plan. A portion of her Plan account was invested in the GIA. In
August 2023, her GIA balance suffered around a 10% loss. Plaintiff
LaPlante's distribution from the Plan would be higher if not for
the Defendants' failures to monitor Plan investments, report
accurate information, and take action to avoid losses to the Plan.

The Defendant Committee was the fiduciary designated by Bed Bath &
Beyond, Inc., the sponsor of the Plan, to select and monitor the
Plan investments. The members of the Defendant Committee were
high-ranking employees of BBB.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
          Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 967-5377
          Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
          E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com
                  medelman@forthepeople.com

                - and -

          Carl F. Engstrom, Esq.
          ENGSTROM LEE LLC
          729 N. Washington Ave, Suite 600
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 305-8349
          Facsimile: (612) 677-3050
          E-mail: cengstrom@engstromlee.com

                - and -

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com

BERKELEY, CA: Faces Class Action Over Apartment Registration Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TheRealDeal reports that Alan Wofsy & Associates has challenged
Berkeley's apartment registration fees.

The San Francisco-based arts publisher and owner of a 26-unit
apartment complex in northwest Berkeley has filed a class-action
lawsuit to challenge the city's Measure MM, which forces apartment
owners to pay yearly registration fees, the San Francisco Business
Times reported.

Wofsy and his firm allege the fees implemented as part of Measure
MM, voted into law in 2020, violate the state's constitution.

It seeks an injunction on the collection of Measure MM registration
fees, as well as unspecified damages, litigation costs and
attorneys fees, plus a refund of all fees paid by landlords under
Measure MM since its enactment

Berkeley had previously required landlords of rent-controlled
apartments to pay the annual, per-unit fees.

But the voter-approved measure amended the city's rent-control
ordinance to add between 4,000 and 5,000 units once exempt from
that requirement, including single-family homes, condominiums and
apartments built after June 30, 1980.

Landlords for the added housing have shelled out $150 per unit a
year for fiscal years 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, according to the
lawsuit. Fees for non-exempt landlords have since risen to $178 per
apartment.

Alan Wofsy & Associates argues those rates as unreasonable and more
than needed to cover the cost of Measure MM, which also bars
evictions of Berkeley renters for nonpayment during state- or
local-level states of emergency.

Measure MM also limited a rent-control exemption for accessory
dwelling units, unless the ADU is the only one on the property of
an owner-occupied single-family home.

The complaint alleges the fees violate a clause in California's
constitution.

Wofsy's lawsuit was filed on behalf of "hundreds, if not thousands"
of property owners who have been required to pay MM's registration
fees.

Under Measure MM, owners of exempt apartments — including units
owned by nonprofits and units leased to Section 8 tenants — don't
pay registration fees, and owners of affordable units that don't
qualify for exemption pay $37 per apartment per year.

In 1998, Wofsy bought three mid-century cottages at Hearst Commons
at 1146-1160 Hearst Avenue, whose studios rented in 2021 for
between $1,375 and $1,600, according to a rental listing.

The owner of a fine arts publishing company in San Francisco owns
properties in Oakland and in 1989 sued the city of Berkeley over a
proposed residential project, and in 2000 sued the city over its
rent-control law. [GN]

BEVERLY HILLS, CA: Police Dep't Faces Racial Profiling Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Washington, writing for The Roto, reports that it probably
won't surprise anyone (Black) to hear that police in the wealthy
community of Beverly Hills aren't the friendliest to Black people.
But the allegations in a new lawsuit still might surprise (and
horrify) you.

The lawsuit is accusing Beverly Hills law enforcement officers of
racially profiling nearly 1,100 Black drivers during traffic stops.
The case is being spearheaded by civil rights Attorney Ben Crump,
who called the stops "racial profiling 101."

The city is denying that racial profiling is taking place. "The
City of Beverly Hills is an international destination that always
welcomes visitors from across the country and around the world,"
they wrote in a statement to NBC News. "The role of the Beverly
Hills Police Department is to enforce the law, regardless of
race."

Despite the city's protestations, Crump and his team are pushing
forward with the lawsuit. In total, the aggrieved parties are
asking for $500 million. [GN]

BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD: Abernathy Files Discrimination Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES M. ABERNATHY, HEATHER HUTTON, and KERRIE INGLE, on their own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD OF TENNESSEE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-00322 (E.D. Tenn., Sept. 7, 2023) is a class action lawsuit
brought against the Defendant pursuant to Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 to remedy the illegal discrimination to which
its employees who requested religious accommodations from
Defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate have had to endure.

According to the complaint, the Defendant decided that unvaccinated
employees -- even those who Defendant admits have sincerely held
religious objections to the vaccine -- were to be terminated from
their employment despite their sincerely held religious beliefs and
the reasonableness of their accommodation requests. The Defendant's
discriminatory actions left Plaintiffs and those similarly situated
with the formidable task of choosing between their faith and their
jobs. By failing to accommodate Plaintiffs' religious beliefs and
then firing Plaintiffs, Defendant willfully discriminated against
Plaintiffs because of their religious beliefs, which is a blatant
violation of Title VII, says the suit.

BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, Inc. is an insurance company
offering, inter alia, individual and family health insurance plans,
Medicare and Medicaid plans, dental and vision plans, and employer
and group plans.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jesse D. Nelson, Esq.
          Clint J. Coleman, Esq.
          NELSON LAW GROUP, PLLC
          10263 Kingston Pike
          Knoxville, TN 37922
          Telephone: (865) 383-1053
          E-mail: jesse@nlgattorneys.com
                  clint@NLGattorneys.com

BRADY MARTZ: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Quaife Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Quaife, on behalf of himself individually and all others
similarly situated v. Brady Martz & Associates, P.C., Case No.
3:23-cv-00176-PDW-ARS (D.N.D., Sept. 15, 2023) sues the Defendant
for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personally
identifiable information, including individual's names, date of
birth, driver’s license or state ID numbers, health insurance
information, medical information, and/or Social Security numbers.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant breached its numerous
duties and obligations by failing to comply with industry-standard
data security practices and federal and state laws and regulations
governing data security; failing to properly train its employees on
data security measures and protocols; failing to timely recognize
and detect unauthorized third parties accessing its system ; and
failing to timely notify the impacted Class Members.

On November 19, 2022 the Defendant has confirmed that a data breach
had occurred approximately five days earlier

According to Defendant's reports, as many as 53,524 or more
individuals may have had their PII obtained by unauthorized third
parties as part of the Data Breach. The Defendant not only failed
to prevent the Data Breach, but after discovering the Data Breach
in November 2022, Defendant waited almost a year to report it to
states' Attorney Generals, and to affected individuals such as the
Plaintiff and members of the Class, the Plaintiff alleges.

As a result of Defendant's delayed response, the Plaintiff and
Class Members had no idea their PII had been compromised, and that
they were, and continue to be, at significant and imminent risk of
identity theft and various other forms of personal, social
and financial harm. The risk will remain for their respective
lifetimes because of the Defendant's negligence.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class
Members, asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, and
unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief,
declaratory relief, monetary damages, and all other relief as
authorized in equity or by law.

Mr. Quaife currently resides in Moorhead, Minnesota. He received
the Defendant's September 8, 2023, Notice of Data Breach letter
nearly eleven months after the Data Breach was detected. The
Plaintiff's PII was provided to the Defendant through his previous
employment as a contract Security/Event Ambassador with the City of
Fargo, North Dakota in 2015.

The Defendant offers financial and business advisory related
services, including audit and financial guidance, bookkeeping and
payroll assistance, and trust and wealth management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Haider, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER LAW FIRM
          815 3rd Ave. S.
          Fargo, ND 58103
          Telephone: (701) 235-4481
          Facsimile: (701) 235-1107
          E-mail: scott@schneiderlawfirm.com

                - and -

          Nathan D. Prosser, Esq.
          Anne T. Regan, Esq.
          HELLMUTH & JOHNSON PLLC
          8050 West 78th Street
          Edina, MN 55439
          Telephone: (952) 941-4005
          E-mail: nprosser@hjlawfirm.com
                  aregan@hjlawfirm.com

                - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          David A. Goodwin, Esq.
          Daniel J. Nordin, Esq.
          Joe E. Nelson, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
                  dnordin@gustafsongluek.com
                  jnelson@gustafsongluek.com

BRAUNFOTEL AND FRENDEL: Faces Suit Over Unfair Debt Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Gibb of Accounts Recovery reports that a law firm in New York
is facing a class-action lawsuit for allegedly sending a letter to
an individual attempting to collect on an unpaid debt without
making the required disclosures that the communication was coming
from a debt collector and threatening to file a lawsuit 18 days
after the letter was sent to the plaintiff.

A copy of the complaint, filed in the District Court for the
Southern District of New York, can be accessed using case number
23-cv-07763 or by clicking here. A copy of the letter in question
can be accessed by clicking here.

The letter, which includes the letterhead for the law firm at the
top, is dated August 7, 2023 and informs that plaintiff that it has
been retained by Westrock Industries for work that was done to the
plaintiff's pool/spa, in the amount of $872.42. The letter includes
two invoices for different services that were performed, as well as
a photo of the plaintiff's equipment. The letter informs the
plaintiff that he has not yet paid for the work that was performed
and that a demand for payment was being made. The letter informs
the plaintiff that unless payment of the debt is received by August
25, a lawsuit was going to be filed against him.

The complaint accuses the collector of not including any of the
required disclosures that would normally accompany a collection
letter sent by a collector to a consumer. The letter also failed to
include an itemization of the debt, which is especially important
because the total of the two invoices included with the letter was
$396.65 and the letter does not explain why the amount being sought
it more than double the amount in the invoices. The complaint also
accuses the defendant of overshadowing the 30-day window for the
consumer to dispute the debt by threatening a lawsuit before that
time had expired.

The complaint accuses the collector of violating Sections 1692e,
1692e(2)(A), 1692e(10), 1692f, and 1692g of the FDCPA. The
complaint seeks to include anyone else who received initial
collection communications from the defendant without an itemized
breakdown of the debt and the required dispute and verification
disclosures, while also not disclosing that the communication was
from a debt collector. [GN]

BROOKDALE SENIOR: Davenport Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brookdale Senior
Living Communities, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Lillian
Davenport, on behalf of the State of California, and others
similarly situated and aggrieved v. Brookdale Senior Living
Communities, Inc., Emeritus Corporation, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2023-0009791 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Sept.
13, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."

Brookdale Senior Living -- https://www.brookdale.com/en.html -- is
one of the largest senior living community organizations located in
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zachary Crosner, Esq.
          CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
          9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Phone: (310) 496-5818
          Fax: (310) 510-6429
          Email: zach@crosnerlegal.com


BROOKDALE SENIOR: Plaintiffs Must File Amended Complaint by Oct. 19
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STACIA STINER, et al., v.
BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING, INC.; BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITIES,
INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 4:17-cv-03962-HSG (N.D.
Cal.), Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order
modifying case schedule as follows:

   (1) Unless the parties stipulate to the filing of a Fourth
Amended
       Complaint, the Plaintiffs shall file and serve their motion
for
       leave to file their Fourth Amended Complaint on or before
       October 19, 2023.

   (2) The Plaintiffs shall file and serve their motion for leave
to
       file a renewed motion for class certification on or before
       October 19, 2023.

   (3) The Defendants' opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for leave
to
       file a renewed motion for class certification is due on or
       before November 9, 2023.

   (4) The Plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion for leave
to
       file a renewed motion for class certification is due on or
       before November 20, 2023.

   (5) The other pretrial dates and deadlines are set as follows:

       a. February 1, 2024 -- fact discovery cut-off

       b. April 1, 2024 -- expert discovery cut-off

       c. May 16, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. -- dispositive motions hearing

          deadline

   (6) The pretrial conference in this case is scheduled for August

       13, 2024 at 3:00 p.m.

   (7) Trial is set for September 9, 2024, at 8:30 a.m.

Brookdale offers a wide range of senior living and retirement
communities and senior care options.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46ddHRz at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Guy B. Wallace, Esq.
          Mark T. Johnson, Esq.
          Travis C. Close, Esq.
          Rachel L. Steyer, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608-1863
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: gwallace@schneiderwallace.com
                  mjohnson@schneiderwallace.com
                  tclose@schneiderwallace.com
                  rsteyer@schneiderwallace.com

                - and -

          Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld, Esq.
          Jenny S. Yelin, Esq.
          Benjamin Bien-Kahn, Esq.
          Amy Xu, Esq.
          ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP
          101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105-1738
          Telephone: (415) 433-6830
          Facsimile: (415) 433-7104
          E-mail: ggrunfeld@rbgg.com
                  jyelin@rbgg.com
                  bbien-kahn@rbgg.com
                  axu@rbgg.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Erica Rutner, Esq.
          John A. Bertino, Esq.
          MOORE & LEE, LLP
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1980
          Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
          Telephone: (703) 940-3763
          Facsimile: (703) 506-2051
          E-mail: e.rutner@mooreandlee.com

                - and -

          Michael D. Jacobsen, Esq.
          Kristina M. Launey, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
          Chicago, IL 60606-6448
          Telephone: (312) 460-5000
          Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
          E-mail: mjacobsen@seyfarth.com
                  klauney@seyfarth.com

CABBAD FAMILY: Gachuz Sues Over Construction Workers' Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL GACHUZ, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CABBAD FAMILY, LLC, PHILIP CABBAD, and
ALBERT CABBAD, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-06684 (E.D.N.Y., Sept.
7, 2023) is a class action against Defendants to remedy violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law arising
from their failure to pay Plaintiff and others similarly situated
minimum wages and overtime wages, failure to furnish wage notices,
and failure to pay on a weekly basis.

Plaintiff Gachuz was employed by the Defendants as a construction
worker from April 2022 until June 8, 2023, when he was abruptly
fired by Defendants.

Cabbad Family, LLC is a New York Domestic Limited Liability
Company, formed on December 19, 1997, for the purpose of engaging
in "the management, purchase and sale of real estate properties"
owned by the Cabbad Family, most of which were located on/near 5th
Avenue and/or Baltic Street in Brooklyn, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Harrison, Esq.
          HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES
          110 State Highway 35, Suite 10
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Telephone: (718) 799-9111
          E-mail: dharrison@nynjemploymentlaw.com

CALIFORNIA: Agaton Sues Girardi, Law Firm for Unethical Conduct
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANA AGATON and ARTURO EMANUEL AGATON, on behalf of themselves, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE STATE
BAR OF CALIFORNIA, TOM LAYTON, JOE DUNN, HOWARD MILLER, JOHN
NOONEN, MURRAY GREENBERG, MIKE NISPEROS, RICHARD PLATEL, and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive; Defendants, Case No. 23STCV21606 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 7, 2023) arises from State Bar's
decades of shielding and protecting Tom Girardi and his firm,
Girardi Keese, regardless of their alleged blatant and constant
criminal activities as well as illegal and unethical conduct.

On October 11, 2009, a six-year-old boy, Arturo Agaton, Jr.,
succumbed to brain cancer caused by exposure to excessive levels of
hexavalent chromium (chromium 6) released into the air where he
lived in Riverside, California. Arturo Jr.'s death was linked to a
cement company named TXI Industries, who had been emitting
excessive levels of chromium 6 for years. The loss was devastating
to Arturo's parents, Ana and Arturo, Sr.

Class action lawsuits followed against TXI, and Ana and Arturo, Sr.
joined the suit filed by attorney Tom Girardi and his firm, Girardi
Keese, on October 8, 2008.

On September 25, 2015, Girardi announced the settlement of the TXI
Industries litigation for $31 million. According to the complaint,
Girardi never paid the Agatons their share of the TXI settlement
proceeds or, upon information and belief, any other TXI
Plaintiffs.

The complaint does not seek redress or include any claims or
collection theories against TXI. Rather, this case exposes the
rampant corruption at the State Bar of California and targets the
incestuous relationship between Tom Girardi and the Girardi Keese
law firm on the one hand, and the State Bar of California and its
employees and staff on the other hand. This relationship allowed
Girardi and Girardi Keese to steal millions from their clients
(like the Agatons) and from referral lawyers, while Girardi
showered his State Bar connections with cash, gifts, jewelry, meals
at expensive clubs and restaurants, private jet transportation,
employment at his law firm, trips to Las Vegas, and more, says the
suit.

The State Bar of California acts as the administrative arm of the
California Supreme Court in all matters related to attorney
admission and discipline in California. The individual Defendants
are State Bar officials.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel A. Osborn, Esq
          OSBORN LAW P.C.
          43 West 43rd Street, Suite 131
          New York, NY 10036-7424
          Telephone: (212) 725-9800
          Facsimile: (212) 500-5115

CAPITAL PLUS: Greathouse Loses Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC GREATHOUSE, ET AL.,
v. CAPITAL PLUS FINANCIAL, LLC, ET AL., Case No. 4:22-cv-00686-P
(N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Mark Pittman entered an order denying
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification:

    1. Nationwide Class

       The Plaintiff Eric Greathouse is a citizen of Arkansas who
owns
       an insurance inspection business. Plaintiff Tiffany Sumrall
is
       a citizen of Texas who owns a landscaping business.
Plaintiff
       Cori Pericho is a citizen of Hawaii who owns a messenger and

       delivery service. Plaintiff John Pinkney is a citizen of
Texas
       who owns a cable communications business. Plaintiff Alicia
Mena
       is a citizen of Arizona who owns a housecleaning business.
       These Plaintiffs were assigned SBA numbers by Capital Plus,
but
       their loans remain unfunded. As a result, they collectively

       seek to represent a nationwide class and bring a claim for
       breach of contract.

       The Plaintiffs seek certification of this class under the
       following criteria:

       "All persons and entities in the United States and its
       territories Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and

       U.S. Virgin Islands who, in 2021, applied for PPP loans with

       defendant CPF as the lender for whom the SBA provided an SBA

       loan number, and who executed and submitted their Loan
       Documents but did not receive the PPP loan proceeds."

    2. North Carolina Subclass

       Plaintiff Barbara Myles is a citizen of North Carolina who
owns
       a business that assists independent artists. Myles was
assigned
       an SBA number by Capital Plus, but her loan remains
unfunded.
       Myles seeks to represent a North Carolina subclass and
brings a
       claim under the NCUDTPA together with a breach-of-contract
       claim.

       The Plaintiffs seek certification of this subclass under the

       following criteria:

       "All persons and entities in North Carolina who, in 2021,
       applied for PPP loans with defendant CPF as the lender for

       whom the SBA provided an SBA loan number, and who executed
and
       submitted their Loan Documents but did not receive the PPP
loan
       proceeds.

    3. California Subclass

       Lastly, Plaintiff Ernesto Covarrubias is a citizen of
       California who owns an auto repair business. Plaintiff
Joshua
       Smith is also a citizen of California who owns and operates
a
       delivery and human resource and consulting business. These
       Plaintiffs were also assigned SBA numbers by Capital Plus,
and
       their loans were never funded. Covarrubias and Smith seek to

       represent a California subclass and bring a claim under the
UCL
       together with a breach-of-contract claim.

       The Plaintiffs seek certification of this subclass under the

       following criteria:

       "All persons and entities in California who, in 2021,
applied
       for PPP loans with defendant CPF as the lender for whom the
SBA
       provided an SBA loan number, and who executed and submitted

       their Loan Documents but did not receive the PPP loan
       proceeds."

Capital Plus is a real estate financial institution specializing in
residential mortgage lending.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PKNk0g at no extra charge.[CC]


CENTERRA GROUP: Court Stays Proceedings in Monarrez
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEANNIE MONARREZ
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, v. CENTERRA GROUP, LLC, an unknown business
entity; CENTERRA SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, INC., an unknown business
entity; WACKENHUT SERVICES, INC., an unknown business entity; G4S
GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS, INC., an unknown business entity; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-03596-JWH-PLA (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge John W. Holcomb entered an order granting
stipulation to:

   (1) stay proceedings through final approval hearing of Hines
class
       action and PAGA settlement on January 25, 2024; and

   (2) extend plaintiff's Deadline to move for Reconsideration of
       Court's Aug. 22, 2023, order Granting in part Defendants'
       motion to Dismiss and/or strike Or, alternatively, file
Second
       amended Complaint.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZiDpSF at no extra charge.[CC]



CINEMARK USA: Discloses Customers Info to Meta, Marelich Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN MARELICH, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. CINEMARK USA, INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-04732-JD (N.D.
Cal., Sept. 14, 2023) alleges that the Defendant, through its
website, is sharing its customers' private video viewing
information without obtaining the legally required consent in
violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act.

According to the complaint, Cinemark has partnered with Meta
Platforms, Inc. and its "Facebook" social media platform to collect
personally identifiable information each time a consumer views a
video or purchases a ticket on Cinemark's website. Simultaneously,
as soon as a consumer decides to visit a video page on Cinemark's
website, a tiny, invisible piece of computer code called the "Meta
Pixel" collects the page's address, including the video's title,
and sends the information directly to Facebook, together with a
digital ID that allows Facebook to match the information to the
consumer's Facebook profile and all of the other information
Facebook may have about that consumer's demographics, affiliations,
and tastes, the lawsuit alleges.

Cinemark benefits from this unauthorized disclosure by receiving
enhanced analytics and advertising services, and Meta benefits by
adding consumers' valuable information to its marketing databases,
which it can then use to sell targeted advertisements. The only
losers are the unwitting consumers. Without even realizing what is
happening, they have valuable information about their tastes and
private media consumption appropriated to fuel Facebook's
multi-billion dollar advertising machine. By disclosing the
Plaintiff's and the Class members' personally identifiable
information, Cinemark violated their statutorily protected privacy
rights and deprived them of the value of their private information.
As a result of these violations, Cinemark is liable to Plaintiff
and the Class members for liquidated damages not less than $2,500
per person, as well as punitive damages, costs, and attorney's
fees, says the lawsuit.

Mr. Marelich has purchased tickets on Cinemark's website at
www.cinemark.com to see movies at Cinemark Century at Pacific
Commons, including on November 2022. He has had a Facebook account
for more than ten years, and has never consented to Cinemark
sharing his personal information or video-watching history with any
third party.

Cinemark is a movie theatre chain whose portfolio includes Cinemark
Century at Pacific Commons and numerous other theatres in this
district. Cinemark's website allow consumers to select the movie of
their choice and to purchase tickets online for video viewing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Caddell, Esq.
          Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq.
          Amy E. Tabor, Esq.
          CADDELL & CHAPMAN
          628 East 9th Street
          Houston TX 77007-1722
          Telephone: (713) 751-0400
          Facsimile: (713) 751-0906
          E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com
                  cbc@caddellchapman.com
                  aet@caddellchapman.com

COOK COUNTY, IL: Averts Correctional Officers' Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernie Pazanowski, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Cook
County, Ill., correctional officers seeking to be paid for time
they spent cleaning themselves, their clothes, cars, and equipment,
before and after shifts at the jail in response to the Covid-19
pandemic aren't entitled to pursue their claims as a class action,
a federal court said.

The plaintiffs, who were a proposed class of over 3,000 department
of corrections officers, didn't identify a common policy requiring
workers in the class to engage in cleaning activities as a
condition of their employment, the opinion by Judge Rebecca R.
Pallmeyer of the US District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. [GN]




CS DISCO: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Nov. 20
---------------------------------------------------------
Berman Tabacco filed a class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York against CS Disco, Inc. ("CS
Disco" or the "Company") (NYSE: LAW) and certain of its current and
former officers on behalf of persons and entities that purchased
shares of CS Disco's common stock between July 21, 2021, and August
11, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"), for violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is captioned Gambrill v.
CS Disco, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-08270 (S.D.N.Y.).

Discuss Your Legal Rights and Options

If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must file
a motion to serve as Lead Plaintiff with the Court no later than
November 20, 2023. Any member of the proposed class may move the
Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff through counsel of their choice,
or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of the proposed
class.

If you purchased shares of CS Disco common stock and sustained
losses and would like serve as Lead Plaintiff, please contact us
here: Shareholder Contact | Berman Tabacco.

About the Class Action

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, "CS Disco
repeatedly touted strong growth in its revenues attributable to
customer usage of its cloud-based electronic discovery platform and
asserted that it had good advance visibility into changes in the
demand from individual customers over time." The complaint also
alleges that "[w]hile the Company also acknowledged that its rapid
revenue growth was ‘usage driven' and may be subject to
volatility, it did not inform investors during the Class Period
that it had any indication of significant headwinds to its
growth."

The complaint further alleges that "[t]he truth began to emerge on
August 11, 2022, when CS Disco released financial results for the
second quarter of 2022 that shocked investors and analysts alike.
Not only did the Company's revenue growth taper drastically [as
compared to] past quarters, but the Company alerted the markets
that it would no longer be including in its guidance any revenues
attributable to its largest customers for the entire year." On
August 12, 2022, CS Disco common shares fell 53% on heavy volume. A
copy of the complaint is available here.

No Responsibility for Attorney's Fees or Expenses

Berman Tabacco typically represents individuals and entities in
class actions on a contingency fee basis, meaning we advance all
attorneys' fees and expenses in the litigation. If the case is
successful, the firm will ask the court to award the firm
attorneys' fees and the reimbursement of expenses from any
settlement fund. If we are not successful, you will not be
responsible for the reimbursement of attorneys' fees or expenses.

About Berman Tabacco

Berman Tabacco represents institutions and individuals in lawsuits
seeking to recoup losses caused by corporate misconduct and
violations of the securities and antitrust laws. Since 1982, our
firm has prosecuted hundreds of securities and antitrust complex
cases. The firm and its attorneys have been recognized for their
work on behalf of plaintiffs, including by Chambers USA, Benchmark
Litigation, which has ranked the firm as Highly Recommended and a
Top Ten Plaintiffs, The Legal 500, U.S. News & World Report-Best
Lawyers, The Daily Journal, Lawdragon, Who's Who Legal, and Super
Lawyers.

The firm has offices in Boston, Massachusetts and San Francisco,
California.

This notice may constitute attorney advertising.

Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

Contacts
Berman Tabacco
Jay Eng, Esq.
One Liberty Square
Boston, Massachusetts
Email: law@bermantabacco.com [GN]

CVS PHARMACY: Faces Jordan Suit Over Pink Eye Drops' False Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGIANN JORDAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CVS PHARMACY, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00979
(W.D.N.Y., Sept. 17, 2023) contends that the Defendant's "Pink Eye
Drops" under the CVS Health brand is not capable of "Relieving:
Redness, Burning, Watery discharge (and) Gritty sensation," nor
providing any of the other benefits promoted on its website.

According to the complaint, the Product's website describes it as
"a homeopathic formula." It describes the Product as "very helpful
for relieving irritation, redness, burning, and dryness. The
homeopathic formula is safe for use in the eyes and easy to apply.
These drops are gentle enough for frequent use and even for use on
children." By marketing the Product with these representations,
consumers will expect it is a drug, as it appears to be "intended
for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or
prevention of disease, and/or intended to affect the structure or
any function of the body." The Product is misbranded because it is
marketed to consumers as if it were safe and effective for the
identified conditions, even though its use poses a public health
risk, the Plaintiff asserts.

As an ophthalmic drug product administered into the eyes, the
Product poses a greater risk of harm because the route of
administration bypasses some of the body's natural defenses. As a
result of the false and misleading representations, the Product is
sold at a premium price, of approximately no less than $8.99 per
0.33 oz (10 mL), excluding tax and sales, higher than similar
products, represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than it
would be sold for absent the misleading representations and
omissions, the suit added.

The Plaintiff purchased, used and/or consumed the Product in
reliance on the labeling identified in New York.

CVS is a leading pharmacy and healthcare company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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

DELTA AIRLINES: Court Certifies Antitrust Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ch-Aviation reports that A US federal judge has ordered Delta Air
Lines (DL, Atlanta Hartsfield Jackson) and United Airlines (UA,
Chicago O'Hare) to face a consumer antitrust class action in which
they are accused of conspiring to limit domestic capacity to drive
up fares between 2009 and 2015.

Columbia District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly concluded the
plaintiffs presented enough evidence demonstrating a "pattern of
parallel behaviour" and the existence of one or more factors "that
tended to exclude the possibility that [the] defendants acted
independently". Therefore, in a September 5 decision published on
September 12, Kollar-Kotelly denied the airlines' motions for
summary judgements in the multi-district class action lawsuit.

American Airlines (AA, Dallas/Fort Worth) and Southwest Airlines
(WN, Dallas Love Field) settled similar antitrust allegations for
USD45 million and USD15 million in 2018 and 2019, respectively, to
avoid the cost of more litigation. Reuters reports that payouts
will not begin until claims against Delta and United are resolved.

