---

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

              Thursday, October 5, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 200

                            Headlines

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces White Class Suit Over ADA Violations
ARROW FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Suit Over SEC Filings
ASTRAZENECA PHARMA: Wilhoit Seeks to Certify Class Action
BANK OF AMERICA: Modern Perfection Appeals Arbitration Ruling
BAYER CORPORATION: Carrillo Suit Moved to C.D. California

BERKELEY COUNTY, SC: Faces Class Suit Over Unfair Apartment Law
BLUE CROSS: Faces Class Suit in Ill. Over Alleged Data Breach
CAL DEL: Court Enters Ruling on Bids for Class Certification
CARGILL MEAT: Parties Must File Class Amended Report by Dec. 14
CEDAR REALTY: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Dismissed

CEDAR REALTY: Faces Krasner Securities Suit
COLLECTION PROFESSIONALS: Bid to Restrict Exhibits OK'd
COLONIAL LIFE: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Jan. 29, 2024
COMCAST CABLE: Bradford Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA
DENISE HACKER: Strutton Seeks Class Certification

ELI LILLY AND CO: Faces Painters Class Suit in California
ELI LILLY AND CO: Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Suit
EQUIFAX INC: Court Narrows Claims in Consolidated Class Suit
FIELD ASSET: Martin Class Action Remanded to State Court
FOUNDATION ENERGY: Class Settlement in Ritter Gets Initial Nod

FRONTIER AIRLINES: Faces Klaes Class Suit Over "Worthless" Refund
GEMA BERRY: Court Vacates Deadline to File Class Cert Bid
GENEDX HOLDINGS: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Merger Deal
GOOGLE INC: Must Provide Deposition Testimony in Consumer Suit
GOOGLE LLC: Case Management Order Entered in Hubbard Class Suit

GREG GOSSETT: Class Certification Order Amended in Ross Lawsuit
GREG GOSSETT: Plaintiffs Seek to Include Kaplan & Grady as Counsel
GULF SHORES, AL: Both Parties Seek Approval of Suit Settlement
HEALTH ENROLLMENT: Court Tosses Ketayi Bid to Supplement Briefing
HENNESSY PARK: Court Tosses Lomonosov Bid for Collective Action

HOPE CREDIT: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due May 2, 2024
INFOARMOR INC: Munoz Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
INJURED WORKERS: Fact Discovery Due June 10, 2024
KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 14, 2024
KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Settlement in Martinez Gets Final Nod

KRAFT HEINZ: Lawyers Gets $90M of $450M Settlement Over Merger
KROGER CO: Class Cert Bid Filing in Kirkbride Due Feb. 26, 2024
LASERSHIP INC: Deadlines to Amend Any Pleadings Held in Abeyance
LIGHT & WONDER INC: Faces Antitrust Suit over Card Shuffler Patents
LIGHT & WONDER INC: Faces Boorn Suit Over Illegal Gambling

LIME LUSH: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Bodie Suit Claims
LITIGATION PRACTICE: Beech Seeks to Certify Three Classes
LONG BEACH, CA: Seeks Denial of Guma Leave to File Class Cert Bid
LOS ANGELES, CA: Hunt Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in Labor Suit
LOUISIANA: Faces Class Suit Over Farm Work Requirements

MCALISTER'S FRANCHISOR: More Time to File Class Cert. Bid Sought
MCALISTERS FRANCHISOR: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid
META PLATFORMS: Advertiser Plaintiffs' Class Cert Filing Due Oct. 6
META PLATFORMS: Ill. Residents Must File Claim for $68M Settlement
META PLATFORMS: Parties Must File Class Cert Bid by Oct. 6

META PLATFORMS: Parties Seek to Modify Sealing Procedures
MOLEKULE INC.: Fact Discovery in Bassaw Due Jan. 8, 2024
NATIONAL VISION: Ct. Tosses Herrera Suit w/o Prejudice
NAVY FEDERAL: Sanchez Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Circuit
NEW YORK, NY: Azor-El Seeks Oct. 13 Extension to File Class Cert

NEW YORK, NY: Barner Seeks Oct. 13 Extension to File Class Cert Bid
NEW YORK, NY: Carter Seeks Oct. 13 Extension to File Class Cert.
NEW YORK, NY: Cole Seeks Oct. 13 Extension to File Class Cert Bid
NEW YORK, NY: Court Certifies Class Suit Over City Youth Foster
NEW YORK, NY: Gomez Seeks Oct. 13 Extension to File Class Cert Bid

NEW YORK, NY: Medina Seeks Oct. 13 Extension to File Class Cert Bid
NEW YORK: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Two Classes & Subclass
NEW YORK: Seeks to Exclude Plaintiffs' Experts' Opinions
OLAM SPICES: Class Settlement in Beltran Suit Gets Final Nod
OLD DOMINION: Davis Class Complaint Tossed w/o Prejudice

OPENAI INC: Authors Guild Sues Over Chatbot ChatGPT Use
PICCOLO SOGNO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alvarez Alleges
PLAYTIKA HOLDING: Faces Yosef Suit Over Illegal Gambling Operations
PROVIDENCE PUBLIC: Initial Approval of Class Settlement Sought
PROVIDENCE PUBLIC: Rule 23 Class Gets Provisional Certification

PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Securities Suit Over SEC Filing Ongoing
RANGE RESOURCES: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Jan. 12, 2024
RECKITT BENCKISER: Adkins Sues Over Mislabeled Nasal Drugs
RICOH USA: Must Oppose to Lopez Class Cert Bid by Jan. 24, 2024
RPC RESTAURANT: Class Cert Scheduling Order Entered in Norris Suit

SAVE MART: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by March 22, 2024
SMITTY'S: Plaintiffs' Reply Brief Deadline Extended to Oct. 5
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Bevacqua Amended Complaint Dismissed
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Bombin Bid to Certify Class Nixed
STARBUCKS CORP: 9 Class Suits Over Drinks' Missing Fruits Certified

TEIJIN AUTOMOTIVE: Court Certifies Class Suit Over Data Breach
TIKTOK INC: Faces Class Suit Over Racial Discrimination
TIKTOK INC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Feb. 9, 2024
TMX FINANCE: Court Appoints Interim Class Counsel in Kolstedt Suit
TRAVEL GUARD: Miller Class Status Bid Partly OK'd

TULANE UNIVERSITY: Jones Seeks to Amend Scheduling Order
UNION SECURITY: Seeks More Time to File Reply Brief
UNITED AIRLINES: Completion of Class Cert Discovery Due Oct. 23
UNITED STATES: Settlement in Ahmed Suit Gets Final Nod
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Yslas Seeks More Time to File Reply

WEST VIRGINIA: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due March 1, 2024
WESTMORELAND SANITARY: Childs Must File Class Cert Bid by Oct. 11
WONWON GROUP: Harrelson FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
WORLD TECH: Class Cert Scheduling Order Entered in Bur-Tex Suit
WYNDHAM VACATION: Kirchner Must File Class Cert Bid by Oct. 20


                            *********

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces White Class Suit Over ADA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action alleges American Airlines has discriminated against
employees with disabilities by refusing to provide the workers with
reasonable accommodations.

The 15-page lawsuit claims the airline systematically fails to
engage in an interactive process regarding what accommodations
should be provided to employees with disabilities, or otherwise
delays or directly denies requests for reasonable accommodations,
and has even terminated employees who have made such requests. In
doing so, American Airlines has violated the federal Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), the case alleges.

The plaintiff, an American Airlines employee first hired in 2015 as
a customer service representative at the airline's Dallas/Fort
Worth, Texas location, says a chronic symptom of her lifetime
disability is lymphedema in her legs, which involves swelling due
to the build-up of lymph fluid. According to the case, American
Airlines “wholly ignored” the woman's request in 2019 to break
its dress code by wearing tennis shoes, forcing her to continue
working while her legs swelled in pain.

That year, the woman applied for benefits under the Family Medical
Leave Act to assist with her ongoing disability, the case says.
Then, in March 2020, American Airlines denied her request and
offered her a COVID-19-related furlough instead of termination, the
complaint relays.

"Desperate to remain employed," the plaintiff accepted the furlough
until she began working again in April 2021 with "light duty"
accommodations, the filing says. After American Airlines placed the
plaintiff on a mandatory, involuntary medical leave that summer and
refused to continue her light-duty accommodations, the woman
requested a transfer to a clerical position where she could perform
administrative work as an accommodation for her disability, the
suit says.

Not only did American Airlines ignore the plaintiff's request, but
it also informed her in February 2022 that she was subject to
termination for "excessive absences," the filing alleges.

Although the defendant advised the woman later that month that it
would consider her physical limitations and attempt to place her on
light duty instead of terminating her, it subsequently denied her
accommodation request and instructed her to apply for other
positions she could perform with restrictions, the lawsuit says.

Between June and December 2022, the plaintiff claims she applied
for and was rejected 13 positions until American Airlines finally
offered her a role on December 17.

"Upon Information and belief, American Airlines' treatment is not
unique to [the plaintiff]," the suit contends. In fact, the
complaint relays, a 2017 lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission alleged that the airline maintained an
unlawful "100% return-to-work policy" that required employees who
returned to work following a medical leave and needed reasonable
accommodation to find, apply to and compete for other jobs "without
regard to reassignment as a reasonable accommodation."

Although American Airlines has since removed the discriminatory
policy from its handbook and employee documents, the defendant
continues to enforce the alleged conduct detailed in the suit,
which was settled for $9.8 million, the case claims.

Per the complaint, American Airlines' failure to provide its
employees with disabilities with reasonable accommodations, and
requirement that these employees compete for accommodating
positions, is "malicious" and "done with reckless indifference to
their federally protected rights."

The lawsuit looks to represent any current and former American
Airlines employees who have disabilities within the meaning of the
ADA, are qualified under the ADA and are subject to or have been
adversely affected by the airline's policies regarding reasonable
accommodations. [GN]

ARROW FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Suit Over SEC Filings
-------------------------------------------------------
Arrow Financial Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that on June 23, 2023,
Robert C. Ashe filed a putative class action complaint against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of New York. In addition to the company, the complaint
names as defendants Thomas J. Murphy, the company's former CEO and
from September 30, 2022 to February 20, 2023, its interim CFO,
Edward J. Campanella, the company's former CFO, and Penko Ivanov,
the company's current CFO.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the company's business, operations
and compliance policies in the company's public filings between
March 12, 2022 and May 12, 2023. The complaint further alleges that
defendants are liable for these materially false and misleading
statements as "controlling persons" of the company. Based on these
allegations, the complaint brings two claims for violations of
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Mr. Ashe, on
behalf of a purported class of shareholders, seeks compensatory
damages as well as recovery of the costs and fees associated with
the litigation.

Arrow Financial Corporation is a registered bank holding company.


ASTRAZENECA PHARMA: Wilhoit Seeks to Certify Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT WILHOIT, et. al.,
individually, and on behalf of the collective and all others
similarly situated, v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS, LP, Case No.
1:22-cv-01634-GBW (D. Del.), the Plaintiffs move the Court to
conditionally certify the Collective Action and to Facilitate
Notice to all Putative Collective Members under 29 U.S.C. section
216(b), the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA").

AstraZeneca is a British-Swedish multinational pharmaceutical and
biotechnology company.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 8, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/454hXCf at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen J. Neuberger, Esq.
          Thomas S. Neuberger, Esq.
          THE NEUBERGER FIRM, P.A.
          17 Harlech Drive
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 655-0582
          E-mail: TSN@NeubergerLaw.com
                  SJN@NeubergerLaw.com

                - and -

          Elizabeth A. Brehm, Esq.
          Walker Moller, Esq.
          SIRI | GLIMSTAD, LLP
          745 Fifth Ave, Suite 500
          New York, NY 10151
          Telephone: (212) 532-1091
          E-mail: ebrehm@sirillp.com
                  wmoller@sirillp.com

BANK OF AMERICA: Modern Perfection Appeals Arbitration Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Modern Perfection, LLC filed an appeal from the District
Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 22, 2023 entered
in the lawsuit styled Modern Perfection LLC and Fruitful Bear, LLC,
individually and as representatives of a class of similarly
situated persons v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No.
1:22-cv-02103-MJM, in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland at Baltimore.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on September 14, 2022, the
lawsuit is brought against Bank of America's misrepresentations and
misconduct which have unjustly enriched it and have harmed
Plaintiffs, and to seek, on behalf of themselves and the Class,
damages, restitution, and injunctive relief for Bank of America's
breach of contract; breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing; common law fraud; fraud in the inducement; negligent
misrepresentation; and violations of the North Carolina Deceptive
Business Practices Act.

On November 15, 2022, BofA filed a motion to compel arbitration and
to stay or dismiss this matter and a motion to dismiss the
complaint.

On December 6, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

On February 24, 2023, BofA filed renewed motions to compel
arbitration and to dismiss or stay this matter, pursuant to the
Federal Arbitration Act and to dismiss the amended complaint,
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(2).

On August 22, 2023, Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby entered an Order
granting BofA's February 24, 2023 motion to compel arbitration and
to dismiss or stay this matter; denying as moot BofA's motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim; dismissing the amended
complaint and entering judgment accordingly.

The appellate case is captioned as Modern Perfection, LLC v. Bank
of America, N.A., Case No. 23-1965, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on September 15, 2023.

Plaintiffs-Appellants MODERN PERFECTION, LLC, et al., individually
and as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons,
are represented by:

          Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
          MILLER SHAH LLP
          1845 Walnut Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (610) 891-9880

               - and -

          Laina Herbert, Esq.
          Suzanne Sangree, Esq.
          Kelly L. Tucker, Esq.   
          GRANT & EISENHOFER, PA
          123 Justison Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 622-7000

Defendant-Appellee BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. is represented by:

          Enu Mainigi, Esq.
          Craig Singer, Esq.
          Jesse T. Smallwood, Esq.   
          WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
          680 Maine Avenue, SW
          Washington, DC 20024
          Telephone: (202) 434-5420

BAYER CORPORATION: Carrillo Suit Moved to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled RUFINO CARRILLO, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAYER
CORPORATION; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
23LBCV01569, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on September 28, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-08149 to the
proceeding. The Case is assigned to the Hon. R. Gary Klausner, and
referred to Magistrate Brianna Fuller Mircheff.

BAYER CORPORATION operates as a pharmaceutical and life science
company. The Company researches, develops, manufactures, and
markets products for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of
diseases, as well as produces fungicides, herbicides, insecticides,
and crop varieties. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Ryan S. Killian, Esq.
           SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
           600 Travis Street, Suite 3400
           Houston, TX 77002-2026
           Telephone: (713) 227-8008
           Facsimile: (713) 227-9508
           Email: rkillian@shb.com

BERKELEY COUNTY, SC: Faces Class Suit Over Unfair Apartment Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Rogers of Globest.com reports that a Berkeley landlord has
filed a class-action lawsuit claiming the city's law requiring
annual apartment registration fees violates the state's
constitution.

San Francisco-based Alan Wofsy & Associates, a fine arts publishing
company that owns an apartment complex in Berkeley, filed the
lawsuit challenging the law, known as Measure MM, the San Francisco
Business Times reported. [GN]

BLUE CROSS: Faces Class Suit in Ill. Over Alleged Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Alder of The HIPAA Journal reports that a lawsuit has been
filed against the Chicago, IL-based health insurer and Blue Cross
Blue Shield licensee, Health Care Service Corporation (HCSC), over
a recently disclosed data breach that affected 192,231 of its
members.

HCSC experienced a cyberattack on or around June 21, 2023, and
determined the threat actors had access to member information such
as names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, dates of
birth, Social Security numbers, claim numbers, bank account
numbers, and medical service information. Notification letters were
sent to the affected individuals on August 21, 2023.

A lawsuit was recently filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County in
Illinois on behalf of plaintiff Elizabeth Slaughter and other
similarly situated individuals. The lawsuit alleges HCSC
disregarded the rights of the plaintiff and class members by
"intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to
take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure
PHI/PII was safeguarded," such as encrypting data on its network,
and HCSC did not meet its data security obligations under the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

The plaintiff alleges she was not notified about the data breach
until August 24, 2023, more than 2 months after the date of the
cyberattack, and that she was unaware that the defendant even had
her data until she received the letter in the mail. The plaintiff
alleges she has suffered an injury as a result of the data breach
in the form of having to spend time and money protecting herself
against identity theft and fraud and will have to continue to do so
for the foreseeable future. The plaintiff also alleges she has
suffered an injury in the form of damages to and diminution in the
value of her PHI/PII and says her anxiety has been further
exacerbated after discovering her personal data had been uploaded
to at least one dark web website.

The lawsuit alleges negligence, breach of implied contract, breach
of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust
enrichment and seeks class-action status, a jury trial, and actual,
nominal, and consequential damages. The lawsuit also seeks an order
from the court to prevent HCSC from engaging in unlawful
activities. The injunctive relief sought includes security measures
such as data encryption, regular vulnerability scanning and
security checks, and security awareness training for the workforce
with testing of employees' knowledge.

The plaintiff and class members are represented by Kevin Laukaitis
of the law firm, Laukaitis Law LLC, and attorney Joseph J. Two.
[GN]

CAL DEL: Court Enters Ruling on Bids for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDSAY ORIN, v. CAL. DEL.
U.S.A. INC., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-03404-FMO-KS (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order regarding motions
for class certification:

   1. Joint Brief:

      The parties shall work cooperatively to create a single,
      fully integrated joint brief covering each party’s
position, in
      which each issue (or sub-issue) raised by a party is
immediately
      followed by the opposing party's/parties’ response.

   2. Citation to Evidence:

      All citation to evidence in the joint brief shall be directly
to
      the exhibit and page number(s) of the evidentiary appendix,
or
      page and line number(s) of a deposition.

   3. Unnecessary Sections:

      The parties need not include a "procedural history" section,

      since the court will be familiar with the procedural history.


   4. Evidentiary Appendix:

      The joint brief shall be accompanied by one separate, tabbed

      appendix of declarations and written evidence (including
      documents, photographs, deposition excerpts, etc.).

   5. Evidentiary Objections:

      All necessary evidentiary objections shall be made in the
      relevant section(s) of the joint brief.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Zs3LBG at no extra charge.[CC]

CARGILL MEAT: Parties Must File Class Amended Report by Dec. 14
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Luvianio v. Cargill Meat
Solutions Corp., Case No. 2:23-cv-00959 (E.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto entered a scheduling order as
follows:

  -- By no later than December 14, 2023, the parties shall file an

     amended Joint Report that includes a proposed deadline for
class
     certification discovery, a class certification motion briefing

     schedule, and a hearing date before the undersigned (as well
as a
     deadline for initial disclosures if they have not already been

     completed).

