---

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

              Monday, November 20, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 232

                            Headlines

ABBOTT CARDIOVASCULAR: Class Cert Hearing Set for June 28, 2024
ABBVIE INC: Class Cert. Denial Based on Ascertainability Discussed
ACCRETIVE CAPITAL: Loses Bid to Junk Nichols Suit
ADOBE INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Dec. 19
AETNA MEDICAID: Time to File Responses in Palmer Extended

AFFIRM HOLDINGS: Securities Suit in California Court Dismissed
ALCO HANDLING: Pinto Sues Over Unpaid OT, Wrongful Termination
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces BIPA Class Action Over Alexa Devices
AMPLIFY ENERGY: Continues to Defend OPO 90 Class Suit
ARCHER AVIATION: Securities Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed

ASPEN SKIING: Faces Class Action Over On-Mountain Pay Policies
B&G FOODS: Minondo Sues Over Pasta Sauce Products' False Ads
BARCLAYS PLC: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Decline in Share Price
BARCLAYS PLC: Merritt Sues Over Federal Securities Laws' Violations
BBI LOGISTICS: Fails to Overtime Wages, Larson Suit Says

BLUE CROSS: Montgomery Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info
BRAINSTORM CELL: Faces Class Action Over NurOwn ALS Drug
BROTHERS II LANDSCAPES: Lopez Sues Over Labor Law Breaches
CEP AMERICA: Nagy and Romero Sue Over ERISA Violations
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Suit Over Use of Embedded Tracking Tools

COURSERA INC: Ghazizadeh Sues Over Private Info Disclosure
DAIRYLAND USA: Fact Discovery in Orbetta Suit Due March 1, 2024
DEJAVU OF STATEN: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Garcia Says
FACTORY MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Worker Fingerprint Scans
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Dakers Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection

FLORIDA DISTRIBUTING: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Murray Claims
FRUITION CHOCOLATE: Knowles Sues Over Unequal Access to Website
FUTURE MOTION INC: Nemeth Sues Over OneWheel's Nosedive Defect
GARLAND: Court Stays Liu Case Pending Class Cert Bid in Enriquez
GATOS SILVER INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in CO

GEM GRADE: Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set Feb. 6, 2024
GENERAL MOTORS: Bid for Post-Trial Adjudication Denied in Siqueiros
GRIECO HYUNDAI: Class Action Waiver Deemed Unenforceable
HAIN CELESTIAL: Seeks to File Portion of Exhibits Under Seal
HANOVER VENTURES: Suit Seeks More Time to Address Class Cert Issues

HOLLEY INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due January 5
HOTCHKISS SCHOOL: Sued Over Gross Negligence in Child Protection
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Rose Says
INTERNATIONAL UNION: McLachlan 401 (k) Plan Suit Seeks Class Status
J A ALEXANDER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Laborers, Montero Says

JABCO CONTRACTING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, McIntosh Suit Says
JEWELRY ARTISANS: Seeks More Time for Class Cert. Response
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Data Breach Class Action in California
LANGUAGE LINE: Court Approves Class Action Notice in Rouse Suit
LINCOLN NATIONAL: COI Class Suit Settlement Gets Final Nod

LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend Angus Class Suit
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend Glover Class Suit
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend Vida Longevity Class Suit
MICHIGAN: Appeals Ruling in Braziel Civil Rights Suit to 6th Cir.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Gibson et al. Sue Over Alleged Conspiracy

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Must Face Student-Athletes' Class Action
NATIONAL GENERAL: Suit Seeks to Strike Braithwaite's Declaration
NIKOLA CORP: Continues to Defend Borteanu Securities Class Suit
NOVO NORDISK: Faces Class Suit in Canada Over Diabetes Drug
OKTA INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit Over SEC Filing

OKTA INC: Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Securities Purchasers
OREGON: Evangelist Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
OUTLOOK THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan 2
PASTOSA RAVIOLI: Martinez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
PIONEER MERGER: Funicular Funds Suit Seeks to Certify Class

PRESTIGE MAINTENANCE: Rosales et al. Sue Over Labor Law Breaches
QIWI PLC: Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action
ROADMASTER DRIVERS: Third Amended Sched Order Entered in Meehan
ROBLOX CORP: Faces Suit Over Effect of Game Platform on Young Users
ROCKWELL AUTOMATION: Prelim Approval of Class Settlement Sought

SACRAMENTO LGBT: Former Employee Sues Over Labor Violations
SANTA MONICA, CA: Suit Seeks More Time for Class Cert Bid Filing
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Gallagher Appeals Class Cert. Ruling
SCALE FACILITATION: Widmer Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
SEAWORLD PARKS: Coppel 401(K) Plan Suit Seeks to Certify Class

SHAMROCK FOODS: Valdez Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement
SHIMANO NORTH: Hawkins Suit Alleges Defective Cranksets
SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Investors Allege False Business Statements
SPIN MASTER: Gamino Sues Over Orbeez Water Beads' Undisclosed Risks
ST. VINCENT: Arkansas Sup. Court Dismisses Patients Class Suit

STARCO BRANDS: Morgan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
STATE FARM: Faces Nater Suit Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
T-MOBILE US: Must Face Customers' Lawsuit Over Price Increases
TD AMERITRADE: Grande Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
TD AMERITRADE: Jeanfort Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts

TMG HEALTH INC: Izbicki Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
TOYOTA NEW ZEALAND: Faces Class Action Over Defective Utes
TROPICALE FOODS: Figueredo Sues Over Paleta's Deceptive Labeling
ULTIMATE FIGHTING: Trial Dates for MMA Fighters' Class Actions Set
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Seeks Decertification of Class in Jones Suit