The case dates from July 2015, when three passengers filed an
antitrust class action in the Milwaukee Federal Court against the
four mainline carriers. The allegation is that between January 2009
and mid-2015, the airlines conspired in violation of Section 1 of
the Sherman Antitrust Act by agreeing to limit the supply of
airline seats on domestic flights to increase airfares.

"All parties acknowledge that the airline industry is an oligopoly,
and the industry became more concentrated during the alleged
conspiracy period due to several mergers between 2008 and 2013.
Furthermore, the parties agree that [the] defendants had a
controlling market share of the United States domestic market
during the alleged conspiracy period," the judge commented.

The court considered the airlines' argument that there was no
evidence of collusion based on allegations that:

-- domestic growth differed substantially and sometimes exceeded
Gross Domestic Product (GDP);
-- capacity growth rates did not deviate from historical patterns;
-- competition on routes and at hubs;
-- no evidence that Delta was punished for its above-GDP capacity
growth; and
-- no evidence the airlines engaged in private conspiratorial
communications.

The court also addressed the plaintiffs' assertions that the
airlines had:

-- a significant common motive for colluding -- to increase
profitability;
their announcements and statements expressed commitment to a common
plan;
they shared sensitive data and engaged in high-level interfirm
communication;
economic evidence demonstrated that capacity restraints and fare
increases were not explained other than collusion;

-- airline investors and analysts facilitated and enforced capacity
restraints;
this was a structural break from the defendants' past conduct. [GN]

DEUTSCHE BANK: David Boies Hikes Hourly Billing Rate Amid Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Laus, writing for JDJournal, reports that leading litigator
David Boies, renowned for his legal prowess, has escalated his
hourly billing rate to an astonishing $2,110. This decision comes
to light as his law firm, Boies Schiller Flexner, presents this
updated rate to a judge tasked with determining attorney fees in an
ongoing class action lawsuit. The lawsuit revolves around victims
of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein, who are taking legal action
against Deutsche Bank (DBKGn.DE).

Elevated Billing Rates Revealed

In a recent development, the hourly billing rates of David Boies
and other legal practitioners have been unveiled through a fee
petition filed by Boies Schiller Flexner in the Manhattan federal
court. This petition is an integral component of the ongoing class
action lawsuit by Epstein's victims. The plaintiffs' legal team
seeks approval for a substantial $22.5 million fee award, equating
to 30% of the $75 million settlement granted preliminary approval
in June.

David Boies: A Legal Luminary

The revelation of David Boies' hourly rate places him firmly within
an exclusive echelon of attorneys who command fees surpassing the
$2,000 per hour threshold. Remarkably, this rate signifies a
notable increase compared to the $1,950 hourly rate Boies disclosed
last year while representing plaintiffs in a federal privacy
lawsuit against Alphabet Inc.'s Google. It is customary for law
firms to adjust their billing rates on an annual basis
incrementally.

Deutsche Bank Lawsuit

The Deutsche Bank lawsuit, spearheaded by an individual identified
as Jane Doe 1 and represented by David Boies, centers on
allegations of sexual abuse by Epstein from 2003 to 2018. In her
pursuit of justice, Jane Doe 1 has accused Deutsche Bank of failing
to identify red flags regarding Epstein's misconduct. The bank
vehemently denies these allegations.

JPMorgan Chase Settlement

In June, JPMorgan Chase agreed to a settlement of approximately
$290 million in a parallel class action lawsuit, also filed by
Epstein's victims and represented by Boies and his team. Notably,
the fee petition for this case is scheduled for submission by
October 5, with the possibility of fees amounting to 30%, totaling
$87 million.

Rising Hourly Rates

Over the past decade, hourly lawyer rates reaching the $2,000 mark
were virtually unheard of. However, in recent times, there has been
a steady upward trajectory in billing rates, particularly for
attorneys of elite stature. This trend underscores the increasing
demand for legal expertise.

Notable Precedents

An intriguing precedent was set last year when the U.S. objected to
a $2,465 hourly rate charged by Neal Katyal, an appellate veteran
at Hogan Lovells, during a high-stakes bankruptcy case involving a
subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson. Furthermore, Covington & Burling,
in a filing last year, disclosed that the top rate for senior
partners at their firm stood at a remarkable $2,500 per hour.

David Boies: A Litigation Powerhouse

David Boies co-founded Boies Schiller Flexner in 1997, a year that
also saw him engaged by the U.S. government in a pivotal antitrust
battle against Microsoft Corp. This landmark case solidified the
firm's reputation as a litigation powerhouse. Boies continued to
make history by representing Vice President Al Gore in the highly
consequential U.S. Supreme Court battle over the 2000 presidential
election recount.

Recent Controversies

In recent times, David Boies faced scrutiny for his involvement in
legal matters related to Harvey Weinstein, the former Hollywood
producer convicted of rape in 2020, and the ill-fated blood-testing
startup Theranos. These high-profile cases generated significant
attention and commentary within the legal community.

In conclusion, David Boies' decision to raise his hourly billing
rate to $2,110 is a testament to his standing as one of the legal
profession's most prominent figures. This development also reflects
the evolving landscape of attorney billing rates, with elite
lawyers commanding increasingly substantial fees. [GN]

DRINK NECTAR: Hydration Powders' Label, "False," Scheibe Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB SCHEIBE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DRINK NECTAR, INC. DBA NECTAR HYDRATION,
Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-04754-TSH (N.D. Cal., September 15,
2023) is a class action against the Defendant for unjust
enrichment, breach of express warranty, and violations of the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the California Business &
Professions Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
hydration powders under the brand name Nectar Hydration. The front
label of the products state that the products are "All Natural" and
the back label states that they contain "no artificial
ingredients." However, these labeling and advertising claims are
false because the products are flavored using an artificial
flavoring, DL malic acid, that is derived from petrochemicals. The
Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers relied on the
Defendant's label and advertising claims when they purchased the
products. They would not have purchased or would have only been
willing to pay a substantially reduced price for the products had
they known the truth, says the suit.

Drink Nectar, Inc., doing business as Nectar Hydration, is a
beverage company, with its principal place of business at 2745
Laguna Street in San Franciso, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Charles C. Weller, Esq.
         CHARLES C. WELLER, APC
         11412 Corley Court
         San Diego, CA 92126
         Telephone: (858) 414-7465
         Facsimile: (858) 300-5137
         Email: legal@cweller.com

DSM-FIRMENICH AG: Hogan Hits Fragrance Market Price-fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA HOGAN and SANDRA KLUESSENDORF, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DSM-FIRMENICH AG,
FIRMENICH INTERNATIONAL SA, FIRMENICH INC., AGILEX FLAVORS &
FRAGRANCES, INC., GIVAUDAN SA, GIVAUDAN FRAGRANCES CORP., GIVAUDAN
FLAVORS CORP., UNGERER & COMPANY, INC., CUSTOM ESSENCE INC.,
INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS & FRAGRANCES INC., SYMRISE AG, SYMRISE INC.,
AND SYMRISE US LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-18950 (D.N.J.,
Sept. 8, 2023) is a civil antitrust action seeking treble damages
arising from Defendants' conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and
stabilize the prices for Fragrances and Fragrance Ingredients, and
allocate and unreasonably restrain trade in the market for
Fragrances and Fragrance Ingredients, sold in the United States
from January 1, 2018, until such time as the anticompetitive
effects of the conduct cease.

According to the complaint, beginning at least as early as January
1, 2018, Defendants entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint
of trade to increase Fragrance prices. Defendants' conspiracy to
fix prices for Fragrances was in reaction to increased costs of the
raw materials used to manufacture Fragrances. To maintain their
profitability, Defendants coordinated with one another to set the
price of Fragrances for their customers, divided the consumer
market by allocating certain customers to certain Defendants, and
imposed supply constraints for Fragrances. Through this unlawful
coordination, Defendants charged their customers supra-competitive
prices, which were in turn passed through to end-user purchasers of
products containing Fragrance and Fragrance Ingredients, including
Plaintiffs and the Classes, says the suit.

DSM-Firmenich AG is a Swiss corporation that recently formed out of
a merger between Firmenich International S.A. and DSM Group.
DSM-Firmenich AG manufactures and sells Fragrances and Fragrance
Ingredients.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William G. Caldes, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
          2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          E-mail: bcaldes@srkattorneys.com

               - and -

          Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
          Roberta A. Yard, Esq.
          REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
          332 Minnesota Street, Suite W1050
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 287-2100
          E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
                  r.yard@rwblawfirm.com

EARGO INC: Fazio Securities Class Action Suit Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Eargo Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending July 1, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 10, 2023, that the hearing for Fazio
securities class suit is scheduled on September 29, 2023.

On October 6, 2021, putative shareholder Joseph Fazio filed a
purported securities class action against the Company and certain
of its officers, captioned Fazio v. Eargo, Inc., et al., No.
21-cv-07848 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2021) (the "Fazio Action").

Plaintiff Fazio alleges that certain of the Company’s disclosures
about its business, operations, and prospects, including
reimbursement from third-party payors, violated federal securities
laws. Fazio voluntarily dismissed his complaint on December 6,
2021.

On November 4, 2021, putative shareholder Alden Chung filed a
purported class action lawsuit substantially similar to the Fazio
Action, captioned Chung v. Eargo, Inc., et al., No. 21-cv-08597
(N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2021) (the "Chung Action").

On November 10, 2021, putative shareholder IBEW Local 353 Pension
Plan filed a purported class action substantially similar to the
Fazio and Chung Actions and also asserting claims under the federal
securities laws against current and former members of the Company's
Board of Directors (the "Board of Directors") and the underwriters
of the Company's October 15, 2020 initial public offering of common
stock, captioned IBEW Local 353 Pension Plan v. Eargo, Inc., et
al., No. 21-cv-08747 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2021) (the "IBEW Action").


These class actions, which seek damages and other relief, were
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California.

The Fazio and Chung Actions were brought purportedly on behalf of a
class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Eargo
securities between February 25, 2021 and September 22, 2021.

The IBEW Action was brought purportedly on behalf of a class of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired: (i) Eargo shares in
or traceable to the Company's October 15, 2020 initial public
offering of common stock; and/or (ii) shares of Eargo common stock
between October 15, 2020 and September 22, 2021.

On January 5, 2022, the court consolidated the foregoing class
actions (as consolidated, the "Securities Class Action") under the
caption In re Eargo, Inc. Securities Litigation, No.
21-cv-08597-CRB, and appointed IBEW Local 353 Pension Plan and
Xiaobin Cai as Lead Plaintiffs and Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP and Block & Leviton LLP as Lead Counsel.

On May 20, 2022, Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, which purported to extend the class period through March
2, 2022. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on July 29, 2022.

The Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss on February
14, 2023.

Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on March 16, 2023 and
defendants filed a second motion to dismiss on April 21, 2023.

On May 26, 2023, plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendants'
motion, and on June 23, 2023, defendants filed their reply brief in
support of their motion to dismiss.

The Company intends to vigorously defend the Securities Class
Action and cannot reasonably estimate any loss or range of loss
that may arise from the litigation.

Eargo Inc. is an American hearing aid manufacturer based in San
Jose, California.

EL MONUMENTAL: Corsino Sues Over Bartenders' Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
BRIGIDA CORSINO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated Plaintiff v. EL MONUMENTAL RESTAURANT, INC., a New York
corporation, and DAVID CABA, an individual, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-06701 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2023) arises from the Defendants'
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law due to their failure to pay minimum wages, failure to
provide written wage notice, and failure to furnish wage statements
upon each payment of wages.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants from 2018 through August 19,
2023 as a bartender.

El Monumental Restaurant, Inc. operates a restaurant known as El
Monumental located in Queens, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nolan Klein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A.
          5550 Glades Rd., Ste. 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (954) 745-0588
          E-mail: klein@nklegal.com

ENTREE CORP: Faces Lopez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------
ARNOLDO GALVEZ LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENTREE CORP. and TOMASZ
SLESZYNSKI, as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-06675
(E.D.N.Y., Sept. 7, 2023) seeks to recover damages for alleged
egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law arising from Plaintiff's employment at Entree Corp.

The Plaintiff alleges Defendants' failure to pay appropriate
overtime compensation, failure to keep accurate payroll records,
and failure to provide with a wage notice at the time of his hire
or at any time during his employment.

Plaintiff Lopez was employed by Defendants from June 2020 until
August 2023 with primary duties as a construction worker, laborer
and helper, while performing other miscellaneous work.

Entree Corp. is a New York domestic business corporation authorized
to do business under the laws of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

EXTRAORDINARY FLOORING: Hunter Alleges OT, Recordkeeping Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMONTE HUNTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EXTRAORDINARY FLOORING, LLC and JACOB
LAWSON, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-05134-EEF-KWR (E.D. La., Sept.
7, 2023) alleges Defendants' engagement in a pay scheme that
violates the Fair Labor Standards Act by depriving proper overtime
pay and accurate payroll and time-keeping records to Plaintiff and
the collective members.

Plaintiff Hunter was employed by the Defendants as a general
laborer from May 2022 to March 2023. He and the collective members
work or worked for Defendants as general laborers installing,
resurfacing and polishing concrete and epoxy flooring.

Extraordinary Flooring, LLC provides protective and decorative
coatings for concrete floors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip Bohrer, Esq.
          Scott E. Brady, Esq.
          BOHRER BRADY LLC
          8712 Jefferson Highway, Ste. B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Telephone: (225) 925-5297
          Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
          E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
                  scott@bohrerbrady.com

F21 OPCO: Moll Sues Over Unprotected Personal Health Info
---------------------------------------------------------
BRITTNAY MOLL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. F21 OPCO LLC D/B/A FOREVER 21; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-07418 (C.D.
Cal., Sept. 7, 2023) arises from the recent data breach involving
Forever 21, which collected and stored certain personally
identifiable information and/or personal health information of the
Plaintiff and the putative Class Members.

According to Forever 21, the PII compromised in the data breach
included highly-sensitive information including but not limited to
personal information, such as name, Social Security number, date of
birth, bank account number (without access code or pin), and
information regarding Forever21 health plans, including enrollment
and premiums paid.

The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit on behalf of herself and all of
those similarly situated to address Defendants' inadequate
safeguarding of Class Members' private information that they
collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and
adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their
information was unsecured and left open to the unauthorized access
of any unknown third party.

Plaintiff Moll was previously employed by Defendant at the Forever
21 Great Mall Location in California.

Based in Los Angeles, California, F21 OpCo LLC d/b/a Forever 21 is
a fashion retailer that sells accessories, beauty products, home
goods, and clothing for women, men and children.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
          Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq.
          SHUB & JOHNS LLC
          Four Tower Bridge
          200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (610) 477-8380
          E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com
                  bjohns@shublawyers.com
                  sholbrook@shublawyers.com

FORDHAM UNIVERSITY: Refuses to Refund Tuition, Wallace Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
HENRY WALLACE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FORDHAM UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-08236 (S.D.N.Y., September 18, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for breach of implied contract and unjust
enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendant's refusal to provide a prorated
refund of tuition or fees tied to its on-campus education,
services, and amenities that were not available to students for a
significant part of the Spring 2020 semester. In March 2020, in
response to the outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the virus that
causes the COVID-19 disease, Fordham, 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 Fordham students for the remainder of the
Spring 2020 semester. Accordingly, Fordham'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, the suit asserts.

Fordham University is a private research university in New York.
[BN]

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

FREEPORT PANCAKE: Court Approves Wage Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq., Gregory S. Slotnick, Esq., and Maria
Caceres-Boneau, Esq. of Duane Morris, report that pursuant to
Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir.
2015), the practice of settling lawsuits filed in district courts
in the Second Circuit alleging unpaid wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") requires approval from either the Court or
the U.S. Department of Labor to take effect.

On September 14, 2023, Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York approved a
rather unique settlement request by the parties in such an unpaid
wage case.

Although nearly all wage & hour lawsuit settlements in the Second
Circuit ultimately conclude with the business-employer defendant
agreeing to pay a monetary amount in exchange for dismissal of the
case and a release of the employees' wage claims against the
employer, in Gallagher v. Mountain Mortgage Corp. et al., Case No.
22-CV-0715 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2023), the Court evaluated and
signed-off on the parties' proposed settlement structure whereby
the plaintiff-employee, who worked as a loan processor and mortgage
loan originator for a mortgage lender, agreed to resolve the matter
in exchange for her receipt of a heavily-discounted purchase price
and her agreement to buy the business itself.

The Court's decision serves as an interesting thought exercise for
resolving unpaid wage lawsuits through unorthodox strategies,
though potentially applicable only in particular circumstances
under which the Court may find such resolution fair and
reasonable.

Case Background

According to the Complaint, plaintiff-employee Nicole Gallagher
("Gallagher") has over 25 years of experience in the mortgage
banking industry and is licensed to originate mortgage loans in New
York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Florida. Gallagher alleged that
she worked for a mortgage lender, Mountain Mortgage Corp. ("MMC"),
for a little over a year and claimed that despite working around 85
hours per week, MMC did not pay her at all during certain months,
never paid her overtime despite consistently working over 40 hours
per week, and failed to provide her with accurate paystubs and
weekly earnings statements or with a notice and acknowledgment of
her pay rate as required by law.

Specifically, Gallagher asserted that MMC paid her a set weekly
salary and no overtime during the entire year of 2021, and that MMC
did not compensate her at all during November and December 2020 or
at any time in 2022. MMC claimed that at all relevant times, it
understood that Gallagher was not an hourly employee, but instead
"was an owner and officer" of MMC who was to be paid by commission
no differently than other previously employed salespersons of MMC.

Magistrate Judge Wicks' opinion noted that, prior to the filing of
the lawsuit, Gallagher and MMC had entered into a purchase
agreement whereby Gallagher was to purchase MMC for $500,000. The
parties informed the Judge that Gallagher was employed at MMC in
advance of her anticipated purchase of MMC, but that when no
successful application for a change in ownership of MMC was
submitted to the New York State Department of Financial Services by
the deadline contemplated in the purchase agreement, the parties'
relationship soured, resulting in Gallagher filing the lawsuit.

As part of the lawsuit, the parties previously submitted a request
for the Judge's approval of a settlement on May 6, 2022, whereby
Gallagher would purchase MMC for $100,000 rather than the $500,000
contemplated in the original purchase agreement. Judge Wicks
ultimately denied the parties' first request for settlement
approval due to what he deemed to be a lack of essential
information required for the Court to evaluate whether the proposed
agreement was fair and reasonable as required by Cheeks. Such
information included the bona fide details of the parties' FLSA
dispute, calculations of Gallagher's potential recovery, and an
explanation of what portion of the reduced purchase price of MMC
constituted consideration for Gallagher's FLSA claims. The decision
of September 14 addressed the parties' submission of a renewed
settlement approval request.

The Decision

As noted by Magistrate Judge Wicks, in support of the parties'
renewed settlement agreement approval request, the parties aimed to
kill two bird with one stone – resuscitate the parties' failed
transaction and settle Gallagher's wage & hour claims against MMC.
Id. at 6. This time around, Gallagher submitted detailed
information to the Court concerning her purported unpaid wage
damages, which she alleged to be approximately $295,000. This
figure included alleged "underpayments, liquidated damages,
pre-judgment interest, and penalties" owed to her by MMC. Id. at 4.
Gallagher also provided the Court with the specific details of her
alleged employment, including time periods, weekly hours worked,
regular rate of pay, and periods during which she claims that she
did not receive proper compensation.

Magistrate Judge Wicks noted that under the original settlement
approval request, he had been unable to determine which portion of
the $400,000 reduction in MMC's purchase price, if any, was
consideration for the release of Gallagher's FLSA claims, and which
portion was attributable to other factors. As part of the renewed
approval request, Gallagher informed the Court that no formal
valuation was conducted to reach the original $500,000 purchase
price, and that her reduced purchase price of $100,000 was
similarly not calculated based on a formal valuation. Instead, both
figures were the product of advice from her attorneys, her
experience in the industry, and her "sense of the value" of the
mortgage banking licenses (whereby MMC's New York Mortgage Banker's
license was in the process of being surrendered). Id. at 5.
Gallagher submitted that she was unable to "break down exactly"
what portions of the reduced purchase price were attributable to
what specific single factor; however, in her view, the value of her
FLSA claims and the loss of MMC's New York license were both
factors that were "in the mix" along with her desire to own MMC
outright, avoid costly arbitration, avoid the stress and expense of
the lawsuit, and generally "just move on" with her life. Id. at
5-6.

In evaluating and approving the renewed settlement request,
Magistrate Judge Wicks noted his satisfaction with the fairness of
the proposed settlement, giving due weight to Gallagher's more than
25 years of experience in the mortgage banking industry and the
fact that Gallagher herself worked at MMC with the intention of
inevitably owning it (as opposed to a disinterested third-party
purchase of a business). As such, although there was no formal
valuation of MMC's value conducted, Judge Wicks acknowledged that
Gallagher's experience and familiarity with the business was
relevant to her comfort level with the reduced purchase price. The
Court also gave weight to Gallagher's desire to move on with her
life and put these issues behind her.

Magistrate Judge Wicks further cited the fact that Gallagher now
owns 100% of MMC, and that a trial loss should he not approve the
settlement could potentially turn her status as 100% owner into a
0% owner with no remaining claims against MMC. The Court noted that
no settlement amount was earmarked for payment of attorneys' fees,
as all of Gallagher's attorneys except for one were paid on an
hourly basis (rather than a contingency), that the one exception
only represented Gallagher briefly and was replaced within 3 months
of filing the case, and the attorney had not expressed any
intention of asserting a lien over the reduced purchase price of
MMC.

Based on all of these factors, the Court finally confirmed that the
renewed settlement agreement properly revised and limited two
troublesome provisions concerning non-disparagement and
confidentiality – both of which are regularly found by courts to
be inconsistent with the public policy intent underlying the FLSA.

Implications for Employers

The decision is an interesting thought experiment for small
employers who are subject to unpaid wage lawsuits brought on behalf
of a small number of plaintiffs. In this instance, the parties
agreed that rather than separate Gallagher's desire to purchase MMC
and her alleged unpaid overtime wages and related penalties, a more
logical solution was to combine the two and provide for one global
resolution. Creative, innovative thinking along these lines likely
saved MMC from incurring additional litigation expenses and the
unknown of a jury trial verdict. Moreover, the parties ultimately
were able to provide the Court with evidence from which the
settlement could be deemed fair and reasonable.

Although potentially limited to specific factual situations along
the lines of an experienced employee initially employed by a small
business with the goal of owning the business, this decision
illustrates that in evaluating the reasonableness of proposed
unpaid wage case settlements, judges may be open to approving
agreements when the parties think outside the box (as long as the
parties are able to defend and support their actions). [GN]

GB PROVISIONS: Fails to Pay Server's Minimum Wages, Lupton Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
TREY LUPTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) v. GB PROVISIONS,
LLC; and LOWOODFIRE, LLC d/b/a Lowood, Case No. 4:23-cv-00403-CVE
(N.D. Okla, Sept. 18, 2023) alleges that Defendant fails to pay
full minimum wage required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants purportedly seek to take
advantage of the tip credit -- by paying their servers less than
minimum wage and taking a credit for a portion of the tips they
earned to offset the Defendants' minimum wage obligation. The
Defendants allegedly paid Plaintiff and other servers like the
Plaintiff -- wages that are less than $7.25 per hour, which is the
minimum wage required by the FLSA. The Defendants did not comply
with the strict requirements for taking a tip credit and thus have
lost any ability to rely on the tip credit to supplement their
failure to pay the Plaintiffs the full minimum wage. Therefore,
Defendants must compensate the Plaintiff and all similarly situated
employees -- servers -- the full minimum wage rate, unencumbered by
the tip credit, for all hours worked. In other words, Defendants
must account for the difference between the subminimum hourly wage
paid to Plaintiff and Collective Members and the full minimum wage
($7.25) required by the FLSA, says the Plaintiff.

In addition, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff and the Collective
Members for all misappropriated tips, plus liquidated damages in an
amount equal to all damages owed to them. The Plaintiff and
Collective Members are entitled to recover an additional award to
compensate them for their attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff
brings this complaint individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated employees -- other servers -- who worked at the
Defendants' restaurants in Oklahoma at any time in the past three
years.

Plaintiff Lupton was employed by Defendants as a server from
December 2022 until March 2023.

GB Provisions is the entity that is responsible for managing and
operating a group of restaurants in Oklahoma, including
LowoodFire.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
          HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
          801 Cherry St., Suite 2365
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 479-9229
          Facsimile: (817) 840-5102
          E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com

                - and -

          Jeff A. Taylor, Esq.
          THE OFFICES AT DEEP FORK CREEK
          5613 N. Classen Blvd
          Oklahoma City, OK 73118
          Telephone: (405) 286-1600
          Facsimile: (405) 842-6132

GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Chevrolet Traverse SUVs
---------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a
Chevrolet Traverse class action lawsuit alleges General Motors sold
model year 2020 Traverse AWD (all-wheel-drive) SUVs that were
really FWD (front-wheel-drive).

According to the two plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit, the 2020
Chevy Traverse vehicles have emblems that clearly say they are AWD,
something that can make a difference in snow compared to FWD
vehicles.

GM says all-wheel-drive "enhances traction and control on slippery
or snow-covered roads."

The Chevy Traverse lawsuit alleges GM knew or should have known the
vehicles were only FWD vehicles that were being advertised as AWD
vehicles.

General Motors allegedly identifies each vehicle with a vehicle
identification number (VIN) which includes an "R" at the fifth
position to designate the Traverse as front-wheel-drive, not AWD.

The Traverse class action further alleges even though GM expressly
represents the 2020 Chevy Traverse as all-wheel-drive when they are
not, the automaker has refused to replace the SUVs.

2020 Chevrolet Traverse Class Action Lawsuit -- The Plaintiffs
The Traverse class action was filed by California plaintiffs Kyle
Buffenmyer and Amanda Herberger. Both plaintiffs allege they
purchased a 2020 Chevrolet Traverse vehicle with an "AWD" emblem
attached to the SUV.

The plaintiffs contend they relied on the factory-applied AWD
emblem attached to the back of the Chevrolet Traverse. The
plaintiffs assert they would not have purchased the vehicle if GM
would have warned them the Traverse was only front-wheel-drive.

Both plaintiffs allege they needed a Traverse AWD vehicle for
driving in snow.

In February 2021 and following 3 to 5 inches of snowfall, the
plaintiffs attempted to drive out of their garage but the vehicle
became stuck in the driveway. The vehicle allegedly could neither
move forward nor backward, and only the front wheels were
spinning.

The plaintiffs had to shovel a track to pull back into the garage
and were then stranded at home.

The 2020 Chevy Traverse was brought to a GM dealership which
allegedly verified the Traverse was FWD, not AWD.

The plaintiffs contend they contacted General Motors and asked for
a replacement vehicle equipped with all-wheel-drive, but GM
allegedly "refused to provide adequate relief."

The Chevy Traverse AWD class action lawsuit was filed in the
Superior Court of San Mateo County California: Buffenmyer, et al.,
v. General Motors LLC, et al.

The plaintiffs are represented by Olivier & Schreiber LLP, and Conn
Law, PC. [GN]

GLOBAL ATLANTIC: Clancy Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL CLANCY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE GLOBAL ATLANTIC FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-07975 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2023) is a
class action against Global Atlantic for its failure to properly
secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated
Global Atlantic customers' sensitive information, including full
names, dates of birth, policy numbers, states, and Social Security
numbers.

On an undisclosed date, the Defendant learned that one its IT
vendor's networks, Pension Benefit Information, LLC, had been
penetrated by a cyberattack. According to the complaint, Defendant
failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members
personally identifiable information -- and failed to even encrypt
or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted,
unredacted PII was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or
careless acts and omissions and their utter failure to protect
customers' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained
Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII because of its value in
exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class
Members. The present and continuing risk to victims of the data
breach will remain for their respective lifetimes, says the suit.

Global Atlantic Financial Group, LLC is a retirement and life
insurance company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vicki J. Maniatis, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
           GROSSMAN, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (865) 412-2700
          E-mail: vmaniatis@milberg.com

               - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
           GROSSMAN LLC
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (866) 252-0878
          E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com

GLOBAL ATLANTIC: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Guzman Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARCELINA GUZMAN, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. THE GLOBAL ATLANTIC FINANCIAL GROUP LLC, Case
No. 1:23-cv-08150-VSB (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 14, 2023) sues the Defendant
for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the Representative
Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information
stored within the Defendant's information network that includes
names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, policy number(s),
genders, and states.