  -- No other dates or deadlines are required to be proposed, as
the
     Court will set all remaining deadlines at a further scheduling

     conference following resolution of the class certification
issue.

  -- The Court continues the mandatory scheduling conference to
     Dec. 21, 2023, at 9:30 A.M.

The nature of suit states Civil Rights – Employment.

Cargill Meat is a subsidiary of the Minneapolis-based multinational
agribusiness giant Cargill Inc., that comprises Cargill's North
American beef, turkey, food service and food distribution
businesses.[CC]


CEDAR REALTY: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that on August 1, 2023, the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland issued a
decision and order granting Defendants' motions to dismiss, without
leave to amend, and denying the plaintiffs' motion to certify a
question of law to the Maryland Supreme Court.

On May, 6, 2022, a purported holder of the company's outstanding
preferred stock filed a separate putative class action complaint
against the company and the Board of Directors prior to the merger
with Wheeler Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. in the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland, entitled "Kim
v. Cedar Realty Trust, Inc., et al.," Civil Action No.
22-cv-01103.

On June 2, 2022, Kim filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.
The United States District Court for the District of Maryland
consolidated this under Case No. 8:22-cv-01142-GLR.

On June 23, 2022, following a hearing, the court issued an order
denying their motion for preliminary injunction, holding that the
plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits and that
plaintiffs had not established that they would suffer irreparable
harm if the injunction was denied.

By order dated July 11, 2022, the court consolidated the case and
set an August 24, 2022 deadline for the plaintiffs to file a
consolidated amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed their amended
complaint on August 24, 2022. The amended complaint alleges on
behalf of a putative class of holders of the company's preferred
stock, among other things, claims for breach of contract against
the company and the former Board of Directors with respect to the
articles supplementary governing the terms of the company's
preferred stock, breach of fiduciary duty against the former Board
of Directors, and tortious interference and aiding and abetting
breach of fiduciary duty against WHLR.

On October 7, 2022, Defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. Plaintiffs opposed the motion to dismiss and filed a
motion to certify a question of law to Maryland's Supreme Court.

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. is a real estate investment trust that
focuses on owning and operating income producing retail properties
with a primary focus on grocery-anchored shopping centers primarily
in the Northeast. At June 30, 2023, the company owned a portfolio
of 19 operating properties. Cedar Realty Trust Partnership, L.P. is
the entity through which the company conducts substantially all of
its business and owns (either directly or through subsidiaries)
substantially all of its assets.


CEDAR REALTY: Faces Krasner Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------
Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that on October 14, 2022, a
purported holder of the company's outstanding preferred stock filed
a putative class action against the company, the Board of Directors
and Wheeler Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. in Nassau County
Supreme Court, New York entitled "Krasner v. Cedar Realty Trust,
Inc., et al.," Case No. 613985/2022.

The complaint alleges on behalf of a putative class of holders of
the company's preferred stock, among other things, claims for
breach of contract against the company and the former Board of
Directors with respect to the articles supplementary governing the
terms of the company's preferred stock, breach of fiduciary duty
against the former Board of Directors. The complaint seeks, among
other relief, an award of monetary damages, attorneys' fees, and
expert fees. Defendants removed the case to a federal court.

On April 24, 2023, the federal court granted Plaintiff's motion to
remand the case to the Nassau County Supreme Court. Defendants have
sought leave from the appellate court for permission to appeal the
remand decision. Defendants have filed motions in the Nassau County
action to dismiss or stay the case based both on the pendency of
the lawsuit in Maryland in which the same claims were asserted by
other preferred stockholders and on the merits. Plaintiff has
opposed the motions.

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. is a real estate investment trust that
focuses on owning and operating income producing retail properties
with a primary focus on grocery-anchored shopping centers primarily
in the Northeast. At June 30, 2023, the company owned a portfolio
of 19 operating properties. Cedar Realty Trust Partnership, L.P. is
the entity through which the company conducts substantially all of
its business and owns (either directly or through subsidiaries)
substantially all of its assets.


COLLECTION PROFESSIONALS: Bid to Restrict Exhibits OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH McGRADY,
individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v.
COLLECTION PROFESSIONALS, INC., a Wyoming corporation, BARNEY &
GRAHAM, LLC, WESTON T. GRAHAM, CHRISTOPHER COCCIMIGLIO, and DAVID
C. COCCIMIGLIO, Case No. 1:22-cv-00100-SWS (Wyo. Dist.), the Hon.
Judge Kelly H. Rankin entered an order granting Barney & Graham,
LLC and Weston Graham's motion to restrict and substitute
exhibits.

B&G filed the instant Motion seeking to restrict and substitute
exhibits to their previous filing of the Memorandum of Law in
Opposition to Class Certification on August 29, 2023.

The Motion stated that Plaintiff did not object to the requested
relief, but Co-Defendants had not yet responded to the request. The
Court entered a text only order requiring Co-Defendants Christopher
Coccimiglio and David Coccimiglio to respond to the Motion by
September 6, 2023.

Collection Professionals provide complete credit card and debt
collection services along with online payment solutions to
organizations.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 11, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4608wor at no extra charge.[CC]



COLONIAL LIFE: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Jan. 29, 2024
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Seawell, et al., v.
Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-00278
(S.D. Ala., Filed July 15, 2022), the Hon. Judge Terry F Moorer
entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to extend
certain deadlines in scheduling order.

   1) The deadline for completion of Phase I        Dec. 29, 2023
      discovery is extended to:

   2) The deadline for Plaintiffs to file           Jan. 29, 2024
      their Motion for Class Certification
      is:

   3) The Defendant's response to the motion        March 29, 2024
      for class certification is due on or
      before:

   4) The Plaintiffs' reply to Defendant's          April 29, 2024
      response is due on or before:

   5) The dispositive motion deadline is            April 29, 2024
      extended to:

The nature of suit states Contract -- Insurance

Colonial Life offers disability, accident, life, cancer, critical
illness and hospital confinement insurance plans. [CC]

COMCAST CABLE: Bradford Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA
------------------------------------------------------
RADLEY BRADFORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-03659 (S.D. Tex., Sept. 28, 2023)
alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC provides communication services.
The Company offers visual and textual television programs on a
subscription or fee basis also on demand channels, sport, pay per
view, watch online, and international programming, voice, and
internet services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, Ltd.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Telephone: (630) 575-8180
          Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com


DENISE HACKER: Strutton Seeks Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dennis Strutton, James
Moller and all other similarly situated Residents, v.  Denise
Hacker, Chief Operating Officer; Christopher Chamberlain, Director
of Security; George Killian, Director of Treatment Services; Stacy
Giggs, Program Director; Denise Hacker, Chief Operating Officer;
Mathew Roach, Chief Financial Officer; & several Does of the Sex
Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment Services Facility, Case No.
4:23-cv-01134-SPM (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the court allowing
for Class Certification and Appointment of Council.

The Plaintiffs believe in their claims, and the class on both sides
is so numerous that is impractical, as it effects all the staff and
all the residents comprised in their facility.

The Plaintiffs have presented questions of law and fact common to
their class. The claims made by the Plaintiffs are similar to the
complaints of everyone in the class.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 11, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZrtJVZ at no extra
charge.[CC]




ELI LILLY AND CO: Faces Painters Class Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 8, 2023, that it was named along with Takeda
Chemical Industries, Ltd. and Takeda affiliates in a third-party
payor class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California captioned "Painters et al. v. Takeda et al."


Plaintiffs claim that they and similarly situated class members are
entitled to recover money paid for or to reimburse "Actos"
prescriptions because of alleged concealment of bladder cancer
risk.

The company's agreement with Takeda calls for Takeda to defend and
indemnify the company against losses and expenses with respect to
U.S. litigation arising out of the manufacture, use, or sale of
Actos and other related expenses in accordance with the terms of
the agreement. In June 2023, the company and Takeda filed a
petition for permission to appeal the class certification order.
Actos is a registered trademark of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company
Limited.

Eli Lilly and Company is a pharmaceutical company based out of
Indianapolis, IN.


ELI LILLY AND CO: Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company 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 the company, along with
Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC, Novo Nordisk Inc. and AstraZeneca
Pharmaceuticals LP, was named as a defendant in a purported class
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York by Mosaic Health, Inc. alleging antitrust and
unjust enrichment claims related to the defendants' 340B
distribution programs.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which was granted
in September 2022. In October 2022, the plaintiffs filed a motion
for leave to amend their complaint. This matter is ongoing.

Eli Lilly and Company is a pharmaceutical company based out of
Indianapolis, IN.


EQUIFAX INC: Court Narrows Claims in Consolidated Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Re: Equifax Fair Credit Reporting Act
Litigation, Case No. 1:22-cv-03072-LMM (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge
Leigh Martin May entered an order:

  -- Granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to

     dismiss the consolidated class action complaint, and

  -- Denying the motion to strike class action allegations.

Accordingly, the common-law negligence claims (Third Claim) and
demand for injunctive relief are DISMISSED and all other claims
shall proceed.

For a three-week period in the spring of 2022 -- March 17 through
April 6 -- the Defendants misreported credit information on
millions of consumers.

The plaintiffs in this consolidated action are consumers who
applied for loans during that period, and, because of Defendants'
reporting of artificially depressed credit scores, were denied
credit, forced to pay inflated interest rates, and/or required to
have a co-signer.

The Plaintiffs assert claims for common-law negligence and for
negligent and willful violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA"), for themselves and on behalf of all others in the United
States "about whom Equifax reported inaccurate items of information
to a third party as a result of the coding error that Equifax
claims caused [the] inaccurate reporting."

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 11, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rdToVz at no extra charge.[CC]

 


FIELD ASSET: Martin Class Action Remanded to State Court
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH MARTIN, an
individual, v. FIELD ASSET SERVICES, INC.; FIELD ASSET SERVICES,
LLC; XOME FIELD SERVICES LLC; CYPREXX SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1-10,
Case No. 2:23-cv-01119-WBS-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William
B. Shubb entered an order granting the plaintiff's motion to remand
and for attorneys' fees be, and the same:

  -- The case is remanded to the Superior Court of the State of
     California, in and for the County of Yuba.

  -- The Plaintiff is awarded $2,250 in attorneys’ fees and
costs.

  -- The Defendants' motion to dismiss be, and the same is, denied
as
     moot.

The Plaintiff Joseph Martin initiated this individual action
against the defendants alleging various violations of the
California Labor, Wages, and Business and Profession Codes.

The Defendants removed this action from Yuba County Superior Court
pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act.

Field Asset was a property preservation company, headquartered in
Austin, Texas.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 7, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46dc8mW at no extra charge.[CC]

FOUNDATION ENERGY: Class Settlement in Ritter Gets Initial Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN LANE RITTER, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. FOUNDATION
ENERGY MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., Case No. 6:22-cv-00246-JFH (E.D.
Okla.), the Hon. Judge John F. Heil, III entered an order granting
preliminary approval of class action settlement, certifying classes
for settlement purposes, approving form, and manner of notice, and
setting date for final fairness hearing:

  -- The Court finds the Settlement Classes should be certified at

     this stage for the purposes of this Settlement, as the
Settlement
     Classes meet all certification requirements of Federal Rule of

     Civil Procedure 23 for a settlement class. The Settlement
Classes
     are certified for settlement purposes only, subject to the
     Court’s final consideration at the Final Fairness Hearing.

  -- The certified Settlement Classes are defined as follows:

     Class I

     "All non-excluded persons or entities who, within the Claim
     Period: (1) received late payments under the PRSA from
Foundation
     Energy Management, LLC (or Foundation Energy Management, LLC's

     designee) for oil-and-gas proceeds from Oklahoma wells or
whose
     proceeds were sent as unclaimed property to a government
entity
     by Foundation Energy Management, LLC; and (2) whose proceeds
did
     not include the statutory interest required by the PRSA;"

     Excluded from the Class are: (1) Foundation Energy Management,

     LLC, its affiliates, predecessors, and employees, officers,
and
     directors; and (2) agencies, departments, or instrumentalities
of
     the United States of America or the State of Oklahoma; (3) any

     Indian Tribe as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(4) or Indian

     allotee as defined at 30 U.S.C. § 1702(2); (4) prior period
     adjustments; and (5) any claims attributable to payments made
by
     Foundation Energy Management, LLC to owners in the Cox 24-1H
and
     Cox 24-2H wells; and

     Class II

     "All non-excluded persons or entities who, within the Claim
     Period: (1) received late payments under the PRSA from
Corterra
     Energy Operating, LLC (or Corterra Energy Operating, LLC’s
     designee) for oil-and-gas proceeds from the Oklahoma wells
that
     were acquired by Foundation Energy Fund VII-A, L.P., or whose

     proceeds from those acquired wells were sent as unclaimed
     property to a government entity by Corterra Energy Operating,

     LLC; and (2) whose proceeds did not include the statutory
     interest required by the PRSA.

     Excluded from the Class are: (1) Corterra Energy Operating,
LLC,
     its affiliates, predecessors, and employees, officers, and
     directors; and (2) agencies, departments, or instrumentalities
of
     the United States of America or the State of Oklahoma; (3) any

     Indian Tribe as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(4) or Indian

     allotee as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(2); and (4) prior
period
     adjustments.

The case is a class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiff Ritter, on
behalf of himself and as a representative of a class of owners,
against the Defendants and including claims implicating Corterra
payment practices, for the alleged failure to pay statutory
interest on payments made outside the time periods set forth in the
Production Revenue Standards Act, 52 O.S. section 570.1 et seq.
(the "PRSA") for oil and gas production proceeds from oil and gas
wells in Oklahoma.

On August 28, 2023, the Parties executed a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement finalizing the terms of the Settlement.1
The Settlement Agreement, together with the documents referenced
therein and exhibits thereto, set forth the terms 1 Capitalized
terms not otherwise defined in this Order shall have the meaning
ascribed to them in the Settlement Agreement.

Foundation is a manager of energy investments for institutional
partners.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 11, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48qQGge at no extra charge.[CC]

FRONTIER AIRLINES: Faces Klaes Class Suit Over "Worthless" Refund
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that Frontier Airlines
faces a proposed class action filed by a consumer who claims the
supposedly "budget friendly" airline issued him "worthless" refund
vouchers.

The 23-page lawsuit says that despite the defendant's
representations that the vouchers function properly and provide
reduced rates to travelers whose Frontier flights are canceled,
undisclosed expiration dates may render the credits unusable before
they can be redeemed, leaving consumers "stuck" with "inoperable,
and nonrefundable" vouchers.

The plaintiff, an Indiana resident whose flight was canceled in
November 2022, was given a credit voucher by Frontier rather than a
cash refund, the suit relays. However, unbeknownst to the man, the
voucher expired on an "unspecified, undisclosed" date before he
could use it, the case alleges.

After numerous phone calls and a series of messages with customer
service, the plaintiff learned that his credit would have been
valid for up to a year as represented, but, as the Frontier
representative explained, such vouchers are "required to be updated
and extended every 90 days," the complaint relays. The agent
informed the man that his voucher had apparently expired on January
31, 2023—90 days after it had been issued, the filing shares.

Though the airline subsequently issued the plaintiff a $100 credit
"as a courtesy" and separate refunds of $161 and $25.98, he claims
that his "experience with Frontier has been horrible." Had the man
understood the "true inoperable and defective nature" of the
voucher, he would not have accepted the “worthless” credit as a
viable refund over a cash reimbursement, the case contends.

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States who
received a voucher from Frontier Airlines at any time since 2020.
[GN]

GEMA BERRY: Court Vacates Deadline to File Class Cert Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GELACIO LOPEZ and PATRICIA
LIRA, individually and acting in the interest of other current and
former employees, v. GEMA BERRY FARMS, INC., a California
Corporation; IVAN LOPEZ, an individual; and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive, Case No. 5:22-cv-02642-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
P. Casey Pitts entered an order granting Plaintiffs' motion for
administrative relief to modify case management order as follows:

  -- The deadline for Plaintiffs to file their class certification

     motion is vacated.

  -- The parties are ordered to file a joint status report within
30
     days after mediation to inform the Court about the results of

     those efforts.

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

GENEDX HOLDINGS: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Merger Deal
--------------------------------------------------------
GeneDx Holdings Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 8, 2023, that on February 7, 2023, a
stockholder commenced a lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery.
The suit is brought as a class action on behalf of stockholders of
CM Life Sciences, Inc. (CMLS) who did not redeem their shares in
connection with the acquisition of GeneDX subsidiary Legacy Sema4
by CMLS.

The suit names as defendants all directors of CMLS at the time of
the transaction, including directors who continue to serve on the
company's board of directors, as well as CMLS Holdings LLC, the
Former Sponsor. The complaint alleges that the July 2, 2021 proxy
statement mailed to CMLS stockholders in connection with the
transaction contained false and misleading statements, and purports
to assert a claim of breach of fiduciary duty against all
individual defendants, and a similar claim against the former
sponsor and certain individuals for breach of fiduciary duty as
control persons. The suit seeks to recover unspecified damages on
behalf of the alleged class, among other relief. After defendants
moved to dismiss the case, plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
July.

GeneDx Holdings Corp. through its subsidiaries Sema4 OpCo, Inc.,
formerly Mount Sinai Genomics Inc. and GeneDx, LLC, provides
genomics-related diagnostic and information services and pursues
genomics medical research. It provides a variety of genetic
diagnostic tests, and screening solutions, and information with a
focus on pediatrics, rare diseases for children and adults, and
hereditary cancer screening.


GOOGLE INC: Must Provide Deposition Testimony in Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Google RTB Consumer Privacy
Litigation, Case No. 4:21-cv-02155-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Virginia K. Demarchi entered an order directing Google to provide
Rule 30(b)(6) deposition testimony regarding Topics 1, 4, 5, and 6,
and the four additional topics listed above in section III.A of the
August Order.

  -- Google is not required to provide Rule 30(b)(6) deposition
     testimony regarding Topics 3, 7, 8, and 9.

  -- While the Court does not endorse Google's lengthy delay in
     responding to plaintiffs' amended notice, plaintiffs offer no

     persuasive explanation for why they require this testimony
before
     September 29, 2023.

Google is an American multinational technology company focusing on
artificial intelligence, online advertising, search engine
technology, cloud computing, computer software, quantum computing,
e-commerce, and consumer electronics.

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

GOOGLE LLC: Case Management Order Entered in Hubbard Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICHOLE HUBBARD, et al.,
v. GOOGLE LLC, et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-07016-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered a case management order as
follows:

   (1) The presumptive limits on discovery set forth in the Federal

       Rules of Civil Procedure shall apply to this case unless
       otherwise ordered by the Court.

   (2) The deadline for joinder of any additional parties, or other

       amendments to the pleadings, is sixty days after entry of
this
       order unless stated otherwise below.

