---

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

              Monday, October 23, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 212

                            Headlines

2U INC: Francis Suit Alleges Video Privacy Violations
3M COMPANY: Bailey Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Bass Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Brandt Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
ACCURATE HEALTHCARE: Underpays Healthcare Workers, Sanders Alleges

ACKERCAMPS.COM LLC: Phoenix Files Suit in S.D. Illinois
ADAM R. KOLKER: Erkan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
AJS CREATIONS: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ALDOUS & ASSOCIATES: Bercovitch Alleges Unfair Debt Collection
ALLIED WASTE: Parties Seek to Move Class Cert Hearing to Nov. 3

ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Class Bid Cert Hearing Set for Jan 10, 2024
ALTUS DIRECT: Class Discovery Must be Completed by June 7, 2024
AMAZON.COM INC: Mahone Seeks to Certify Military Employee Class
AMAZON.COM INC: Storey Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
AMERICAN HONDA: Quackenbush Appeals Rulings in Vehicle Defect Suit

AMROCK LLC: Coppola Seeks Conditional Certification of Collective
ANTHONY FASULO: Palumbo Seeks Initial Nod of Settlement
ANTRA INC: Jama Seeks to Certify FLSA Minimum Wage Claim
ARAMARK FACILITY: Cisneros Suit Removed to C.D. California
ARAMARK SERVICES: Baylon Seeks to Certify Non-Exempt Employee Class

ARBOR REALTY: CDMI Seeks Initial OK of Class Settlement
ARIZONA: Agrees to Pay for Employees' Gender-Affirming Surgeries
ASHEVILLE, NC: Miall Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
ASSESSOR OF FLORAL PARK: Dimone Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
AUSTRALIA: Sued Over Climate Negligence in Torres Strait

AVANT GARDNER: Ting Sues Over Cancelled, Oversold Concert Event
AVE. D FINEST: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Avila Alleges
AZTEX HATS INC: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BANK OF AMERICA: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due May 10, 2024
BEAM DISTRIBUTING: Faces Class Action Over Spam Text Messages

BEAUMONT INDEPENDENT: Seeks More Time for Class Cert Reply
BINANCE HOLDINGS: Lahav Sues Over Crypto Price Manipulation
BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Class Cert Bid Filing Amended to April 24, 2024
BROCK GROUP: Kelley Sues Over Wage Law Violations
BROCK PIERCE: Rowan Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Reply

CANADA DRY: Escalet Seeks Certification of Class Action
CAPITAL VISION: Class Cert Filing in Clark Extended to Feb 29, 2024
CARESOURCE: Faces Moore Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
CARGILL MEAT: Must Oppose Villa Class Cert Bid by Oct. 27
CE DE CANDY: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind Users, Martinez Says

CERTEGY PAYMENT: Ct. Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Stachewicz
CIMAREX ENERGY: Court Directs Parties to Pursue ADR
CLEAR CHANNEL: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
COUNTRYWIDE STONE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Recinos Alleges
CRAFT BY SMOKE: Vazquez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages

CRUNCHYROLL LLC: Agrees to Settle Streaming Service Class Action
DATACOMP APPRAISAL: Moffat Sues Over Fixed Rental Prices Conspiracy
DLOCAL LTD: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Dec. 5
DOLLAR TREE STORES: Roche Suit Removed to E.D. California
DOTERRA INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bingham Says

DRESSER LLC: Court OK's Bid for Entry of Lone Pine Order in Barnes
DRESSER LLC: Court OK's Bid for Entry of Lone Pine Order in Barrett
DRESSER LLC: Court OK's Bid for Entry of Lone Pine Order in Barton
DRESSER LLC: Court OK's Bid for Entry of Lone Pine Order in Cook
DRESSER LLC: Court OK's Bid for Entry of Lone Pine Order in Petty

DRUMMOND COMPANY: Jerue Bid for Class Certification Tossed
DYCK O'NEAL: Saunders Seeks More Time to File Class Reply Brief
E & E: Nwajei Seeks Conditional Class Certification of Collective
E-TRADE SECURITIES: Court OK's Class Settlement in Rupnow Suit
EARL ENTERPRISES: February 12 Settlement Approval Hearing Set

EARTHGRAINS DISTRIBUTION: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Munoz
EIDP INC: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Banks Class Action
ELI LILLY: Local 837 Sues Over Insulin Drug Monopoly
ELITE LINE: Shaw Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Bid
ENVIVA INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of November 13 Deadline

EXACT CARE PHARMACY: Everett Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
FASTAFF LLC: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response in Egan
FEDERAL SAVINGS: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Feb. 5, 202
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Schulz Sues Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info
FORD MOTOR: Barlup Sues Over Defective Vehicle Transmission

FORD MOTOR: Class Cert Bid Filing in Lessin Extended to Nov. 3
FORD MOTOR: Filing for Class Status Bid Extended to Nov. 3
GAP INC: Faces Hussein Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
GARFIELD BEACH: Palamara Seeks Unpaid Rest/Meal Period Premiums
GATE PETROLEUM: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Oct. 11, 2024

GENERAL CONFERENCE: Joseph Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Response
GENERAL DYNAMICS: Reduces Naval Engineers' Pay, Scharpf Suit Says
GENERAL MOTORS: Vita, FXR Seek Rule 23 Class Certification
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Burkhart Securities Suit Ongoing
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Faces Anastasio Suit in Virginia

GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Faces Breach of Contract Suit in Virginia
GENWORTH LIFE: Court OK's Settlement in Haney Insurance Suit
GENWORTH LIFE: ERISA Suit Over Savings Plan Ongoing
GENWORTH LIFE: Faces Hauser Suit Over File Transfer System
GENWORTH LIFE: McMillan Insurance Dispute Settled

GENWORTH LIFE: To Settle Insurance Dispute
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Gur-Ravantab Loses Class Cert Bid
GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Dec 4
GILEAD SCIENCES: Class Settlement to be Heard on January 18, 2024
GITHUB INC: Copilot Class Action Lawsuit Pending

GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Moore Seeks to Exclude Expert Dentali
GOOGLE LLC: Seeks to Seal Trade Desk Docs in Consumer Privacy Suit
GRILLO'S PICKLES: Martinez Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website
GWA LLC: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due August 30, 2024
HARVARD COLLEGE: Sued Over Improper Disposal of Human Remains

HERR FOODS: Crosson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
HISAMITSU AMERICA: Class Cert Bid Filing Due April 26, 2024
IDAHO: Appeals Ruling in K.W. Suit to 9th Cir.
INFUSION HEALTHCARE: Monaco Seeks Overtime Pay for Nurses
JACK HENRY: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Lacrosse Alleges

KANDLE DINING: Settlement Class Gets Certification in Bod Suit
KENVUE INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due December 8
KENVUE INC: Hammond Sues Over Drop in Share Price
KRAFT HEINZ: Moffett Sues Over Improper Payment of Wages
LA GRANDE BOUCHERIE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Amaya Alleges

LA PLAZA MARKET: Gastelum Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
LANDS' END: Faces Quella Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
LCS FINANCIAL: Lipps Sues Over Alleged Data Breach
LESLIE'S INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due November 7
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due July 10, 2024

LIBERTY UNIVERSITY: Court Tosses Students' Bid to Certify Class
LINCARE INC: Cowan Seeks to Conditionall Certify FLSA Collective
LOTTE HOTEL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garrido Alleges
LUTHERAN SOCIAL: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Caputo
LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Class Certification Bid Continued to Dec. 14

M & S SECURITY SERVICES: Blackmon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Certiorari Granted in Securities Suit
MAINE: Faces Class Action Over Indigent Defense System
MBA MORTGAGE: Plaintiffs Seek Approval of Notice Plan
MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Securities Suit Voluntarily Dismiss

MEOLA LAW FIRM: Boscaino Collision Alleges Illegal Debt Collection
META PLATFORMS: Advertiser Plaintiffs Seek to Exclude Expert Report
META PLATFORMS: Federal Court Tosses $1B rypto Ad Class Action
MIKE BLOOMBERG: Court OK's Filing of Documents with Redactions
MILLIMAN INC: Retirement Plan Participants Win Class Certification

MINNEAPOLIS, MN: Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in Goyette
MOVE INC: Faucett Seeks Leave to File Confidential Docs Under Seal
MPT OPERATING: Securities Suit Over Misleading Statements Dismissed
MYLAN PHARMA: Initial Certification of Settlement Class Sought
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Class Settlement in Burnett Gets Initial Nod

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC: Cantelli Sues Over Automatic Renewal Scheme
NES GLOBAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hernandez Alleges
NEW YORK, NY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cartagena Alleges
NORTHAMPTON RESTAURANTS: Seeks to Decertify Class in Carroll Suit
O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Lillman Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania

ONITY INC: Class Cert Status Conference Set for Oct. 25
OPENAI INC: Filing for Class Cert Bids Due April 10, 2025
PEGASUS TRUCKING: Medina Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
PENHALL COMPANY: Bid for Class Certification Due August 23, 2024
PERFECT SNAX: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Martinez Suit Claims

PFSWEB INC: Juan Monteverde Investigates Proposed Sale to GXO
PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER: Class Cert. Bids Extended to June 3, 2024
PHP OF NC: Seeks Nov. 3 Extension to File Class Cert. Response
PLAINS ALL: GFL Seeks to Modify Class Certification Order
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Diggs Files Suit in E.D. Louisiana

PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Ghalem Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED: Seeks Class Certification Hearing in Bartee
PROGRESSIVE GULF: Vantree Seeks to Certify Two Classes
PROGRESSIVE GULF: Vantree Seeks to Seal Portions of Class Cert Docs
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Bratten Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

QUINCY UNIVERSITY: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
RADIAN SETTLEMENT: Smith Files Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
RB HEALTH: Murdock Sues Over Consumer Fraud and Marketing
RECKITT BENCKISER: Hsieh et al. Sue Over Decongestants' False Ads
RIDGECREST REGIONAL: Casey Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

RIPPLE LABS: Cleary Gottlieb Obtains Dismissal of SEC Claim v. CEO
RITE AID: Stafford Suit Seeks to Certify California Consumer Class
RJ DISTRIBUTING: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Wilson
ROBLOX CORPORATION: Shareholder Suit Over Direct Listing Dismissed
RUBBER-CAL INC: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

RV WORLD: Court Enters Scheduling & Discovery Order in Greenhill
SALVATORE'S NY PIZZA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Saavedra Says
SAN DIMAS MC: Centes Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
SANDY TOES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Housekeepers, Friend Says
SAZERAC COMPANY: Bid for Class Certification Due March 15, 2024

SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC: Shultz Suit Removed to N.D. Indiana
SILICON MOTION: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 31
SKYC MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Andujar Alleges
SLIDE OUT SHELVES: Zelvin Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SOLID WASTE: Jones Seeks More Time for Class Cert Bid Filing

SPRINGSTONE HEALTH: Court Wants Rule 26(f) Report in Sofranko Suit
STA MANAGEMENT: Briefs on Class Cert. Bid Due May 24, 2024
STATE FARM: Second Supplemental Bid to Seal OK'd
STEEL HOUSE: Jaisingh Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
STUPP BROS: Parties Seek to Extend Class Cert Bid Deadline

SUGAR FOODS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Augustine Alleges
SYMETRA LIFE: Davis Must File Class Certifications by Dec. 19
SYNCREON.US INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ayala Alleges
TARGET CORPORATION: Dalton Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota
TARGET CORPORATION: Martin Sues Over Mislabeled Fruit Juices

TEKSYSTEMS INC: Avery Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
TENET HEALTHCARE: Parties Must File Joint Status Report
TESLA INC: Plaintiffs Agree to Arbitrate Claims in Autopilot Suit
THINX INC: Gamino Sues Over Mislabeled Period Underwear
THOMPSON SPORTING: Zelvin Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

TUSCULUM UNIVERSITY: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
UMASS MEMORIAL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Brooks Due March 30, 2024
UNITED STATES: Driskill Appeals Dismissal of Rudometkin Case
UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert. Surreply
UNIVERSAL RECOVERY: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 20

VASSAR COLLEGE: Fails to Refund Tuition Fees, Ben-Porath Says
VLAD FINE CRAFT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Calva Alleges
VXI GLOBAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bennett Alleges
WALMART INC: Completion of Settlement Conference Due Feb. 2, 2024
WEEM LLC: Faces Galvan Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages

WESTMORELAND SANITARY: Request to File Daubert Bids Nixed
WEYERHAEUSER NR: Court Enters Class Certification Order in Sanchez
WICHITA, KS: Progeny Wins Class Certification Bid
WOODMAN'S FOOD: Court OK's Class Certification Bid in Wyngaard
YVES SAINT: Class Cert Deadline Modified to August 18, 2024

ZEROCATER INC: Busby Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

                            *********

2U INC: Francis Suit Alleges Video Privacy Violations
-----------------------------------------------------
CHAD FRANCIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 2U, INC.; and EDX LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-12332 (D. Mass., Oct. 10, 2023) alleges violation of the
Video Privacy Protection Act.

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, every time the
Plaintiff and the Class view a video on the edX platform, the
Defendants disclose a record of their viewing history to Meta, the
owner and operator of the social media and advertising giant
Facebook, together with personally identifiable information
concerning the user.

The Plaintiff and the Class are never informed of, nor do they give
consent to, such a disclosure of their private viewing histories to
third parties. Not only do the Defendants' actions demonstrate a
brazen disregard for its subscribers' privacy rights but their
actions violate the Video Privacy Protection Act, says the suit.

2U, INC. provides online educational services. The Company offers
graduate and undergraduate degree programs in social work, data
science, public administration, healthcare, law, and industrial
relations. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Gardner, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Rosenberg, Esq.
          Ashleigh Bell, Esq.
          GARDNER ROSENBERG P.C.
          One State Street, 4th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 390-7570
          Email: josh@gardnerrosenberg.com

              - and -

          Michael Ovca, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Email: movca@edelson.com

3M COMPANY: Bailey Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Bailey, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), WILLFIRE HC
LLC, d/b/a WILLLIAMS FIRE & HAZARD CONTROL, Case No.
2:23-cv-05040-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 6, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.

Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott M. Hendler, Esq.
          HENDLER FLORES LAW, PLLC
          901 S. MoPac Expressway
          Bldg. 1, Ste 300
          Austin, TX 78746
          Phone: (512) 439-3202
          Fax: (512) 439-3201
          Email: shendler@hendlerlaw.com


3M COMPANY: Bass Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Bass, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), WILLFIRE HC
LLC, d/b/a WILLLIAMS FIRE & HAZARD CONTROL, Case No.
2:23-cv-05041-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 6, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.

Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott M. Hendler, Esq.
          HENDLER FLORES LAW, PLLC
          901 S. MoPac Expressway
          Bldg. 1, Ste 300
          Austin, TX 78746
          Phone: (512) 439-3202
          Fax: (512) 439-3201
          Email: shendler@hendlerlaw.com


3M COMPANY: Brandt Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Brandt, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), WILLFIRE HC
LLC, d/b/a WILLLIAMS FIRE & HAZARD CONTROL, Case No.
2:23-cv-05042-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 6, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.

Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
bladder cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott M. Hendler, Esq.
          HENDLER FLORES LAW, PLLC
          901 S. MoPac Expressway
          Bldg. 1, Ste 300
          Austin, TX 78746
          Phone: (512) 439-3202
          Fax: (512) 439-3201
          Email: shendler@hendlerlaw.com

ACCURATE HEALTHCARE: Underpays Healthcare Workers, Sanders Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
DANINE SANDERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ACCURATE HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00521-BJB (W.D. Ky., October 6, 2023)
is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
North Carolina Wage and Hour Act.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a healthcare worker since
August 2019.

Accurate Healthcare Professionals LLC is a healthcare staffing
agency based in Kentucky. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         J. Corey Asay, Esq.
         HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
         312 Walnut St., Ste. 1600
         Cincinnati, OH 45202
         Telephone: (513) 318-4496
         E-mail: caseay@hkm.com

                 - and -

         Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
         PARMET PC
         2 Greenway, Ste. 250
         Houston, TX 77046
         Telephone: (713) 999-5228
         E-mail: matt@parmet.law

ACKERCAMPS.COM LLC: Phoenix Files Suit in S.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ackercamps.com LLC.
The case is styled as Phoenix Insurance Company, Travelers Casualty
Insurance Company of America, Travelers Property Casualty Company
of America v. Ackercamps.com LLC, Lynae Vahle, individually, as
next Guardian of K.V., a minor, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Case No. 3:23-cv-03303-RJD (S.D. Ill., Oct. 6,
2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Declaratory
Judgement.

Ackercamps.com, LLC develops specialty software. The Company offers
camp management, administration, and scheduling solutions through
software.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Andrew Burns, Esq.
          MOSTYN LAW - HOUSTON TX
          3810 W. Alabama Street
          Houston, TX 77027
          Phone: (713) 714-0000
          Email: epefile@mostynlaw.com


ADAM R. KOLKER: Erkan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Adam R. Kolker, M.D.,
P.C. The case is styled as Nihal Erkan, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Adam R. Kolker, M.D., P.C., Case
No. 1:23-cv-07506 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 6, 2023).

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

Dr. Adam R. Kolker -- https://drkolker.com/ -- is a board-certified
plastic surgeon in Manhattan, NYC, specializing in cosmetic surgery
of the breast, body, and face.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AJS CREATIONS: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AJs Creations LLC.
The case is styled as Frangie Espinal, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. AJs Creations LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-08841 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 6, 2023).

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

AJ's Creations offers handmade jewelry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18th St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


ALDOUS & ASSOCIATES: Bercovitch Alleges Unfair Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID BERCOVITCH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALDOUS & ASSOCIATES, PLLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-21004 (D.N.J., Oct. 10, 2023) seeks to
stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a
debt.

ALDOUS & ASSOCIATES, PLLC is a law firm that specializes in 90 day
past due consumer collections that generates revenue and retention.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

              Ross M. Wolfe, Esq.
              KANG HAGGERTY LLC
              123 S. Broad Street, Suite 1670
              Philadelphia, PA 19109
              Telephone: (215) 525-5850
              Facsimile: (215) 525-5860
              Email: ekang@kanghaggerty.com
              kkovalsky@kanghaggerty.com
              rwolfe@kanghaggerty.com

ALLIED WASTE: Parties Seek to Move Class Cert Hearing to Nov. 3
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PLAINTIFF, QIHAI CHEN on
behalf of himself and a class of all others similarly situated, v.
ALLIED WASTE SYSTEMS, INC.; REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC.; DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Case No. 3:22-cv-00099-JO-WVG (S.D. Cal.), the Parties
agree and stipulate that, subject to the approval of the Court, the
hearing date of Plaintiffs' Motion be moved to November 3, 2023.

The Parties submit a Joint Motion to continue the hearing date on
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification set for October 26,
2023 at 3:30 p.m., to November 3, 2023 or a date convenient for the
Court and the Parties.

The Plaintiffs filed their Motion on September 25, 2023. This is
the Parties' first request for a continuance of the hearing on
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. Lead counsel for
Allied, Aileen M. Hunter, is unavailable to appear on October 26,
2023, because she will be on vacation with her husband and two
children the entire week of October 23, 2023, through October 28,
2023.

Allied offers collection and disposal of refuse systems.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3F9vP3n at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ramin R. Hariri, Esq.
          Andrew Morris, Esq.
          HARIRI LAW GROUP
          12526 High Bluff Drive, Ste. 300
          San Diego, CA 92130-2067
          Telephone: (619) 363-2889
          Facsimile: (619) 810-0791
          E-mail: Ramin@haririlaw.com
                  Admin@haririlaw.com
                  Andrew@haririlaw.com

                - and -

          Daryoosh Khashayar, Esq.
          KHASHAYAR LAW GROUP
          12636 High Bluff Dr., Ste. 400
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 509-1550
          Facsimile: (858) 509-1551
          E-mail: daryoosh@mysdlawyers.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Aileen M. Hunter, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
          1920 Main Street, Suite 1000
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 223-7000
          Facsimile: (949) 437-8738
          E-mail: aileen.hunter@bclplaw.com

                - and -

          Thomas M. Bruen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS M. BRUEN, P.C.
          1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 20
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 708-4149
          E-mail: tbruen@tbsglaw.com

ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Class Bid Cert Hearing Set for Jan 10, 2024
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANNON, et al., v.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00448-ADA-ML (W.D.
Tex.), the Hon. Judge Mark Lane entered an order setting the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on January 10, 2024.

Allstate offers auto, home life insurances policies.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46qf9k5 at no extra charge.[CC]


ALTUS DIRECT: Class Discovery Must be Completed by June 7, 2024
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PROGRESSIVE HEALTH AND
REHAB CORP., v. ALTUS DIRECT HEALTHCARE LLC, et al., Case No.
2:23-cv-01936-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A.
Preston Deavers entered a preliminary pretrial order as follows:

  -- Any initial disclosures shall be made by:       Oct. 27, 2023


  -- Any motion to amend the pleadings or to         Dec. 1, 2023
     join additional parties shall be filed by:

  -- If the case is a class action, the parties      June7, 2024
     agree that the motion for class certification
     shall be filed by:

  -- All discovery shall be completed by:            June 7, 2024.

  -- Any dispositive motion shall be filed by:       June 9, 2024

  -- Primary expert reports must be produced by:     March 1, 2024


  -- The Plaintiff shall make a settlement           Nov. 10, 2023
     demand by:

  -- The Defendants shall respond by:                Dec. 1, 2023

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax
Prevention Act of 2005, 47 USC § 227, which prohibits a person or
entity from faxing or having an agent fax advertisements without
the recipient’s prior express invitation or permission. Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants sent it two unsolicited facsimile
advertisements on June 22, 2020 and August 2, 2020.

The Plaintiff seeks to certify this case as a class action and has
not included a jury demand. The Defendants deny Plaintiff's
allegations and deny liability. Defendants further deny that
certification of a class is appropriate.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45osCHN at no extra charge.[CC]

AMAZON.COM INC: Mahone Seeks to Certify Military Employee Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YASMINE MAHONE, an
individual, and BRANDON TOLE, an individual, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC.,
a Delaware corporation, AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC; a Delaware Limited
Liability Company; and AMAZON.COM.DEDC, LLC; a Delaware Limited
Liability Company; and AMAZON.COM.KYDC, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, Case No. 2:22-cv-00594-MJP (W.D. Wash.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   (a) Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification;

   (b) Certifying the nationwide Class and Subclasses;

   (c) Appoint Stonebarger Law, APC and Pilot Law, P.C. as Class
       Counsel; and

   (d) Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems
       proper.

The Plaintiffs Yasmine Mahone and Brandon Tole, on behalf of
themselves and the class of all other similarly situated persons,
as proposed Class Representatives, hereby submit the following
Motion for Class Certification.

The case is a class action brought pursuant to the Uniformed
Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA)
against the Amazon.

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3),
the Plaintiffs seek certification of nationwide Classes of:

   "All current and former employees of Amazon who were or are
   currently serving in the United States Armed Services or
National
   Guard ("Military Employees").

The Plaintiffs also seek certification of the following subclasses:


   1) the "Hourly Military Employee Subclass" consisting of a
      nationwide class of all current and former hourly employees
of
      Amazon who were or are currently serving in the United States

      Armed Services or National Guard; and

   2) the "Salaried Military Employee Subclass" consisting of a
      nationwide class of all current and former salaried employees
of
      Amazon who were or are currently serving in the United States

      Armed Services or National Guard.

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

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 13, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PR56h2 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

                - and -

          Daniel Kalish, Esq.
          HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
          600 Stewart Street, Suite 901
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 838-2504
          E-mail: dkalish@hkm.com

                - and -

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

                - and -

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

AMAZON.COM INC: Storey Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Tonny Storey, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services
LLC, Case No. 23-00002-17644-8 SEA was removed from the King County
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington on Oct. 4, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01529 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Amazon.com, Inc. -- http://www.amazon.com/-- is an American
multinational technology company that focuses on e-commerce, cloud
computing, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam J. Berger, Esq.
          Lily Ramseyer, Esq.
          Lindsay Halm, Esq.
          SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER
          401 Union St., Ste. 3400
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 622-8000
          Fax: (206) 682-2305
          Email: berger@sgb-law.com
                 ramseyer@sgb-law.com
                 halm@sgb-law.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ellie Chapman, Esq.
          Charles Christian Sipos, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE (SEA)
          1201 3rd Ave., Ste. 4900
          Seattle, WA 98101-3099
          Phone: (206) 359-3897
          Email: echapman@perkinscoie.com
                 CSipos@perkinscoie.com


AMERICAN HONDA: Quackenbush Appeals Rulings in Vehicle Defect Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Mary Quackenbush, et al., filed an appeal from court
rulings entered in the lawsuit styled MARY QUACKENBUSH, MARISSA
FEENEY, and ANNE PELLETTIERI, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR
COMPANY, INC., and HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, LTD., a Japanese
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. C 20-05599 WHA, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
are vehicle owners who purchased their cars from authorized Honda
dealers alleging that an engine component within their cars,
namely, the variable timing control actuator 14310-R44-A01, was
defective. Sometimes, the VTC actuator rattled on vehicle ignition
due to the premature disengagement of a stopper pin located within
it. Honda discovered the problem beginning in 2008 after receiving
complaints of rattling and pursued an eight-year investigation.
After implementing numerous countermeasures to cure the problem,
Honda ultimately replaced the VTC actuator model with a new part.
The Plaintiffs say Honda's failure to disclose this defect injured
them and posed a significant safety hazard.

The Plaintiffs filed their class action complaint in August 2020,
then a first amendment in November 2020, the operative complaint. A
motion to dismiss failed in its entirety in February 2021.
Discovery ensued for several months, and plaintiffs moved for class
certification in October 2021. In December 2021, after full
briefing and additional discovery disputes, an order certified
three classes. Both parties filed motions for reconsideration. An
order dated April 27, 2022, redefined the certified classes and
clarified the operative class claims.

In her individual capacity, Pellettieri also pursues a breach of
implied warranty claim in violation of Section 2-316 of the
Illinois Commercial Code.

The Defendants moved for summary judgment on all named Plaintiffs'
individual implied warranty claims, Pellettieri's Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and fraudulent omission
claims, the California Repair Class' fraudulent omission claim, and
various damages arguments under both Illinois and California law.

On January 13, 2023, Judge Alsup resolved the Defendants' summary
judgment motion as follows: (1) Feeney's and Pellettieri's
individual implied warranty claims were dismissed; (2)
Quackenbush's individual implied warranty claim under Section 2314
was dismissed (3) the Illinois New and Used Purchaser Class's
fraudulent omission and ICFA claims were dismissed. Summary
judgment as to all remaining claims and arguments was also denied.

The Plaintiffs are now filing an appeal from a Final Judgment
entered by the Court last August 29, 2023; the Final Charge to the
Jury as Read with Special Verdict Form entered on August 25, 2023;
the Final Pretrial Order entered on August 18, 2023; the District
Court's Order on Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File a Motion for
Reconsideration entered on March 7, 2023; the Court's Order on
Motion for Summary Judgment entered on January 13, 2023; the
Court's Order Re the Parties' Stipulation and Proposed Order
entered on May 19, 2022; the Court's Order on Motions for
Reconsideration of Class Certification entered on April 27, 2022;
and the Court's Order on Motion for Class Certification and to
Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert entered on December 27, 2021.

The appellate case is captioned as Mary Quackenbush, et al. v.
American Honda Motor Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-16223, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on
September 29, 2023.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Marissa Feeney, Anne Pellettieri and Mary
Quackenbush Mediation Questionnaire was due on October 6, 2023;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by October 30, 2023;

   -- Transcript is due on November 29, 2023;

   -- Appellants Marissa Feeney, Anne Pellettieri and Mary
Quackenbush opening brief is due on January 9, 2024;

   -- Appellees American Honda Motor Company, Inc. and Honda Motor
Company, Ltd. answering brief is due on February 9, 2024; and

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

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

          Marc Lawrence Godino, Esq.
          Marc Lawrence Godino, Esq.
          Kevin F. Ruf, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG, LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150

               - and -

          Mark Greenstone, Esq.
          GREENSTONE LAW APC
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9156   

               - and -

          David Jay Stone, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY, LLP
          745 Fifth Avenue, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10151
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340

Defendants-Appellees AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC., a
California corporation, and HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, LTD., a foreign
corporation, are represented by:

          William A. Delgado, Esq.
          Megan O'Neill, Esq.
          DTO LAW
          601 S Figueroa Street, Suite 2130
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 335-6999

AMROCK LLC: Coppola Seeks Conditional Certification of Collective
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LENNY COPPOLA, and CHERYL
ACCARDI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. AMROCK, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-11639-IT (D. Mass.), the
Plaintiffs asks the Court to enter an order granting conditional
certification of the collective and dissemination of notice
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, and request that the Court authorize notice to and
conditionally certify the collective.

Amrock is an American provider of title insurance, property
valuations and settlement services.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 13, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FDVodn at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachel M. Haskell, Esq.
          Jessica Cahill, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER Q. DAVIS, PLLC
          80 Broad Street, Suite 703
          New York, NY
          Telephone: (646) 430-7930
          E-mail: jcahill@workingsoltuionsnyc.com

ANTHONY FASULO: Palumbo Seeks Initial Nod of Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK PALUMBO, ROSARIO
PRATO, MAURICIO MARTINEZ, and JOSEPH OVILE as participants and/or
former participants of the Pavers and Road Builders District
Council Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Apprenticeship, Skill
Improvement and Safety Fund and the United Plant and Production
Workers Local 175 Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, and Apprenticeship,
Skill Improvement and Safety Fund, on behalf of themselves and all
persons similarly situated, v. ANTHONY FASULO, ALBERT ALIMENA,
DOMINICK AGOSTINO, JOHN PETERS, ROBERT CHEVERIE, FRANCISCO
FERNANDEZ, JAMES KILKENNEY, PHILIP FAICCO, VINCENT MASINO, ANTHONY
ROBIBERO and KEITH LOSCALZO and/or their successors, in their
capacity as present and former Trustees of the Pavers and Road
Builders District Council Pension Fund, Welfare Fund,
Apprenticeship, Skill Improvement and Safety Fund and the PAVERS
AND ROAD BUILDERS DISTRICT COUNCIL PENSION FUND, WELFARE FUND, and
APPRENTICESHIP, SKILL IMPROVEMENT AND SAFETY FUND, Case No.
1:07-cv-00797-PKC-RML (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:

   1. Preliminarily certifying the requested Class for purposes of
the
      Settlement;

   2. Appointing Jennifer S. Smith of the Law Offices of Jennifer
      Smith PLLC, and David New of the Law Office of David W. New,
PC
      as Class Counsel;

   3. Granting preliminary approval of the proposed settlement;

   4. Approving the form and manner of giving notice to members of
the
      Settlement Class;

   5. Scheduling a fairness hearing; and

   6. Awarding such other and further relief as is just and
proper.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 10, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PO8WYe at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jennifer S. Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JENNIFER SMITH PLLC
          One Liberty Plaza
          165 Broadway, 23rd Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (347) 342-2213

                - and –

          David W. New, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DAVID W. NEW
          Rutherford, NJ 07070

ANTRA INC: Jama Seeks to Certify FLSA Minimum Wage Claim
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMA JAMA, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. ANTRA, INC., Case No.
1:23-cv-00997-LMB-LRV (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) 29
U.S.C. section 216(b):

   1. Conditionally certifying Count I of his Complaint (FLSA
minimum
       wage claim) as a collective action; and

   2. Mandating dissemination of notice to all putative Plaintiffs

      comprising the collectives, defined below:

      -- Trainee Collective

         "All persons who have participated in Defendant's SEP
         training program, pursuant to the same or substantially
the
         same SEP Invitation Letter as Plaintiff, at any time
within
         three years, or longer if equitable tolling is granted,
prior
         to this action’s filing to the trial of this action
(FLSA
         Collective Period)."

      -- Intern Collective

         "All persons who have participated in Defendant’s
post-SEP
         training internship program, pursuant to the same or
         substantially the same Intern Offer Letter as Plaintiff,
at
         any time within FLSA Collective Period.

Antra is an information technology company providing business
advisory, technology, and professional services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 11, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45wb5xm at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zev Antell, Esq.
          Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
          BUTLERCURWOOD, PLC
          140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 648-4848
          E-mail: zev@butlercurwood.com
                  craig@butlercurwood.com

                - and -

          Timothy Coffield, Esq.
          COFFIELD PLC
          106-F Melbourne Park Circle
          Charlottesville, VA 22901
          Telephone: (434) 218-3133
          Facsimile: (434) 321-1636
          E-mail: tc@coffieldlaw.com

                - and -

          Matthew T. Sutter, Esq.
          SUTTER & TERPAK, PLLC
          7540 Little River Turnpike, Suite A
          Annandale, VA 22003
          Telephone: (703) 256-1800
          Facsimile: (703) 991-6116
          E-mail: matt@sutterandterpak.com

ARAMARK FACILITY: Cisneros Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Maria Cisneros, Marta Chavez, and Victor
Garcia, individuals and class representative on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated non-exempt former and
current employees v. ARAMARK FACILITY SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. 23STCV21069 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 Oct. 4, 2023, and assigned
Case No. 2:23-cv-08365.

The Plaintiffs allege ten causes of action for: Failure to Provide
Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Failure to Pay
Overtime; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Timely Pay Wages
During Employment; Failure to Pay All Wages Due at Termination;
Failure to Maintain Required Records; Failure to Furnish Accurate
Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Indemnify Employees for
Necessary Expenditures; and Unfair and Unlawful Business
Practices.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Brian Fahy, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Phone: +1.213.612.2500
          Fax: +1.213.612.2501
          Email: brian.fahy@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Michelle L. Quach, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1400 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Phone: +1.650.843.4000
          Fax: +1.650.843.4001
          Email: michelle.quach@morganlewis.com


ARAMARK SERVICES: Baylon Seeks to Certify Non-Exempt Employee Class
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE BAYLON and CHRISTIAN
GUTIERREZ, individuals, on behalf of themselves, all others
similarly situated, and the general public, v. ARAMARK SERVICES,
INC., a Delaware corporation and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No.
2:23-cv-04510-PA-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for
class certification of their class claims set forth in their
operative First Amended Complaint against Aramark.

The hearing for said motion is scheduled on Nov. 6, 2023.

In the motion, Plaintiffs seek to certify is comprised of
approximately 146 persons, who were nonexempt employees of Aramark
services Inc. within California between September 2, 2019 through
September 14, 2023.

The proposed Rule 23 class is specifically defined in the operative
FAC as follows:

   "All of Defendants’ hourly paid employees who have worked for
   Defendants in the State of California in Defendant’s Food and

   Nutrition Services and Healthcare and/or Healthcare+ Services
   Division, including but not limited to Defendant’s operations
at
   St. John’s Health Center in Santa Monica, California, during
the
   Relevant Time Period (i.e., three (3) years prior to the filing
of
   the case plus such additional time as may be permitted due to
   mandatory tolling of the statutes of limitations pursuant to
the
   California Rules of Court) herein up to the date the court
   determines this case is properly certified as a class action.

The Plaintiffs also seek to certify a Subclass defined as follows:

   "All Class members whose employment with Defendants terminated
   within three years and 178 days preceding the filing of this
   action.

Aramark is a customer service company that offers food, facilities,
and uniform services.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 6, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3trzA1H at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul T. Cullen, Esq.
          THE CULLEN LAW FIRM, APC
          9800 Topanga Canyon Boulevard
          Suite D, PMB 235
          Chatsworth, CA 91311-4057
          Telephone: (818) 360-2529
          Facsimile: (866) 794-5741
          E-mail: paul@cullenlegal.com

ARBOR REALTY: CDMI Seeks Initial OK of Class Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CASA DE MARYLAND, INC., et
al, v. ARBOR REALTY TRUST, INC., et al, Case No. 8:21-cv-01778-DKC
(D. Md.), the Plaintiffs file renewed motion for preliminary
approval of class settlement.

The Plaintiffs are Anita Ramirez, Ramiro Lopez, Ervin Obdulio
Rodas, Jesus Gonzalez, Maria Arely Bonilla, Maria Lara, and Norma
Guadalupe Beltran

Arbor is a nationwide real estate investment trust and direct
lender.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 6, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rLtWa6 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

                - and –

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

ARIZONA: Agrees to Pay for Employees' Gender-Affirming Surgeries
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lux Butler, Cronkite News, reports that Arizona legislators said
they are "disappointed" that the state has agreed to pay for
gender-affirming surgeries for state employees in a consent decree
that settles years of class action litigation by a University of
Arizona professor.

The consent decree, approved by a federal district court judge in
Tucson, comes months after Gov. Katie Hobbs issued an executive
order reversing a previous state policy that had prohibited the
procedures as part of the state's health insurance plan. Advocates
said the court order will have the effect of making Hobbs' order
permanent.

Russell Toomey, the University of Arizona professor of family
studies and human development who filed the lawsuit, said he felt
"immeasurable" relief after Hobbs' June 27 executive order, but
that he was thrilled to see the consent decree.

"Finding out that the federal judge in my case . . . ordered the
permanent removal of the exclusion of gender-affirming surgical
care from our state employee health insurance provides even greater
relief," Toomey said in a statement.

But the decision was criticized by legislative leaders who tried to
intervene in the case, which they said would violate the separation
of powers between judicial and legislative branches by infringing
on lawmakers' authority. U.S. District Judge Rosemary Marquez
rejected the attempt by Senate President Warren Petersen and House
Speaker Ben Toma

They also argued that the consent decree could impact a state law
that took effect this year, banning "irreversible gender
reassignment surgery to any individual who is under 18 years of
age," a law that was sponsored by Petersen.

"Sex-change surgeries should never be performed on children and
certainly not as part of the state's health plan," Petersen said in
a statement on Oct. 5. "I'm greatly disappointed the court's order
did not clarify this, and I'm appalled that the Governor's
administration would push for this."

Toomey, a transgender man, filed the suit in 2019 after the state
refused to cover the cost of a total hysterectomy he sought to
treat his gender dysphoria. The state's health insurance plan at
the time allowed some treatments for gender dysphoria but
specifically prohibited gender-reassignment surgery, even when
surgery is considered medically necessary.

Toomey claimed the policy violated his civil rights under Title VII
and his 14th Amendment equal protection rights. Marquez certified
the civil rights portion of the case as a class-action suit.

After two years of legal wrangling, the two sides asked to put the
case on hold while they negotiated a potential settlement.

Those negotiations were still going on when Hobbs issued her
executive order on June 27, ordering the removal of the
gender-reassignment surgery ban in state health coverage. In her
order, she pointed to a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case, Bostock v.
Clayton County, that said "discrimination against a person because
they are transgender necessarily constitutes discrimination against
that person on the basis of sex."

Christine Wee, a senior staff attorney for the American Civil
Liberties Union of Arizona, which represented Toomey, called the
consent decree a "victory for all state employees defeating this
clear violation of federal civil rights law once and for all."

"This is going to benefit trans state employees in Arizona. But
it's really going to benefit all Arizonans because the crux of this
case is just simply about equal access to healthcare," Wee said.

But critics said the decree will end up sticking taxpayers with the
bill for surgery that one said can have long-term negative
impacts.

"Taxpayers should not be forced to fund experimental surgeries and
drugs," said a statement from Cathi Herrod, president of the Center
for Arizona Policy. She accused the Hobbs administration of
"doubling down on an ideologically driven agenda."

Wee called those arguments simply "incorrect and not accurate,"

"Throughout the almost 5 years this case has been winding its way
through the court system, we learned that actually this isn't going
to cost taxpayers very much money, if at all," she said. "We
learned through questioning state employees who were a part of the
Arizona Department of Administration that actually the cost wasn't
very high."