The Representative Plaintiff seeks to hold the Defendant
responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause the
Representative Plaintiff and, at least, thousands of other
similarly situated persons in the massive cyberattack purportedly
discovered by the Defendant on June 7, 2023. The Defendant
disregarded the rights of the Representative Plaintiff and Class
Members by failing to take available steps to prevent unauthorized
disclosure of data and failing to follow applicable, required and
appropriate protocols, policies, and procedures regarding the
encryption of data, even for internal use, the Plaintiff contends.


The Defendant also breached its duty to notify the Representative
Plaintiff and Class Members of the unauthorized access by waiting
until August 11, 2023 to notify the Representative Plaintiff and
Class Members and then by failing and continuing to fail to provide
Representative Plaintiff and Class Members sufficient information
regarding the breach, the Plaintiff adds.

To date, the Defendant has not provided sufficient information to
the Representative Plaintiff and Class Members regarding the extent
of the unauthorized access and continues to breach its disclosure
obligations to the Representative Plaintiff and Class Members. As a
result of the Defendant's negligence and negligence per se, The
Representative Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and will
continue to suffer other forms of injury and/or harm, including
anxiety, emotional distress, loss of privacy, and other economic
and non-economic losses.

Additionally, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's
negligence and negligence per se, the Representative Plaintiff and
Class Members have allegedly suffered and will continue to suffer
the continued risks of exposure of their PII, which remains in the
Defendant's possession and is subject to further unauthorized
disclosures so long as the Defendant fails to undertake appropriate
and adequate measures to protect PII in its continued possession.

The Representative Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of
California. The Defendant received the Representative Plaintiff's
PII in connection with life insurance she purchased from the
Defendant.

The Defendant provides retirement and life insurance services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jared R. Cooper, Esq.
          ROBINSON YABLON COOPER & BONFANTE, LLP
          232 Madison Avenue, Suite 909
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 725-8566
          Facsimile: (212) 725-8567
          E-mail: jared@rycbinjury.com

                - and -

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

GOOGLE LLC: High Court Set to Rule on Settlement in October
-----------------------------------------------------------
William Baldwin, writing for Forbes, reports that quixotic quest:
make the lawyers filing class actions more interested in the
welfare of their clients than in lining their own pockets. The
crusader on this mission: Theodore H. Frank, the 54-year-old
co-founder and lead actor at a nonprofit called the Hamilton
Lincoln Law Institute.

The class lawsuit industry is a peculiarly American one in which
law firms collect fees for bringing cases against corporations on
behalf of thousands or millions of victims. The misdeed alleged
might be charging an impermissible overdraft fee, issuing a merger
document that is insufficiently wordy or leaving too much air at
the top of a cereal box.

Then, long before any witness is called to the stand, the case is
settled. The settlement typically has the corporation agreeing to
pay rewards to a few named plaintiffs working with the lawyers and
a tiny recompense to the millions of consumers or investors who are
in the class. This resolution is accompanied by a very generous
contribution to the bank account of the plaintiff law firm.

That's when Ted Frank or one of the six lawyers working with him
jumps in. They ask the judge overseeing the litigation to reduce
the pay to the plaintiff lawyers, increase the compensation to the
victim class or just throw the whole case out. As often as not,
they get a result. Frank says that Hamilton Lincoln's Center for
Class Action Fairness has participated in 125 cases and won at
least a partial victory in a comfortable majority.

In August Frank's institute scored a win in the Seventh Circuit
when an appeals court threw out a $57 million payday for the
lawyers who won $181 million on behalf of consumers who overpaid
for broiler chicken. If the lower court goes along, grocery store
customers will get a larger share of that $181 million. If you
bought raw chicken between 2012 and 2019, submit a claim at
overchargedforchicken.com.

A case that had Frank handling an oral argument before the U.S.
Supreme Court in 2018 will finally draw to a close in October, when
a district court is expected to approve a settlement of litigation
over the way Google used search query data between 2006 and 2013.
The original deal had Google buying peace by dishing out money to
charities, paying victims nothing and rewarding the plaintiff law
firms with $2 million. The Supreme Court bought Frank's argument
that this sort of settlement was unacceptable and kicked the matter
back to lower courts. In the updated settlement, something like $16
million will be disbursed to the small fraction of web surfers who
heard about the case and sent in claims before the July 31
deadline.

What does Hamilton Lincoln extract from such interventions? Not
much. "We saved [class members] tens of millions in one case. We
asked for $199,000. The court said, ‘Okay, here's $12,000.' After
two appeals, we got that increased to $34,000."

Most of Hamilton Lincoln's $1.2 million budget comes from
donations. Frank pinches pennies. The institute is named after
Hamilton and Lincoln in large part because the web address
containing the acronym HLLI could be had without paying off a
domain squatter. The lawyers mostly work out of their homes, Frank
in Houston and the others in five other states.

What do consumers get out of class actions? Precious little. In one
outlandish but not atypical case, lawyers went after the Subway
chain on the theory that variations in the length of "foot-long"
sandwiches caused damage. The company and the lawyers came up with
a settlement that benefited nine named sandwich buyers, did nothing
for the millions of anonymous customers in the class and paid off
the plaintiff lawyers. Frank busted that deal up by getting the
Seventh Circuit U.S. appeals court to decree that an appropriate
percentage fee for a $0 class benefit would be $0.

Common ploy that plaintiff lawyers use to settle cases: offer the
victims discount coupons, while the lawyers get cash. A lawsuit
claiming that Samsung washers were defective came to a settlement.
Most of the 2.8 million victims were to get a rebate that they
could only use by gritting their teeth and buying another Samsung
appliance. The plaintiff lawyers, postulating that every member of
the class would use the rebates, valued their accomplishment at $65
million and wanted a $6 million fee. Frank's organization argued
that the rebates were close to worthless and got the fee cut to
$3.8 million.

The Subway and Samsung interventions didn't make class members any
richer, but they did have the salutary effect of reducing the
incentive for plaintiff lawyers to file nuisance cases with the aim
of being paid to go away. "We want to deter counterproductive class
actions but encourage the good ones that win the class some money,"
Frank says. Class suits do help to discipline miscreants, he
concedes, but this answer to corporate ills is an expensive one,
draining the economy to pay lawyers on both sides.

What do investors get out of class actions? Sometimes, a lot. The
litigation over securities violations involving Petrobras, the
Brazilian oil producer, delivered a $3 billion pot, from which
plaintiff lawyers wanted to pull a $299 million fee; Frank's
objections got $95 million of that fee re-routed to the victims.

Sometimes, securities litigation is just the movement of hot air.
Plaintiff lawyers used to have a thriving business blocking
corporate mergers by alleging deficiencies in the disclosure
document. The defendant would pay the ransom, rewriting a document
and handing a check to the lawyers. Frank's group challenged one of
these vacuous class actions and in 2016 won an appeal in the
Seventh Circuit. Judge Richard Posner's opinion called the
disclosure lawsuits "no better than a racket."

The Center for Class Action has had a disproportionate number of
its victories in the Seventh Circuit, which sits in Chicago. One
reason for that is that Posner, who retired in 2017, was the
standard bearer of the "law and economics" movement, which says
that jurists should think about the economic consequences of their
decisions. The second most famous proponent of that philosophy,
Frank Easterbrook, is also on the Seventh Circuit. Ted Frank, after
getting his law degree from the University of Chicago, clerked for
Easterbrook.

Contrast what comes out of federal courts elsewhere. Pending now in
Virginia, which is part of the Fourth Circuit, is a case against
Altria Group, the company that sells Marlboro cigarettes. Altria
evaporated $12 billion of its shareholders' money by investing in
Juul, the vape company later found to have allowed its products to
fall all too easily into the hands of minors. On the theory that
the law provides a remedy for such mistakes, six plaintiff law
firms filed shareholder derivative cases against Altria and its
officers and directors.

It is, of course, absurd to think that officers and directors
approving a bad acquisition will personally cough up $12 billion to
reimburse shareholders. So the cases, now consolidated, came to a
proposed settlement in February. Altria insiders are chipping in
not a dime. Instead, the company is to spend between $100 million
and $107 million on anti-tobacco campaigns and another $10 million
on a monitor to oversee that effort. The plaintiff law firms pocket
$15 million.

What a farce. "The company is out $130 million plus whatever they
paid their own lawyers," Frank says. "The end result is that
shareholders are worse off." He would dearly love to get the
settlement thrown out but has probably arrived on the scene too
late to have the case reopened.

There will be other opportunities to reduce the economic
absurdities in American law. What's the deadweight loss of class
actions—costs beyond the reimbursement of victims? "Billions of
dollars a year," Frank says.

It's Not All Chicken Fees
The Center for Class Action Fairness remains focused on fees in
case settlements, such as the $57 million billed by lawyers
litigating poultry prices. But the parent organization, Hamilton
Lincoln Law Institute, has broadened its reach into such matters as
free speech, fiduciary standards and affirmative action. "People
are more interested in the First Amendment than the esoterics of
23(e)(2)(c)(ii)," Ted Frank says, referring to the rule on class
action procedure.

HLLI is contesting rules limiting what doctors and pharmacists can
say about Covid. It is also suing to stop a U.S. Labor Department
rule that allows pension managers to favor nice-guy companies,
despite a statute mandating that pensioners' financial interests
come first. "People in the Biden Administration are going off on
their own ideological agenda," Frank says. "The separation of
powers is important. This is not a monarchy."
Hamilton Lincoln will probably join an amicus brief in the
litigation involving the Thomas Jefferson High School for Science &
Technology in Alexandria, Virginia. The controversy there has to do
with the school's decision to eliminate an entrance exam because
too many Asians were getting in.

The affirmative action debate is already crowded, but there is
something to be said for weighing in: It increases an
organization's visibility. Frank had a brief moment of fame this
summer after the Supreme Court forbade race discrimination at
Harvard. He pointed out an absurdity in one of the dissenting
opinions, the assertion that having a physician of the right race
would double a high-risk baby's chance of survival. [GN]

GURUSHIVAY INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gomez Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR GOMEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GURUSHIVAY, INC. d/b/a CAPRESE NEW YORK
PIZZA & PASTA; and VIJAY P. GUPTA, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-04188-ELR (N.D. Ga., Sept. 15, 2023) is an action against
the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff Gomez was employed by the Defendants as a cook.

GURUSHIVAY, INC. d/b/a CAPRESE NEW YORK PIZZA & PASTA owns and
operates a restaurant in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon A. Thomas, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. THOMAS, PC
          1 Glenlake Parkway, Suite 650
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Telephone: (678) 862-9344
          Facsimile: (678) 638-6201
          Email: brandon@overtimeclaimslawyer.com


HAND HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Servers Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kyo Ok Goo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. HAND Hospitality LLC, Cho Dang Gol LLC, Toledo 53 Inc. and
Kihyun Lee, Case No. 1:23-cv-08235 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2023) sues
the Defendant for failing to pay minimum and overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

During the Plaintiff's employment and the FLSA Collective Period
and NYLL Class Period, the Plaintiff and members of FLSA Collective
and NYLL Class clocked in and out through the Cho Dang Gol's POS
system. But the Defendants allegedly paid them a few hours less
than all hours they worked in a week instead of paying them all
hours they worked. The Defendants paid the Plaintiff a fixed wage
regardless of the hours she worked in a day or in a week. The
Defendants deducted the Plaintiff's wage in 25% of her cash payroll
as tax withholding but they never paid tax for the Plaintiff, the
suit claims.

The Plaintiff's claims under the FLSA are brought as a collective
action, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons who were employed by the Defendants as
"Service/Front of the House Staffs, Kitchen workers, and all other
employees, who were paid in cash and retained 25% of the payroll by
Defendants."

The Plaintiff's claims under the NYLL are brought as a class
action, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons who were employed by the Defendants as
"Service/Front of the House Staffs, Kitchen workers, and all other
employees, who were paid in cash and retained 25% of the payroll by
Defendants."

Plaintiff Kyo Ok Goo was employed by the Defendants as a Server at
Cho Dang Gol from 2014 to May 2023.

HAND operates 13 restaurants including Cho Dang Gol in New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan J. Kim, Esq.
          RYAN KIM LAW, P.C.
          222 Bruce Reynolds Blvd. Suite 490
          Fort Lee, NJ 07024
          E-mail: ryan@RyanKimLaw.com

HERTZ CORP: Fails to Pay Manager's OT Wages, Maharaj Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
ZABEENA MAHARAJ, on behalf of Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated v. THE HERTZ CORPORATION, Case No. 3:23-cv-04726-DMR (N.D.
Cal., Sept. 14, 2023) alleges that the Defendant engages in a
policy and practice of not compensating the Plaintiff and the
California Class Members for all hours worked, including overtime
and double time wages.

According to the complaint, the primary duties of the Plaintiff and
the California Operations Managers do not fall under any of the
exemptions to the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff's and the
California Class Members' primary duties were non-exempt duties,
including general customer service and vehicle preparation for
rental.

Allegedly, the Plaintiff and the California Class Members have been
victims of a common policy and plan perpetuated by the Defendant
that has violated their rights under the California Labor Code by
denying them overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 8
hours per day, including hours worked before the scheduled start
time of shifts, after the scheduled end time of shifts, during
unpaid meal breaks, and engaging in work-related communications
when away from the location. The Plaintiff and the California Class
Members also paid out-of-pocket business expenses necessary for the
performance of their jobs as OMs for which the Plaintiff and the
California Class Members have not received reimbursement from the
Defendant, the lawsuit alleges.

The Defendant is aware that the OMs, including the Plaintiff and
the California Class Members regularly work during their meal and
rest breaks. The Defendant nevertheless has failed and refuses to
pay meal and rest break penalties Plaintiff and California Class
Members, the lawsuit adds.

The Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for business expenses, unpaid
wages, and interest thereon, penalties, declaratory and equitable
relief, and reasonable attorney' fees and costs under the
California Labor Code and IWC Wage Order.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from August 2016 to
September 2022 as an Operations Manager in Oakland, California.

The Defendant is a subsidiary of Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., but
the company operates HERTZ and Hertz Global Holdings as one
enterprise.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
          Alfredo Torrijos, Esq.
          Vahan Mikayelyan, Esq.
          HAFFNER LAW PC
          15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1520
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (213) 514-5681
          Facsimile: (213) 514-5682
          E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com
                  at@haffnerlawyers.com
                  vh@haffnerlawyers.com

                - and -

          Michael Palitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          477 Madison Avenue, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (800) 616-4000
          E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com

                - and -

          Mitchell Feldman, Esq.
          FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
          6916 W. Linebaugh Avenue, Suite 101
          Tampa, FL 33625
          Telephone: (813) 639-9366
          E-mail: mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com

HKE EXPRESS: Dominguez Suit Alleges Discrimination, Retaliation
---------------------------------------------------------------
SAULY SAMUEL CORDERO DOMINGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HKE EXPRESS INC. and ZDENKO
HUTNIK and MICHAL HUTNIK, as individuals, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-06690 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2023) arises from the Defendants'
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York
Labor Law, and the New York State Human Rights Law.

The complaint seeks to recover damages for egregious violations of
state and federal wage and hour laws arising from Plaintiff's
employment with the Defendants and to redress the injuries that
Plaintiff has suffered as a result of being discriminated against
due to his actual and/or perceived accident-related disabilities;
retaliated against for requesting reasonable accommodations for his
injuries; and ultimately being terminated on the basis of his
actual and/or perceived accident-related disabilities.

The Plaintiff was employed by HKE Express as a driver and delivery
person while performing related miscellaneous duties for the
Defendants, from February 2019 until September 2022.

HKE Express Inc. is a New York domestic business corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

HOMEADVISOR: Faces Fraud Charges Over Customer Leads
----------------------------------------------------
Angi 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 case alleging that HomeAdvisor
engages in certain deceptive practices affecting the service
professionals who join its network, including charging them for
substandard customer leads and failing to disclose certain
charges.

In July 2018, Plaintiffs' counsel filed a separate putative class
action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado,
"Costello et al. v. HomeAdvisor, Inc. et al.," No. 1:18-cv-1802, on
behalf of the nine service professionals naming as defendants
HomeAdvisor and Angi in a proposed second amended complaint. In
November 2018, an order was issued consolidating the case to "In re
HomeAdvisor, Inc. Litigation."

In January 2019, the Plaintiffs renewed their motion for leave to
file a consolidated second amended complaint, naming as defendants,
in addition to HomeAdvisor, Angi and IAC, CraftJack, Inc. (a
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company) and two unrelated entities.
In February 2019, the defendants opposed the motion on various
grounds. In September 2019, the court issued an order granting the
Plaintiffs' motion. In October and December 2019, the four
defendants affiliated with HomeAdvisor filed motions to dismiss
certain claims in the amended complaint. In September 2020, the
court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the
defendants' motions to dismiss.

Angi Inc. connects home service professionals with consumers for
repairing and remodeling homes to cleaning and landscaping
operating under multiple brands including Angi, HomeAdvisor, Handy,
Total Home Roofing and Angi Roofing.

INCOMM PAYMENTS: Faces Class Action Over Prepaid Visa Debit Cards
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a
proposed class action claims consumers who purchase prepaid Visa
debit cards sold by InComm Payments are often blocked from
accessing some or all of the funds loaded onto the cards.

The 26-page lawsuit was filed by a California consumer who says he
purchased four of the defendant's SecureSpend prepaid Visa gift
cards while shopping at a Lucky Supermarket in December 2021.
However, even after the man paid the $5.95 fee to activate each
gift card, the plaintiff found that the two $200 and two $100 cards
consistently declined at the point of sale, the complaint alleges.

The suit contends that the preloaded funds on the plaintiff's
SecureSpend cards were partially or completely depleted before he
tried to use the cards, or the amount was never loaded onto the
cards in the first place.

According to the case, InComm has a "history" of denying consumers
access to funds loaded onto their gift cards, which can be
purchased with preloaded funds of a specified amount or as
reloadable varieties onto which a consumer can continuously load
cash, such as the Vanilla Visa prepaid card.

The filing says that within the past three years, consumers have
submitted 1,367 complaints to the Better Business Bureau about
InComm cards, many of which the defendant has responded to.

"Despite being aware of consumer complaints regarding its Gift
Cards, InComm continues to engage in unfair, unlawful, and
fraudulent practices by marketing Gift Cards with specific Face
Value amounts, even though that is not the case," the case states.

What's more, the plaintiff says that when he attempted to contact
InComm customer service about the problem he had experienced with
his gift cards, the man was often placed on hold for more than an
hour.

During one phone call, the man was connected with a live customer
service representative from a call center in the Philippines who
said he would receive a replacement gift card in the mail, the
complaint says. The man claims he never received a replacement card
and has been repeatedly disconnected from phone calls with InComm
after he selects the option to speak to a live customer service
representative.

The complaint also names as a defendant Pathward, a South
Dakota-based bank that allegedly issues InComm's gift cards.

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone within the United States who
purchased or is the current owner of one or more InComm Prepaid
Debit Card(s) and was blocked from use of any portion of the funds
on their InComm Visa(R) Prepaid Debit Card(s). [GN]

INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Nov. 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Sept. 18
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of common stock of Integra LifeSciences Holdings
Corporation (NASDAQ: IART) between March 11, 2019 and May 22, 2023,
both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit
has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you
must move the Court no later than November 13, 2023.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Integra common stock 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 Integra class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=19078 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 13, 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. 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 complaint, defendants made
false statements and/or concealed that Integra had failed to take
sufficient measures to remediate the violations identified by the
FDA in the November 2, 2018 Notice of Inspectional Observations on
Form 483 (the "2018 Form 483"), the March 6, 2019 FDA issued
warning letter (the "2019 Warning Letter"), and the November 12,
2021 FDA issued Form 483 (the "2021 Form 483"). As a result of
those deficiencies, since March 2018, all products manufactured in
the Boston Facility had the potential for higher-than-permitted
levels of endotoxin and would need to be recalled. Moreover, the
Company was not making progress towards obtaining its premarket
approval ("PMA") indication for SurgiMend, in part, because the
manufacturing site that would produce the PMA product, the Boston
Facility, was in continued violation of the FDA standards that
Integra failed to rectify years after the initial notice of the
violations and as a result the facility had to be shutdown to
correct those ongoing deficiencies. When the true details entered
the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the Integra class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=19078 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]

J. W. JUNG SEED: Frizzell Sues Over Managers' Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA FRIZZELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. J. W. JUNG SEED COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
23-cv-1189 (E.D. Wis., Sept. 8, 2023) is a class action against the
Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws for unpaid overtime
compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs,
attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any
such other relief the Court may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in February 2023 as an
hourly-paid, non-exempt employee in the position of Manager working
at its Appleton, Wisconsin location.

J. W. Jung Seed Company is a family-owned and operated garden seed
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

JOHN HANCOCK: Zaben Sues Over Excessive Insurance Cost Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
ZABEN, LLC and WEINSTOCK PARTNERS LLC, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JOHN HANCOCK LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK and JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY (U.S.A.), Defendants, Case No. 7:23-cv-08178 (S.D.N.Y.,
September 15, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
breach of contract.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action suit on behalf of similarly
situated owners of certain universal life insurance policies
insured by John Hancock who have been forced to pay unlawful and
excessive cost of insurance (COI) charges. According to the
complaint, John Hancock has not reduced COI rates following the
passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), which, among other
things, reduced the corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21%.
Instead, it has in fact continued to increase COI rates according
to a pre-TCJA COI rate scale. As a result of this misconduct, the
Plaintiffs seek monetary relief for the COI overcharges that John
Hancock has wrongly imposed on them.

Zaben, LLC is a limited liability company, with its principal place
of business in Monsey, New York.

Weinstock Partners LLC is a limited liability company, with its
principal place of business in Cedarhurst, New York.

John Hancock Life Insurance Company of New York is an insurance
company, with its principal place of business in Valhalla, New
York.

John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A.) is a stock life
insurance company, with its principal offices in Boston,
Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Seth Ard, Esq.
         Ryan C. Kirkpatrick, Esq.
         Zack Savage, Esq.
         Ari Ruben, Esq.
         SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
         1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
         New York, NY 10019
         Telephone: (212) 336-8330
         Facsimile: (212) 336-8340
         E-mail: sard@susmangodfrey.com
                 rkirkpatrick@susmangodfrey.com
                 zsavage@susmangodfrey.com
                 aruben@susmangodfrey.com

                 - and -

         Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
         Glenn C. Bridgman, Esq.
         Halley Josephs, Esq.
         Kim Page, Esq.
         SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
         1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (310) 789-3100
         Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
         E-mail: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
                 gbridgman@susmangodfrey.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Baughman Sues Over Mislabeled Decongestants
--------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER BAUGHMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.;
KENVUE INC.; PROCTER & GAMBLE; and RECKITT BENCKISER LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-07737 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 15, 2023) is a
class action lawsuit brought under California's consumer protection
laws by the Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, who purchased
over-the-counter decongestant products containing phenylephrine.

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Products are
manufactured, sold and distributed by the Defendants and have been
found by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to lack efficacy.
Defendants have long been aware of the lack of efficacy but have
continued to sell the Products. The Products' lack of efficacy was
not disclosed to the Plaintiff prior to the Plaintiff's purchase of
the Products. The Plaintiff would not have purchased the Products
had she known they did not work as advertised, says the suit.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. engages in the research and
development of products. The Company provides products for
newborns, babies, toddlers, and mothers, including cleansers, skin
care, moisturizers, hair care, diaper care, sun protection, and
nursing products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq.
          BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
          31365 Oak Crest Dr., Suite 240
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (805) 270-7100
          Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
                 kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Cronin Sues Over Mislabeled Decongestants
------------------------------------------------------------
ROBYN CRONIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.; and PROCTER
& GAMBLE, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-06870 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 15,
2023) alleges that the Defendants advertised and sell a mislabeled
over-the-counter decongestant products containing the active
ingredient phenylephrine (PE).

According to the complaint, the Defendants represented and
warranted to consumers that PE Drugs were effective for treating
the indications identified and were properly branded. Specifically,
the Defendants represented that PE Drugs were merchantable and fit
for their ordinary uses, for treating nasal decongestion. At no
point in time did the Defendants disclose the PE Drugs' lack of
efficacy to the Plaintiff, nor the putative class members. If the
Plaintiff and the putative class members had known that PE Drugs
were not efficacious prior to their purchases of PE Drugs, they
would not have purchased PE Drugs, says the suit.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. engages in the research and
development of products. The Company provides products for
newborns, babies, toddlers, and mothers, including cleansers, skin
care, moisturizers, hair care, diaper care, sun protection, and
nursing products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raymond C. Silverman, Esq.
          Melanie H. Muhlstock, Esq.
          Jason S. Goldstein, Esq.
          PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
          6 Harbor Park Drive
          Port Washington, NY 11050
          Tel: (516) 466-6500
          Fax: (516) 466-6665
          Email: rsilverman@yourlawyer.com
                 mmuhlstock@yourlawyer.com
                 jgoldstein@yourlawyer.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: McWhite Sues Over Sudafed PE Tablet False Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kamonica McWhite, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc., Case No.
3:23-cv-20379 (D.N.J., Sept. 14, 2023) is a class action lawsuit by
the Plaintiff on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated who purchased Defendant's tablet style phenylephrine
medicine, "Sudafed PE" branded products that were manufactured,
marketed, labeled, distributed, and sold by Defendant.

The complaint alleges that these Drugs are designed to combat sinus
issues, such as congestion. In contrary, the Drugs are ineffective
according to the FDA, this is due to their active ingredient being
phenylephrine. The Plaintiff, along with many others, has spent
countless dollars on these Drugs while expecting to be relieved of
sinus pain but to no avail. As a result, the Plaintiff was damaged
in that she lost her benefit of the bargain, has suffered economic
loss through the retention of her funds paid for Drugs, and has
suffered inconveniences due to the constant denial of relief from
sinus conditions, says the suit.

The Plaintiff brings this action because of the Defendant's fraud,
false marketing, false advertising, breach of contract, breach of
warranty, and breaches of state law consumer protection statutes.

The Plaintiff and the Class seek actual damages, attorneys' fees,
costs and any other just and proper relief available thereunder for
the Defendant's negligent failure to deliver the bargained for
Drugs.

The Defendant is a medical drug provider, specializing in sinus
pains.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip Furia, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
          85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
          Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
          Telephone: (845) 483-7100
          Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
          E-mail: furiap@thesultzerlawgroup.com

                - and -

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

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: PE Drugs "Ineffective," Thorns Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA THORNS and SCOTT COLLIER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, THE
PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, and WALGREEN CO., Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-01355-JR (D. Ore., September 18, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Unlawful Trade
Practices Act and unjust enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendants' false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of over-the-counter
oral nasal decongestants referred as PE drugs, containing the
active ingredient Phenylephrine (PE). The Defendants market PE
drugs to consumers as an effective oral nasal decongestant, but a
U.S. Food and Drug Administration Nonprescription Drugs Advisory
Committee (NDAC) has concluded that PE is no more effective as an
oral nasal decongestant than a placebo. By purchasing PE drugs, the
Plaintiff and the Class did not receive a product that was
effective at treating nasal congestion, the suit says.

Johnson & Johnson is an American multinational, pharmaceutical, and
medical technologies corporation headquartered in New Brunswick,
New Jersey.

The Procter & Gamble Company is an American multinational consumer
goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Walgreen Co. is an operator of a pharmacy store chain, with its
principal place of business in Deerfield, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         M. Ryan Casey, Esq.
         THE CASEY LAW FIRM, LLC
         P.O. Box 4577
         Frisco, CO 80443
         Telephone: (970) 372-6509
         E-mail: ryan@rcaseylaw.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Reinkraut Sues Over Sudafed PE Tablet False Ads
------------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB REINKRAUT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC. and KENVUE, INC., Case
No. 2:23-cv-20444 (D.N.J., Sept. 18, 2023) is a class action suit
brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of a national class of all
persons who purchased orally-administered Sudafed phenylephrine
(PE), an over-the-counter cold medication manufactured, and sold by
the Defendants that contains PE -- an ingredient that supposedly
acts as nasal decongestant but, in reality, does nothing.

Despite the Defendants' knowledge that phenylephrine was
ineffective as a nasal decongestant, the Defendants expressly
misrepresented and misled consumers, wholesalers, and retailers by
touting Sudafed PE as a "Nasal Decongestant" that could be used to
"temporarily relieve sinus congestion and pressure" and
"temporarily relieve nasal decongestion due to the common cold, hay
fever or other upper respiratory allergies," the Plaintiff
contends.