   (3) The deadline for the parties to meet, confer, and submit a
       stipulation and order setting all deadlines not set by the
       Court below, including discovery cut-offs and expert
disclosure
       deadlines, is October 6, 2023.

   (4) All disputes with respect to disclosures or discovery are
       referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge.

                  Event                      Date or Deadline

  Last Day to Request Leave to Amend       60 Days from Date of
  the Pleadings per F.R.Civ.P 15           this Order

  Last Day File Motion Class               June 7, 2024
  Certification

  Last Day to Hear Dispositive Motions     Feb. 13, 2025

  Final Pretrial Conference                May 15, 2025

  Trial                                    June 9, 2025

Google is an American multinational technology company focusing on
artificial intelligence, online advertising, search engine
technology, cloud computing, computer software, quantum computing,
e-commerce, and consumer electronics.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 7, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48h2ukZ at no extra charge.[CC]

GREG GOSSETT: Class Certification Order Amended in Ross Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ross v. Greg Gossett, et
al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00309 (S.D. Ill., Filed March 19, 2015), the
Hon. Judge Staci M. Yandle entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' Agreed motion to amend class certification Order.

  -- The Class Certification Order is amended to include Kaplan &
     Grady LLC as Class Counsel.

The suit states Prisoner Civil Rights.[CC]





GREG GOSSETT: Plaintiffs Seek to Include Kaplan & Grady as Counsel
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEMETRIUS ROSS, et al., v.
GREG GOSSETT, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00309-SMY (S.D. Ill.), the
Plaintiffs Demetrius Ross, Jonathan Tolliver, Ronald Smith, Kevin
Hamilton, and Glenn Verser, request that the Court amend its March
26, 2020 class certification order to include the law firm of
Kaplan & Grady LLC as class counsel.

On March 26, 2020, the Court certified a class of approximately
10,000 prisoners housed at four Illinois prisons in 2014 against 22
prison supervisors and administrators who oversaw prison-wide
shakedowns at the four prisons.

In its order, the Court appointed Loevy & Loevy and Uptown People's
Law Center, along with several specific attorneys (including the
undersigned) at those firms, as class counsel.

Since the Court's class certification order was entered, the
undersigned has changed firms and is now a partner with Kaplan &
Grady LLC. This motion seeks to amend the class certification order
in just one respect: to include Kaplan & Grady LLC among the firms
named as class counsel in this case.

Kaplan & Grady is a boutique litigation firm that handles
commercial and civil rights matters throughout the country. Its
founding partners, including the undersigned, have nearly a decade
of experience handling complex commercial and civil rights
litigation in both state and federal courts, including prosecuting
and defending putative and certified class actions.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 7, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3t6ec1u at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sarah Grady, Esq.
          KAPLAN & GRADY
          2071 N. Southport Ave., Ste. 205
          Chicago, IL 60614
          Telephone: (312) 852-2184
          E-mail: sarah@kaplangrady.com

GULF SHORES, AL: Both Parties Seek Approval of Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
OBA reports that Gulf Shores has been in litigation concerning
their charging of impacts fees on developers and how those fees are
used. The case, Wymer v. Gulf Shores, appears to be ending. Both
parties have filed a motion in Baldwin County Circuit Court for
approval of a settlement.

The lawsuit alleged that the city of Gulf Shores was improperly
charging property developers and misspending impact fees in the
city. Attorneys for the plaintiffs, Yates Anderson, filed the case
on behalf of all developers charges the fee between May 14, 2007
and March 23, 2009.

According to the initial suit, the State of Alabama has a limit on
such fees that do not allow them to exceed 1% of the developments
assessed value upon completion. Those fees are then only allowed to
be used on improvements the City must do to facilitate for the
development.

For the settlement to become final, a notice of the lawsuit will be
published in a newspaper for 30 days and members of the class will
have the opportunity to object or opt out of the settlement. [GN]

HEALTH ENROLLMENT: Court Tosses Ketayi Bid to Supplement Briefing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ketayi, et al., v. Health
Enrollment Group, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01198 (S.D. Cal.), the
Hon Judge Robert S. Huie entered an order denying the Plaintiffs'
ex parte motion to supplement briefing.

  -- The opposed ex parte motion fails to establish good cause, and

     additionally, is moot in light of the Court's Order denying
class
     certification.

The nature of sui states Torts - Personal Property - Other
Fraud.[CC]

HENNESSY PARK: Court Tosses Lomonosov Bid for Collective Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOMONOSOV, ET AL., V.
HENNESSY PARK MGMT, LLC, ET AL., Case No. 1:22-cv-05522-LDH-RER
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr., entered an order
denying the Plaintiff's motion for collective action.

The Court said, "The Plaintiff has not provided anything that
points to the existence of a similarly situated collective. At this
stage, the Court does not find discovery into names and address of
potential plaintiffs appropriate. Accordingly, plaintiff's
application is denied."

The Plaintiff Lomonosov brings this action individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated against Defendants Hennessy
Park MGMT, LLC, d/b/a Vis-a-Vis Restaurant and Lounge and Hennessy
Park Realty, LLC, as well as against Karen Avanesov, Aleksandr
Falikman, Arkady C., Stanislav a/k/a Stas, and Igor for violations
of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), and the New
York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL").

According to the Complaint, Defendants employed Plaintiff from June
15, 2022, through August 26, 2022, during which time he worked
approximately seventy-five hours per week.

The Plaintiff claims that his tips were unlawfully withheld, that
he often observed head waiters taking all the tips, and that no
credit card tips were dispersed to him. He asserts that he received
his wages in cash-filled envelopes, which were signed by head
waiters and the general manager, and that he never received
paystubs or a breakdown of his hours worked.

The Defendants are New York-based companies that operate Vis-a-Vis,
a restaurant and nightclub serving Russian, French, and American
cuisine

A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Sept. 8, 2023, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZvAI0e at no
extra charge.[CC]
 


HOPE CREDIT: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due May 2, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARGARET MARTINEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
HOPE CREDIT, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01003-BNW (D. Nev.), the Parties
file a joint proposed discovery plan and scheduling order.

   1. The proposed cut-off date for discovery        July 31, 2024
      shall be:

   2. All motions to amend the pleadings or          Feb. 2, 2024
      to add parties shall be filed no
      later than:

   3. Disclosures and reports concerning             April 2, 2024
      experts shall be made by:

   4. The final date to file the motion for          May 2, 2024
      class certification shall not be
      later than:

   5. The date for filing dispositive                Aug.  30,
2024
      motions shall not be later than:

   6. The date for filing the joint                  Sept.  30,
2024
      pretrial order shall not be
      later than:

   7. The Parties shall make initial                 Sept. 15,
2023
      disclosures on or before:

Hope Credit is a financial loan company that specializes in loan
debt management services.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 7, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sZpVz9 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gustavo Ponce, Esq.
          Mona Amini, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          6787 W. Tropicana Ave., Suite 250
          Las Vegas, NV 89103
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: gustavo@kazlg.com
                  mona@kazlg.co

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christopher Reade, Esq.
          Rowland Graff, Esq.
          COREY READE DOWS & SHAFER
          1333 North Buffalo Drive, Suite 210
          Las Vegas, NV 89128

INFOARMOR INC: Munoz Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lorena Munoz, an Arizona
resident; v. Infoarmor, Inc., an Arizona company; Case No.
2:23-cv-01731-SMB (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order:

   (1) Conditionally certifying the case as a collective action
       pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act
       ("FLSA") consisting of:

       "All persons who work[ed] for Defendant Infoarmor, Inc.
within
       the past three years; who work[ed] over 40 hours in any
given
       workweek as a past or present worker; who worked on an
hourly
       basis; who did not receive overtime compensation for all
hours
       worked off the clock;"

   (2) Authorizing Opt-In procedure; and

   (3) For any such other relief as this Court deems just and
proper.

The Court order Defendants to produce within three days of its
order, a list in electronic and importable format, of all workers
including: (1) their full name; (2) all mailing addresses; (3) all
email addresses (work and personal); (4) employee identification
number, if any; (5) last four digits of their social security
number; (6) dates of employment; and (7) phone numbers.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages for herself
and the Collective Members, requiring the proper payment of
overtime wages to workers, under the collective action mechanism of
the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).

InfoArmor offers privacy management and identity protection
services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 7, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Rx9bt0 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Barrat, Esq.
          WEILER LAW PLLC
          5050 N. 40th St., Suite 260
          Phoenix, AZ 85018
          Telephone: (480) 442-3410
          Facsimile: (480) 442-3410
          E-mail: jbarrat@weilerlaw.com
                  www.weilerlaw.com


INJURED WORKERS: Fact Discovery Due June 10, 2024
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Webb, et al., v. Injured
Workers Pharmacy, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-10797 (D. Mass, Filed May
24, 2022), the Hon. Judge Richard G. Stearns entered an order
denying the motion to dismiss as to Counts I and VI of the
Complaint.

  -- Initial disclosures required by              Oct. 3, 2023
     Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) must be
     completed by:

  -- All amendments to the pleadings and/or       Dec. 3, 2023
     joinder of additional defendants shall
     be completed by:

  -- The court will permit 30 interrogatories,    Nov. 3, 2023
     30 requests for admissions, and 30
     Document requests without leave of
     Court  expects those requests to be
     Filed  the opposing counsel within
     30 days of the initial disclosures
     no later than:

  -- All fact discovery must be completed         June 10, 2024
     no later than:

  -- Because the court has set a generous         May 30, 2024
     discovery period, it will entertain
     extension requests only with a
     statement of good cause. If the parties
     are unable to agree as to the definition
     of the class, they must notify the court
     by:

  -- The Plaintiffs shall designate expert(s)     July 10, 2024
     and serve Rule 26(a)(2) reports
     no later than:

  -- Defendant's expert witness(es) will be       Aug. 10, 2024
     designated and Rule 26(a)(2) reports
     filed no later than:

  -- Expert discovery must be completed by:       Sept. 10, 2024

  -- Dispositive Motions (if any) are due by:     Oct. 1, 2024

Injured Workers' Pharmacy is a company that delivers medication to
the victims of on-the-job accidents.[CC]

KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 14, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RODERICK ROBERSON, MICHAEL
HUDSON, DYLON WHITE, CALEB SCHMITT, JUSTIN BERBERICH, CHRIS ULRICH,
RON COLLINS, v. THE KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO., Case No.
4:22-cv-00358-RK (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Roseann A. Ketchmark
entered a second amended scheduling order and trial order:

                                                  Deadlines

  Completion of Expert Discovery                   Jan. 14, 2024

  Motion for Class Certification                   Feb. 14, 2024

  Initial Pretrial Conference                      Aug. 16, 2024

  Final Pretrial Conference                        Sept. 13, 2024

  Trial Date                                       Sept. 16, 2024

  Motions in Limine                                14 days prior to

                                                   initial pretrial

                                                   conference

  Cross-Exam Deposition Designations               10 days prior to

                                                   initial pretrial

                                                   conference

Kansas City Southern offers railway services for shipping and
mobility of people and cargo.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 11, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/460AL6o at no extra charge.[CC]

KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Settlement in Martinez Gets Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT MARTINEZ, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
v. KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION, INC. dba ARIZONA KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION,
INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-01730-SKO (E.D. Cal.), the the Hon. Judge
Sheila K. Oberto entered an order vacating hearing and granting
motion for final approval of class action settlement and granting
motion for attorney's fees and costs:
   
   1. The hearing set for September 20, 2023, is vacated.

   2. The proposed class identified in the settlement agreement
      certified for settlement purposes.

   3. The Plaintiff's motion for final approval of a class action
      settlement is granted, and the Court approves the settlement
as
      fair, reasonable, and adequate

   4. The Named plaintiff Robert Martinez is confirmed as class
      Representative.

   5. The Plaintiff's counsel Ackermann & Tilajef, P.C. and
      HammondLaw, PC are confirmed as coclass counsel;

   6. Atticus Administration, LLC is confirmed as the settlement
      administrator.

   7. The Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and costs.

   8. The Court awards the following sums:

      a. Class counsel shall receive $100,000 in attorney's fees
and
         $13,289.31 in expenses. Class counsel shall not seek or
         obtain any other compensation or reimbursement from
         Defendant, Plaintiff, or Class Members;

      b. Plaintiff shall receive $10,000 as a service award;

      c. Atticus Administration, LLC shall receive $29,558 in
         settlement administration costs; and

      d. The parties shall direct payment of 75 percent of the
         settlement allocated to the PAGA payment, or $15,000, to
the
         California Labor and Workforce Development Agency as
required
         by California law, and the remainder of the PAGA payment,
or
         $5,000, shall be distributed per the settlement agreement;


The Court previously summarized Plaintiff’s allegations in its
March 27, 2023, order granting Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary
approval of a class action settlement and conditional class
certification and will not repeat the factual background in this
order.

Knight is a truckload carrier offering dry van, refrigerated,
intermodal and brokerage services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 11, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rnsVVr at no extra charge.[CC]

KRAFT HEINZ: Lawyers Gets $90M of $450M Settlement Over Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland of Cook County Record reports that the attorneys who
led a class action on behalf of investors who claimed financial
losses from the Kraft Heinz merger are in line to receive $90
million in fees carved out of a $450 million settlement.

U.S. District Judge Jorge Alonso issued an order Sept. 19 formally
awarding fees and litigation expenses to lawyers from the firm of
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, of Radnor, Pennsylvania, and San
Francisco, who represented named plaintiffs Sjunde AP-Fonden and
Booker Enterprises, as well as others from the firm of Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossman, of New York, who represented Union
Asset Management Holding.

Plaintiff reimbursements include Sjunde AP-Fonden getting $12,780,
Union Asset Management Holding collecting $73,950 and Booker
Enterprises receiving $27,610.

Alonso said the fee award represents 20% of the settlement fund,
along with $2.6 million in litigation expenses, which is down from
the maximum possible request of $3.2 million. He said the the
lawyers who worked on the case will be paid based on determinations
made by the "lead counsel . . . which they, in good faith, believe
reflects the contributions of such counsel to the institution,
prosecution, and settlement of the" class action.

The underlying litigation dates to February 2019, when lawyers from
Mololamken, of Chicago, and Rosen Law Firm, of New York, brought a
putative class action on behalf of named plaintiff George Hedick
Jr., seeking to represent anyone who bought Kraft stock from May
14, 2017, through Feb. 21, 2019. Named defendants included Kraft
Heinz and three officers: CEO Bernando Hees and Paulo Basilio, who
served as chief financial officer and executive vice president from
June 2015 until Oct. 1, 2017, and his successor, David Knopf.

The complaint, filed in federal court in Chicago, accused the
company and executives of violating U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission rules via more than 100 "materially false and misleading
statements" through several filings attesting to disclosure
controls and procedures as well as internal financial reporting
processes. "The truth” emerged, according to the complaint, in a
Feb. 21, 2019, earnings announcement when Kraft detailed a $15.4
billion "impairment charge" and disclosed the SEC had subpoenaed
the company in October 2018.

Specifically, the complaint alleged the company slashed costs
across a sprawling product line to temporarily boost earnings
before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. Plaintiffs
alleged the long-term result was permanent damage to the value of
many individual brands under the giant corporate umbrella. The
complaint said the Feb. 21 disclosures caused Kraft shares to fall
more than 27% the next day, closing at $34.95.

After initial settlement motions in May, the Aug. 8 motions for
settlement and attorney compensation indicated the new named
plaintiffs and legal representation. Alonso said notice of the fee
request was not only sent to all members of the settlement class --
including 1.6 million postcards and 5,600 packets -- but also
published in The Wall Street Journal and sent through public
relations channels in accordance with court guidelines.

Alonso also said the lawyers' fee request was "reviewed and
approved as reasonable by plaintiffs, sophisticated investors that
actively supervised the action." He noted receipt of only two
objections to the fee, "which the court has considered and
rejected." At the time of the Aug. 8 motion for fees, the law firms
asserted the first objector's complaint was "virtually identical to
series of other objections that he has submitted in unrelated,
factually distinct cases."

Lawyers representing the plaintiffs reported spending more than
112,000 hours on the case with a lodestar value of almost $53
million. Although a steep drop from the maximum potential damages
of $4.3 billion, the $450 million cash payout "will be the largest
pretrial securities class action settlement ever in the Seventh
Circuit," according to the motion for legal fees. The U.S. Seventh
Circuit covers federal courts in the states of Illinois, Indiana
and Wisconsin. [GN]

KROGER CO: Class Cert Bid Filing in Kirkbride Due Feb. 26, 2024
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUDY KIRKBRIDE, et al., v.
THE KROGER CO., Case No. 2:21-cv-00022-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the the
Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers entered an order:

  -- Granting the Plaintiff's unopposed Motion seeking to dismiss
     without prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

     21, Plaintiff Melody Mackert's claims against The Kroger Co.;


  -- Dismissing without prejudice Plaintiff Melody Mackert's claims

     against The Kroger Co. without prejudice; and

  -- Granting the parties' Agreed Joint Motion to Modify Case
     Management Schedule as follows:

       End of Class discovery due by:            Jan. 25, 2024

       The Plaintiffs to move for class          Feb. 26, 2024
       certification and file any expert
       reports in support thereof by:

       The Defendant to depose Plaintiffs'       April 26, 2024
       experts by:

       The Defendant to file opposition          May 28, 2024
       to class certification and file
       any expert reports in support by:

       The Plaintiffs to depose Defendant's      June 27, 2024
       experts by:

Kroger is an American retail company that operates supermarkets and
multi-department stores throughout the United States.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 11, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/452xMJF at no extra charge.[CC]

LASERSHIP INC: Deadlines to Amend Any Pleadings Held in Abeyance
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL WEST, ROMAINE
CLARKE, RYON MORGAN, and SAADALA ABOULESSAN, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. LASERSHIP, INC.,
SO SURE TRANSPORTS INC., RICHARD GRACE AND RICHARD LLC, and UNKNOWN
SUBCONTRACTOR COMPANIES A-Z, Case No. 1:21-cv-05382-LTS-SLC
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sarah L. Cave entered an order
continuing to hold in abeyance the deadlines to amend any
pleadings, join other parties, and file motions, including
Lasership's anticipated motion for judgment on the pleadings and
Plaintiffs' anticipated motions for conditional collective and
class certification.

LaserShip is a regional last-mile delivery company that services
the Eastern and Midwest United States.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 11, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46ehbUF at no extra charge.[CC]



LIGHT & WONDER INC: Faces Antitrust Suit over Card Shuffler Patents
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Light & Wonder, Inc. (L&W) disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that it is currently facing
an antitrust suit over automatic card shuffler patents filed on
April 2, 2021 by Casino Queen, Inc. and Casino Queen Marquette,
Inc.