While he was disappointed with the decree, Petersen pointed to at
least one win: Toomey's legal team -- which included attorneys from
the New York-based law firm Willkie Farr & Gallagher -- had
originally asked for $500,000 in attorney's fees, but Marquez
reduced the award to $375,000.

"Nonetheless, I'm thankful our arguments saved $125,000 in taxpayer
dollars from being paid out to radical leftist out-of-state law
firms," Petersen's statement said. [GN]

ASHEVILLE, NC: Miall Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN P. MIALL, JR., ROBYN
HITE, DAVID SHAW, DANIE JOHNSON, and WILLA GRANT, v. CITY OF
ASHEVILLE, DEBRA CAMPBELL, in her official capacity as City Manager
of the City of Asheville, and ESTHER MANHEIMER, in her official
capacity as Mayor of the City of Asheville, Case No.
1:23-cv-00259-MR-WCM (W.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs move for class
certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2).

The proposed class will be represented by Plaintiffs John Miall;
Robyn Hite; David Shaw; Danie Johnson; and Willa Grant
(Plaintiffs). The proposed class consists of all past, present,
future, and deterred nonminority Asheville or Buncombe County
applicants to the Human Relations Commission of Asheville (HRCA)
that are qualified to apply and compete for an appointment to the
HRCA.

Asheville is a city in western North Carolina's Blue Ridge
Mountains. It's known for a vibrant arts scene and historic
architecture, including the dome-topped Basilica of Saint
Lawrence.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 6, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45Eyg9b at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jessica L. Thompson, Esq.
          Andrew Quinio, Esq.
          PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION
          3100 Clarendon Blvd., Suite 1000
          Arlington, VA 22201
          Telephone: (202) 888-6881
          Facsimile: (916) 419-7747
          E-mail: JLThompson@pacificlegal.org
                  AQuinio@pacificlegal.org

                - and -

          Ruth C. Smith, Esq.
          THE ELMORE AND SMITH LAW FIRM, P.C.
          79 Woodfin Place, Suite 103
          Asheville, NC 28801
          Telephone: (828) 367-7998
          Facsimile: (828) 367-7991
          E-mail: ruth@mywncattorney.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Eric P. Edgerton, Esq.
          CITY OF ASHEVILLE
          7 Carraway Street
          Woodfin, NC 28804
          E-mail: eedgerton@ashevillenc.gov

ASSESSOR OF FLORAL PARK: Dimone Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Assessor of the
Village of Floral Park, et al. The case is styled as Noreen Dimone,
all other similarly situated Petitioners on the annexed SCHEDULE A,
Petitioners v. The Assessor of the Village of Floral Park, The
Board of Assessment Review of the Village of Floral Park,
Respondents, Case No. 615970/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., Oct.
4, 2023).

The case type is stated as "SP-CPLR Article 78 (Body or Officer)."

Floral Park -- https://fpvillage.org/ -- is an incorporated village
in Nassau County, New York, United States, on Long Island.[BN]

The Petitioners are represented by:

          Mark H. Miller, Esq.
          MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG, LLP
          132 Spruce St
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516-1915


AUSTRALIA: Sued Over Climate Negligence in Torres Strait
--------------------------------------------------------
Isabelle Reinecke, writing for The Guardian, reports that Guda
Maluyligal traditional owners Uncle Pabai Pabai and Uncle Paul
Kabai, and their communities on Boigu and Saibai islands, have
launched a world-first climate change class action. They are suing
the Australian government for climate negligence in the Torres
Strait -- the first First Nations people in the world to sue their
government in this way.

An hour after the planes arrive, Uncle Pabai is called as the first
witness in the case. We're in the Boigu community hall, which has
been painstakingly transformed by Uncle Pabai's extended family and
community into a tropical facsimile of the federal court. Palm
fronds have been macheted off trees. Some have their long green
leaves wrapped carefully around the hall's big metal beams, while
others have been woven into hanging vases decorated with bright red
jungle geranium and white frangipani, and bunches of green bananas.
A row of potted palms is set against huge sheets of satin that hang
from the ceiling behind the judge in white, green and blue -- the
official colours of the Torres Strait, and referred to locally as
Zenadth Kes.

The seating for Uncle Pabai was carefully prepared the day before
by his sister Aunty Diane Messa and his wife, Aunty Waimed Pabai,
the plastic chairs wrapped in white satin and double-stacked to
avoid any embarrassment if one was to break. He sits at the front
of the court, with Wigney to his right.

The judge has eschewed the typical billowing black robes of regular
court, preferring a casual, short-sleeved navy shirt, khakis and
sandals. Uncle Pabai faces two rows of long tables of lawyers --
his legal team, led by Fiona McLeod SC, is to his left, and the
Australian government's lawyers are to his right. Behind them sit
Boigu community members and elders who have come to watch this
historic moment. The court has come to their land, to hear from
their community. The government must sit and listen.

In an earlier case-management hearing -- where the court makes
logistical and administrative orders in preparation for the main
trial -- the chief justice of the federal court Debra Mortimer
decided the hearings should be split, so that community evidence
could be heard "on country". This is a deeply significant decision.
It means the court must go to the people, not the other way around.
It recognises the court's role, as described by a former chief
justice of the high court, Gerard Brennan, "to serve and protect
not the governors but the governed". [GN]

AVANT GARDNER: Ting Sues Over Cancelled, Oversold Concert Event
---------------------------------------------------------------
BILLY TING; DUOC VO; GARRY HUANG; JEFFREY WANG, and JOSHUA CHIN ,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. AVANT GARDNER, LLC; EZ FESTIVALS LLC; MADE EVENT LLC;
and John Does Nos. 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. 654897/2023
(N.Y., Sup., Oct. 5, 2023) is a consumer class action on behalf of
about 75,000 people who purchased tickets and incurred additional
expenses to attend a three-day event organized and hosted by the
Defendants, only to find out at the last minute that the event was
partially cancelled and oversold, grossly understaffed, and as a
result the attendees were either denied entry to the entirety or
portions of the event.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff, and everyone else who
attended or purchased tickets to attend Ezoo 2023 (the "Class"),
have been damaged, including but not limited to the price of the
tickets, and the costs of airfare, accommodations, transportation,
and use of personal time off.

AVANT GARDNER, LLC is a live music entertainment brand, renowned
for its annual Electric Zoo music festival on Randall’s Island in
New York City and for its 80,000-square-foot flagship venue in East
Williamsburg, which features the world-famous Brooklyn Mirage.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Jacob Chen, Esq.
         Rita Wang, Esq.
         DGW KRAMER LLP
         One Rockefeller Plaza; Ste. 1060
         New York, NY 10020
         Telephone: (917) 633-6860
         Facsimile: (917) 633-6183
         Email: jchen@dgwllp.com

AVE. D FINEST: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Avila Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
MARIO ADALBERTO ISASI AVILA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AVE. D FINEST MEAT CORP.;
and MARCO CHAPARRO, Defendants, Case 1:23-cv-07504 (E.D.N.Y., Oct.
6, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Avila was employed by the Defendants as a butcher.

AVE. D FINEST MEAT CORP. owns and operates a meat shop in New York.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591
          Facsimile: (718) 263-9598

AZTEX HATS INC: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aztex Hats, Inc. The
case is styled as Damon Jones, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Aztex Hats, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-08753-VSB
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 5, 2023).

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

Shop with a variety of hats for men, women & kids, including cowboy
hats, fedoras & caps.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BANK OF AMERICA: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due May 10, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANA L. HIGGINBOTHAM, on
behalf of Herself and all others similarly situated, v. BANK OF
AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 2:23-cv-00375 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge
John T. Copenhaver, Jr. entered a case management order pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f):

                 Deadline                            Date

  Last date to serve discovery requests           Mar. 8, 2024
  needed for Plaintiff’s individual claims
  and class certification issues

  Deadline for completion of fact discovery       Apr. 26, 2024
  needed for Plaintiff's individual claims
  and class certification issues

  Deadline for Plaintiff to file Motion for       May 10, 2024
  Class Certification

  Deadline for Defendant to file Response to      May 31, 2024
  Motion for Class Certification

  Hearing on Motion for Class Certification       Aug. 22, 2024

  Dispositive motions deadline                    Jan. 28, 2025

  Motion in limine deadline                       Apr. 4, 2025

  Final settlement conference                     May 19, 2025

  Trial                                           May 20, 2025

The Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational
investment bank and financial services holding company
headquartered at the Bank of America.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZKW3Tv at no extra charge.[CC]


BEAM DISTRIBUTING: Faces Class Action Over Spam Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a
proposed class action out of Oklahoma alleges Beam Distributing,
Inc., which does business as Pelican, has violated state law by
sending unsolicited text messages to consumers' cell phones as part
of its mass marketing efforts.

The 15-page lawsuit was filed by an Oklahoma resident who says that
in January 2023, the outdoor product retailer began "bombarding"
her cell phone with text messages promoting its products despite
having never obtained her permission to be contacted.

According to the case, the plaintiff continued to receive Pelican's
robotexts, which contained advertisements like "FLASH SALE! 20% off
20QT Elite Coolers with promo code BONUS20," until June 2023.

The complaint contends that Pelican has transmitted "blasts" of
similar text messages to consumers throughout the United States
using an automated text messaging system. Per the filing, this
system allows Pelican to automatically transmit mass solicitation
texts to consumers with no human involvement and at a "nominal"
cost.

However, under the Oklahoma Telephone Solicitation Act (OTSA), the
company is prohibited from using an automated system to place a
"commercial telephonic sales call" without first obtaining the
recipient's prior written consent, the suit explains.

The case goes on to claim that in further violation of the OTSA,
Pelican sent Oklahoma residents text messages using a 10-digit
"long code" that, when called, does not connect the caller to the
defendant.

As the complaint tells it, proposed class members are entitled to
$500 for each allegedly unlawful text message they received from
Pelican.

The lawsuit seeks to cover anyone in Oklahoma who was sent one or
more text messages regarding Pelican's property, goods, and/or
services since November 1, 2022 using the same equipment or type of
equipment utilized to call the plaintiff, or through the use of any
long code. [GN]

BEAUMONT INDEPENDENT: Seeks More Time for Class Cert Reply
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREG MURPHY, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. BEAUMONT
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT AND SHANNON ALLEN, Case No.
1:22-cv-00135-MAC (E.D. Tex.), the Defendants file an unopposed
motion for extension of time to respond to plaintiff's motion for
class certification due to the Plaintiff's inability to present for
deposition.

On July 14, 2023, the Defendants noticed the deposition of the
Plaintiff Murphy to take place on Wednesday, August 23, 2023, at
Plaintiff's counsel's office.

On September 1, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel relayed that Plaintiff
needed to obtain an update from his doctor as to when he could sit
for his deposition.

On September 18, 2023, Plaintiff's counsel notified defense counsel
that Plaintiff was set for surgery on October 5, 2023, and that he
would work to obtain his prognosis for deposition following
surgery.

The next item Defendants received was Plaintiff's Motion for Class

Certification filed October 2, 2023.

Beaumont Independent School District is a U.S. public school
district serving Beaumont in Southeast Texas.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 9, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48NWfW6 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon P. Monk, Esq.
          THE MONK LAW FIRM
          4875 Parker Drive
          Beaumont, TX 77705
          E-mail: brandon@themonklawfirm.com

                - and -

          Laurence "Larry" Watts, Esq.
          WATTS & COMPANY, LTD
          Missouri City, TX 77459
          E-mail: wattstrial@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Paul A. Lamp, Esq.
          Melissa M. Goins, Esq.
          SPALDING NICHOLS LAMP LANGLOIS
          3700 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 500
          Houston, TX 77098
          Telephone: (713) 993-7060
          Facsimile: (888)726-8374
          E-mail: plamp@snll-law.com
                  mgoins@snll-law.com

BINANCE HOLDINGS: Lahav Sues Over Crypto Price Manipulation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nir Lahav, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. BINANCE HOLDINGS LIMITED, BAM TRADING SERVICES INC.,
BAM MANAGEMENT US HOLDINGS INC. AND CHANGPENG ZHAO, Defendants,
Case No. 4:23-cv-05038 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 2, 2023) seeks remedies
under unfair competition and violations of Security Exchange
Commission laws for attempts to monopolize the cryptocurrency
platform market by hurting the competitor trading platforms
operated by the FTX Entities,

Plaintiff Lahav alleges that the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements that caused the price of FTT in the
market to decline. These statements were publicly disseminated on
twitter and other social media platforms hurt FTX Entities and
ultimately led to a rushed and unprecedented collapse of FTX
Entities.

Binance Holdings Ltd. is a cryptocurrency company with headquarters
in 23 Lime Tree Bay Ave, Cayman Islands and operating out of the
Republic of China. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Deepali A. Brahmbhatt, Esq.
         DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC
         3120 Scott Blvd. #13,
         Santa Clara, CA 95054
         Telephone: (650) 254-9805
         E-mail: dbrahmbhatt@devlinlawfirm.com

                 - and -

         Timothy Devlin, Esq.
         DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC
         1526 Gilpin Avenue
         Wilmington, DE 19806
         Telephone: (302) 449-9010
         E-mail: tdevlin@devlinlawfirm.com

                 - and -

         Curtis E. Smolar, Esq.
         COREXLEGAL PA
         450 Townsend Street, Suite 207
         San Francisco, CA 94107
         E-mail: curtis@corexlegal.com

BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Class Cert Bid Filing Amended to April 24, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWRENCE E. MARTIN, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, v. BRIGHTHOUSE
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:21-cv-02923-RA (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Ronnie Abrams entered a fifth amended case management
plan and
scheduling order as follows:

-- Requests to Admit shall be served no         Feb. 26, 2024
    later than:

-- All expert discovery, including              March 25, 2024
    disclosures, reports, production
    of underlying documents, and
    depositions shall be completed by:

-- The parties will serve affirmative           Jan. 18, 2024
    expert reports on:

-- The parties will serve rebuttal              March 4, 2024
    reports on:

-- All discovery shall be completed no          March 25, 2024.
    later than:

-- The Court will conduct a post-discovery      April 1, 2024
    conference on:

-- Plaintiff's Motion for Class                 April 24, 2024
    Certification will be filed on or
    Before:

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

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rG6NWJ at no extra charge.[CC]

BROCK GROUP: Kelley Sues Over Wage Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------
KEVIN KELLEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BROCK GROUP, INC. & BROCK INDUSTRIAL
SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-03247-RJD (S.D. Ill.,
Oct. 2, 2023) alleges claims against the Defendants for unjust
enrichment and for violations of the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendant Brock employed Plaintiff Kelley as an environmental
abatement laborer at the Scott Airforce Base and Afton Chemical
projects from approximately August 2022 to May 2023. It paid many
of its employees, including Kelley, at agreed upon hourly rates.
However, it is allegedly engaged in a systematic scheme and
practice of underpayment. Rather than pay Kelley at the agreed upon
rate, Brock trimmed Kelley's pay by a total of $38.80 for the
October 27, 2022 pay period. Similar reductions were made to
Kelley's paystubs during the October 20, 2022 pay period, says the
suit.

Brock is a union soft craft services contractor who employs at
least 13,000 employees nationwide to provide scaffolding, painting,
insulation, shoring, lead and asbestos abatement, fireproofing,
facilities maintenance, fabrication and electrical instrumentation
and heat tracing services in support of capital projects,
maintenance, and facility turnarounds. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Jenny Paulson, Esq.
        SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC
        1 Court Street
        Alton, IL 62002
        Telephone.: (618) 693-3104
        E-mail: jpaulson@simmonsfirm.com

                - and -

        Alvin Paulson, Esq.
        CHATHAM & BARICEVIC
        107 West Main Street
        Belleville, IL 62220
        Telephone: (618) 233-2200
        Facsimile: (618) 233-1589
        E-mail: alvin@chathamlaw.org

BROCK PIERCE: Rowan Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Reply
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHAN ROWAN,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BROCK PIERCE, an individual, Case No. 3:20-cv-01648-RAM (D.P.R.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting Plaintiff
leave to file a reply in support of his renewed motion for class
certification.

On September 29, 2023, Pierce filed a response to Plaintiff's
renewed motion for class certification. In the response, Pierce
raises new arguments, including but not limited to relying on a new
expert report. These new arguments from Pierce merit a response
from Plaintiff.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jairo Mellado-Villarreal, Esq.
          Hector Orejuela-Davila, Esq.
          MELLADO & MELLADO-VILLARREAL
          165 Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 102
          San Juan, PR 00917
          Telephone: (787) 767-2600
          Facsimile: (787) 767-2645
          E-mail: jmellado@mellado.com
                  horejuela@mellado.com

                - and -

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd, 28th FL
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (877) 333-9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
          E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com

                - and -

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          400 NW 26th Street
          Miami, FL 33127
          Telephone: (305) 469-5881
          E-mail: kaufman@kaurmanpa.com

CANADA DRY: Escalet Seeks Certification of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HECTOR ESCALET, On Behalf
of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. CANADA DRY POTOMAC
CORP., Case No. 2:23-cv-00329-MMB (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff seeks
the Court's order certifying his VOWA Miscalculated Overtime Claim
as a class action, on behalf of himself and the following persons:

   "All current and former non-exempt, day-rate employees,
regardless
   of actual title, who worked for Defendant within the
Commonwealth
   of Virginia between July 1, 2021 and June 30, 2022 and, during
that
   time, were paid overtime premiums at a rate less than one and
one-
   half times their regular rate of pay, calculated as one-fortieth

   (1/40th) of all wages paid for the workweek ("VOWA Miscalculated

   Overtime Class").

The Plaintiff also requests this Court appoint Plaintiff Escalet as
class representative and undersigned counsel as class counsel.

Canada Dry does not oppose this motion and agrees all Rule 23
requirements for class certification are established.

Canada Dry manufactures soft drinks and carbonated waters.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 6, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46Cho3q at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tracey F. George, Esq.
          DAVIS GEORGE LLC
          1600 Genessee St., Suite 328
          Kansas City, MO 64102
          Telephone: (816) 569-2629 ext. 2
          Facsimile: (816) 447-3939
          E-mail: tracey@dgmlawyers.com
                  www.dgmlawyers.com

                - and -

          Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq.
          ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC
          8201 Mission Rd., Suite 250
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 766-5585
          Facsimile: (816) 875-5069
          E-nmail: rowdy.meeks@rmlegalgroup.com
                   www.rmlegalgroup.com

                - and -

          Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq.
          WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON
          1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 656-3679
          E-mail: rhancock@wwdlaw.com


CAPITAL VISION: Class Cert Filing in Clark Extended to Feb 29, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Clark, et al., v. Capital
Vision Services, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-10236 (D. Mass., Filed Feb.
11, 2022), the Hon. Judge Denise J Casper entered an order on
notion for extension of time:

  -- Fact discovery extended until:               Nov. 29, 2023

  -- Opening expert disclosures due:              Nov. 29, 2023

  -- Rebuttal expert disclosures due:             Dec. 29, 2023

  -- Expert discovery closes:                     Jan. 29, 2024

  -- Class certification/Motions for              Feb. 29, 2024
     Summary Judgment due by:

  -- Decertification/Daubert motions              March 29, 2024
     due by:

  -- Hearing on class certification,              April 25, 2024
     Motions for Summary Judgment and
     Daubert motions on:

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Capital Vision provides optometric and retail optical services.[CC]

CARESOURCE: Faces Moore Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
ESTHER MOORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CARESOURCE, Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-00293-MJN-PBS (S.D. Ohio, Oct. 2, 2023) arises from
CareSource's impermissibly inadequate data security, which caused
the personal information of Plaintiff and those similarly situated
to be exfiltrated by unauthorized access by cybercriminals on or
about May 31, 2023, alleging claims against the Defendant for
negligence, unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, and
negligence per se.

The Plaintiff seeks remedies including, but not limited to,
compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages,
reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive
relief--including improvements to CareSource's data security
systems, future annual audits, and adequate credit monitoring
services funded by CareSource.

Founded in 1989 and headquartered in Dayton, Ohio, CareSource
provides public health care programs including Medicaid, Medicare,
and Marketplace and is the largest Medicaid plan in Ohio and is
second largest in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
         KARON LLC
         700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 200
         Cleveland, OH 44113
         Telephone: (216) 622-1851
         Facsimile: (216) 241-8175
         E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com

CARGILL MEAT: Must Oppose Villa Class Cert Bid by Oct. 27
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER VILLA and SUSAN
DAVIDSON, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, V.
CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, Case No. 3:22-cv-01321-RDM
(M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Robert D. Mariani entered an order
directing the Defendant to file any opposition papers to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification by October 27, 2023.

Cargill operates as a processor and distributor of fresh beef,
pork, turkey, and cooked and marinated meats.

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



CE DE CANDY: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind Users, Martinez Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CE DE CANDY, INC., Defendants, Case No.
529058/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., Oct. 6, 2023) alleges violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, www.smartiesstore.com, is not fully or equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in
violation of the ADA.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

Ce De Candy Company Limited was founded in 1962. The Company's line
of business includes the manufacturing of candy and other
confectionery products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

CERTEGY PAYMENT: Ct. Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Stachewicz
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stachewicz v. Certegy
Payment Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01258-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill.),
the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as
follows:

   -- Rule 16 scheduling conference

      The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
      30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
      The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.

   -- Discovery plan

      The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
      calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.

   -- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference

      If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
      plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
      conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
      discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
      within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16

      scheduling conference be cancelled.

   -- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing

      For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
      by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a

      telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to

      appear for an in-person hearing.

   -- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the

      discovery deadline has already passed

      The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court

      after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
      disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the

      relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
      raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
      discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
      the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
      discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
      discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
      they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move

      that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any

      subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.

   -- Settlement conferences and mediation

      The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or

      mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
      settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
      Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.

Certegy is a FinTech provider of payment risk management and
services to retailers and financial institutions in North America.


A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46FNv2d at no extra charge.[CC]

CIMAREX ENERGY: Court Directs Parties to Pursue ADR
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THE DUNCAN GROUP, LLC, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. CIMAREX
ENERGY CO., Case No. 5:18-cv-00123-JD (W.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge
Jodi Dishman entered an order directing the parties to participate
in some form of additional alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in
advance of the class certification hearing.

The Court said, "If the parties desire to make that a judicial
settlement conference, the parties should advise the Court within
seven days of the date of this order. Nothing about the Court’s
referral to ADR prevents the parties from engaging in
counsel-to-counsel negotiations and resolving the case prior to
formal ADR or from setting their formal ADR sooner than the
deadline. However, the parties should promptly notify the Court if
they resolve the case."

The deadline for the parties to complete ADR and file an ADR report
is December 15, 2023.

Cimarex was a company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration,
particularly shale oil and gas drilling.

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

CLEAR CHANNEL: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of investors
of Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings, Inc.  (NYSE: CCO) resulting from
allegations that Clear Channel may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Clear Channel securities you may be
entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees
or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm
is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to  
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=19504 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On September 28, 2023, the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") issued a press release "announc[ing]
that Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings Inc. agreed to pay more than
$26 million to resolve charges that it bribed Chinese government
officials to obtain outdoor advertising contracts in violation of
the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)." The press release
further stated that Clear Channel "violated the FCPA in connection
with the actions of its agent, Clear Media Limited, which, at the
relevant time, was a Clear Channel majority-owned subsidiary in
China."

The press release also stated that "[s]pecifically, the order finds
that, from at least 2012 through 2017, Clear Media bribed Chinese
government officials to obtain contracts required to sell
advertising services to public and private sector clients for
display on public bus shelters and other outdoor displays." The
press release continued to state "[i]n addition, the order finds
that Clear Media used sham intermediaries and false invoices to
generate cash for off-book 'customer development' consultants
engaged to win advertising business from government and private
customers." Finally, the press release stated that "[t]he order
further finds that, from at least 2012 through 2019, Clear Channel
failed to ensure that sufficient internal accounting controls were
in place at Clear Media."

On this news, Clear Channel's stock price fell 3% to close at $1.58
per share on September 29, 2023.

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

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

Contact Information:

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

COUNTRYWIDE STONE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Recinos Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN FRANCISCO LARA RECINOS; EVA FABIOLA GALEANO; and NELSON
BILANDER DEL CID ORELLANO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BENZION ELI WEINFELD AKA
BENJAMIN; GIOVANNI PEREZ; DENNIS PEREZ; COUNTRYWIDE STONE NY INC.
(D/B/A COUNTRYWIDE STONE); COUNTRYWIDE STONE & MARBLE INC. (D/B/A
COUNTRYWIDE STONE & MARBLE INC.); and COUNTRYWIDE STONE, LLC (D/B/A
COUNTRYWIDE STONE, LLC), Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-07517
(E.D.N.Y., Oct. 9, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as tile setters.

COUNTRYWIDE STONE NY INC. owns and operates a stone and marble
construction company, located at Brooklyn, NY 11237, under the name
"Countrywide Stone". [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Catalina Sojo, Esq.
          CSM LEGAL, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620

CRAFT BY SMOKE: Vazquez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Vazquez, and other similarly situated aggrieved employees,
v. CRAFT BY SMOKE AND FIRE LLC; CRAFT BY SMOKE AND FIRE PASADENA
LLC; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV24291 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 5, 2023), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code, Private
Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") as a result of the Defendants
failure to pay proper minimum and overtime wages.

The Defendants violated Labor Code because it failed to pay
Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved employees for all
hours worked, including the statutory minimum wage for all hours
worked and for "off the clock" work. This is so because the
Defendants had a company policy wherein they would
disproportionately round down the number of hours worked, resulting
in "time shaving" and further resulting in aggrieved employees not
being paid for all hours worked. Furthermore, and to the extent
that Plaintiff and others worked through their meal periods while
"off the clock", they were not compensated for all hours worked,
which would be akin to a minimum wage violation, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff started working at the Defendants on or around 2022
as a server.

The Defendants is and was a California corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harout Messrelian, Esq.
          MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
          500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Phone: (818) 484-6531
          Facsimile: (818) 956-1983


CRUNCHYROLL LLC: Agrees to Settle Streaming Service Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Peters, writing for Comicbook, reports that it seems like
Crunchyroll subscribers might be entitled to some cash. Recently, a
class action lawsuit against the streaming service was settled in a
United States District Court in Illinois. It was there a court
ruled certain subscribers to Crunchyroll may be entitled to a
payment.

The situation stems from a class action lawsuit accusing
Crunchyroll of disclosing subscribers' personal information to
third parties without user consent. After the lawsuit got underway,
Crunchyroll denied the allegations but decided to agree to a
settlement regardless. The service did so to avoid further expenses
that could come with fighting the class action lawsuit. As such,
Crunchyroll subscribers who paid for service between September 8,
2020 and September 20, 2023 may be entitled to compensation.

"A Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit against
Crunchyroll, LLC ("Crunchyroll" or "Defendant"). The class action
lawsuit accuses Crunchyroll of disclosing its subscribers'
personally identifiable information ("PII") to third parties
without consent in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act
(the "VPPA"). The VPPA defines PII to include information that
identifies a specific Person as having requested or obtained
specific video materials or services from a video tape service
provider. Defendant denies that it violated any law but has agreed
to the Settlement to avoid the uncertainties and expenses
associated with continuing the case," the class action settlement
reads.

"You are included if you are a Person in the United States who,
from September 8, 2020 through September 20, 2023, (1) was a
registered user of an online website, mobile app, or any
video-on-demand service or app owned, controlled, and/or operated
by Crunchyroll; and (2) viewed videos on an online website, mobile
app, or any video-on-demand service or app owned, controlled,
and/or operated by Crunchyroll."

According to Kroll Settlement Administration, the settlement's
first deadline is dated for November 27th. For those eligible for a
payment, their claims must be submitted no later than December 12.
For more info on the case against Sony Pictures Entertainments and
Crunchyroll, you can read its settlement details here.

What do you think about this lawsuit settlement involving
Crunchyroll? Let us know what you think in the comments below as
well as on Twitter and Instagram. You can also hit me up
@MeganPetersCB to share your take! [GN]

DATACOMP APPRAISAL: Moffat Sues Over Fixed Rental Prices Conspiracy
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia Moffat, Lee Ann Schaffer, and Barb Rowley, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DATACOMP APPRAISAL
SYSTEMS, INC.; EQUITY LIFESTYLE PROPERTIES, INC.; HOMETOWN AMERICA
MANAGEMENT, L.L.C.; LAKESHORE COMMUNITIES, INC.; SUN COMMUNITIES,
INC.; RHP PROPERTIES, INC.; YES! COMMUNITIES, INC.; INSPIRE
COMMUNITIES, L.L.C.; KINGSLEY MANAGEMENT, CORP.; and CAL-AM
PROPERTIES, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-14571 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 5, 2023),
is brought arising from Defendants' conspiracy to fix, raise,
maintain, and/or stabilize manufactured home lot rental prices.

Manufactured, or mobile, homes have long been one of the country's
most affordable housing options, particularly for people who do not
receive government aid. The Defendants are Datacomp and several
large owners of manufactured home communities that use Datacomp's
reports to coordinate their prices by sharing non-public,
competitively sensitive information about manufactured home lot
rental prices and occupancy, among other things, throughout the
United States.

In recent years, manufactured home lot rents paid by manufactured
home
residents have increased significantly. For example, manufactured
home lot rental prices increased by approximately 2.3% per year
between 2010 and 2018, which is approximately in line with the
average annual inflation of 1.8% during this period. However,
consistent with Plaintiffs' conspiracy allegations, manufactured
home lot rental prices increased at a significantly higher rate
between 2019 and 2021--9.1% per year (while inflation was only 3%).
The exchange of non-public, competitively sensitive information
through Datacomp's JLT Market Reports allowed Defendants to carry
out a price fixing conspiracy to artificially inflate manufactured
home lot rents in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and
common law.

The Plaintiffs bring this antitrust class action lawsuit on behalf
of themselves and a nationwide Class of all similarly situated
persons and entities who paid rent for a manufactured home lot
located in a manufactured home community that was included in a JLT
Market Report between August 31, 2019 and the present (the
"Relevant Time Period"). Because of Defendants' violations of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act and common law, Plaintiffs and members
of the Class were injured by paying significant overcharges on
manufactured home lot rents throughout the United States.

If Defendants are permitted to continue their anticompetitive
scheme, Plaintiffs and members of the Class will continue to pay
supracompetitive rents for manufactured home lots. Plaintiffs bring
this action to seek damages and permanently enjoin Defendants'
ongoing efforts to coordinate their prices by sharing competitively
sensitive information for manufactured home lots, says the
complaint.

Datacomp is the nation's largest provider of manufactured and
mobile home data.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shannon M. McNulty, Esq.
          CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES
          120 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3700
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 899-9090
          Email: smm@cliffordlaw.com

               - and -

          Charles Barrett, Esq.
          Daniella Bhadare-Valente, Esq.
          NEAL & HARWELL, PLC
          1201 Demonbreun St., Suite 1000
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Phone: (615) 244-1713
          Email: cbarrett@nealharwell.com
                 dbhadare-valente@nealharwell.com


DLOCAL LTD: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Dec. 5
----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against DLocal Ltd ("DLocal" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: DLO)
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired DLocal securities between May 2, 2022 and May
25, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have
until 12/05/2023 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.

DLocal operates a payment processing platform for merchants
worldwide and, as part of its operations, engages in certain
foreign exchange transactions.

The DLocal class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout
the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) DLocal engaged in certain improper
conduct and transfers abroad in violation of Argentine laws and/or
regulations, including, among other things, foreign exchange
relations; (ii) as a result, DLocal's compliance controls and
procedures, including its disclosure controls and procedures and
internal controls over financial reporting, were deficient; and
(iii) the above subjected DLocal to a heightened risk of
governmental and/or regulatory scrutiny in Argentina and/or
enforcement action by Argentine authorities.

The DLocal class action lawsuit further alleges that on May 26,
2023, Argentine news outlet Infobae published an article titled
"The Government investigates the only Uruguayan unicorn for alleged
fraud against the Argentine State and analyzes denouncing it in the
US." According to the complaint, the article reported that the
Argentine government was investigating DLocal for a possible $400
million fraud related to "improper maneuvers" and transfers abroad,
with unnamed sources alleging that DLocal "operates as a mere
instrument to take advantage of the exchange rate gap and to take
dollars abroad with operations that are not reflected in the
accounting." The DLocal class action lawsuit alleges that on this
news, DLocal's Class A common share price fell more than 17%.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired DLocal shares and suffered a
loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to
learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Marion Passmore by email
at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by
filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.

                About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contacts

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

Brandon Walker, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]

DOLLAR TREE STORES: Roche Suit Removed to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Brian Roche, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC.; and DOES
1- 10, Case No. 23CV1102 was removed from the Superior Court for
the State of California, in and for the County of El Dorado, to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Oct.
5, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-02262-KJM-KJN.

The Complaint asserts seven putative class action causes of action
for unpaid overtime; unpaid meal period premiums; unpaid rest
period premiums; failure to pay minimum wage; failure to furnish
timely and accurate wage statements; wages not timely paid upon
termination; and California Business and Professions Code all in
violations of California Labor Code.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Elena R. Baca, Esq.
          Jennifer Milazzo, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          515 South Flower Street, 25th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 683-6000
          Facsimile: (213) 627-0705
          Email: elenabaca@paulhastings.com
                 jennifermilazzo@paulhastings.com

               - and -

          Ryan D. Derry, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          101 California Street, 48th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 856-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 856-7100
          Email: ryanderry@paulhastings.com


DOTERRA INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bingham Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
DUSTIN BINGHAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DOTERRA INTERNATIONAL, LLC; DOTERRA UNITED
STATES, LLC; and DOTERRA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00707
(D. Utah., Oct. 5, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Plaintiff Bingham was employed by the Defendants as a staff.

DOTERRA INTERNATIONAL, LLC provides healthcare products. The
Company offers essential oils, wellness dietary supplements,
personal care, and weight management, as well as personal products.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Russell B. Weekes
          WEEKES LAW, LLC
          491 N. Bluff St., Ste. 201
          St. George, UT 84770
          Telephone: (801) 228-0251
          Email: rbw@weekes-law.com

                - and-

          Jared Bramwell, Esq.
          KELLY & BRAMWELL, P.C.
          11576 South State St. Bldg. 1002
          Draper, UT 84020
          Telephone: (801) 495-2559
          Facsimile: (801) 495-0621
          Email: jared@kellybramwell.com

DRESSER LLC: Court OK's Bid for Entry of Lone Pine Order in Barnes
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACOB BARNES, ET AL., V.
DRESSER, LLC, ET AL., Case No. 1:21-CV-00024 (W.D. La.), the Hon.
Judge David C. Joseph entered an order granting motion for entry of
lone pine order filed by Defendants in:

  -- Barnes v. Dresser, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00024-DCJ-JPM;

  -- Barton v. Dresser, Case LLC, No. 1:22-cv-00263-DCJ-JPM;

  -- Cook v. Dresser, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00696-DCJ-JPM;

  -- Barrett v. Dresser, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv01346-DCJ-JPM; and

  -- Petty v. Dresser, LLC, No. 1:21-cv-02586-DCJ-JPM.

The Court further ordered that:

-- On or before November 17, 2023, any Plaintiff in the Related
Cases
    who has not done so shall produce to Defendants a completed
    Plaintiff Information Sheet.

-- On or before February 9, 2024, each Plaintiff claiming a
personal
   injury sustained as a result of exposure to trichloroethylene
(TCE)
   or tetrachloroethylene (PCE), either to himself or herself, or
   on behalf of a minor or decedent, must serve on the Defendants a

   sworn affidavit from a licensed physician or other qualified
   expert, or both, as may be necessary, which sets forth the
   following for each claimant:

   (a) A list of all specific injuries, illnesses, or conditions
that
       the claimant suffered as a result of the alleged exposure to

       trichloroethylene (TCE) or tetrachloroethylene (PCE);

   (b) The date(s) on which each such injury, illness, or condition

       was first suffered by the claimant and the date(s) on which
a
       physician or other health care professional examined or
treated
       the claimant for the injury, illness, or condition allegedly

       caused by exposure to trichloroethylene (TCE) or
       tetrachloroethylene (PCE); and

   (c) An explanation of the manner of exposure (i.e., ingestion,
       inhalation, dermal contact, etc.), the dates of exposure,
and
       the duration of exposure;

The Court finds thatPlaintiffs are now in possession of sufficient
discovery and information regarding the nature, geographical
extent, and chemical constituents of the toxic plume to comply with
a Lone Pine order.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZVdpNf at no extra charge.[CC]

DRESSER LLC: Court OK's Bid for Entry of Lone Pine Order in Barrett
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KERRY BARRETT, ET AL., V.
DRESSER, LLC, ET AL., Case No. 1:20-CV-01346 (W.D. La.), the Hon.
Judge David C. Joseph entered an order granting motion for entry of
lone pine order filed by Defendants in:

  -- Barnes v. Dresser, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00024-DCJ-JPM;

  -- Barton v. Dresser, Case LLC, No. 1:22-cv-00263-DCJ-JPM;

  -- Cook v. Dresser, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00696-DCJ-JPM;

  -- Barrett v. Dresser, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv01346-DCJ-JPM; and

  -- Petty v. Dresser, LLC, No. 1:21-cv-02586-DCJ-JPM.

the Court further ordered that:

-- On or before November 17, 2023, any Plaintiff in the Related
Cases
    who has not done so shall produce to Defendants a completed
    Plaintiff Information Sheet.

-- On or before February 9, 2024, each Plaintiff claiming a
personal
   injury sustained as a result of exposure to trichloroethylene
(TCE)
   or tetrachloroethylene (PCE), either to himself or herself, or
   on behalf of a minor or decedent, must serve on the Defendants a

   sworn affidavit from a licensed physician or other qualified
   expert, or both, as may be necessary, which sets forth the
   following for each claimant:

   (a) A list of all specific injuries, illnesses, or conditions
that
       the claimant suffered as a result of the alleged exposure to

       trichloroethylene (TCE) or tetrachloroethylene (PCE);

   (b) The date(s) on which each such injury, illness, or condition

       was first suffered by the claimant and the date(s) on which
a
       physician or other health care professional examined or
treated
       the claimant for the injury, illness, or condition allegedly

       caused by exposure to trichloroethylene (TCE) or
       tetrachloroethylene (PCE); and

   (c) An explanation of the manner of exposure (i.e., ingestion,
       inhalation, dermal contact, etc.), the dates of exposure,
and
       the duration of exposure;

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs are now in possession of
sufficient discovery and information regarding the nature,
geographical extent, and chemical constituents of the toxic plume
to comply with a Lone Pine order.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ttDfMv at no extra charge.[CC]




 


DRESSER LLC: Court OK's Bid for Entry of Lone Pine Order in Barton
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE BARTON, ET AL.,
V. DRESSER, LLC, ET AL., Case No. 1:22-CV-00263 (W.D. La.), the
Hon. Judge David C. Joseph entered an order granting motion for
entry of lone pine order filed by Defendants in:

  -- Barnes v. Dresser, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00024-DCJ-JPM;

  -- Barton v. Dresser, Case LLC, No. 1:22-cv-00263-DCJ-JPM;

  -- Cook v. Dresser, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00696-DCJ-JPM;

  -- Barrett v. Dresser, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv01346-DCJ-JPM; and

  -- Petty v. Dresser, LLC, No. 1:21-cv-02586-DCJ-JPM.

The Court further ordered that:

-- On or before November 17, 2023, any Plaintiff in the Related
Cases
    who has not done so shall produce to Defendants a completed
    Plaintiff Information Sheet.