The Defendants allegedly misrepresented the truth and omitted
material information they had a duty to disclose to the Plaintiff
and other consumers to maximize their profits and to delay the
massive costs of immediately ceasing and/or recalling ineffective
Sudafed PE. The Defendants sold $1.8 billion in over-the-counter
cold medication, including Sudafed PE, in 2022 alone. The Plaintiff
would not have purchased Sudafed PE had he known that it could not
be used to treat nasal decongestion, says the suit.

The Plaintiff brings express and implied warranty, fraudulent
concealment, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment claims
arising from Defendants' unfair and deceptive business practices in
knowingly placing ineffective Sudafed PE into the stream of
commerce.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks on behalf of himself and the Class
damages and/or restitution for the Defendants' unlawful conduct.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent and certify the following class:

       All United States residents who purchased orally-
       Administered Sudafed PE during the Class Period.

The Class excludes any judge or magistrate assigned to this case,
Defendants, Defendants' officers, directors, legal representatives,
successors, and assigns, and any entity in which the Defendants
have a controlling interest.

Between 2017 and 2023, the Plaintiff purchased packages of Sudafed
PE at Walgreens and CVS. The Plaintiff purchased Sudafed PE from
these retail stores in New Jersey and paid approximately $12-$14
for each package of Sudafed PE.

JJCI manufactured, marketed, designed, promoted, and/or distributed
Sudafed PE containing ineffective phenylephrine in New Jersey and
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen J. Fearon, Jr., Esq.
          Paul Sweeny, Esq.
          SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
          305 Broadway, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 421-6492
          Facsimile: (212) 421-6553
          E-mail: stephen@sfclasslaw.com
                  paul@sfclasslaw.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Tuominen Sues Over Sudafed PE's Deceptive Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
TINA TUOMINEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-13796 (N.D. Ill., September 15, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendant for breach of express warranty, breach
of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, and violations of State
Consumer Protection Statutes, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the Illinois Uniform Deceptive
Trade Practices Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of over-the-counter
oral nasal decongestants known as Sudafed PE, containing the active
ingredient Phenylephrine (PE). The Defendant markets Sudafed PE to
consumers as an effective oral nasal decongestant, but a U.S. Food
and Drug Administration Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee
(NDAC) has concluded that PE is no more effective as an oral nasal
decongestant than a placebo. By purchasing Sudafed PE, the
Plaintiff and the Class did not receive a product that was
effective at treating nasal congestion.

Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. is a consumer goods company based
in New Jersey. [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
         E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com

                 - and -

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

                 - and -

         Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
         Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
         Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
         KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
         One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
         Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
         Telephone: (954) 525-4100
         E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                 streisfeld@kolawyers.com
                 cardoso@kolawyers.com

                 - and -

         Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
         Ryan J. Gott, Esq.
         PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP
         328 Barry Avenue South, Suite 200
         Wayzata, MI 55391
         Telephone: (612) 389-0600
         E-mail: mweiner@pwfirm.com
                 rgott@pwfirm.com

                 - and -

         Erin Ruben, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
         900 W. Morgan Street
         Raleigh, NC 27603
         Telephone: (919) 600-5000
         E-mail: eruben@milberg.com

                 - and -

         J. Hunter Bryson, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
         405 E. 50th Street
         New York, NY 10022
         Telephone: (630) 796-0903
         E-mail: hbryson@milberg.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Wright Sues Over Sale of Ineffective PE Drugs
----------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTA WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., KENVUE,
INC., RECKITT BENCKISER LLC, PROCTER & GAMBLE, WAL-MART, INC., and
WAL-MART STORES EAST 1, LP, Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-06120-LMC
(W.D. Mo., September 18, 2023) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices
Act, unjust enrichment, breach of implied warranty, and fraud by
omission/concealment.

The case arises from the Defendants' false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of over-the-counter
oral nasal decongestants, containing the active ingredient
Phenylephrine (PE). The Defendants market PE drugs to consumers as
an effective oral nasal decongestant, but a U.S. Food and Drug
Administration Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee (NDAC) has
concluded that PE is no more effective as an oral nasal
decongestant than a placebo. By purchasing PE drugs, the Plaintiff
and the Class did not receive a product that was effective at
treating nasal congestion, the suit says.

Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. is a consumer products company,
headquartered in New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Kenvue Inc. is a consumer health company, headquartered in
Skillman, New Jersey.

Reckitt Benckiser LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Reckitt
Benckiser Group PLC, headquartered in Parsippany, New Jersey.

Procter & Gamble is an American multinational consumer goods
corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Wal-Mart, Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation,
headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.

Wal-Mart Stores East 1, LP is a retail company based in
Bentonville, Arkansas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Robert A. Horn, Esq.
         Joseph A. Kronawitter, Esq.
         Taylor P. Foye, Esq.
         HORN AYLWARD & BANDY, LC
         2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1100
         Kansas City, MO 64108
         Telephone: (816) 421-0700
         Facsimile: (816) 421-0899
         E-mail: rhorn@hab-law.com
                 jkronawitter@hab-law.com
                 tfoye@hab-law.com

                 - and -

         Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
         Bradley D. Honnold, Esq.
         GOZA & HONNOLD, LLC
         9500 Nall Avenue, Suite 400
         Overland Park, KS 66207
         Telephone: (913) 451-3433
         Facsimile: (913) 839-0567
         E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
                 bhonnold@gohonlaw.com

                 - and -

         Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
         Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
         WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
         4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300
         Kansas City, MO 64112
         Telephone: (816) 701-1100
         E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com
                 thudson@wcllp.com

KENVUE INC: Faces Class Action Over Sudafed Decongestant Efficacy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Irvin Jackson, writing for About Lawsuits, reports that following a
determination made by a panel of scientific advisors to the U.S.
government, which found that the decongestant phenylephrine is no
more effective than a placebo, a Minnesota woman has filed a class
action lawsuit against the makers of Sudafed.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Miesha McIntyre in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota on September 15,
seeking class action status to pursue damages on behalf of all
consumers from the drug maker Kenvue, Inc. and McNeil Consumer
Healthcare as defendants.

Both companies were previously owned by Johnson & Johnson, and
comprised its over-the-counter consumer medication division. They
have since been spun off into Kenvue, which is now a separate
company that owns McNeil.

Sudafed Decongestant Does Not Work
Earlier this month, an advisory committee to the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) determined that the decongestant phenylephrine
is ineffective when taken orally. Even though its been on the
market for decades in popular products like Sudafed, Mucinex and
Tylenol Cold and Flu tablets and liquids, recent data indicates it
is no more effective than a placebo.

The FDA must now decide whether it should be allowed to remain on
the market.

However, McIntyre's lawsuit points out that she and other paid
premium prices for expensive cold medications for decades which did
not alleviate their decongestion.

Her lawsuit specifically targets Sudafed PE, which she indicates
she used as recently as this month, but failed to experience
decongestion relief. The reason why only became apparent after the
FDA advisory committee's findings were announced.

"Had Plaintiff known that the phenylephrine-containing Products
were entirely ineffective as a nasal decongestant, she would not
have purchased them, or would have paid substantially less for
them," the lawsuit states. "Accordingly, Plaintiff, on behalf of
herself and all other consumers of Defendants' phenylephrine
products, seeks to hold Defendants accountable for their
deceptions, breaches of warranties, and violations of Minnesota
consumer protection statutes."

The Sudafed class action lawsuit seeks to represent all persons in
Minnesota who purchased an oral nasal decongestant containing
phenylephrine manufactured by the defendants.

McIntyre accuses the manufacturers of breach of warranty, unjust
enrichment, fraud by omission, and violation of various Minnesota
consumer protection laws. [GN]

KENVUE INC: Sudafed PE Decongestant is Ineffective, McIntyre Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MIESHA MCINTYRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KENVUE, INC. AND MCNEIL CONSUMER HEALTHCARE, Case No.
0:23-cv-02862 (D. Minn., Sept. 15, 2023) contends that the
over-the-counter product Sudafed PE manufactured, distributed,
marketed, and sold by Defendants as an effective nasal
decongestant, does no such thing according to the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration.

According to the complaint, the product's lack of efficacy was
allegedly not disclosed to the Plaintiff prior to the Plaintiff's
purchase of the Product and Plaintiff would not have purchased the
Product or would have paid less for it had she known the Product
did not work as advertised. Unknown to ordinary consumers like the
Plaintiff, but known to the manufacturers in this lucrative market,
phenylephrine taken orally is ineffective. It provides no relief
for congestion, and is no better than a placebo, like a sugar pill,
as a decongestant when taken orally, the Plaintiff claims.

Had the Plaintiff known that the phenylephrine-containing Products
were entirely ineffective as a nasal decongestant, she would not
have purchased them, or would have paid substantially less for
them. As a result of the Defendants' false and deceptive marketing,
the Plaintiff, and the class members, suffered economic damages,
including the cost of purchasing the Products, says the suit.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all other
consumers of the Defendants' phenylephrine products, seeks to hold
the Defendants accountable for their deceptions, breaches of
warranties, and violations of Minnesota consumer protection
statutes.

In September 2023, the Plaintiff had sinus congestion associated
with a cold and purchased Sudafed PE. The Product was ineffective
in relieving Plaintiff's congestion.

Kenvue is an American consumer health company, and formerly the
consumer healthcare division of Johnson & Johnson.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
          Zackary S. Kaylor, Esq.
          JOHNSON BECKER PLLC
          444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (612) 436-1800
          Facsimile: (612) 436-4801
          E-mail: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com
                  zkaylor@johnsonbecker.com

KIA MOTORS: Settles Class Action Over Vehicle Engine Defects
------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Kia agreed to a class action lawsuit
settlement to resolve claims that some of its vehicles suffer from
engine defects.

The settlement benefits owners and lessees of certain Hyundai and
Kia vehicles. A full list of eligible vehicles can be found in the
"Who's Eligible" section below.

According to the class action lawsuit, the class vehicles suffer
from a defect related to the engine's connecting rod bearing. This
bearing can allegedly fail, causing engine seizure, stalling,
engine failure and even engine fires — all of which may not be
covered by warranty.

Kia is a South Korea-based vehicle company that owns both Hyundai
and Kia brands.

Kia hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an undisclosed
sum to resolve the engine defect class action lawsuit.

Under the terms of the Kia engine failure settlement, class members
can receive out-of-pocket expense reimbursement, compensation for
trade-ins and sales, compensation for total vehicle losses,
warranty extensions and participate in a rebate program.

To be eligible for certain types of compensation -- such as for
rental car, towing, ride-sharing or other transportation and
incidental expenses -- the knock sensor detection software (KSDS)
update on the class vehicle must be performed on or before
Nov. 4, 2023.

The deadline for exclusion and objection was Aug. 7, 2023.

The final approval hearing for the settlement was held on Sept. 8,
2023.

In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must submit
a valid claim form by Dec. 7, 2023.

Who's Eligible
The settlement benefits owners and lessees of:

2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 model year Hyundai Sonata Hybrid
vehicles with a Theta II engine
2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 model year Hyundai Sonata Hybrid/Plug-In
Hybrid vehicles with a Nu engine
2010, 2011 and 2012 model year Hyundai Santa Fe vehicles with a
Theta II engine
2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 model year Hyundai Tucson vehicles with a
Theta II engine
2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 model year
Hyundai Tucson  vehicles with a Nu engine
2014 model year Hyundai Elantra Coupe vehicles with a Nu engine
2014, 2015 and 2016 model year Hyundai Elantra vehicles with a Nu
engine
2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 model year Hyundai
Elantra GT vehicles with a Nu engine
2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 model year Hyundai Veloster
vehicles with a Gamma engine
2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 model year Kia Optima Hybrid
vehicles with a Theta II engine
2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 model year Kia Optima Hybrid (HEV/PHEV)
vehicles with a Nu engine
2011, 2012 and 2013 model year Kia Sorento vehicles with a Theta II
engine
2011, 2012 and 2013 model year Kia Sportage vehicles with a Theta
II engine
2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 model year Kia Forte vehicles with a
Theta II engine
2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 model year Kia Forte Koup vehicles with a
Theta II engine
2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 model year Kia Forte vehicles with
a Nu engine
2014, 2015 and 2016 model year Kia Forte Koup vehicles with a Nu
engine
2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 model year Kia Soul vehicles with a
Gamma engine
2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 model year Kia Soul vehicles
with a Nu engine
Potential Award
Varies

Proof of Purchase
Documentation of repairs, expenses and other damages

Claim Form
CLICK HERE TO FILE A CLAIM »
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.

Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.

Claim Form Deadline
12/07/2023

Case Name
In re: Hyundai and Kia Engine Litigation II, Case No.
8:18-cv-02223-JLS-JDE, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California

Final Hearing
09/08/2023

Settlement Website
KiaEngineClassSettlement.com

Claims Administrator
Kia Engine Class Settlement
Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 4133
Portland, OR 97208-4133
info@KiaEngineClassSettlement.com
800-944-1025

Class Counsel
Steve W Berman
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

Matthew Schelkopf
SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC

Gretchen Freeman Cappio
KELLER ROHRBACK LLP

Defense Counsel
Shon Morgan
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP [GN]

KIMCO STAFFING: Faces Data Breach Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Shweta Watwe, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that California
staffing agency failed to protect its employees' sensitive data, a
former employee alleging the company hasn't disclosed a data breach
said in his proposed class action complaint.

Kawauna Pittman's social security number was taken from Kimco
Staffing Services Inc.'s systems and posted on the dark web,
according to his complaint filed in the US District Court for the
Southern District of California on Sept. 18. The company hasn't
notified employees or the California attorney general of the
alleged data breach, the complaint says.

COURT: S.D. Cal.
TRACK DOCKET: No. 3:23-cv-01719 [GN]


KIMCO STAFFING: Fails to Secure Employees' Info, Pittman Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
KAWAUNA PITTMAN, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. KIMCO STAFFING SERVICES, INC., Case No.
3:23-cv-01719-TWR-JLB (S.D. Cal., Sept. 18, 2023) sues the
Defendant for failing to properly secure and safeguard the
Plaintiff's and other similarly situated Kimco current and former
employees' personal information including social security numbers,
from unauthorized access.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant disregarded the rights of
the Plaintiff and Class members by, recklessly failing to take
adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were
protected against unauthorized intrusions; failing to disclose that
it did not have robust computer systems and security practices to
safeguard its employees' Sensitive Information; failing to monitor
and timely detect the Data Breach; and failing to provide the
Plaintiff and Class members prompt and accurate notice of the Data
Breach. To date, the Defendant has neither notified its employees
nor the California Attorney General of such breach, the Plaintiff
says.

The Plaintiff and Class members have spent, and will continue to
spend, significant amounts of time and money trying to protect
themselves from the adverse ramifications of the Data Breach and
dealing with actual fraud and will forever be at a heightened risk
of identity theft and fraud. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, alleges claims for negligence;
invasion of privacy; breach of implied contract; breach of
fiduciary duty; breach of confidence; and violation of the
California Unfair Competition Law, the California Customer Records
Act and the California Consumer Privacy Act.

The Plaintiff was formerly employed by the Defendant in
California.

The Defendant is a staffing company which hires individuals as its
employees and provides them with jobs at various companies in the
States of California, Arizona and Nevada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC
          2221 Camino Del Rio S., Suite 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (866) 219-3343
          Facsimile: (866) 219-8344
          E-mail: josh@swigartlawgroup.com

                - and -

          Ben Travis, Esq.
          BEN TRAVIS LAW, APC
          4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 100
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (619) 353-7966
          E-mail: ben@bentravislaw.com

KOPPERS RAILROAD: Faces Brock FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
ZACH BROCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KOPPERS RAILROAD STRUCTURES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01013-UNA (D. Del., September 15, 2023)
is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a nonexempt, hourly
employee.

Koppers Railroad Structures, Inc. is a provider of railroad
engineer, construction, maintenance, and other related services
based in Delaware. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Brian E. Farnan, Esq.
         Michael J. Farnan, Esq.
         FARNAN LLP
         919 N. Market St., 12th Floor
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Telephone: (302) 777-0300
         Facsimile: (302) 777-0301
         E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
                 mfarnan@farnanlaw.com

LIV UNLTD: Williams Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Porters
-------------------------------------------------------
RICKY WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LIV UNLTD LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-08189 (S.D.N.Y., September 15, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to pay all straight time wages, failure to timely
pay wages, and failure to furnish wage statements.

Mr. Williams worked for the Defendant as a porter from on or about
August 10, 2018 until on or about July 12, 2023.

LIV UnLtd LLC is a global hospitality company, with its principal
place of business located at 622 Third Avenue, 14th Floor, New
York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Amit Kumar, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO
         108 West 39th Street, Suite 602
         New York, NY 10018
         Telephone: (212) 583-7400
         E-mail: AKumar@CafaroEsq.com

LOS TRES: Fails to Pay Waitress Minimum & OT Wages, Jumbo Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
CARMITA JUMBO, v. LOS TRES POTRILLOS DE JC CORP (DBA LOS TRES
POTRILLOS) and PEDRO LUNA, individually, Case No. 1:23-cv-06850
(E.D.N.Y., Sept. 14, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage and
overtime wage compensation, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York Codes, Rules, and
Regulations.

According to the complaint, the Defendants were required to pay and
compensate the Plaintiff at a minimum rate of $15.00 per hour;
however, the Plaintiff was only compensated at a rate of $10.83 per
hour. The Defendants were required to compensate the Plaintiff with
overtime pay at one and one-half the regular rate for work in
excess of 40 hours per work week. However, the Defendants only
compensated the Plaintiff at a rate of $10.83 per hour including
tips, per week and failed to pay the Plaintiff her lawful overtime
pay for that period from January 2019 to the present. The
Defendants allegedly maintain a policy and practice of requiring
the Plaintiff and other employees to work without providing the
minimum and overtime compensation required by federal and state law
and regulations, the suit asserts.

The Plaintiff also brings this action under the Wage Theft
Prevention Act for the Defendants' failure to provide written
notice of wage rates in violation of said laws.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from January 2019 to
the present, where her primary work duty was as a waitress.

Los Tres Potrillos is an elite authentic Mexican food restaurant in
New York.[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

LOUISIANA: Subjects Prisoners to Inhumane Condition, VOTE Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
VOICE OF THE EXPERIENCED, a membership organization on behalf of
itself and its members; and MYRON SMITH, DAMARIS JACKSON, NATE
WALKER and DARRIUS WILLIAMS, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JAMES LEBLANC, in his official
capacity as Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety
& Corrections; TIMOTHY HOOPER, in his official capacity as Warden
of Louisiana State Penitentiary; MISTY STAGG, in her official
capacity as Director of Prison Enterprises, Inc.; the LOUISIANA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORRECTIONS; and PRISON ENTERPRISES,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01304-BAJ-EWD (M.D. La.,
September 16, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
cruel and unusual punishment in violation of Eighth Amendment,
disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act
and Rehabilitation Act, and involuntary servitude under Thirteenth
Amendment.

The case arises from the unconstitutional and gratuitously harsh
conditions of forced agricultural labor at the Louisiana State
Penitentiary in Tunica, Louisiana also known as "Angola." According
to the complaint, the State of Louisiana subjects incarcerated men
to cruel, inhuman, and degrading forced labor at Angola. Often
overseen by armed guards, these individuals, most of whom are
Black, must walk or ride into the fields, sometimes carrying hoes
and shovels, to dig ditches and pick plantation crops on the
so-called "Farm Line." Some are paid two cents an hour for their
labor. Many are paid nothing at all. They are forced to work in
extreme weather conditions, without basic safety gear or modern
agricultural equipment. The combination of these intolerable and
obviously dangerous conditions subjects putative class members to
the substantial risk of serious psychological and physical harm due
to their prolonged exposure to extremely dangerous heat indexes.
The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief for the
inhumane, discriminatory, and unconstitutional practices and
conditions they face at Angola every day.

Voice of the Experienced (VOTE) is a grassroots nonprofit
organization comprised of currently and formerly incarcerated
people, headquartered in New Orleans, Louisiana.

The Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DOC) is the
administrative arm of the State of Louisiana responsible for
administering the State's correctional facilities.

Prison Enterprises, Inc. is a division of Louisiana's Department of
Public Safety and Corrections (DOC). [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Lydia Wright, Esq.
         Samantha Bosalavage, Esq.
         Claude-Michael Comeau, Esq.
         Kenyatta Barthelemy, Esq.
         THE PROMISE OF JUSTICE INITIATIVE
         1024 Elysian Fields Avenue
         New Orleans, LA 70117
         Telephone: (504) 529-5955
         E-mail: lwright@defendla.org
                 sbosalavage@defendla.org
                 ccomeau@defendla.org
                 kbarthelemy@defendla.org

                 - and -

         Oren Nimni, Esq.
         Amaris Montes, Esq.
         RIGHTS BEHIND BARS
         416 Florida Avenue NW, Ste. 26152
         Washington, DC 20001
         Telephone: (202) 455-4399
         E-mail: oren@rightsbehindbars.org
                 amaris@rightsbehindbars.org

LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Nov 14
------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Sept. 18
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of securities of Lumen Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: LUMN)
between March 11, 2019 and July 14, 2023, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If
you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 14, 2023.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Lumen 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 Lumen class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=17736 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 14, 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. 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 and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) Lumen owned and/or still owns thousands of miles of cables
wrapped in lead, a known neurotoxin, within the U.S.; (2) the
foregoing has harmed and posed the risk of further harming the
environment, exposed Company employees, and the general public,
thereby posing a significant public health risk and environmental
pollution risk; (3) Lumen was on notice about the damage and risks
presented by these lead-covered cables but did not disclose them as
a potential threat to everyday people and communities, as well as
failed to provide adequate lead training to employees; (4) all the
foregoing subjected the Company to a heightened risk of
governmental and regulatory oversight and enforcement action, as
well as legal and reputational harm; and (5) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the Lumen class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=17736 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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:

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

LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Mclemore Suit Over 8.11% Stock Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN MCLEMORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES, INC. f/k/a CENTURYLINK, INC., KATE
JOHNSON, CHRIS STANSBURY, JEFFREY K. STOREY, and INDRANEEL DEV,
Case No. 3:23-cv-01290 (W.D. La., Sept. 15, 2023) is a federal
securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Lumen securities between March 11, 2019 and July
14, 2023, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused
by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: Lumen owned
and/or still owns thousands of miles of cables wrapped in lead, a
known neurotoxin, within the U.S.; the foregoing has harmed and
posed the risk of further harming the environment, exposed Company
employees, and the general public; Lumen was on notice about the
damage and risks presented by these lead-covered cables; and all
the foregoing subjected the Company to a heightened risk of
governmental and regulatory oversight and enforcement action, as
well as legal and reputational harm.

On July 9, 2023, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) published an article
reporting that more than 2,000 lead-covered cables previously used
by Ma Bell and, subsequently, by various successor
telecommunication companies, were degrading and leaching into soil
and groundwater, posing a significant public health risk.

On this news, Lumen's stock price fell $0.13 per share, or 5.94%,
to close at $2.06 per share on July 10, 2023.

On July 14, 2023, during post-market hours, the WSJ published
article citing various analyst and market concerns related to
Lumen's exposure to enormous liabilities related to its
lead-sheathed cables.

On this news, Lumen's stock price fell $0.15 per share, or 8.11%,
to close at $1.70 per share the next trading day on July 17, 2023.


Then, on August 1, 2023, on a quarterly earnings call, Lumen's
executive management addressed the recent reporting on the
Company's exposure to liability related to lead-sheathed cables,
disclosing that, by Lumen's own estimation, not more than 35,000
miles of its copper network could contain lead. In a response to an
analyst's inquiry regarding whether Defendants "had any discussions
around remediation" for the lead-sheathed cable issue, Company
management noted that Lumen had spent considerable time determining
how much lead was in the Company's telecom system and could not
estimate potential remediation costs. As a result of the
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the
Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses
and damages, says the suit.

The Plaintiff acquired Lumen securities at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period.

Lumen is a telecommunications and technology company that provides
various integrated products and services to businesses and
residential customers in the U.S. and internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric J. O'Bell, Esq.
          O'BELL LAW FIRM, LLC
          3500 North Hullen Street
          Metairie, LA 70002
          Telephone: (504) 456-8677
          Facsimile: (504) 456-8653
          E-mail: ejo@obelllawfirm.com

                - and -

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

MAPFRE USA: Conway Sues Over Disclosure of Drivers' License Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN CONWAY, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. MAPFRE U.S.A. CORP. and THE COMMERCE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-12076 (D. Mass.,
Sept. 8, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff,
individually and on behalf and all other individuals, who had their
driver's license information disclosed because of MAPFRE's sales
efforts and during MAPFRE's data disclosure incident in violation
of the Drivers' Privacy Protection Act.

According to the complaint, MAPFRE knowingly chose to obtain, use,
and disclose federally protected drivers' license numbers and other
motor vehicle record information to grease the wheels of its online
insurance sales. MAPFRE chose to add a feature to its existing
online sales platform whereby an individual's driver's license
number would auto-populate for anyone that would enter a bare
minimum of publicly available information about that individual. By
adding the auto-population feature to its online quoting process,
which MAPFRE knowingly chose to do, MAPFRE intended to make the
displayed information, which it obtained and used to create the
feature, easily accessible to anyone who entered basic information
into its system, says the suit.

As a result of MAPFRE's data disclosure, Plaintiff's privacy has
been invaded, his sensitive drivers' license information is now in
the hands of criminals, and he faces a substantially increased risk
of identity theft and fraud, the suit asserts.

MAPFRE U.S.A. Corp. and The Commerce Insurance Company write
property and casualty insurance policies in 14 states across the
U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Pastor, Esq.
          PASTOR LAW OFFICE PC
          63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 742-9700
          Facsimile: (617) 742-9701
          E-mail: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com

               - and -

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500
          Burbank, CA 91505
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                  rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com

               - and -

          Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com

MCDONALD'S CORP: Court Warns HR of No-Poach Agreements Amid Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stacy Thomas of Human Resource Director reports that following a
recent appeals court decision concerning a class action suit
against McDonald's franchise restaurants, employers and HR
professionals will want to be more careful in their use of employee
noncompete or "no-poach" agreements.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which oversees Illinois,
Wisconsin and Indiana, decided last month to repeal a district
court's dismissal of an antitrust class action lawsuit against
McDonald's Corp. The suit, Deslandes v. McDonald's, charged
McDonald's for unfair use of "no-hire" and "non-solicitation"
clauses.

McDonald's franchise agreements contain a clause prohibiting
franchisers from hiring workers who are employed at other
McDonald's stores, and for six months after that employment ends.
This clause contributed to wage suppression and impeded workers'
ability to move freely to other jobs, plaintiffs claimed.

Class action, no-poach case rejected by district court

Employees attempted a class-action suit in 2021, saying McDonald's
violated Section 1 of the federal Sherman Act, which restricts
employee contracts (among others) that limit market competition. A
district court dismissed the plaintiff's request for class
certification, and the appeals court has reversed that decision and
sent it back to trial.

The decision signals a change in the tide for no-poach agreement
lawsuits, said Duane Morris partner Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., and HR
professionals who use these clauses to limit employee turnover or
wage increases need to be cautious.

"If you are in HR, you need to realize that antitrust laws can be
divided into two areas. One is civil liability, where lawsuits are
brought by people for money, and that's what the McDonald's case
was about. But antitrust laws also have criminal provisions," said
Maatman.

"And the Biden administration in the United States has been very
vocal about bringing antitrust criminal investigations against
companies for use of no-poach agreements. And there have been
criminal indictments brought against business executives and HR
personnel in various industries."

Faculty at universities, engineers in aerospace, and skilled tech
workers in Silicon Valley have all been at the center of
class-action no-poach litigations, Maatman said. In each case,
determinations are made on what the labor market is for that
particular industry, and if no-poach clauses caused wage
suppression or are anti-competitive.

Decision lays groundwork for other class action suits against
employers
Reuters reported in 2021 that McDonald's stated the nationwide
class action suit could include millions of workers, with damages
of $2.74 billion.

In that case, the original plaintiff, Leilani Delandes, was denied
a higher-paying job at a corporate McDonald's because she was
working at a franchised store. The district judge dismissed the
case on the grounds that the labor markets for low-skilled,
low-paid workers are geographically small, therefore a nation-wide
class action suit would not be appropriate.

"So now with this appeal, and a decision by a higher court, the
Seventh Circuit, it's a bit of a roadmap, so to speak, or a
blueprint, for workers and their attorneys on how to bring these
sorts of cases," Maatman said.