Said putative class action complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against L&W,
Bally Technologies, Inc. and LNW Gaming, Inc. (formerly Bally
Gaming, Inc). In the complaint, the plaintiffs assert federal
antitrust claims arising from the defendants' procurement of
particular U.S. patents used to create an allegedly illegal
monopoly in the market for automatic card shufflers sold or leased
in the United States. The plaintiffs seek to represent a putative
class of all persons and entities that directly purchased or leased
automatic card shufflers within the United States from the
defendants, or any predecessor, subsidiary, or affiliate thereof,
at any time between April 1, 2009, and the present. The complaint
seeks unspecified money damages, which the complaint asks the court
to treble, the award of plaintiffs’ costs of suit, including
attorneys’ fees, and the award of pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest.

On June 11, 2021, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' complaint, which the court denied on May 19, 2022

Light & Wonder, Inc. is a cross-platform global games company with
a focus on content and digital markets which includes supplying
game content and gaming machines, casino-management systems and
table game products and services to licensed gaming entities;
providing social casino and other mobile games, including casual
gaming, to retail customers; and providing a comprehensive suite of
digital gaming content, distribution platforms, player account
management systems, as well as various other iGaming content and
services.


LIGHT & WONDER INC: Faces Boorn Suit Over Illegal Gambling
----------------------------------------------------------
Light & Wonder, Inc. (L&W) disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that on September 15, 2022,
plaintiff Hannelore Boorn filed a putative class action against
L&W, SciPlay Corporation, and Appachi Media Ltd. in the Fayette
Circuit Court of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

In her complaint, plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of
all persons in Kentucky who, within the past five years, purchased
and allegedly lost $5.00 or more worth of chips, in a 24-hour
period, playing SciPlay's online social casino games. The complaint
asserts claims for alleged violations of Kentucky's "recovery of
gambling losses' statute and for unjust enrichment, and seeks
unspecified money damages, the award of reasonable attorneys’
fees and costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and injunctive
and/or other declaratory relief.

On October 18, 2022, defendants removed the action to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. On
October 26, 2022, the plaintiff filed a notice voluntarily
dismissing the lawsuit without prejudice. On October 27, 2022, the
district court entered an order dismissing the lawsuit. On November
17, 2022, the plaintiff filed an arbitration demand against
defendants before the American Arbitration Association, pursuant to
which she seeks declaratory judgments that SciPlay's online social
casino games constitute gambling under Kentucky law, and SciPlay's
terms of service are void under Kentucky law.

On January 12, 2023, the respondents filed their answering
statement to plaintiff's arbitration demand.

Light & Wonder, Inc. is a cross-platform global games company with
a focus on content and digital markets which includes supplying
game content and gaming machines, casino-management systems and
table game products and services to licensed gaming entities;
providing social casino and other mobile games, including casual
gaming, to retail customers; and providing a comprehensive suite of
digital gaming content, distribution platforms, player account
management systems, as well as various other iGaming content and
services.


LIME LUSH: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Bodie Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
KAREN BODIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LIME LUSH BOUTIQUE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-14277 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 28, 2023) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

LIME LUSH BOUTIQUE, LLC operates as an online boutique retailer of
women's apparel, footwear, and accessories. The Company offers
blouses, hoodies, sweaters, jackets, pants, leggings, skirts,
shorts, dresses, rompers, jumpsuits, heels, sandals, boots,
jewelry, bras, belts, handbags, purses, socks, and hair
accessories. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
                 gberg@shamisgentile.com

LITIGATION PRACTICE: Beech Seeks to Certify Three Classes
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROLYN BEECH, on behalf
of herself and the class members described below, v. THE LITIGATION
PRACTICE GROUP, PC; TONY M. DIAB; DANIEL MARSH; VALIDATION
PARTNERS, LLC; RUSS SQUIRES; WES THOMAS; VULCAN CONSULTING GROUP
LLC; JAYDE TRINH; OAKSTONE LAW GROUP PC, Case No.
1:22-cv-00057-HSO-BWR (S.D. Miss.), the Plaintiff Beech requests
certification of three classes, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)
and 23(b)(3):

  -- Class A consists of:

     "All persons who, on or after March 17, 2017 (five years prior
to
     the filing of this action), entered into contracts with
Defendant
     The Litigation Practice Group, PC, which contracts were not
     cancelled within three business days, that provide for monthly

     payments before services are fully performed."

  -- Class B consists of:

     "All persons who, on or after March 17, 2017, entered into
     contracts with Defendant LPG, which contracts were not
cancelled
     within three business days, and who were not provided with the

     written statement described in 15 U.S.C. section 1679c(a).

  -- Class C consists of:

     "All persons who, on or after March 17, 2017, entered into
     contracts with Defendant LPG, which contracts were not
cancelled
     within three business days, and who were not provided with
both
     (a) a conspicuous statement in bold face type, in immediate
     proximity to the space reserved for the consumer's signature
on
     the contract, which reads as follows: "You may cancel this
     contract without penalty or obligation at any time before
     midnight of the 3rd business day after the date on which you
     signed the contract. See the attached notice of cancellation
form
     for an explanation of this right" and (b) a separate notice of

     cancellation form."

     Residents of Georgia are excluded from the classes. The three

     classes are largely coterminous. There are approximately
67,000
     class members.

Litigation Practice is a legal firm that deals with bankruptcy,
civil litigation, harassment, and commercial litigation cases.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 12, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/453AxtZ at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Graeber, Esq.
          JASON GRAEBER LAW OFFICE
          250 Beauvoir Road, Suite 4C
          Biloxi, MS 39501
          Telephone: (228) 207-7117
          E-mail: jason@jasongraeberlaw.com

                - and -

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Tara L. Goodwin, Esq.
          Matthew J. Goldstein, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603-1824
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com

LONG BEACH, CA: Seeks Denial of Guma Leave to File Class Cert Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Guma, et al. v. City of
Long Beach, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-04529-DLI-JMW (E.D.N.Y.), the
Defendant City of Long Beach asks the Court to enter an order
denying the Plaintiffs leave to file their class certification
motion at this juncture because, assuming arguendo that their
claims had merit, it is readily apparent that Plaintiffs would not
be able to meet their burden of proof.

At the outset, the City disputes Plaintiffs' claim that the City
has been non-responsive on class certification. During their our
last conversation, the Plaintiffs' counsel advised that he intended
to amend the Complaint to add additional named plaintiffs and
potentially one or more employees of the City as defendants. We
were never asked to stipulate to class certification, which is not
surprising since Plaintiffs have yet to articulate the precise
contours of the class being proposed, the Defendants says.

Though Plaintiffs allege that all of the 270-300 proposed class
members had their vehicles seized under a City program targeting
individuals with multiple unpaid parking tickets ("scofflaws"), the
City's records show that less than 40 individuals had their vehicle
seized as scofflaws. Admittedly, Plaintiffs are not in possession
of these records, but this only serves to highlight the reasons why
the Court should not rule on a motion for class certification until
discovery has taken place.

Long Beach is an oceanfront city in Nassau County in New York.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Sept. 11, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45Zm3fU at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mark A. Cuthbertson, Esq.
          Matthew DeLuca, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. CUTHBERTSON
          434 New York Avenue,
          Huntington, NY 11743
          Telephone: (631) 351-3501
          Facsimile: (631) 427-9507


LOS ANGELES, CA: Hunt Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in Labor Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Bryan Hunt filed an appeal from the District Court's
Orders dated July 6 and August 22, 2023 entered in the lawsuit
styled BRYAN HUNT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES; COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES;
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-06059-PA-RAO, in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case arose from the
Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the
California Business and Professions Code including failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, and unfair business
practices.

On July 27, 2021, the lawsuit was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

At the hearing held on August 2, 2021, Judge Percy Anderson held
that the Notice of Removal is procedurally defective because the
City has not consented or joined in the Notice of Removal.
Moreover, the Notice of Removal did not include a sufficient
explanation for the absence of a joinder by the City, or any reason
why the City's joinder was not necessary.

Defendant County of Los Angeles filed a motion for reconsideration
of this ruling, which the court denied on September 15, 2021. Judge
Anderson ruled that it lacks jurisdiction to consider the County's
Motion for Reconsideration and that even if it could consider the
Motion, the County has failed to satisfy its burden to establish
that reconsideration is warranted.

On May 15, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment
as to all remaining claims for relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

On June 5, 2023, the Plaintiff filed an opposition to motion for
summary judgment as to as to all claims for relief under the FLSA.

On July 6, 2023, Judge Percy Anderson entered an Order that
Plaintiff's time spent at the hotel during the training program is
not compensable under 29 C.F.R. 553.226(c) and 785.23. The
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment was denied, and the
County's Motion for Summary Judgment was granted. Moreover,
judgment was granted in favor of Defendant on Plaintiff's Third and
Fourth Causes of Action, and Plaintiff's First Cause of Action for
violation of the California Private Attorneys General Act and
Second Cause of Action for violation of the California Business and
Professions Code were dismissed without prejudice. The Plaintiff
shall take nothing and Defendant shall have its costs of suit,
added the Court.  

On August 22, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration through an Order signed by Judge Anderson.

The appellate case is captioned as Bryan Hunt v. County of Los
Angeles, et al., Case No. 23-55778, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on September 15, 2023.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Bryan Hunt Mediation Questionnaire was due on
September 22, 2023;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by October 13, 2023;

   -- Transcript is due on November 13, 2023;

   -- Appellant Bryan Hunt opening brief is due on December 22,
2023;

   -- Appellee County of Los Angeles answering brief is due on
January 22, 2024; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant BRYAN HUNT, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Charles Ray, Esq.
          REY AND SEYB, LLP
          17671 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 208
          Tustin, CA 92780
          Telephone: (949) 734-7333      

Defendants-Appellees COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a public entity, et
al., are represented by:

          Geoffrey S. Sheldon, Esq.
          Elizabeth Arce, Esq.  
          LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE
          6033 W Century Boulevard, 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90045-6415
          Telephone: (310) 981-2086

LOUISIANA: Faces Class Suit Over Farm Work Requirements
-------------------------------------------------------
Michael Carroll of Louisiana Record reports that Louisiana State
Penitentiary inmates have filed a class action against public
safety officials, alleging that they were illegally required to
perform agricultural work at the Angola prison during humid,
triple-digit weather for 2 cents an hour or less.

New Orleans-based Voice of the Experienced, a nonprofit group of
former inmates, and several current inmates filed the federal
lawsuit Sept. 16 in the Middle District of Louisiana. The
defendants include prison officials, the state Department of Public
Safety and Corrections and Prison Enterprises Inc.

"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,'" the lawsuit states. "Some are paid two
cents an hour for their labor. Many are paid nothing at all."

The complaint alleges that defendants violated inmates' Eighth
Amendment right to be protected from cruel and unusual punishment
and failed to fulfill their obligation to provide inmates with
disabilities accommodations and services outlined in the Americans
With Disabilities Act. In addition, the lawsuit argues that those
obligated to work on the Farm Line who were convicted of offenses
by non-unanimous juries suffered 13th Amendment violations stemming
from  "involuntary servitude."

The Department of Public Safety and Corrections declined to comment
on the lawsuit because the agency has yet to be served with the
lawsuit.

The Massachusetts-based Prison Policy Initiative, which is not a
party to the litigation, has done research into labor practices in
U.S. prisons, including unsafe heat conditions in prison buildings.
Its spokesman, Mike Wessler, said a lack of air conditioning in
certain prisons can be considered cruel and unusual punishment.

"If simply existing in a building that has no air conditioning can
be cruel and unusual punishment, then being forced to work and to
toil in unsafe temperatures in direct sunlight could almost
certainly be considered, from a legal standpoint, cruel and unusual
punishment," Wessler told the Louisiana Record.

Inmates serving sentences lasting a few years shouldn't have to put
their lives at risk by working in dangerous summer conditions as
part of a manual agricultural workforce, he said.

"Both from a legal and moral standpoint, the choice to force people
to work in these unsafe conditions seems unimaginable," Wessler
said.

Last year, Louisiana voters had a chance to end forced labor at the
Louisiana State Penitentiary by voting in favor of a constitutional
amendment prohibiting "slavery and involuntary servitude." That
measure went down to defeat. [GN]

MCALISTER'S FRANCHISOR: More Time to File Class Cert. Bid Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGORY PRATT and JOHN
PALMER, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons as defined herein, v. MCALISTER'S FRANCHISOR SPV LLC and
FOCUS BRANDS LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03055-MLB (N.D. Ga.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion
for class certification.

The Plaintiffs request that their time to file their Motion for
Class Certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and Civil Local
Rule of Practice for the United States District Court for the
Northern Disttict of Georgia 23.1(B) be enlarged and that the date
for the filing of the Motion be determined by this Honorable Court
after the conclusion of the Initial Case Management Conference held
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16.

On July 11, 2023, the Plaintiffs commenced this civil action by
filing their Class Action Complaint.

McAlister's primarily operates in the Computer Software Development
and Applications.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 11, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Zn4vIl at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          R. Brent Irby, Esq.
          IRBY LAW, LLC
          2201 Arlington Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 936-8281
          E-mail: brent@irbylaw.net

                - and -

          Trey J. Malbrough, Esq.
          THE MALBROUGH FIRM LLC
          Age Herald Building
          2107 Fifth Avenue North, Suite 301
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 701-0707
          E-mail: trey@tmbfirm.com

                - and -

          J. Benjamin Finley, Esq.
          N. Nickolas Jackson, Esq.
          THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.
          3535 Piedmont Road Building 14, Suite 230
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          E-mail: bfinley@thefinleyfirm.com
                  njackson@thefinleyfirm.com

MCALISTERS FRANCHISOR: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pratt, et al., v.
McAlisters Franchisor SPV LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-03055 (N.D.
Ga., Filed July 11, 2023), the Hon. Judge Michael L Brown entered
an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for extension of time to
file motion for class certification.

   -- The Court directs the Plaintiffs to file their motion for
class
      certification following the completion of the initial case
      management conference.

The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract.

McAlister's is in the Computer Software Development and
Applications business.[CC]



META PLATFORMS: Advertiser Plaintiffs' Class Cert Filing Due Oct. 6
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAXIMILIAN KLEIN, et al.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. META
PLATFORMS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD
(N.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulated and agreed subject to the
Court's approval:

  -- Advertiser Plaintiffs' deadline to           Sept 15, 2023
     serve complete reply class expert
     disclosures from Michael A. Williams
     and Kevin Kreitzman shall be:

  -- Depositions of Michael A. Williams,          Oct. 2, 2023
     Kevin Kreitzman, Catherine Tucker,
     and Yael Hochberg shall be completed
     by no later than:

  -- Advertiser Plaintiffs' deadline to           Oct. 6, 2023
     file class certification Daubert
     motions concerning Yael Hochberg
     and Catherine Tucker shall be:

  -- Meta's deadline to file class                Oct. 6, 2023
     certification Daubert motions
     concerning Kevin Kreitzman and
     Michael A. Williams shall also
     Be:

  -- The deadline to file oppositions             Oct. 20, 2023
     to the October 6, 2023 Daubert
     motions shall be:

  -- Replies in support of the                    Nov. 3, 2023
     October 6, 2023 Daubert motions
     shall be filed by:

Meta is a provider of social networking, advertising, and business
insight solutions.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 12, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/459njvH at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Yavar Bathaee, Esq.
          Andrew C. Wolinsky, Esq.
          Brian J. Dunne, Esq.
          Edward M. Grauman, Esq.
          BATHAEE DUNNE LLP
          445 Park Avenue, 9th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (332) 322-8835
          E-mail: yavar@bathaeedunne.com
                  awolinsky@bathaeedunne.com
                  bdunne@bathaeedunne.com
                  egrauman@bathaeedunne.com

                - and -

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          Theodore W. Maya, Esq.
          Henry Kelston, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500
          Burbank, CA 91505
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                  rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                  tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
                  hkelston@ahdootwolfson.com

                - and -

          Amanda F. Lawrence, Esq.
          Patrick J. McGahan, Esq.
          Michael P. Srodoski, Esq.
          Hal D. Cunningham, Esq.
          Daniel J. Brockwell, Esq.
          Patrick J. Rodriguez, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          156 South Main Street, P.O. Box 192
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Telephone: (860) 537-5537
          E-mail: alawrence@scott-scott.com
                  pmcgahan@scott-scott.com
                  msrodoski@scott-scott.com
                  hcunningham@scott-scott.com
                  dbrockwell@scott-scott.com
                  prodriguez@scott-scott.com

                - and -

          Keith J. Verrier, Esq.
          Austin B. Cohen, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          E-mail: kverrier@lfsblaw.com
                  acohen@lfsblaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Sonal N. Mehta, Esq.
          David z. Gringer, Esq.
          Ross E. Firsenbaum, Esq.
          Ryan Chabot, Esq.
          Paul Vanderslice, Esq.
          Ari Holtzblatt, Esq.
          Molly M. Jennings, Esq.
          Michaela P. Sewall, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE
          AND DORR LLP
          2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400
          Palo Alto, CA 94306
          Telephone: (650) 858-6000
          E-mail: Sonal.Mehta@wilmerhale.com
                  David.Gringer@wilmerhale.com
                  Ross.Firsenbaum@wilmerhale.com
                  Ryan.Chabot@wilmerhale.com
                  Paul.Vanderslice@wilmerhale.com
                  Ari.Holtzblatt@wilmerhale.com
                  Molly.Jennings@wilmerhale.com
                  Michaela.Sewall@wilmerhale.com

META PLATFORMS: Ill. Residents Must File Claim for $68M Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Schilke of Washington Examiner reports that Illinois
residents who used Instagram within the past eight years have six
days to file a claim in the state's $68 million class-action
lawsuit against the platform.

Meta, the umbrella company of Facebook and Instagram, allegedly
violated Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act by
"collecting and storing biometric identifiers and/or biometric
information," such as physical characteristics, which can be used
to identify people.

Eligible recipients include those who used Instagram while in
Illinois at any time between Aug. 10, 2015, and Aug. 16, 2023. The
settlement administrator said the payout includes both minors and
adults.

Meta denies the allegations but agreed to reach a settlement with
the state. The Instagram suit follows several settlements between
the state and Big Tech companies such as Google and Facebook,
resulting in hundreds of Illinois residents receiving payouts.
Eligible Illinois residents have until Sept. 27 to file a claim and
receive a portion of the $68.5 million settlement. Those who wished
to be exempt from the terms of the settlement had to file a letter
by Aug. 16, 2023. Those who wanted to stay in the settlement class
but wanted to object to the settlement or the payouts needed to
file an objection by Aug. 16, as well.