-- On or before February 9, 2024, each Plaintiff claiming a
personal
   injury sustained as a result of exposure to trichloroethylene
(TCE)
   or tetrachloroethylene (PCE), either to himself or herself, or
   on behalf of a minor or decedent, must serve on the Defendants a

   sworn affidavit from a licensed physician or other qualified
   expert, or both, as may be necessary, which sets forth the
   following for each claimant:

   (a) A list of all specific injuries, illnesses, or conditions
that
       the claimant suffered as a result of the alleged exposure to

       trichloroethylene (TCE) or tetrachloroethylene (PCE);

   (b) The date(s) on which each such injury, illness, or condition

       was first suffered by the claimant and the date(s) on which
a
       physician or other health care professional examined or
treated
       the claimant for the injury, illness, or condition allegedly

       caused by exposure to trichloroethylene (TCE) or
       tetrachloroethylene (PCE); and

   (c) An explanation of the manner of exposure (i.e., ingestion,
       inhalation, dermal contact, etc.), the dates of exposure,
and
       the duration of exposure;

The Court finds that Plaintiffs are now in possession of sufficient
discovery and information regarding the nature, geographical
extent, and chemical constituents of the toxic plume to comply with
a Lone Pine order.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48KWyB7 at no extra charge.[CC]

DRESSER LLC: Court OK's Bid for Entry of Lone Pine Order in Cook
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT COOK, ET AL., V.
DRESSER, LLC, ET AL., Case No. 1:21-CV-00696 (W.D. La.), the Hon.
Judge David C. Joseph entered an order granting motion for entry of
lone pine order filed by Defendants in:

  -- Barnes v. Dresser, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00024-DCJ-JPM;

  -- Barton v. Dresser, Case LLC, No. 1:22-cv-00263-DCJ-JPM;

  -- Cook v. Dresser, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00696-DCJ-JPM;

  -- Barrett v. Dresser, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv01346-DCJ-JPM; and

  -- Petty v. Dresser, LLC, No. 1:21-cv-02586-DCJ-JPM.

The Court further ordered that:

-- On or before November 17, 2023, any Plaintiff in the Related
Cases
    who has not done so shall produce to Defendants a completed
    Plaintiff Information Sheet.

-- On or before February 9, 2024, each Plaintiff claiming a
personal
   injury sustained as a result of exposure to trichloroethylene
(TCE)
   or tetrachloroethylene (PCE), either to himself or herself, or
   on behalf of a minor or decedent, must serve on the Defendants a

   sworn affidavit from a licensed physician or other qualified
   expert, or both, as may be necessary, which sets forth the
   following for each claimant:

   (a) A list of all specific injuries, illnesses, or conditions
that
       the claimant suffered as a result of the alleged exposure to

       trichloroethylene (TCE) or tetrachloroethylene (PCE);

   (b) The date(s) on which each such injury, illness, or condition

       was first suffered by the claimant and the date(s) on which
a
       physician or other health care professional examined or
treated
       the claimant for the injury, illness, or condition allegedly

       caused by exposure to trichloroethylene (TCE) or
       tetrachloroethylene (PCE); and

   (c) An explanation of the manner of exposure (i.e., ingestion,
       inhalation, dermal contact, etc.), the dates of exposure,
and
       the duration of exposure;

The Court finds thatPlaintiffs are now in possession of sufficient
discovery and information regarding the nature, geographical
extent, and chemical constituents of the toxic plume to comply with
a Lone Pine order.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45uLQvm at no extra charge.[CC]

DRESSER LLC: Court OK's Bid for Entry of Lone Pine Order in Petty
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BETSY E. PETTY, ET AL., V.
DRESSER, LLC, ET AL., Case No. 1:21-CV-02586 (W.D. La.), the Hon.
Judge David C. Joseph entered an order granting motion for entry of
lone pine order filed by Defendants in:

  -- Barnes v. Dresser, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00024-DCJ-JPM;

  -- Barton v. Dresser, Case LLC, No. 1:22-cv-00263-DCJ-JPM;

  -- Cook v. Dresser, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00696-DCJ-JPM;

  -- Barrett v. Dresser, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv01346-DCJ-JPM; and

  -- Petty v. Dresser, LLC, No. 1:21-cv-02586-DCJ-JPM.

The Court further ordered that:

-- On or before November 17, 2023, any Plaintiff in the Related
Cases
    who has not done so shall produce to Defendants a completed
    Plaintiff Information Sheet.

-- On or before February 9, 2024, each Plaintiff claiming a
personal
   injury sustained as a result of exposure to trichloroethylene
(TCE)
   or tetrachloroethylene (PCE), either to himself or herself, or
   on behalf of a minor or decedent, must serve on the Defendants a

   sworn affidavit from a licensed physician or other qualified
   expert, or both, as may be necessary, which sets forth the
   following for each claimant:

   (a) A list of all specific injuries, illnesses, or conditions
that
       the claimant suffered as a result of the alleged exposure to

       trichloroethylene (TCE) or tetrachloroethylene (PCE);

   (b) The date(s) on which each such injury, illness, or condition

       was first suffered by the claimant and the date(s) on which
a
       physician or other health care professional examined or
treated
       the claimant for the injury, illness, or condition allegedly

       caused by exposure to trichloroethylene (TCE) or
       tetrachloroethylene (PCE); and

   (c) An explanation of the manner of exposure (i.e., ingestion,
       inhalation, dermal contact, etc.), the dates of exposure,
and
       the duration of exposure;

The Court finds thatPlaintiffs are now in possession of sufficient
discovery and information regarding the nature, geographical
extent, and chemical constituents of the toxic plume to comply with
a Lone Pine order.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 10, 2023 is available from
https://bit.ly/46qcMhl at no extra charge.[CC]


DRUMMOND COMPANY: Jerue Bid for Class Certification Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN J. JERUE (Dismissed)
and MICHAEL J. FEIST, v. DRUMMOND COMPANY, INC., Case No.
8:17-cv-00587-TPB-AEP (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Tom Barber
entered an order adopting Report and Recommendation:

   (1) The report and recommendation is affirmed and adopted and
       incorporated by reference into this order for all purposes,

       including appellate review.

   (2) "The Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification" is
denied.

   (3) "Defendant's Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Plaintiff's
       Expert Jeffrey E. Zabel" is granted.

   (4) The parties are directed to file a joint case management
report
       on or before October 18, 2023. This case will be set for a
case
       management conference on October 25, 2023, to discuss the
       status of the case and the proposed deadlines.

The Court agrees with Judge Porcelli's well-reasoned factual
findings and conclusions, and the objections do not provide any
basis for overruling the report and recommendation. Consequently,
"Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification" is denied, and
"Defendant's Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Plaintiff's Expert
Jeffrey E. Zabel" is granted.

Drummond is a privately owned company involved in the mining and
processing of coal and coal products as well as oil and real
estate.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PXcqHM at no extra charge.[CC]

DYCK O'NEAL: Saunders Seeks More Time to File Class Reply Brief
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAREN SAUNDERS, v. DYCK
O'NEAL, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-00335-JTN-RSK (W.D. Mich.),
Plaintiff asks that the Court extend the deadline for her to submit
the reply brief in support of her motion for class certification
and summary judgment, up to and including October 30, 2023.

The case is a putative class action alleging that Dyck O'Neal made
nonconsensual, prerecorded-voice calls to the cell numbers of
Plaintiff and others, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA).

Pursuant to the Court's scheduling order of July 20, 2023, the
Plaintiff furnished her Motion for Class Certification and Summary
Judgment to DONI on August 21, 2023. After an unopposed extension,
DONI furnished its response brief on October 2, 2023.

The Plaintiff's reply brief is currently due on or before October
16, 2023. The Plaintiff's counsel and his family have been out
dealing with a death in the family and ill with COVID, which is
taking longer than expected to get over.

Dyck-O'Neal is a debt collector based on mortgage insurance,
banking, legal and real estate.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 6, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45uy3F7 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
          BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
          909 Davis St., Suite 500
          Evanston, IL 60201
          Telephone: (312) 729-5288
          E-mail: aburke@burkelawllc.com

                - and -

          Larry P. Smith, Esq.
          David Marco, Esq.
          SMITHMARCO, P.C.
          5250 Old Orchard Rd., Suite 300
          Skokie, IL 60077
          Telephone: (888) 822-1777
          E-mail: lsmith@smithmarco.com
                  dmarco@smithmarco.com

E & E: Nwajei Seeks Conditional Class Certification of Collective
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nwajei v. E & E of Five
Towns Inc. et al, Case No. 2:23-cv-05541-JMA-JMW (E.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff asks Court granting motion for conditional collective
class certification (or in the alternative, so-order Plaintiff's
Proposed Briefing Schedule).

However, Plaintiff provides his proposed briefing schedule as
follows:

  -- Opening Brief:                    Nov. 17, 2023

  -- Defendants' Opposition:           Dec.  01, 2023

  -- Plaintiffs' Reply:                Dec. 15, 2023

The Plaintiff intends to move for collective action pursuant to the
Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA) on behalf of all tipped
employees of Defendants, who have been subject to a common and
unified policy of
misappropriated tips under the FLSA, as well as a unified policy of


   (1) misappropiated tips,

   (2) failure to provide a wage notice at time of hire, and

   (3) failure to provide wage statements with each payment of
wages
       under New York Labor Law (NYLL).

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 6, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48IHu6W at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 110
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324
          Facsimile: (718) 762-1342
          E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com

E-TRADE SECURITIES: Court OK's Class Settlement in Rupnow Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA RUPNOW, PETER
SZOSTAK, and all others similarly situated, v. E-TRADE SECURITIES
LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-10942-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Denise
Cote entered an order approving class action settlement.

E*Trade offers security-underwriting, trading, and investment
banking solutions, as well as sells securities such as stocks,
mutual funds, and bonds.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48KHt2a at no extra charge.[CC]

EARL ENTERPRISES: February 12 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
If you used a credit or debit card at certain Earl Enterprises
restaurants between May 2018 and March 2019, you may be eligible to
receive benefits from a class action settlement.

The following notice is being issued by the Court approved
Settlement Administrator and has been authorized by the Florida
Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit In and for Orange
County, Florida, in Hymes, et al v. Earl Enterprises Holdings,
Inc., Case No. 2021-CA-007617-O.

A Settlement has been reached with Earl Enterprises Holdings, Inc.
("Earl Enterprises") in a class action lawsuit arising out of a
data security incident reported by Earl Enterprises in March 2019,
wherein certain of Earl Enterprises restaurants were the target of
third-party criminal attacks involving malware variants that
targeted customers' payment card information, from on or about May
23, 2018 through March 18, 2019 (the "Data Incident"). The Data
Incident potentially resulted in unauthorized access to customer
payment card data, such as credit and debit card numbers,
expiration dates, and, in some cases, cardholder names ("Personal
Information"). The Settlement includes all persons residing in the
United States who made a credit or debit card purchase at any
affected Earl Enterprises restaurant during the period of the Data
Incident. Affected restaurants include certain locations of Buca di
Beppo, Planet Hollywood, Earl of Sandwich, Chicken Guy, Tequila
Taqueria, and Mixology 101. For a list of the specific affected
Earl Enterprises restaurants and the exposure window of the Data
Incident for each affected location, go to www.EarlSettlement.com.
The Settlement provides compensation to Class Members who submit
valid claims for reimbursement of up to $5,000 for certain
documented out-of-pocket expenses and lost time that were incurred
as a result of the Data Incident, or two (2) restaurant promotional
cards valued at $10.00 each.

Go to www.EarlSettlement.com for detailed information about the
Settlement, including a list of affected Earl Enterprises
restaurants and the exposure dates for each affected location.

What Is This About?

The lawsuit claims that Earl Enterprises was responsible for the
Data Incident. Earl Enterprises denies all of the claims and says
it did not do anything wrong. The Court did not decide in favor of
either side. Instead, both sides agreed to a settlement. This
Settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing or an indication that
any law was violated, and no Court has made such a determination.

Who Is Included?

You are included in the Settlement if you reside in the United
States and made a credit or debit card purchase at any affected
Earl Enterprises restaurant during the period of the Data
Incident("Settlement Class Members").

What Does The Settlement Provide?

The Settlement provides two types of relief to people who submit
valid claims. You may submit a claim for either:

(1) Reimbursement of up to $5,000 for certain documented
unreimbursed out-of-pocket expenses and lost time (up to 4 hours at
$20/hour) that resulted from the Data Incident and that were
incurred prior to September 4, 2020; or,
(2) Compensation in the form of two (2) restaurant promotional
cards valued at $10.00 each for non-documented losses and material
time taking action to deal with the repercussions of the Data
Incident prior to September 4, 2020.

Earl Enterprises will also pay Court-awarded attorneys' fees, costs
and expenses of up to $195,000 and service awards of up to $2,500
each to the Representative Plaintiffs.

How Do You Get A Payment Or Promotional Cards?

To get a payment or promotional cards, you must submit a Claim Form
by Friday, January 5, 2024. Claim Forms are available at
www.EarlSettlement.com or by calling 1-844-976-1987.

What Are Your Options?

If you do not want to be legally bound by the Settlement, you must
exclude yourself from it by Friday, January 5, 2024, or you will
not be able to sue, or continue to sue, Earl Enterprises about the
legal claims this Settlement resolves. If you exclude yourself, you
cannot get a payment or promotional cards from the Settlement.

If you stay in the Settlement Class, you can tell the Court that
you do not agree with the Settlement or some part of it by
objecting to it by Friday, January 5, 2024.

The Long Notice available at www.EarlSettlement.com explains how to
exclude yourself or object and describes the released claims in
detail.

Who Represents You?

The Court appointed John A. Yanchunis and Ryan J. McGee, of Morgan
& Morgan Complex Litigation Group, Matthew M. Guiney and Carl
Malmstrom of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP, Mark Reich
and Courtney Maccarone of Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, and Gayle M. Blatt
of Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt & Penfield, LLP, as Class
Counsel to represent the Settlement Class. Class Counsel will ask
the Court for an award for attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses of
up to $195,000, and service awards of up to $2,500 each for the
Representative Plaintiffs Saul Hymes, Ilana Harwayne-Gidansky,
Edgar Fierro, and Joan Lewis. If you want to be represented by your
own lawyer, you may hire one at your own expense.

When Will The Settlement Be Approved?

The Court will hold a hearing on Monday, February 12, 2024, at 9:30
AM to consider whether to approve the Settlement, and Class
Counsel's request for attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and
service awards. You or your own lawyer may ask to appear and speak
at the hearing at your own cost, but you do not have to.

Want More Information?

Visit www.EarlSettlement.com or call 1-844-976-1987. [GN]

EARTHGRAINS DISTRIBUTION: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Munoz
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Earthgrains Distribution, LLC, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Order dated September 13, 2023 entered in the
lawsuit styled TLALOC MUNOZ, MIGUEL RUIZ, and EDGAR CORONA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
EARTHGRAINS DISTRIBUTION, LLC, BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC., and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 37-2022-00029635-CU-OE-CTL, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, San
Diego.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego,
to the Southern District of California on August 26, 2022.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to reimburse business expenses, unlawful
deductions from wages, failure to provide accurate wage statements,
failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal periods, failure
to provide rest breaks, unfair business practices, and enforcement
of the California Private Attorneys General Act.

On October 7, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration which the Court denied on September 13, 2023 through an
Order signed by the Hon. Judge Anthony J. Battaglia. Judge
Battaglia found there was no meeting of the minds between
Plaintiffs and Defendants on mandatory arbitration. Consequently,
the Dispute Resolution Provision is not a valid agreement to
arbitrate in this case. Accordingly, the Court DENIED Defendants'
motion to compel arbitration on this basis.

The appellate case is captioned as Earthgrains Distribution, LLC,
et al. v. Tlaloc Munoz, et al., Case No. 23-55818, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on September
29, 2023.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. and Earthgrains
Distribution, LLC Mediation Questionnaire was due on October 6,
2023;

   -- Appellants Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. and Earthgrains
Distribution, LLC opening brief is due on November 27, 2023;

   -- Appellees Edgar Corona, Tlaloc Munoz and Miguel Ruiz
answering brief is due on December 27, 2023; and

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

Defendants-Appellants EARTHGRAINS DISTRIBUTION, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, and BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC. are
represented by:

          Kathy Hua Gao, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
          300 S Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Telephone: (213) 612-2500  

               - and -

          Joseph A. Govea, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
          600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 830-0600  

               - and -

          Randall M. Levine, Esq.
          James D. Nelson, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
          1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 739-3000

Plaintiffs-Appellees TLALOC MUNOZ, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, et al., are represented
by:

          Shaun Markley, Esq.
          NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
          225 Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 325-0492

EIDP INC: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Banks Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DORIS BANKS, CANDY
CAPORALE, BRUCE DAVIS, GENE SULLENBERGER, and CHRISTINE WOOTTEN,
for themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
EIDP, INC., THE 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing, Co.), ATOTECH USA, LLC, MACDERMID, INC., PROCINO
PLATING, INC., a/k/a PROCINO ENTERPRISES, a/k/a PROCINO, and BLADES
DEVELOPMENT LLC., Case No. 1:19-cv-01672-MN-JLH (D. Del.), the Hon.
Judge Jennifer L. Hall entered a scheduling order as follows:

   1. Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures Unless otherwise agreed to
by
      the parties, the parties shall make their initial disclosures

      pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) within
30
      days of the date the Court entered this Order.

   2. E-Discovery Protocol The parties shall meet and confer and
      submit a proposed ESI Order governing discovery of electronic

      information to the Court within 45 days of the date of this
      Order.

   3. Joinder of Other Parties and Amendment of Pleadings All
motions
      to join other parties, and to amend or supplement the
pleadings,
      shall be filed on or before November 17, 2023.

   4. Discovery focusing on class certification issues shall open
10
      days from the date of this Order.

   5. Discovery in this case related to class certification issues

      shall be initiated so that it will be completed by April 26,

      2024.

   6. Document production related to class certification issues
shall
      be substantially completed by March 8, 2024.

   7. Plaintiffs' class certification motion and evidence in
support
      of the motion shall be served and filed on or before June 21,

      2024.

   8. The Defendants' opposition shall then be served and filed on
or
      before September 20, 2024.

   9. The Plaintiffs' reply, if any, shall be served and filed on
or
      before November 22, 2024. During the pendency of any Motion
for
      Class Certification all Discovery and Other Case Deadlines
shall

      be stayed (except for discovery of experts as to any expert
      reports submitted in connection with class certification
      briefing.

EIDP provides seeds and crop protection products for the
agriculture industry.

A copy of the Court's scheduling order dated Oct. 11, 2023 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RYC81d at no
extra charge.[CC]

ELI LILLY: Local 837 Sues Over Insulin Drug Monopoly
----------------------------------------------------
LOCAL 837 HEALTH AND WELFARE PLAN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY;
NOVO NORDISK INC.; SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC; CVS HEALTH CORPORATION;
CAREMARK, LLC; CAREMARKPCS HEALTH, LLC; EVERNORTH HEALTH, INC.;
EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC.; EXPRESS SCRIPTS ADMINISTRATORS, LLC; MEDCO
HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC.; UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC.; OPTUM, INC.;
OPTUMRX, INC.; and OPTUMINSIGHT, INC. Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-20932-BRM-RLS (D.N.J., Oct. 5, 2023) is a class action
against the three primary drug manufacturers of analog insulin, Eli
Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi, and the three pharmacy benefit
managers (PBMs) that control the vast majority of the prescription
drug market, for the artificial, deceptive, and unfair manipulation
of the list prices for analog insulin in the United States.

According to the complaint, the insulin medications at issue in the
Complaint are Humalog, Basaglar, Fiasp, Novolog, Levemir, Tresiba,
Apidra, Lantus, and Toujeo (the "Analog Insulins"). The
Manufacturer Defendants, together with the PBM Defendants, employed
a scheme to widen the spread between the publicly available list
price and another secret price, the net price -- or the price after
subtracting rebates and discounts that the Manufacturer Defendants
offered to the PBM Defendants. The Manufacturer Defendants have
engaged in "shadow pricing," a tactic where they tacitly agree to
follow each other's list price increases in near unison. Then, with
identical list prices, the Manufacturer Defendants need only
'compete' through kickbacks to the PBM Defendants in the form of
enormous rebates and fees, the suit alleges.

ELI LILLY AND COMPANY discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells
pharmaceutical products for humans and animals. The Company
products are sold in countries around the world. Eli Lilly products
include neuroscience, endocrine, anti-infectives, cardiovascular
agents, oncology, and animal health products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Donald A. Ecklund, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI,
          BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700

               - and -

          Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
          Melissa L. Yeates, Esq.
          Terence S. Ziegler, Esq.
          Ethan J. Barlieb, Esq.
          Lisa Lamb Port, Esq.
          Varun Elangovan, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ
          MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Email: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
                 myeates@ktmc.com
                 tziegler@ktmc.com
                 ebarlieb@ktmc.com
                 llambport@ktmc.com
                 velangovan@ktmc.com

ELITE LINE: Shaw Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Bid
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL SHAW, on behalf of
himself and the Class members, v. ELITE LINE SERVICES, INC.;
DAIFUKU AMERICA CORPORATION; DAIFUKU NORTH AMERICA HOLDING COMPANY;
Case No. 1:21-cv-01084-ADA-CDB (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order granting his ex parte application to
continue the briefing schedule and hearing date on the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification to allow time to complete class
certification discovery:

                                      Current        Plaintiff's
                                      Deadline       requested
                                                     deadline

  Motion for class certification    Oct. 24, 2023   Jan. 23, 2024

  Opposition to motion for class    Nov. 21, 2023   Feb. 20, 2024
  certification

  Reply in support of motion for    Dec. 6, 2023    Mar. 6, 2024
  class certification

  Non-expert discovery cutoff,      Feb. 6, 2024    May 7, 2024
  including motion to compels

  Hearing on motion for class       Feb. 6, 2024    May 7, 2024
  certification

The Plaintiff contends that his request to continue the class
certification deadlines cannot be noticed on the Court's motion
calendar pursuant to Local Rule 230, because the hearing would be
set on or around October 20, 2023, when Plaintiff's opening motion
under the current schedule is due October 24, 2023.

Elite is an aviation company specializing in airport facility
equipment operation and maintenance services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 6, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Fb0XzB at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
          Esther L. Bylsma, Esq.
          Brian G. Lee, Esq.
          Philippe M. Gaudard, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE
          COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                  ebylsma@schneiderwallace.com
                  blee@schneiderwallace.com
                  pgaudard@schneiderwallace.com

ENVIVA INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of November 13 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of common stock of Enviva Inc. (NYSE: EVA) between
November 3, 2022 and May 3, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important November 13, 2023 lead plaintiff
deadline.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Enviva class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=19071 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 13, 2023.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: The lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout
the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose material information about the financial
condition of Enviva, including its earnings before interest, taxes,
depreciation, and amortization and net loss forecasts, liquidity
position, capital allocations, operation costs, productivity, and
the impact of these metrics on Enviva's ability to continue paying
dividends in 2023. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the Enviva class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=19071 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

Contact Information:

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

EXACT CARE PHARMACY: Everett Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Exact Care Pharmacy,
LLC. The case is styled as Brenda Everett, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Exact Care Pharmacy,
LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-01649-MWB (M.D. Pa., Oct. 4, 2023).

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

Exact Care Pharmacy -- https://www.exactcarepharmacy.com/ -- offers
comprehensive long-term pharmacy care for patients with chronic
conditions, multiple prescription medications, and multiple
providers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew M. Carroll, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW M. CARROLL
          427 N Packard St.
          Hammonton, NJ 08037
          Phone: (856) 426-9815
          Email: andrewcarrrollesq@gmail.com

               - and -

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


FASTAFF LLC: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response in Egan
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THERESA EGAN, BRIAN
BARKER, and SABRINA BUDDEN-WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. FASTAFF, LLC and U.S. NURSING
CORPORATION, Case No. 1:22-cv-03364-MEH (D. Colo.), the Defendants
ask the Court to enter an order extending time to respond to
plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) collective action.

-- The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on December 30, 2022,
    asserting a putative class and collective action against
    Defendants.

-- On September 20, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for
    Conditional Certification of FLSA Collective Action.

-- The deadline for Defendants to submit their Response to the
Motion
    for Conditional Certification of FLSA Collective Action is
October
    11, 2023.

Fastaff offers staffing services.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 11, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZXh3qf at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          George A. Hanson, Esq.
          J. Austin Moore, Esq.
          Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
          Crystal Cook Leftridge, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas city, MO 64112
          E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
                  moore@stuevesiegel.com
                  ricke@stuevesiegel.com
                  cook@stuevesiegel.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Bronwyn H. Pepple, Esq.
          Mairead Dolan, Esq.
          Elizabeth Austin, Esq.
          WILLIAMS WEESE PEPPLE & FERGUSON PC
          1801 California Street, Suite 3400
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 861-2828
          Facsimile: (303) 861-4017
          E-mail: bpepple@williamsweese.com
                  mdolan@williamsweese.com
                  eaustin@williamsweese.com

FEDERAL SAVINGS: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Feb. 5, 202
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Scott v. Federal Savings
Bank, Case No. 3:21-cv-00291 (D. Or., Filed Feb. 24, 2021), the
Hon. Judge Marco A. Hernandez entered an order on motion for
extension of discovery & PTO deadlines as follows:

  -- Dispositive Motions and Class                  Feb. 5, 2024
     Certification Motion are due by:

  -- Oral Argument is reset to:                     April 12, 2024

The nature of suit states Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.[CC]

FIDELITY NATIONAL: Schulz Sues Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
STEVE SCHULZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIDELITY NATIONAL INFORMATION SERVICES, INC.
d/b/a FIS WEALTH OUTSOURCING SOLUTIONS, Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-01184 (M.D. Fla., October 6, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
third-party beneficiary contract, and unjust enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiff and similarly situated customers stored within its
vendor's networks following a data breach on May 29, 2023 and May
30, 2023. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff
and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a
result, the PII of the Plaintiff and Class members were compromised
and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and
unauthorized third parties, says the suit.

Fidelity National Information Services, Inc., doing business as FIS
Wealth Outsourcing Solutions, is a finance company, with its
principal place of business located in Jacksonville, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
         3833 Central Ave.
         St. Petersburg, FL 33713
         Telephone: (865) 247-0080
         E-mail: jcohen@milberg.com

FORD MOTOR: Barlup Sues Over Defective Vehicle Transmission
-----------------------------------------------------------
ERIN BARLUP; and JUSTIN BARLUP, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01664-YK (M.D. Pa., Oct. 16, 2023)
alleges that the Defendant sells and markets a defective Ford
vehicle equipped with a 10R80 10-speed transmission.

According to the complaint, Ford designed, manufactured,
distributed, advertised, marketed, sold, and/or leased Ford
Expeditions, Mustangs, Rangers, F-150s, and Lincoln Navigators
equipped with the Transmissions10R80 from at least 2017 to present.
Ford knew or should have known the Vehicles contain one or more
design and manufacturing defects, including but not limited to
defects contained in the Vehicles' 10R80, a 10-speed automatic
transmission that can shift harshly and erratically, causing the
vehicle to jerk, lunge, clunk, hesitate, surge, or slip between
gears ("Transmission Defect").

Allegedly, Ford knew or should have known that the Class Vehicles
were and are defective, suffer from the Transmission Defect, and
are not fit for their intended purpose of providing consumers with
safe and reliable transportation. Nevertheless, Ford failed to
disclose this defect to Plaintiffs and Class Members at the time of
purchase or lease, or thereafter.

Had the Plaintiffs and Class Members known about the Transmission
Defect at the time of sale or lease, as well as the associated
costs related to the Transmission Defect, Plaintiffs and the Class
Members would not have purchased the Class Vehicles or would have
paid less for them, says the suit.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY designs, manufactures, and services cars and
trucks. The Company also provides vehicle-related financing,
leasing, and insurance through its subsidiary. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Arthur Stock, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
          Email: astock@milberg.com

FORD MOTOR: Class Cert Bid Filing in Lessin Extended to Nov. 3
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM LESSIN, CAROL
SMALLEY, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG (S.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Anthony J. Battaglia entered an order granting in
part joint motion to continue Deadline for plaintiffs' class
certification motion and enlarge page Limits for class
certification motion.

   -- The class certification motion filing         Nov. 3, 2023
      deadline is continued to:

Ford is an American multinational automobile manufacturer.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tqIGeR at no extra charge.[CC]


 


FORD MOTOR: Filing for Class Status Bid Extended to Nov. 3
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM LESSIN, CAROL
SMALLEY, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG (S.D. Cal.),
the Parties ask the Court to enter an order to:

   -- Continue the class certification motion deadline from
      October 13, 2023, to November 3, 2023,

   -- Set the deadline for the parties to file a proposed joint
      briefing schedule for November 10, 2023, one week after the
      proposed new class certification filing deadline (the same
      timing set forth by the currently-operative Amended
Scheduling
      Order, and

   --  Enlarge the page limits set out in the Local Rules for
purposes
       of class certification briefing, to allow the opening and
       opposition briefs to be up to 50 pages in length, and any
reply
       brief to be up to 25 pages in length.

Ford Motor is an American multinational automobile manufacturer
headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RS2nq3 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Randall W. Edwards, Esq.
          Amy Laurendeau, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3823
          Telephone: (415) 984-8700
          Facsimile: (415) 984-8701
          E-mail: redwards@omm.com
                  alaurendeau@omm.com

GAP INC: Faces Hussein Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
SUMAYA HUSSEIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE GAP, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-14374 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 2, 2023) arises from the Defendant's
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website,
www.bananarepublic.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has violated the Americans
with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff asserts that she was injured when she attempted on
September 20, 2023, and again on September 27, 2023, to access
Defendant's Website from her home in an effort to shop for
Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied her full
and equal access to Defendant’s online goods, content and
services.

The Gap Inc. is a company that owns and operates
www.bananarepublic.com, which sells clothing and accessories
online. The Banana Republic brand is known for stylish apparel for
professional settings, casual outings, and more formal occasions.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com

GARFIELD BEACH: Palamara Seeks Unpaid Rest/Meal Period Premiums
---------------------------------------------------------------
TONY PALAMARA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GARFIELD BEACH CVS, LLC and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV24379 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles, October 6, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants
for failure to provide the Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees meal and rest period premium pay in violation of
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a shift supervisor at a
retail store in Van Nuys, California from December 4, 2022 until
March 1, 2023.

Garfield Beach CVS, LLC is a retail store operator doing business
in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Larry W. Lee, Esq.
         Max W. Gavron, Esq.
         DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
         515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 488-6555
         Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
         E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
                 mgavron@diversitylaw.com

                 - and -

         Edward W. Choi, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES
         515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 381-1515
         Facsimile: (213) 465-4885
         E-mail: edward.choi@choiandassociates.com

                 - and -

         Dennis S. Hyun, Esq.
         HYUN LEGAL, APC
         515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 488-6555
         Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
         E-mail: dhyun@hyunlegal.com

GATE PETROLEUM: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Oct. 11, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VIVIENNE BEUTELSCHIESS, et
al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
GATE PETROLEUM COMPANY, Case No. 3:23-cv-01010-MMH-JBT (M.D. Fla.),
the Hon. Judge Marcia Morales Howard entered a case management and
scheduling order:

  Deadline for providing mandatory initial          Nov. 13, 2023
  disclosures.

  Deadline for moving to join a party or amend      Dec. 27, 2023
  the pleadings.

  Deadline for disclosing expert reports.

             Plaintiff:                             Mar. 27, 2024

             Defendant:                             May 10, 2024

             Rebuttal:                              June 7, 2024

  Deadline for completing discovery and filing      Aug. 23, 2024
  motions to compel.

  Deadline for moving for class certification.      Oct. 11, 2024

  Deadline for opposing class certification.        Nov. 25, 2024

  Deadline to file reply in support of class        Dec. 13, 2024
  certification.

  Deadline for filing all other motions             June 2, 2025
  including motions in limine.

  Deadline for filing the joint final pretrial      June 16, 2025
  statement.

  Final pretrial conference                         June 23, 2025

  Trial Term Begins                                 July 7, 2025

Gate Petroleum provides car washes, retail gas, convenience stores,
yacht, fleet, and fuel services.

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

GENERAL CONFERENCE: Joseph Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Response
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LORFILS JOSEPH, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
v. THE GENERAL CONFERENCE CORPORATIONS OF THE 7TH DAY ADVENTIST
CHURCH, et., al., Case No. 1:23-cv-21552-RNS (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff files unopposed motion for leave to file out of time
Response to defendants' joint motion for extension of Time to
respond to plaintiffs' amended motion for class Certification or in
the alternative to deny motion as premature.

The Defendant explains that its failure to file a timely answer
resulted from an accidental clerical omission in neglecting to
calendar the deadline. There is no indication and no reason to
believe that Thermo King acted in bad faith with respect to the
delayed filing of its answer.

The interests of efficient judicial administration were not
compromised by this modest slippage in defendant's responsive
pleading to the Second Amended Complaint.

On September 22, 2023, Defendants filed the Joint Motion. Due to a
mathematical error in calculating Plaintiff’s response date,
Plaintiffs' counsel miscalculated the response due date as Monday,
October 9, 2023, instead of Friday, October 6, 2023.

General Conference is the governing organization of the Seventh-day
Adventist Church.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 9, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48NWFMa at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Wil Morris, Esq.
          MORRIS LEGAL, LLC
          2800 Biscayne Blvd, Suite 530
          Miami, FL 33137
          Telephone: (305) 444-3437
          Facsimile: (305) 44-3457
          E-mail: wilm@morrislegalfla.com

                - and –

          Ralph Francois, Esq.
          FRANCOIS and ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          6453 Pembroke Road
          Hollywood, FL 33023
          Telephone: (954) 391-9009
          Facsimile: (954) 391-9004
          E-mail: lawyerfrancois@gmail.com

GENERAL DYNAMICS: Reduces Naval Engineers' Pay, Scharpf Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN SCHARPF and ANTHONY D'ARMIENTO, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GENERAL DYNAMICS
CORP., BATH IRON WORKS CORP., ELECTRIC BOAT CORP., GENERAL DYNAMICS
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, INC., HUNTINGTON INGALLS INDUSTRIES, INC.,
NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND DRY DOCK CO., INGALLS SHIPBUILDING,
INC., HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP., HII FLEET SUPPORT GROUP LLC,
MARINETTE MARINE CORPORATION, BOLLINGER SHIPYARDS, LLC, GIBBS &
COX, INC., SERCO, INC., BMT INTERNATIONAL, INC., TECHNOLOGY
FINANCING, INC., CACI INTERNATIONAL INC., THE COLUMBIA GROUP, INC.,
THOR SOLUTIONS, LLC, TRIDENTIS, LLC, and FASTSTREAM RECRUITMENT
LTD., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01372 (E.D. Va., October 6,
2023) is a class action against the Defendants for conspiracy to
depress compensation in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants, by and through their
officers, directors, employees, or other representatives, have
entered into an unlawful agreement, combination, and conspiracy to
restrict competition in the naval engineering market. Specifically,
the Defendants agreed to restrict competition for the Plaintiffs'
and similarly situated naval engineers' services through
restrictions on employment and recruitment from, between, and among
each other, in the form of a long-standing and unwritten
"gentlemen's agreement" not to affirmatively recruit one another's
naval engineers. The Defendants could and did profitably suppress
compensation paid to naval engineers in the United States below
competitive levels. In such circumstances, naval engineers would
not be able, and were not able, to defeat such artificial
compensation suppression by switching their employment to
non-conspiring employers, as the Defendants and co-conspirators
control approximately 75 percent of the market. As a result, the
Plaintiffs and the other Class members have been injured and will
continue to be injured in their businesses and property by
receiving less compensation from the Defendants and by depriving
them of free and fair competition in the market for their services,
says the suit.

General Dynamics Corporation is a global aerospace and defense
company based in Reston, Virginia.

Bath Iron Works Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of General
Dynamics Corp. based in Bath, Maine.

Electric Boat Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of General
Dynamics Corp. based in Groton, Connecticut.

General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc. is a wholly owned
subsidiary of General Dynamics Corp. based in Falls Church,
Virginia.

Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. is a shipbuilding company, with
its principal place of business in Newport News, Virginia.

Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. based in Newport
News, Virginia.

Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. based in Pascagoula,
Mississippi.

HII Fleet Support Group LLC is a naval engineering consultancy firm
based in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

HII Mission Technologies Corp. is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. based in McLean, Virginia.

Marinette Marine Corporation is a ship manufacturer based in
Marinette, Wisconsin.

Bollinger Shipyards, LLC is a privately owned shipyard based in
Lockport, Louisiana.

Gibbs & Cox, Inc. is an engineering consultancy firm based in
Arlington, Virginia.

Serco, Inc. is a government contracting services provider, with its
principal place of business in Herndon, Virginia.

Technology Financing Inc. is a naval architecture and marine
engineering services provider, with its principal place of business
in Houston, Texas.

BMT International, Inc. is a naval architecture and marine
engineering services provider, with its principal place of business
in Houston, Texas.

CACI International Inc. is a naval architecture and marine
engineering services provider, with its principal place of business
in Reston, Virginia.

The Columbia Group, Inc. is a naval architecture and marine
engineering services provider, with its principal place of business
in Fairfax, Virginia.

Thor Solutions LLC is an engineering consultancy firm, with its
principal place of business in Arlington, Virginia.

Tridentis, LLC is an engineering consultancy firm, with its
principal place of business in Alexandria, Virginia.

Faststream Recruitment Ltd. is an international recruitment agency,
with its principal place of business in Southampton, United
Kingdom. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Brent W. Johnson, Esq.
         Robert W. Cobbs, Esq.
         Alison S. Deich, Esq.
         Zachary R. Glubiak, Esq.
         COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
         1100 New York Ave. NW, Suite 500
         Washington, DC 20005
         Telephone: (202) 408-4600
         E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com
                 bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com
                 rcobbs@cohenmilstein.com
                 adeich@cohenmilstein.com
                 zglubiak@cohenmilstein.com

                 - and -

         Rio S. Pierce, Esq.
         HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
         715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
         Berkeley, CA 94710
         Telephone: (510) 725-3000
         E-mail: shanas@hbsslaw.com
                 riop@hbsslaw.com

                 - and -

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

                 - and -

         Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
         HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
         301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 920
         Pasadena, CA 91101
         Telephone: (213) 330-7150
         E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com

                 - and -

         Rebecca P. Chang, Esq.
         Nicholas Jackson, Esq.
         HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
         33 Irving Place
         New York, NY 10003
         Telephone: (212) 477-8090
         E-mail: gfarah@hfajustice.com
                 rchang@hfajustice.com
                 njackson@hfajustice.com

                 - and -

         William H. Anderson, Esq.
         HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
         5353 Manhattan Circle, Suite 204
         Boulder, CO 80303
         Telephone: (202) 559-2433
         E-mail: wanderson@hfajustice.com

                 - and -

         Simon Wiener, Esq.
         HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
         68 Harrison Avenue, Suite 604
         Boston, MA 02111
         Telephone: (202) 921-4567
         E-mail: swiener@hfajustice.com

                 - and -

         Candice J. Enders, Esq.
         Julia R. McGrath, Esq.
         BERGER MONTAGUE PC
         1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 875-3000
         E-mail: cenders@bm.net
                 jmcgrath@bm.net

                 - and -

         Brian D. Clark, Esq.
         Stephen J. Teti, Esq.
         Arielle S. Wagner, Esq.
         Eura Chang, Esq.
         LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
         100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
         Minneapolis, MN 55401
         Telephone: (612) 339-6900
         Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
         E-mail: bdclark@locklaw.com
                 sjteti@locklaw.com
                 aswagner@locklaw.com
                 echang@lawlaw.com

GENERAL MOTORS: Vita, FXR Seek Rule 23 Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENNIS VITA and FXR
CONSTRUCTION, INC., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-01032-JMA-ARL (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff requests that the
Court issue an Order:

  -- Certifying the proposed Class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of
the
     Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

  -- Appointing Plaintiff as Class representative; and

  -- Appointing DiCello Levitt LLP and Beasley, Allen, Crow,
Methvin,
     Portis & Miles, P.C. as Class Counsel, pursuant to Rule 23(g)
of
     the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

FXR moves for certification of a class defined as follows:

   "All current and former purchasers of a 2011-2014 Chevrolet
   Avalanche, 2011-2014 Chevrolet Silverado, 2011-2014 Chevrolet
   Suburban, 2011-2014 Chevrolet Tahoe, 2011-2014 GMC Sierra,
2011-
   2014 GMC Yukon, and 2011-2014 GMC Yukon XL manufactured on or
after
   February 10, 2011 that was equipped with a Generation IV
5.3-liter
   V8 Vortec 5300 LC9 engine that was purchased or leased in the
State
   of New York."