HR "in best position" to stop antitrust violations
The Department of Justice (DOJ) with the FTC announced in 2018 that
it would be treating no-poach clauses as criminal offences going
forward, according to its 2016 DOJ Guidance For Human Resources
Professionals.

The document singles out HR professionals as uniquely positioned to
prevent antitrust violations.

"HR professionals often are in the best position to ensure that
their companies' hiring practices comply with the antitrust laws,"
the Guidance reads. "In particular, HR professionals can implement
safeguards to prevent inappropriate discussions or agreements with
other firms seeking to hire the same employees." [GN]

MERRILL LYNCH: Antonio Pereira Sues Over Lender Liability
---------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Pereira Association & Pasargada Association, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. MERRILL LYNCH,
PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC., BARCLAYS CAPITAL, INC., CITIBANK INC.,
CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC., JP MORGAN, JP MORGAN SECURITIES
LLC, Case No. 23-cv-08160 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 14, 2023), is brought
pursuant to Brazil's National Environment Policy Act for lender
liability against the Defendants arising from loans and financing
which directly promoted, and continues to promote, significant
environmental degradation in the Brazilian State of Minas Gerais,
as well as continuing harm to the Plaintiffs and the proposed Class
members.

The mining company Vale, S.A. (the "borrower" or "Vale") has
constructed high risk tailings dams within the Metropolitana de
Belo Horizonte mesoregion in the state of Minas Gerais known as the
"Iron Quadrangle."

The Defendants, a group of banks, provided essential financing to
Vale, a company notorious for committing horrendous environmental
ruination in Brazil. Defendants profited from their customer's
environmental degradation that was imposed upon Plaintiffs and the
proposed Class without any concern for the devastation that has
ravaged those communities. Without the funding by Defendants, the
construction, operation, and expansions of Vale's dams would have
been impossible because Vale did not have the financial resources
to perpetuate its systemic decimation of the environment within the
geographic area occupied by the Association Plaintiffs herein. That
destruction is ongoing and the extraordinary losses it causes the
Plaintiff Class increase every day.

Vale engages in mining operations throughout Brazil. This
Complaint, however, focuses on the mining operations in an
approximately 7,000 square kilometer area of Minas Gerais, the Iron
Quadrangle. These mining operations have polluted and contaminated,
and continue to pollute and contaminate, Plaintiffs' land, air, and
water within the Iron Quadrangle. Defendant's financing of Vale's
mining operations has directly funded the ongoing pollution and
contamination of the environment, which has caused significant
losses to Plaintiffs and the proposed Class.

Brazilian law establishes a strict liability standard to ensure
protection of the environment. Under Brazilian law, lenders are
liable for pollution and contamination caused by the endeavors
their loans financed, in addition to the liability of the entities
whose endeavors directly caused the pollution and contamination.
Thus, Defendants are strictly liable to Plaintiffs under Brazilian
law.

The Plaintiffs seek to represent and protect the interests of the
environment, including the interests of the flora and fauna, in and
around the dams that have been, and continue to be, destroyed by
the mining operations financed by Defendants. Plaintiffs also seek
to represent and protect the interests of the community
associations and persons in and around this area that have been,
and continue to be, negatively impacted by the mining operations
financed by Defendants.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' funding of Vale's
mining activities, Plaintiffs and the Class members have suffered
and will continue to suffer injuries to themselves and their
families, a reduction or elimination of their property values, a
reduction in their use and enjoyment of their real and personal
property, and a collapse of their businesses/livelihoods all of
which continues to be deleterious to their health and well-being,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are communities of several thousand residents in
the
district of Nova Lima in the city of Nova Lima and within the
district of Antonio Pereira in the City of Ouro Preto.

The Defendants are lenders who have loaned more than $ 17.2 billion
USD to Vale.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex Straus, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          280 South Beverly Drive, Ph Suite
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Phone: (866) 252-0878
          Email: astraus@milberg.com

               - and -

          Roy L. Mason, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (866) 252-0878
          Email: rmason@milberg.com

               - and -

          Glenn Phillips, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          1420 Fifth Ave, Suite 2200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (866) 252-0878
          Email: gphillips@milberg.com

               - and -

          Greg Coleman, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TTN 37929
          Phone: (866) 252-0878
          Email: gcoleman@milberg.com


META PLATFORMS: Collect Data Without Consent, Dye Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAWN DYE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:23-cv-00509-BO (E.D.N.C., Sept. 15, 2023) alleges violation of
the federal Drivers' Privacy Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant
surreptitiously tracked North Carolinians permanent disability
placard renewals, new car registrations, identification card
renewals, and other activity on the North Carolina Department of
Motor Vehicles ("DMV") online payments portal,
https://payments.ncdot.gov website, down to the very last button
click.

The Defendant uses this information to help it deliver targeted
advertisements across its social networks, including facebook.com
and instagram.com, among others. Because neither Meta nor the DMV
asked North Carolinian drivers for their express written consent to
obtain or use this highly sensitive information for advertising,
says the suit.

Meta Platforms, Inc. operates as a social technology company. The
Company builds applications and technologies that help people
connect, find communities, and grow businesses. Meta Platform is
also involved in advertisements, augmented, and virtual reality.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake G. Abbott, Esq.
          Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
          POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC
          32 Ann Street
          Charleston, SC 29403
          Telephone: (803) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (843) 494-5536
          Email: blake.abbott@poulinwilley.com
                 paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com

               - and -

          Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
          Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          Email: ndeckant@bursor.com
                 sbogdanovich@bursor.com

               - and -

          Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1330 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          Email: fklorczyk@bursor.com

META PLATFORMS: Collects Non-Users' Health Info, E.H. Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
E.H. and C.S., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-04784 (N.D.
Cal., Sept. 18, 2023) alleges that, through an invisible tracker
called the Meta Pixel, Meta contemporaneously acquired the contents
of communications between the Plaintiffs and Class Members and
Covered Entities.

The Plaintiffs contend that Meta's interceptions were intentional.
The foundational purpose of the Pixel is to clandestinely intercept
communications made on third-party websites and share their
contents with Meta for use in Meta's own business operations. The
data Meta collects includes information such as specific
prescriptions, diagnoses, and symptoms that even close friends and
family might not have known about -- but Meta did. Furthermore,
these transmissions occur even if, like the Plaintiffs, consumers
do not have a Facebook account. Meta did not obtain legal
authorization from the Plaintiffs and Class Members to obtain these
communications, as required by HIPAA and CMIA. Nor did Meta require
the Covered Entities to obtain legal authorization to share these
communications, the suit claims.

The Covered Entities also did not validly consent to the Meta's
interception of the Plaintiffs' and Class Members' health care
communications. Meta's purpose in acquiring the contents of the
Plaintiffs' and Class Members' communications was tortious,
criminal, and designed to violation state statutes. Meta's illicit
interception of non-users' sensitive health data violates
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Invasion of
Privacy Act, the common law and California Constitution rights to
privacy, the Unfair Competition Law, and the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, as well as unjustly enriching Meta and tortiously
converting non-users' data to Meta's own use, the suit asserts.

The Plaintiffs and Class Members seek monetary damages for the
greater of (i) the sum of the actual damages suffered by the
Plaintiffs and Class Members and any profits made by Meta as a
result of the violation or (ii) statutory damages of whichever is
greater of $100 a day for each violation or $10,000.

The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of people without a
Facebook account whose health information was obtained without
their consent by Meta from a Covered Entity.

Plaintiff E.H. is a resident of Oklahoma. Plaintiff C.S. is a
resident of Massachusetts. Each Plaintiff visited the website and
used the services of a Covered Entity that provided online
treatment to patients. Each Plaintiff created an account with that
Covered Entity using their full name, address, email, and phone
number.

Meta is a multinational technology conglomerate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Previn Warren, Esq.
          Abigail Burman, Esq.
          Mathew Jasinski, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          401 9th Street NW Suite 630
          Washington DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 386-9610
          E-mail: pwarren@motleyrice.com
                  aburman@motleyrice.com
                  mjaskinski@motleyrice.com

                - and -

          James M. Wagstaffe, Esq.
          Frank Busch, Esq.
          WAGSTAFFE, VON LOEWENFELDT,
          BUSCH & RADWICK LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 2250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 357-8900
          E-mail: wagstaffe@wvbrlaw.com
                  busch@wvbrlaw.com

META PLATFORMS: Faces LLaMA Infringement Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that five
award-winning authors allege in a proposed class action that Meta
Platforms used their copyrighted works to train its AI language
models without authorization.

According to the 18-page lawsuit, Meta first released LLaMA (Large
Language Model Meta AI) in February 2023 as a suite of AI software
designed to respond to user prompts with "convincingly natural,"
human-like text outputs.

However, the lawsuit alleges that Meta, in a "clear infringement"
of the plaintiffs' intellectual property rights, "trained" LLaMA
using "massive amounts of text" from the authors' copyrighted books
and screenplays, "without consent, without credit, and without
compensation," the case alleges.

"Though a large language model is a software program, it is not
created the way most software programs are -- that is, by human
software engineers writing code," the filing explains. "Rather, a
large language model is 'trained' by copying massive amounts of
text from various sources and feeding these copies into the
model."

Although Meta claims that LLaMA's training dataset consists of
"publicly available" information that is "compatible with open
sourcing," the complaint contends that the company pulls data from
Bibliotik, an illegal "shadow library" website that contains a
large quantity of copyrighted material.

Per the suit, Meta admits that it sourced a portion of the LLaMA
training materials from Books3, a major section of a dataset known
as The Pile. Public statements released by the creator of Books3
reveal that it represents "all of Bibliotik" and contains 196,640
books, the complaint says.

The plaintiffs claim that many of their written works appear in the
Books3 dataset Meta used to train LLaMA. As a result, the AI
product now relies on their copyrighted works to fuel its
responses, the case shares.

"Plaintiffs never authorized Meta to make copies of their Infringed
Works, make derivative works, publicly display copies (or
derivative works), or distribute copies (or derivative works)," the
case states. "All those rights belong exclusively to Plaintiffs
under copyright law."

The filing notes that Meta originally launched the LLaMA language
models as selectively available to organizations that request
access but reportedly plans to make the next version of the product
commercially available. Even so, the LLaMA language models were
leaked online in March 2023 and continue to circulate, the case
says.

The lawsuit looks to represent all people or entities nationwide
that own a United States copyright in any work that was used as
training data for the LLaMA language models during the applicable
statute of limitations period. [GN]

MGM RESORTS: Lassoff Sues Over Personal Info Negligent Handling
---------------------------------------------------------------
SAUL & SHIRLEY LASSOFF, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MGM Resorts International and Caesars
Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-20419-JHR-AMD (D.N.J., Sept.
18, 2023) is a class action suit brought by the Plaintiff on behalf
of a class consisting of Pennsylvania customers whose personal
information was negligently handled by the Defendants between March
1, 2023 and November 30, 2023, inclusive.

This is a class action on behalf of several million Pennsylvania,
New Jersey, New York, Las Vegas and United States customers exposed
to identity fraud following the negligent mishandling of personal
information by Defendants MGM Resorts International and Caesars
Entertainment, Inc.

Excluded from the Class are the Defendants, members of the
immediate family of each of the individual Defendants, any
subsidiary or affiliate of the Defendants and the directors,
officers and employees of the Defendants or its subsidiaries or
affiliates, or any entity in which any excluded person has a
controlling interest, and the legal representatives, heirs,
successors and assigns of any excluded person.

On Sept 7, 2023, the Defendants announced the negligent mishandling
of customers personal information, and stated that the Plaintiffs
personal information (i.e. name, address, social security, driver's
license, bank account and credit card numbers) had been
compromised. The Defendants also allegedly engaged in a scheme to
hide their negligent handling of the Plaintiffs' personal
information, breaching their fiduciary duty to the Plaintiff and
the Class, causing damages to the Plaintiff and the Class, says the
suit.

Plaintiffs Saul and Shirley Lassoff are residents of Pennsylvania.
Mr. and Mrs. Lassoff were MGM Resorts International and Caesars
Entertainment, Inc. loyalty member customers and Credit customers
of the Defendants during the Class Period.

MGM is an American global hospitality and entertainment
company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Samuel Lassoff, Esq.
          LASSOFF LAW LLC
          Suite 2343, 5006 Wellington Ave
          Ventnor, NJ 08406
          Telephone: (609) 375-7491
          E-mail: lawfirm25@aol.com

MIDFIRST BANK: Dudurkaewa Files Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MidFirst Bank. The
case is styled as Petimat Dudurkaewa, individually on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MidFirst Bank, Case No.
5:23-cv-00817-R (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 14, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Banks and Banking.

MidFirst Bank is a privately owned financial institution based in
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Terry F. Stokes, Esq.
          RUBENSTEIN & PITTS PLLC
          1503 E 19th St
          Edmond, OK 73013
          Phone: (405) 340-1900
          Fax: (405) 340-1001
          Email: tstokes@oklawpartners.com


MIGHTY CRAB: Faces Chi Ming Yau Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHI MING YAU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE MIGHTY CRAB NY 12110 INC., d/b/a THE
MIGHTY CRAB LATHAM, ZHUI ZHENG, and AMY CHEN, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-01185-MAD-TWD (N.D.N.Y., September 15, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation,
failure to provide wage notice, failure to provide detailed paystub
information, and failure to timely pay wages.

The Plaintiff was employed as a bartender and miscellaneous worker
at The Mighty Crab Latham, located at 675 Troy-Schenectady Rd.,
Latham, New York from September 21, 2022, to August 9, 2023.

The Mighty Crab NY 12110 Inc., doing business as The Mighty Crab
Latham, is a restaurant owner and operator, with its principal
place of business at 675 Troy-Schenectady Rd., Latham, New York.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Yongjin Bae, Esq.
         HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
         136-18 39th Ave., Suite #1003
         Flushing, NY 11354
         Telephone: (718) 353-8588
         E-mail: ybae@hanglaw.com

MILANO BROTHERS: Bueno Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Bueno, and others similarly situated v. MILANO BROTHERS
CONSTRUCTION, INC., RICHARD MILANO and DENNIS MILANO, Individually,
Case No. 0:23-cv-06838 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 14, 2023), is brought
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York
Labor Law ("NYLL") as recently amended by the Wage Theft Prevention
Act ("WTPA"), and related provisions from Title 12 of New York
Codes, Rules, and Regulations ("NYCRR"), to recover, inter alia,
unpaid minimum wage and overtime wage compensation.

The Defendants were required, under relevant New York State law, to
compensate Plaintiff with overtime pay at one and one-half the
regular rate for work in excess of 40 hours per work week. However,
despite such mandatory pay obligations, Defendants compensated
Plaintiff at a rate of $20, $22, $23, and $24 per hour and failed
to pay Plaintiff his lawful overtime pay for that period from 2017
until August 2023, where he worked well in excess of 40 hours per
workweek.

The Defendants' conduct extended beyond Plaintiff to all other
similarly situated employees; and at all times relevant to this
Complaint, Defendants maintain a policy and practice of requiring
Plaintiff and other employees to work without providing the
overtime compensation required by federal and state law and
regulations. The Plaintiff also brings this action under the Wage
Theft Prevention Act for Defendants' failure to provide written
notice of wage rates in violation of said laws. Moreover, at all
relevant times, Defendants failed to maintain accurate record
keeping as required by the FLSA and the NYLL, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cook.

The Defendants owned and operated ZOCCOLA LLC (DBA TAVOLA), a
corporate entity located in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lina Stillman, Esq.
          STILLMAN LEGAL PC
          42 Broadway, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 212-203-2417
          Web: www.StillmanLegalPC.com


MOBILE MINI: Smith Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometrics
--------------------------------------------------------------
JUNIOR SMITH, GREGG QUAGLIANO, MIGUEL LUPIAN, MARTIN HIDALGO, TODD
SAMPSON, and JIM CAVANAUGH, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MOBILE MINI, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-13784 (N.D. Ill., September 15, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendant for violation of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant actively collected,
stored, and used the biometrics of employees, including the
Plaintiffs, through its biometric timekeeping system, without
providing notice, obtaining informed written consent, or publishing
data retention policies in violation of the provisions of 15(a) and
15(b) of BIPA. Specifically, the Defendant used the camera and
videotaping technology in its trucks to collect and store its
drivers' biometrics, says the suit.

The Plaintiffs and the Class were all employed by the Defendant as
truck drivers in Illinois during periods of time within the past
five years.

Mobile Mini, Inc. is a company that specializes in the
transportation of portable storage units, located at 801 Adlai
Stevenson Drive, Springfield, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Jordan Richards, Esq.
         JORDAN RICHARDS PLLC
         1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205
         Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
         Telephone: (954) 871-0050
         E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Settles Burnett Antitrust Class Suit for $55M
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Lauck of Missouri Lawyers reports that a second defendant in
a pending antitrust class-action lawsuit against the real estate
industry has settled for $55 million.

Mike Ketchmark of Ketchmark & McCreight said in an emailed
statement that the settlement with RE/MAX included not only money
but also an agreement it would no longer require home sellers to
pay buyer's agents.

"The biggest part of the settlement is the massive changes to
RE/MAX's business practices," Ketchmark said.

Ketchmark, along with attorneys from Boulware Law and Williams
Dirks Dameron, represent a class of home sellers who allege that
rules set by the National Association of Realtors restrain
competition by requiring home sellers to pay a 6 percent commission
that is split between their own agent and that of the buyer.

The suit, pending in U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Missouri, is set for a jury trial starting Oct. 16. The
remaining defendants are the Realtors association, as well as
HomeServices of America Inc. and Keller Williams Realty.

"Unless Home Services, NAR, and Keller Williams finally admit they
are wrong and change their ways we will ask the jury to return the
money to the 250,000 homeowners in Missouri who were victims of
this alleged conspiracy," Ketchmark said in the statement. The
companies have denied the claims.

In a Sept. 18 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, RE/MAX said the settlement covers the claims in the
Missouri case and a similar suit in the Northern District of
Illinois.

"RE/MAX continues to deny the material allegations of the
complaints in the Lawsuits," the company said. "RE/MAX entered into
the Settlement after considering the risks and costs of continuing
the litigation."

Another defendant in the case, Anywhere Real Estate Inc., settled
for $83.5 million earlier this month. The court has not yet
approved either settlement.

The case is Burnett v. National Association of Realtors et al.,
4:19-cv-00332. [GN]

NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Flores Appeals Arbitration Ruling to 2nd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN FLORES, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the
lawsuit entitled Brian Flores, et al., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The National
Football League, et al., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-871, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs, who are current and former coaches for NFL teams, have
sued the National Football League (NFL) and various member teams
for racial discrimination and retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C.
Section 1981 and several state laws. The Court granted in part and
denied in part the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration in an
opinion dated March 1, 2023. It compelled arbitration of the claims
brought by Ray Horton against the Tennessee Titans, Steve Wilks
against the Arizona Cardinals, and Brian Flores against the Miami
Dolphins, as well as all related claims against the NFL; it denied
the motion to compel arbitration of Flores' claims against the New
York Giants, the Denver Broncos, and the Houston Texans, as well as
his related claims against the NFL.

The Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the portions of the
Arbitration Opinion granting the motion to compel arbitration, and
the Defendants cross-moved for reconsideration, seeking to compel
arbitration of the remaining claims. The Defendants sought to
compel arbitration of Flores' claims against the Denver Broncos,
New York Giants, and Houston Texans arguing, inter alia, that the
arbitration provisions in his recent contract with the Pittsburgh
Steelers, and the NFL Constitution incorporated therein, applied
retroactively to claims against any NFL team. They alternatively
sought to compel arbitration of his claims against the Denver
Broncos because those claims arose when he was coaching for the New
England Patriots. His contract with the Patriots had an arbitration
agreement that applied to claims against any NFL team.

Judge Valerie E. Caproni denied both the Plaintiffs' and the
Defendants' motions for reconsideration.

Judge Caproni held that Mr. Flores did not have a valid arbitration
agreement with the Steelers because the Defendants had not proven
that the arbitration agreement was part of a valid contract.
Section 12 of the Flores-Steelers Agreement states that the
contract would "become valid and binding upon each party only when
and if it will be approved by the Commissioner of the NFL;" in the
version of the contract filed by Defendants in support of their
motion to compel arbitration, the Commissioner's signature line was
blank. Accordingly, the Flores-Steelers Agreement submitted by the
Defendants, by its own terms, was not "valid and binding." The
Court also held that the arbitration agreement contained in the NFL
Constitution and incorporated into the Flores-Patriots Agreement
was unenforceable because the NFL retained the unilateral right to
modify the NFL Constitution and the arbitration agreement,
rendering the arbitration agreement illusory according to
Massachusetts state law.

According to Judge Caproni, as the parties moved to compel
arbitration, the Defendants carried the burden of proving the
existence of a written agreement binding the parties to arbitrate
the present matter. When the Defendants moved to compel
arbitration, they failed to do so. Moreover, Massachusetts law
precludes enforcement of the arbitration agreement incorporated
into the Flores-Patriots Agreement because the contract is
illusory; because an illusory contract is no contract at all,
severance is not possible. Meanwhile, the Plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration extensively relitigates their arguments that the
arbitration agreements are unconscionable and prevent effective
vindication of their statutory claims, which the Court previously
considered at length and rejected. As in their opposition to the
motion to compel arbitration, the Plaintiffs primarily base their
arguments on their speculation that the NFL Commissioner will
necessarily be biased as an arbitrator. Judge Caproni pointed out
that the Plaintiffs, in essence, are asking the Court to fashion a
specific rule out of whole cloth to protect them from potential
arbitrator bias that may never manifest itself. To do so would be
in direct violation of the Federal Arbitration Act's admonition
against carving out rules disfavoring the enforcement of
arbitration agreements from generally applicable contract law.

The appellate case is captioned Flores v. The National Football
League, Case No. 23-1225, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, filed on September 6, 2023. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants BRIAN FLORES, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

            Douglas Holden Wigdor, Esq.
            WIGDOR LLP
            85 Fifth Avenue
            New York, NY 10003
            Telephone: (212) 257-6800

Defendants-Appellees NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, et al., are
represented by:

            Loretta Lynch, Esq.
            PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
            1285 Avenue of the Americas
            New York, NY 10019
            Telephone: (212) 373-3000

NAVISTAR CANADA: Agrees to Settle MaxxForce Engines Suit for $14.5M
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 18, 2023 Truckin of trucknews.com reports that a
$14.5-million settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit
against Navistar over the sale and performance of its MaxxForce
engines in Canada.

The defendants in the suit are Navistar Canada, Navistar, Navistar
International Corp., and Harbour International Trucks.

"To be a member of the class action, individuals or businesses must
be resident of Canada (excluding Quebec), who on or before Feb. 24,
2022 purchased or leased one or more Class Vehicles for more than
30 days," Foreman & Company said in a release. "Class Vehicles
include 2011-2014 model year Navistar vehicles equipped with a
MaxxForce 11-, 13-, or 15-liter engine using EGR technology. This
includes the following Navistar truck brands: PayStar, WorkStar,
TranStar, 9900i, LoneStar, and ProStar."


The settlement must be approved by the Court before it becomes
effective. A hearing has been set to approve the settlement
agreement on Nov. 30, 2023.

Class Members have the right to submit comments or objections to
Class Counsel for consideration by the Court in respect of the
Settlement and the fee request of Class Counsel. The deadline for
those comments is Nov. 17, 2023. [GN]

NETWORK SOLUTIONS: 40 Acres Appeals Ruling to 2nd Cir.
------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs 40 Acres & 1 Mule, LLC, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Order dated August 25, 2023 entered in the lawsuit
styled 40 Acres & 1 Mule, LLC et al., Plaintiffs v. Network
Solutions, LLC et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-1215 (VAB), in
the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut,
New Haven.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, allege that their website was "intentionally knocked down
and erased . . . from the Internet" and that their rights were
violated under Conn. Gen. Stat. and the Computer Fraud and Abuse
Act.

Around September 2022, the Plaintiffs filed this action in
Connecticut State Court, and Defendants timely removed it to
District Court for the District of Connecticut.

On October 3, 2022, the Defendants then moved to transfer and to
dismiss the case.

On December 1, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action
Complaint, and the District Court found Defendant's pending motion
to dismiss and to transfer moot. The First Amended Class Action
Complaint added class action allegation not previously alleged.  

On December 23, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Class
Action Complaint. The SAC added new Defendants: New Ventures; Paul
Pimes and Gianni Mangohig, who are employees or agents of Network
Solutions.

On January 27, 2023, Defendants filed another motion to transfer or
dismiss.

On March 16, 2023, the Defendants renewed their motion to transfer
or to dismiss and added a move to strike class allegations.

Defendants have moved to transfer venue to the Middle District of
Florida, or in the alternative, to dismiss their Second Amended
Class Action Complaint and to strike the class allegations.

On August 25, 2023, Judge Victor A. Bolden entered an Order that
the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, as to
certain Defendants, New Ventures Services Corp., Paul Pimes, and
Gianni Mangohig, is GRANTED. The motion to transfer venue by
Defendants Network Solutions and Web.com to the Middle District of
Florida was also GRANTED. Because the remainder of the case, the
one against Network Solutions, LLC and Web.com Group, Inc., will be
transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, the motion to dismiss the Second Amended Class
Action Complaint and to strike class allegations was DENIED as moot
without prejudice to renewal there.

The appellate case is captioned as 40 Acres & 1 Mule, LLC v.
Network Solutions, LLC, Case No. 23-1252, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on Sept. 11,
2023.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants 40 Acres & 1 Mule, LLC and Go Score, LLC, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Nitor V. Egbarin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NITOR V. EGBARIN, LLC
          100 Pearl Street
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 408-1197

Defendants-Appellees Network Solutions, LLC, et al., are
represented by:

          Timothy B. Hyland, Esq.
          HYLAND LAW PLLC
          1818 Library Street, Suite 500
          Reston, VA 20190
          Telephone: (703) 956-3566

               - and -

          John C. Matulis, Esq.
          JANUSZEWSKI, MCQUILLAN & DENIGRIS
          165 West Main Street, P.O. Box 150
          New Britain, CT 06050
          Telephone: (860) 225-7667

NEW MEXICO: NMHSD Files 10th Cir. Appeal
----------------------------------------
KARI ARMIJO, Acting Secretary of New Mexico Human Services
Department, et al. has filed with the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on September 6, 2023, an appeal
captioned KARI ARMIJO, Acting Secretary of New Mexico Human
Services Department v. ABIGAIL KNOWLTON, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, OSCAR DANIEL LOPEZ-GARCIA,
Individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated,
MICHAELA BACA, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated and TERRIANNE SCAZZERO, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Case No. 23-2143.

This appeal was filed following entry of an order & judgment by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on Aug. 1, 2023,
dismissing the States' appeal from a district court order
interpreting an injunction in the case captioned DEBRA
HATTEN-GONZALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. DAVID R. SCRASE, Secretary of the New
Mexico Human Services Department, Defendant, Case No.
1:88-CV-00385-KG-GBW, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Mexico.

The interlocutory appeal stems from a long-running class action
suit challenging the State of New Mexico's administration of
federal social benefits programs. The State seeks review of a
district court order interpreting an injunction.

In 1988, Debra Hatten-Gonzales sued the Secretary of the New
Mexico
Human Services Department under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 to
challenge
how the State processed applications for the Supplemental
Nutrition
Assistance Program ("SNAP"), Medicaid, and other federal benefits.
The district court certified a class of benefits applicants. The
parties settled. The resulting consent decree specified how the
State must process applications. In 1998, the district court
modified the consent decree and adopted it as an injunction. In
2018, the court again modified the consent decree.

The current consent decree requires the State to follow federal
laws and guidelines regarding benefit application processing
timelines. It provides that a case file review is "necessary to
measure compliance and to verify that systemic or programmatic
barriers to proper application determinations and access to
benefits do not exist within the State's application processing
practices." The State must periodically permit a case file review
for benefits programs based on a statewide representative sample.

The State complies when the case file review reveals no
"systematic
or programmatic barriers" to benefits access. The consent decree
defines "systemic or programmatic barrier" as a "policy or
prevalent practice implemented at one or more of the Income
Support
Division offices that results in the failure to comply with
federal
law in the SNAP and/or Medicaid program and is not due to an
isolated event or action."