The settlement fund will pay for all settlement payments,
settlement administration expenses, taxes, and tax expenses,
service awards to class representatives, and fee awards to class
counsel.

The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Oct.
11. A court decision will be released at a pending date after the
hearing, and payments will be distributed to those who submitted a
claim.

Those who are eligible can file a claim at
instagrambipasettlement.com. [GN]

META PLATFORMS: Parties Must File Class Cert Bid by Oct. 6
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Klein, et al v. Facebook,
Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-08570 (N.D. Cal., Filed Dec. 03, 2020), the
Hon Judge James Donato entered a scheduling order as follows:

  -- Depositions of Michael A. Williams,         Oct. 2, 2023
     Kevin Kreitzman, Catherine
     Tucker, and Yael Hochberg will be
     completed by:

  -- Parties will file class certification       Oct. 6, 2023
     Daubert motions concerning Yael
     Hochberg, Catherine Tucker, Kevin
     Kreitzman, and Michael A. Williams
     by:

  -- Oppositions to the class certification      Oct. 20, 2023
     Daubert motions will be filed by:

  -- Replies will be filed by:                   Nov. 3, 2023

The nature of suit states antitrust related violations.

Meta Platforms, Inc., doing business as Meta, and formerly named
Facebook, Inc. Facebook is an American multinational technology
conglomerate based in Menlo Park, California.[CC]

META PLATFORMS: Parties Seek to Modify Sealing Procedures
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAXIMILIAN KLEIN, et al.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. META
PLATFORMS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD
(N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order modifying
sealing procedures relating to class certification briefing and
related documents.

  -- The parties shall file redacted versions of class
certification
     and (if necessary) Daubert briefs, as well as any responses
and
     replies to such motions, and any associated supporting
documents,
     as separate entries on the ECF docket.

  -- The parties shall also contemporaneously file unredacted
copies
     of all documents on the ECF docket provisionally under seal,
     along with a one-page interim sealing motion which may
indicate
     that the reasons for sealing will be discussed in a
forthcoming
     Omnibus Sealing Motion.


  -- The parties and any non-parties shall jointly file Omnibus
     Sealing Motions on November 21, 2023 (two-and-a-half weeks
after
     completion of class certification and Daubert motion
briefing),
     or any date that this Court chooses following the completion
of
     class certification and Daubert motion briefing.

Meta is a provider of social networking, advertising, and business
insight solutions.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 12, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZqsExD at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          E-mail: shanas@hbsslaw.com
                  steve@hbsslaw.com

                - and -

          W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          Brian D. Clark, Esq.
          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          Arielle S. Wagner, Esq.
          Kyle J. Pozan, Esq.
          Laura M. Matson, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com
                  rkshelquist@locklaw.com
                  bdclark@locklaw.com
                  rapeterson@locklaw.com
                  aswagner@locklaw.com
                  kjpozan@locklaw.com
                  lmmatson@locklaw.com

                - and -

          Kevin Y. Teruya, Esq.
          Adam B. Wolfson, Esq.
          Claire D. Hausman, Esq.
          Brantley I. Pepperman, Esq.
          Michelle Schmit, Esq.
          Manisha M. Sheth, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543
          Telephone: (213) 443-3000
          E-mail: kevinteruya@quinnemanuel.com
                  adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com
                  clairehausman@quinnemanuel.com
                  brantleypepperman@quinnemanuel.com
                  michelleschmit@quinnemanuel.com
                  manishasheth@quinnemanuel.com

                - and -

          Yavar Bathaee, Esq.
          Andrew C. Wolinsky, Esq.
          Brian J. Dunne, Esq.
          Edward M. Grauman, Esq.
          BATHAEE DUNNE LLP
          445 Park Avenue, 9th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (332) 322-8835
          E-mail: yavar@bathaeedunne.com
                  awolinsky@bathaeedunne.com
                  bdunne@bathaeedunne.com
                  egrauman@bathaeedunne.com

                - and -

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          Theodore W. Maya, Esq.
          Henry Kelston, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500
          Burbank, CA 91505
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                  rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                  tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
                  hkelston@ahdootwolfson.com

                - and -

          Amanda F. Lawrence, Esq.
          Patrick J. McGahan, Esq.
          Michael P. Srodoski, Esq.
          Hal D. Cunningham, Esq.
          Daniel J. Brockwell, Esq.
          Patrick J. Rodriguez, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          156 South Main Street, P.O. Box 192
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Telephone: (860) 537-5537
          E-mail: alawrence@scott-scott.com
                  pmcgahan@scott-scott.com
                  msrodoski@scott-scott.com
                  hcunningham@scott-scott.com
                  dbrockwell@scott-scott.com
                  prodriguez@scott-scott.com

                - and -

          Keith J. Verrier, Esq.
          Austin B. Cohen, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          E-mail: kverrier@lfsblaw.com
                  acohen@lfsblaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Sonal N. Mehta, Esq.
          David z. Gringer, Esq.
          Ross E. Firsenbaum, Esq.
          Ryan Chabot, Esq.
          Paul Vanderslice, Esq.
          Ari Holtzblatt, Esq.
          Molly M. Jennings, Esq.
          Michaela P. Sewall, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE
          AND DORR LLP
          2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400
          Palo Alto, CA 94306
          Telephone: (650) 858-6000
          E-mail: Sonal.Mehta@wilmerhale.com
                  David.Gringer@wilmerhale.com
                  Ross.Firsenbaum@wilmerhale.com
                  Ryan.Chabot@wilmerhale.com
                  Paul.Vanderslice@wilmerhale.com
                  Ari.Holtzblatt@wilmerhale.com
                  Molly.Jennings@wilmerhale.com
                  Michaela.Sewall@wilmerhale.com

MOLEKULE INC.: Fact Discovery in Bassaw Due Jan. 8, 2024
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHIVAN BASSAW,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
MOLEKULE, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-04667-JPC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge John P. Cronan entered a civil case management plan and
scheduling order as follows:

  -- All fact discovery shall be completed         Jan. 8, 2024
     no later than:

  -- Initial requests for production of            Oct. 6, 2023
     documents shall be served by:

  -- Interrogatories shall be served by:           Oct. 6, 2023

  -- Depositions shall be completed by             Jan. 8, 2024

  -- All expert discovery, including expert        Feb. 22, 2024
     depositions, shall be completed no later
     than:

  -- Plaintiff's expert disclosures pursuant       Dec. 6, 2023
     to Rule 26(a)(2) of the Federal Rules
     of Civil Procedure shall be made on
     or before:

Molekule is a science and technology company headquartered in San
Francisco.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48B3rou at no extra charge.[CC]

NATIONAL VISION: Ct. Tosses Herrera Suit w/o Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL HERRERA, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, v. NATIONAL VISION, INC.;
and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-01350-LAB-WVG (S.D.
Cal.), the the Hon. Judge Larry Alan Burns entered an order
dismissing without prejudice the Herrera action pursuing his claims
on an individual basis.

"In the event the [Maisnier] court denies class certification,
[Herrera] may litigate his individual claims as an intervenor or
pursue his individual claims in a separate lawsuit."

Dismissing the action is "in the interest of efficiency and
judicial economy," the lawsuit says.

On August 16, 2023, Plaintiff Daniel Herrera and Defendant National
Vision, Inc. filed a joint stipulation to stay this class action
pending the resolution of an earlier-filed and overlapping action
in the Northern District of California entitled Maisnier v.
National Vision, Inc., Case No. 22-cv-7859-WHO.

On June 2, 2023, Plaintiff Daniel Herrera filed this class action
against National Visionin California Superior Court asserting seven
class claims for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages.

The class is defined as:

   "All persons who worked for National Vision in California as an

   hourly or non-exempt employee from June 2, 2019, to present."

National Vision retails optical products. The Company offers
frames, contact lenses, eyeglasses, and safety eyewear.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 11, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RuCegP at no extra charge.[CC]

NAVY FEDERAL: Sanchez Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Sharlene Sanchez filed an appeal from District Court's
Order dated August 14, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled
Sharlene Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Navy Federal Credit Union, Case No.
5:23-cv-00285, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, Riverside.

The complaint, filed on February 22, 2023, alleges that Navy
Federal encouraged its accountholders to sign up for and use the
new Zelle payment service, which allowed consumers to make Navy
Federal debit card transactions via Zelle. Aware that consumers
like Plaintiff would be hesitant to adopt a new payment methodology
without assurances that the methodology could be trusted, Navy
Federal and Zelle marketed Zelle as trustworthy and made express
contract promises that accountholders using Zelle would have "Zero
Fraud Liability" and all the same protections as exist for disputed
debit card transactions. The truth is the Zelle money transfer
system is rife with fraud. The Plaintiff and the Class members have
been injured by signing up for and using Zelle. The Plaintiff
brings this action on behalf of herself, and the putative Classes,
because Plaintiff should not be left "holding the bag" for
fraudulent transactions, says the suit.

On April 24, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case
which the Court granted on August 14, 2023 through an Order signed
by Judge Jesus G. Bernal.

The appellate case is captioned as Sharlene Sanchez v. Navy Federal
Credit Union, Case No. 23-55779, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on September 15, 2023.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Sharlene Sanchez Mediation Questionnaire was due on
September 22, 2023;

   -- Appellant Sharlene Sanchez opening brief is due on November
13, 2023;

   -- Appellee Navy Federal Credit Union answering brief is due on
December 13, 2023; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant SHARLENE SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
          KALIELGOLD, PLLC
          950 Gilman Street, Suite 200
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (202) 350-4783

               - and -

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          KALIELGOLD, PLLC
          1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 615-3948

Defendant-Appellee NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION is represented by:

          Christopher Thomas Casamassima, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR, LLP
          350 S Grand Avenue, Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443-5374

NEW YORK, NY: Azor-El Seeks Oct. 13 Extension to File Class Cert
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Azor-El v. New York City
Department of Corrections, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03650
(S.D.N.Y., Filed May 18, 2020), the Plaintiff seeks for a 14-day
extension of the deadline to file a motion for class
certification.

Fortunately, things are better health-wise, but modest additional
time is needed to write and file the motion and brief. We have
conferred with counsel for the Defendants, and the Defendants have
no objection to a 14-day extension of the class certification
deadline, up to and including October 13, 2023, the Plaintiff
contend.

The current class certification motion deadline is September 29,
2023.

The parties have completed class certification-related discovery,
and the Plaintiffs have made their class certification expert
disclosures, as reflected in the Notice of Service filed on the
Court's
docket.

The Plaintiffs in the action concerns conditions of confinement in
NYCDOC facilities during the pandemic.

The nature of suit states Prisoner Civil Rights.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 15, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/458aUIG at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by

          KEENAN & BHATIA, LLC
          www.keenanbhatia.com
          90 Broad Street, Suite 200
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (917) 975-5278

NEW YORK, NY: Barner Seeks Oct. 13 Extension to File Class Cert Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Barner v. New York City
Department of Corrections, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03978
(S.D.N.Y., Filed May 18, 2020), the Plaintiff seeks for a 14-day
extension of the deadline to file a motion for class
certification.

Fortunately, things are better health-wise, but modest additional
time is needed to write and file the motion and brief. We have
conferred with counsel for the Defendants, and the Defendants have
no objection to a 14-day extension of the class certification
deadline, up to and including October 13, 2023, the Plaintiff
contend.

The current class certification motion deadline is September 29,
2023.

The parties have completed class certification-related discovery,
and the Plaintiffs have made their class certification expert
disclosures, as reflected in the Notice of Service filed on the
Court's docket.

The Plaintiffs in the action concerns conditions of confinement in
NYCDOC facilities during the pandemic.

The nature of suit states Prisoner Civil Rights.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by

          KEENAN & BHATIA, LLC
          www.keenanbhatia.com
          90 Broad Street, Suite 200
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (917) 975-5278

NEW YORK, NY: Carter Seeks Oct. 13 Extension to File Class Cert.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Carter v. New York City
Department of Corrections, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03980
(S.D.N.Y., Filed May 18, 2020), the Plaintiff seeks for a 14-day
extension of the deadline to file a motion for class
certification.

Fortunately, things are better health-wise, but modest additional
time is needed to write and file the motion and brief. We have
conferred with counsel for the Defendants, and the Defendants have
no objection to a 14-day extension of the class certification
deadline, up to and including October 13, 2023, the Plaintiff
contend.

The current class certification motion deadline is September 29,
2023.

The parties have completed class certification-related discovery,
and the Plaintiffs have made their class certification expert
disclosures, as reflected in the Notice of Service filed on the
Court's
docket.

The Plaintiffs in the action concerns conditions of confinement in
NYCDOC facilities during the pandemic.

The nature of suit states Prisoner Civil Rights.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by

          KEENAN & BHATIA, LLC
          www.keenanbhatia.com
          90 Broad Street, Suite 200
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (917) 975-5278




NEW YORK, NY: Cole Seeks Oct. 13 Extension to File Class Cert Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cole v. New York City
Department of Corrections, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03981
(S.D.N.Y., Filed May 18, 2020), the Plaintiff seeks for a 14-day
extension of the deadline to file a motion for class
certification.

Fortunately, things are better health-wise, but modest additional
time is needed to write and file the motion and brief. We have
conferred with counsel for the Defendants, and the Defendants have
no objection to a 14-day extension of the class certification
deadline, up to and including October 13, 2023, the Plaintiff
contend.

The current class certification motion deadline is September 29,
2023.

The parties have completed class certification-related discovery,
and the Plaintiffs have made their class certification expert
disclosures, as reflected in the Notice of Service filed on the
Court's docket.

The Plaintiffs in the action concerns conditions of confinement in
NYCDOC facilities during the pandemic.

The nature of suit states Prisoner Civil Rights.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 15, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/462yiII at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by

          KEENAN & BHATIA, LLC
          www.keenanbhatia.com
          90 Broad Street, Suite 200
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (917) 975-5278



NEW YORK, NY: Court Certifies Class Suit Over City Youth Foster
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Fitzgerald of The Imprint reports that a federal appeals
court has granted New York City foster youth the go-ahead to
proceed with their lawsuit against the city and state child welfare
agencies, overturning a lower court ruling denying them
class-action status.

The September 19, 2023 decision by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals revived the long-running case, in which 19 young people are
alleging that the city's foster care system lacked appropriate
foster placements, provided poor care and case planning and
inadequate training standards for its caseworkers.

The case further asserted that the state fails "to effectively
exercise adequate and meaningful oversight over New York City's
Administration for Children's Services" and its contracted
agencies.

"This is a major decision analyzing and supporting the requirements
for the certification of a class," said Marcia Robinson Lowry,
founder and executive director of A Better Childhood. The nonprofit
law firm, together with the private practice firm Cravath, Swaine &
Moore, represented the children. "It is a significant victory for
children in the New York City foster care system." Lowry said.

The ruling is also noteworthy, she said, because it highlighted how
her clients have been subjected to practices by the Administration
for Children's Services (ACS) that "departed from its written
policies."

The 27-page appeal decision was authored by Judge Joseph F.
Bianco.

Two years ago, Southern District Court Judge Kimba Wood rejected
class certification for the 19 New York City foster youth,
questioning whether the group faced issues that were similar enough
to meet the qualifying legal standard.

Now, in what child advocates are hailing as an important reversal,
the appeals court agreed with the plaintiffs that the lower court
had "erred in its analysis" of class certification and ordered it
to reopen the matter.

State officials said they could not comment on the active
litigation. A spokesperson for the city's attorneys noted that the
September 19, 2023 decision did not address the most significant
issues at stake in the case.

"This ruling offered no opinion about either the merits of the
claims alleged in the case or the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, it simply returned the matter to the district court
to analyze plaintiffs' class certification motion under a more
particularized legal standard," said Nick Paolucci of the Law
Department. "The city remains confident that there remains no basis
for granting class certification in this litigation."

The defendants have opposed the class certification in court, and
argued the plaintiffs failed to submit sufficient evidence to
support their claims. In a 2021 statement, the Law Department
described "remarkable progress the City's Administration for
Children's Services has made in recent years," and accused the
plaintiffs at that time of a "six-year effort to force a
one-size-fits-all judicial remedy upon these complex and
challenging cases."

The foster youth allege the city and state violated their rights
under the First, Ninth and Fourteenth amendments of the U.S.
Constitution, and state and federal child welfare laws. They accuse
the city child welfare agency and the state's Office of Children
and Family Services of poor practices in matching children with
appropriate foster care placements, and unjustified delays in
filing termination of parental rights petitions against parents,
among other claims.

To date, the courts have not ruled regarding those and other
underlying allegations, and the lower court will need to again
decide on class-action certification before the case can proceed.
The appellate court's ruling doesn't guarantee certification, but
the plaintiffs' attorneys' statement noted it was a "strongly
worded" rejection of the lower court's previous approach.

Local and national youth advocates celebrated the ruling.

"This decision reaffirms that children in foster care can file
class actions to challenge systemic practices that are causing them
harm, where those deviate from the agency's written policies," said
Poonam Juneja, a senior managing director for the National Center
for Youth Law, a California-based nonprofit. "That was important."


'An historic role'

The case -- referred to as Elisa W. v. The City of New York, et al
-- was first filed in 2015, coinciding with the release of a
critical report on the New York City's child welfare agency
authored by the city's then-public advocate Letitia James.  

Elisa's horrific experience is described on A Better Childhood's
website. She was reportedly 17 at the time of the original legal
complaint, and had lost count of how many foster homes she'd grown
up in. She survived beatings, sexual and psychological abuse and
was forced to take powerful psychotropic medications. Another
plaintiff, Thierry -- who was 3 when the lawsuit was filed -- had
been separated from his mother for most of his life after she
"reported and expelled" her abuser husband.

At the time the suit was first filed eight years ago, seven
nonprofit legal aid groups representing New York City foster
children or their parents issued a statement calling the lawsuit
"misguided" and "myopic" for how it measured success in the foster
care system. They called a proposed settlement in the case -- which
was later tossed out in court and would have required years of
independent monitoring and prevented new lawsuits from foster
children -- a distraction from other meaningful reforms underway.

But at least one of those groups says the latest decision is
beneficial.

Lisa Freeman, a director for the Legal Aid Society's juvenile
rights division, pointed to the broader importance of class action
suits like these that can result in far-reaching systemic change.


"Class action litigation has played an historic role in the
protection of civil rights," Freeman said. "The Second Circuit's
decision in Elisa W. secures that role for children in the
government's care and ensures children have an opportunity to
vindicate their rights."

Two leading legal aid groups that represent parents accused of
maltreatment declined to comment on the latest development in the
case. In the past, some of these advocates opposed the suit because
it accuses the city of failing to comply with the federal deadlines
for terminating the rights of parents deemed unfit.