General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 6, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45o5iKr at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter B. Katzman, Esq.
          MOREA SCHWARTZ BRADHAM
          FRIEDMAN & BROWN LLP
          444 Madison Avenue, Fourth Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 695-8050
          E-mail: pkatzman@msbllp.com

                - and -

          Greg G. Gutzler, Esq.
          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          John E. Tangren, Esq.
          Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT LLP
          485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 933-1000
          E-mail: ggutzler@dicellolevitt.com
                  jtangren@dicellolevitt.com
                  alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
                  dferri@dicellolevitt.com

                - and –

          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles III, Esq.
          H. Clay Barnett III, Esq.
          J. Mitch Williams, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW,
          METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          272 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          E-mail: Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Clay.Barnett@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Mitch.Williams@BeasleyAllen.com

GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Burkhart Securities Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 9, 2023, that a class action lawsuit
captioned "Richard F. Burkhart, William E. Kelly, Richard S.
Lavery, Thomas R. Pratt, Gerald Green, individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated v. Genworth et al." is
pending in the court of Chancery of the State of Delaware

In September 2018, Genworth Financial, Genworth Holdings, Genworth
North America Corporation, Genworth Financial International
Holdings, LLC (GFIH) and Genworth Life Insurance company (GLI) were
named as defendants.

Plaintiffs allege that GLIC paid dividends to its parent and
engaged in certain reinsurance transactions causing it to maintain
inadequate capital capable of meeting its obligations to GLIC
policyholders and agents. The complaint alleges causes of action
for intentional fraudulent transfer and constructive fraudulent
transfer, and seeks injunctive relief. The company moved to dismiss
this action in December 2018. On January 29, 2019, plaintiffs
exercised their right to amend their complaint. On March 12, 2019,
the company moved to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint. On
April 26, 2019, plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to the
company's motion to dismiss, which the company replied to on June
14, 2019. On August 7, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to
prevent proceeds that GFIH expected to receive from the then
planned sale of its shares in Genworth MI Canada Inc. from being
transferred out of GFIH.

On September 11, 2019, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion seeking
the same relief as their August 7, 2019 motion with an exception
that allowed GFIH to transfer $450 million of expected proceeds
from the sale of Genworth Canada through a dividend to Genworth
Holdings to allow the pay-off of a senior secured term loan
facility dated March 7, 2018 among Genworth Holdings as the
borrower, GFIH as the limited guarantor and the lending parties
thereto. Oral arguments on the company's motion to dismiss and
plaintiffs' motion occurred on October 21, 2019, and plaintiffs'
motion was denied.

On January 31, 2020, the court granted in part the company's motion
to dismiss, dismissing claims relating to $395 million in dividends
GLIC paid to its parent from 2012 to 2014 (out of the $410 million
in total dividends subject to plaintiffs' claims). The court denied
the balance of the motion to dismiss leaving a claim relating to
$15 million in dividends and unquantified claims relating to the
2016 termination of a reinsurance transaction. On March 27, 2020,
the company filed the company's answer to plaintiffs' amended
complaint.

On May 26, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a second amended and
supplemental class action complaint adding additional factual
allegations and three new causes of action. On July 26, 2021, the
company moved to dismiss the three new causes of action and
answered the balance of the second amended and supplemental class
action complaint. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the company's
motion to dismiss on September 30, 2021. The court heard oral
arguments on the motion on December 7, 2021 and ordered each party
to file supplemental submissions, which were filed on January 28,
2022.

On May 10, 2022, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss
the three new causes of action. On January 27, 2022, plaintiffs
filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin GFIH
from transferring any assets to any affiliate, including paying any
dividends to Genworth Holdings and to enjoin Genworth Holdings and
Genworth Financial from transferring or distributing any value to
Genworth Financial shareholders. On June 2, 2022, plaintiffs
withdrew their motion for a preliminary injunction.

Genworth Holdings, Inc. (formerly known as Genworth Financial,
Inc.) is a financial services company based in Richmond VA. On
April 1, 2013, Genworth Holdings completed a holding company
reorganization pursuant to which Genworth Holdings became a direct,
100% owned subsidiary of a new public holding company that it had
formed. The new public holding company was incorporated in Delaware
on December 5, 2012, in connection with the reorganization, and was
renamed Genworth Financial, Inc. upon the completion of the
reorganization.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Faces Anastasio Suit in Virginia
----------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 9, 2023, that in July 2023, Genworth
Financial was named as a defendant in a putative class action
lawsuit pending in the United States District court for the
District of Massachusetts captioned "Robert Anastasio, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Progress Software
Corporation, Pension Benefit Information, LLC d/b/a PBI Research
Services, and Genworth Financial, Inc."

The action relates to the data security events involving the
"MOVEit" file transfer system which PBI Research Services, a
third-party vendor, uses in the performance of its services where
Genworth life insurance companies uses PBI to, among other things,
satisfy applicable regulatory obligations to search various
databases to identify the deaths of insured persons under life
insurance policies, and to identify the deaths of long-term care
insurance and annuity policies which can impact premium payment
obligations and benefit eligibility.

The complaint asserts claims against Genworth for negligence,
negligence per se, breach of contract and unjust enrichment, and it
seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive
damages, restitution, attorneys' fees and costs.

Genworth Holdings, Inc. (formerly known as Genworth Financial,
Inc.) is a financial services company based in Richmond VA. On
April 1, 2013, Genworth Holdings completed a holding company
reorganization pursuant to which Genworth Holdings became a direct,
100% owned subsidiary of a new public holding company that it had
formed. The new public holding company was incorporated in Delaware
on December 5, 2012, in connection with the reorganization, and was
renamed Genworth Financial, Inc. upon the completion of the
reorganization.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Faces Breach of Contract Suit in Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 9, 2023, that its indirect
wholly-owned subsidiary Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance company
(GLAIC), was named as a defendant in a putative class action
lawsuit pending in the United States District court for the Eastern
District of Virginia captioned "TVPX ARX INC., as Securities
Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. Genworth Life and
Annuity Insurance company."

It is currently in the United States court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit.

Plaintiff alleges unlawful and excessive cost of insurance charges
were imposed on policyholders. The complaint asserts claims for
breach of contract, alleging that Genworth improperly considered
non-mortality factors when calculating cost of insurance rates and
failed to decrease cost of insurance charges in light of improved
expectations of future mortality, and seeks unspecified
compensatory damages, costs, and equitable relief.

On October 29, 2018, the company filed a motion to enjoin the case
in the Middle District of Georgia, and a motion to dismiss and
motion to stay in the Eastern District of Virginia. We moved to
enjoin the prosecution of the Eastern District of Virginia action
on the basis that it involves claims released in a prior nationwide
class action settlement that was approved by the Middle District of
Georgia. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 13,
2018.

On December 6, 2018, the company moved the Middle District of
Georgia for leave to file the company's counterclaim, which alleges
that plaintiff breached the covenant not to sue contained in the
prior settlement agreement by filing its current action. On March
15, 2019, the Middle District of Georgia granted the company's
motion to enjoin and denied the company's motion for leave to file
the company's counterclaim. As such, plaintiff is enjoined from
pursuing its class action in the Eastern District of Virginia.

On March 29, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the Middle
District of Georgia, notifying the court of its appeal to the
United States court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from the
order granting the company's motion to enjoin. On March 29, 2019,
the company filed the company's notice of cross-appeal in the
Middle District of Georgia, notifying the court of the company's
cross-appeal to the Eleventh Circuit from the portion of the order
denying the company's motion for leave to file the company's
counterclaim. On April 8, 2019, the Eastern District of Virginia
dismissed the case without prejudice, with leave for plaintiff to
refile an amended complaint only if a final appellate court
decision vacates the injunction and reverses the Middle District of
Georgia's opinion. On May 21, 2019, plaintiff filed its appeal and
memorandum in support in the Eleventh Circuit. The company filed
its response to plaintiff's appeal memorandum on July 3, 2019.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument on
plaintiff's appeal and the company's cross-appeal on April 21,
2020. On May 26, 2020, the Eleventh Circuit court of Appeals
vacated the Middle District of Georgia's order enjoining
Plaintiff's class action and remanded the case back to the Middle
District of Georgia for further factual development as to whether
Genworth has altered how it calculates or charges cost of insurance
since the McBride settlement. The Eleventh Circuit court of Appeals
did not reach a decision on Genworth's counterclaim.

On June 30, 2021, the company filed in the Middle District of
Georgia the company's renewed motion to enforce the class action
settlement and release, and renewed the company's motion for leave
to file a counterclaim. The briefing on both motions concluded in
October 2021. On March 24, 2022, the court denied the company's
motions. On April 11, 2022, the company filed an appeal of the
court's denial to the United States court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit. On June 22, 2022, the company filed the company's
opening brief in support of the appeal. Plaintiff filed its
respondent's brief on September 20, 2022, and the company filed the
company's reply brief on November 10, 2022.

Genworth Holdings, Inc. (formerly known as Genworth Financial,
Inc.) is a financial services company based in Richmond VA. On
April 1, 2013, Genworth Holdings completed a holding company
reorganization pursuant to which Genworth Holdings became a direct,
100% owned subsidiary of a new public holding company that it had
formed. The new public holding company was incorporated in Delaware
on December 5, 2012, in connection with the reorganization, and was
renamed Genworth Financial, Inc. upon the completion of the
reorganization.


GENWORTH LIFE: Court OK's Settlement in Haney Insurance Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 9, 2023, that its subsidiary,
Genworth Life Insurance Company, began implementation of a
settlement in the second quarter of 2023 with regards to a
complaint was filed in the United States District court for the
Eastern District of Virginia on January 28, 2022 captioned "Fred
Haney, Marsha Merrill, Sylvia Swanson, and Alan Wooten,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Genworth Life Insurance company and Genworth Life Insurance company
of New York."

The parties executed a settlement agreement consistent with the
agreement in principle signed on January 15, 2022. On May 2, 2022,
the court preliminarily approved the settlement. The final approval
hearing commenced on November 17, 2022 and the court entered
judgment finally approving the settlement on February 15, 2023.
Pursuant to its terms, the settlement became final on March 27,
2023.

Genworth Holdings, Inc. (formerly known as Genworth Financial,
Inc.) is a financial services company based in Richmond VA. On
April 1, 2013, Genworth Holdings completed a holding company
reorganization pursuant to which Genworth Holdings became a direct,
100% owned subsidiary of a new public holding company that it had
formed. The new public holding company was incorporated in Delaware
on December 5, 2012, in connection with the reorganization, and was
renamed Genworth Financial, Inc. upon the completion of the
reorganization.


GENWORTH LIFE: ERISA Suit Over Savings Plan Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 9, 2023, that a putative class action
filed in the United States District court for the Eastern District
of Virginia by two former Genworth employees against Genworth
Financial, its Board of Directors and the Fiduciary and Investments
Committee of Genworth Financial's Retirement and Savings Plan filed
on August 1, 2022 is currently ongoing.

Plaintiffs purport to act on behalf of the said savings plan and
all similarly simulated participants and beneficiaries. The
complaint asserts that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(ERISA) by imprudently offering and inadequately monitoring a suite
of BlackRock Target Date Funds as a retirement investment option
for Genworth employees. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive
relief, monetary damages, and attorney's fees. By stipulation
entered September 6, 2022, the complaint was dismissed, without
prejudice, against the Board of Directors and the Fiduciary and
Investments Committee of Genworth Financial's Savings Plan.

On October 17, 2022, the company moved to dismiss the complaint
against the sole remaining defendant, Genworth Financial.
Plaintiffs filed opposition papers on November 10, 2022, and the
company filed the company's reply papers on November 16, 2022. By
order dated January 20, 2023, the court granted plaintiffs' motion
to serve an amended complaint, rendering the company's initial
motion to dismiss moot. On January 20, 2023, plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint, and on February 2, 2023, the company filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 16, 2023, the
court directed plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint and
denied as moot the company's motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. Plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint on April
17, 2023. On May 15, 2023, the company answered and moved to
dismiss the second amended complaint. That motion is now fully
briefed and awaiting decision.

Genworth Holdings, Inc. (formerly known as Genworth Financial,
Inc.) is a financial services company based in Richmond VA. On
April 1, 2013, Genworth Holdings completed a holding company
reorganization pursuant to which Genworth Holdings became a direct,
100% owned subsidiary of a new public holding company that it had
formed. The new public holding company was incorporated in Delaware
on December 5, 2012, in connection with the reorganization, and was
renamed Genworth Financial, Inc. upon the completion of the
reorganization.


GENWORTH LIFE: Faces Hauser Suit Over File Transfer System
----------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 9, 2023, that in August 2023, its
subsidiary Genworth Life Insurance company (GLIC) was named as a
defendant in a putative class action lawsuit pending in the United
States District court for the Eastern District of Virginia
captioned "Patrice Hauser, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Genworth Life Insurance Company."

The action relates to the data security events involving the
"MOVEit" file transfer system which PBI Research Services, a
third-party vendor, uses in the performance of its services where
Genworth life insurance companies uses PBI to, among other things,
satisfy applicable regulatory obligations to search various
databases to identify the deaths of insured persons under life
insurance policies, and to identify the deaths of long-term care
insurance and annuity policies which can impact premium payment
obligations and benefit eligibility.

Plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class and a Florida
subclass of persons whose Genworth data was accessed by the MOVEit
Cybersecurity Incident, alleging that Genworth breached its
purported duty to safeguard their sensitive data from
cybercriminals. The complaint asserts claims for negligence,
negligence per se, breach of implied contract, violation of the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and unjust
enrichment, and it seeks compensatory and punitive damages,
attorneys' fees, costs, and injunctive and declaratory relief.

Genworth Holdings, Inc. (formerly known as Genworth Financial,
Inc.) is a financial services company based in Richmond VA. On
April 1, 2013, Genworth Holdings completed a holding company
reorganization pursuant to which Genworth Holdings became a direct,
100% owned subsidiary of a new public holding company that it had
formed. The new public holding company was incorporated in Delaware
on December 5, 2012, in connection with the reorganization, and was
renamed Genworth Financial, Inc. upon the completion of the
reorganization.


GENWORTH LIFE: McMillan Insurance Dispute Settled
-------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 9, 2023, that on April 14, 2023, a
putative class action lawsuit against its indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance company (GLAIC)
pending in the United States District court for the District of
Oregon was dismissed on stipulation after the parties reached an
agreement in principle to settle the action for an immaterial
amount on February 10, 2023.

In January 2021, GLAIC was named as a defendant in case captioned
"Patsy H. McMillan, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance
company." Plaintiff seeks to represent life insurance
policyholders, alleging that GLAIC impermissibly calculated cost of
insurance rates to be higher than permitted by her policy. The
complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, conversion, and
declaratory and injunctive relief, and seeks damages in excess of
$5 million.

Genworth Holdings, Inc. (formerly known as Genworth Financial,
Inc.) is a financial services company based in Richmond VA. On
April 1, 2013, Genworth Holdings completed a holding company
reorganization pursuant to which Genworth Holdings became a direct,
100% owned subsidiary of a new public holding company that it had
formed. The new public holding company was incorporated in Delaware
on December 5, 2012, in connection with the reorganization, and was
renamed Genworth Financial, Inc. upon the completion of the
reorganization.


GENWORTH LIFE: To Settle Insurance Dispute
------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 9, 2023, that on January 15, 2022,
the parties in a potential class action lawsuit by five long-term
care insurance policyholders reached an agreement in principle to
settle the dispute on a nationwide basis, subject to the
negotiation and execution of a final settlement agreement, and
court approval thereof.

On August 11, 2021, Genworth Life Insurance Company and Genworth
Life Insurance company of New York received a request for pre-suit
mediation. The draft complaint asserts claims for breach of
contract, conversion, and declaratory and injunctive relief, and
seeks damages in excess of $5 million. Genworth participated in
pre-suit mediation in November 2021 and January 2022.

Genworth Holdings, Inc. (formerly known as Genworth Financial,
Inc.) is a financial services company based in Richmond VA. On
April 1, 2013, Genworth Holdings completed a holding company
reorganization pursuant to which Genworth Holdings became a direct,
100% owned subsidiary of a new public holding company that it had
formed. The new public holding company was incorporated in Delaware
on December 5, 2012, in connection with the reorganization, and was
renamed Genworth Financial, Inc. upon the completion of the
reorganization.


GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Gur-Ravantab Loses Class Cert Bid
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMIR GUR-RAVANTAB,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et
al., v. GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:22-cv-01038-TNM (D.D.C.),
the Hon. Judge Trevor N. McFadden, entered an order denying the
Plaintiff's the motion for class certification.

The Court finds that Gur-Ravantab is neither an adequate
representative of the proposed class nor even a member of it. His
class cannot be certified.

But Gur-Ravantab has no interest in the outcome of this case except
the personal satisfaction of having beaten Georgetown.

Emir Gur-Ravantab is a graduate of Georgetown University, Class of
2020. During the March of his final semester, the COVID-19 pandemic
changed everything. Like many other schools, Georgetown moved to
fully virtual instruction for the rest of the term. But GurRavantab
argues that this breached his contract with Georgetown. He claims
he paid a set tuition for a set form of instruction: in-person,
face-to-face teaching.

He now sues Georgetown for the difference in value between the
education he paid for and the one he received. And he also asks to
certify a class of similarly situated Plaintiffs. GurRavantab's
motion for Class Certification is now ripe. But he is not an
adequate representative of the class he proposes to certify.

Gur-Ravantab is a former student of Georgetown University.

Georgetown University is a private Jesuit research university in
the Georgetown neighborhood of Washington, D.C.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 5, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48HlMjF at no extra charge.[CC]


GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Dec 4
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Oct. 7
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of GigaCloud Technology Inc. (NASDAQ: GCT): (i) Class A
ordinary shares pursuant and/or traceable to the registration
statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's
August 2022 initial public offering ("IPO" or the "Offering");
and/or (ii) securities between August 18, 2022 and September 27,
2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action
lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December 4, 2023.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the GigaCloud class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=19098 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December 4, 2023.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about GigaCloud's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to
disclose to investors that: (1) GigaCloud's business is a fraction
of what it publicly claims, as evidenced by staffing and activity
levels at its warehouses; (2) GigaCloud overstated its last-mile
operations; (3) GigaCloud engaged in undisclosed related party
transactions; (4) that, as a result, GigaCloud's financial results
were overstated; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, GigaCloud's
positive statements about GigaCloud's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

To join the GigaCloud class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=19098 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

Contact Information:

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

GILEAD SCIENCES: Class Settlement to be Heard on January 18, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Roberts Law Firm US, PC and NastLaw LLC on Oct. 9 disclosed that a
proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit (KPH
Healthcare Services, Inc. v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., No.
20-cv-06961-EMC (N.D. Cal.) (coordinated with In re HIV Antitrust
Litigation (formerly called Staley v. Gilead Sciences, Inc.), No.
3:19-cv-02573-EMC (N.D. Cal.)). The lawsuit alleges that Gilead
engaged in a variety of alleged anticompetitive conduct in
violation of federal antitrust laws that caused direct purchasers
to pay too much for certain drugs used to treat and prevent HIV
(Truvada, Atripla, and their generic equivalents). The Settlement
resolves the claims against Gilead; a prior settlement resolved
claims against BMS. Gilead denies any wrongdoing. No court or other
authority has found that Gilead engaged in any wrongdoing.

The proposed Settlement generally includes entities that purchased
Truvada, Atripla, or any of their generic equivalents directly from
Gilead or any generic drug manufacturer from February 1, 2018 until
September 27, 2022.

Under the Settlement, Gilead will pay $246,750,000 into a
Settlement Fund to settle all claims in the lawsuit. If you are a
Class Member and want to get paid, you must submit a Claim Form by
January 1, 2024, either online at www.HIVDirectPurchaserClass.com
or by mail. If the Court approves the Settlement, claims will be
paid after any appeals. Class Counsel will seek reimbursement for
litigation costs and expenses, attorneys' fees, and a class
representative service award. If approved, these amounts will be
paid from the Settlement Fund.

If you are a Class Member, you can write to the Court about what,
if anything, you do not like about the Settlement. The deadline to
do so is December 28, 2023. Descriptions about the effects of these
options and instructions on how to exercise them are available in
the detailed notice available at www.HIVDirectPurchaserClass.com.

The Court scheduled a hearing for January 18, 2024 at 1:30 p.m.
Pacific Time to consider whether the Settlement and allocations are
fair, reasonable, and adequate, as well as any objections and any
requests for reimbursement of costs and expenses, attorneys' fees,
and a class representative service award. You do not need to
attend, but you or your attorney may do so at your own expense. See
the detailed notice available at www.HIVDirectPurchaserClass.com
for the hearing location, where to find out if the date or time
changes, and what you must do if you or your attorney wish to speak
at the hearing.

For more information, visit www.HIVDirectPurchaserClass.com or call
(501) 821-5575. [GN]

GITHUB INC: Copilot Class Action Lawsuit Pending
------------------------------------------------
Daniel R. Mello, Jr., Esq., Jenevieve Maerker, Esq., Matthew C.
Berntsen, Esq., and Ming-Tao Yang, Esq., of Finnegan, Henderson,
Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, disclosed that GitHub Inc. offers a
cloud-based platform that is popular among many software
programmers for hosting and sharing source code, and collaborating
on source code drafting. GitHub's artificial intelligence
(AI)-based Copilot tool has become a valuable resource for software
developers, offering real-time code autocompletion suggestions
across various programming languages. However, a class action
lawsuit filed against GitHub, OpenAI, and Microsoft (GitHub's
parent) alleges violations related to open-source licensing and
copyright law, raising complex legal questions about the tool's
usage and the reproduction of code.

This article delves into the controversy surrounding Copilot by
examining allegations ofDigital Millennium Copyright Act(DMCA)
violations and breaches of open-source licenses. It also discusses
the implications for AI-generated code and offers recommendations
for navigating the legal challenges in the evolving landscape of
AI-assisted coding.

Copilot
Copilot is a programming assistance tool developed by GitHub, a
software hosting service and open-source version control system, in
collaboration with AI research lab OpenAI. It is powered by
OpenAI's Codex machine learning model, a variant of the famed GPT
model—which powers OpenAI's ChatGPT—and uses AI to provide
software developers with real-time suggestions for completing lines
of source code. The tool offers code snippet suggestions in various
lengths ranging from short auto-fills to longer lines of code
complete with variable names, function definitions, and
algorithms.

Microsoft, which acquired GitHub in 2018, hosts Copilot on its
cloud servers. Copilot supports a wide range of programming
languages, making it versatile and accessible for programmers
working in different software development environments. Copilot
also allows pair programming so that developers may collaborate on
coding tasks.

Copilot utilizes machine learning, a process by which a computer is
trained to find patterns or make predictions by ingesting and
analyzing large amounts of sample data and was trained on a massive
dataset primarily sourced from publicly available code repositories
on GitHub. The majority of those repositories were subject, at
least in part, to open-source licenses.

Open-Source Licenses: A Primer
As a general matter, source code is protected by copyright law as a
literary work. By default, the creator of a work holds the
copyright and exclusive distribution rights. Without a license,
others cannot use copyrighted code without infringing that
copyright. To promote collaboration and expedite progress in code
development, many developers choose to publish their code under
cost-free licenses that permit third-party use, distribution, and
modification of that code subject to specified terms. These terms
comprise an open-source license.

The Open Source Initiative (OSI) is a non-profit organization that
provides a commonly accepteddefinitionof what constitutes "Open
Source": access to source code, free redistribution, enabling
create derivative works, no usage limits placed on who may use the
work and for what purpose, no requirement for additional licenses,
and no distribution format requirements. Open-Source Software (OSS)
can be used for commercial purposes as long as the legal terms of
the licenses are adhered to.

Most OSS licenses require attribution—meaning that developers
incorporating OSS must credit its original authors—and some
licenses require derivatives to be distributed under the same or
comparable terms—meaning that if a user incorporates code subject
to this term into a new program, the new program must likewise be
distributed to the public as OSS.

Doe v. GitHub
GitHub, OpenAI, and Microsoft made Copilot available to the public
in mid-2021, charging recurring subscription fees for their code
assistance tools and services.

On Nov. 3, 2022, several anonymous coders claiming ownership in
software stored on GitHub filed a class action lawsuit in the US
District Court for the Northern District of California against
GitHub, OpenAI, and Microsoft. The class action lawsuit alleges
several causes of action arising from the use of the plaintiffs'
OSS that was stored on GitHub and used to train Copilot, and the
reproduction of that source code in Copilot's real-time suggestions
without proper attribution.Doe et al v. GitHub, Inc. et al,No.
4:22-cv-06823(N.D. Cal. Nov 03, 2022).

GitHub, OpenAI, and Microsoft moved to dismiss the complaint on
several grounds, including that, because the plaintiffs were
anonymous, plaintiffs failed to specify instances where Copilot
reproduced their licensed code. They also moved to dismiss on the
ground that plaintiffs failed to state a claim because GitHub's
Terms of Service ("TOS") grant broad rights to use, display,
perform, and reproduce code, and the TOS preempt the breach of
license claims.

Although GitHub, OpenAI, and Microsoft succeeded in dismissing
certain claims, the court allowed the claims ofDMCAviolation,
breach of OSS licenses, unjust enrichment, and unfair competition
to proceed, some with amendments by the plaintiffs. Specifically,
the court granted themotion to dismissin part on May 11, 2023,
dismissing plaintiffs' claims for violation of Sections 1202(a) and
1202(b)(2) of theDMCA, tortious interference in a contractual
relationship, fraud, false designation of origin, unjust
enrichment, unfair competition, breach of the GitHub Privacy Policy
and TOS, violation of the CCPA, and negligence.

However, the court granted plaintiffs leave to amend to correct
those deficiencies. The court also dismissed with prejudice
plaintiffs' claims for civil conspiracy and declaratory relief. On
June 8, 2023, plaintiffs filed anamended complaint.

This analysis is focused on plaintiffs' claims of violation of
theDMCAand breach of open-source licenses governing their OSS.
These two claims remained substantively unchanged in the amended
complaint.

Violation ofDMCA§1202
"Copyright law restricts the removal or alteration of copyright
management information ('CMI') -- information such as the title,
the author, the copyright owner, the terms and conditions for use
of the work, and other identifying information set forth in a
copyright notice or conveyed in connection with the work."Stevens
v. Corelogic, Inc.,899 F.3d 666,671(9th Cir. 2018). Section 1202(b)
of theDMCAprovides that one cannot, without authorization, (1)
"intentionally remove or alter any" CMI, (2) "distribute . . .
[CMI] knowing that the [CMI] has been removed or altered," or (3)
"distribute . . . copies of works . . . knowing that [CMI] has been
removed or altered" while "knowing, or . . . having reasonable
grounds to know, that it will induce, enable, facilitate, or
conceal" infringement. 17 U.S.C. §1202(b).

Plaintiffs alleged that their OSS contains CMI including copyright
notices, titles, authors' names, copyright owners' names, terms and
conditions for use of the code, and identifying numbers or symbols.
Plaintiffs further alleged that GitHub and OpenAI knowingly failed
to program Copilot to review attribution, copyright notices, and
license terms, and that when Copilot makes suggestions that
reproduce code subject to open-source licenses, the suggestions
would omit attribution, copyright notices, or license terms. They
conclude that Copilot removes or alters that CMI, and that GitHub,
OpenAI, and Microsoft distributed Copilot knowing it would alter or
remove CMI.

Breach of OSS Licenses
As to the second claim, California breach of contract law requires
plaintiffs to "identify with specificity the contractual
obligations allegedly breached by the defendant."Williams v. Apple,
Inc.,449 F. Supp. 3d 892, 908 (N.D. Cal. 2020). On the same factual
grounds, plaintiffs alleged that Copilot's outputs failed to
provide (1) attribution to the owner, (2) a copyright notice, and
(3) the license terms, despite express OSS licensing terms that
condition permission to create derivative works on this
information. Plaintiffs alleged that use of licensed code thus
violated the relevant provisions of each OSS license. While several
different types of OSS licenses may be applicable to the code on
which Copilot was trained, most (if not all) of these OSS licenses
likely require proper attribution when code or code sections are
used.

Current Status
GitHub, OpenAI, and Microsoft filed motions to dismiss the Amended
Complaint on June 29, 2023. As relevant to this discussion, the
companies challenge theDMCAclaim on the ground that plaintiffs
failed to identify specific examples of works that had been copied
or distributed in identical form after removal of CMI. However,
GitHub, OpenAI, and Microsoft did not challenge plaintiffs' breach
of OSS licenses claim.

We expect the companies will raise fair use as a potential
affirmative defense, on the theory that, if GitHub's use of the
code qualifies as fair use, it does not require a license and
therefore is not subject to the OSS license terms.

Implications
The Copilot case highlights the legal complexities surrounding the
use of AI-generated code from tools like Copilot that have been
trained on copyrighted materials. Code subject to open-source
licenses is still copyright-protected, and the terms and
limitations set forth under the open-source licenses govern the
code's use. As discussed, OSS licenses carry diverse obligations,
usually including complex attribution requirements that differ by
code. For AI companies and companies using AI, determining the
content of training sets and whether AI tools directly reproduce
code or independently create it remains challenging, especially
when companies are dealing with millions of lines of code, if not
more.

For software developers, refraining from using tools like Copilot
until the lawsuit is resolved is the safest way to avoid an action
for breach of OSS terms. But in the current competitive software
development market, this recommendation may be impractical.
Companies that choose to proceed with using AI-assisted tools
should therefore exercise caution and avoid unnecessary risks. On
the front end, companies can ask their AI tool vendors whether the
AI training model included source code subject to OSS licenses. If
so, companies can ask whether their tool can exclude training data
subject to OSS licenses. On the back end, companies can use code
scanners to audit code for potential matches with code subject to
OSS licenses.

Companies interested in protecting their own source code under
copyright law also need to be aware that reducing overall reliance
on AI and OSS will increase the strength and scope of protection.
Recent guidance out of the US Copyright Office requires applicants
seeking to register their copyrights to "disclose the inclusion of
AI-generated content" and "to provide a brief explanation of the
human author's contributions to the work." Non-human contributions,
such as AI-generated code, are not eligible for copyright
registration, and pre-existing materials, such as code derived from
OSS, are excluded from the scope of protection.

Finally, even if a company does not expressly provide or permit its
employees to use AI tools, it is safest to assume that developers
are already using AI tools to assist in their programming. As a
result, companies should adopt internal policies concerning the use
of AI and provide training to educate employees about the issues
and risks involved.

Conclusion
Copilot represents a significant advancement in software
development but comes with complex legal considerations. Companies
and their lawyers should be aware of these issues, stay updated on
the ongoing dispute, and take precautions to mitigate risks
associated with AI-generated code. In this evolving landscape,
careful consideration and initiative-taking measures are essential
to navigate the legal challenges surrounding AI in coding. [GN]

GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Moore Seeks to Exclude Expert Dentali
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA M. MOORE,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS (US) LLC, and PFIZER,
INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-09077-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order excluding the Defendant's class
certification Expert Steven Dentali.

In his report, the Defendants' "natural products" expert, Dr.
Steven Dentali, Ph.D., repeatedly runs afoul of Rule 702 by
rendering opinions well outside his area of expertise and in direct
conflict with his sworn testimony.

First, Dr. Dentali incorrectly claims that Plaintiff's definition
of "natural" and "artificial" are not supported by "science" or
“industry.” But Dr. Dentali admittedly lacks the qualifications
and specialized knowledge required to render these opinions because
he is not an expert in the personal-care product and cosmetic
industry.

Even worse, Dr. Dentali's sworn testimony directly contradicts his
opinions that science does not support Plaintiff’s definition of
"artificial" or provide a standard for "natural."

GSK is a British multinational pharmaceutical and biotechnology
company.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 10, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Fz7uEB at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
          Katherine A. Bruce, Esq.
          Kelsey J. Elling, Esq.
          CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          22525 Pacific Coast Highway
          Malibu, CA 90265
          Telephone: (213) 788-4050
          Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
          E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  kbruce@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  kelling@clarksonlawfirm.com

                - and -

          Christopher D. Moon, Esq.
          Kevin O. Moon, Esq.
          MOON LAW APC
          228 Hamilton Ave., 3rd Fl
          Palo Alto, CA 94301
          Telephone: (619) 915-9432
          Facsimile: (650) 618-0478
          E-mail: chris@moonlawapc.com
                  kevin@moonlawapc.com

GOOGLE LLC: Seeks to Seal Trade Desk Docs in Consumer Privacy Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Google RTB Consumer Privacy
Litigation, Case No. 4:21-cv-02155-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant
submits an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether a Non-Party's
The Trade Desk, Inc. Materials Should Be Sealed.

  -- Portions of Google's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class
     Certification as well as the concurrently-filed Exhibits in
     support of Google's Opposition, contain certain information
that
     The Trade Desk has designated as "Highly
Confidential—Attorneys'
     Eyes Only" pursuant to the terms of the parties' Stipulated
     Protective Order, which the Court entered on June 3, 2021.

Accordingly, Google has filed this information provisionally under
seal.

The specific portions of Google's Opposition and supporting
Exhibits that contain information designated as "Highly
Confidential—Attorneys' Eyes Only" by The Trade Desk are:

  -- Portions highlighted at the following pages of Google's
     Opposition:

  -- Portions highlighted at the following pages of Exhibit 1 to
the
     Declaration of Whitty Somvichian in Support of Google's
     Opposition.

  -- Portions highlighted at the following pages of Exhibit 2 to
the
     Declaration of Whitty Somvichian in Support of Google's
     Opposition

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 6, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46ijHJk at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael G. Rhodes, Esq.
          Whitty Somvichian, Esq.
          Aarti G. Reddy, Esq.
          Kyle C. Wong, Esq.
          Reece Trevor, Esq.
          Anupam S. Dhillon, Esq.
          Elizabeth Sanchez Santiago, Esq.
          Robby L.R. Saldaña, Esq.
          Khary J. Anderson, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          3 Embarcadero Center, 20th floor San
          Francisco, CA 94111-4004
          Telephone: (415) 693-2000
          Facsimile: (415) 693-2222
          E-mail: rhodesmg@cooley.com
                  wsomvichian@cooley.com
                  areddy@cooley.com
                  kwong@cooley.com
                  rtrevor@cooley.com
                  adhillon@cooley.com
                  lsanchezsantiago@cooley.com
                  rsaldana@cooley.com
                  kjanderson@cooley.com

GRILLO'S PICKLES: Martinez Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website
----------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GRILLO'S PICKLES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
529061/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., October 6, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the New York State
Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.grillospickles.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down
menus, the lack of navigation links, the lack of adequate prompting
and labeling, the denial of keyboard access, empty links that
contain no text, redundant links where adjacent links go to the
same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be
performed solely with a mouse, says the suit.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.

Grillo's Pickles, Inc. is an online retail company, with its
principal place of business located at 80 University Avenue,
Westwood, Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Dan Shaked, Esq.
         SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
         14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
         Scarsdale, NY 10583
         Telephone: (917) 373-9128
         E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com

GWA LLC: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due August 30, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Andrew-Berry v. George A.
Weiss and GWA, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00978 (D. Conn., Filed July
24, 2023), the Hon. Judge Omar A Williams entered an order a
scheduling order:

  -- The Plaintiff's motion for class             Aug. 30, 2024
     certification will be filed on
     or before:

The briefing schedule for this motion will follow the usual
timeline as delineated in the Local Rules and the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, but the parties may move to modify the schedule
when the motion is filed. The court finds that the information
provided in the report is sufficient to establish an operating
schedule, and therefore will not hold a scheduling conference.

The parties may move for an audience with the court as needed.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of George Weiss Associates, Inc.
or one of its affiliates and is a current participant of the
sponsor-directed GWA, LLC 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan.

Ms. Andrew-Berry alleges that Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties under 29 U.S.C. section 1104 and engaged in prohibited
transactions under 29 U.S.C. section 1106 by investing all the
Plan's assets in their proprietary Weiss Funds.[CC]

HARVARD COLLEGE: Sued Over Improper Disposal of Human Remains
-------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA BECKETT, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. PRESIDENT & FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE
a/k/a Harvard College; CARL J. SHAPIRO INSTITUTE FOR EDUCATION AND
RESEARCH AT HARVARD MED; MEDICAL SCHOOL AND BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS
MEDICAL CENTER, INC., a/k/a Harvard Medical School; MARK F.
CICCHETTI, and TRACY FAY, Defendants, Case No. ____ (Mass. Super.,
Suffolk Cty., Oct. 3, 2023) alleges that the Defendants failed to
dispose properly the human remains of the Plaintiff's mother.

According to the complaint, in asking for and accepting the sole
care, custody, sheltering and protection of the final remains of
families' loved ones, the Defendants, including Harvard and its
manager and managing director of the Anatomical Gift Program, the
Defendants Cicchetti and Faye, undertook the responsibility to
provide a safe place that would ensure the remains were treated at
all times lawfully and with the utmost respect and dignity.

In a complete breach of this duty and the deep trust that Harvard
sought out and accepted, for, at the very least, more than five
years, from 2018 until March 7, 2023 per the indictment, remains
that were in the sole custody and care of and had been entrusted to
the Defendants were desecrated and looted, dismembered and sold for
grotesque art and unknown gratifications, says the suit.

PRESIDENT & FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE a/k/a "Harvard College" is a
Massachusetts private education institution located at 25 Shattuck
Street, Boston, Suffolk County, Massachusetts, which does business
under the name "Harvard College." [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Garrett D. Lee, Esq.
          Ryan D. Lang, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          155 Federal Street, Ste 1502
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (857) 383-4906
          Facsimile: (857) 383-4931
          Email: glee@forthepeople.com
                 rlang@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
          Daniel M. Cohen, Esq.
          Alexandra C. Warren, Esq.
          CUNEO G ILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
          Email: charies@euneolaw.eom
                 danielc@cuneolaw.com
                 awarren@cuneolaw.com

HERR FOODS: Crosson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------
Aretha Crosson, Individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons v. HERR FOODS INCORPORATED, Case No.
529056/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., Oct. 6, 2023), is brought
this civil rights action against the Defendant for their failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons.

The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services Herr provides to their non-disabled customers through
www.herrs.com (hereinafter "herrs.com" or "the website").
Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in
conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the following: the New York State Human
Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), the New York State Civil Rights Law
("NYSCRL") and the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"). By
failing to make the website accessible to blind persons, Defendant
is violating basic equal access requirements under both state and
city law. New York state law requires places of public
accommodation to ensure access to goods, services, and facilities
by making reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities.,
says the complaint.