On July 25, 2022, the special master who had been appointed to
administer the consent decree submitted a report to the district
court recommending case file review procedures. His report
recommended that the case file review cover 288 randomly sampled
cases submitted between March and August 2022, including
applications that were submitted based on federal government
waivers to certain application requirements that were granted due
to the pandemic. By contrast, the special master also recommended
that the case review sample exclude certain Disaster SNAP
applications related to New Mexico wildfires.

The district court adopted the special master's recommendation. It
rejected the State's objection that because pandemic-related
federally approved waivers and special circumstances are isolated
events and actions under the decree, cases subject to
pandemic-related waivers should not be included in the sample
universe. Hence, it overruled the objection.

The State appealed under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(a)(1), seeking
review of an interlocutory order modifying an injunction. It then
moved in district court to stay proceedings there during the
appeal. Granting the motion in part and denying it in part, the
court certified the appeal was frivolous as to any matter
unrelated
to the case review. The State next moved the district court to
dismiss for lack of Article III jurisdiction, arguing that a
viable
class no longer exists. That issue is pending in the district
court.

The State challenged the district court's rejection of its
argument
that the federal pandemic waivers constituted an "isolated event
or
action" warranting exclusion of pandemic-waiver cases from the
case
file review.

The Tenth Circuit rejected this challenge. It said the State has
failed to show the Tenth Circuit has Section 1292(a)(1)
jurisdiction.

The district court did not expand or modify the injunction. Its
determination that the federal pandemic waivers were not an
"isolated event or action" was a reasonable interpretation of the
consent decree. The court did not alter the status of the parties,
but merely restated their relationship in new terms. It t did not
change the consent decree's compliance mandates, enforcement
mechanisms, or otherwise alter the command of the earlier
injunction, relax its prohibitions, or release any respondent from
its grip.

Because it lacks interlocutory jurisdiction under Section
1292(a)(1) to review the district court's order, the Tenth Circuit
dismissed the appeal.

The briefing schedule in the present Appellate Case states that:

-- Appellant Kari Armijo's docketing statement was due September
20, 2023; and

-- Appellants Kari Armijo, Michaela Baca, Abigail Knowlton, Oscar
Daniel Lopez-Garcia, and Terrianne Scazzero's notice of appearance
was due on September 20, 2023.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees ABIGAIL KNOWLTON, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

            Sovereign Hager, Esq.
            NEW MEXICO CENTER ON LAW AND POVERTY
            301 Edith Boulevard, NE
            Albuquerque, NM 87102
            Telephone: (505) 255-2840

                    - and -

            Daniel Yohalem, Esq.
            DANIEL YOHALEM, ATTORNEY AT LAW
            1121 Paseo de Peralta
            Santa Fe, NM 87501
            Telephone: (505) 988-5324

Defendants-Appellants KARI ARMIJO, Acting Secretary of New Mexico
Human Services Department, et al., are represented by:

            John Robert Emery, Esq.
            NEW MEXICO HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT
            P.O. Box 2348
            1474 Rodeo Road
            Santa Fe, NM 87505
            Telephone: (505) 476-7048

NEW YORK LIFE: LCG Seeks Confidential Docs Maintained Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Krohnengold et al., v. New
York Life Inc. Co. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01778-JMF (S.D.N.Y.),
Third-party LCG submits a memorandum of law in support of its
request to maintain under seal information contained in exhibits to
Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification:

  -- LCG_Associates_00000118 and 0221 (Exhibit 3 to the Declaration
of
     Jacob Schutz) (Exhibit 3);

  -- LCG_Associates_00016069 (Exhibit 13 to the Schutz Declaration)

     ("Exhibit 13"); and

  -- Brian Falco Deposition, page 35 (Exhibit 19 to the Schutz
     Declaration) ("Exhibit 19").

LCG withdraws its request to maintain the following under seal:

  -- LCG_Associates_00046726 (Exhibit 9 to the Schutz Declaration);


  -- LCG_Associates_00020498 (Exhibit 12 to the Schutz
Declaration);
     And

  -- LCG_Associates_00000020 (Exhibit 21 to the Schutz
Declaration)

LCG further requests that the Court retain redactions related to
Exhibits 3, 13, and 19.

New York Life provides life insurance, wealth management, estate
and retirement planning, and investment services.

A copy of the LCG's motion dated Sept. 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZtkxQT at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for third-party LCG Associates, Inc.:

          Tamara D. Baggett, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          2850 North Harwood Street, Suite 1100
          Dallas, TX 75201-2640
          Telephone: (214) 210-1200
          Facsimile: (214) 210-1201
          E-mail: tbaggett@bakerlaw.com

NEW YORK, NY: Bid to Dismiss Held in Abeyance
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.S.M. et al., v. New York
City Department of Education, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00705
(E.D.N.Y., Filed Feb. 7, 2020), the Hon. Judge Eric R. Komitee
entered an order on motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
and order on motion for partial summary judgment.

The motions are held in abeyance pending resolution of the issues
relating to class certification.

The nature of suit states Civil Rights of Handicapped Child.

New York City Department of Education is the department of the
government of New York City that manages the city's public school
system.[CC]


NORTHSTAR ENERGY: Hamilton Seeks Piping Designers' OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARK HAMILTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NORTHSTAR ENERGY SERVICES, INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-03501
(S.D. Tex., Sept. 18, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that he and other NorthStar employees like
him regularly worked in excess of 40 hours in a week but NorthStar
did not pay them the proper overtime rate. Instead, NorthStar
generally paid him and the workers like him only their regular
hourly rate. For example, during the pay period from January 2,
2023, to January 8, 2023, his hourly rate was $42 per hour. He
worked 63.5 hours that week but was only paid "straight time" of
$42 for each hour. His nondiscretionary bonuses were also not taken
into consideration. In other words, his overtime pay was not paid
based on all remuneration paid to Hamilton, as required by the
FLSA, the Plaintiff says.

Mr. Hamilton represents a collective of similarly situated workers
under the FLSA. This FLSA Collective is defined as:

          All current and former employees of NorthStar Energy
          Services, Inc. who were, at any point in the three years

          between the filing of this complaint and the entry of
          final judgment, paid on an hourly basis, but whose
          overtime compensation was not at least 1.5x their
          regular rate of pay.

Mr. Hamilton worked for NorthStar as a "Sr. Piping Designer I" from
August 2022 to August 2023.

NorthStar provides engineering, design, procurement, construction
and support services to the chemical, petrochemical, pipeline, oil
& gas, bulk storage and terminal industries throughout the
country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua A. Verde, Esq.
          THE VERDE LAW FIRM, PLLC
          4600 Highway 6 North, Suite 320
          Houston, TX 77084
          Telephone: (713) 909-4347
          Facsimile: (713) 588-2431
          E-mail: josh@verde-law.com

ONTARIO: Court Endorses $33MM EMDC Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
CTVNewsLondon.ca reports that a Superior Court justice in London,
Ont. has endorsed a class action settlement that will see the
Province of Ontario pay $33-million to former inmates of the
Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre (EMDC).

Any inmates who served time in the detention centre from 2010 to
2021 are eligible for one of three separate payment levels --
$1,500, $12,500 or $35,000.

Up to 12,000 people are eligible for compensation.

An independent agency will determine the payout based on the level
of physical or psychological suffering that inmates experienced,
with some payments for families of inmates who died inside the
facility.

In a hearing, Justice Duncan Grace heard from almost two dozen
people about their experiences in the EMDC.

During the hearing, Grace described the settlement as "real
compensation for people who suffered real harms…not life changing
for most, but significant for many." [GN]

OPENAI LP: Web Scraping Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Isaiah Poritz, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that plaintiffs
in a wide-ranging consumer class action alleging OpenAI LP scraped
private information from hundreds of millions of internet users
dropped their lawsuit only a few months after filing the complaint
in San Francisco federal court.

The 16 plaintiffs are reserving their right to re-file the
complaint, according to the voluntary dismissal docketed Sept. 15.

The proposed class action alleged OpenAI and investor Microsoft
Corp. violated a range of federal and state privacy and
anti-hacking laws with an "unprecedented" web-scraping operation to
harvest data used to train its popular generative AI programs
ChatGPT and DALL-E. [GN]


PANERA LLC: Luna Seeks to Recover Retained Gratuities Under NYLL
----------------------------------------------------------------
SERGIO LUNA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
PANERA, LLC d/b/a PANERA BREAD, DOHERTY ENTERPRISES, LLC, DOHERTY
BREADS, LLC, and FULFLLD, INC, Case No. 719096/2023 (N.Y. Sup.,
Sept. 14, 2023) seeks to recover unlawfully retained gratuities
owed to the Plaintiff, and others similarly situated who are
presently or were formerly working as food delivery drivers for the
Defendants, pursuant to the New York Labor Law.

This action seeks to recover unlawfully retained gratuities owed to
the Plaintiffs from Defendants for money had and received,
conversion, breach of contract and unjust enrichment resulting from
a contractual agreement entered into by the Defendants and their
customers, of which the Plaintiffs are third-party beneficiaries.

Since approximately June 2022 and continuing through to the
present, the Defendants have failed to remit all or a portion of
the gratuities to its delivery drivers who delivered food to
customers who placed online orders. Accordingly, customers are
told, upon placing an online order, that they should tip the driver
for the delivery. Customers did pay the gratuity/tip for the Named
Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers, based upon the
Defendants' promise and the belief and expectation that the money
would be given to the delivery driver. The Defendants have
allegedly engaged in a policy and practice of failing to pay the
tip to the Named Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers,
and instead retained the money for their own benefit in violation
of NYLL Article 6 section 196-d, says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks for himself individually, and on behalf of all
similarly situated employees, compensation, including gratuities
and unpaid benefits they were deprived of, plus interest,
attorneys' fees, liquidated damages and costs.

Mr. Luna was and is a food delivery driver who worked for the
Defendants in such capacity beginning in June 2022 through the
present.

Panera is bakery-cafe style restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rocco G. Avallone, Esq.
          AVALLONE & BELLISTRI, LLP
          3000 Marcus Avenue, Suite 3E7
          Lake Success, NY 11042
          Telephone: (516) 986-2500
          E-mail: ravallone@lawyersab.com

PEACOCK TV: Illegally Auto Renews Subscriptions, Winston Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
HOLLY WINSTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PEACOCK TV LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-08191 (S.D.N.Y., September 15, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the California's Unfair
Competition Law, the California's False Advertising Law,
conversion, unjust enrichment/restitution, negligent
misrepresentation, and fraud.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged engagement in an
illegal automatic renewal scheme with respect to its subscription
plans for its Peacock TV media service. According to the complaint,
when consumers sign up for the Peacock Subscriptions, the Defendant
actually enrolls consumers in a program that automatically renews
the Peacock Subscriptions from month-to-month or year-to-year and
results in monthly or annual charges to the consumer's credit card,
debit card, or third-party payment account. In doing so, the
Defendant fails to provide the requisite disclosures and
authorizations required to be made to California consumers under
California's Automatic Renewal Law. As a result of the Defendant's
actions, the Plaintiff and the Class have suffered damages says the
suit.

Peacock TV LLC is an American video streaming service company,
headquartered in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Adrian Gucovschi, Esq.
         GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC
         630 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
         New York, NY 10111
         Telephone: (212) 884-4230
         E-mail: adrian@gr-firm.com

                 - and -

         Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         888 Seventh Avenue
         New York, NY 10019
         Telephone: (925) 300-4455
         Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
         E-mail: fklorczyk@bursor.com

PFIZER INC: Riccio Sues Over Products False Maximum Strength Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROSE RICCIO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. PFIZER, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-13843 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 18, 2023)
contends that, by portraying the Robitussin PE Products as "MAXIMUM
STRENGTH" decongestants and body aches/fever relievers, the
Defendant misleads consumers into believing the ingredients are
suited to providing the strongest decongestant and body aches/fever
relief allowable over the counter.

The Robitussin PE products include "Robitussin Adult MAXIMUM
STRENGTH–Severe Multi-Symptom Cough Cold + Flu," "Robitussin
Adult MAXIMUM STRENGTH– Severe Multi-Symptom Cough Cold + Flu
Nighttime," and "Robitussin Adult MAXIMUM STRENGTH– Severe
Multi-Symptom Cough Cold + Flu – Day and Night Value Pack."

Despite marketing these Robitussin PE Products as "MAXIMUM
STRENGTH," Pfizer knew the active nasal decongestant ingredient,
phenylephrine hydrochloride, was not as strong as other
decongestants. Indeed, studies have shown that phenylephrine
hydrochloride is no more effective than a placebo. Additionally,
the Products do not even contain the maximum dosage of
acetaminophen, and are thus not deserving of the “MAXIMUM
STRENGTH” label and representation, the Plaintiff contends.

Thus, this "MAXIMUM STRENGTH" packaging is misleading because nasal
decongestants that are actually effective—without the "MAXIMUM
STRENGTH" claim—are available. For example, both oxymetazoline
and pseudoephedrine are both available without a prescription, and
the former may be purchased over the counter. Despite this
knowledge, Pfizer chose to mislead consumers through its promotion
of the Robitussin PE Products, with and without acetaminophen, as
"MAXIMUM STRENGTH" decongestants and pain relievers. However, none
of the Robitussin PE Products are "MAXIMUM STRENGTH." Rather than
being honest and transparent, Pfizer makes this "MAXIMUM STRENGTH"
representation in a knowingly false, misleading and deceptive
manner, the suit claims.

The Plaintiff seeks relief in this action individually, and as a
class action on behalf of similarly situated purchasers of the
Pfizer's Robitussin PE Products, for violation of State consumer
protection laws and unjust enrichment.

Ms. Riccio is a citizen of Illinois. She purchased Robitussin
Severe Multi-Symptom Cough, Cold + Flu within the applicable
statute of limitations period, most recently in 2023.

Pfizer offers a variety of non-prescription drugs, including oral
nasal decongestants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          Nick Suciu III, Esq.
          Erin Ruben, Esq.
          J. Hunter Bryson, Esq.
          Karl Amelchenko, Esq.
          Jimmy Mintz, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
          GROSSMAN, PLLC
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (866) 252-0878
          E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
                  nsuciu@milberg.com
                  eruben@milberg.com
                  hbryson@milberg.com
                  kamelchenko@milberg.com
                  jmintz@milberg.com

                - and -

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
          Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
          Daniel Tropin, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
          One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                  streisfeld@kolawyers.com
                  cardoso@kolawyers.com

                - and -

          Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
          Ryan J. Gott, Esq.
          PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP
          328 Barry Avenue South, Suite 200
          Wayzata, MN 55391
          Telephone: (612) 389-0600
          E-mail: mweiner@pwfirm.com
                  rgott@pwfirm.com

PREMIER NUTRITION: Appeals Attorney's Fees Ruling in Montera Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION is taking an appeal from a court
order granting the Plaintiff's renewed motion for attorney fees and
expenses in the lawsuit entitled Mary Beth Montera, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Premier Nutrition Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
3:16-cv-06980-RS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated New York
consumers, brought this class action suit against the Defendant for
alleged violations of Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General
Business Law (GBL) in connection with its promotion and marketing
of Joint Juice, a line of joint health dietary supplements.

On August 12, 2022, Chief Judge Richard Seeborg ruled that the
Plaintiff and the class are entitled to $8,312,450 in statutory
damages and $4,583,004.90 in prejudgment interest. The Court denied
a motion for judgment as a matter of law filed by the Defendant,
and as well as a motion to decertify the class.

On October 18, 2022, Judge Seeborg denied the Defendant's motion
for new trial. He further granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees, reimbursement of expenses,
and service awards for Class Representative.

On April 4, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a renewed motion for award of
attorneys' fees, and reimbursement of nontaxed expenses, which the
Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Richard Seeborg on
Aug. 7, 2023. Judge Seeborg awarded the Plaintiff attorney fees in
the amount of $6,853,502.78 and nontaxed expenses in the amount of
$1,072,126.04. The court added that any motion or stipulation for
attorney fees and costs incurred in litigating the prior and
current fee motions must be filed no later than October 6, 2023.

The appellate case is captioned Mary Beth Montera v. Premier
Nutrition Corporation, Case No. 23-16162, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on September 7,
2023.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Premier Nutrition Corporation Mediation
Questionnaire was due on September 14, 2023; and

   -- Appellant Premier Nutrition Corporation opening brief is due
on November 6, 2023;

   -- Appellee Mary Beth Montera answering brief is due on December
5, 2023; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee MARY BETH MONTERA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

            Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
            Leslie E. Hurst, Esq.
            Thomas Joseph O'Reardon, II, Esq.
            BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON LLP
            501 West Broadway
            San Diego, CA 92101
            Telephone: (619) 338-1100

                    - and -

            Todd David Carpenter, Esq.
            LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
            1234 Camino del Mar
            Del Mar, CA 92014
            Telephone: (619) 762-1900

                    - and -

            Eugene G. Iredale, Esq.
            Grace Jun, Esq.
            IREDALE AND YOO, APC
            105 West F Street, 4th Floor
            San Diego, CA 92101
            Telephone: (619) 233-1525

Defendant-Appellant PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION, FKA Joint Juice,
Inc., is represented by:

            Chad M. Drown, Esq.
            Aaron Daniel Van Oort, Esq.
            FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH, LLP
            90 S. 7th Street, Suite 2200
            Minneapolis, MN 55402
            Telephone: (612) 766-7000
                       (612) 766-8138

PRIME HYDRATION: Faces Class Action Over PRIME Sports Drinks
------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Styf, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that plaintiff
T.K. filed a class action lawsuit against Prime Hydration and its
creators Logan Paul and Olajide Olayinka Williams Olatunji (KSI),
claiming that they market PRIME sports drinks toward minors despite
known health risks.

Each can contains 200 milligrams of caffeine with high levels of
caffeine associated with health issues such as rapid heart rate,
heart palpitations, high blood pressure and potential disruption of
sleep patterns, according to the Prime Hydration class action.

"Defendants' uniform marketing is intentionally designed to drive
sales and increase profits, including by targeting the positive
health-conscious benefits of PRIME Energy it offers to consumers
(including zero sugar, inclusion of electrolytes and that the
Product is Vegan) and the young, unsuspecting consumers really
believe that the Product is, in fact, a healthy hydration drink,"
the PRIME Logan Paul class action says.

Prime Hydration made $250 million in first year and is marketed
through social media to those 24 and younger, lawsuit claims
Prime Hydration made $250 million in its first year and it is
marketed through social media to youth with 61% of Paul's Instagram
followers 24 or younger (KSI's is 63%) and nearly 80% of Paul's
TikTok followers are 24 or younger, according to the Prime Logan
Paul class action.

In July, PRIME energy drinks were set to be recalled in Canada
following a U.S. senator's request for an investigation into
whether cans of the beverage contain unsafe levels of caffeine.  

The plaintiff is represented by J. Chris Sanders of Bahe Cook
Handley and Nefzger along with Jennifer S. Czeisler and Edward W.
Ciolko of Sterlington PLLC and James M. Evangelista of Evangelista
Worley LLC.

The PRIME class action lawsuit is T.K. v. Prime Hydration LLC, et
al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00476-GNS, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky Louisville Division. [GN]

PRIMIS BANK: Kline Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info
------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT KLINE, on behalf of himself individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,v. PRIMIS BANK, Defendant,
Case No. 3:23-cv-00574 (E.D. Va., Sept. 8, 2023) is a class action
against Primis for its failure to properly secure and safeguard
Plaintiff's and other similarly situated Primis customers'
sensitive information, including full names, Social Security
numbers, and Taxpayer Identification numbers.

On July 24, 2023, Defendant learned that one its IT vendor's
networks had been penetrated by a cyberattack. According to the
complaint, Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and
Class Members personally identifiable information -- and failed to
even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This
unencrypted, unredacted PII was compromised due to Defendant's
negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and their utter
failure to protect customers' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and
obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII because of its value in
exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class
Members. The present and continuing risk to victims of the data
breach will remain for their respective lifetimes, says the suit.

Primis Bank is a Virginia-based bank that provides services to its
customers including providing checking and savings accounts,
administering loans, and providing credit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lee A. Floyd, Esq.
          Sarah G. Sauble, Esq.
          BREIT BINIAZAN, PC
          2100 East Cary Street, Suite 310
          Richmond, VA 23223
          Telephone: (804) 351-9040
          Facsimile: (804) 351-9170
          E-mail: Lee@bbtrial.com
                  Sarah@bbtrial.com

               - and -

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

PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Tlaib Suit Over Sale of Ineffective Drugs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MOHAMAD TLAIB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant, Case
No. 1:23-cv-13840 (N.D. Ill., September 18, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for unjust enrichment and violations of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the
Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and state consumer
protection acts.

The case arises from the Defendants' false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of over-the-counter
oral nasal decongestants, containing the active ingredient
Phenylephrine (PE). The Defendants market PE drugs to consumers as
an effective oral nasal decongestant, but a U.S. Food and Drug
Administration Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee (NDAC) has
concluded that PE is no more effective as an oral nasal
decongestant than a placebo. By purchasing PE drugs, the Plaintiff
and the Class did not receive a product that was effective at
treating nasal congestion, says the suit.

Procter & Gamble is an American multinational consumer goods
corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. [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
         E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com

                 - and -

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

                 - and -

         Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
         Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
         Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
         Daniel Tropin, Esq.
         KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
         One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
         Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
         Telephone: (954) 525-4100
         E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                 streisfeld@kolawyers.com
                 cardoso@kolawyers.com
                 tropin@kolawyers.com

                 - and -

         Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
         Ryan J. Gott, Esq.
         PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP
         328 Barry Avenue South, Suite 200
         Wayzata, MI 55391
         Telephone: (612) 389-0600
         E-mail: mweiner@pwfirm.com
                 rgott@pwfirm.com

                 - and -

         Erin Ruben, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
         900 W. Morgan Street
         Raleigh, NC 27603
         Telephone: (919) 600-5000
         E-mail: eruben@milberg.com

                 - and -

         J. Hunter Bryson, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
         405 E. 50th Street
         New York, NY 10022
         Telephone: (630) 796-0903
         E-mail: hbryson@milberg.com

                 - and -

         Karl Amelchenko, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
         900 W. Morgan Street
         Raleigh, NC 27603
         Telephone: (919) 600-5000
         E-mail: kamelchenko@milberg.com

                 - and -

         Jimmy Mintz, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
         201 Sevilla Ave., 2nd Floor
         Coral Gables, FL 33134
         Telephone: (786) 876-8200
         E-mail: jmintz@milberg.com

PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Cooper Alleges Failure to Secure Personal Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FRANK W. COOPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, PENSION
BENEFIT INFORMATION, LLC d/b/a PBI RESEARCH SERVICES, FIDELITY
INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS CO., INC., BANK OF AMERICA
CORP., F&G ANNUITIES & LIFE, INC., and COREBRIDGE FINANCIAL, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-12067 (D. Mass., Sept. 7, 2023) is a
class action against Defendants for their failure to properly
secure and safeguard personally identifiable information including,
but not limited to, Plaintiff and Class Members' names, addresses,
dates of birth, phone numbers, and Social Security numbers.

On July 13, 2023, PBI notified certain Fidelity customers,
including Plaintiff, that they were affected by a data breach
involving the MOVEit software. Despite its duties to Plaintiff and
Class Members related to and arising from its cloud hosting and
secure file transfer services and applications involving MOVEit,
PSC stored, maintained, and/or hosted Plaintiff and Class Members'
private information on its MOVEit transfer services software that
was negligently and/or recklessly configured and maintained so as
to contain security vulnerabilities that resulted in multiple
breaches of its network and systems or of its customers' networks
and systems, including PBI. These security vulnerabilities existed
as far back as 2021. As a result of the breach, unauthorized
third-party cybercriminals gained access to and obtained
Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII, says the suit.

Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants
seeking redress for their unlawful conduct and asserting claims
for: (i) negligence; (ii) breach of third-party beneficiary
contract; (iii) negligence per se; (iv) unjust enrichment; and (v)
declaratory judgment.

Progress Software Corporation is a Massachusetts based software
company that offers a wide range of software products and services
to corporate and governmental entities throughout the United States
and the world, including cloud hosting and secure file transfer
services such as MOVEit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is 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

QUEBEC: Sued Over COVID-19 Fatalities, Lack of Response Planning
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Serebrin of The Squamish Chief reports that the Quebec
government's failure to follow its pandemic-response plan as the
novel coronavirus started circulating in other parts of the world
in early 2020 led to preventable deaths in long-term care, a
Montreal lawyer argued on September 18, 2023.

Patrick Martin-Menard asked a judge to authorize a class-action
lawsuit against the provincial government on behalf of all
residents of public long-term care homes that experienced COVID-19
outbreaks in the first two waves of the pandemic, and on behalf of
the families of those who died.

By failing to implement an existing pandemic-response plan in early
January 2020, the Quebec government and its health authorities
breached their duty of care to the residents, Martin-Ménard told
the Quebec Superior Court.

"There was a plan in place since 2006, a road map of what was
supposed to be done to prepare the public health-care system for a
pandemic, and this plan included a number of measures that could be
put in place to protect vulnerable people," Martin-Menard told
reporters on September 18, 2023.

"What we are alleging here is that if this plan had been activated,
as it should have been in January 2020, we would probably have
avoided the outbreaks that we have seen in (long-term care
centres)."

More than 5,000 people died in Quebec's long-term care centres
during the period covered by the proposed lawsuit - between March
2020 and March 2021.

Quebec's pandemic-response plan, Martin-Menard said, calls for the
government to issue a pre-pandemic alert to health-care facilities
when a new virus is confirmed to be spreading from animals to
humans; that fact was known by Jan. 6, 2020, for COVID-19, but the
province didn't issue the alert, he said.

The government didn't begin officially preparing for the pandemic's
arrival until late February -- two days before the first cases were
detected in the province. As well, the plan calls for Quebec to
implement infection prevent and control measures, and identify the
most vulnerable residents.

Quebec's initial directives to the health-care system made no
reference to long-term care centres and vulnerable people,
Martin-Menard said. There was no specific plan issued to the health
system about protecting long-term care centres until the end of
March, he said. That delay caused Quebec to miss its window to
prepare, leading to disastrous consequences, Martin-Menard argued.

"Once again, here we see that was set out in the plan was not
implemented," he told the court.

Instead of launching the plan, he alleged, the government
improvised, moving patients from hospitals to long-term care
centres in an effort to free hospital beds. But those long-term
care centres weren't prepared for the additional patients and
couldn't properly care for residents after the government banned
visits from family caregivers, Martin-Menard said.

In one case, he said, a woman who depended on visits from her
daughter to help her eat died shortly after those visits were
banned.

The government limited the ability of long-term care patients to go
to hospitals if they had COVID-19, but the province didn't consider
whether long-term care centres had the capacity to treat those
patients, he said.

"All of this had very significant consequences, not only for the
people who got COVID-19, but also for the people who were severely
affected by the deprivation of care that they had as a result,"
Martin-Menard told reporters.

Jean-Pierre Daubois, the lawsuit's lead plaintiff, said his mother
suffered from a lack of care. Anna José Maquet, 94, died at the
Ste-Dorothée long-term care centre, in Laval, Que., in April
2020.

While Maquet had an age-related eye disorder and required help to
move around, she was otherwise healthy, he said. Daubois said his
mother choked while drinking water and within three hours was put
on a respiratory distress protocol, which he said led to her
death.

According to the lawsuit, at the time of Maquet's death, she was
under the care of a nursing candidate who was not yet licensed and
who allegedly provided treatments she was not qualified to
administer.

"We want the Quebec government to be held accountable for the
non-preparation," Daubois told reporters at the Montreal
courthouse. "There was gross incompetence on their part, we want
this to change."

Martin-Menard said the class action could include more than 10,000
people. The compensation being sought will depend on how many
members are identified, he said, adding that it could be hundreds
of millions of dollars.

Quebec government lawyers declined to comment on the case on
September 18, 2023. Lawyers for Quebec's health-care establishments
are scheduled to make arguments on September 14, 2023, and lawyers
for the province's attorney general are to appear on September 15,
2023. [GN]

QUINOA CORPORATION: Heyning Sues Over Mislabeled Pasta Product
--------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER HEYNING, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUINOA CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 3:23-cv-04755-TSH (N.D. Cal., Sept. 15, 2023) seeks to
redress the Defendant's unlawful and deceptive practices in
labeling and marketing of the Ancient Harvest brand goods which
make protein claims on the front of the product packages while
omitting a statement of the corrected amount of protein from the
Nutrition Facts Panel.