"Very often, whether intentionally or not, these cases create
pressure to increase the amount of system intervention in families,
and push towards more termination of parental rights and
adoptions," Chris Gottlieb, a child welfare scholar and law clinic
director at the New York University School of Law, told The Imprint
in 2021.

With the recent approval in the appeals court, attorneys for Elisa
W. and the others have vowed to continue.

"In addition to the impact this will have on the legal standard for
class certification in public interest class actions," reads a
joint statement A Better Childhood released September 20, 2023
along with Antony Ryan of co-counsel firm Cravath, Swaine & Moore,
"September 21, 2023's decision allows us to continue efforts in
this case to improve conditions for approximately 7,000 children in
the foster care system in New York City." [GN]

NEW YORK, NY: Gomez Seeks Oct. 13 Extension to File Class Cert Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gomez v. New York City
Department of Corrections, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03983
(S.D.N.Y., Filed May 18, 2020), the Plaintiff seeks for a 14-day
extension of the deadline to file a motion for class
certification.

Fortunately, things are better health-wise, but modest additional
time is needed to write and file the motion and brief. We have
conferred with counsel for the Defendants, and the Defendants have
no objection to a 14-day extension of the class certification
deadline, up to and including October 13, 2023, the Plaintiff
contend.

The current class certification motion deadline is September 29,
2023.

The parties have completed class certification-related discovery,
and the Plaintiffs have made their class certification expert
disclosures, as reflected in the Notice of Service filed on the
Court's
docket.

The Plaintiffs in the action concerns conditions of confinement in
NYCDOC facilities during the pandemic.

The nature of suit states Prisoner Civil Rights.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by

          KEENAN & BHATIA, LLC
          www.keenanbhatia.com
          90 Broad Street, Suite 200
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (917) 975-5278


NEW YORK, NY: Medina Seeks Oct. 13 Extension to File Class Cert Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Medina v. New York City
Department of Corrections, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03985
(S.D.N.Y., Filed May 18, 2020), the Plaintiff seeks for a 14-day
extension of the deadline to file a motion for class
certification.

Fortunately, things are better health-wise, but modest additional
time is needed to write and file the motion and brief. We have
conferred with counsel for the Defendants, and the Defendants have
no objection to a 14-day extension of the class certification
deadline, up to and including October 13, 2023, the Plaintiff
contend.

The current class certification motion deadline is September 29,
2023.

The parties have completed class certification-related discovery,
and the Plaintiffs have made their class certification expert
disclosures, as reflected in the Notice of Service filed on the
Court's
docket.

The Plaintiffs in the action concerns conditions of confinement in
NYCDOC facilities during the pandemic.

The nature of suit states Prisoner Civil Rights.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 15, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZyY1pZ at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by

          KEENAN & BHATIA, LLC
          www.keenanbhatia.com
          90 Broad Street, Suite 200
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (917) 975-5278

NEW YORK: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Two Classes & Subclass
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as M.G., P.C., C.J., M.J.,
J.R., D.R., S.D., W.P., and D.H., individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated, v. ANDREW CUOMO, in his official capacity as
the Governor of the State of New York, et al., Case No.
7:19-cv-00639-CS-AEK (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order, pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(g) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

  -- Certifying two classes and a subclass for Plaintiffs' claims
for
     injunctive and declaratory relief; and

  -- Appointing Disability Rights New York, The Legal Aid Society,
and
     Paul, Weiss, Wharton, Rifkind & Garrison LLP as class counsel
to
     the classes and subclass.

The Defendants include the NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF MENTAL HEALTH,
ANN MARIE T. SULLIVAN, in her official capacity as the Commissioner
of the New York State Office of Mental Health, the NEW YORK STATE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, ANTHONY J.
ANNUCCI, in his official capacity as the Acting Commissioner of the
New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision,
ANNE MARIE MCGRATH, in her official capacity as Deputy Commissioner
of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community
Supervision,

New York State Office of Mental Health (OMH) promotes the mental
health and well-being of all New Yorkers.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 8, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PXIU6l at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Elizabeth Woods, Esq.
          Sabina Khan, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS NEW YORK
          279 Troy Road, Ste 9, PMB 236
          Rensselaer, NY 12144
          Telephone: (518) 432-7861
          E-mail: elizabeth.woods@drny.org
                  sabina.khan@drny.org

                - and -

          Elena Landriscina, Esq.
          Stefen R. Short, Esq.
          Robert M. Quackenbush, Esq.
          Sophia A. Gebreselassie, Esq.
          The LEGAL AID SOCIETY
          199 Water Street, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 577-3530
          E-mail: elandriscina@legal-aid.org
                  sshort@legal-aid.org
                  rquackenbush@legal-aid.org
                  sgebreselassie@legal-aid.org

                - and -

          Crystal Parker, Esq.
          Walter G. Ricciardi, Esq.
          Emily A. Vance, Esq.
          Chantalle Hanna, Esq.
          Samuel Margolis, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON
          & GARRISON LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019-6064
          Telephone: (212) 373-3000
          E-mail: cparker@paulweiss.com
                  wricciardi@paulweiss.com
                  evance@paulweiss.com
                  channa@paulweiss.com
                  smargolis@paulweiss.com

NEW YORK: Seeks to Exclude Plaintiffs' Experts' Opinions
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as M.G., P.C., C.J., M.J.,
J.R., D.R., S.D., W.P., and D.H., individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated, v. ANDREW CUOMO, in his official capacity as
the Governor of the State of New York, et al., Case No.
7:19-cv-00639-CS-AEK (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to
enter an order excluding the opinions and testimony of Plaintiffs'
proposed class certification experts Melodie J. Peet and Dr. Robert
Factor.

The Defendants include the NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF MENTAL HEALTH,
ANN MARIE T. SULLIVAN, in her official capacity as the Commissioner
of the New York State Office of Mental Health, the NEW YORK STATE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, ANTHONY J.
ANNUCCI, in his official capacity as the Acting Commissioner of the
New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision,
ANNE MARIE MCGRATH, in her official capacity as Deputy Commissioner
of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community
Supervision.

New York State Office of Mental Health (OMH) promotes the mental
health and well-being of all New Yorkers.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Sept. 8, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rsDG8U at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Letitia James, Esq.
          Owen T. Conroy, Esq.
          Gee Won Cha, Esq.
          Adam Sansolo, Esq.
          Caroline Wallitt, Esq.
          Owen T. Conroy
          ATTORNEY GENERAL
          STATE OF NEW YORK
          28 Liberty Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 416-6382
          E-mail: Owen.Conroy@ag.ny.gov

OLAM SPICES: Class Settlement in Beltran Suit Gets Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS BELTRAN, et al., v.
OLAM SPICES AND VEGETABLES, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-01676-JLT-SAB
(E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer Thurston entered an order
granting the Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the
Settlement.

  -- Certification of the Rule 23 Class and FLSA Collective is
     granted. The Rule 23 class is defined as follows:

     "All persons who were employed by Olam West Coast, Inc. in a
     position that Defendant classified as nonexempt and/or hourly

     non-exempt and worked in that capacity at Defendant's Fresno,

     Firebaugh, Hanford, Lemoore, Gilroy and/or Williams facilities
in
     California and for which Class Members and FLSA Members were
paid
     on a non-exempt basis ("Covered Position"), at any time during

     the period from July 7, 2011 through September 22, 2021, or
the
     estates of such individuals.

     The FLSA Collective includes:

     "All persons who were employed by Olam West Coast, Inc. at
     Defendant’s Fresno, Firebaugh, Hanford, Lemoore, Gilroy,
and/or
     Williams locations in one or more positions which were
classified
     as non-exempt and/or hourly nonexempt at any time during the
     period from July 7, 2011 to September 22, 2021."

  -- The Defendant shall fund the Total Settlement Fund within 30
     calendar days after the entry of this Final Approval Order and

     Judgment, in accordance with the Settlement Agreement.

  -- The PAGA award of $150,000.00 from the Gross Settlement Amount
--
     including payment of $112,500.00 to California’s Labor and
     Workforce Development Agency, with the remainder of $37,500
     distributed to aggrieved employees -- is approved.

  -- The request for a class representative service payments is
     granted in part, in the modified amount of $5,000.00 for
Beltran,
     Martinez, Cota, and Soloria; and $3,500.00 for Rivera.

  -- Counsel's motion for fees is granted in part, in the modified

     amount of 20% of the gross settlement amount, which totals
     $900,000.00.10.

  -- Counsel's request for expenses from the total settlement fund
is
     granted in the amount of $40,740.18 for Lawyers for Justice;
     14,666.97 for Lavi & Ebrahimian; and $6,785,72 for the Law
Office
     of Sahag Majarian II.

  -- Settlement administration costs in the amount of $78,187.00,
to
     be paid from the Total Settlement Fund, are approved.

  -- The Settlement Administrator shall distribute payments to the

     Participating Class Members and the Participating FLSA Members

     within 63 days after the entry of this order, according to the

     methods and terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

  -- The action is dismissed with prejudice, with each side to bear

     its own costs and attorneys' fees except as otherwise provided
by
     the Settlement and ordered by the Court.

  -- The Clerk of Court is directed to close this action.

The Plaintiffs seek to hold Olam liable for violations of state and
federal wage and hour laws. Plaintiffs now seek final approval of a
settlement reached in this action.

Olam offers garlic, onions, chilies, pepper, herbs, and tropical
spices.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PvM6Vd at no extra charge.[CC]

OLD DOMINION: Davis Class Complaint Tossed w/o Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HARVEY L. DAVIS, on behalf
of The Old Dominion 401(k) Retirement Plan, individually, and on
behalf Of all others similar situated, v. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT
LINE, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00990-TDS-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Hon.
Judge Thomas D. Schroeder entered an order that Old Dominion's
motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is
granted and the complaint is dismissed without prejudice.

The Court said, "Without any plausible allegations indicating that
Davis's own retirement account was injured by Old Dominion’s
alleged breach of fiduciary duty of prudence and failure to
adequately monitor other fiduciaries, Davis has not met his burden
of showing that he has suffered an injury-in-fact. Thus, he lacks
Article III standing to pursue his claim. Having found it lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over Davis's claim, the court need not
consider Old Dominion's motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6)."

The dispute arises from alleged violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Before the court is a
motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) filed by Defendant Old Dominion Freight Line,
Inc.

Davis brought this action against Old Dominion on behalf of the Old
Dominion 401(k) Retirement Plan on November 18, 2022.

Old Dominion is an American regional, inter-regional and national
less than truckload shipping company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Rr08tN at no extra charge.[CC]

 


OPENAI INC: Authors Guild Sues Over Chatbot ChatGPT Use
-------------------------------------------------------
Blake Brittain of Reuters reports that a trade group for U.S.
authors has sued OpenAI in Manhattan federal court on behalf of
prominent writers including John Grisham, Jonathan Franzen, George
Saunders, Jodi Picoult and "Game of Thrones" novelist George R.R.
Martin, accusing the company of unlawfully training its popular
artificial-intelligence based chatbot ChatGPT on their work.

The proposed class-action lawsuit filed late on September 19, 2023
by the Authors Guild joins several others from writers, source-code
owners and visual artists against generative AI providers. In
addition to Microsoft-backed (MSFT.O) OpenAI, similar lawsuits are
pending against Meta Platforms and Stability AI over the data used
to train their AI systems.

Other authors involved in the latest lawsuit include "The Lincoln
Lawyer" writer Michael Connelly and lawyer-novelists David Baldacci
and Scott Turow.

OpenAI and other AI defendants have said their use of training data
scraped from the internet qualifies as fair use under U.S.
copyright law.

An OpenAI spokesperson said on September 20, 2023 that the company
respects authors' rights and is "having productive conversations
with many creators around the world, including the Authors Guild."

Authors Guild CEO Mary Rasenberger said in a statement on September
20, 2023 that authors "must have the ability to control if and how
their works are used by generative AI" in order to "preserve our
literature."

The Authors Guild's lawsuit claims that the datasets used to train
OpenAI's large language model to respond to human prompts included
text from the authors' books that may have been taken from illegal
online "pirate" book repositories.

The complaint said ChatGPT generated accurate summaries of the
authors' books when prompted, indicating that their text is
included in its database.

It also cited growing concerns that authors could be replaced by
systems like ChatGPT that "generate low-quality ebooks,
impersonating authors and displacing human-authored books." [GN]

PICCOLO SOGNO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alvarez Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
JOHN ALVAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PICCOLO SOGNO PIZZERIA-TRATTORIA CORP.; and
MAURIZIO BORTOLUS, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-07261 (E.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 28, 2023) is an action against the Defendant for failure to
pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals, and
provide accurate wage statements.

Plaintiff Alvarez was employed by the Defendants as a delivery and
busboy.

PICCOLO SOGNO PIZZERIA-TRATTORIA CORP. operates a restaurant known
as PICCOLO SOGNO, located at Flushing, NY. [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
          Email: klein@nklegal.com

PLAYTIKA HOLDING: Faces Yosef Suit Over Illegal Gambling Operations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Playtika Holding Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 8, 2023, that on May 17, 2022, Guy David Ben
Yosef filed a Motion for Approval of a class action lawsuit in
district court in Tel Aviv-Jaffa Israel against Playtika Group
Israel Ltd. (PGI), on behalf of all of its customers who made game
token purchases in Israel as part of games marketed by PGI during
the seven years preceding the filing of the motion and for all
subsequent customers of such games who purchase tokens until the
resolution of the claim.

The motion alleges that certain of the company's slot, poker and
solitaire-themed games, including Slotomania, Caesars Slots,
Solitaire Grand Harvest, House of Fun and Poker Heat, constitute
illegal gambling and are prohibited under Israeli law and are
misleading under Israeli consumer protection laws and alleges
unjust enrichment. The motion asserts damages of NIS 50 million. On
January 12, 2023, PGI filed its response to the Motion for
Approval. On March 5, 2023, the applicant submitted his reply to
PGI's response.

Playtika Holding Corp. and its subsidiaries, is a developer of
mobile games.


PROVIDENCE PUBLIC: Initial Approval of Class Settlement Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Parents Leading for
Educational Equity (PLEE); et al., v. Providence Public School
Department; et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00301-MSM-PAS (D.R.I.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order their joint motion for
preliminary approval of proposed settlement and class certification
for settlement purposes.

The Parties request that the Court grant their joint motion and

    (1) issue the proposed order provisionally certifying the
action
        to proceed as a class for settlement purposes and granting

        preliminary approval of the settlement reached by the
Parties

    (2) approve the proposed notice to class members and proposed
        notice plan; and

    (3) schedule a fairness hearing and related deadlines in the
        proposed order.

The Court set the following schedule for issuance of the class
notice, objections to the settlement, submitting papers in
connection with final approval, and the fairness hearing:

September 7, 2023        Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval

September 21, 2023       Parties complete issuance of notice to
class
                         members via mail, email and web posting;

October 20, 2023:        Deadline for submission of any objections

                         from class members;

October 26, 2023:        Parties file their joint motion for final

                         approval of the settlement and respond to
any
                         objections; and

November 2, 2023:        Court to hold fairness hearing, permitting

                         appearances via Zoom.

The Parties’ settlement provides for two subclasses, the
Evaluation Subclass and the Services Subclass. The classes are
defined as
follows:

   -- The Evaluation Subclass (Subclass 1): Identified children
denied
      timely evaluation and determination of eligibility for
special
      education and related services: All children, who on or after

      July 17, 2023, are or hereafter will be between the ages of
      three and five, with disabilities as defined by the IDEA,
living
      or will live in the City of Providence and who have been
      identified by PPSD as requiring an initial evaluation for
      eligibility for special education services and have not
received
      or will not receive an initial evaluation and determination
of
      eligibility for special education and related services.

   -- The Services Subclass (Subclass 2): Children with IEPs denied

      IEP Services: All children, who on or after July 17, 2023,
are
      or hereafter will be between the ages of three and five, with

      disabilities, as defined by the IDEA, living or will live in
the
      City of Providence, who have been determined eligible for
      preschool programs under Part B of the IDEA and have been
      provided an IEP, but have been denied or delayed in the
      provision of the preschool programs and services identified
in
      their IEPs on the claimed basis of unavailable resources or
      staffing.

Providence Public School Department is the administrative force
behind the primary public school district of Providence, Rhode
Island.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 7, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44X2zHu at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ellen Saideman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ELLEN SAIDEMAN
          7 Henry Drive
          Barrington, RI 02806
          Telephone: (401) 258-7276
          Facsimile: (401) 709-0213
          E-mail: esaideman@yahoo.com

                - and -

          Lynette Labinger, Esq.
          128 Dorrance St., Box 710
          Telephone: (401) 465-9565
          Providence, RI 02903
          E-mail: ll@labingerlaw.com

                - and -

          Jennifer L. Wood, Esq.
          THE R.I. CENTER FOR JUSTICE
          1 Empire Plaza, Ste. 410
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: (401) 837-6431
          E-mail: jwood@centerforjustice.org

The Defendants are represented by:

          Anthony Cottone, Esq.
          Kaelyn R. Phelps Prigge, Esq.
          RI DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
          255 Westminster Street
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: (401) 222-4600
          E-mail: Anthony.Cottone@ride.ri.gov

                - and -

          Mary Ann Carroll, Esq.
          HENNEOUS CARROLL LOMBARDO
          155 South Main Street, Suite 406
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: (401) 424-5224
          E-mail: macarroll@hcllawri.com



PROVIDENCE PUBLIC: Rule 23 Class Gets Provisional Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Parents Leading for
Educational Equity (PLEE); et al. v. Providence Public School
Department; et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00301-MSM-PAS (D.R.I.), the
Hon. Judge Mary S. McElroy entered an order granting joint motion
of the Parties for Preliminary Approval of a Proposed Settlement
and Class Certification for Settlement Purposes.

   1. Provisional certification of the Rule 23 Class

      The Court finds that the subclasses are well defined and
their
      members are identifiable on objective standards, numbering
over
      100 identifiable members in each subclass. The Court finds
that
      the proposed class representatives will fairly and adequately

      protect the interests of the class members and that each
      subclass shares common questions of fact and law and that the

      claims of the proposed class representatives are typical of
the
      claims of their respective class.

   2. Accordingly, the Court provisionally certifies the following
two
      classes for settlement purposes only and appoints attorneys
      Ellen Saideman, Lynette Labinger and Jennifer Wood as class
      counsel for both subclasses:

      The Evaluation Subclass (Subclass 1): Identified children
denied
      timely evaluation and determination of eligibility for
special
      education and related services:

      "All children, who on or after July 17, 2023, are or
hereafter
      will be between the ages of three and five, with disabilities
as
      defined by the IDEA, living or will live in the City of
      Providence and who have been identified by PPSD as requiring
an
      initial evaluation for eligibility for special education
      services and have not received or will not receive an initial

      evaluation and determination of eligibility for special
      education and related services."