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

Herr provides to the public a website known as herrs.com which
provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services,
including, the ability to view the various flavors of potato chips,
pretzels and other snacks and merchandise that can be purchased
with the click of a mouse, and learn about promotions, among other
features.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          44 Court Street, Suite 1217
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com


HISAMITSU AMERICA: Class Cert Bid Filing Due April 26, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERI HRAPOFF, et al., v.
HISAMITSU AMERICA, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-01943-JST (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar entered an order setting the following
amended case deadlines pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
16 and Civil Local Rule 16-10:

                Event                       Deadline

  Deadline to add parties or              Oct. 6, 2023
  amend the pleadings

  Class certification motion and          April 26, 2024
  Plaintiffs' class certification
  expert disclosures due

  Class certification opposition and      June 14, 2024
  Defendants' class certification
  expert disclosures due

  Defendant's class certification         June 14, 2024
  Daubert motions due

  Plaintiffs' class certification         July 12, 2024
  reply due

  Plaintiffs' class certification         July 12, 2024
  Daubert motions and oppositions to
  Defendant's Daubert motions due

  Defendants' class certification         Aug. 12, 2024
  Daubert replies and oppositions
  to Plaintiffs' Daubert motions due

  Plaintiffs' class certification         Sept. 12, 2024
  Daubert replies due

  The parties must file a joint case      Jan. 2, 2024
  management conference statement by:

Hisamitsu manufactures pharmaceutical products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 5, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45m506O at no extra charge.[CC]

IDAHO: Appeals Ruling in K.W. Suit to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------
Defendants RICHARD ARMSTRONG, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Memorandum Decision and Order dated August 23,
2023 entered in the lawsuit styled K.W., by his next friend D.W.,
et al., Plaintiffs v. RICHARD ARMSTRONG, et al., Defendants. TOBY
SCHULTZ, et al., Plaintiffs v. RICHARD ARMSTRONG, et al.,
Defendants, Case Nos. 1:12-cv-00022-BLW, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Idaho, Boise.

Defendant RICHARD ARMSTRONG is sued in his official capacity as
Director of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
are developmentally disabled adults who qualify for benefits under
Medicaid. They are eligible for long-term institutional care but
choose to live instead in their own homes or in community settings.
When their Medicaid payments were reduced, they brought the action
against the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare, alleging, among
other things, that: (1) the Department's budgeting methodology --
referred to as the budget tool -- improperly reduces assistance for
some recipients; (2) the Department used an insufficient notice to
inform participants of reductions in their assistance; and (3) the
process for appealing budget reductions was unfair.

The Court certified a class of disabled adults to challenge the
budget tool, notice form, and hearing procedures. After the Court
granted summary judgment in the Plaintiffs' favor, the parties
settled the class claims. In the Class Action Settlement Agreement,
approved by the Court on Jan. 12, 2017, the Department agreed to
develop a new budget tool and to keep the Plaintiffs' benefits at
their prior high level until the new budgets could be approved and
implemented. As part of the settlement, the Department set a goal
of developing and implementing the new budget tool within 24
months. If the Department failed to implement the new tool within
three years (no later than January 2020), the Plaintiffs could ask
the Court "to set a reasonable completion deadline."

On August 17, 2021, Judge B. Lynn Winmill of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Idaho issued a Memorandum Decision and
Order:

      a. granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Fees and Costs;

      b. denying the Defendants' Motion for Attorney Fees; and

      c. deeming moot the Defendants' Motion to Strike.

On March 7, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to preclude
dissemination of the Supports Intensity Scale-Adult Version (SIS-A)
User's Manual to Class Members. The Defendants sought an order from
the Court precluding the dissemination of the specific material --
a User's Manual -- associated with the new resource allocation
model and Budget Tool the Department has been planning to implement
for calculating budgets for class members.

In briefing and during oral arguments, the Department provided two
reasons for their motion. First, the Department contends unfettered
dissemination of the User's Manual before the new resource
allocation model is fully implemented would risk invalidation of
the SIS-A Budget Tool and American Association on Intellectual and
Developmental Disabilities terminating its contract with
Department's vendor, Liberty Healthcare. Second, the Department
contends the User's Manual does not contain information that must
be provided to class members to satisfy due process for a challenge
or appeal of a budget reduction, because all the information
necessary to satisfy due process is provided in the Department's
proposed Budget Notice.

In response, class counsel clarified, during initial oral argument
on the motion on April 6, 2023, that they are not requesting
unfettered dissemination of the User's Manual to all class members.
Instead, they maintain that the User's Manual, or certain
information contained within it, should be made available upon
request and with acknowledgment of copyright restrictions by any
individual class member or participant who receives notice of a
budget reduction, to consider when deciding whether and how to
challenge or appeal the reduction.

On August 23, 2023, the Court entered a Memorandum Decision and
Order denying Defendants' Motion to Preclude Dissemination of the
SIS-A Users' Manual.

The appellate case is captioned as Richard Armstrong, et al. v. K.
W., et al., Case No. 23-35615, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Sept. 25, 2023.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Richard Armstrong, Lisa Hettinger and Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare Mediation Questionnaire was due on
October 2, 2023;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by October 24, 2023;

   -- Transcript is due on November 22, 2023;

   -- Appellants Richard Armstrong, Lisa Hettinger and Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare opening brief is due on January 5,
2024;

   -- Appellees B. B., T. F., Caleb Hall, A. L., C. L., E. L., C.
M., T. M., Breanna Mullic, R. P., N. R., K. S., M. S., Toby Schultz
and K. W. answering brief is due on February 5, 2024; and

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

Defendants-Appellants RICHARD ARMSTRONG, in his official capacity
as Director of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, et al.,
are represented by:

          Brian Vernon Church, Esq.
          Lincoln Davis Wilson, Esq.
          AGID - IDAHO OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          P.O. Box 83720
          Boise, ID 83720-0010
          Telephone: (208) 334-2400

Plaintiffs-Appellees K. W., by his next friend D.W., et al., are
represented by:

          Marty Durand, Esq.
          PIOTROWSKI DURAND, PLLC
          1020 Main Street, Suite 440
          Boise, ID 83702
          Telephone: (208) 331-9200

               - and -

          Richard Alan Eppink, Esq.
          WREST COLLECTIVE
          812 W Franklin Street
          Boise, ID 83702
          Telephone: (208) 371-9752  

               - and -

          Dina Marie Flores-Brewer, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF IDAHO FOUNDATION
          P.O. Box 1897
          Boise, ID 83701
          Telephone: (208) 344-9750

               - and -

          James Marshall Piotrowski, Esq.
          HERZFELD & PIOTROWSKI, LLP
          824 W. Franklin
          P.O. Box 2864
          Boise, ID 83701-2864
          Telephone: (208) 331-9200

INFUSION HEALTHCARE: Monaco Seeks Overtime Pay for Nurses
---------------------------------------------------------
JOANNE MONACO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INFUSION HEALTHCARE, LLC d/b/a AMERICARE
PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-07337
(E.D.N.Y., Oct. 2, 2023) alleges violations of the overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Plaintiff Monaco worked for Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly-paid
Infusion Nurse from approximately October 2022 through April 2023.
She asserts that she regularly worked overtime hours but denied
proper payment by the Defendant.

Infusion Healthcare offers specialty pharmacy and home infusion
nursing care for both adult and pediatric patients located in New
York State. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
         Garrett Kaske, Esq.
         Jocelyn Small, Esq.
         KESSLER MATURA, P.C.
         534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
         Melville, NY 11747
         Telephone: (631) 499-9100
         Facsimile: (631) 499-9120
         E-mail: tkessler@kesslermatura.com
                 gkaske@kesslermatura.com
                 jsmall@kesslermatura.com

JACK HENRY: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Lacrosse Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
GUY M. LACROSSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JACK HENRY & ASSOCIATES, INC.; and JACK
HENRY & ASSOCIATES, INC. SAVINGS/RETIREMENT PLAN, Defendants, Case
No. 3:23-cv-05088-WBG (W.D. Mo., Oct. 9, 2023) alleges violation of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, during the putative
Class Period, September 25, 2017, through the date of judgment, the
Defendants, as fiduciaries of the Plan, breached the duty of
prudence they owed to the Plan by requiring the Plan to pay
excessive recordkeeping and administrative fees. These breaches of
fiduciary duty caused Plaintiff and Class Members millions of
dollars of harm in the form of lower retirement account balances
than they otherwise should have had in the absence of these
unreasonable Plan fees and expenses, the suit alleges.

JACK HENRY & ASSOCIATES, INC. develops, markets, and installs
integrated computer systems for in-house and service bureau data
processing to banks and other financial institutions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Greg G. Gutzler, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT LLP
          485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 933-1000
          Email: ggutzler@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
          Blake Stubbs, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT LLP
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-7900
          Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
          dferri@dicellolevitt.com
          bstubbs@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Timothy F. Devereux, Esq.
          Jeffrey S. Gibson, Esq.
          WAGNER REESE, LLP
          11939 North Meridian Street, Suite 100
          Carmel, IN 46032
          Telephone: (317) 569-0000
          Email: TDevereux@WagnerReese.com
                 JGibson@WagnerReese.com

               - and -

          Jacob Rusch, Esq.
          Timothy Becker, Esq.
          JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
          444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
          Saint Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (800) 272-6386
          Email: Jrusch@johnsonbecker.com
                 Tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

KANDLE DINING: Settlement Class Gets Certification in Bod Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALAINA BODI, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KANDLE DINING
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-02491-KAS (D. Colo.), the Hon.
Judge Kathryn A. Starnella entered an order certifying the proposed
Settlement Class for the sole purposes of effectuating the Parties'
Settlement, as follows:

   a. FLSA Collective Action Class

      "All salaried kitchen and dining hall employees who worked
for
      KANDLE Dining Services, Inc. at any camp location in the
United
      States between May 21, 2020, and the Effective Date of the
      Settlement Agreement, who timely file a FLSA Opt-in Form
      indicating their intention to opt-in to this action."

   b. Rule 23 Class

      "All salaried kitchen and dining hall employees who worked
for
      KANDLE Dining Services, Inc. in camps throughout Colorado
      between May 21, 2020, and the Effective Date of the
Settlement
      Agreement."

The Court also entered an order:

  -- Approving the proposed Settlement;

  -- Appointing the Plaintiff Alaina Bodi as the Class
Representative
     for the Settlement Class.

  -- Appointing the Plaintiff's attorneys from The Wilhite &
Miller
     Law Firm as Class Counsel;

  -- Approving the Notice, Consent, and Opt-out Forms attached
     to the Motion as Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 to be sent to the
     Settlement Class Members;

  -- Approving CAC Services Group, LLC, as Settlement
Administrator;
     and

  -- Authorizing notice to be sent to the Settlement Class

The Plaintiff Alaina Bodi initiated this action on September 23,
2022, alleging that Defendant KANDLE Dining Services, Inc. violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") 29 U.S.C. section 201, et
seq., the Colorado Wage Act, Colo. Rev. Stat.

The Plaintiff Bodi alleges that KANDLE violated the
above-referenced federal and state law by (1) paying Bodi and the
FLSA Collective Action Members, described below, on a salary basis
that resulted in KANDLE's failure to pay at least federal minimum
wage for all hours worked, or an overtime premium for hours worked
in excess of 40 in a week; and (2) paying Bodi and the Rule 23
Class Members, also described below, on a salary basis that
resulted in KANDLE's failure to pay at least Colorado minimum wage
for all hours worked, or an overtime premium for hours worked in
excess of 40 in a week.

Kandle Dining is a foodservice provider for summer camps.

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

KENVUE INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due December 8
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Oct. 9
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Kenvue Inc. (NYSE: KVUE) pursuant
and/or traceable to the registration statement and related
prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in
connection with Kenvue's May 2023 initial public offering (the
"IPO"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Kenvue investors
under the federal securities laws.

To join the Kenvue class action, go
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=19241 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, the Registration Statement contained
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) Kenvue faces potential headwinds as a result of confirmed
concerns about the efficacy of phenylephrine, which it knew or
should have known; (2) Kenvue did not discuss risks relating to the
efficacy of phenylephrine (or "PE") in its IPO, the utility of
which had been questioned since at least 2007; (3) while the
Company disclosed risks relating to litigation, it did not disclose
specific risk relating to potential litigation arising from adverse
findings on the efficacy of phenylephrine; and (4) as a result,
Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times and negligently prepared. When the true
details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December
8, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=19241 or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

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

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

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

KENVUE INC: Hammond Sues Over Drop in Share Price
-------------------------------------------------
JAMES HAMMOND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KENVUE INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON; THIBAUT
MONGON; PAUL RUH; HEATHER HOWLETT; GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC; J.P.
MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; BOFA SECURITIES, INC. ; CITIGROUP GLOBAL
MARKETS INC.; DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC. ; HSBC SECURITIES (USA)
INC.; RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC; BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES CORP.; UBS
SECURITIES LLC; BBVA SECURITIES INC. ; ING FINANCIAL MARKETS LLC;
INTESA SANPAOLO S.P.A. ; SANTANDER US CAPITAL MARKETS LLC;
UNICREDIT US CAPITAL MARKETS LLC; ACADEMY SECURITIES, INC;
INDEPENDENCE POINT SECURITIES LLC; SAMUEL A. RAMIREZ & CO. INC. ;
R. SEELAUS & CO., LLC; and SIEBERT WILLIAMS SHANK & CO. LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-20998 (D.N.J., Oct. 9, 2023) is a
class action on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired Kenvue securities pursuant and traceable to the
registration statement and related prospectus issued in connection
with Kenvue's initial public offering and suffered compensable
damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the Securities Act
of 1933.

According to the complaint, on May 2023, Defendants held the IPO,
offering approximately 171,812,560 shares of Kenvue common stock to
the investing public at $22 per share. The Underwriter Defendants
had an option to purchase an additional 25,921,884 shares to cover
over-allotments, which was exercised.

Since the IPO, and as a result of the disclosure of material
adverse facts omitted from Kenvue's Registration Statement,
Kenvue's share price has fallen substantially below its IPO price,
damaging Plaintiff and Class members. As of October 6, 2023,
Kenvue's shares closed at $20.07, an 8.77 percent decline from the
IPO price, says the suit.

Kenvue Inc. operates as a consumer health company. The Company
offers a consumer health portfolio in self-care, skin health &
beauty, and essential health products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          One Gateway Center, Suite 2600
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 313-1887
          Facsimile: (973) 833-0399
          Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

KRAFT HEINZ: Moffett Sues Over Improper Payment of Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
STEVE MOFFETT, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-01716-MPK (W.D. Pa., Oct. 2, 2023) seeks all available
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by Defendant
from approximately February 2023 through September 5, 2023, as a
laborer, forklift operator, and other positions at the Defendant's
location in Champaign, Illinois. During his employment, Plaintiff
worked 40 or more hours in one or more workweek. However, the
Defendant did not compensate Plaintiff for integral and
indispensable work. As a result, Plaintiff was not fully and
properly paid for all hours worked in violation of the FLSA and the
IMWL, says the suit.

Kraft Heinz Foods Company is a for-profit Pennsylvania corporation
with a corporate headquarters in Pittsburgh, PA. It manufactures,
packages, distributes, and sells food products throughout the
United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
          Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq.
          1360 East 9th Street, Ste. 808
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 230-2944
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com

LA GRANDE BOUCHERIE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Amaya Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA AMAYA; BENCHER MONTEBON; OLSI VELO; JASMIN DZOGOVIC; RICHARD
ANTON; and SARAH PRUITT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LA GRANDE BOUCHERIE LLC; THE
GROUP US MANAGEMENT LLC, and EMIL STEFKOV, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-08897-LJL (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 10, 2023) seeks to recover from
the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as food service
workers.

LA GRANDE BOUCHERIE LLC owns and operates a restaurant located at
New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Johnmack Cohen
          DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC
          One Penn, Plaza, Suite 4905
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 587-0760
          Facsimile: (212) 587-4169

               - and -

          Darren P.B. Rumack
          THE KLEIN LAW GROUP PC
          39 Broadway, Suite 1530
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 344-9022
          Facsimile: (212) 344-0301

LA PLAZA MARKET: Gastelum Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against La Plaza Market LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Hector Mario Gastelum, Angel Contreras
Luna, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
La Plaza Market LLC, JE&E Chaves LLC, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2023-0010435 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Oct. 2,
2023).

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

La Plaza Market, LLC is in the business of supermarkets and other
grocery (except convenience) stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis Benowitz, Esq.
          BENOWITZ LAW CORPORATION
          8605 Santa Monica Blvd., Pmb 79183
          West Hollywood, CA 90069-4109
          Phone: 747-233-1600
          Email: louis@benowitzlaw.com


LANDS' END: Faces Quella Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER QUELLA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LANDS' END, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:23-cv-01323 (E.D. Wis., October 6, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for failure to pay regular wages and overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a customer service
employee from 2018 until September 27, 2023.

Lands' End, Inc. is a clothing retailer based in Dodgeville,
Wisconsin. [BN]

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

LCS FINANCIAL: Lipps Sues Over Alleged Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------
DAVID LIPPS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LCS FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-02565-GPG-MEH (D. Colo., Oct. 2, 2023)
arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information that it collected
and maintained as part of its regular business practices,
including, but not limited to: full names and Social Security
numbers.

Allegedly, the Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff and Class
Members with timely and adequate notice. The Data Breach occurred
on or around February 24, 2023 and was detected by Defendant on
February 25, 2023, yet Defendant did not notify impacted
individuals until September 22, 2023, nearly seven months after
LCS's detected the breach. During this time, Plaintiff and Class
Members were unaware that their sensitive PII had been compromised,
and that they were, and continue to be, at significant risk of
identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and
financial harm, says the suit.

LCS is a full-service nationwide debt agency that provides services
to financial institutions, including collections, bankruptcy
services, and legal referrals. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

LESLIE'S INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due November 7
----------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of securities of Leslie's, Inc. (NASDAQ: LESL) between
February 5, 2021 and July 13, 2023, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"), of the important November 7, 2023 lead plaintiff
deadline.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Leslie's class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=18988 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 7, 2023.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Leslie's growth was caused by
customers over purchasing products to stockpile in case of a
chemical shortage; (2) such sales inflated revenues and earnings
and were not indicative of durable and sustainable demand or
financial growth; (3) Leslie's took advantage of chemical shortages
by urging customers to stock up on the products because Leslie's
could not "guarantee availability" of chemicals in the future; and
(4) any slowdown in sales was not a normalization of past
seasonality, but was due to the prior excess stockpiling. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

To join the Leslie's class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=18988 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

Contact Information:

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

LIBERTY MUTUAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due July 10, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Audish v. Liberty Mutual,
Case No. 1:23-cv-11081 (D. Mass., Filed May 15, 2023), the Hon.
Judge Denise J. Casper entered a scheduling order as follows:

  -- Amendment to the pleadings by:               Oct. 27, 2023

  -- Fact discovery to be completed by:           April 15, 2023

  -- The Plaintiff's expert disclosures due       April 29, 2024
     by:

  -- The Defendant's expert disclosures           May 13, 2024
     due by:

  -- Rebuttal expert disclosures due by:          May 27, 2024

  -- Expert discovery to be completed by:         June 10, 2024

  -- Motion for Class Certification to            July 10, 2024
     be filed by:

  -- Opposition to Motion for Class               Aug. 10, 2024
     Certification to be filed by:

  -- The Plaintiff's reply brief to be            Aug. 24, 2024
     filed by:

  -- Status Conference set for:                   April 22, 2024

The nature of suit alleges violation of Restrictions of Use of
Telephone Equipment.

Liberty is an American diversified global insurer and the
sixth-largest property and casualty insurer in the United
States.[CC]

LIBERTY UNIVERSITY: Court Tosses Students' Bid to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STUDENT A, STUDENT C, and
STUDENT D, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
v.  LIBERTY UNIVERSITY, INC., d/b/a, LIBERTY UNIVERSITY, Case No.
6:20-cv-00023-NKM-RSB (W.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Norman K. Moon
entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification.

Further, the Court dismissed the action and directed the Clerk of
Court to strike the case from the Court's active docket.

Liberty University is a non-denominational Protestant Christian
liberal arts college located in Lynchburg, Virginia.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3trBwqR at no extra charge.[CC]



LINCARE INC: Cowan Seeks to Conditionall Certify FLSA Collective
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIA COWAN, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LINCARE INC.,
Case No. 8:23-cv-01690-CEH-AAS (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs file a
pre-discovery motion for conditional collective certification and
court-authorized notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs pursuant to
29 u.s.c. section
216(b).

The Plaintiffs request that the Court enter an order:

   (1) Conditionally certifying the proposed FLSA Collective;

   (2) Requiring Defendant to identify all putative collective
members
       by providing a list of their names, last known addresses,
dates
       and location of employment, phone numbers, and email
addresses
       in electronic and importable format within ten (10) days of
the
       entry of the order;

   (3) Authorizing Plaintiffs’ proposed form of notice (Exhibits
A &
       B) and implementing a procedure whereby the notice of
       Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail, email, and
text
       message) to:

       "All current and former hourly customer service agents who
       worked for Defendant at any time during the last three years

       (the FLSA Collective).

   (4) Appointing the undersigned counsel as counsel for the FLSA
       Collective; and

   (5) Giving members of the FLSA Collective sixty (60) days to
join
       this case, measured from the date the Court-authorized
notice
       is sent, with one reminder email sent 30 days thereafter to

       anyone who did not respond.

The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against Lincare challenging its
willful violations of the FLSA. More specifically, Plaintiffs
allege that Defendant willfully violated the FLSA by knowingly
suffering
or permitting Plaintiffs to perform unpaid work before, during, and
after their scheduled shifts, but failing to pay these employees
the federally mandated overtime compensation.

The Defendant is a Florida-based "leading respiratory supplier,"
delivering respiratory supplies to millions of patients' homes
across the country.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 10, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46rYInz at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
          Albert J. Asciutto, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, 17th Floor
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
                  aasciutto@sommerspc.com

                - and -

          Bradley W. Butcher, Esq.
          BUTCHER & ASSOCIATES
          6830 Porto Fino Circle, Suite 2
          Fort Meyers, FL 33912
          Telephone: (239) 322-1615
          E-mail: bwb@b-a-law.com

LOTTE HOTEL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garrido Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
KATHLEEN GARRIDO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. LOTTE HOTEL NEW YORK PALACE, LLC; and,
LOTTE HOTEL BEVERAGE (NYP), LLC, Defendants, Case No. 616452/2023
(N.Y., Sup., Nassau Cty., Oct. 11, 2023) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff Garrido was employed by the Defendants as a food service
worker.

LOTTE HOTEL NEW YORK PALACE, LLC owns and operates hotels and
resorts. The Company offers restaurant, bar and lounge, meeting and
wedding venues, fitness club, business center, and conference room
facilities. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
         Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
         Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
         LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
         One Old Country Road, Suite 347
         Carle Place, NY 11514
         Telephone: (516) 873-9550

LUTHERAN SOCIAL: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Caputo
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Caputo v. Lutheran Social
Services of Illinois, Case No. 1:23-cv-01214-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill.),
the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as
follows:

   -- Rule 16 scheduling conference

      The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
      30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
      The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.

   -- Discovery plan

      The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
      calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.

   -- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference

      If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
      plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
      conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
      discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
      within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16

      scheduling conference be cancelled.

   -- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing

      For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
      by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a

      telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to

      appear for an in-person hearing.

   -- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the

      discovery deadline has already passed

      The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court

      after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
      disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the

      relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
      raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
      discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
      the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
      discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
      discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
      they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move

      that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any

      subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.

   -- Settlement conferences and mediation

      The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or

      mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
      settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
      Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.

Lutheran is the social service arm of the Evangelical Lutheran
Church in America (ELCA)'s three Illinois synods.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 2, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3F39QuR at no extra charge.[CC]

LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Class Certification Bid Continued to Dec. 14
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TODD WALTERS, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, and the general public,
v. LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA INC. (D/B/A/ LENSCRAFTERS), an Ohio
corporation and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No.
8:23-cv-01099-FWS-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fred W. Slaughter
entered an order re joint stipulation to continue Rule 26(f)
scheduling conference and extend deadline to file motion for class
Certification:

  -- The Rule 26(f) Scheduling Conference is continued from October

     19, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 10D, to December 14,
2023,
     at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 10D.

  -- The Parties shall review and comply with: (a) the court's
Civil
     Standing Order [12], including on the issue of timely filing
the
     Joint Rule 26(f) Report, and (b) the court's Order Setting
Rule
     26(f) Scheduling Conference [13], including the requirements
of
     the contents of the Joint Rule 26(f) Report to be filed.

  -- The filing deadline for the motion for class certification
shall
     be calculated from the continued date in accordance with the
     Court's Order Setting Rule 26(f) Scheduling Conference.

Luxottica designs, manufactures and distributes fashion, luxury,
sports and performance eyewear.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LQ8asD at no extra charge.[CC]

M & S SECURITY SERVICES: Blackmon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against M & S Security
Services Incorporated. The case is styled as Serina Maire Blackmon,
Kayla Marie Heitzenroder, Mallorie Christine Matteson, on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. M & S Security Services
Incorporated, Case No. BCV-23-103332 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty.,
Oct. 4, 2023).

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

M & S Security Services, Inc. -- https://mssecurityservices.com/ --
provides standing guard services for residential, commercial and
industrial locations.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel V. Ginzburg, Esq.
          FRONTIER LAW CENTER
          23901 Calabasas Rd. #2074
          Calabasas, CA 91302


MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Certiorari Granted in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur H. Aufses III, Esq., Alan R. Friedman, Esq., Kerri Ann Law,
Esq., Jonathan M. Wagner, Esq., and Jonaki Singh, Esq., of Kramer
Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, in an article for Lexology, disclosed
that on Sept. 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari
in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P.[1] to
review a decision by the Second Circuit reviving an investor
lawsuit alleging Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 violations predicated
on a failure to make disclosures required under Item 303 of the
Security and Exchange Commission's (SEC) Regulation S-K. This case
presents significant questions regarding the scope of corporate
liability under the securities laws and could potentially affect
the nature and volume of investor lawsuits.

Litigation Background

The underlying action dates back to 2018, when Moab Partners L.P.
filed a securities class action alleging that defendant Macquarie
Infrastructure Corp. (MIC) made material misrepresentations and
omissions regarding the potential impact of a new international
fuel regulation on MIC's fuel storage business.[2] One of the main
components of MIC's business was the storage of No. 6 fuel oil,
which would effectively be banned when the new international
regulation took effect. Plaintiffs alleged that although MIC made
statements to investors predicting that demand for its services
would decline in the short term due to certain refinery closures,
MIC did not disclose that the new regulation would likely have a
long-term impact on MIC's business. Plaintiffs further alleged that
after the regulation took effect, the demand for MIC's services
plummeted, causing MIC's stock price to decline. Plaintiffs argued
that Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K obligated MIC to disclose the
impending regulation and its likely impact on MIC's business, and
that MIC's failure to do so violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5. Item 303 obligates a company to make a
disclosure in its SEC filings when a "trend, demand, commitment,
event or uncertainty is both presently known to management and
reasonably likely to have material effects on the registrant's
financial conditions or results of operations."[3]

The district court dismissed plaintiffs' claims for failure to
plead any material misrepresentations or omissions as well as
scienter. The court found that plaintiffs failed to (1) identify
any statements that were actionable as "half-truths" due to MIC's
failure to disclose its business reliance on storing No. 6 fuel oil
or (2) adequately plead that MIC knew that any alleged statements
were untrue or half-truths when made. Furthermore, the court
rejected plaintiffs' argument that MIC violated disclosure
obligations under Item 303 because plaintiffs did not actually
plead an "uncertainty" that should have been disclosed and did not
adequately plead that any omitted information was material.

Second Circuit Court of Appeals' Decision

In a summary order, a unanimous panel of the Second Circuit vacated
the decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.[4] The
court found that plaintiff had adequately pled actionable omissions
and half-truths because Item 303 required MIC to disclose that the
new regulation's significant restriction on No. 6 fuel was
reasonably likely to have material effects on MIC's financial
condition. In the court's view, MIC's decision to make statements
regarding its base of customers triggered a duty to speak
accurately and provide all material facts addressing those issues.
The court also found that plaintiff had adequately alleged scienter
because the complaint contained sufficient circumstantial evidence
that MIC executives knew that a significant portion of the
company's business relied on the storage of No. 6 fuel oil and that
the impending regulation was likely to impact MIC's revenue.

MIC filed a petition for rehearing en banc that the Second Circuit
denied in January 2023.

Petition for Certiorari and Looking Ahead

In May 2023, MIC filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme
Court, seeking review of the Second Circuit's decision. The
petition presented one question for the Court's consideration:
whether the Second Circuit erred in holding that a failure to make
a disclosure required under Item 303 can support a private claim
under Section 10(b), even in the absence of an otherwise-misleading
statement. The petitioners contended that the Second Circuit's
holding conflicts with the Third, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits,[5]
which have held that because Item 303 articulates different
disclosure and materiality standards than Rule 10b-5, a violation
of Item 303 cannot automatically give rise to a Section 10(b) and
Rule 10b-5 claim.[6] The petitioners further argued that the Second
Circuit's rule would constitute an improper judicial expansion of
Section 10(b) liability, inconsistent with Congress' efforts to
rein in meritless securities fraud actions as reflected in the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, and would encourage
opportunistic forum shopping unless reversed by the Supreme Court.

Various groups, including legal policy institutes and industry
groups, filed amicus curiae briefs in support of the petition for
certiorari, arguing that the Second Circuit's decision contravenes
well-established Section 10(b) law, expands Section 10(b)'s private
right of action and would incentivize companies to overdisclose. In
its opposition brief, Respondent Moab Partners L.P. argued that the
Second Circuit's conclusion that Item 303 creates a duty to
disclose comports with Section 10(b) jurisprudence and would not
expand Section 10(b)'s private right of action.

The Supreme Court's decision to grant certiorari signals its
willingness to resolve this divide among the appellate courts and
clarify the extent to which an alleged Item 303 violation can serve
as a predicate for Section 10(b) liability. [GN]

MAINE: Faces Class Action Over Indigent Defense System
------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Hogan, writing for The Maine Monitor, reports that
advocates for poor criminal defendants in Maine say court clerks
are appointing ineligible lawyers to handle cases in an attempt to
meet the constitutional requirement that people accused of crimes
get representation.

The complaints follow a petition submitted to the Maine Supreme
Judicial Court on Sept. 20 by two criminal defense lawyers -- Rob
Ruffner of Portland and Rory McNamara of York -- on behalf of a
woman who sat in jail for months without being assigned an attorney
despite being entitled to one.

Ruffner and McNamara asked the justices to find out whether other
indigent defendants were ordered to receive a lawyer and haven't,
and to hear evidence about whether it is lawful to keep people in
jail while awaiting an attorney.

"It's just crazy that in the year 2023 we're still asking the Maine
judiciary to show us where these people are . . . and that they're
being lawfully held," McNamara said.

Jim Billings, the executive director of the Maine Commission on
Indigent Legal Services, or MCILS, which coordinates legal
representation for the poor in Maine, emailed lawyers on Sept. 29
that he was aware of the "improper appointments."

"It has been brought to my attention that some courts are making
assignments to attorneys who are not eligible for a particular case
type or are not on the active roster in that court but are just
rostered in another part of the state. I sympathize with the stress
and frustration this causes for attorneys," Billings wrote.

Billings wrote that he told the courts that only attorneys MCILS
deemed eligible for a case type could be assigned to cases.

"I have stressed that improper appointments will cause more
attorneys to leave the rosters and further exacerbate the crisis we
are experiencing," Billings wrote.

At the same time, settlement talks are set to resume between the
ACLU of Maine and MCILS about how to ensure that low-income
defendants have competent, trained and supervised lawyers to defend
them in court. The ACLU of Maine filed the class action lawsuit
against MCILS in March 2022.

The ACLU lawsuit is separate from the petition recently filed with
the state Supreme Court.

Ruffner and McNamara said the court system -- which faces a backlog
of hundreds of cases -- has immediate problems, including an
inability to provide lawyers to people in jail awaiting trial, that
might not be solved by any agreement that emerges from the talks
between the ACLU and the state.

They point to a recent order by a federal judge in Oregon that
defendants there be released from a county jail if they had their
first court appearance and were not assigned an attorney within 10
days.

"Nothing in the proposed settlement touched on this particular
issue," said Ruffner, who attended a Sept. 29 hearing about the
class action during which the ACLU and MCILS agreed to restart
negotiations.

The filing of the petition with the state Supreme Court and a
justice's recent comments about the risk of an actual denial of
counsel in the ACLU class action was coincidental timing, said
McNamara in an interview on Sept. 29.

"Regardless of what's likely to shake out in that case, those are
systemic, medium- to long-term things that require funding and the
good-will negotiations with the Legislature," McNamara said. "In
the meanwhile, I'm concerned about what happens today and tomorrow
and next week with these individuals when there's no lawful basis
to be locked up."

ACLU of Maine and state officials restart negotiations
A month of settlement talks will resume as the ACLU of Maine and
state officials try to reach an agreement about how to ensure
low-income defendants have competent, trained and supervised
lawyers.

Superior Court Justice Michaela Murphy rejected a proposed
settlement agreement three weeks ago, saying it was not "judicially
enforceable" and it could "close the courthouse doors" for poor
defendants if the state didn't assign a lawyer to represent them in
violation of the Sixth Amendment.

"The court's analysis was incredibly thorough. She recognized the
improvements the settlement would achieve but she had concerns.
We're going to try to address those (issues)," said Zach Heiden,
chief counsel for the ACLU of Maine.

On Sept. 29, the attorney general's office, which is representing
MCILS in the case, informed the justice that both sides agreed to
"engage in negotiations in order to address the court's concerns"
for 30 days with a judicial officer assisting with the talks.

"We want to get this done," Assistant Attorney General Sean Magenis
told the court.

No trial date was set. Murphy previously said she wanted to
schedule a trial within a year if a settlement could not be
reached.

Maine is required by the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
to provide a lawyer at the state's expense to any criminal
defendant at risk of going to jail who cannot afford to hire an
attorney.

Maine has met its constitutional mandate since 2010 with MCILS,
which contracts with private defense attorneys to represent poor
clients. During its 13-year existence, MCILS has at times failed to
enforce its own rules about attorney eligibility to work on certain
case types, and participation by defense lawyers on MCILS's lists
has shrunk significantly in recent years, The Maine Monitor
reported.

The ACLU of Maine sued state officials on behalf of impoverished
criminal defendants 19 months ago, alleging the state failed to
make an effective public defense system, creating an "unreasonable
risk" that indigent defendants would be denied their right to a
lawyer.

When the class action lawsuit was filed in March 2022, Maine was
the only state that did not employ public defenders.

The state hired five rural public defenders late last year, and
lawmakers approved money this year to open a public defender
office, the Monitor reported.

Mackenzie Deveau, one of the rural defenders, spoke on Oct. 3 about
the Sixth Amendment on a panel at the University of Maine School of
Law. She said it was "fun but also very stressful" to build the
state's first public defender team while also immediately taking
cases.

"We're a year in now and it feels like we're just getting off the
ground," Deveau said during the panel. "… Five attorneys are not
going to save our state. We really try, we do our best, and we take
on what we can, but a lot more is needed."

At the heart of the lawsuit is the argument that Maine's public
defense system leads to a "constructive" denial of counsel, because
the state allegedly does not adequately train or supervise the
lawyers it contracts with to represent low-income people.

Murphy has been increasingly vocal about her concern that Maine's
indigent defense system is sliding toward a "constitutional crisis"
and the actual denial of lawyers for the state's poor. Her Sept. 13
order said an unknowable number of defendants may not be assigned a
lawyer at all in the next few years.

There is currently an information hole in some counties about how
long people are in jail and if they are without counsel, Murphy
said Sept. 29 during court.

MCILS is playing a "game of telephone" to obtain information about
the status of each case, Magenis told the court. At the end of each
day, MCILS doesn't know who doesn't have a lawyer without looking
at each case, he said.

Leigh Saufley, a retired chief justice of the Maine Supreme
Judicial Court and current dean of the law school, summarized the
situation on Oct. 4.

"There is no question that there is a right to counsel. There are
far too many questions regarding the 'when,' which is a really
critical question, and the 'how'," Saufley said.

Supreme Court petition alleges actual denial of counsel
At least one indigent defendant, Angelina Dube Peterson, made her
first appearance in court on June 28, and nearly three months later
had not been assigned a lawyer, according to a writ of habeas
corpus filed with the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.

"An order appointing counsel was issued on June 28, but the space
where the name of that counsel was to be written was left blank,"
according to the petition.

As first reported by the Portland Press Herald, Ruffner and
McNamara filed the petition on Peterson's behalf and similar
defendants on Sept. 20. (Peterson was appointed a lawyer after the
petition was filed).

McNamara and Ruffner have accepted court appointments through MCILS
for years, although they are working on the petition pro bono.

An appellate public defender office would be able to bring this
kind of petition if one existed in Maine, McNamara said.

McNamara said he was disturbed to have to file the petition in the
first place. He and Ruffner started to find cases this spring where
judges had appointed counsel without saying who the lawyer would
be, which is not actually providing a lawyer, McNamara said.

Judges have not been dismissing cases when prosecutors overcharge
cases or defendants' right to a speedy trial are violated, McNamara
said.

"The judiciary has neutered itself," he said. "Whether its speedy
trial rights, other mechanisms to dump cases that shouldn't be
brought because of the backlog, and to see time after time again
(judges) going against those individuals' rights just indicates to
me that we're not really interested in identifying what the
problems are."

Barbara Cardone, a spokeswoman for the judicial branch, declined to
comment while the petition is before the state Supreme Court.

"Anybody who is involved in the criminal justice system should be
embarrassed. I am embarrassed that this happened as a defense
attorney, the court should be embarrassed, prosecutors should be
embarrassed," said Amber Tucker, president of the Maine Association
of Criminal Defense Lawyers during the law school panel.

A potential solution is to automatically schedule a defendant to
appear in court seven days later if the judge is not immediately
able to assign them a lawyer, so the court can keep track of who
does not have an attorney, Tucker said.

Maine District Court Judges Sarah Gilbert and Carrie Linthicum are
named in the petition, as are unknown judges who oversee cases in
the Unified Criminal Docket.

Sheriffs Peter Johnson of Aroostook County and William King of York
County -- two counties where Peterson was held in jail without a
lawyer -- are also named.

They all have until Oct. 11 to respond.

Barriers to public defense
Court clerks and judges have struggled for more than a year to find
criminal defense attorneys available to accept new cases, the
Monitor reported. Defense lawyers say their caseloads are at
capacity and they cannot take more cases until the courts clear a
backlog of existing cases.

District Court Judge Sarah Churchill refused to let a
MCILS-contracted attorney decline a court appointment at the end of
September in Lewiston. The lawyer assigned to the case did not
usually work in Lewiston, according to court documents reviewed by
The Maine Monitor.

Churchill served on the commission that oversees MCILS before Gov.
Janet Mills nominated her to the district court, the Monitor
reported. Churchill declined to comment.

Lawyers contracted with MCILS are allowed to select courts where
they would like to be appointed cases.

A lawyer based in Portland, for example, may choose to be on
MCILS's lists for domestic violence cases in Cumberland County's
courts. That does not mean the attorney is required to accept
appointments to domestic violence cases in courts on the midcoast
or in Aroostook County.