According to the complaint, the Defendant prominently claims on the
front of their Ancient Harvest Plant-Based Protein Pasta Red Lentil
Rotini product packages that the product provides a specified
amount of protein, such as "25G PROTEIN on its Red Lentil Rotini.
This protein claims on the front of the package while omitting the
statement of the corrected amount of protein per serving expressed
as a percent DV in the NFP, is likely to mislead reasonable
consumers. Consumers reasonably expect that the Defendant's
products will actually provide nutritionally the full amount of
protein per serving claimed on the front of the package. But the
Defendant's products do not do so and instead contain low protein
quality proteins.

Had Defendant included a statement of the corrected amount of
protein per serving in the NFP, as they were required to do under
the law, it would have revealed that the product contains low
quality proteins and provides nutritionally as little as 50 percent
of their total protein quantity. That information was material to
reasonable consumers. The Defendant's unlawful and misleading
protein claims caused the Plaintiff and members of the class to pay
a price premium for the Ancient Harvest products, says the suit.

QUINOA CORPORATION provides packaged food products. The Company
offers pasta, grains, cereals, soybeans, lentils, and cheese. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

RAD POWER: Faces Mason Class Suit Over E-Bikes' Defective Design
----------------------------------------------------------------
GARY E. MASON v. RAD POWER BIKES, INC. and RAD POWER BIKES, LLC.,
Case No. 2:23-cv-01446 (W.D. Wash., Sept. 15, 2023) is a class
action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other
Rad e-bike purchasers, alleging that Rad manufactures defective
e-bikes that put riders and passengers, including children, at
serious risk of high-speed crashes and lethal injury.

According to the complaint, the combination of Rad e-bikes' heavy
weight, bike fork design with quick release skewers, and quick
release parts results in a hazardous and patently unsafe design on
all Rad e-bikes. Rad e-bikes' defective design causes the front
wheel to disengage from the bike frame while operating, resulting
in increased instability or wobbling and even complete dismantling
of the bike. This defective design causes bike operators, like Mr.
Mason, to be sent flying over the handlebars or otherwise crash
while biking at high speeds, the Plaintiff contends.

These defective e-bikes can even lead to death because their wheels
and brakes can malfunction when braking occurs. Despite knowing
that the use of disc brakes in conjunction with quick-release
skewers can cause dangerous and unsafe braking, the Defendants
continue to manufacture, sell, and market their Defective e-bikes
as safe, family-friendly transportation, the suit alleges.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action to redress the
Defendants' misconduct. The Plaintiff further seeks relief on
behalf of himself and all other Rad e-bike purchasers, including
repair, replacement, and/or refund; extended warranty; injunctive
relief resolving (and appropriate curative notice regarding) the
existence and cause of the Defective e-bikes; reimbursement of all
expenses associated with the repair or replacement of the e-bikes
and damage caused by the Rad e-bikes; and reimbursement of attorney
fees and expenses.

Mr. Mason purchased the RadRunner Electric Utility Bike in March of
2021. On May 31, 2022, Mr. Mason was riding his RadRunner e-bike in
Bethesda, Maryland to the grocery store. While riding his e-bike,
Mr. Mason braked to avoid a turning car. Upon braking, Mr. Mason
was thrown over the handlebars - and saw the front wheel flying
through the air. Mr. Mason landed on his back, resulting in five
broken ribs and a broken clavicle. Mr. Mason spent two nights in
the trauma ward at Johns Hopkins Medicine. As a result of his
severe injuries, Mr. Mason spent six weeks in rehabilitation and
physical therapy.

Rad manufacturers e-bikes, which are motor-powered bicycles that
allow both rider and motor to assist propulsion and can reach
speeds of 20 miles per hour.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and -

          Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
          Megan E. Shannon, Esq.
          Melissa Ryan Clark, Esq.
          FEGAN SCOTT LLC
          150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 741-1019
          Facsimile: (312) 264-0100
          E-mail: beth@feganscott.com
                  megan@feganscott.com
                  melissa@feganscott.com

RE/MAX HOLDINGS: Settles Commission Class Action for $55 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sheridan Wall, writing for TheRealDeal, reports that RE/MAX will
cough up an eight-figure sum to extricate itself from two
class-action lawsuits over agent commission payments.

The company agreed on Sept. 15 to pay $55 million to settle the
claims filed in Kansas City and Chicago, according to a document
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

If approved by the judges in each case, the settlement would remove
RE/MAX from the landmark lawsuits without holding the company
responsible for claims outlined in them.  The lawsuits, known as
Sitzer/Burnett and Christopher Moehrl, allege the brokerages
violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by colluding with the National
Association of Realtors to inflate commissions paid by home
sellers.

The agreement also commits RE/MAX to making "certain changes to its
business practices," according to the SEC document filed on Sept.
18. Among the changes is to no longer require sellers to pay
buyer's agents' commission, Michael Ketchmark, one of the lead
attorneys in the Sitzer/Burnett told Inman.

A spokesperson for the company denied the allegations in the
lawsuits and noted that the agreement was reached "after carefully
considering the significant risks and costs associated with
continued litigation," according to an emailed statement.

"The settlement paves the way for a clear path forward for the
RE/MAX brand, its franchisees and its agents, removing the
uncertainty of ongoing litigation related to these cases," the
spokesperson wrote.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs in each case did not immediately
respond to requests for comment.

Other brokerages named as defendants include Keller Williams,
Anywhere Real Estate and HomeServices of America, along with the
National Association of Realtors.

Anywhere, the parent company of Corcoran, Coldwell Banker,
Century21 and Sotheby's International Realty, agreed this month to
pay $83.5 million to settle the lawsuits. The firm also agreed to
stop mandating sellers pay commissions for the buyers' agents.

Last month, attorneys for NAR filed four requests with the U.S.
District Court in Western Missouri -- the jurisdiction of the
Sitzer/Burnett case -- to suppress evidence associated with
discrimination and government investigations.

A three-week jury trial for the Sitzer/Burnett case, the smaller of
the two actions, is scheduled to start Oct. 16.

A federal appeals court denied a May request from the defendants in
the Moehrl case to overturn its class certification. The judge has
not yet set a trial date.

The latest development in the antitrust lawsuits come as NAR is
facing a reckoning over misconduct among its leadership and various
policies.

Kenny Parcell resigned as president of the trade group in August
following an investigation by the New York Times that involved
accusations of sexual harassment from three women.

The U.S. Court of Appeals also ruled last month to bring back a
lawsuit related to pocket listings. The lawsuit claims the trade
group and two other associations violated antitrust laws by
mandating listing brokers submit a property to their MLS within one
day of marketing a home.

Earlier this summer, the Department of Justice took steps to
relaunch its probe into NAR. The agency filed an appeal brief in
June arguing against a January court decision that barred it from
reviving its investigation into the trade group's policies on
pocket listings and broker commissions. [GN]

RELIANT TERMITE: Fails to Pay Technicians' OT Wages, Roberts Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Roberts, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Reliant Termite & Pest Control, Inc., Case No.
4:23-cv-00951-O (N.D. Tex., Sept. 15, 2023) alleges that the
Defendant failed to include all required remuneration into the
regular rate of pay to calculate overtime for any overtime pay it
managed to pay Plaintiff and the Collective Members, in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the payments erroneously excluded from
the regular rate of pay include the commissions and the renewal
fees. Per their respective employment agreement Defendant was
required to pay the Pest Control Technicians an hourly rate, a
commission on all sales and renewal fees. However, the Defendant
did not pay any termite renewal inspection commissions, the
Plaintiff claims.

The Plaintiff worked over 40 hours per week. He was paid overtime
for weeks in which he worked more than 40 hours. But, the
commissions the Plaintiff received were not counted in computing
his regular rate. For example, for the pay period ending October 7,
2021, the Plaintiff was paid for 42.82 hours. 40 hours at the
straight time rate of $13.50 per hour, 2.82 overtime hours at the
overtime rate of $18.00 per hour and commissions of $169.07. The
overtime rate was incorrect because it did not include the
commissions in the regular rate to determine the overtime rate. The
Defendant also allegedly failed to accurately track hours worked as
one hour for lunch was automatically deducted when in fact the Pest
Control Technicians were not able to take an uninterrupted lunch
break and in fact worked during their alleged lunch break, says the
Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated pursuant to the FLSA ("Collective
Members"). The Collective Members consist of all persons who are or
have been employed by Defendant as Pest Control Technicians at any
time during the three-year period preceding the date of the filing
of this Complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Pest Control
Technician from March 2020 to June 2023.

The Defendant is a pest control company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC
          1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200
          Southlake, TX 76092
          Telephone: (817) 416-5060
          Facsimile: (817) 416-5062
          E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com

ROSEBOX LLC: Fails to Pay Florists' OT Wages, Marquez Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
LILY ANDREINA SOSA MARQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ROSEBOX LLC d/b/a ROSE BOX NYC, DANA
DADUSH and INBAL BAR HORNIK, as individuals, Case No. 1:23-cv-08171
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 15, 2023) alleges that the Defendants fail to pay
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was regularly required to work 61 hours or more hours
each week. But the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff at a wage
rate of time and a half (1.5) for his hours regularly worked over
40 hours in a work week. Furthermore, the Defendants paid the
Plaintiff on a bi-weekly basis, failing to timely pay the Plaintiff
for her first week of wages and thus violated the frequency of pay
requirements of NYLL section 191, the lawsuit claims.

Due to the Defendants' late payments, the Plaintiff experienced a
myriad of financial difficulties specifically in covering her
regular expenses such as bills, food, and other expenses. As a
result of these violations of Federal and New York State labor
laws, the Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and liquidated
damages. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory interest, attorneys'
fees, costs, and all other legal and equitable remedies this Court
deems appropriate, the lawsuit says.

Ms. Marquez was employed as a florist and customer service worker
while performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants,
from October 2021 until August 2022.

Rose Box offers long-lasting rose arrangements.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ROTOCO LLC: Faces Trcka Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA TRCKA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROTOCO, LLC and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CVRI2304897 (Cal. Super., Riverside
Cty., September 18, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business
and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods,
failure to provide rest breaks, failure to reimburse business
expenses, failure to timely pay final wages, failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements, and unfair and unlawful
competition.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a nonexempt
employee from April through August 2023.

RotoCo, LLC is a family-owned business and a franchise partner of
Roto-Rooter Plumbing and Drain Service based in California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Brian J. Mankin, Esq.
         Peter J. Carlson, Esq.
         LAUBY, MANKIN & LAUBY LLP
         5198 Arlington Avenue, PMB 513
         Riverside, CA 92504
         Telephone: (951) 320-1444
         Facsimile: (951) 320-1445
         E-mail: brian@lmlfirm.com
                 peter@lmlfirm.com

SALESFORCE INC: Conceals True Cost of Subscription, Roy Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
DR. LISBETH W. ROY, an individual, on behalf of herself and the
general public v. SALESFORCE, INC., a Delaware corporation, and
DOES 1-5, Case No. 3:23-cv-04764 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 15, 2023)
alleges that the Defendant's subscription contract does not
disclose that the Subscription requires payment of significant
Implementation Costs for the subscription to hold any value to the
consumer.

According to the complaint, Dr. Roy discovered that the contract
amount she had agreed to pay was not the "true cost" of the
Salesforce software because, in order to use the software at all,
everyone who contracts with Salesforce is required to spend
additional sums to "implement" the software. The true cost of the
Salesforce Subscription service is therefore the Implementation
Cost plus the Subscription cost. Dr. Roy alleges that by the time
she discovered the True Cost of the Expected Benefits, she had
already signed the MSA with its unconscionable Termination Penalty,
though she would not have signed the MSA if she had been aware of
the True Costs.

On December 23, 2019, Dr. Roy entered into the MSA with Salesforce.
He was surprised to learn that it would cost $12,000 in hidden
Implementation Costs to receive any of the Expected Benefits of the
MSA.

On May 24, 2020, Dr. Roy notified Salesforce that she wanted to
cancel her Salesforce subscription, citing the legal justification:
"frustration of purpose."

Salesforce refused to cancel the Plaintiff's Subscription despite
the fact that the Plaintiff no longer had any use for the
Subscription services due to her inability to provide in-persona
medical services, much less grow her business, as a result of the
unforeseeable COVID-19 pandemic, the lawsuit claims.

Dr. Roy has been allegedly damaged in an amount equal to the
balance due on her MSA agreement from her cancellation in May 2020,
to the termination of the contract in December 2022; and to the
entirety of the MSA fees she paid to Salesforce due to Defendants'
concealment of the Implementation Costs, disclosure of which would
have compelled the Plaintiff not to enter into the MSA. Dr. Roy
hereby files this Complaint on behalf of herself and the general
public alleging that the MSA's Termination Penalty and its related
clauses are void and unenforceable under California Civil Code
section 1671; that the MSA is unconscionable under Civil Code
Section 1670.5; that Plaintiff's MSA's purpose was frustrated and
the MSA thus terminated pursuant to California Civil Code section
1511; and that the MSA and Defendants' practices are unlawful
and/or unfair under California’s Unfair Competition Law, Business
& Professions Code section 17200, et seq..

The Plaintiff is asking the Court, on behalf of herself and the
public at large, to protect the Plaintiff and other unsuspecting
consumers from Salesforce's unfair business practices, by reviewing
and "policing" the Salesforce MSA to ensure that it complies with
applicable California law and policy.

Dr. Roy is an individual, with medical practice offices located at
2595 NW Boulevard, Suite 200, Boca Raton, FL 33431.

Salesforce is a publicly-traded mega-cap corporation that primarily
offers cloud technology-based SaaS for "customer relationship
management."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Courtney Stuart-alban, Esq.
          Juan Pablo Alban, Esq.
          STUART ALBAN LAW, PC
          87 Raymond Avenue, Suite 200
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Telephone: (323) 208-4596
          E-mail: courtney@stuartalbanlaw.com
                  jp@stuartalbanlaw.com

SANZ CONSTRUCTION: Marcatoma Sues Over Carpenters' Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
SERGIO MARCATOMA, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly
situated v. SANZ CONSTRUCTION, INC., and NAUMAN SHAH, Individually,
Case No. 2:23-cv-20455 (D.N.J., Sept. 18, 2023) seeks to recover
the overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey Wage
Payment Law.

Beginning July, 2022, and continuing until July, 2023, the
Defendants engaged in a policy and practice of requiring the
Plaintiff and members of the putative collective to regularly work
in excess of 40 hours per week, without providing overtime
compensation. The Plaintiff routinely worked 45-50 hours per
workweek. But the Defendants paid the Plaintiff straight time for
overtime hours, the lawsuit alleges.

The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against the Defendants as a
collective action on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated who suffered damages as a result of the
Defendants' violations of the FLSA.

Mr. Marcatoma was employed by the Defendants from July, 2022, until
July, 2023 as a carpenter performing duties in furtherance of the
Defendants' construction business.

Sanz is a home improvement contractor business.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew Glenn, Esq.
          Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP
          300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (201) 687-9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595-030
          E-mail: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com
                  jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com

SECURITY CONSULTANTS: Fails to Pay All Hours Worked, Ortiz Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
KEITH ORTIZ, an individual v. SECURITY CONSULTANTS INTERNATIONAL
INC., a California Corporation; MARK JAMES ASSAD, an individual;
and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV22334 (Cal.
Super., Sept. 15, 2023) is a class action alleging that the
Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff for all hours worked,
missed, short, late, and/or interrupted meal periods and/or rest
breaks, in violation of the California law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly misclassified
their employees as independent contractors in violation of Labor 27
Code 226.8, thereby depriving them of numerous labor code
protections. Furthermore, the Defendants failed to keep track of
the Plaintiff's and other employees' actual hours worked.
Employees' pay was rounded and inaccurate. This is in violation of
Section 7 of Wage Order 2, 4, 17 and other wage orders. The
Defendants also failed to provide the Plaintiff and other employees
timely meal and rest breaks, the suit adds. The Plaintiff remains
unpaid for his final two weeks of employment. The Defendants failed
to provide employees' full final pay upon separation, says the
suit.

The Plaintiff seeks payment of overtime wages and other
compensation owed to him, plus all benefits required pursuant to
the laws of the State of California, including Employment Laws and
Regulations, based on the sums withheld from the Plaintiff. The
Plaintiff also seeks recovery of penalties, attorney's fees, and
costs as provided by statute.

Mr. Ortiz is a resident of the County of Los Angeles and citizen of
the State of California.

Security Consultants is a security services business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sarkis Sirmabekian, Esq.
          SIRMABEKIAN LAW FIRM, PC
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (818) 473-5003
          Facsimile: (818) 476-5619
          E-mail: contact@slawla.com

SENSIO INC: Gibson-Roberts Sues Over Defective Pressure Cookers
---------------------------------------------------------------
JUDY GIBSON-ROBERTS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SENSIO, INC. Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-07926 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 7, 2023) is a class action brought
by the Plaintiff to remedy violation of the Magnuson Moss Warranty
Act in connection with the Defendant's manufacturing, marketing,
advertising, selling and warranting of the Recalled Sensio Pressure
Cookers.

According to the complaint, these Recalled Pressure Cookers have a
dangerously defective lid-locking assembly. The assembly allows a
Pressure Cooker's lid to open while the cooker's contents are still
under pressure, causing the super-heated contents to erupt from the
cooker and to scald consumers with second- and third-degree burns.

On August 10, 2023, Sensio recalled nearly 860,000 of the Recalled
Pressure Cookers. Assuming that the Recall was effective and
offered a true resolution, Plaintiff is still burdened with a
pressure cooker that has been devalued by Defendant's actions
because a pressure cooker with a known, dangerous defect is worth
much less than a pressure cooker with a properly working and safe
locking mechanism, says the suit.

Sensio Inc. is a manufacturer of kitchen appliances.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Paul J. Doolittle, Esq
          Blake G. Abbott, Esq.
          POULIN | WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC
          32 Ann Street
          Charleston, SC 29403
          Telephone: (803) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (843) 494-5536
          E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
                  blake.abbott@poulinwilley.com

SOSA CONTRACTORS: Guerra Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT
-----------------------------------------------------------
LESTER ESTUARDO JUAREZ GUERRA, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SOSA CONTRACTORS LLC JOSUE D.
SOSA MENDEZ LILIANA HERNANDEZ MELENDEZ PARADIGM CONTRACTORS LLC
DESIGN SYSTEMS & SERVICES CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-01206 (E.D. Va., Sept. 7, 2023) arises from the Defendants'
violations of Plaintiff's rights under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Virginia Overtime Wage Act, and the Virginia Payment of
Wage Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from May 2022 to September
28, 2022. His regular rate of pay was $25.00 per hour. During his
employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff fabricated and/or
installed exterior panels on a construction project. The Plaintiff
regularly worked 8-10 hours per day Monday through Friday and 8-10
hours on some Saturdays and estimates that he worked between 42 and
55 hours per week. However, he never received an overtime premium
for any hours he worked over 40 in a single work week while working
on the project, says the suit.

Sosa Contractors LLC is a construction company organized under the
laws of the State of Maryland.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew B. Kaplan, Esq.
          THE KAPLAN LAW FIRM
          1100 N Glebe Road, Suite 1010
          Arlington, VA 22201
          Telephone: (703) 665-9529
          E-mail: mbkaplan@thekaplanlawfirm.com

SOVOS COMPLIANCE: Fails to Protect Consumers' Info, Zide Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
NANCY ZIDE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SOVOS COMPLIANCE, LLC and PACIFIC PREMIER BANK, Case
No. 8:23-cv-01711-FLA-JDE (C.D. Cal., Sept. 14, 2023) alleges that
the Defendants failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class
Members personal identifiable information and failed to even
encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information.

On May 31, 2023, the Defendants learned that one of their IT
vendor's networks (Progress Software) had been penetrated by a
cyberattack. In response, the Defendants launched an investigation
and concluded₋₋on an undisclosed date₋₋that "unauthorized
actors exploited the then-unknown MOVEit vulnerability to download
a file containing some of Plaintiff's and Class Members' personal
information."

On August 25, 2023, the Defendant began sending the Notice of Data
Breach letters to the Plaintiff and Class Members. According to the
Notice of Data Breach, the compromised PII included individuals'
full names, dates of birth, driver's license numbers, Pacific
Premier account numbers, and Social Security numbers.

The Data Breach has caused the Plaintiff to suffer fear, anxiety,
and stress, which has been compounded by the fact that the
Defendants have still not fully informed her of key details about
the Data Breach's occurrence, the lawsuit asserts.

The Plaintiff and Class Members have all sustained actual injuries
and damages, including invasion of privacy; loss of time and loss
of productivity incurred mitigating the materialized risk and
imminent threat of identity theft risk; the loss of benefit of the
bargain; diminution of value of their PII; invasion of privacy; and
the continued risk to their PII, the lawsuit adds.

Ms. Zide does not know how the Defendants obtained her PII and was
not familiar with the Defendants prior to receiving the Notice
Letter from the Defendant Sovos.

Sovos is a "global company" that provides regulatory and compliance
services to its clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

STARBUCKS CORP: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Missing Fruit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel of Reuters reports that Starbucks (SBUX.O) was
ordered by a federal judge on September 18, 2023 to face a lawsuit
claiming that several of its Refresher fruit beverages lacked a key
ingredient: fruit.

U.S. District Judge John Cronan in Manhattan rejected Starbucks'
request to dismiss nine of the 11 claims in the proposed class
action, saying "a significant portion of reasonable consumers"
would expect their drinks to contain fruit mentioned in their
names.

Consumers complained that Starbucks' Mango Dragonfruit, Mango
Dragonfruit Lemonade, Pineapple Passionfruit, Pineapple
Passionfruit Lemonade, Strawberry Açai and Strawberry Açai
Lemonade Refreshers contained none of the advertised mango, passion
fruit or açai.

The plaintiffs Joan Kominis, of Astoria, New York, and Jason
McAllister, of Fairfield, California, said the main ingredients
were water, grape juice concentrate and sugar, and that Starbucks'
misleading names caused them to be overcharged. They said this
violated their states' consumer protection laws.

In seeking a dismissal, Seattle-based Starbucks said the product
names described the drinks' flavors as opposed to their
ingredients, and its menu boards accurately advertised those
flavors.

It also said no reasonable consumers would have been confused, and
its baristas could have "sufficiently dispelled" any confusion if
consumers had questions.

But the judge said that unlike the term "vanilla," the subject of
many lawsuits, "nothing before the court indicates that 'mango,'
'passionfruit,' and 'acai' are terms that typically are understood
to represent a flavor without also representing that ingredient."

Cronan also said confusion might be understandable because other
Starbucks products contain ingredients in their names - for
example, Ice Matcha Tea Latte contains matcha and Honey Citrus Mint
Tea contains honey and mint.

The judge dismissed a fraud claim, finding no proof Starbucks
intended to defraud consumers, and an unjust enrichment claim.

Starbucks in a statement called the allegations in the lawsuit
"inaccurate and without merit," and said it looked forward to
defending itself.

The lawsuit began in August 2022, and alleged at least $5 million
in damages. Robert Abiri, the plaintiffs' lawyer, said he was
pleased with the decision and looked forward to representing the
proposed class.

The case is Kominis et al v Starbucks Corp, U.S. District Court,
Southern District of New York, No. 22-06673. [GN]

STREAMLINE BUILDERS: Faces Aldana Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
BAGNER EDUARDO RODRIGUEZ ALDANA, DAVID RODRIGUEZ ALDANA, JOSE LUIS
DIAZ VIDAL, JOSE RODRIGUEZ ALDANA, JUAN DUBON DELA ROSA, NERY
GONZALEZ CRUZ, and SANTIAGO GUTIERREZ, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STREAMLINE BUILDERS
CORP. d/b/a JR TREE CARE, and ERIKA SALTZMAN, as an individual,
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-06668 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 7, 2023) seeks
to recover damages for Defendants' egregious violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law arising from
Plaintiffs' employment with the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and
overtime wages, failure to pay wages for all hours worked, failure
to provide wage statements, and failure to furnish a written wage
notice. Plaintiff Bagner Eduardo Rodriguez Aldana also asserts
claims under the New York State Executive Law for unlawful
discriminatory practice due to his actual and/or perceived
work-related disabilities.

The Plaintiffs were formerly employed by the Defendants as tree
climbers and cutters while performing related miscellaneous duties
for the Defendants.

Streamline Builders Corp. provides tree services to the Queens, New
York area including pruning, trimming, tree removal for both
residential and commercial.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

TANDEM DIABETES: Faces Lowe Suit Over Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------
CAREY LOWE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TANDEM DIABETES CARE, INC., JOHN F.
SHERIDAN, BRIAN B. HANSEN, and LEIGH A. VOSSELLER, Defendants, Case
No. 3:23-cv-01657-H-BLM (S.D. Cal., Sept. 6, 2023) is a federa1
securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Tandem securities between August 3, 2022 and
November 2, 2022 inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants provided investors with
material information concerning Tandem's projected revenue and
sales for the year ending 2022. On August 2, 2022, Tandem estimated
annual sales "to be in the range of $835 million to $845 million,
which represents an annual growth of 19 percent to 20 percent
compared to 2021." The Defendants provided these statements to
investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false
and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts.
This caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase Tandem's
securities at artificially inflated prices, says the suit.

The truth emerged on November 2, 2022 when Tandem, in an investment
call and Form 8-K filing, revised its 2022 forecast downward to
$800 to $805 million. Reasons stated for the scale back included
increased competition in the diabetes care sector, complications
due to the COVID pandemic, and macroeconomic factors such as
inflation. Investors and analysts reacted immediately to Tandem's
revised guidance. The price of Tandem's common stock declined
dramatically. On November 2, 2022, Tandem closed at $51.34;
however, on November 3, 2022 Tandem closed at $35.72 -- a one-day
decline of 30.4%, the suit alleges.

Tandem Diabetes Care is a global medical technology company that
develops, manufactures, and markets a variety of consumer
technologies and software for at-home diabetes care.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam M. Apton, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          445 South Figueroa Street, 31st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 985-7290
          E-mail: aapton@zlk.com

THERMO FISHER: Dimou Sues Over Breach Fiduciary Duties Under ERISA
------------------------------------------------------------------
KONSTANTINA DIMOU, individually and as a representative of a class
of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the Thermo Fisher
Scientific Inc. 401(k) Retirement Plan, v. THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC
INC.; THE MANAGEMENT PENSION COMMITTEE OF THE THERMO FISHER
SCIENTIFIC INC. 401(K) RETIREMENT PLAN; and DOES 1 to 10 inclusive,
Case No. 3:23-cv-01732-TWR-JLB (S.D. Cal., Sept. 19, 2023) sues the
Defendants for breach of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act's fiduciary duties, violation of ERISA's anti-inurement
provision, and engaging in self-dealing and transactions prohibited
by ERISA.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have continually
breached this duty of loyalty with respect to their control and
management of the Plan's assets over the past 6 years by choosing
to utilize forfeited funds in the Plan exclusively for the benefit
of the Company rather than solely in the interest of the
participants and beneficiaries.

Instead of acting solely in the interest of Plan participants by
utilizing forfeited funds in the Plan to reduce or eliminate the
administrative expenses charged to their individual accounts, the
Defendants chose to use these Plan assets for the exclusive purpose
of reducing its own future contributions to the Plan, thereby
saving the Company millions of dollars each year at the expense of
the Plan which received decreased Company contributions and its
participants and beneficiaries who were forced to incur avoidable
expense deductions to their individual accounts, the suit alleges.

In 2022, the Company contributions to the Plan were reduced by
$5,934,000 as a result of the Defendants' reallocation of forfeited
nonvested account balances for the Company's own benefit, leaving a
balance of $3,773,000 in the forfeiture account, none of which was
used to pay Plan expenses. As a direct and proximate result of the
Defendants' fiduciary breaches described, the Plan suffered injury
and loss for which they are personally liable and are subject to
appropriate equitable relief, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 1109,
including the disgorgement of all ill-gotten profits to the
Defendants resulting from the breach of their duty of loyalty.

Each Defendant knowingly participated in the breach of the other
Defendants, knowing that such acts were a breach, enabled other
Defendants to commit a breach by failing to lawfully discharge its
own fiduciary duties, knew of the breach by the other Defendants
and failed to make any reasonable effort under the circumstances to
remedy the breach. Thus, each Defendant is liable for the losses
caused by the breach of its co-fiduciary under 29 U.S.C. Section
1105(a).

The Plaintiff seeks to certify the following class:

         All participants and beneficiaries of the Thermo Fisher
         Plan from September 19, 2017 through the date of judgment,

         excluding the Defendants and members of the Committee of
         the Thermo Fisher Plan.

The Plaintiff was previously employed by Thermo Fisher in Carlsbad,
California, and has been a participant of the Plan since 2021.