      The following individuals are designated as class
      representatives of the Evaluation Subclass: A.A. and his
parent
      Rachel Cohn, and J.I. and his parent Karen Imbert.

      The Services Subclass (Subclass 2): Children with IEPs denied

      IEP Services:

      "All children, who on or after July 17, 2023, are or
hereafter
      will be between the ages of three and five, with
disabilities,
      as defined by the IDEA, living or will live in the City of
      Providence, who have been determined eligible for preschool
      programs under Part B of the IDEA and have been provided an
IEP,
      but have been denied or delayed in the provision of the
      preschool programs and services identified in their IEPs on
the
      claimed basis of unavailable resources or staffing."

      The following individuals are designated as class
      representatives of the Services Subclass: R.G. and his mother

      Dell Johnny, and L.C. and his parent Lorena Rodriguez.

   3. Preliminary Approval of the Settlement. Upon preliminary
review,
      the Court finds that the proposed settlement set forth in
      Exhibit A appears to be fair, reasonable and adequate.

   4. The Court hereby sets the following deadlines:

      a. The Parties will complete issuance of Class Notice,
attached
         as Exhibit B to the Joint Motion, to class members via
U.S.
         postal service, first class mail and email and via web
         postings by September 21, 2023.

      b. Any objections from class members in accordance with the
         instructions in the Class Notice must be submitted or
         postmarked on or before October 20, 2023.

      c. The parties shall submit their motion for final approval
of
         the settlement by October 26, 2023.

Providence Public is the administrative force behind the primary
public school district of Providence, Rhode Island.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 11, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PL5ZYD at no extra charge.[CC]

PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Securities Suit Over SEC Filing Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
PureCycle Technologies, Inc. (PCT) 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 that a consolidated
class action complaint against PCT, certain senior members of
management and others, asserting violations of federal securities
laws under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, is
currently ongoing.

The putative class action complaint was filed against PCT, certain
senior members of management and others, asserting violations of
federal securities laws under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida by David Tennenbaum. The complaint generally allege that
the applicable defendants made false and/or misleading statements
in press releases and public filings regarding the Technology,
PCT's business and PCT's prospects.

On July 14, 2021, the court granted a motion to consolidate the
class action lawsuits. On September 27, 2021, the lead plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint that sought to represent a
class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired PCT's
securities between November 16, 2020, and May 5, 2021,
certification of the alleged class, as well as compensatory and
punitive damages.

On November 12, 2021, PCT and the individual defendants affiliated
with it filed separate motions to dismiss the amended complaint.
Additional submissions by the parties were filed in December 2021
and January 2022.

On August 4, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida dismissed the class action lawsuits, without prejudice.
Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on August 18, 2022.
On September 15, 2022, the PCT defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the second amended complaint, and the parties filed additional
responsive pleadings in October 2022.

PureCycle Technologies, Inc. is a Florida-based corporation focused
on commercializing a patented purification recycling technology for
restoring waste polypropylene into resin, called ultra-pure
recycled (UPR) resin. On March 17, 2021, PureCycle consummated the
business combination by and among Roth CH Acquisition I Co., a
Delaware corporation, Roth CH Acquisition I Co. Parent Corp., a
Delaware corporation and wholly owned direct subsidiary of ROCH,
Roth CH Merger Sub LLC, and wholly owned direct subsidiary of
Parent Co, Roth CH Merger Sub Corp.


RANGE RESOURCES: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Jan. 12, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUPERT, et al., v. RANGE
RESOURCES - APPALACHIA, LLC. et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01281 (W.D.
Pa., Filed Sept. 24, 2021), the Hon Judge Patricia L. Dodge entered
an order granting joint motion to further amend case management
order deadlines as follows:

  -- Completion of Class Certification            Oct. 9, 2023
     Discovery by:

  -- The Plaintiffs' Disclosure of                Oct 20, 2023
     Class Certification Experts and
     Reports by:

  -- The Defendant's Disclosure of                Nov. 17, 2023
     Class Certification Experts and
     Reports by:

  -- Discovery of Class Certification             Dec. 15, 2023
     Experts Completed by:

  -- Plaintiffs' Motion for Class                 Jan. 12, 2024
     Certification by:

  -- Defendant's Memorandum in                    Feb. 9, 2024
     Opposition to Class
     Certification by:

  -- The Plaintiffs' Reply                        Feb. 23, 2024
     Memorandum in Further Support
     of Class Certification by:

The nature of suit states Diversity-Contract Dispute.[CC]

RECKITT BENCKISER: Adkins Sues Over Mislabeled Nasal Drugs
----------------------------------------------------------
MILLARD ADKINS; ROSALYN ANDERSON; ELI ERLICK; DONNA BAILEY; ROSALIE
JACKSON; RECOA RUSSELL; FRANK ANDERSON; and TINA HALUSZKA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. RECKITT BENCKISER PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; THE PROCTER &
GAMBLE COMPANY; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.; KENVUE INC.; BAYER
AG; BAYER CORPORATION; GSK PLC; GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC; HALEON PLC;
HALEON US CAPITAL LLC; THE KROGER CO.; TARGET CORPORATION;
WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.; and WALMART INC., Defendants, Case
No. 2:23-cv-20743 (D.N.J., Sept. 28, 2023) alleges that the
Defendants designed, manufactured, advertised, marketed,
distributed, and sold orally administered phenylephrine ("PE")
containing drugs which were advertised, marketed, warranted, and
indicated as treating nasal congestion ("PE Drugs") despite PE
being totally ineffective and worthless in treating nasal
congestion when taken orally.

According to the complaint, PE indicated as an orally administered
nasal decongestant is worthless, non-merchantable, not fit for its
ordinary purpose, and not effective for treating the indications
identified. As a result, the Defendants' PE Drugs were misbranded
and worthless or worth substantially less than what Plaintiffs and
Class Members paid for them.

The Defendants' claims were false, misleading, and contrary to
scientific evidence, leading Plaintiffs and Class Members to
purchase PE Drugs which were ineffective and worthless for treating
nasal congestion. The Plaintiffs and Class Members would not have
purchased the PE Drugs if they knew that PE was not effective in
treating nasal congestion, or they would have only paid
substantially less, says the suit.

RECKITT BENCKISER PHARMACEUTICALS INC. is a specialty
pharmaceutical company
with decades of heritage in serving the opioid dependence treatment
community. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          Michael M. Weinkowitz, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Elia, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
                 mweinkowitz@lfsblaw.com
                 nelia@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
          ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES
          707 Grant Street, Suite 125
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (844) 383-0565
          Email: arihn@peircelaw.com

RICOH USA: Must Oppose to Lopez Class Cert Bid by Jan. 24, 2024
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LETICIA LOPEZ, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, v. RICOH USA, INC.; and
DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-02636-HDV-PVC (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Hernan D. Vera entered an order setting
briefing schedule for Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

   1. The Defendant shall file and serve its           Jan. 24,
2024
      Opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for
      Class Certification no later than:

   2. The Plaintiff shall file and serve its           Feb. 14,
2024
      Opposition an serve her reply papers,
      If any, no later than:

   3. The hearing for the Plaintiff's motion           March 7,
2024
      will be held on:

Ricoh produces and distributes printing equipment.

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


RPC RESTAURANT: Class Cert Scheduling Order Entered in Norris Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NAMEL NORRIS, v RPC
RESTAURANT CORP. and M & E CHRISTOPHER LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-08956-JLR-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sarah L. Cave
entered a scheduling order:

  -- All pretrial motions and applications, including those
relating
     to scheduling motions to dismiss or for judgment on the
     pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for

     class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to

     Magistrate Judge Cave and must comply with her Individual
     Practices, available on the Court’s website at
     https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-sarah-l-cave.

  -- By October 11, 2023, the parties shall file a joint letter, no

     longer than three (3) pages, reporting on the status of
discovery
     and their interest in a settlement conference with the Court.


A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 11, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sZzDl0 at no extra charge.[CC]


SAVE MART: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by March 22, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE LUNA, KATHERINE
BAKER, EDGAR POPKE, and DENNY G. WRASKE, Jr., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SAVE MART
SUPERMARKETS, Case No. 3:22-cv-04645-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered an order granting stipulation
re class certification briefing deadlines as follows:

  -- The Plaintiffs shall file their motion         March 22, 2024
     for class certification by:

  -- The Defendants will file their                 April 22, 2024
     opposition by:

  -- The Plaintiffs will file their                 May 13, 2024
     reply by:

  -- Hearing is set for:                            May 30, 2024

Save Mart is a full-service grocery store with a broad product
offering, including fresh produce, bakery goods, deli foods and
ethnic foods.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZqEK9Y at no extra charge.[CC]

SMITTY'S: Plaintiffs' Reply Brief Deadline Extended to Oct. 5
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Smitty's/Cam2 303 Tractor Hydraulic
Fluid Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation,
Case No. 4:20-md-02936 (W.D. Mo., Filed June 2, 2020), the Hon
Judge Stephen R. Bough entered an order granting the Plaintiffs'
motion to extend time for reply suggestions in support of motion
for class certification.

  -- The deadline for Plaintiffs' reply brief is extended to on or

     before October 5, 2023.

The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Fraud.[CC]


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Bevacqua Amended Complaint Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned AIDAN BEVACQUA, AMY MARCIN,
DANIEL MARCIN, and KYLE WALTON, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., a Texas
Corporation, Case No. 3:22-cv-01837-L (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge
Sam A. Lindsay entered an order:

  -- Granting Southwest Airlines' motion to dismiss the amended
     complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6);
     and

  -- Denying as moot the motion strike class allegations pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, filed December 9, 2022.

The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' breach of contract claims violate
the ADA’s preemption clause because they rely upon application of
a federal regulation that is external to the parties' agreement as
set out in the COC. Since the claims also do not fall within the
narrow exception to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990's
(ADA) preemption clause outlined in Wolens, Plaintiffs' claims are
barred."

Mr. Bevacqua, the Marcins), and Mr. Walton initiated this suit
against Southwest on August 18, 2022, asserting claims for breach
of contract and seeking class certification.

The Amended Complaint alleges that Defendant breached the COC by
failing to comply with relevant federal regulations that were
purportedly incorporated into the COC by reference.

Additionally, the Amended Complaint contains allegations regarding
a putative class defined as:

   "All persons with a nonrefundable ticket purchased from
Southwest
   that included a departure from an airport in the United States,

   whose travel was cancelled before the scheduled departure date
or
   who otherwise did not travel, and who had their TSA Security Fee

   payment converted to Southwest Travel Credit for the time period
of
   4 years before the filing of this action through March 30,
2022."

The Plaintiffs seek certification of a class action, damages equal
to or greater than the amount of the TSA Security Fees paid by
Plaintiffs and converted to travel credits upon cancellation of
their tickets, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and
attorney’s fees and costs.

Southwest is a provider of passenger and cargo air transportation
services.

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

 


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Bombin Bid to Certify Class Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADRIAN BOMBIN, et al., v.
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., Case No. 5:20-cv-01883-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge John M. Gallagher entered an order denying the
Plaintiffs' motion to exclude under Rule 702 Portion the Expert
Reports of Darin N. Lee.

The Court further entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion
to certify class.

Southwest Airlines is a major airline based in the United States
and the world's largest low-cost carrier.

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


STARBUCKS CORP: 9 Class Suits Over Drinks' Missing Fruits Certified
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Madeline Wells of SFGate reports that Starbucks is facing a
class-action lawsuit claiming that its Refresher drinks do not
actually contain the fruits for which they're named.

The lawsuit was initially filed in August 2022. Starbucks attempted
to have it dismissed, arguing that the names of the drinks
"accurately describe the flavors as opposed to the ingredients of
the Products" and that any customer confusion over the drinks'
ingredients "would be dispelled by information available from
Starbucks's baristas." However, a federal judge recently gave the
lawsuit the go-ahead.

U.S. District Judge John Cronan dismissed only two of the 11 claims
in the proposed class-action suit, allowing nine claims to proceed.
Cronan wrote in his opinion, dated Sept. 16, that the plaintiffs
had adequately argued that "a significant portion of the general
consuming public could be misled by the names."

The lawsuit alleges that two "Mango Dragonfruit" Refreshers contain
no mango, two "Pineapple Passionfruit" Refreshers contain no
passionfruit and two "Strawberry Acai" Refreshers contain no acai.
Instead of these fruits, the drinks predominantly feature the
ingredients of water, grape juice concentrate and sugar, plaintiffs
Joan Kominis, of New York, and Jason McAllister, of Fairfield,
California, claim.

They allege that had they been aware the drinks did not actually
contain all the fruits in their names, they "would not have
purchased the Products or would have paid significantly less for
them," reads the lawsuit. They are seeking at least $5 million in
damages, according to Reuters.

"The allegations in the complaint are inaccurate and without
merit," Starbucks representative Alli Colzani told SFGATE in an
emailed statement. "We look forward to defending ourselves against
these claims."

The plaintiffs' lawyer, Robert Abiri, did not return SFGATE's
request for comment in time for publication. [GN]

TEIJIN AUTOMOTIVE: Court Certifies Class Suit Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Brown of Bloomberg Law reports that Teijin Automotive
Technologies Inc. must face a proposed class action alleging it
failed to properly protect the personal information of thousands of
employees that was exposed in a December 2020 data breach.

Plaintiff Jennifer Hummel's allegations that Teijin breached its
duty to protect her information were specific enough to state a
claim for negligence, Judge Paul D. Borman of the US District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan said on September 20, 2023.

Hummel's allegations that there was an implied contract between her
and Teijin regarding its duty to protect her information, though
sparse, were also enough to state a claim for. [GN]

TIKTOK INC: Faces Class Suit Over Racial Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------
Dara Kerr of NPR reports that about a year into her sales job at
TikTok, Nnete Matima had what she describes as her first-ever panic
attack. It happened right after she got off the New York subway and
saw TikTok's office building, where she worked. She says she
started having heart palpitations.

"I remember thinking to myself, 'if you keep coming to this place,
it's going to kill you,'" she says.

Matima says she was under severe stress at TikTok -- she was given
heavier workloads, excluded from meetings and found out her
supervisors called her names behind her back. Matima says she filed
a complaint with human resources, but the company disregarded her
claims and her managers retaliated. When she filed a second
complaint, she was fired.
Matima has now taken her case to the U.S. government's Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC. She and another Black
employee, Joel Carter, who had a similar experience at another
TikTok office, filed a class action charge against the company on
September 21, 2023.

Matima and Carter allege TikTok has a practice of downplaying
complaints of racial discrimination and then retaliates against
people who speak out. They say this has a chilling effect on other
employees from coming forward.
TikTok, which is owned by the Chinese company ByteDance, says it
has a record of championing diversity and inclusion.

"We take employee concerns very seriously, and have strong policies
in place that prohibit discrimination, harassment, and retaliation
in the workplace," Michael Hughes, a TikTok spokesperson, wrote in
an email.

The tech sector has long had an issue with race discrimination.
Many top tech companies have faced criticism for mistreatment of
Black employees, including Google, Facebook, Pinterest and more.

A 2022 survey by Dice, a jobs website for tech workers, found that
24% of tech professionals said they experienced racial
discrimination at work, and that number jumped to 53 % for Black
professionals.

Meanwhile, Black employees represent a small portion of workers at
tech companies. According to a 2023 report by McKinsey & Company,
Black employees represent 12% of the U.S. workforce, but only 8% of
tech.

"Mistreated in the workplace"
When Matima started working for TikTok in July 2022, she was the
only Black employee among about 40 employees on the North American
sales team, according to the charge filed with the EEOC . She says
her managers started treating her differently during the first week
of work.

"I came in so optimistic, you know, bright-eyed, bushy-tailed,
thinking this was a place where I would launch my career and just
soar," says Matima, who worked as a lawyer before joining TikTok.

But almost immediately she noticed her managers were overly
patronizing and gave her heavier workloads than her white
colleagues -- requiring her to shoulder 75% of the sales outreach
for the smaller four-person team she worked on, according to the
EEOC charge.

"It's this balancing act of I don't want to read too much into
anything," she says. "However, every angle I look at it from, it
doesn't look good, it doesn't feel good. Something is happening."

It just got worse from there. Matima says she was given inferior
assignments than her white peers with her managers reassigning the
valuable sales leads she'd cultivated and transferring her "junk
leads." She was also excluded from meetings and conferences.

She eventually learned that her manager and other supervisors
called a racist epithet behind her back -- a colleague told Matima
they commonly referred to her as a "black snake."

Matima filed two separate discrimination complaints with human
resources asking to be transferred to another department. Each
time, the company said it found no wrongdoing and Matima was forced
to stay where she was and, she says, the mistreatment continued.
"It's like you against the world in these situations, you're mocked
and you're ridiculed," she says. "It brings you to a very dark
place."

The other TikTok worker, Carter, was based at the company's Austin,
TX., office. He was hired as a risk analyst in 2021. He says his
first year was good and he got promoted to a policy manager role.
It was in this new position, however, that he started experiencing
much of what Matima went through.

Carter says the new manager treated him worse than his white
counterparts and he was excluded from meetings. He says he was
portrayed as "angry" and "tense" and falsely accused of "slamming
doors." Carter went to human resources and said he was facing
racial discrimination and asked to be transferred to another
department.
As with Matima, the company responded by determining there had been
no race discrimination.

In a message to human resources, Carter wrote that the
characterization of him as angry and tense "perpetuates a historic
false-narrative about people of color, especially Black people,
when we claim to be mistreated in the workplace" and "dismisses the
courage it took to raise these concerns."

In both Carter and Matima's cases, the complaints with human
resources led to more retaliation. TikTok ended up firing both
employees in August.

Not an isolated incident
This isn't the first time TikTok has been accused of
discrimination. In May 2020, Black TikTok creators protested
against the company, claiming their videos were being censored on
the platform. TikTok denied the allegations.

But, just weeks later, in the aftermath of the killing of George
Floyd and the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter exploded across social
media, TikTok admitted to a "technical glitch" in the system.

In a blog post, TikTok apologized to its "Black creators and
community who have felt unsafe, unsupported, or suppressed." Adding
that, "we stand shoulder to shoulder with the Black community and,
as we write this, our teams are working on ways to elevate and
support Black voices and causes."

Matima and Carter are the first known TikTok employees to file a
discrimination charge with the EEOC. But Black tech workers at
several other major companies have filed such complaints or allege
being fired for speaking out against discrimination.
At Google, Timnit Gebru, a well-known artificial intelligence
researcher, said she was fired in 2020 after criticizing the
company for not hiring enough people of color and not working
diligently to erase bias in A.I. And at Pinterest, Ifeoma Ozoma and
Aerica Shimizu Banks, two Black women on the public policy team,
said they too faced discrimination and retaliation at that company
in 2020.