McNamara said he would stop accepting appointments through MCILS if
lawyers continued to be "coerced" to take cases by the courts.

MCILS requires attorneys to have five years of professional and
trial experience to be eligible for more difficult cases, such as
homicides. The courts made at least 2,000 case assignments to
attorneys who lacked the requisite training or experience, an
investigation by The Maine Monitor and ProPublica published in 2021
found.  

One way to address Maine's shortage of attorneys is to build
capacity and bring more lawyers to Maine that do criminal defense
work, said Billings, the MCILS director.

Maine has only one law school. Alyxus Friesen, a second-year law
student, says she wants to stay in the state and do indigent
defense work, but with few public defender jobs approved by the
Legislature there isn't a direct path into public defense.

Public Service Loan Forgiveness — a federal program that
dissolves student loan debt after the first 120 payments for people
who work for some nonprofits or the government — is also a major
factor for law students thinking about going into indigent defense
in Maine, said Jeff Sullivan. He will graduate from the University
of Maine School of Law with $130,000 of student loan debt.

"Honestly, loan forgiveness might be the biggest piece," Sullivan
said.

Rowan Hickey said he will graduate with $80,000 of debt because of
scholarships and working during college. Hickey said he too wants
to go into public defense but it's "dicey" if he will be able to
find a job at a firm that will allow him to do 30 hours a week
contracted with the state to qualify for loan forgiveness.

Collectively the three students and some of their peers launched
the group "Students for the Sixth Amendment" during their first
year at the University of Maine School of Law in Portland. The
group hosted the panel on Oct. 4.

Tristan Dewdney, who moderated the panel, is a second-year law
student. Public defense internships for students and a shift to a
hybrid public defense model in Maine with public defenders and
contract lawyers are "ideal," he said. These changes are on the
horizon, but the horizon is still far away, Dewdney said.

"I'm hopeful," Dewdney said of finding a job in public defense
after law school, "but clearly we're at an inflection point and
there's no certainty." [GN]

MBA MORTGAGE: Plaintiffs Seek Approval of Notice Plan
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW S. REMSNYDER, et
al., v. MBA MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-00492-CCB (D.
Md.), the Plaintiffs file a motion for approval of notice plan and
proposed form of notice.

In sum, the Proposed Form of Notice and Notice Plan satisfy all
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and
corresponding case law. As such, the Plaintiffs move for this Court
to approve both.

The Casey Group has informed Plaintiffs' Counsel that it can
facilitate mailing of notice to the MBA Class as proposed here
within fourteen (14) days of receiving notice of the Court's
approval of the proposed Notice Plan, with a corresponding request
for exclusion deadline of 45 days following mailing. These dates
are reflected as "TBD" on Plaintiffs' proposed Notice and will be
finalized upon approval of the Class Notice and Notice Plan.

The notice plan developed by Class Counsel conforms with the due
process requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (b)(3) as well as
corresponding case law.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, this Court certified the
following MBA Class and Subclasses:

   -- The MBA Class

      "All individuals in the United States who were borrowers on a

      mortgage loan originated or brokered by MBA Mortgage
Services,
      Inc., for which All Star Title, Inc., provided a settlement
      service, as identified in Section 1100 on the borrower's
HUD-1
      or on the Closing Disclosure between July 1, 2009 and
December
      31, 2015.

      Exempted from this class is any person who, during the period
of
      July 1, 2009 through December 31, 2015, was an employee,
      officer, member and/or agent of MBA Mortgage Services, Inc.
or
      All Star Title, Inc.; any judicial officer who handles this
      case, and the immediate family members of such judicial
      officer(s).

   -- The RICO Subclass

      "The RICO Subclass is comprised of all members of the MBA
      Class."

   -- The RESPA Subclass

      "The RESPA Subclass is comprised of all members of the MBA
Class
      who were borrowers on a federally related mortgage loan."

MBA is a mortgage company that offers brokerage services for buying
and selling residential and commercial properties.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Timothy F. Maloney, Esq.
          Veronica B. Nannis, Esq.
          JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE
          6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400
          Greenbelt, MD 20770
          Telephone: (301) 220-2200
          Facsimile: (301) 220-1214
          E-mail: tmaloney@jgllaw.com
                  vnannis@jgllaw.com

                - and -

          Michael Paul Smith, Esq.
          Melissa L. English, Esq.
          SMITH, GILDEA & SCHMIDT, LLC
          600 Washington Avenue, Suite 200
          Towson, MD 21204
          Telephone: (410) 821-0070
          Facsimile: (410) 821-0071
          E-mail: mpsmith@sgs-law.com
                  menglish@sgs-law.com

MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Securities Suit Voluntarily Dismiss
-------------------------------------------------------
Medical Properties Trust, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2023, that on May
9, 2023, the plaintiff in a securities litigation filed on April
12, 2023, voluntarily dismissed a lawsuit where the company and
certain of its executives were named as defendants in a putative
federal securities class action lawsuit filed by a purported
stockholder in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Case No. 1:23-cv-03070.

The complaint sought class certification on behalf of purchasers of
its common stock between March 1, 2022 and February 22, 2023 and
alleged false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions
resulted in artificially inflated prices for its common stock. The
complaint sought unspecified damages including interest and an
award of reasonable costs and expenses.

Medical Properties Trust, Inc. engages in the business of investing
in, owning, and leasing healthcare real estate through its
operating partnership subsidiary, MPT Operating Partnership, L.P.


MEOLA LAW FIRM: Boscaino Collision Alleges Illegal Debt Collection
------------------------------------------------------------------
BOSCAINO COLLISION & TOWING CORP., individually and on behalf of
itself and other similarly situated collision repair shops and
towing companies located in the City of New York, Plaintiff v.
RUDOLPH J. MEOLA; LAW OFFICE OF RUDOLPH J. MEOLA; and MEOLA LAW
FIRM, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-07510 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 6, 2023)
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt.

LAW OFFICE OF RUDOLPH J. MEOLA is a law office engaged in debt
collection. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

META PLATFORMS: Advertiser Plaintiffs Seek to Exclude Expert Report
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAXIMILIAN KLEIN, et al.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. META
PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD (N.D. Cal.), the
Advertiser plaintiffs' file a notice of motion and motion to
exclude the expert report and Testimony of Dr. Catherine Tucker.

Dr. Tucker offered no serious evidence did not know any technical
details, and failed to analyze the presence or absence of monopoly
in the actual or but-for worlds. Her opinions regarding alleged are
unreliable, unscientific, and inadmissible. The Court should
exclude paragraphs 52-94, 104-06, and 111-20 of the Tucker Report,
and any related testimony, on this distinct basis, the Plaintiffs
contend.

On August 4, 2023, Meta Platforms served on Advertiser Plaintiffs
an expert report by Dr. Catherine Tucker. Dr. Tucker’s
report—one of two expert reports she signed that day in this
case—purported to rebut opinions from two of Advertisers'
experts, Dr. Michael Williams and Professor Joshua Gans. Dr.
Tucker's Advertiser report offered opinions about Facebook's sale
of Social Advertising during the Class Period, about due to the
company’s anticompetitive conduct, and about supposed variations
in injury and damages to Facebook advertisers if the company's
anticompetitive conduct were proved.

On July 7, 2023, Advertiser Plaintiffs served four expert reports,
including the Expert Report of Michael A. Williams, Ph.D., and the
Expert Report of Joshua S. Gans.3 The Williams Report disclosed
opinions pertaining to the relevant antitrust market for Advertiser
Plaintiffs’ case -- the United States Social Advertising Market;
Facebook's monopoly power in that market; classwide antitrust
impact; and classwide damages.

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

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 6, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46MaNnn at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Yavar Bathaee, Esq.
          Andrew C. Wolinsky, Esq.
          Andrew M. Williamson, Esq.
          Adam Ernette, Esq.
          Priscilla Ghița, Esq.
          Chang Hahn, Esq.
          Allison Watson Cross, 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
                  awilliamson@bathaeedunne.com
                  aernette@bathaeedunne.com
                  pghita@bathaeedunne.com
                  chahn@bathaeedunne.com
                  bdunne@bathaeedunne.com
                  egrauman@bathaeedunne.com
                  across@bathaeedunne.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


                - and -

          Amanda F. Lawrence, Esq.
          Patrick J. McGahan, Esq.
          Michael P. Srodoski, Esq.
          Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq.
          Carmen A. Medici, Esq.
          Hal D. Cunningham, Esq.
          Daniel J. Brockwell, Esq.
          Patrick J. Rodriguez, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          156 South Main Street
          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
                  pcoughlin@scott-scott.com
                  cmedici@scott-scott.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


META PLATFORMS: Federal Court Tosses $1B rypto Ad Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Braue, writing for Information Age, reports that a Federal
Court judge has thrown out a class action lawsuit alleging that
Meta, Google and Twitter formed a cartel to block Web 3.0
competitors by imposing blanket cryptocurrency advertising
restrictions that cost the crypto industry hundreds of billions of
dollars.

The lawsuit -- which was lodged in August 2020 by Israel-based
Australian lawyer Andrew Hamilton through his company JPB Liberty
-- railed against the "almost absolute power" of tech giants
Facebook, Google and Twitter, warning that they were "a huge threat
to freedom and liberty" and argued that their 2018 bans of all
cryptocurrency ads "had a devastating effect on all cryptocurrency
investors and projects".

At the time, the firms blamed the bans on the high incidence of
cryptocurrency scams, but the lawsuit alleges the companies were
actually using their market weight to block "Web 3.0 competitors
advertising" in breach of Australian Competition and Consumer Act
2010 provisions preventing cartel and anti-competition behaviour.

These actions, the lawsuit alleges, caused material harm to holders
of 33 cryptocurrencies -- including Bitcoin, Ethereum and ZCash --
as well as seven other categories of people connected to the supply
of cryptocurrency-related goods and services.

Eyeing billions in potential penalties, Hamilton -- a former
Telstra solicitor who claims to have "a rare gift in seeing legal
strategies others miss" -- mortgaged his home and spent 18 months
preparing the case, ultimately signing up around 650 class members
in over 40 countries with a claim value of more than $1 billion.

To fund the ongoing work -- which was based out of "plaintiff
friendly" Australia, Hamilton explained, because "it is the best
jurisdiction for doing Web 3.0 litigation [and] funding of large
global class actions" -- he moved to use 'social blockchain'
operator Steem to issue a new cryptocurrency token called SUFB (for
Sue Facebook) that promised a portion of any damages payouts in
return for up-front investment.

The case "has the possibility to pay out a large return quite early
with a settlement," JPB Liberty vice president of technology and
public affairs Dr Brian Bishko wrote in 2019 arguing that "the more
money we can raise through crowd funding and this novel SPS method,
the more power we have dictating how the case is fought".

Nearly 3 million SUFB tokens were ultimately issued, with Hamilton
and his family owning around 384,000 tokens and JPB Liberty 2
million in a complex arrangement that could have ultimately netted
him an estimated $118 million in commission.

Yet for all its ambitions, the case -- which gained momentum in
June 2022 and began in February with a first contested hearing
speech by Hamilton, who represented himself in the action -- was
summarily dismissed by Federal Court Justice Cheeseman, who in a
lengthy ruling called Hamilton's arguments "misconceived for many
reasons".

Among those were questions as to whether Hamilton had been paid
SUFB tokens for legal work in preparing the case -- contravening
accepted practice prohibiting attorneys from being paid up front by
class members -- and whether the case could proceed fairly given
that "as the major token holder, there is potential for JPB
Liberty's interests… to diverge and conflict with those of
minority holders".

"To permit the proceedings to continue would bring the
administration of justice into disrepute," Cheeseman J wrote in
flagging problems with Hamilton's "multi-faceted interests in the
proceeding" and ordering that the proceeding "be permanently
stayed".

Walking the thin gold line

The failure of the long-fomenting class action -- which comes at
the same time as the commencement of the trial of failed FTX
founder and one-time 'King of Crypto' Sam Bankman-Fried -- is the
latest in a string of high-profile setbacks for the global
cryptocurrency industry.

With Australian crypto exchange Swyftx anticipating an industry
'worst-case scenario', Binance Australia being fined $2 million for
spam as it is sued by US regulators, and OneCoin co-founder Karl
Sebastian Greenwood now in jail after perpetrating one of the
biggest scams in history, government bodies are working out how to
protect Australians from unscrupulous operators, and how the
industry might be regulated in the long term.

Financial regulators are struggling to bring order to an industry
that European Central Bank executive board member Fabio Pannetta
called "a new Wild West" in which "crypto-assets are bringing about
instability and insecurity -- the exact opposite of what they
promised."

Social-media giants have embraced government regulation, with
Facebook relaxing its contentious crypto advertising restrictions
in 2019 and again in 2021 -- when it expanded the number of
cryptocurrency licenses it accepts from 3 to 27.

"The cryptocurrency landscape has continued to mature and stabilise
in recent years," the company noted, "and has seen more government
regulations that are setting clearer rules for their industry."

Yet problems with cryptocurrency advertising continue, with the
ACCC last year taking Meta to Federal Court over cryptocurrency ads
featuring the likenesses of famous Australians who had never
approved their use.

Current Meta regulations note that "prior written permission" and a
"recognised regulatory license or registration" are required for
advertisers to be allowed to promote cryptocurrency trading
platforms, software and related services as well as tools for
monetising, reselling, swapping or staking of cryptocurrencies.

Australians lost over $221 million to investment scams during the
first eight months of this year alone, according to the ACCC's
ScamWatch service, with 46 per cent of reported incidents involving
financial losses -- confirming that such scammers continue to be
both successful and prolific.

David Braue is an award-winning technology journalist who has
covered Australia's technology industry since 1995. A lifelong
technophile, he has written and edited content for a broad range of
audiences across myriad topics, with a particular focus on the
intersection of technological innovation and business
transformation. [GN]

MIKE BLOOMBERG: Court OK's Filing of Documents with Redactions
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wood v. Mike Bloomberg
2020, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-02489-LTS-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain entered an order granting the Plaintiffs'
request that the Court permit Defendant's Exhibit 2 and related
portions of Defendant's Memorandum of Law, be filed with
redactions.

The redacted material is highly sensitive and private and has no
bearing on the substantive claims or defenses or any dispositive
issues in this action. The Court has previously granted prior
requests to seal letters concerning the same material in the
context of earlier discovery disputes.

The material will remain sealed pending resolution of Plaintiffs'
motion for Class Certification.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 3rd Ave. 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          Facsimile: (646) 509-2060

MILLIMAN INC: Retirement Plan Participants Win Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOANNA P. MATTSON, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. MILLIMAN,
INC., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00037-TSZ (W.D. Wash.), the Hon.
Judge Thomas S. Zilly entered an order granting the Plaintiff's
motion to certify class, appointing a class representative, and
appointing class counsel.

The Court certifies the following Class pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(1):

   "All participants and beneficiaries of the Milliman, Inc. Profit

   Sharing and Retirement Plan who invested in any of the following

   funds: the Unified Trust Wealth Preservation Strategy Target
Growth
   Fund, the Unified Trust Wealth Preservation Strategy Target
   Moderate Fund, and/or the Unified Trust Wealth Preservation
   Strategy Target Conservative Fund, during the period from
January
   13, 2016, through the date of this Order, but excluding the
   Milliman Defendants, and any of their directors or members, and
any
   officers or employees of the Milliman Defendants with
   responsibility for the Plan's investment or administrative
   function.

Specifically, the Plaintiff claims that Defendants failed to
properly monitor the Plan and failed to remove the following three
allegedly underperforming target risk funds from the Plan: the
Unified Trust Wealth Preservation Strategy Target Growth Fund, the
Unified Trust Wealth Preservation Strategy Target Moderate Fund,
and the Unified Trust Wealth Preservation Strategy Target
Conservative Fund.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of Milliman. She was invested in
the Unified Moderate Fund during the relevant period. At least 380
proposed class members who were or are invested in the Unified
Funds have signed a Dispute Resolution Agreement, but Plaintiff is
not among them.

Milliman provides investment advisory services. The Company offers
research, management, financial, and consulting services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46EcXW0 at no extra charge.[CC]


MINNEAPOLIS, MN: Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in Goyette
-----------------------------------------------------------
City of Minneapolis, et al., filed an appeal from the District
Court's Order dated September 26, 2023 entered in the lawsuit
styled Jared Goyette, et al., Plaintiffs v. City of Minneapolis, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01302-WMW, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota.

The Plaintiffs commenced the putative class-action lawsuit against
the Defendants in June 2020. They allege violations of the First
Amendment, Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution in connection with the law enforcement response
to the protests that followed the murder of George Floyd in May
2020.

The Individual Plaintiffs are journalists, photographers, and other
members of the press who filed the action on behalf of themselves
and other similarly situated individuals. Plaintiff Communications
Workers of America is an international labor union that represents
news media workers. Defendant Medaria Arradondo is the former Chief
of Police for Defendant City of Minneapolis (collectively, City
Defendants). Defendant Robert Kroll was a Minneapolis Police
Lieutenant and President of the Police Officers Federation of
Minneapolis. Defendant David Hutchinson is the Hennepin County
Sheriff.

On June 2, 2020, Plaintiff Jared Goyette moved for class
certification and a temporary restraining order to prevent the
Defendants from further violating the constitutional rights of the
press. The Court denied the motion without prejudice. It concluded
that preliminary injunctive relief was unwarranted because the
protests had ceased and Goyette failed to demonstrate an imminent
threat of harm.

On Nov. 5, 2021, the Plaintiffs for the first time attempted to
serve discovery requests on City Defendants, providing insufficient
time for City Defendants to respond before the Dec. 1, 2021
fact-discovery deadline. The City Defendants notified the
Plaintiffs that City Defendants would not respond due to the
untimeliness of the requests. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs moved to
modify the pretrial scheduling order. The magistrate judge denied
the motion, and the District Court affirmed, concluding that the
Plaintiffs had not acted diligently.

On December 1, 2022, Defendant Hutchinson filed a motion for
summary judgment.

On February 15, 2023, Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright denied a motion
for class certification filed by the Plaintiffs on August 4, 2022.

On September 26, 2026, Judge Wright entered an Order granting in
part and denying in part Defendant Sheriff Hutchinson's motion for
summary judgment. The Court ruled that Defendant Hutchinson's
motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs Lassig, Maturen and Maury's
Section 1983 claims alleging violations of the First, Fourth, and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and failure
to intervene; Defendant Hutchinson's motion is GRANTED as it
pertains to each named Plaintiff's injunctive and declaratory
relief claims against Hutchinson; and Defendant Sheriff
Hutchinson's motion is DENIED as to the remaining claims. The Order
further held that City Defendant's December 5, 2022 motion for
summary judgment is DENIED; Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement Record
is DENIED as moot; and City Defendants' application to file
conventionally is GRANTED.

The appellate case is captioned as City of Minneapolis, et al. v
Jared Goyette, et al., Case No. 23-3190, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on September 29, 2023.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Transcript is due on or before November 8, 2023;

   -- Appendix is due on November 20, 2023;

   -- BRIEF APPELLANT, Medaria Arradondo, City of Minneapolis,
Joseph Dwyer, John Harrington, David Hutchinson, Robert Kroll and
Matthew Langer is due on November 20, 2023; and

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues
the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant.[BN]

Defendants-Appellants City of Minneapolis, et al., are represented
by:

          Sharda R. Enslin, Esq.
          Heather Passe Robertson, Esq.
          Kristin R. Sarff, Esq.
          CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          350 S. Fifth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55415
          Telephone: (612) 673-2180

               - and -

          Kevin Michael Beck, Esq.
          Rebecca Duren, Esq.
          Joseph A. Kelly, Esq.
          KELLY & LEMMONS
          2350 Wycliff Street
          Saint Paul, MN 55114-1331
          Telephone: (651) 224-3781  

               - and -

          Alexander Hsu, Esq.
          Joseph David Weiner, Esq.
          ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
          445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1100
          Saint Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 757-1218

               - and -

          James W. Keeler, Jr., Esq.
          Sarah C.S. McLaren, Esq.
          Devona L. Wells, Esq.
          HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          Government Center, C-2000
          300 S. Sixth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55487-0000
          Telephone: (612) 348-5527

Plaintiffs-Appellees Jared Goyette, et al., on behalf of themselves
and other similarly situated individuals, are represented by:

          Timothy R. Carwinski, Esq.
          REED & SMITH
          10 S. Wacker Drive, 40th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 207-6549

               - and -

          Caitlin A. Chambers, Esq.
          REED & SMITH
          811 Main Street
          Houston, TX 77002-0000
          Telephone: (713) 469-3644

               - and -

          Rachel Dougherty, Esq.
          Jacob Patsch Harris, Esq.
          Pari Irene McGarraugh, Esq.
          Bryan J. Morben, Esq.   
          FREDRIKSON & BYRON
          60 S. Sixth Street, Suite 1500
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-4400
          Telephone: (612) 492-7000

               - and -

          Steve D. Hamilton, Esq.
          HAMILTON LAW FIRM
          606 Ontario Street
          P.O. Box 188
          Storm Lake, IA 50588-0000
          Telephone: (312) 207-2802

               - and -

          Adam W. Hansen, Esq.
          APOLLO LAW LLC
          333 Washington Avenue, N., Suite 300
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 927-2969

               - and -

          Kevin Hara, Esq.
          REED & SMITH
          101 Second Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94105-3659
          Telephone: (415) 543-8700  

               - and -

          Jamie Lanphear, Esq.
          REED & SMITH
          1100 East Tower
          1301 K Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005-0000
          Telephone: (202) 414-9217  

               - and -

          Jonathan L. Marcus, Esq.
          COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
          Three Lafayette Centre
          1155 21st Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20581-0000
          Telephone: (202) 418-5120

               - and -

          Teresa Nelson, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          P.O. Box 14720
          Minneapolis, MN 55414
          Telephone: (651) 529-1692

MOVE INC: Faucett Seeks Leave to File Confidential Docs Under Seal
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PRIESTLEY FAUCETT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
MOVE, INC. d/b/a REALTOR.COM, Case No. 2:22-cv-04948-ODW-AS (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff files an application for an order permitting
Plaintiff to file under seal certain confidential documents in
support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification in this
action against MOVE, Inc.

   1. An unredacted version of Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support
of
      Class Certification, which discusses Plaintiff's expert's
      conclusions based on the data classified as confidential by
      MOVE, Inc.

   2. Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Chris Gold in Support of
      Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, which is a
document
      designated as confidential by MOVE, Inc.

   3. Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Chris Gold in Support of
      Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, which contains
MOVE,
      Inc.'s Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff's Request for
      Interrogatories, wherein portions of MOVE, Inc's responses
refer
      to and cite documents and information designated as
confidential
      by MOVE, Inc.

   4. Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Chris Gold in Support of
      Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, which contains
MOVE,
      Inc.'s Initial Responses to Plaintiff's Request for
      Interrogatories, where portions of MOVE, Inc's responses
refer
      to and cite documents and information designated as
confidential
      by MOVE, Inc.

   5. Exhibit 4 to the Declaration of Chris Gold in Support of
      Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, which is the
Expert
      Report of Aaron Woolfson, Plaintiff's expert. Mr.
Woolfson’s
      Report refers to and cites documents and information
      designated as confidential by MOVE, Inc.

   6. Exhibit 7 to the Declaration of Chris Gold in Support of
      Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification, which is a
document
      designated as confidential by MOVE, Inc (Move_ 00000003);

   7. Exhibit 8 to the Declaration of Chris Gold in Support of
      Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, which is a
document
      designated as confidential by MOVE, Inc.

Move is a telemarketer owned by News Corp. that solicits real state
through calls.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 10, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rO5BAq at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          Chris Gold, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          1925 Century Park E 1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: 305-975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
                  chris@edelsberglaw.com

                - and -

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

                - and -

          Sabita J. Soneji, Esq.
          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          Gemma Seidita, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 254-6808
          Facsimile: (202) 073-0950
          E-mail: ssoneji@tzlegal.com
                  hzavareei@tzlegal.com

MPT OPERATING: Securities Suit Over Misleading Statements Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MPT Operating Partnership LP disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2023, that on May 9, 2023, the
plaintiff in a securities litigation filed on April 12, 2023,
voluntarily dismissed a lawsuit where the company and certain of
its executives were named as defendants in a putative federal
securities class action lawsuit filed by a purported stockholder in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, Case No. 1:23-cv-03070.

The complaint sought class certification on behalf of purchasers of
its common stock between March 1, 2022 and February 22, 2023 and
alleged false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions
resulted in artificially inflated prices for our common stock. The
complaint sought unspecified damages including interest and an
award of reasonable costs and expenses.

MPT Operating Partnership LP acquires and develop healthcare
facilities and lease the facilities to healthcare operating
companies under long-term net leases.


MYLAN PHARMA: Initial Certification of Settlement Class Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KPH HEALTHCARE SERVICES,
INC., a/k/a KINNEY DRUGS INC., FWK HOLDINGS LLC, and CESAR
CASTILLO, LLC, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, v. MYLAN, N.V., MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., MYLAN
SPECIALTY L.P., PFIZER, INC., KING PHARMACEUTICALS LLC, and
MERIDIAN MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-02065-DDC-TJJ
(D. Kan.), the Class Plaintiffs' moves the Court for an Order:

   -- Preliminarily approving the terms of the proposed settlement
as
      being within the range of fair, reasonable, and adequate
within
      the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23;

   -- Preliminarily certifying the Settlement Class for settlement

      purposes only;

   -- Approving the Notice Program as set forth in the Declaration
of
      Eric Schachter, attached to the Memorandum filed in support
of
      this Motion as set forth in the Notice Program;

   -- Approving as to form and content the Long-Form Notice, Claim

      Form, Summary Notice, and Reminder Notice, attached to the
      Memorandum as Exhibits 3, 4, 5, and 6, respectively;

   -- Appointing A.B. Data, Ltd. as the Settlement Administrator
and
      Huntington Bank as the Escrow Agent;

   -- Approving the proposed Plan of Allocation, attached to the
      Memorandum as Exhibit 8;

   -- Appointing KPH Healthcare Services, Inc. a/k/a Kinney Drugs,

      Inc., FWK Holdings, and César Castillo LLC as Representative

      Plaintiffs;

   -- Appointing Michael L. Roberts of Roberts Law Firm US, PC, and

      Linda P. Nussbaum of Nussbaum Law Group, P.C. as Co-Lead
      Settlement Class Counsel, and Bradley T. Wilders of Stueve
Sigel
      Hanson LLP as Settlement Class Liaison Counsel;

   -- Scheduling a Final Approval Hearing to consider entry of a
final
      order approving the Settlement, final certification of the
      Settlement Class for settlement purposes only, and the
request
      for attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses and Representative
      Plaintiff service awards; and

   -- Providing such other related relief as is necessary to carry
out
      the Settlement, including a stay of proceedings as to Pfizer,

      Inc., King Pharmaceuticals LLC, and Meridian Medical
      Technologies, Inc. pending a final determination as to the
      approval of the Settlement.

Mylan was a global generic and specialty pharmaceuticals company.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 10, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46tTJm7 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Normal E. Siegel, Esq.
          Bradley T. Wilders, Esq.
          Jordan A. Kane, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
          E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
                  wilders@stuevesiegel.com
                  kane@stuevesiegel.com

                - and -

          Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
          Erich P. Schork, Esq.
          Sarah E. DeLoach, Esq.
          ROBERTS LAW FIRM US, PC
          1920 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (501) 952-8558
          Facsimile: (501) 821-4474
          E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us
                  erichschork@robertslawfirm.us
                  sarahdeloach@robertslawfirm.us

                - and -

          Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
          NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1133 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (917) 438-9102
          E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Class Settlement in Burnett Gets Initial Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RHONDA BURNETT, JEROD
BREIT, HOLLEE ELLIS, FRANCES HARVEY, and JEREMY KEEL, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. THE NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, REALOGY HOLDINGS CORP., HOMESERVICES OF
AMERICA, INC., BHH AFFILIATES, LLC, HSF AFFILIATES, LLC, RE/MAX
LLC, and KELLER WILLIAMS
REALTY, INC., Case No. 4:19-cv-00332-SRB (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs
file a motion for preliminary approval of settlements with anywhere
real estate and re/max, certification of settlement class, and
appointment of settlement class counsel:

   (1) preliminarily approving the Settlements;

   (2) certifying the Settlement Class for settlement purposes
only;

   (3) appointing Plaintiffs as Settlement Class Representatives;

   (4) appointing Burnett Class Counsel and Moehrl Class Counsel
as
       Settlement Class Counsel; and

   (5) deferring notice of the Settlement Agreements to the
Settlement
       class until an appropriate future date.

The proposed Settlement Class in the Settlement Agreements with
both Anywhere and RE/MAX is as follows:

   "All persons who sold a home that was listed on a multiple
listing
   service anywhere in the United States where a commission was
paid
   to any brokerage in connection with the sale of the home in the

   following date ranges:

   a. Moehrl MLSs: March 6, 2015 to date of notice;

   b. Burnett MLSs: April 29, 2014 to date of notice;

   c. MLS PIN: December 17, 2016 to date of notice;

   d. All other MLSs: four years prior to (i) the date a new or
      amended complaint (if any) is filed in the Actions reflecting

      any MLSs aside from the Moehrl MLSs, Burnett MLSs, and MLS
PIN
      or (ii) the date of notice, whichever is earlier, up to the
date
      of notice. (Anywhere Agreement

  -- Settlement Amounts

     The proposed Settlement Agreement provides that Anywhere will
pay
     a Total Settlement Amount of eighty-three million five hundred

     thousand U.S. dollars ($83,500,000) for the benefit of the
     Settlement Class. This amount is inclusive of all costs of
     settlement, including payments to class members, attorneys'
fees
     and costs, service awards for current and former class
     representatives (including Settlement Class Representatives),
and
     costs of notice and administration.

  -- Class Definition

     The Court previously certified the following classes pursuant
to
     Rule 23(b)(3):

    (1) the "Subject MLS Class," asserting Count I, defined as:

        "All persons who, from April 29, 2015, through the present,

        used a listing broker affiliated with Home Services of
        America, Inc., Keller Williams Realty, Inc., Realogy
Holdings
        Corp., RE/MAX LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, or BHH Affiliates,

        LLC, in the sale of a home listed on the Heartland MLS,
        Columbia Board of Realtors, Mid America Regional
Information
        System, or the Southern Missouri Regional MLS, and who paid
a
        commission to the buyer's broker in connection with the
sale
        of the home;"

    (2) the "Missouri Antitrust Law-Subject MLS Class," asserting
        Count III, defined as:

        "All persons who, from April 29, 2015, through the present,

        used a listing broker affiliated with Home Services of
        America, Inc., Keller Williams Realty, Inc., Realogy
Holdings
        Corp., RE/MAX LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, or BHH Affiliates,

        LLC, in the sale of a home in Missouri listed on the
Heartland
        MLS, Columbia Board of Realtors, Mid America Regional
        Information System, or the Southern Missouri Regional MLS,
and
        who paid a commission to the buyer's broker in connection
with
        the sale of the home;" and

    (3) the "MMPA Class," asserting Count II, defined as:

        "All persons who, from April 29, 2014 through the present,

        used a listing broker affiliated with Home Services of
        America, Inc., Keller Williams Realty, Inc., Realogy
Holdings
        Corp., RE/MAX LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, or BHH Affiliates,

        LLC, in the sale of a residential home in Missouri listed
on
        the Heartland MLS, Columbia Board of Realtors, Mid America

        Regional Information System, or the Southern Missouri
Regional
        MLS, and who paid a commission to the buyer's broker in
        connection with the sale of the home.

The National Association of Realtors is an American trade
association for those who work in the real estate industry.

A copy of the Court's order
the Plaintiff's motion
the Defendant's motion

dated Oct. 5, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3LTIKdt at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew L. Dameron, Esq.
          Eric L. Dirks, Esq.
          WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 945-7110
          E-mail: matt@williamsdirks.com
                  dirks@williamsdirks.com

                - and -

          Michael Ketchmark, Esq.
          Scott McCreight, Esq.
          KETCHMARK AND MCCREIGHT P.C.
          11161 Overbrook Rd. Suite 210
          Leawood, KS 66211
          Telephone: (913) 266-4500
          E-mail: mike@ketchmclaw.com
                  smccreight@ketchmclaw.com

                - and -

          Brandon J.B. Boulware, Esq.
          Jeremy M. Suhr, Esq.
          Erin D. Lawrence, Esq.
          BOULWARE LAW LLC
          1600 Genessee, Suite 416
          Kansas City, MO 64102
          Telephone: (816) 492-2826
          E-mail: brandon@boulware-law.com
                  jeremy@boulware-law.com
                  erin@boulware-law.com

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC: Cantelli Sues Over Automatic Renewal Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIE CANTELLI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC PARTNERS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-02955 (D. Colo., Oct. 4, 2023) alleges
that the Defendant is engaged in an illegal "automatic renewal"
scheme with respect to its magazine subscription.

According to the complaint, when consumers sign up for National
Geographic through local bookstores, the Defendant actually enrolls
consumers in a program that automatically renews customers' NatGeo
subscription from month-to-month or year-to-year and results in
monthly or annual charges to the consumer's credit card, debit
card, or third-party payment account (collectively "Payment
Method"). In doing so, however, Defendant fails to provide the
requisite disclosures and authorizations required to be made to
consumers under District of Columbia Automatic Renewal Protections
Act.

Further, the Defendant violates the Electronic Funds Transfer Act
by debiting Plaintiff's and class members' bank accounts on a
recurring basis without obtaining Plaintiff's or class members'
assent to the authorization to make electronic fund transfers and
by debiting Plaintiff's and class members' bank accounts on a
recurring basis after Plaintiff's and class members' have
affirmatively cancelled their subscriptions and, thus, revoked
consent to such debits, says the suit.

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC PARTNERS, LLC is a joint venture between The
Walt Disney Company and the namesake non-profit scientific
organization National Geographic Society. The company oversees all
commercial activities related to the Society, including magazine
publications and television channels.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
          412 H Street NE
          Washington DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 470-3520
          Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
          Email: jrathod@classlawdc.com
                 nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com

               - and -

          Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
          Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq.
          Winston S. Hudson, Esq.
          JOHNSON FIRM
          610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300
          Little Rock, AK 72201
          Telephone: (501) 372-1300
          Email: chris@yourattorney.com
                 tyler@yourattorney.com
                 winston@yourattorney.com

NES GLOBAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hernandez Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
CESAR HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NES GLOBAL, LLC d/b/a NES FIRCROFT, Case No.
4:23-cv-03808 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 9, 2023) is an action against the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff Hernandez was employed by the Defendant as a
coordinator.

NES GLOBAL, LLC d/b/a NES FIRCROF provides tailored staffing
solutions, sourced from a global talent pool by a dedicated,
discipline specific team of consultants. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

NEW YORK, NY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cartagena Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
ISRAEL CARTAGENA; ANNIELI ACEVEDO; MARYALICE ALSTON-HARRIS;
JEANETTE BATISTA; JUANA BRISITA; TRACY PRICE; NICOLE WILLIAMS;
MELODY ABBOTT; SHAREEFA ABDUL-ALI; NORIZA ABDUL-BESASIR; HABIBAH
ABDULLAH; NAIMAH H. ABDULLAH; NAJIFA ABDULLAH; NAILAH ABDUL-QAADIR;
SHEK ABDUR RAHIM; HANNAH ABIMBOLA; VARGHESE ABRAHAM; EDWIN ACEVEDO;
ERIC ACEVEDO; KAYLA ACEVEDO; SERRAYA ACEVEDO; CYNTHIA ACEVEDO
NIEVES; SARA ACHBANI; MARIELA ACOSTA; MAXIMINO ACOSTA; DISHON
ADAMS; KAREN ADAMS; MEKA ADAMS; TOSHER ADAMS; TROY ADAMS; DAWN
ADDISON; ABIMBOLA ADEYENI; JULIE ADGER; ARLENE ADORNO; JULIA
ADORNO; SABINA AFROZ; UDDIN AFSAR; LINDEN AGARD; WANDA AGEE; DESIRE
AGOSTINI; LUISA AGOSTO; JOSUE AGUDO; NATASHA AGUILAR; SANDRA
AGUIRRE; FARAMADE AGUNLOYE; RUTH AHAMAD; MURAD AHMED; ZUBAYER
AHMED; SHAWN AIKEN; LISA AIMI; JANET AJIBADE; EMILY AKADE; HUNA
AKHTAR; AVWEROSUO AKPOWOWO; FERDOUSI AKTER; MST AKTER; individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY
OF NEW YORK; and NEW YORK  CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants, Case
No. 1:23-cv-08711 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 4, 2023) seeks to recover from
the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as school safety
agents.

NEW YORK CITY comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hope Pordy, Esq.
          Elizabeth Sprotzer, Esq.
          SPIVAK LIPTON LLP
          1040 Avenue of the Americas 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 765-2100

               - and -

          Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq.
          Diana J. Nobile, Esq.
          Sarah M. Block, Esq.
          McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP
          1101 Vermont Ave., N.W. Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 833-8855

NORTHAMPTON RESTAURANTS: Seeks to Decertify Class in Carroll Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHAN E. CARROLL, et al,
on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, v.
NORTHAMPTON RESTAURANTS, INC., et al, Case No.
2:21-cv-00115-JKW-RJK (E.D. Va.), the Defendants request the Court
alter its September 22, 2022, Order conditionally certifying the
class of servers and decertify the class.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 5, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45iCPFH at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kathleen H. Klaus, Esq.
          MADDIN HAUSER ROTH & HELLER, P.C.
          28400 Northwestern Hwy, 2nd Floor
          Southfield, MI 48034
          Telephone: (248) 359-7520
          E-mail: kklaus@maddinhauser.com

                - and -

          Kenneth Maxwell Bernas, Esq.
          FORDHARRISON, LLP
          271 17th Street, N.W., Suite 1900
          Atlanta, GA 30363
          Telephone: (404) 888-3883
          E-mail: KMBernas@fordharrison.com

                - and -

          Richard Doummar, Esq.
          Joel Gordon Kinney, Esq.
          DOUMMAR & O'BRIEN
          1397 Laskin Road
          Virginia Beach, VA 23451
          Telephone: (757) 422-0061
          E-mail: rdoummar@doummar.com
                  jkinney@doummar.com

                - and -

          Brendan C. Horgan, Esq.
          FORDHARRISON, LLP
          6802 Paragon Place, Suite 410
          Richmond, VA 23230
          Telephone: (804) 373-1607
          E-mail: Bhorgan@fordharrison.com

O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Lillman Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against O'Reilly Automotive
Stores, Inc. The case is styled as John Lillman, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. O'Reilly Automotive
Stores, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-01648-MEM (M.D. Pa., Oct. 4, 2023).

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

O'Reilly Automotive, Inc. -- https://www.oreillyauto.com/ -- is an
American auto parts retailer that provides automotive aftermarket
parts, tools, supplies, equipment, and accessories to professional
service providers and do-it-yourself customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew M. Carroll, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW M. CARROLL
          427 N Packard St.
          Hammonton, NJ 08037
          Phone: (856) 426-9815
          Email: andrewcarrrollesq@gmail.com

               - and -

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


ONITY INC: Class Cert Status Conference Set for Oct. 25
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Boggs v. Onity, Inc., Case
No. 6:21-cv-00842 (D. Or., Filed June 03, 2021), the Hon. Judge
Mustafa T Kasubhai entered an order a scheduling order:

  -- Status Conference regarding Motion              Oct. 25, 2023
     for Extension of Time to File Motion
     for Class Certification is set for:

  -- The parties are ordered to call into the Court's conference
line
     at least 5 minutes prior to the scheduled hearing.