Thermo Fisher is a publicly traded New York Stock Exchange company
that supplies analytical instruments, life sciences solutions,
specialty diagnostics, laboratory, pharmaceutical and biotechnology
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew B. Hayes, Esq.
          Kye D. Pawlenko, Esq.
          HAYES PAWLENKO LLP
          1414 Fair Oaks Avenue, Unit 2B
          South Pasadena, CA 91030
          Telephone: (626) 808-4357
          E-mail: mhayes@helpcounsel.com
                  kpawlenko@helpcounsel.com

TMC HEALTH: Discloses Personal Info to Third Parties, Williams Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE WILLIAMS, BRAD WILLIAMS, SEAN DAUGHTERY, and MARGARET
MILFORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. TMC HEALTH, Defendant, Case No.
4:23-cv-00434-SHR (D. Ariz., September 18, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, and Arizona Consumer Fraud Act,
negligence, invasion of privacy – intrusion upon seclusion,
breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendant's secret and unauthorized
disclosure of its patients' sensitive personal health information
(PHI) and personally identifiable information (PII) to third
parties through various online tracking technologies. Unbeknownst
to its patients and prospective patients visiting the Defendant's
website, www.tmcaz.com, TMC Health procures third-party technology
companies to secretly intercept and record the visitors' activities
on the website in real-time, including specific searches for
sensitive health-related topics. The Defendant's unauthorized
disclosure constituted a serious breach of its duties and
obligations to maintain the security and privacy of its patients'
and prospective patients' sensitive information, says the suit.

TMC Health is a healthcare provider, with its principal place of
business in Tucson, Arizona. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
         Ryan J. Ellersick, Esq.
         ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
         14648 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 130
         Scottsdale, AZ 85254
         Telephone: (480) 348-6400
         Facsimile: (480) 348-6415
         E-mail: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com
                 ryan.ellersick@zimmreed.com

TOYOTA MOTOR: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Cruz Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER CRUZ, an individual, on behalf of himself, all
aggrieved employees, and the State of California as a Private
Attorneys General v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., a California
corporation and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV22656 (Cal.
Super., Sept. 19, 2023) sues the Defendant for failing to pay
wages, including minimum and overtime wages; failing to provide
timely meal breaks and rest breaks; failing to pay wages due upon
termination; failing to provide safe working conditions; failing to
provide place of employment that is safe and healthful; failing to
reimburse for required business expenses; and failing to provide
accurate itemized wage statements.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff and aggrieved employees are required to
walk through the large facility and to their own work area where
they are finally permitted to clock in, which is up to a 15-minute
walk each way from the security entrance. The Plaintiff and
aggrieved employees were also required to go through security to
enter and walk to their own department's time clock when returning
from unpaid lunch periods which further contributed to unpaid hours
worked. The Plaintiff and aggrieved employees received additional
pay including nondiscretionary semi-annual bonuses but Defendant
failed to include the additional pay in the "regular rate" of pay
for purposes of calculating overtime, the Plaintiff claims.

Additionally, the Plaintiff and aggrieved employees working in
positions that observed quality issues were required to use their
personal phones to take photos of the quality issues. The
Defendant's failure to fully reimburse for any of these expenses
renders the Defendant liable for PAGA penalties for each pay period
wherein a violation occurred, the suit asserts.

The Defendant is therefore liable for civil penalties under the
Cal. Labor Code, including the Private Attorney General Act, Labor
Code section 2698 et seq.

Mr. Cruz worked for the Defendant on an hourly, non-exempt basis
from May 2006 to March 2023.

Toyota retails and sells new and used automobiles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
          KOUL LAW FIRM
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 761-5484
          Facsimile: (818) 561-3938
          E-mail: nazo@koullaw.com

UKG INC: KPC Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set October 3
-------------------------------------------------------------
IF YOU WERE IMPACTED BY THE DECEMBER 2021 CYBERATTACK ON THE KRONOS
PRIVATE CLOUD ("KPC"), YOU MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR BENEFITS FROM A
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

A class action settlement has been proposed in a case against UKG
Inc. (with Kronos Incorporated, "UKG") relating to a ransomware
attack on the Kronos Private Cloud ("KPC") in December of 2021 (the
"December 2021 KPC Cyberattack"). If you are a Settlement Class
Member, there may be benefits available to you from the proposed
settlement. The easiest way to submit a claim under the Settlement
is by using the Claim Form on this Website --
https://www.kronosprivatecloudsettlement.com/

If you are unsure of whether you are eligible for benefits, visit
the Settlement Website or call 1-833-747-6267.

Both sides agreed to a settlement after a lengthy mediation process
to avoid the costs and uncertainty of a trial, while more quickly
providing benefits to Settlement Class Members. UKG denies any
wrongdoing and no judgment or determination of wrongdoing has been
made. In addition to other benefits, as part of the proposed
settlement, UKG has agreed to establish a "Settlement Fund" of five
million five hundred thousand dollars ($5,500,000) which may be
supplemented by up to five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000)
should Approved Claims exhaust the initial funding (after the
deduction of Settlement Administrator Expenses, Fee Award,
Litigation Costs, and Service Awards). Depending on whether you are
a Nationwide Class Member, Exfiltration Subclass Member or a
California Subclass Member, settlement relief includes:

Nationwide Class: All natural U.S. persons who are current or
former employees or contractors, including their dependents, of UKG
customers, whose data was stored in the KPC at the time of the
December 2021 KPC Cyberattack and who were impacted by the
interruption of KPC applications resulting from the December 2021
KPC Cyberattack. Each Nationwide Class Member is eligible to
receive compensation for Ordinary Losses (as defined below);

Exfiltration Subclass:  All members of the Nationwide Class who
were sent notice that their personal data was exfiltrated during
the December 2021 KPC Cyberattack and were offered credit
monitoring services for themselves or on behalf of their
dependents. Each Exfiltration Subclass Member is eligible to
receive a payment of $100 plus compensation for Ordinary Losses (as
defined below) and Extraordinary Losses (as defined below);

California Subclass:  All members of the Nationwide Class who are
also California residents at the time of the December 2021 KPC
Cyberattack. Each California Subclass Member is eligible to receive
an additional payment of $30 plus compensation for Ordinary Losses
(as defined below) and Extraordinary Losses (if also an
Exfiltration Subclass Member and as defined below).

Compensation for Ordinary Losses: UKG will provide compensation for
unreimbursed personal losses, not including lost wages, up to a
total of $1,000 per person, to Settlement Class Members upon
submission of an Approved Claim and supporting documentation (if
necessary) of the following categories of claimed losses:

Compensation for Ordinary Losses: UKG will provide compensation for
unreimbursed personal losses, not including lost wages, up to a
total of $1,000 per person, to Settlement Class Members upon
submission of an Approved Claim and supporting documentation (if
necessary) of the following categories of claimed losses:

Out-of-pocket expenses: UKG will provide compensation for long
distance phone charges, cell phone charges (only if charged by the
minute), data charges (only if charged based on the amount of data
used), bank fees (documented), credit monitoring (documented), or
late fees (documented), all of which must be more likely than not
caused by and fairly traceable to the December 2021 KPC Cyberattack
and subsequent interruption of applications hosted in the KPC, must
not have been previously reimbursed by a third party, and are
supported by documentation if necessary and sworn attestation that
substantiated the full extent of the amount claimed.   

Lost time: Settlement Class and Subclass Members may submit claims
for up to four hours of lost personal time that has not been
previously reimbursed by a third party, at $25/hour, with an
attestation that they spent the claimed time responding to issues
raised by the December 2021 KPC Cyberattack, including time spent
responding to interruption of applications hosted in the KPC.

Compensation for Extraordinary Losses: UKG will provide
compensation, up to a total of $7,500 per person, to Settlement
Class Members in the Exfiltration Subclass, upon submission of an
Approved Claim and supporting documentation for proven personal
monetary loss associated with fraud or identity theft if:

-- The loss is an actual, documented, and unreimbursed monetary
loss;
-- The loss was more likely than not caused by and fairly traceable
to the December 2021 KPC Cyberattack;
-- The loss is not already covered by the Compensation for Ordinary
Losses outlined above; and,
-- The Settlement Class Member made reasonable efforts to avoid, or
seek reimbursement for, the loss, including but not limited to
exhaustion of all available credit monitoring services and identity
theft insurance.

UKG Security-Hardening Measures: UKG has represented that it has
taken and will continue to take measures to harden the security of
KPC environment impacted by the December 2021 KPC Cyberattack.
Those measures include, for various periods of time depending on
the measure: expanding the scanning and monitoring program using
insights from its investigation; supplementing UKG's Security
Operations Center monitoring with additional third-party managed
service monitoring; deploying additional malware scanning tools
across all products and UKG's corporate IT environment; and
expanding cold storage backups. The estimated cost of such measures
is in excess of $1,500,000.

This Settlement expressly excludes any statutory, contractual, or
common law claims for wages brought against UKG related to the
December 2021 KPC Cyberattack. UKG denies any legal obligation for
wage claims of any kind related to the December 2021 KPC
Cyberattack.  

File a claim as a Nationwide, Exfiltration and/or California Class
Member
Deadline: October 3, 2023

You must submit a claim in order to receive reimbursement for
Ordinary (out-of-pocket expenses and lost time) and/or
Extraordinary Losses and to receive any additional cash payments
should you be a Nationwide Class Member, Exfiltration Subclass
Member or California Subclass Member.

Exclude yourself from the Settlement
Deadline: September 18, 2023

You can exclude yourself from the Settlement by informing the
Settlement Administrator that you want to "opt-out" of the
Settlement. If the Settlement becomes final, this is the only
option that allows you to retain your rights to separately sue UKG
for claims related to the December 2021 KPC Cyberattack (as defined
in the Settlement Agreement). If you opt-out, you may not make a
claim for benefits under the Settlement.
Deadline: September 18, 2023

Object or comment on the Settlement
Deadline: September 18, 2023

You may object to the Settlement by writing to explain to the Court
why you don't think the Settlement should be approved. If you
object, you will remain a Settlement Class Member, and if the
Settlement is approved, you will be eligible for the benefits of
the Settlement and give up your right to sue UKG on certain claims
described in the Settlement Agreement, which is available at:

Do nothing
If you do nothing, you will not be entitled to any benefits
provided under the Settlement. If the Settlement becomes final, you
will give up your right to sue UKG separately for claims relating
to the December 2021 KPC Cyberattack (excluding claims for the
recovery of wages) or to continue to pursue any such claims you
have already filed.

This website is authorized by the Court, supervised by counsel and
controlled by Kroll Settlement Administration LLC, the Settlement
Administrator approved by the Court. This is the only authorized
website for this case.

Call 1-833-747-6267
MailKroll Settlement Administration, LLC
P.O. Box 225391
New York, NY 10150-5391 [GN]


UNITEDLEX: Faces Class Action Over March Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------
James Dornbrook, writing for Kansas City Business Journal, reports
that a Florida woman wants to initiate a class action against
Overland Park-based UnitedLex over a data breach in March.

A data breach in March compromised the personal information for an
estimated 7,000 people. That has led to a lawsuit, now in federal
court, against data and professional services company UnitedLex.
[GN]



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS: Suarez Alleges Failure to Secure Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBIN SUAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS CHAN MEDICAL
SCHOOL, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-12130 (D. Mass., September 18,
2023) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence,
breach of third-party beneficiary contract, and unjust enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiff and similarly situated customers stored within its
network systems following a data breach between May 27, 2023, and
May 28, 2023. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach.
As a result, the PII of the Plaintiff and Class members were
compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown
and unauthorized third parties, says the suit.

The University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School is a public
medical school in Worcester, Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Joel D. Smith, Esq.
         L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
         Walnut Creek, CA 94596
         Telephone: (925) 300-4455
         Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
         E-mail: jsmith@bursor.com
                 ltfisher@bursor.com

                 - and -

         Matthew A. Girardi, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
         New York, NY 10019
         Telephone: (646) 837-7150
         Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
         E-mail: mgirardi@bursor.com

USAA GENERAL: Tarkett Sues Over Unpaid Equity Surplus Amount
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH TARKETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 3:23-cv-01724-H-BLM (S.D. Cal., September 18, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendant for breach of contract and the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the
California Unfair Competition Law, breach of fiduciary duty,
conversion, declaratory relief, and unjust enrichment.

The case arises from USAA's deceptive and unfair practice of
failing to pay its insureds the amount owed after it declares its
insureds' leased vehicles a total loss. In breach of its
standardized insurance policy and in violation of the laws alleged
herein, USAA does not provide the equity surplus amount to its
insureds. Instead, USAA unlawfully sends the entire insurance
payout, including the equity surplus amount, to the insureds'
leasing companies even though the leasing companies have no right
to the surplus under the insurance contract, or otherwise. As a
result, the Plaintiff now brings this action individually and on
behalf of all similarly situated insured persons and entities
against USAA for its failure to honor its duties and obligations
under its insurance policy, says the suit.

USAA General Indemnity Company is an automobile insurance company
based in Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
         Thomas J. O'Reardon II, Esq.
         Paula R. Brown, Esq.
         BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
         501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 338-1100
         Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
         E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
                 toreardon@bholaw.com
                 pbrown@bholaw.com

                 - and -

         Carree K. Nahama, Esq.
         LAW OFFICE OF CARREE K. NAHAMA
         530 B. Street, Suite 1550
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 230-1434
         Facsimile: (619) 230-1181
         E-mail: cnahama@cknlaw.com

VIDEOTRON LTEE: Faces Class Suits in Quebec Over Unlawful Charges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bagnell of Bloomberg reports that Videotron, a major provider
of telecommunications services in Quebec, is the target of two
class-action lawsuits alleging the company overcharged its
residential customers in that province.

Both of the lawsuits have been authorized by the Superior Court of
Quebec to proceed as class actions, meaning a huge number of
Videotron customers could be awarded damages. None of the
allegations have yet been tested in court, and Videotron has
formally denied some of the allegations.

SIM CARD CHARGES

One case alleges that Videotron improperly charged some of its
customers for SIM cards that those customers did not request. That
lawsuit was authorized to proceed as a class action on Aug. 9.

That case cites two examples of Videotron customers who purchased
mobile phones from the company, and found they had also been
charged $10 for a SIM card they did not need or request.

REBATES AND INTEREST CHARGES

Another lawsuit accuses Videotron of overcharging its customers in
two ways.  It was authorized as a class action on Feb. 3. Lawyers
behind this lawsuit say it applies to Quebec customers of all of
Videotron's services between Oct. 20, 2018 and Feb. 3 of this year.
The services include internet, television, video streaming,
wireless and wireline phone service.

This lawsuit is focused on rebates and interest charges. It alleges
that Videotron did not refund some customers of its pre-paid
services when those customers cancelled their subscriptions. If
customers were owed less than $5 for services that Videotron would
no longer provide, the suit alleges that Videotron did not issue a
refund. Refunds were issued for amounts owing that were greater
than $5.

Separately, the lawsuit alleges that Videotron charged a full month
of interest on overdue balances, regardless of how many days late a
customer was in paying off their monthly bill. Moreover, it says
Videotron's customer contracts claim to charge interest on overdue
amounts on a daily basis, rather than monthly.

WHAT COMES NEXT

Maxime Oullette, a lawyer behind the rebates and interest charges
lawsuit, told BNN Bloomberg that his firm expects to soon receive
customer and billing data from Videotron - and has hired accounting
firm PwC Canada to analyze the numbers. When that is complete,
Oullette said he and his colleagues will be able to calculate how
much money eligible Videotron customers would be owed if the case
succeeds in court.

One important calculation to arrive at, Ouellette said, is how many
days an average Videotron customer was overcharged on interest
fees.

"We believe it was at least 10 to 15 days," he said.

Oullette is with the firm Garnier Ouellette Avocats in Quebec
City.

David Bourgoin of BGA Inc. Avocat in Quebec City, another lawyer
involved in this lawsuit, said his firm has received over a
thousand emails and phone calls from people who believe they may be
eligible for damages from Videotron.

Meanwhile, the law firm involved in the SIM card lawsuit, Lambert
Avocats of Montreal, told BNN Bloomberg that the court's
authorization of its proceeding as a class action "marks a
significant victory for consumers in the fight against inertia
selling and hidden fees."

The next step in that case is the publication of a court-approved
notice of class action, in which the public is formally notified of
the class action.

A notice of class action has already been issued in the rebates and
interest charges lawsuit.

At the end of 2022, Quebecor Inc. - which owns Videotron - said
Videotron had 6.3 million "revenue generating units," an industry
phrase for subscriptions.  Quebec is by far Videotron's largest
geographic market.

That number has since grown to 7.4 million RGUs with Quebecor's
purchase this year of the Freedom Mobile wireless business, but
those new customers would not be included in either of the class
actions.

Videotron representatives would not comment on either lawsuit when
contacted by BNN Bloomberg.

"We do not comment (on) ongoing procedures," the company said in an
email.

However, the notice of class action in the rebates and interest
charges lawsuit says Videotron denies the allegations and "disputes
the basis of the class action."  [GN]

WALMART INC: Court Dismisses Suit Over Deceptive Hydrogen Peroxide
------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris of Madison-St. Clair Record reports that U.S. District
Judge Stephen McGlynn dismissed a class action complaint that
labels on Walmart's 3% hydrogen peroxide deceived shopper April
Wright of Chester.

In an order, McGlynn rejected her claim that the words "for
treatment of minor cuts and abrasions" meant the product would
shorten the time of healing.

"Wright's leap from the treatment of minor cuts and scrapes to a
shortened healing time was wholly unsupported," he wrote.

He entered the order with prejudice rather than grant leave for her
counsel Spencer Sheehan to amend as judges generally do on a first
motion to dismiss.

Other judges have dismissed Sheehan's complaints with prejudice on
a first motion, according to an order District Judge David Dugan
entered on Aug. 14.

He dismissed a complaint that Gillette Pure shaving product
contains impurities.

He granted leave to amend but echoed judges who didn't grant it.

Sheehan voluntarily dismissed the complaint on Aug. 31.

He has filed 29 class action complaints over labels and ingredients
in the Southern Illinois district since May 2021.

In the Walmart action, plaintiff Wright alleged consumer fraud and
breach of warranty.

She proposed to certify an Illinois class and a class for 12 other
states.

McGlynn found federal law precluded claims under Illinois law.

He found the Food and Drug Administration posted an order in May
finding hydrogen peroxide generally recognized as safe and
effective.

He found Illinois law can't impose additional requirements.

He found the back panel specified that the solution should be used
in first aid to help prevent the risk of infection in minor cuts,
scrapes, and burns.

"Clearly, Walmart has complied with the federal standards," he
wrote.

He stated even if federal law didn't preempt her claim, she still
failed to state a consumer fraud claim on which he could grant
relief.

He found a court may dismiss a claim under Illinois consumer law if
a statement wasn't misleading as a matter of law.

"Treatment is subject to a multitude of definitions and plaintiff
has not plausibly shown that the statement was deceptive," he
wrote.

He dismissed the warranty claim because Wright failed to make a
demand on Walmart prior to suing and failed to provide notice to
Walmart regarding any defect.

Sheehan practices in Great Neck, New York. [GN]

WELLS FARGO: Wins $800 Million Class Suit Over Liquidation
----------------------------------------------------------
Ben Miller of Bloomberg Law reports that Wells Fargo Securities LLC
won't face a proposed class action that sought to recover up to
$800 million in losses related to a 2018 portfolio liquidation, a
U.S. judge said.

The suit filed last year alleged that Wells Fargo breached its
contract and fiduciary duties, acting negligently by demanding the
liquidation of LJM Partnership Funds in response to temporary
market volatility on Feb. 5, 2018. But a judge granted the
company's motion to dismiss the claims, ruling that the investor
plaintiffs failed to state a claim against Wells Fargo in the US
District Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN]

WORLD OIL: Fails to Pay All OT Hours Worked, Mercado Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRENDA MERCADO, on behalf of herself and current and former
aggrieved employees v. WORLD OIL CORP.; and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, Case No. 23STCV22320 (Cal. Super., Sept. 15, 2023)
arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful labor policies and
practices in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' failed to pay all
overtime hours worked at the overtime rate of pay; failed to
authorize or permit all legally required and/or compliant meal
periods or pay meal period premium wages; failed to authorize or
permit all legally required and/or compliant rest periods or pay
rest period premium wages; failed to pay wages for accrued paid
sick time at the regular rate of pay; failed to timely pay earned
wages during employment; failed to provide complete and accurate
wage statements; and failed to timely pay all unpaid wages
following separation of employment.

World Oil recycles, produces, and transports vital petroleum
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
          Courtney M. Miller, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
          E-mail: ilavi@lelawfirm.com
                  vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
                  cmiller@lelawfirm.com
                  WHT1@lelawfirm.com

YARDI SYSTEMS: Duffy Sues Over Price-Fixing Conspiracy
------------------------------------------------------
MCKENNA DUFFY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. YARDI SYSTEMS, INC., BRIDGE PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT, LLC, CALIBRATE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, CLEAR PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT, LLC, DALTON MANAGEMENT, INC., HNN ASSOCIATES, LLC,
LEFEVER MATTSON, MANCO ABBOTT, INC., MORGUARD CORPORATION, PILLAR
PROPERTIES, LLC, SUMMIT MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., CREEKWOOD
PROPERTY CORPORATION, LEGACY PARTNERS, INC., and JONES LANG LASALLE
INCORPORATED, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01391 (W.D. Wash., Sept.
8, 2023) challenges an unlawful agreement among multifamily
property managers, property owners, and property managers/owners,
referred here as Operator Defendants, who colluded to coordinate
pricing through the use of a centralized pricing mechanism,
"RENTmaximizer," created by Defendant Yardi Systems.

According to the complaint, Defendant Yardi and the Operator
Defendants collectively used Yardi's "RENTmaximizer" software to
coordinate on setting supracompetitive pricing on multifamily
properties across the U.S. Yardi's RENTmaximizer is specifically,
and publicly, marketed as a means to eliminate the discounting that
would occur in a competitive market. Operator Defendants who agree
to use RENTmaximizer understand that its purpose is to foil the
operation of the competitive market, says the suit.

The result of this scheme is that Operator Defendants outsource
their once-independent pricing and supply decisions to a single
decisionmaker, RENTmaximizer, and need not directly disclose their
pricing strategies to each other in order to fix rent prices.
Instead, Operator Defendants collectively adopt a coordinated
pricing strategy implemented and enforced by Yardi's RENTmaximizer
product, the suit alleges.

Plaintiff Duffy rented multifamily residential units in properties
managed by Operator Defendant Pillar Properties.

Yardi Systems, Inc. is a property management software company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Theodore Wojcik, Esq.
          Stephanie A. Verdoia, Esq.
          Xiaoyi Fan, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  tedw@hbsslaw.com
                  stephaniev@hbsslaw.com
                  kellyf@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Rio S. Pierce, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
          E-mail: rios@hbsslaw.com

YOUR WIRELESS: Faces Claudio Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
JASON CLAUDIO, LEO GARRISON, and TYLER PERRY, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. YOUR
WIRELESS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-06711 (E.D.N.Y., Sept.
8, 2023) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law

The complaint is brought for Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiffs
and similarly situated employees required overtime, failure to pay
for all hours worked, failure to furnish accurate records of time,
and failure to provide a proper wage statement.

Plaintiff Garrison worked for Defendant as a non-exempt,
hourly-paid store manager from approximately April 2021 through
March 2022.

Your Wireless, Inc., does business as a Verizon Authorized
Retailer, which operates over 130 Your Wireless stores across 16
U.S. states.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
          Garrett Kaske, Esq.
          KESSLER MATURA, P.C.
          534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 499-9100
          Facsimile: (631) 499-9120
          E-mail: tkessler@kesslermatura.com
                  gkaske@kesslermatura.com

               - and -

          Camar R. Jones, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          981 Yamato Road, Suite 285
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: cjones@shavitzlaw.com

Z & S ENTERPRISES: Khan Seeks to Recover Clerks' Minimum & OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Shahnawaz Khan, Selton Inacio Rodrigues, and all others similarly
situated v. Z & S Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Fuel Express d/b/a Fuel
Express #2; Shamsuddin Karim Ali; and Zohra Ali, Case No.
4:23-cv-03454 (S.D. Tex., Sept. 14, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages from the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiffs and Members of the Plaintiff Class routinely worked
in excess of 40 hours a week at Defendants' request, yet did not
receive overtime wages as the FLSA requires, the suit asserts.

From January 1, 2018, until September 20, 2021, the Defendants paid
Mr. Khan at an hourly rate of $14.00. Thereafter, the Defendants
paid Mr. Khan at the rate of $15.00 per hour. In order to evade the
overtime provisions of the FLSA, the Defendants allegedly paid Mr.
Khan's wages partly by check, and partly with cash. Accordingly,
the Defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to evade the FLSA as
pertaining to overtime. For decades, the Defendants have continued
their pattern and practice of not paying overtime wages despite
being sued for unpaid overtime by former employees in 2013 (Case
No. 4:13-cv-02980), says the suit.

The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class comprised of current and
former employees of all Gas Stations who were paid at a
straight-time hourly rate for hours worked in excess of 40 in any
workweek during the class period.

The Plaintiffs and Members of the Plaintiff Class seek liquidated
damages, and post-judgment interest at the highest rate allowed by
law, assessed upon all damages, including attorney's fees and
costs.

Mr. Khan was employed by the Defendants as a clerk at their Gas
Stations from September 2015, until July 15, 2022.

Mr. Rodrigues was employed by the Defendant as a clerk at their Gas
Stations from August 2019, until August 17, 2022.

Z & S is a gasoline station and convenience store.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Senate Committee Calls Out J&J's Ch. 11 Efforts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Beasley Allen disclosed that Johnson & Johnson's discredited "Texas
two-step" bankruptcy efforts came under fire from witnesses and
members of the Senate Judiciary Committee chaired by Sen. Dick
Durbin.

Senators from both parties pushed back against claims by J&J lawyer
Erik Haas that by creating a shell company and then putting it into
bankruptcy, the company was seeking a "fair and equitable"
resolution to thousands of consumer lawsuits alleging that its
asbestos-laced talc products cause ovarian cancer and
mesothelioma.

When Haas asserted to Senators that most plaintiffs lose at trial,
Sen. Josh Hawley reminded Haas that a jury in Sen. Hawley's home
state of Missouri found J&J liable and awarded $4.69 billion
dollars in damages. Eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a
$2.2 billion damage award for 22 plaintiffs.

Sen. Hawley told Haas, "Your company panics and what you do is you
then decide, 'Oh my gosh, we can't possibly do this. We can't pay
these plaintiffs this kind of money.' So, you then create a
separate company for the sole purpose of declaring bankruptcy and
making sure that tens of thousands of other plaintiffs get scraps."
See the entire exchange here.

"Americans saw today that J&J and other huge corporations will try
virtually anything to avoid responsibility when their products
cause massive amounts of harm and suffering," says Leigh O'Dell of
the Beasley Allen law firm and co-chair of the plaintiffs steering
committee in the talc multidistrict litigation in New Jersey
federal court. "Plaintiffs with legitimate claims are united and
determined to continue to seek justice."

As plaintiffs await their day in court, they continue to speak out
against J&J's abusive practices. Their comments, recorded on video,
can be found here.

In his remarks, Sen. Durbin gave voice to his view that an
increasing number of major corporations are abusing the bankruptcy
process. He noted:

-- The Texas two-step allows large profitable corporations to
"shirk responsibility for the damage their products have caused."

-- It denies individuals their day in court.

-- It encourages forum-shopping by corporations to take advantage
of more favorable locations.

-- It forces victims who may be suffering fatal progressive
diseases to endure protracted bankruptcy proceedings, robbing them
of "precious time."

An appellate court and a bankruptcy judge have twice dismissed
J&J's bankruptcy maneuvers, finding that they were filed in bad
faith. After a long delay caused by the bankruptcy litigation,
attorneys for plaintiffs are gearing up to renew trying their cases
before juries.

"J&J continues to pursue the lie that a majority of victims want to
settle their cases in bankruptcy and continues to attempt to bully
claimants into accepting woefully inadequate compensation for their
injuries and loss," says Andy Birchfield of the Beasley Allen law
firm, which represents thousands of women and families in
litigation against Johnson & Johnson. "After the hearing, it's
obvious that legislators from both parties are serious about
protecting the rights of individuals to have their claims tried
where they belong, before judges who are qualified to consider
individual matters of right and wrong, and before juries of their
peers."


                            *********

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 ***