Facebook has seen dozens of employees allege racial discrimination.
In 2018, a former employee, Mark Luckie, wrote a memo accusing the
company of "failing its Black employees and its Black users." And,
in 2020, several employees filed a charge with the EEOC alleging
the social network doesn't give Black workers equal opportunities
in their careers.

"In my experience, when people of color speak out, even internally,
about their concerns, they become dead to the company," says Peter
Romer-Friedman, a labor lawyer who's representing Matima and
Carter. "It's not just tech. It's not just big business. It happens
all across America."

The EEOC charge against TikTok is the first step toward a potential
class action lawsuit. The agency will then investigate the claims.
If it finds that TikTok did discriminate, the company could settle.
Or Matima, Carter and any additional complainants can take their
claims to court.

Matima says she doesn't want future TikTok employees to go through
what she did.

"It's a real structural and systemic problem here and it needs to
be addressed," she says. "I don't want anyone else to come after me
and experience the same thing and ultimately have their spirit
broken." [GN]

TIKTOK INC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Feb. 9, 2024
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNADINE GRIFFITH, v.
TIKTOK, INC. et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00964-SB-E (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. entered a case management order
as follows:

  Trial                                    Sept. 30, 2024

  Motion to Amend Pleadings/Add Parties    Nov. 13, 2023
  (Hearing Deadline)

  Motion for Class Certification           Feb. 9, 2024

  Opposition to Motion for Class           Feb. 23, 2024
  Certification

  Reply Brief in Support of Class          March 1, 2024
  Certification

  Motion for Class Certification Hearing   March 15, 2024

  Discovery Deadline – Nonexpert           May 10, 2024

  Discovery Deadline – Expert              June 7, 2024

  Discovery Motion Hearing Deadline        June 7, 2024

TikTok operates as a free service and social media application for
creating and sharing short mobile videos.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Zs3Yos at no extra charge.[CC]

TMX FINANCE: Court Appoints Interim Class Counsel in Kolstedt Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAVANNAH KOLSTEDT, et al.,
v. TMX FINANCE CORPORATE SERVICES, INC., Case No.
4:23-cv-00076-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge R. Stan Baker
entered an order granting the Motion for appointment of Interim
Class Counsel filed by Ms. Iverson, Ms. Gibson, and Ms. Keller, and
denying the remaining motions.

The Plaintiffs' Interim Co-Lead Counsel shall confer with
Defendant's counsel regarding a timeframe for filing the
consolidated complaint and other actions needed to advance this
litigation.

Following that conference, and within ten days of the date of this
Order, Plaintiffs' Interim Co-Lead Counsel and Defendant's counsel
shall contact the Magistrate Judge's Courtroom Deputy Clerk to
request a scheduling conference before the Magistrate Judge.

The Plaintiffs contend that TMX Finance provides consumer credit
products to individuals under various brand names.

As part of these operations, Defendant allegedly collected and
stored Plaintiffs' personal identifying information on Defendant's
network.

In February 2023, an unknown actor breached the Defendant's network
and allegedly accessed and acquired Plaintiffs' personal
identifying information stored on the network.

TMX is a consumer specialty finance company known for providing
consumer loans to individuals not served by traditional lenders

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 12, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4642eEi at no extra charge.[CC]

TRAVEL GUARD: Miller Class Status Bid Partly OK'd
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMIKA MILLER, et al., v.
TRAVEL GUARD GROUP, INC., et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-09751-TLT (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Trina L. Thompson entered an order on motion
for class certification and related Daubert motions as follows:

   (1) The Defendants' motions to exclude the opinion testimony of
Dr.
       J. Michael Dennis and Mr. Gregory Fanoe is denied.

   (2) The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is granted
and
       denied in part.

       The Court certifies the following classes pursuant to Rule
       23(b)(3) as to Plaintiffs' UCL (unfair and unlawful)
claims:

       a. Class: All natural persons who, using a California
address,
          purchased travel insurance from Defendants at any point
from
          December 17, 2017, until the present, and who were
charged a
          fee for Travel Guard’s supposed assistance service on
top of
          the applicable insurance premium rate Defendants were
          authorized to charge.

       b. Subclass: All Class members who purchased Defendants'
travel
          insurance through a third-party travel retailer’s
online
          purchase path (the "Online Purchase Subclass" or
          "Subclass").

   (3) The Court appoints Julianne Chuanroong as class
representative.

   (4) Pursuant to Rule 23(g), the Court appoints Gutride Safier
LLP
       as class counsel.

The Plaintiffs Tamika Miller and Julianne Chuanroong bring this
putative class action against the Defendants, asserting claims
under California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law
(FAL), and common law fraud.

Travel Guard markets and sells travel insurance policies.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 15, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RB9x1Q at no extra charge.[CC]

TULANE UNIVERSITY: Jones Seeks to Amend Scheduling Order
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SYLVIA JONES and JOHN
ELLIS, on behalf of themselves and all other individuals similarly
situated, v. ADMINISTRATORS OF THE TULANE EDUCATIONAL FUND D/B/A
THE TULANE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA A/K/A TULANE UNIVERSITY, Case
No. 2:20-cv-02505-DJP-MBN (E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs file consent
motion to amend scheduling order as to pre-class certification
expert reports.

Tulane University is a comprehensive research university in New
Orleans, Louisiana.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 12, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45jtUEh at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550
          E-mail: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com

                - and -

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          John Soumilas, Esq.
          FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
          E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com

                - and -

          Yvette Golan, Esq.
          THE GOLAN FIRM
          2000 M Street, NW, Suite #750-A
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (866) 298-4150
          Facsimile: (928) 441-8250
          E-mail: ygolan@tgfirm.com

                - and -

          David A. Szwak, Esq.
          BODENHEIMER, JONES & SZWAK, LLC
          416 Travis Street, Ste. 800
          Mid South Tower
          Shreveport, LA 71101
          Telephone: (318) 424-1400
          Facsimile: 221-6555

UNION SECURITY: Seeks More Time to File Reply Brief
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTOINETTE
LEWIS-ABDULHAADI, v. UNION SECURITY INSURANCE CO., SUN LIFE
ASSURANCE CO. OF CANADA, and MERAKEY USA, Case No. 2:21-cv-03805-WB
(E.D. Pa.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting
their request for an additional time to file their reply brief
regarding the standing issue to and including October 6, 2023.

On August 24, 2023, the Plaintiff and the Defendants convened for a
mediation session Prior to the mediation, Plaintiff and the
Insurance Defendants exchanged settlement proposals and had
productive discussions during the August 24 mediation but did not
reach agreement.

The Plaintiff and the Insurance Defendants agreed to continue their
discussions and met for a further mediation session on September 5,
2023. In order to accommodate the mediation, the Defendants
requested and the Court granted an extension to September 15, 2023
for Defendants to file their reply brief on standing.

Union Security offers a wide range of medical supplement plans.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Sept. 11, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sTaLLB at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mark E. Schmidtke, Esq.
          Ann-Martha Andrews, Esq.
          Byrne J. Decker, Esq.
          Robert C. Perryman, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          56 S. Washington St., Suite 302
          Valparaiso, IN 46383
          Telephone: (219) 242-8668
          E-mail: mark.schmidtke@ogletree.com
                  ann.andrews@ogletreedeakins.com
                  byrne.decker@ogletree.com
                  Robert.Perryman@ogletreedeakins.com

UNITED AIRLINES: Completion of Class Cert Discovery Due Oct. 23
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID SAMBRANO, ET AL., v.
UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-01074-P (N.D. Tex.), the
Hon. Judge Mark T. Pittman entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' motion to extend the Discovery Schedule.

   1. Class certification discovery shall             Oct. 23,
2023
      be completed on or before:

   2. The Plaintiff's opening brief in                Nov. 14,
2023
      support of class certification shall
      be filed on or before:

   3. The Defendant's response in opposition          Nov. 28,
2023
      to class certification shall be
      filed on or before:

   4. The Plaintiff's reply shall be                  Dece. 5,
2023
      filed on or before:

United operates a large domestic and international route network
spanning cities large and small across the United States and all
six inhabited continents.

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

UNITED STATES: Settlement in Ahmed Suit Gets Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AHMED, ABDUL, AMIR,
SIDDIQA, RAHMATULLAH, FATIMA, and MURSAL SADAT, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY; ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, in his official capacity as
Secretary of Homeland Security; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
SERVICES (USCIS); UR MENDOZA JADDOU, in her official capacity as
Director of USCIS; TED H. KIM, in his official capacity as
Associate Director of the Refugee, Asylum and International
Operations Directorate at USCIS, Case No. 4:23-cv-01892-JST (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar entered an order granting
approval of class action settlement.

  -- The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is granted for
     purposes of settlement only. The Court certifies the following

     pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
     Procedure:

     "All individuals identified under Section 2502(a)(1)(A) of the

     Extending Government Funding and Delivering Emergency
Assistance
     Act, Pub. L. No. 117-43, 135 Stat. 344 (2021), who have filed
or
     will file an application for asylum."

US Department of Homeland Security is the U.S. federal executive
department responsible for public security, roughly comparable to
the interior or home ministries of other countries.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 11, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3t7nqKW at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edward Hillenbrand, Esq.
          Michael F. Williams, Esq.
          Joseph A. D'Antonio, Esq.
          Morgan Lily Phoenix, Esq.
          Michael P. Quinn, Esq.
          Sanjay Nevrekar, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          555 South Flower Street, Suite 3700
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 680-8400
          E-mail: edward.hillenbrand@kirkland.com
                  mwilliams@kirkland.com
                  joseph.dantonio@kirkland.com
                  morgan.phoenix@kirkland.com
                  michael.quinn@kirkland.com
                  sanjay.nevrekar@kirkland.com

                - and -

          Richard Caldarone, Esq.
          Keren Zwick, Esq.
          Collen Cowgill, Esq.
          NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER
          224 S. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 660-1370
          Facsimile: (312) 660-1505
          E-mail: rcaldarone@heartlandalliance.org
                  kzwick@heartlandalliance.org
                  ccowgill@heartlandalliance.org

WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Yslas Seeks More Time to File Reply
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERYL YSLAS and MICHAEL
SPRAGUE, on behalf of themselves and all other plaintiffs similarly
situated, known and unknown, v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., d/b/a
SAM'S CLUB, and SAM’S CLUB, a division of WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-01880-WJM-NRN (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs submit
their Amended Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply
in Support of Motion.

On July 29, 2022, the Plaintiff Yslas filed her class and
collective action complaint on behalf of herself and all other past
and present Membership Representative and Sales and Training
Manager employees of Defendants.

The Plaintiff's Complaint seeks unpaid overtime and other wages and
additional damages on behalf of herself and other allegedly
similarly situated employees.

On September 27, 2022, Defendants answered the Complaint. On
December 5, 2022 Judge N. Reid Neureiter, on referral from the
District Court,
entered Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint on the record, which
added Michael Sprague as an additional Named Plaintiff.

On January 4, 2023, Defendants answered the First Amended
Complaint. On January 7, 2023, Plaintiffs submitted their Motion
and Memorandum in Support of Stage-One Conditional Certification of
a Collective Action Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 12, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PsrCwy at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
          Samuel D. Engelson, Esq.
          John William Billhorn, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          7900 E. Union Avenue, Suite 1100
          Denver, CO 80237
          E-mail: sengelson@billhornlaw.com
                  jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com

WEST VIRGINIA: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due March 1, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEDADIAH STUMP, et al., v.
WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al.,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00184 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge David A. Faber
entered a scheduling order as follows:

   1. The deadline for written fact discovery        Nov. 15, 2023
      related to class certification is:

   2. The deadline for fact witness                  Nov. 30, 2023
      depositions related to class
      certification is:

   3. The deadline for plaintiffs to serve           Dec 15, 2023
      expert reports supporting class
      certification is:

   4. The deadline for defendants to serve           Feb. 15, 2024
      expert reports supporting class
      certification is:

   5. Deposition of expert witnesses on              Jan. 15, 2024
      class certification:

   6. The deadline to serve motion for               March 1, 2024
      class certification is:

   7. A hearing on the motion for                    May 6, 2024
      class certification will be
      held. on:

   8. The amendment of any pleading                  Sept. 30, 2024

      and the joinder of any party
      shall be completed by:

   9. The parties shall complete all                 June 30, 2024
      discovery requests by:

  10. Any mediation scheduled by the                 Aug. 22, 2024
      parties must be concluded by:

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LxtJ0M at no extra charge.[CC]

WESTMORELAND SANITARY: Childs Must File Class Cert Bid by Oct. 11
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHILDS, et al., v.
WESTMORELAND SANITARY LANDFILL LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-01100 (W.D.
Pa., Filed Aug. 19, 2021), the Hon. Judge Cathy Bissoon entered a
scheduling order as follows:

  -- The Plaintiff's motion for class               Oct. 11, 2023
     certification, including all
     materials in support thereof,
     is due by:

  -- The Defendant's opposition papers              Oct. 13, 2023
     are due by:

  -- The Plaintiff's reply is due by:               Nov. 22, 2023

The nature of suit states Real Property - Torts to Land.

Westmoreland operates a Residual/Municipal Waste Landfill.[CC]

WONWON GROUP: Harrelson FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GLENDA HARRELSON,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, v.
WONWON GROUP INC. d/b/a VOLCANO STEAK & SUSHI, Case No.
1:23-cv-02147-VMC (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order granting her consent motion for conditional certification
and stay of discovery.

With Defendant's consent, the Plaintiff requests that the Court
conditionally certify the case as a collective action and order
that Court-approved notice be sent to all members of the putative
Overtime Collective and the putative Minimum Wage and Tip
Collective.

The Plaintiff further requests that formal discovery be stayed for
90 days to allow the Parties to pursue resolution regarding the
claims of Plaintiff and any individuals who join this action, and
then to appropriately tailor discovery to the collective if
resolution is successful.

The Plaintiff requests that the Court conditionally certify and
authorize notice of the action to two proposed Collectives, defined

as:

   a. The Overtime Collective

      All persons who were, or are, employed by Defendant as
Servers,
      or performing materially similar work as Servers, at any time

      within three years prior to the filing of the Collective
Action
      Complaint and who worked in excess of 40 hours per week and
were
      not paid at an overtime rate of one-and-one half their
regular
      rate of pay for all hours worked over 40, and were instead
paid
      straight time at a subminimum wage for all hours worked;"
and

   b. The Minimum Wage and Tip Collective

      "All persons who were, or are, employed by Defendant as
Servers,
      or performing materially similar work as Servers, at any time

      within three years prior to the filing of the Collective
Action
      Complaint."

The Plaintiff Harrelson brings this collective action pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. sections 201 et
seq. (the "FLSA"), individually and on behalf of all persons who
were, or are, employed by Defendant Wonwon Group Inc. as Servers,
or performing materially similar work as Servers, at any time
within three years prior to the filing of the Collective Action
Complaint.

In her Collective Action Complaint, the Plaintiff asserts three
collective claims on behalf of herself and similarly situated
individuals, alleging that Defendant

   (1) failed to pay members of the putative "Overtime Collective,"
at
       an overtime rate of one-and-one half their regular rate of
pay
       for all hours worked over 40 within a workweek, and instead

       paid them straight time at a subminimum wage for all hours
       worked (Count II);

   (2) failed to pay members of the putative "Minimum Wage and Tip

       Collective" the minimum wage required by the FLSA (Count
IV);
       and

   (3) unlawfully withheld tips from members of the putative
"Minimum
       Wage and Tip Collective" (Count VI).

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 11, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RuC0X1 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin M. Scott, Esq.
          Tierra M. Monteiro, Esq.
          SCOTT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C.
          160 Clairemont Avenue, Suite 610
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: (678) 780-4880
          Facsimile: (478) 575-2590
          E-mail: jscott@scottemploymentlaw.com
                  tmonteiro@scottemploymentlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Nevada M. Tuggle
          TUGGLE LAW, LLC
          1755 N. Brown Road, Suite 200
          Lawrenceville, GA 30043
          Telephone: (770) 702-0625
          E-mail: nevada@tuggle-law.com

WORLD TECH: Class Cert Scheduling Order Entered in Bur-Tex Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BUR-TEX HOSIERY INC., v.
WORLD TECH TOYS, INC., INOV8 MARKETING LLC, JACK SAFDEYE, DAVID
LINKER, KEV KOUYOUMIJAN, and WORLD TRADING 23, INC., Case No.
1:23-cv-03454-LGS-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sarah L. Cave
entered a scheduling order:

  -- All pretrial motions and applications, including those
relating
     to scheduling motions to dismiss or for judgment on the
     pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for

     class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to

     Magistrate Judge Cave and must comply with her Individual
     Practices, available on the Court’s website at
     https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-sarah-l-cave.

  -- By October 11, 2023, the parties shall file a joint letter, no

     longer than three (3) pages, reporting on the status of
discovery
     and their interest in a settlement conference with the Court.


World Tech was founded in 2008. The company's line of business
includes the retail sale of toys, games, hobby, and craft kits.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 11, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rkWZ3Z at no extra charge.[CC]

WYNDHAM VACATION: Kirchner Must File Class Cert Bid by Oct. 20
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN ERIC KIRCHNER,
ELIZABETH LEE KIRCHNER, and NAZRET Z. GEBREMESKEL, individually and
on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, v. WYNDHAM
VACATION RESORTS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00436-RGA-JLH (D. Del.),
the Hon. Judge Richard G. Andrews entered an order granting
stipulation as to time for filing and briefing class certification
motion as follows:

    1. The parties stipulate, subject to approval by the Court,
that
       Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and supporting
       memorandum shall be filed by October 20, 2023.

    2. The Defendant's response shall be due November 20, 2023, and

       Plaintiffs' reply due on December 4, 2023.

Wyndham is a Hospitality, Resorts, and Lodging & Resorts company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Lxe55K at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          Herbert W. Mondros, Esq.
          RIGROSKY LAW, P.A.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 210
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
                  gms@re-legal.com
                  hwm@rl-legal.com

                - and -

          Howard B. Prossnitz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD B. PROSSNITZ
          1014 Ontario Street
          Oak Park, IL 60302
           (708) 203-5747
          prossnitzlaw@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Nancy Shane Rappapor, Esq.
          David S. Sager, Esq.
          DLA PIPERD LLP (US)
          1201 North Market Street, Suite 2100
          Wilmington, DEC 19801
          Telephone: (302) 468-5631
          E-mail: nancy.rappaport@us.dlapiper.com
                  david.sager@us.dlapiper.com


                            *********

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 ***