  -- Call-in information will be sent by separate order.

The suit alleges violation of Fair Labor Standards Act.

Onity manufactures electronic locking systems. [CC]

OPENAI INC: Filing for Class Cert Bids Due April 10, 2025
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tremblay et al v. OPENAI,
INC. et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-03223 (N.D. Cal., Filed June 28,
2023), the Hon. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered a case
management order as follows:

  -- Close of Fact Discovery due by:                Oct. 29, 2024

  -- The Plaintiffs' expert reports                 Dec. 12, 2024
     due by:

  -- Defendants' expert reports due by:             Jan. 13, 2025

  -- Plaintiffs' rebuttal expert reports            Feb. 11, 2025
     due by:

  -- Close of Expert Discovery due by:              March 13, 2025

  -- Motions for Class Certification and            April 10, 2025
     Daubert motions due by:

  -- Oppositions to Class Certification             May 23, 2025
     and Daubert motions due by:

  -- Replies in support of motions for              June 24, 2025
     Class Certification and Daubert
    motions due by:

The nature of suit states Copyright Infringement.

OpenAI is an American artificial intelligence research
laboratory.[CC] 


PEGASUS TRUCKING: Medina Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RENA NICOLE MEDINA and
ALYSSA BONHAM on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. PEGASUS TRUCKING LLC; and DOES 1-100, Case No.
2:20-cv-07269-JAK-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting their proposed order, proposed notice, and
proposed consent in the forms submitted as exhibits to this
supplemental brief.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant's Motion to Compel
Arbitration, which remains pending, coupled with Defendants’
subsequent refusal to participate in this litigation, have
collectively prevented potential opt-in plaintiffs from receiving
notice and deciding whether to opt in to this litigation.

The Plaintiffs file this Supplemental Brief in accordance with this
Court's Minute Order following the September 25, 2023, hearing on
Plaintiffs’ combined motion for:

   (1) circulation of notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b);

   (2) class certification pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
       Procedure Rule 23; and

   (3) a default judgment against Defendant.

Pegasus is a provider of transportation and logistics solutions
across Texas, Oklahoma and North Dakota.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 10, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45zT01r at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
          Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
          Leah L. Jones, Esq.
          Joshua R. Hendrickson, Esq.
          THIERMAN BUCK LLP
          7287 Lakeside Drive
          Reno, CA 89511
          Telephone: (775) 284-1500
          Facsimile: (775) 703-5027
          E-mail: mark@thiermanbuck.com
                  josh@thiermanbuck.com
                  leah@thiermanbuck.com
                  joshh@thiermanbuck.com

PENHALL COMPANY: Bid for Class Certification Due August 23, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE LUIS VAZQUEZ-ALFARO
on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. PENHALL
COMPANY, Case No. 3:23-cv-01355 (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge
Brantley Starr entered a scheduling Order:

  -- A Pretrial Conference is scheduled for:         July 21, 2025

  -- Counsel shall comply with Fed. R.               Oct. 20, 2023
     Civ. P. 26(a)(1) by:

  -- Counsel shall confer and file a                 Nov. 27, 2023
     joint report informing the Court
     of their choice of a mediator or
     their inability to agree upon a
     mediator by:

  -- Motions for leave to join other                 Dec. 1, 2023
     parties shall be filed by:

  -- Motions for leave to amend                      Dec. 1, 2023
     pleadings shall be filed by:

  -- The party with the burden of                    Jan. 5, 2024
     proof on a claim shall file a
     designation of expert witnesses
     and comply with Fed. R. Civ.
     P. 26(a)(2) by:

  -- Rebuttal designation of expert                  Feb. 2, 2024
     witnesses and compliance with
     Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) shall
     be made by:

  -- All discovery procedures shall                  July 26, 2024
     be in time to complete discovery
     by:

  -- The parties shall mediate their                 Aug. 16, 2024
     case by:

  -- Counsel shall confer and file a                 Aug 23, 2024
     joint report setting forth the
     status of settlement negotiations
     by:

  -- Any motion for class certification              Aug. 23, 2024
     shall be filed by:

  -- All motions for summary judgment                Feb. 21, 2025
     shall be filed by:

  -- All challenges to experts—including             Feb. 21,
2025
     motions to strike or exclude expert
     witnesses—shall be filed by:

Penhall Company provides concrete cutting services which include
flat sawing, wall sawing, wire cutting, and hand sawing.

A copy of the Court's scheduling order dated Oct. 11, 2023 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46J38G8 at no
extra charge.[CC]

PERFECT SNAX: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Martinez Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PERFECT SNAX PRIME LLC, Defendant, Case No.
529057/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., October 6, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the New York State
Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.cookiepopcandypop.com, contains access barriers which hinder
the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down
menus, the lack of navigation links, the lack of adequate prompting
and labeling, the denial of keyboard access, empty links that
contain no text, redundant links where adjacent links go to the
same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be
performed solely with a mouse, says the suit.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.

Perfect Snax Prime LLC is an online retail company doing business
in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Dan Shaked, Esq.
         SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
         14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
         Scarsdale, NY 10583
         Telephone: (917) 373-9128
         E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com

PFSWEB INC: Juan Monteverde Investigates Proposed Sale to GXO
-------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2023 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:

PFSweb, Inc. (Nasdaq: PFSW), relating to its proposed sale to GXO
Logistics, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, PFSW shareholders
will receive $7.50 in cash per share they own. For more information
visit: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/pfsweb-inc. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.

Sculptor Capital Management Inc. (NYSE: SCU), relating to its
proposed sale to Rithm Capital Corp. Under the terms of the
agreement, Class A SCU shareholders are expected to receive $11.15
in cash per share they own. For more information visit:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/sculptor-capital-management-inc. It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

FNCB Bancorp, Inc. (Nasdaq: FNCB), relating to its proposed sale to
Peoples Financial Services Corp. Under the terms of the agreement,
FNCB shareholders are expected to receive 0.1460 shares of Peoples
per share they own. For more information visit:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/fncb-bancorp-inc. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.

SomaLogic, Inc. (Nasdaq: SLGC), relating to its proposed sale to
Standard BioTools Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, SLGC
shareholders will receive 1.11 shares of Standard BioTools per
share they own. For more information visit:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/somalogic-inc. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.

About Monteverde & Associates PC

We are a national class action securities and consumer litigation
law firm that has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders
and is committed to protecting investors and consumers from
corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates lawyers have
significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and
Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by
recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr.
Monteverde, who leads the legal team at the firm, has been
recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities
Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019 and a Super Lawyers Honoree in
Securities Litigation in 2022-2023. He has also been selected by
Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2023 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's
recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory
that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the
Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm
successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a
writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States
Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019).
Also, over the years the firm has recovered or secured over a dozen
cash common funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class
action cases.

If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and
wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments
free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E.
Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at [email protected] or by
telephone at (212) 971-1341.

Contact:
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
[email protected]
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]

PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER: Class Cert. Bids Extended to June 3, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON BRAUN and STEPHANIE
CARTER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-04185-JMY (E.D.
Pa.), the Hon. Judge John Milton Younge entered an order on the
Parties' stipulation to amend the June 14, 2023 Scheduling Order as
follows:

            Event                  Current       Stipulated
Proposed
                                   Deadline      Deadline

  Requests for Admission          Sept. 27, 2023     Oct. 23, 2023

  Fact Discovery Completed        Oct. 27, 2023      Jan. 12, 2024

  Disclosure of Experts           Nov. 1, 2023       Feb. 1, 2023

  Initial Expert Reports          Nov. 20, 2023      Feb. 20, 2023

  Reply Expert Reports            Jan. 5, 2024       Apr. 5, 2024

  Expert Discovery Completed      Feb. 7, 2024       May 3, 2024

  Dispositive and Class           April 1, 2024      June 3, 2024
  Certification Motions

  Responses to Dispositive and    May 1, 2024        July 3, 2024
  Class Certification Motions

Philadelphia Inquirer is an American media company. It owns The
Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Daily News.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48QDMYU at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John A. Macoretta, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq.
          Diana J. Zinser, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN AND KODROFF, P.C.
          2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          E-mail: jmacoretta@srkattorneys.com
                  jkodroff@srkattorneys.com
                  dzinser@srkattorneys.com

                - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Angelo A. Stio III, Esq.
          Matthew R. Cali, Esq.
          Ronald I. Raether, Esq.
          TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
          301 Carnegie Center, Suite 400
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (609) 951-4125
          Facsimile: (609) 452-1147
          E-mail: angelo.stio@troutman.com
                  matthew.cali@troutman.com
                  ron.raether@troutman.com

PHP OF NC: Seeks Nov. 3 Extension to File Class Cert. Response
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL JOHNSON,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. PHP OF
NC, INC. and JUSTINE WIGGINS Case No. 5:23-cv-00462-M-RJ
(E.D.N.C.), the Defendants asks the Court to enter an order,
pursuant to Federal Civil Procedure Rule 6(b) and Local Rule
6.1(a), extending the deadline for them to file a response to
Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification by an additional
two weeks, or up to and until November 3, 2023.

On September 29, 2023, the Plaintiff filed his Motion for
Conditional Certification of Class Claims under Section 216(b) of
the FLSA, making Defendants' response due October 20, 2023. Thus,
the deadline by which Defendants must file a response has not past.


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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian L. Kinsley, Esq.
          CRUMLEY ROBERTS, LLP
          2400 Freman Mill road, Suite 200
          Greensboro, NC
          Telephone: (336) 333-9899
          Facismile: (336) 333-9894
          E-mail: BKinsley@crumleyroberts.com

                - and -

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael D. Ray, Esq.
          Charlotte C. Smith, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          201 South College Street, Suite 2300
          Charlotte, NC 28244
          Telephone: (704) 342-2588
          Facsimile: (704) 342-4379
          E-mail: michael.ray@ogletree.com
                  charlotte.smith@ogletree.com

PLAINS ALL: GFL Seeks to Modify Class Certification Order
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREY FOX, LLC, a
California limited liability company; MAZ PROPERTIES, INC., a
California corporation; BEAN BLOSSOM, LLC, a California limited
liability company; WINTER HAWK, LLC, a California limited liability
company, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
v. PLAINS ALL AMERICAN PIPELINE, L.P., a Delaware limited
partnership, PLAINS PIPELINE L.P., a Texas limited partnership,
Case No. 2:16-cv-03157-PSG-JEM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order modifying its Class Certification Order to


   (a) remove Defendants, oil and gas industry, and government
owners
       from the Class definition;

   (b) add Claim 15 to the Class claims; and (c) create the
       ATC Subclass and appoint Plaintiffs Maz, Bean Blossom,
Tautrim,
       and Winter Hawk as the Subclass representatives.

Plaintiffs request that the Court create the following Subclass:

   -- ATC Subclass

      "All owners of real property through which PPC's Line 901
and/or
      Line 903 passes pursuant to a Right-ofWay Grant where the
      contract automatically terminates for failure to "operate, "

      "maintain," and/or "use" the pipeline.

Plains is a master limited partnership engaged in pipeline
transport, marketing, and storage of liquefied petroleum gas and
petroleum.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 6, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46ChIPG at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
          Robert J. Nelson, Esq.
          Nimish R. Desai, Esq.
          Wilson M. Dunlavey, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &
          BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008

                - and -

          A. Barry Cappello, Esq.
          Leila J. Noël, Esq.
          Lawrence J. Conlan, Esq.
          David L. Cousineau, Esq.
          CAPPELLO & NOËL LLP
          831 State Street
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101-3227
          Telephone: (805)564-2444
          Facsimile: (805)965-5950

                - and -

          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Ave., Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623-3384

                - and -

          Juli Farris, Esq.
          Matthew J. Preusch, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1129 State Street, Suite 8
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 456-1496
          Facsimile: (805) 456-1497

PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Diggs Files Suit in E.D. Louisiana
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progress Software
Corporation. The case is styled as Shavonne Diggs, Brady Bradberry,
Christina Bradberry, Christopher Pipes, Subrena Tenner, Shawntessa
Guillory-Caillier, Robert Anastasio, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated persons v. Progress Software Corporation,
Case No. 2:23-cv-04980-JTM-MBN (E.D. La., Oct. 4, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.

Progress Software Corporation -- https://www.progress.com/ -- is an
American public company that offers software for creating and
deploying business applications.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christina Xenides, Esq.
          SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
          1005 Congress Avenue, Suite 925-C36
          Austin, TX 78701
          Phone: (512) 265-5622
          Email: cxenides@sirillp.com

               - and -

          David Pastor, Esq.
          PASTOR LAW OFFICE, LLP
          63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: (617) 742-9700
          Fax: (617) 742-9701
          Email: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com

               - and -

          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Elia, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697
          Phone: (215) 592-1500
          Fax: (215) 592-4663
          Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
                 nelia@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue
          Freedom Building, Ste. 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Phone: (615) 254-8801
          Fax: (615) 250-3937
          Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER LPA
          4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
          Cincinnati, OH 45242
          Phone: (513) 345-8291
          Fax: (513) 345-8294
          Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com

               - and -

          Kristen Anne Johnson, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1 Faneuil Hall Square, Ste 5th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: (617) 482-3700
          Fax: (617) 482-3003
          Email: kristenj@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Sean R. Matt, Esq.
          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 2nd Ave., Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 623-7292
          Email: sean@hbsslaw.com
                 steve@hbsslaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Eric A. Forni, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP US
          33 Arch Street, Ste. 26th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110-1447
          Phone: (617) 406-6140
          Email: Eric.Forni@us.dlapiper.com


PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Ghalem Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progress Software
Corporation. The case is styled as Hadj Ghalem, Martin Foth
Willmann, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. Progress Software Corporation, Ipswitch, Inc., UMass Chan
Medical School, Case No. 1:23-cv-12300-DJC (D. Mass., Oct. 5,
2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Progress Software Corporation -- https://www.progress.com/ -- is an
American public company that offers software for creating and
deploying business applications.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          One North Broadway, Suite 900
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Phone: (914) 298-3290
          Email: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com


PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED: Seeks Class Certification Hearing in Bartee
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LILLIAN BARTEE and LISA
BLEDSOE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
v. PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED INSURANCE COMPANY and PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:22-cv-00342-MTS (E.D. Mo.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order scheduling a hearing on
Plaintiffs' pending motion for class certification,  and
Defendants' pending motions to exclude Plaintiffs' experts Kirk
Felix, Jeffrey Martin, and Jason Merritt.

Progressive Advanced underwrites motor vehicle insurance policies.


A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 6, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46nlrRI at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Cashdan, Esq.
          Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq.
          J. Matthew Brigman, Esq.
          Allison Hill White, Esq.
          Allexia Bowman Arnold, Esq.
          Julia C. Barrett, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1180 Peachtree Street, N.E.
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 572-4600
          Facsimile: (404) 572-5100
          E-mail: jcashdan@kslaw.com
                  zmcentyre@kslaw.com
                  mbrigman@kslaw.com
                  awhite@kslaw.com
                  aarnold@kslaw.com
                  jbarrett@kslaw.com

                - and -

          Jeffrey S. Russell, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LLP
          One Metropolitan Square
          211 N. Broadway, Suite 3600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 259-2725
          E-mail: jsrussell@bclplaw.com

PROGRESSIVE GULF: Vantree Seeks to Certify Two Classes
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BETTY VANTREE and CYNTHIA
RAYBORN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. PROGRESSIVE GULF INSURANCE COMPANY and MOUNTAIN LAUREL
ASSURANCE COMPANY, Ohio Corporations, Case No.
4:22-cv-00070-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting class certification pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) and certify the following
Classes:

  -- Progressive Gulf Class

     "All persons who made a first-party claim on a policy of
     insurance issued by Progressive Gulf Insurance Company to a
     Mississippi resident where the claim was submitted from May
12,
     2016, through the date an order granting class certification
is
     entered, and Progressive Gulf Insurance Company determined
that
     the vehicle was a total loss and based its claim payment on an

     Instant Report from Mitchell where a Projected Sold Adjustment

     was applied to at least one comparable vehicle;" and

  -- Mountain Laurel Class

     "All persons who made a first-party claim on a policy of
     insurance issued by Mountain Laurel Assurance Company to a
     Mississippi resident where the claim was submitted from May
12,
     2016, through the date an order granting class certification
is
     entered, and Mountain Laurel Assurance Company determined that

     the vehicle was a total loss and based its claim payment on an

     Instant Report from Mitchell where a Projected Sold Adjustment

     was applied to at least one comparable vehicle."

Progressive provides property and casualty insurance company.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 6, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tqbhB4 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jacob L. Phillips, Esq.
          NORMAND PLLC
          3165 McCrory Pl., Ste. 175
          Orlando, FL 32803
          Telephone: (407) 603-6031
          Facsimile: (888) 974-2175
          E-mail: jacob.phillips@normandpllc.com
                  ean@normandpllc.com

                - and -

          Thomas M. Flanagan, Jr., Esq.
          Greenwood, MS 38935
          Telephone: (662) 453-6626
          E-mail: tomflanagan@bellsouth.net

                - and -

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479.2299
          E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com
                  ashamis@shamisgentile.com

                - and -

          Hank Bates, Esq.
          Lee Lowther, Esq.
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          519 W. 7th Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 312-8500
          Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
          E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com
                  llowther@cbplaw.com

                - and -

          Christopher Gold, Esq.
          Edwin Eliu Elliott, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (786) 289-9471
          Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
          E-mail: chris@edelsberglaw.com  
                  edwine@shamisgentile.com

PROGRESSIVE GULF: Vantree Seeks to Seal Portions of Class Cert Docs
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BETTY VANTREE and CYNTHIA
RAYBORN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. PROGRESSIVE GULF INSURANCE COMPANY and MOUNTAIN LAUREL
ASSURANCE COMPANY, Ohio Corporations, Case No.
4:22-cv-00070-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order allowing them to file under seal portions of their
Motion for Class Certification as well as the documents and
evidence submitted in support of that Motion.

Specifically, Plaintiffs request that the following documents be
filed under seal and restricted from public access:

  -- Excerpts of Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Motion for
Class
     Certification;

  -- Graphs portraying sold-to-list price ratio from Progressive/JD

     Power Data and State DMV Data, Exhibit 1 to the Class Cert
Motion
     Portions of John Retton Deposition Transcript (taken in
Drummond
     and Freeman), Exhibit 2 to the Class Cert Motion;

  -- Portions of Michael Silver Deposition Transcript (taken in
     Volino), Exhibit 4 to the Class Cert Motion;

  -- Portions of Philip Kroell Deposition Transcript (taken in
Volino)
     and Exhibits 8 and 21 thereto, collectively Exhibit 5 to the
     Class Cert Motion;

  -- Portions of Expert Report of Michelle Lacey, Ph.D, and
Exhibits 5
     and 8 thereto, collectively Exhibit 7 to the Class Cert
Motion;

  -- Portions of Expert Report of Kirk Felix, Exhibit 8 to the
Class
     Cert Motion; and

  -- Portions of Blaine Bogus Deposition Transcript (taken in
Volino),
     Exhibit 10 to the Class Cert Motion.

Progressive provides property and casualty insurance company.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 6, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RZ3uUW at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jacob L. Phillips, Esq.
          NORMAND PLLC
          3165 McCrory Pl., Ste. 175
          Orlando, FL 32803
          Telephone: (407) 603-6031
          Facsimile: (888) 974-2175
          E-mail: jacob.phillips@normandpllc.com
                  ean@normandpllc.com

                - and -

          Thomas M. Flanagan, Jr., Esq.
          Greenwood, MS 38935
          Telephone: (662) 453-6626
          E-mail: tomflanagan@bellsouth.net

                - and -

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479.2299
          E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com
                  ashamis@shamisgentile.com

                - and -

          Hank Bates, Esq.
          Lee Lowther, Esq.
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          519 W. 7th Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 312-8500
          Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
          E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com
                  llowther@cbplaw.com

                - and -

          Christopher Gold, Esq.
          Edwin Eliu Elliott, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (786) 289-9471
          Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
          E-mail: chris@edelsberglaw.com  
                  edwine@shamisgentile.com

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Bratten Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quest Diagnostics
Incorporated, et al. The case is styled as Gregory Bratten, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Quest
Diagnostics Incorporated, Does 1-10, Case No. 23CV009589 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Oct. 5, 2023).

Quest Diagnostics -- https://www.questdiagnostics.com/ -- is an
American clinical laboratory.[BN]

QUINCY UNIVERSITY: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quincy University
Corporation. The case is styled as Joseph Ortiz, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Quincy
University Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-01055-LJV (W.D.N.Y., Oct.
4, 2023).

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

Quincy University -- https://www.quincy.edu/ -- is a private
Catholic liberal arts college in the Midwest, enrolling about 1500
students, located in Quincy, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RADIAN SETTLEMENT: Smith Files Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Radian Settlement
Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Edward Smith, Carol
Smith, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v.
Radian Settlement Services, Inc., Shawn P. Murphy, Case No.
4:23-cv-01652-MWB (M.D. Pa., Oct. 4, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Radian Settlement Services Inc. -- https://www.radian.com/ -- is a
national title insurance agency and settlement services provider
appointed by seven title insurance underwriters.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
          ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          2500 Gulf Tower
          707 Grant Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: (412) 281-7229
          Email: arihn@peircelaw.com

               - and -

          Jonathan F. Andres, Esq.
          JONATHAN F. ANDRES P.C.
          1127 Hoot Owl
          St. Louis, MO 63005
          Phone: (636) 633-1208
          Email: andres@andreslawpc.com


RB HEALTH: Murdock Sues Over Consumer Fraud and Marketing
---------------------------------------------------------
Lateef Murdock, Lorette Kenney, Gwen Lewi, Marcel Perez Pirio,
Layne Barter, Jose Cortez Hernandez, Robert Lundin, Jaedon Daniels,
Mychael Willon, Amy Weinberg, Dimitri Lamdon, Elie El Rai, Tatyana
Dekhtyar, Olivia Rodesta, and Lauren Debeliso, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. RB HEALTH (US) LLC,
BAYER HEALTHCARE, LLC GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS
(US), LLC, JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., KENVUE, INC., PROCTER &
GAMBLE COMPANY, HALEON PLC, and PFIZER, INC., Case No.
2:23-cv-05846-LMA-DPC (E.D. La., Oct. 5, 2023), is brought arising
from Defendants' decades-long consumer fraud, marketing over the
counter ("OTC") nasal decongestants containing phenylephrine (the
"Products") to sick consumers even though phenylephrine does not
alleviate congestion.

The Food and Drug Administration's Drug Advisory Committee ("FDA
Committee") has unanimously concluded that, "the current scientific
data do not support that the recommended dosage of orally
administered phenylephrine is effective as a nasal decongestant."

By advertising and marketing the Products as nasal decongestants,
Defendants mislead reasonable consumers, including Plaintiffs, into
believing the Products are effective nasal decongestants when they
are not. Reasonable consumers understand the Challenged
Representations to mean the Products are effective decongestants.
But because the Products' so-called active ingredient is
phenylephrine, they do not alleviate congestion. Consumers are
harmed by paying a premium for the health claims touted by
Defendant that are untrue. If consumers had been aware that
phenylephrine-containing products were ineffective as nasal
decongestants, they would not have purchased them, or would have
paid substantially less for them.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs and all other purchasers of Defendants'
oral phenylephrine products seek to hold Defendants accountable for
their violations of consumer protection statutes, breaches of
warranties, and deceptions. Defendants chose to market and
advertise the Products to vulnerable consumers suffering from
illness despite the mountain of scientific evidence proving the
Products are ineffective.

The Plaintiffs seek, on their behalf and on behalf of the Class,
injunctive relief to stop Defendants' unlawful manufacture,
marketing, and sale of the Products as described herein to avoid or
mitigate the risk of deceiving the public into believing the
Products can provided the advertised benefits, by requiring that
Defendant change its business practices, which may include one or
more of the following: discontinue making, marketing, and/or
selling the Products, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs purchased the Products.

The Defendants are the owner, manufacturer, and/or distributor of
the Products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Reagan C. Thomas, Esq.
          17 E. Main Street Suite 200
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Phone: (844) 794-7402
          Fax: (850) 202-1010
          Email: rthomas@awkolaw.com

               - and -

          Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
          Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq.
          Glenn Danas, Esq.
          Zarrina Ozari, Esq.
          CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          22525 Pacific Coast Highway
          Malibu, CA 90265
          Phone: (213) 788-4050
          Fax: (213) 788-4070
          Email: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                 sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                 gdanas@clarksonlawfirm.com
                 mailto:agudino@clarksonlawfirm.com


RECKITT BENCKISER: Hsieh et al. Sue Over Decongestants' False Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMES HSIEH, DOMINIC RIO, MOHANAD ABDELKARIM, and STEVEN CHECCHIA,
individually and as a representative of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. RECKITT BENCKISER LLC, KENVUE, INC.;
PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY; GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC; JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER INC.; WALGREEN CO.; and CVS PHARMACY, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 1:23-cv-14404 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 2, 2023) arises from the
Defendants' deceptive marketing and sale of over-the-counter oral
medications containing phenylephrine, which are reportedly
ineffective as nasal decongestants.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for violations of Illinois, New
Jersey, California, and Pennsylvania consumer protection laws and
for common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust
enrichment on behalf of themselves and similarly situated persons
to obtain compensation for the monetary difference between the
Phenylephrine Products as warranted and as sold, including a full
refund where appropriate, for themselves and for all other
similarly situated purchasers nationwide for the worthless
Phenylephrine Products.

Reckitt Benckiser LLC is a Delaware limited liability corporation
with its headquarters and principal place of business in
Parsippany, NJ. A wholly-owned subsidiary of Reckitt Benckiser
Group PLC, Reckitt Benckiser LLC manufactures and markets
Phenylephrine Products, including Mucinex. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

       Andrea R. Gold, Esq.
       Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
       Leora Friedman, Esq.
       TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
       2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest, Suite 1010
       Washington, DC 20006
       Telephone: (202) 973-0900
       Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
       E-mail: agold@tzlegal.com
               hzavareei@tzlegal.com
               lfriedman@tzlegal.com

RIDGECREST REGIONAL: Casey Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ridgecrest Regional
Hospital. The case is styled as Sharese Casey, on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Ridgecrest Regional Hospital, Case No.
BCV-23-103337 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Oct. 4, 2023).

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

Ridgecrest Regional Hospital -- https://www.rrh.org/ -- provides
high-quality, comprehensive health services to people throughout
Kern County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Fletcher W. H. Schmidt , Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          2155 Campus Dr., Ste. 180
          El Segundo, CA 90245-2656
          Phone: 424-292-2352
          Fax: 424-292-2355
          Email: fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com


RIPPLE LABS: Cleary Gottlieb Obtains Dismissal of SEC Claim v. CEO
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cleary Gottlieb represented Brad Garlinghouse, the CEO of Ripple
Labs Inc. ("Ripple"), in successfully obtaining the dismissal with
prejudice of the claim by the SEC that he aided and abetted certain
of Ripple's offers and sales of XRP, the native digital asset of
the XRP Ledger, a public blockchain. By dismissing this claim, the
SEC abandoned a trial that was slated to begin in April 2024. This
follows Mr. Garlinghouse's successful summary judgment motion with
the Court dismissing all of the primary liability claims against
him. He now has a full dismissal of all the SEC's claims against
him.

Ripple is an enterprise crypto and blockchain technology company
building a regulated global payment network to avoid the costly and
cumbersome existing centralized bank settlement process, and
instead allows payments to flow in real time across borders using
XRP. Mr. Garlinghouse joined Ripple in April 2015, and was
announced as CEO in November 2016. On December 22, 2020, the SEC
filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against
Ripple, its CEO Brad Garlinghouse, and its former CEO and current
Executive Chairman Christian Larsen, alleging that they engaged in
an eight-year unregistered securities offering of XRP. The SEC also
alleged that Mr. Garlinghouse and Mr. Larsen aided and abetted
Ripple Labs' offers and sales of XRP. There were no allegations of
fraud.

On July 13, 2023, Judge Analisa Torres of the Southern District of
New York granted defendants' motion for summary judgment as to all
of Mr. Garlinghouse's personal sales of XRP and Ripple's
"programmatic" sales of XRP on digital asset exchanges. The Court
also denied the SEC's motion for summary judgment against Mr.
Garlinghouse on the aiding and abetting claim, setting up a highly
anticipated trial on this claim for April 2024. On October 3, 2023,
the Court denied the SEC's motion for leave to appeal and to stay
the trial.

Rather than attempting to prove its claims at trial, the SEC
voluntarily dismissed the sole remaining claim against Mr.
Garlinghouse on October 19, 2023. All claims against Mr.
Garlinghouse have now been dismissed, resulting in a rare victory
for an individual defendant over the SEC in a litigated case.

Cleary partner Matt Solomon said: "This case was approved in the
waning days of the former chairman's tenure. We always believed
that the case was meritless, and that the SEC compounded its error
by personally targeting Brad, who did absolutely nothing wrong. The
Court was right to dismiss the core of the SEC's case this summer.
Faced with the prospect of having to prove its remaining claim
against Brad in court, the agency was right to abandon it."

The Cleary team was led by partners Matt Solomon and Nowell
Bamberger, and included partner Rahul Mukhi, counsel Alex
Janghorbani, and associates Sam Levander, Michael Schulman, Caleb
Robertson, Ben Rosenblum, Jackie Brune, Olivia Everton, Jessica
Cuddihy, Ruthie Wu, and Joe Wakeford.


RITE AID: Stafford Suit Seeks to Certify California Consumer Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRYON STAFFORD and
ELIZABETH DAVIS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. RITE AID CORPORATION and RITE AID HDQTRS. CORP., Case
No. 3:17-cv-01340-TWR-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs move the
Court for an order granting their Motion for Class Certification.

The Plaintiffs seek an order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23:

   (a) certifying a Class of California consumers defined as: "All

       persons in the state of California who, during the period
       January 1, 2008 through October 12, 2020, using prescription

       drug insurance provided by a third-party payer, paid, in
full
       or in part, for a prescription drug available through Rite
       Aid's Rx Savings Program and the amount paid by the person
was
       inflated because the Rx Savings Program price was not
included
       when determining the usual and customary price to report";

   (b) appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and

   (c) appointing Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Scott+Scott

       Attorneys at Law LLP as Class Counsel; and (d) granting such

       other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Rite Aid is an American drugstore chain based in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David W. Mitchell, Esq.
          Robert R. Henssler Jr., Esq.
          Arthur L. Shingler III, Esq.
          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          Mark J. Dearman, Esq.
          Bradley M. Beall, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: davidm@rgrdlaw.com
                  bhenssler@rgrdlaw.com
                  ashingler@rgrdlaw.com

                - and -

          George C. Aguilar, Esq.
          Gregory E. Del Gaizo, Esq.
          ROBBINS LLP
          5060 Shoreham Place, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
          E-mail: gaguilar@robbinsllp.com
                  gdelgaizo@robbinsllp.com


          Schuyler V.V. Hoffman, Esq.
          HOFFMAN & FORDE
          3033 Fifth Avenue, Suite 400
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 546-7880
          Facsimile: (619) 546-7881

                - and -

          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          Erin Green comite, Esq.
          Carey Alexander, Esq.
          Amanda M. Rolon, Esq.
          Ethan Binder, Esq.
          Hal D. Cunningham, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 233-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 233-6334

                - and -

          Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C.
          1575 McFarland Road, Suite 305
          Pittsburgh, PA 15216
          Telephone: (412) 391-5164
          Facsimile: (412) 471-1033

RJ DISTRIBUTING: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Wilson
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wilson v. R J Distributing
Co., Case No. 1:23-cv-01357-JBM-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge
Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows:

   -- Rule 16 scheduling conference

      The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
      30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
      The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.

   -- Discovery plan

      The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
      calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.

   -- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference

      If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
      plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
      conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
      discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
      within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16

      scheduling conference be cancelled.

   -- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing

      For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
      by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a

      telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to

      appear for an in-person hearing.

   -- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the

      discovery deadline has already passed

      The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court

      after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
      disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the

      relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
      raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
      discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
      the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
      discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
      discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
      they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move

      that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any

      subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.

   -- Settlement conferences and mediation

      The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or

      mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
      settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
      Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.

RJ Distributing Company retails alcoholic beverages.

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

ROBLOX CORPORATION: Shareholder Suit Over Direct Listing Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Roblox Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 9, 2023, that the parties in a putative
securities class action filed by an alleged shareholder against the
company and certain of its executives and directors on March 9,
2022, have stipulated to a dismissal of the Superior Court case,
and the matter was dismissed on August 2, 2022.

Said action alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of
the Securities Act in connection with the registration statement
for its direct listing.

Roblox Corporation operates a human co-experience platform where
users interact with each other to explore and create immersive,
user-generated, 3D experiences.


RUBBER-CAL INC: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rubber-Cal, Inc. The
case is styled as Damon Jones, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Rubber-Cal, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-08766
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 5, 2023).

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

Rubber-Cal, Inc. -- https://www.rubbercal.com/ -- is an industrial
rubber company based out of Santa Ana, California, specializing in
DIY rubber flooring, industrial rubber mats, commercial and
residential doormats, flexible industrial ducting, and a broad
spectrum of sheet rubber products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RV WORLD: Court Enters Scheduling & Discovery Order in Greenhill
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS GREENHILL,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated as
Plaintiff/Class Representative, v. RV WORLD, LLC, doing business as
Camping World of Marion, Case No. 3:23-cv-02437-DWD (S.D. Ill.),
the Hon. Judge David W. Dugan entered an order adopting joint
report and proposed scheduling and discovery order.

The parties should note that they may, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 29, modify discovery dates set in the Joint Report
by written stipulation, except that they may not modify a date if
such modification would impact

   (1) the date of any court appearance,

   (2) the deadline for completing the mandatory mediation session
or
       the mandatory mediation process (if applicable),

   (3) the deadline for completing all discovery, or

   (4) the deadline for filing dispositive motions.

RV is a Store for RVs, camping equipment & other outdoor gear, plus
accessories & repair services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48IHC6q at no extra charge.[CC]

SALVATORE'S NY PIZZA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Saavedra Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN JOSE BRAVO SAAVEDRA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SALVATORE'S NY PIZZA, INC.;
and ABEL GONZALEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-08826 (S.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 6, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Saavedra was employed by the Defendants as a kitchen
staff.

SALVATORE'S NY PIZZA, INC. owns and operates a restaurant located
at Bronx, NY, doing business as Salvatore's NY Pizza. [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

SAN DIMAS MC: Centes Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mayra Centes, and other similarly situated aggrieved employees, v.
SAN DIMAS MC CARE PROPERTIES, LLC; FRONTIER MANAGEMENT, LLC; and
DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV24233 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., Oct. 5, 2023), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the California Labor Code, Private Attorneys General
Act ("PAGA") as a result of the Defendants failure to pay proper
minimum and overtime wages.

The Defendants failed to compensate for all hours worked; failed to
pay minimum wages; failed to pay overtime; failed to provide
accurate itemized wage statements; failed to pay wages owed every
pay period; failed to pay wages when employment ends; failed to
provide rest breaks; failed to provide meal breaks; failed to
reimburse business expenses all in violation of the California
Labor Code, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff started working for SAN DIMAS MC CARE on October 2021
as a caregiver.

DIMAS MC CARE PROPERTIES, LLC is a California corporation, doing
business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harout Messrelian, Esq.
          MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
          500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Phone: (818) 484-6531
          Facsimile: (818) 956-1983


SANDY TOES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Housekeepers, Friend Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Friend and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v.
Sandy Toes Resort Cleaning, LLC and Deborah Gallaher, individually
Defendants, Case No. 6:23-cv-01902 (M.D. Fla., Oct. 2, 2023) seeks
to recover from the Defendants minimum wages, overtime
compensation, retaliatory liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable
attorney's fees under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Megan Friend was employed by the Defendants as a
non-exempted, full-time, hourly employee from approximately
September 01, 2022, to September 08, 2023, or 51 weeks. She was
hired as a housekeeper performing her work at various hotels,
resorts, and private homes. During her employment with Defendants,
Plaintiff had an irregular schedule. She worked seven days per
week, from Monday to Sunday, an average of 84 hours weekly.
However, the Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff minimum
wages in violation of the FLSA. In addition, the Defendants also
failed to pay Plaintiff overtime hours at the rate of time and
one-half her regular rate for every hour that she worked over 40,
the Plaintiff contends.

Sandy Toes Resort Cleaning is a residential and commercial cleaning
company providing its services to the hospitality industry.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

SAZERAC COMPANY: Bid for Class Certification Due March 15, 2024
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Del Rosario v. Sazerac
Company, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01060-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Arun Subramanian entered an order granting Plaintiff's requests for
an extension of the deadline to complete Fact Discovery and file
her motion for class certification as outlined in that Order by 75
days, making the conclusion of:

-- Completion of Fact Discovery:           January 15, 2024

-- Motion for Class Certification:         March 15, 2024

-- Opposition to Motion for Class          May 29, 2024
    Certification:

-- Reply in Support of Motion for           June 28, 2024
   Class Certification:

But the Court is unlikely to grant any further requests. There is
no provision in the schedule for expert discovery. If the parties
envision expert discovery other than for class certification
purposes, they should promptly propose a schedule for such
discovery.

Sazerac is a privately held American alcoholic beverage company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 5, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46xo1nQ at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles D. Moore, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 South 5th Street, Suite 1900
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272

SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC: Shultz Suit Removed to N.D. Indiana
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Judy Shultz, as the Personal Representative of
the and individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
estate of Fonzo "Bud" Shultz, Deceased v. Schneider Electric USA,
Inc. formerly known as: Square D, Case No. 52C01-2308-CT-000769 was
removed from the Miami County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Indiana on Sept. 15, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00846-DRL-MGG to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Constitutional - State Statute.

Schneider Electric USA, Inc. -- https://www.se.com/us/en/ --
specializes in sustainable energy management and industrial
automation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph N Williams, Esq.
          WILLIAMS LAW GROUP LLC
          1101 N Delaware St Ste 200
          Indianapolis, IN 46202
          Phone: (317) 633-5270
          Fax: (317) 426-3348
          Email: joe@williamsgroup.law

The Defendant is represented by:

          Sarah E. Brown, Esq.
          Kelly J. Hartzler, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          Barnes & Thornburg LLP - SB/IN
          201 S Main St Ste 400
          South Bend, IN 46601
          Phone: (574) 237-1151
          Fax: (574) 237-1125
          Email: sarah.brown@btlaw.com
                 kelly.hartzler@btlaw.com


SILICON MOTION: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming October 31, 2023 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Silicon Motion Technology Corporation ("Silicon
Motion" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SIMO) American Depositary Shares
("ADSs") between June 6, 2023 and July 26, 2023, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

If you suffered a loss on your Silicon Motion investments or would
like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your
loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at
www.glancylaw.com/cases/Silicon-Motion-Technology-Corporation/. You
can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.

On July 26, 2023, MaxLinear announced that it was terminating a
merger agreement with Silicon Motion less than a day after Chinese
regulatory authorities had approved the combination.

On this news, Silicon Motion's stock price fell $12.84, or 19.6%,
to close at $52.51 per ADS on July 27, 2023, thereby injuring
investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) there had been a material downturn in the semiconductor
industry and rising interest rates; (2) MaxLinear had determined to
unilaterally terminate the Merger in the event the Merger was
approved by Chinese regulatory authorities; (3) MaxLinear intended
to argue that certain conditions in Article 6 of the Merger
Agreement had not been satisfied as required by May 5, 2023 (i.e.,
before the Class Period) as a basis to terminate the Merger; and
(4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants had materially
misrepresented the viability of the Merger, the purported benefits
of the Merger, and the likelihood that the Merger would be
consummated; and (5) as a result, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Silicon Motion ADSs during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than October 31,
2023 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative
class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class
action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if
you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit,
please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

Contacts:
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com [GN]

SKYC MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Andujar Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR ANDUJAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SKYC MANAGEMENT LLC; 674 HOLDING LTD.;
SHIMON GREISMAN; and GARY GARTENBERG, Defendants, Case No.
23-cv-08764 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 5, 2023) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff Andujar was employed by the Defendants as a
superintendent.

Sky Management Services LLC operates as a management company in New
York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Marc A. Rapaport
         RAPAPORT LAW FIRM, PLLC
         80 Eighth Avenue, Suite 206
         New York, NY 10011
         Telephone: (212) 382-1600
         Email: mrapaport@rapaportlaw.com

SLIDE OUT SHELVES: Zelvin Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Slide Out Shelves,
LLC. The case is styled as Lynn Zelvin, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Slide Out Shelves, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-08767 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 5, 2023).

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

Slide Out Shelves LLC -- https://slideoutshelvesllc.com/ --
produces custom made pull out shelves for kitchen, bath and pantry
cabinets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SOLID WASTE: Jones Seeks More Time for Class Cert Bid Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER JONES, v. SOLID
WASTE SERVICES, INC., d/b/a J.P. MASCARO & SONS, Case No.
5:23-cv-02648-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the Lead Plaintiff Jennifer Jones
files a motion for enlargement of time for class certification.

In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that she worked in excess
of 40 hours a week for the Defendant without the required overtime
pay required by the Fair Labors Standards Act.

Under Eastern District Local Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1(c), the
lead plaintiff in a class action is obliged to move for
certification of the putative class within ninety days of filing
the complaint.

On August 8, 2023, the Court entered an Order, granting the
parties' stipulation and affording the Defendant until September 8,
2023, to Answer the Complaint.

On September 13, 2023, after Defendant answered the Complaint and
Plaintiff was apprised of the Defendant's affirmative defenses, the
Plaintiff propounded interrogatories and requests for production of
documents.

Solid Waste provides strategic advice, engineering, planning, and
operations management services in the solid waste field.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 9, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PWzEhi at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dominic Mayle, Esq.
          Joel A. Ready, Esq.
          CORNERSTONE LAW FIRM, LLC
          8500 Allentown Pike No. 3
          Blandon, PA 19510
          Telephone: (610) 926-7875

SPRINGSTONE HEALTH: Court Wants Rule 26(f) Report in Sofranko Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lauren Sofranko, v.
Springstone Health Opco LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01828-DWL (D. Ariz.),
the Hon. Judge Dominic Lanza entered an order requiring Rule 26(f)
Report.

  -- Pursuant to Rule 16(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
     Procedure, the Court will issue a scheduling order after
     receiving the parties' Rule 26(f) report. After reviewing the

     Rule 26(f) report, the Court will set a case management
     conference if meeting with the parties appears necessary or
     helpful.

  -- The parties are directed to meet, confer, and develop a Rule
     26(f) Joint Case Management Report, which must be filed no
later
     than November 7, 2023.

  -- It is the responsibility of Plaintiff(s) to initiate the Rule

     26(f) meeting and preparation of the Joint Case Management
     Report. Defendant(s) shall promptly and cooperatively
participate
     in the Rule 26(f) meeting and assist in preparation of the
Joint
     Case Management Report.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZR61Tl at no extra charge.[CC]

STA MANAGEMENT: Briefs on Class Cert. Bid Due May 24, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as James Barker, et al, v.
STA Management, LLC, et al, Case No. 2:23-cv-11542-NGE-DRG (E.D.
Mich.), the Hon. Judge Nancy G. Edmunds entered a scheduling order
as follows:

  Witness Lists Filed By:                  February 26, 2024

  Phase I Discovery Cutoff:                April 26, 2024

  Briefs on Class Certification by:        May 24, 2024

  Referral to Magistrate Judge:            for settlement
conference
  DAVID R. GRAND                           after dispositive
motions
                                           decided.

  -- The Court enforces Rule 26 discovery plans agreeable to all
     parties. All communication regarding referred motions should
be
     directed to the Magistrate Judge’s chambers.

  -- Discovery can be extended after the discovery cutoff date by
     stipulation, only if the extension of time does not affect the

     motion cutoff, final pretrial conference, or trial date.

  -- Counsel not admitted to practice in the Eastern District of
     Michigan shall contact the Clerk’s Office at (313) 234-5005
for
     admission procedures.

When filing motions for summary judgment, parties shall proceed in
accordance with the following:

  -- Before filing a motion for summary judgment or responding to
such
     a motion, the parties are urged to familiarize themselves
with:

          Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986),

          Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986), and


          Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio

          Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986).

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PMDOZ3 at no extra charge.[CC]

STATE FARM: Second Supplemental Bid to Seal OK'd
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLLYNN NICHOLS, v. STATE
FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
2:22-cv-00016-SDM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A.
Preston Deavers entered an order:

  -- Granting State Farm's Second Supplemental Motion to Seal;

  -- Granting in part the Joint Motion of Plaintiff and Non-party
     Audatex to Seal, to the extent set forth above and denying, in

     part, to the extent it seeks to seal in their entirety
documents
     not submitted in connection with the Plaintiff's Motion for
Class
     Certification; and

  -- Granting the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Leave to File
Under
     Seal.

State Farm offers vehicle, auto, accident, homeowners, condo
owners, renters, life and annuities, fire and casualty, health,
disability, flood, business, and boat insurance products and
services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 11, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PYt9L6 at no extra charge.[CC]

STEEL HOUSE: Jaisingh Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Steel House Abstract,
Inc. The case is styled as Sterling Jaisingh, individually and on
behalf of those similarly situated v. Steel House Abstract, Inc.,
Aracelis Chirinos, Cliff Lewis, Robin Mancuso Deluna, Case No.
5:23-cv-03878-GAM (E.D. Pa., Oct. 5, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

SteelHouse Abstract, Inc. -- https://steelhousetitle.com/ -- is a
trusted provider of title settlement services for buyers, sellers,
builders, and developers across the Lehigh Valley region.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
          PEIRCE LAW OFFICES
          707 Grant St, 2500 Gulf Tower
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: (412) 281-7229
          Email: arihn@peircelaw.com


STUPP BROS: Parties Seek to Extend Class Cert Bid Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNA STOKLOSA,
Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
STUPP BROS., INC. d/b/a STUPP CORPORATION, Case No.
3:21-cv-00162-SDD-SDJ (M.D. La.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order extending the deadline to issue class and other
deadlines for an additional 90 days.

In prior motions to continue the deadline at issue here, the
parties informed this Court of an appeal pending in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in which the WARN
Act's natural disaster exemption was at issue.

The Fifth Circuit issued a decision in Easom on June 15, 2022
finding the COVID-19 pandemic did not qualify as a "natural
disaster" and therefore did not qualify for that exemption under
the WARN Act.

The parties have preliminarily discussed resolution of the matter,
are continuing to discuss resolution.

As such, the parties jointly propose that these previous set dates
be extended by 90 days from October 9, 2023, up to and including
January 8, 2024, for Plaintiff to move for class certification.

Parties do not bring this Motion for purposes of delay or for any
other improper purpose.

The Parties seek an extension of the deadline to file a Motion for
Conditional Class Certification of Collective Action and for Notice
to
Prospective Class Members, with the new deadline falling on January
8, 2024.

Stupp is a privately-owned company focused on providing
infrastructure development in the United States as well as serving
the St. Louis market.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 9, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Fd6Oob at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Centner, Esq.
          PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE & CONWAY, APLC
          1519 Robert C. Blakes Sr. Drive
          New Orleans, LA 71030
          Telephone: (504) 523-2334
          E-mail: dcentner@peifferwolf.com

                - and -

          Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
          Adam Florek, Esq.
          PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE & CONWAY, APLC
          One US Bank Plaza, Suite 1950
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 833-4825
          E-mail: bwise@peifferwolf.com
                  aflorek@peifferwolf.com

                - and -

          Thomas R. Peak, Esq.
          TAYLOR PORTER
          450 Laurel Street, 8th Floor
          Baton Rouge, LA 70801
          Telephone: (225) 387-3221
          E-mail: tom.peak@taylorporter.com

SUGAR FOODS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Augustine Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
DEVIN AUGUSTINE, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUGAR FOODS CORPORATION; and DOES 1-50,
Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV24227 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Oct. 4, 2023) is an action against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and
permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and
reimburse necessary business expenses.

Plaintiff Augustine was employed by the Defendants as a staff.

SUGAR FOODS CORPORATION manufactures and distributes food products.
The Company offers breadcrumbs, condiments, culinary dried fruits
and nuts, crunchy toppings, and seafood products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shani O. Zakay, Esq.
          Jackland K. Hom, Esq.
          Julieann Alvarado, Esq.
          ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC
          5440 Morehouse Drive, Suite 3600
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 255-9047
          Facsimile: (858) 404-9203
          Email: shani@zakaylaw.com
                 jackland@zakaylaw.com
                 jiulieann@zakaylaw.com

               - and -

          Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq.
          JCL LAW FIRM, APC
          5440 Morehouse Drive, Suite 3600
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 599-8292
          Facsimile: (619) 599-8291
          Email: ilapuvade@icl-lawfirm.com

SYMETRA LIFE: Davis Must File Class Certifications by Dec. 19
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENNIS E. DAVIS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SYMETRA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:21-cv-00533-KKE (W.D.
Wash.),
Hon. Judge Kymberly K. Evanson entered an order adopting the
Parties' joint proposed schedule as follows.

                Event                        Proposed Deadline

  Class Discovery completed by this date       Nov. 09, 2023

  Deadline to file Plaintiff's motion          Dec. 19, 2023
  for class certifications and class
  expert disclosure

  Deadline for amended pleadings               Dec. 19, 2023

  Reports from Plaintiff's expert              Dec. 19, 2023
  witnesses under FCP 26(a)(2) for use
  in support of class certification

  Deadline to file Defendant's opposition      Feb. 21, 2024
  to Plaintiff's motion for class
  certification and any objections to
  Plaintiff's experts

  Reports from Defendant's expert              Feb. 21, 2024
  witnesses under FRCP 26(a)(2)

  Deadline to file Plaintiff's Reply           Apr. 05, 2024

  brief in support of class certification
  motion and any objection to Defendant's
  experts

  Rebuttal reports from Plaintiff's            April 05, 2024
  expert witnesses under FRCP 26(a)(2)
  for use in support of class certification

  Settlement Conference, if mediation          May 24, 2024
  has been requested by the parties per
  LCR 39.1, held no later than

  Mediation per LCR 39.1, if requested         June 28, 2024
  by the parties, held no later than

Symetra offers annuities, disability, medical, accidental, and life
insurance services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45v8eos at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kim D. Stephens, P.S., Esq.
          Rebecca L. Solomon, Esq.
          TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
          1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 682-5600
          Facsimile: (206) 682-2992
          E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
                  rsolomon@tousley.com

                - and -

          Patrick J. Stueve, Esq.
          Lindsay Todd Perkins, Esq.
          Ethan M. Lange, Esq.
          David A. Hickey, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road Ste. 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
          E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
                  perkins@stuevesiegel.com
                  lange@stuevesiegel.com
                  hickey@stuevesiegel.com

                - and -

          John J. Schirger, Esq.
          Matthew W. Lytle, Esq.
          Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq.
          MILLER SCHIRGER, LLC
          4520 Main Street Ste. 1570
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 561-6500
          Facsimile: (816) 561-6501
          E-mail: jschirger@millerschirger.com
                  mlytle@millerschirger.com
                  jfeierabend@millerschirger.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Laura Geist, Esq.
          WILLKIE FARR & GALLAHER LLP
          One Front Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 858-7400
          Facsimile: (415) 858-7599
          E-mail: lgeist@willkie.com

                - and -

          Medora A. Marisseau, Esq.
          KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL
          701 Fifth Ave., Ste. 3300
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 223-1313
          Facsimile: (206) 682-7100
          E-mail: mmarisseau@karrtuttle.com

SYNCREON.US INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ayala Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
RICARDO AYALA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SYNCREON.US INC., Defendant, Case No.
231000394 (Pa. Com. Pl., Oct. 3, 2023) is an action against the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff Ayala was employed by the Defendant as a staff.

SYNCREON.US INC. specialize in the design and operation of supply
chain solutions for Automotive, Technology, Consumer Home Products,
Industrial, Healthcare & MedTech companies. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          Deirdre A. Aaron, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491

TARGET CORPORATION: Dalton Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Target Corporation.
The case is styled as Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Target Corporation, Case No.
0:23-cv-03080-ECT-DJF (D. Minn., Oct. 4, 2023).

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

Target -- https://www.target.com/ -- is an American retail
corporation that operates a chain of discount department stores and
hypermarkets, headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason D. Gustafson, Esq.
          Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
          THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
          One Central Avenue West, Suite 203
          St. Michael, MN 55376
          Phone: (763) 515-6110
          Email: jason@throndsetlaw.com
                 pat@throndsetlaw.com


TARGET CORPORATION: Martin Sues Over Mislabeled Fruit Juices
------------------------------------------------------------
GWENDOLYN MARTIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TARGET CORPORATION, Case No.
8:23-cv-02282 (M.D. Fla., Oct. 9, 2023) alleges that the Defendant
sells mislabeled cut up cherries, grapes, peaches, pears, and
pineapples "In 100% Juice" described as "Classic Fruit Cocktail In
100 percent Fruit Juice" under the Market Pantry brand.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the label "In 100
percent Juice" and "Classic Fruit Cocktail In 100 percent Fruit
Juice" are misleading because the fruit pieces shown on the
packaging are served in a solution containing more than just juice
but added water and additives such as natural flavor and the
chemical ingredient of ascorbic acid.

TARGET CORPORATION operates general merchandise discount stores.
The Company focuses on merchandising operations which includes
general merchandise and food discount stores and a fully integrated
online business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

TEKSYSTEMS INC: Avery Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BO AVERY, PHOEBE RODGERS,
KRISTY CAMILLERI AND JILL UNVERFERTH, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. TEKSYSTEMS, INC., Case No.
3:22-cv-02733-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order certifying their claims under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23, and appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives
and Plaintiffs' counsel as Class Counsel.

The Plaintiffs move the Court for an order certifying the following
class and sub-classes under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure:

   "All current and former Recruiters employed by Defendant in
    California from January 28, 2018 to the final date of judgment.


    Final Pay Subclass:

    "All Class Members who worked for Defendant as Recruiters on or

    after January 28, 2019, and who are no longer employed by
Defendant
    and have not been employed by Defendant for more than 72
hours."

The Plaintiffs seek to have certified for resolution on behalf of
the class and subclass each of the following claims pled in their
First Amended Class Action Complaint: Claim One for unpaid
overtime; Claim Two for failure to timely pay wages upon
termination; Claim Four for meal break violations; Claim Five for
rest break violations; and Claim Six for unlawful, unfair, and/or
deceptive business practices.

The Plaintiffs are entry-level Recruiters for TEKsystems, which is
a professional staffing company focused on the information
technology field. Recruiters search and match candidates for open
positions with TEK’s clients. The job involves long hours and
mundane tasks; Recruiters consistently work overtime, during which
they review resumes, scroll through LinkedIn profiles, call
candidates, and complete candidate intakes.

TEK classifies all Recruiters as exempt from California’s
overtime laws, thereby pocketing funds it should pay as wages and
enriching itself at Recruiters’ expense. The Plaintiffs bring
this case to recover overtime wages TEK withheld from them, as well
as other damages stemming from TEK's classification policy. To
ensure other Recruiters may recover the same, Plaintiffs are moving
to certify a class of similarly situated individuals under Federal
Rule of
Civil Procedure 23.

The Court should certify the class because it is tailor-made for
Rule 23's requirements.

TEK is an information technology staffing company.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq.
          Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          335 18th Place NE
          Washington, D.C. 20002
          Telephone: (202) 830-2016
          E-mail: sabrahamson@flsalaw.com
                  msalas@flsalaw.com

                - and -

          Sarah Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          Krysten Connon, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5830
          E-mail: ssb@llrlaw.com
                  kconnon@llrlaw.com

                - and -

          Rachel Bien, Esq.
          OLIVIER & SCHREIBER LLP
          595 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 418
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (213) 325-3430
          E-mail: rachel@os-legal.com

TENET HEALTHCARE: Parties Must File Joint Status Report
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Doe v. Tenet Healthcare
Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01106 (E.D. Cal., Filed July
24, 2023), the Hon. Judge Troy L. Nunley entered an order granting
the Defendants request to refrain from entering the Scheduling
Order and granting the parties time to meet and confer regarding a
joint proposed schedule for the Court's consideration.

-- The parties shall file a joint status report not later than 30

    days from the date of this Order.

-- The joint status report should include a proposed deadline for
the
    Motion for Class Certification.

-- The Court will issue an amended Scheduling Order after
reviewing
    the parties' joint status report.

The suit alleges violation of the Right to Privacy Act.

Tenet is a for-profit multinational healthcare services
company.[CC]

TESLA INC: Plaintiffs Agree to Arbitrate Claims in Autopilot Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Tesla
ADAS (advanced driver assistance system) class action lawsuit is
over for now after the judge ruled the plaintiffs agreed to
arbitrate their claims when they purchased their vehicles.

One plaintiff did opt out of the arbitration agreement, but his
claims against Tesla were also dismissed.

The Tesla self-driving class action lawsuit alleges Tesla lied
about the capabilities of ADAS which includes Autopilot, Enhanced
Autopilot and Full Self-Driving capability.

The Tesla ADAS lawsuit, now titled, In Re: Tesla Advanced Driver
Assistance Systems Litigation, was consolidated from other ADAS
class actions (examples are here and here).

The plaintiffs claim they were used as test engineers for
technology that still doesn't provide what Tesla promised. And
those owners assert they paid thousands of dollars extra for ADAS
that still doesn't live up to Tesla's marketing.

Tesla allegedly made deceptive and misleading statements about
ADAS, including how "ADAS technology was on the precipice of
delivering fully self-driving cars, but Tesla has yet to deliver on
such promises."

The plaintiffs further allege the ADAS is unsafe and has led to
crashes, injuries and deaths.

Motion to Compel Arbitration
Tesla told Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. four of five plaintiffs
entered into valid arbitration agreements when they purchased their
Tesla vehicles. Therefore all their claims should be arbitrated and
not as part of a class action lawsuit.

Tesla Agreement to Arbitrate
Please carefully read this provision, which applies to any dispute
between you and Tesla, Inc. and its affiliates, (together
"Tesla").

If you have a concern or dispute, please send a written notice
describing it and your desired resolution to
resolutions@tesla.com.

If not resolved within 60 days, you agree that any dispute arising
out of or relating to any aspect of the relationship between you
and Tesla will not be decided by a judge or jury but instead by a
single arbitrator in an arbitration administered by the American
Arbitration Association (AAA) under its Consumer Arbitration
Rules.

This includes claims arising before this Agreement, such as claims
related to statements about our products. We will pay all AAA fees
for any arbitration, which will be held in the city or county of
your residence. To learn more about the Rules and how to begin an
arbitration, you may call any AAA office or go to www.adr.org.

The arbitrator may only resolve disputes between you and Tesla, and
may not consolidate claims without the consent of all parties. The
arbitrator cannot hear clear or representative claims or request
for relief on behalf of others purchasing or leasing Tesla
vehicles. In other words, you and Tesla may bring claims against
the other only in your or its individual capacity and not as a
plaintiff or class member in any class or representative action.

If a court or arbitrator decides that any part of this agreement to
arbitrate cannot be enforced as to a particular claim or relief or
remedy, then that claim or remedy (and only that claim or remedy)
must be brought in court and any other claims must be arbitrated.

If you prefer, you may instead take an individual dispute to small
claims court.

You may opt out of arbitration within 30 days after signing this
Agreement by sending a letter to [Tesla's designated address] . . .
.

According to the judge:

"The Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. Section 1 et seq.,
sets forth a policy favoring arbitration agreements and establishes
that a written arbitration agreement is 'valid, irrevocable, and
enforceable.'"

As for the one plaintiff who opted out when he purchased his
vehicle, the judge dismissed his lawsuit claims because they are
barred by the statutes of limitations.

However, the judge will allow the plaintiff to amend his claims if
he chooses.

The Tesla ADAS lawsuit was filed by plaintiffs Briggs A. Matsko,
Thomas J. Losavio, Brenda T. Broussard, Dominick Battiato and
Christopher Mallow.

The Tesla ADAS lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California: In Re: Tesla Advanced Driver
Assistance Systems Litigation.

The plaintiffs are represented by Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP,
Bottini & Bottini, Inc., and Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt &
Penfield LLP. [GN]

THINX INC: Gamino Sues Over Mislabeled Period Underwear
-------------------------------------------------------
TESHA GAMINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THINX, INC., Defendant, Case No. e
5:23-cv-02067 (C. D. Cal., Oct. 10, 2023) alleges that the
Defendant designs, markets, and sells a mislabeled period
underwear.

According to the complaint, the Defendant represented that its
period underwear is "period proof." It "prevents leaks," can "last
all day," and can "replace the need for disposable products such as
pads, tampons, liners, and cups." But the products do not work as
advertised. They don't last all day, prevent leaks, or replace the
need for disposable products. They do not absorb the specific
amounts of fluid claimed. Instead, the products leak, fail to hold
the claimed amounts of fluid, and do not replace the need for
disposable products like tampons or pads. Had the Defendant been
truthful, the Plaintiff and other consumers would not have
purchased the products, or would have paid less for them, says the
suit.

THINX Inc. manufactures women's apparel products. The Company
offers panty, bra, and period-proof underwear. THINX serves clients
worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Grace Bennett, Esq.
         Richard Lyon, Esq.
         DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
         201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
         Santa Monica, CA 90401
         Telephone: (310) 656-7066
         Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
         Email: grace@dovel.com
                rick@dovel.com

THOMPSON SPORTING: Zelvin Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Thompson Sporting
Goods, Inc. The case is styled as Lynn Zelvin, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Thompson Sporting Goods, Inc.,
Case No. 1:23-cv-08770 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 5, 2023).

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

Thompson Sporting Goods, Inc. --
https://www.thompsonsportinggoods.com/ -- offers athletic
equipment, uniforms, and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TUSCULUM UNIVERSITY: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tusculum University.
The case is styled as Joseph Ortiz, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Tusculum University, Case No.
1:23-cv-01054 (W.D.N.Y., Oct. 4, 2023).

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

Tusculum -- https://site.tusculum.edu/ -- offers online and
on-campus associate, undergraduate and graduate programs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UMASS MEMORIAL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Brooks Due March 30, 2024
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brooks, et al., v. UMass
Memorial Medical Center, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-40011 (D. Mass.,
Filed Feb. 2, 2023), the Hon. Judge Margaret R. Guzman entered an
amended scheduling order:

  -- Status Conference reset for:                June 28, 2024

  -- Phase 1 Fact Discovery to be                Feb. 29, 2024
     completed by:

  -- Motions for class certification             March 30, 2024
     due by:

              Oppositions due:                   April 30, 2024

              Replies due by:                    May 15, 2024

The nature of suit states Civil Rights – Employment.

UMass Memorial provides health care services. The Company offers
primary care, hospice, cancer care, radiology and imaging, and
surgery.[CC]

UNITED STATES: Driskill Appeals Dismissal of Rudometkin Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Alexander L. Driskill filed an appeal from the District
Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 17, 2023 entered
in the lawsuit styled DAVID J. RUDOMETKIN et al., Plaintiffs v.
LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-02220-TSC, in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

According to the complaint, four prisoners at the U.S. Disciplinary
Barracks (USDB) in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, sued the U.S.
Secretary of Defense pro se for relief under the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA) on August 17, 2023. The Plaintiffs initially
challenged DOD's alleged waiver policy on COVID-19 vaccinations.
They later notified the court that their original claim was moot
and were twice granted leave to file an amended complaint. In their
second amended complaint, Plaintiffs allege generally that "at
various times during their incarceration at USDB from 2018-2021,"
they "were forced to accept influenza and other vaccines under the
threat of violence" and that they "had adverse reactions to
immunizations" and "various allergies." The Plaintiffs assert
claims under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment; the
APA; and the Declaratory Judgment Act.

Plaintiff Alexander Driskill requested an exemption from the
COVID-19 vaccine only.

On September 9, 2022, the Defendant has moved to dismiss the case
under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

On August 17, 2023, Judge Tanya S. Chutkan entered an Order
granting Defendant's motion to dismiss the case. The Plaintiffs do
not dispute that pursuant to Army regulations (1) their respective
request for a religious exemption from one or more vaccinations is
pending; (2) they are not required to be vaccinated until the
request is decided; and (3) they have the right to appeal the
denial of such request to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Manpower and Reserve Affairs. Therefore, Plaintiffs have not
satisfied the redressable injury requirements of standing. And as
pro se litigants, Plaintiffs can neither prosecute the claims of
other military prisoners nor serve as a class representative, ruled
Judge Chutkan.

The appellate case is captioned as Alexander L. Driskill v. Lloyd
Austin, III, Case No. 23-5218, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on September
29, 2023.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Alexander L. Driskill, appears pro se.

Plaintiffs-Appellees David J. Rudometkin, Corry P. Brooks, and
Robert L. Barnett, III, and others similarly situated, appear pro
se.

Defendant-Appellee Lloyd J. Austin, III, in his capacity as the
Secretary of Defense, is represented by:

          DOJ Appellate Counsel
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 514-2000

UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert. Surreply
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELA VALDEZ, RICKY
ABEYTA, MARK FRANKLIN, and MICHAEL CHILDS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, and KEATE WRIGHT and ERIC
SHORT, individually, v. UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS OF VIRGINIA, LLC, a
Virginia Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:23-cv-01015-PAB-KAS
(D. Colo.), the Defendant file a motion for leave to file surreply
in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

In their Reply, the Plaintiffs aver that Universal prevented
proposed class counsel from designating a new class representative
in Faine, apparently by conducting a mediation without class
counsel that resulted in dismissal of the case before a substitute
representative could be found.

Universal Logistics is an active carrier in Richmond, Virginia.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 9, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PUi6Td at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David H. Miller, Esq.
          Victoria Guzman, Esq.
          THE WILHITE LAW FIRM
          1600 Ogden Street
          Denver, CO 80218
          Telephone: (303) 551-7667
          E-mail: dhmiller@wilhitelawfirm.com
                  vguzman@wilhitelawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          James T. Spolyar, Esq.
          SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
          10 West Market Street, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 637-1777
          Facsimile: (317) 687-2414
          E-mail: jspoloyar@scopelitis.com

                - and -

          Sterling J. LeBoeuf, Esq.
          DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS LLP
          1550 17th Street, Suite 500
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 892-9400
          Facsimile: (303) 893-1379
          E-mail: sterling.leboeuf@dgslaw.com

UNIVERSAL RECOVERY: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 20
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GLORIA LOA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNIVERSAL
RECOVERY CORPORATION, Case No. 1:23-cv-00153-ADA-SKO (E.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Sheila K. Oberto entered a scheduling Order as
follows:

   1. Class certification discovery shall         Nov. 17, 2023
      be completed by no later than:

   2. The motion for class certification          Dec.  20, 2023
      shall be filed by no later than:

   3. Any opposition to the motion for            Jan. 3, 2024
      class certification shall be filed
      by no later than:

   4. Any reply brief in support of the           Jan. 12, 2024
      motion for class certification shall
      be filed by no later than:

   5. The motion for class certification          Jan.  24, 2024
      shall be heard on:

Universal is a Financial Services, Debt Collection, and Business
Services company.

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

VASSAR COLLEGE: Fails to Refund Tuition Fees, Ben-Porath Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
NAOMI BEN-PORATH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VASSAR COLLEGE, Defendant, Case
No. 7:23-cv-08713 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 4, 2023) is an action against the
Defendant for failure to provide pro-rated refund of tuition or
fees to the Plaintiff and the Class.

According to the complaint, on March 2020, in response to the
outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the virus that causes the
COVID-19 disease (the "COVID-19 pandemic"), Vassar, like many other
colleges, transitioned to remote online-only instruction, canceled
athletic and other on-campus recreational events, canceled student
activity events, and ordered students to refrain from going on
campus.

As a result, all on-campus education, services, and amenities were
no longer available to Vassar students. Despite the harsh reality
that students could no longer enjoy the traditional and expected
benefit of the bargain for which they pre-paid, Vassar refused to
provide a pro-rated refund of tuition or fees tied to on-campus
education, services, and amenities that were not available to
students for a significant part of the Spring 2020 semester, says
the suit.

VASSAR COLLEGE provides education services. The Company offers
degrees programs in biology, chemistry, arts, computer science,
economics, history, mathematics, music, philosophy, physics, and
sociology. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          Anthony M. Alesandro, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550
          Email: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
                 jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com
                 bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com
                 aalesandro@leedsbrownlaw.com

VLAD FINE CRAFT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Calva Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
WALDIMIR CALVA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VLAD FINE CRAFT INC.; and VLAD NIKABADZE,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-07414 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 4, 2023) is an
action against the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and the
class minimum wages, and overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff Calva was employed by the Defendants as a carpenter.

VLAD FINE CRAFT INC. is a Brooklyn based design/build studio
specializing in custom fabrication of architectural millwork,
furniture and fine carpentry. [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
          Tel: (954) 745-0588
          Email: klein@nklegal.com
                 amy@nklegal.com
                 melanie@nklegal.com

VXI GLOBAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bennett Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
TRACIE BENNETT, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VXI GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 23STCV24278 (Cal., Sup., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 5, 2023) is an
action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages,
overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods,
provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business
expenses.

Plaintiff Bennett was employed by the Defendant as a staff.

VXI GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC. provides information technology
services. The Company offers omnichannel and multilingual support,
software development, CX innovation, quality assurance, and
infrastructure outsourcing solutions. VXI Global Solutions serves
clients worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          N. Nick Ebrahimian, Esq.
          Alan A. Wilcox, Esq.
          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
          Melanie S. Rodriguez, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
          Email: nebrahimian@lelawfirm.com
                 awilcox@lelawfirm.com
                 jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                 vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
                 mrodriguez@lelawfirm.com

WALMART INC: Completion of Settlement Conference Due Feb. 2, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLAUDIA CARR and LASHAWNA
WICKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated; v. WALMART, INC., a corporation, WALMART ASSOCIATES,
INC., a
corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive; Case No.
5:21-cv-01429-AB-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge André Birotte Jr.
entered an order granting stipulation to continue pretrial and
trial dates:

            Event                            Vacated Date

  Jury Trial                                 April 23, 2024

  Final Pretrial Conference                  March 29 2024

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

  Expert Disclosure (Initial)                Oct. 27, 2023

  Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal)               Dec. 21, 2023

  Expert Discovery Cut-Off                   Jan. 19, 2024

  Last Date to Hear Motions                  Jan. 19, 2024

  Deadline to Complete Settlement            Feb 2, 2024
  Conference

  Trial Filings (first round)                Mar. 8, 2024

  Trial Filings (second round)               Mar. 15, 2024

Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores in the United States.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 11, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RYCll1 at no extra charge.[CC]


WEEM LLC: Faces Galvan Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE GALVAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WEEM LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-14391
(N.D. Ill., Oct. 2, 2023) seeks injunctive relief to halt
Defendant's violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff Galvan alleges that the Defendant's illegal conduct of
sending telemarketing text messages to her cellular telephone
number, which was registered to the national do-not-call registry
since January 28, 2018, has resulted in the invasion of privacy,
harassment, aggravation, and disruption of her daily life.
Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of herself and
members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable
remedies.

WEEM LLC is an online retailer of wellness gummies and
vitamins.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

WESTMORELAND SANITARY: Request to File Daubert Bids Nixed
---------------------------------------------------------
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 an
order denying the Defendant's motion to file Daubert motions with
explanation.

-- To the extent that Plaintiff's motion for class certification,
or
    Defendant's response in opposition, relies on the opinions or
    reports of expert(s), the opposing party may, for good legal
    cause, move to strike the expert content. Motions to strike may
be
    filed separately from, but contemporaneously with, the parties'

    papers regarding class certification.

-- The Court believes that the current briefing schedule provides

    sufficient time. Should Defendant offer its own expert content
in
    opposition to certification. Plaintiff's reply to deadline
    automatically is extended by one week (from Nov. 22, 2023 until

    Nov. 29, 2023), to allow time for a motion to strike. The
    Defendant will have two weeks (until Nov. 13, 2023) to respond
in
    opposition.

The nature of suit real property -- Torts to Land.

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

WEYERHAEUSER NR: Court Enters Class Certification Order in Sanchez
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMUEL SANCHEZ, v.
WEYERHAEUSER NR COMPANY, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-02574-FMO-PD
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order:

  -- 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.

  -- 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.

Weyerhaeuser engages in forest regeneration projects, forest
harvesting, log procurement, and marketing of harvested products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 5, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Q64x4i at no extra charge.[CC]


WICHITA, KS: Progeny Wins Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PROGENY, a program of
Destination Innovations, Inc., CHRISTOPHER COOPER, ELBERT COSTELLO,
MARTEL COSTELLO, and JEREMY LEVY, JR., on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, v. CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS, Case No.
6:21-cv-01100-EFM (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Eric F. Melgren entered
an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The Court further ordered that Jordan Carmichael Baehr, Mitchell F.
Engel, Paul Monroe Vogel, Thomas J. Sullivan, Karen Ellen Leve,
Kunyu L. Ching, Sharon Brett, and Teresa A. Woody are appointed as
class counsel in this case.

Organizational Plaintiff Progeny, along with individual Plaintiffs
Christopher Cooper, Elbert Costello, Martel Costello and Jeremy
Levy, Jr., bring this putative class action on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated.

Broadly speaking, they seek relief from Wichita's "Gang List,"
along with the statutes and local policies that enable it. The Gang
List is purportedly a list of persons, created and maintained by
the Wichita Police Department (WPD), whom WPD personnel have
determined meet the definition of a "criminal street gang member"
under the criteria set out in K.S.A. section 21-6313(b).

Wichita is the most populous city in the U.S. state of Kansas and
the county seat of Sedgwick County.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PXeUpX at no extra charge.[CC]

WOODMAN'S FOOD: Court OK's Class Certification Bid in Wyngaard
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSE WYNGAARD, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. WOODMAN'S FOOD
MARKET, INC., Case No. 19-cv-493-pp (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge
Pamela Pepper entered an order:

  -- Approving stipulation to certify class and collective
     action and to designate class representatives and class
Counsel;

  -- Granting joint motion for collective certification pursuant to
29
     u.s.c. section 216(b) (dkt. No. 292); and

  -- Granting joint motion for class certification pursuant to
     Rule 23 of the federal rules of civil procedure.

On October 4, 2023, the parties filed a "Stipulation to Certify a
Class and Collective Action and to Designate Class Representatives
and Class Counsel;" a "Joint Motion for Collective Certification
Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b);" and a "Joint Motion for
Class Certification Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure."

The court certifies the following subclasses which meet the
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 for the purpose of maintaining
this consolidated action as a class action:

   A. The Wisconsin subclasses are defined as follows:

      1. WWPCL Meal Period Subclass:

         "All hourly-paid, non-exempt store employees employed by
         defendant Woodman’s Food Market, Inc., at any of its
         Wisconsin store locations from April 5, 2017 until
judgment
         who received a meal period lasting less than 30
consecutive
         duty free minutes in duration.

      2. WWPCL Timeshaving Subclass:

         "All hourly-paid, non-exempt store employees employed by
         defendant Woodman's Food Market, Inc., at any of its store

         locations from April 5, 2017, until judgment who utilized

         defendant's electronic timekeeping system to record their

         hours worked, and whose "raw" or "actual" punch time
exceeds
         their "rounded" or "scheduled" punch time in any workweek

         during the above-stated period to the extent that they

         are negatively impacted over the course of the
above-stated
         period.

      3. WWPCL Non-Discretionary Compensation Subclass:

         "All hourly-paid, non-exempt store employees employed by
         defendant Woodman’s Food Market, Inc., at any of its
store
         locations from April 5, 2017 until judgment who have
earned a
         non-discretionary Attendance Bonus, Employee Appreciation

         Holiday Bonus, or New Hire Bonus that was not based on a
         percentage of wages earned during a workweek in which they

         worked in excess of 40 hours."

      4. Each Wisconsin subclass consists of as many as 13,701
         store employees which makes joinder impracticable.

   B. The Illinois subclasses are defined as follows:

      1. IWPCA Timeshaving Subclass:

         "All hourly-paid, non-exempt store employees employed by
         defendant Woodman’s Food Market, Inc., at any of its
Illinois
         store locations from January 22, 2018 until judgment, who

         utilized the defendant's electronic timekeeping system to

         record their hours worked, and whose "raw" or "actual"
punch
         time exceeds their "rounded" or "scheduled" punch time in
any
         workweek in which they worked less than 40 hours during
the
         above-stated period to the extent that they are negatively

         impacted over the course of the above-stated period."

      2. IMWL Timeshaving Subclass:

         "All hourly-paid, non-exempt store employees employed by
         defendant Woodman’s Food Market, Inc., at any of its
Illinois
         Store locations from January 22, 2018, until judgment, who

         utilized the defendant’s electronic timekeeping system
to
         record their hours worked, and whose "raw" or "actual"
punch
         time exceeds their "rounded" or "scheduled" punch time in
any
         workweek in which they worked in excess of 40 hours during

         the above-stated period to the extent that they are
         negatively impacted over the course of the above-stated
         period."

      3. IMWL Non-Discretionary Compensation Subclass:

         "All hourly-paid, non-exempt store employees employed by
         defendant Woodman’s Food Market, Inc., at any of its
Illinois
         store locations from January 22, 2018 until judgment who
have
         earned a nondiscretionary Attendance Bonus, Employee
         Appreciation Holiday Bonus, or New Hire Bonus that was not

         based on a percentage of wages earned during a workweek in

         which they worked in excess of 40 hours."

      4. Each Illinois subclass consists of as many as 5,431 store

         employees which makes joinder impracticable.

Woodman's owns and operates supermarkets.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Q7IbPW at no extra charge.[CC]

YVES SAINT: Class Cert Deadline Modified to August 18, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TITANIA SABZEROU, an
individual on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
aggrieved employees, v. YVES SAINT LAURENT AMERICA, INC., a New
York corporation, JESSICA ALVAREZ, an individual; and DOES 1
through 30, inclusive, Case No. 8:23-cv-01355-CJC-JDE (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney entered an order granting
stipulation to modify scheduling order:

-- Class certification deadline:               Aug. 18, 2024

-- Discovery cut off:                          Dec. 16, 2024

-- Mediation completion:                       May 30, 2024

-- Motion cut off:                             Jan. 25, 2025

-- Pretrial conference:                        March 17, 2025

-- Jury Trial:                                 March 25, 2025

Yves offers clothing, shirts, skirts, pants, perfumes, make up and
skin care products, bags, belts, jewelry, glasses, and accessories
for men and women.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48SSVsy at no extra charge.[CC]




ZEROCATER INC: Busby Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zerocater, Inc. The
case is styled as Jimmy Busby, on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. Zerocater, Inc., Does 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. CGC23609527 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., Oct. 5, 2023).

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

ZeroCater -- http://zerocater.com/-- is a food service company
headquartered in San Francisco, California, specializing in
providing companies with catered meals from local restaurants,
caterers, and food trucks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          751 N Fair Oaks Ave, Ste. 101
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Phone: (818) 230-7502
          Fax: (818) 230-7259
          Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.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 ***