UNITED STATES: Seeks to Stay Class Cert. Briefing in Black Farmers
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA: Harrington Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: Rohl Files Suit in D. Minnesota
UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER: Benton-Hill Suit Transferred to D. Mass.
USCF INVESTMENTS: Faces Consolidated Suit Over SEC Disclosures

VMWARE INC: Faces Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filing in CA Court
VOLTECH ELECTRIC: Court Withdraws Bid to Certify Class in Da Silva
WANABANA LLC: Goolsby and Goolsby Sue Over Heavy Metals Content
WPD MANAGEMENT: Appellate Court Affirms Class Action Dismissal
[*] FBC Attorneys Discuss Israeli Class Action Law 5766-2006

[*] Gibson & Dunn Attorneys Discuss German Class Action Regime
[*] November 2023 Class Action Settlements Discussed
[*] Quincy, Ill. to Join Forever Chemicals Class Action Suit

                            *********

ABBOTT CARDIOVASCULAR: Class Cert Hearing Set for June 28, 2024
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Theo Overstreet et al v.
Abbott Cardiovascular Sys Inc. et al., Case No.
5:23-cv-01321-SSS-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sunshine S. Sykes
entered an order setting the deadlines below for Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification:

                 Event                       Deadline

  Last Date to Hear Motion to               Dec. 8, 2023
  Amend Pleadings or Add Parties

  Deadline for Plaintiff to File            Mar. 8, 2024
  Motion for Class Certification
  and Any Class Certification
  Expert Report

  Deadline for Defendant to File            May 3, 2024
  Opposition to Class Certification
  and Any Class Certification
  Expert Report

  Deadline for Plaintiff to File            May 31, 2024
  Reply in Support of Motion for
  Class Certification and Any Class
  Certification Rebuttal
  Expert Report

  Class Certification Hearing              June 28, 2024

Abbott develops life-changing medical devices for cardiovascular
conditions.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 1, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QnyLyD at no extra charge.[CC]

ABBVIE INC: Class Cert. Denial Based on Ascertainability Discussed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Noureen Akber, Jeffrey Klenk and Michael McDonald of Berkeley
Research Group LLC, in an article for Global Competition Review,
disclosed that for a matter to proceed as a class action in the
United States, it first must be certified per the criteria listed
in Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Namely, a class
must satisfy all criteria of Rule 23(a) and any one of the criteria
listed in Rule 23(b). Although these criteria are questions of law
ultimately answered by the trier of fact, expert economic analysis
often is required to determine whether the proposed class in fact
satisfies those criteria.

Requirements for class certification
The criteria listed in Rule 23(a) are summarised as:

   -- numerosity;
   -- commonality;
   -- typicality; and
   -- adequacy.[1]

In addition, many circuits have an implied requirement of
ascertainability addressing whether a proposed class is
identifiable through objective criteria. To certify a class under
Rule 23(b)(3) (cases where damages are involved), the court must
find that 'questions of law or fact common to class members
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members,
and that a class action is superior to other available methods for
fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy'.[2] Related to
the issue of predominance is the issue of whether a proposed class
contains entities uninjured from the challenged conduct and whether
the extent of those uninjured entities provides grounds for denying
class certification.

Several recently decided cases have addressed issues specifically
related to ascertainability, numerosity and predominance, along
with the issue of uninjured class members. In addition, one recent
decision recommended decertifying a class on the basis of
plaintiffs' expert's testimony being excluded at the merits stage
of a case.

Ascertainability
In Niaspan, the district court denied class certification on the
basis that plaintiffs 'had not presented an administratively
feasible mechanism to distinguish between class members' and
entities specifically excluded from the proposed class.[3] In that
matter, the defendant, Abbvie, was alleged to have inflated the
prices charged for Niaspan based on its payment to a 'potential
manufacturer of a generic version of the drug to delay the
generic's launch'.[4] Plaintiffs initially proposed a class
excluding six types of entities, one of which was composed of fully
insured health plans described as 'plans that purchased insurance
from another third party payor covering 100% of the Plan's
reimbursement obligations to its members'.[5]

To exclude fully insured plans, plaintiffs relied on expert
testimony claiming that such plans could be identified through data
maintained in the normal course of business.[6] In response to
plaintiffs' proposed methodology, Abbvie advanced its own expert
evidence demonstrating examples of inconsistencies between what
plaintiffs' expert claimed the data showed and what other record
evidence showed to be reality. Abbvie's expert also pointed to the
'complex contractual relationships that can exist among the parties
involved' in relevant transactions.[7] In particular, Abbvie's
expert observed that since 'both self-insured and fully insured
health plans may use an intermediary', it could be 'difficult to
recognize what role the intermediary is playing for a given
transaction'.[8]

After the district court denied class certification and plaintiffs
appealed, the Third Circuit held that even though plaintiffs
claimed that other circuits had putatively 'rejected the
ascertainability requirement as an extratextual hurdle to class
certification', it did not have the 'authority to overrule our
existing precedent', nor would it be inclined to do so here.[9] In
reaching its conclusion, the Third Circuit noted that 'absent some
mechanism to establish whether the standards of Rule 23 are met,
courts could not meaningfully apply the Rule'.[10] The Third
Circuit then observed that determining which entities might fit the
fully insured exclusion would require 'examin[ing] the underlying
contractual relationships of each transaction' and the 'proper
class member could not be identified without analyzing the
contractual relationships behind each transaction'.[11]

In Mr Dee's, the district court likewise denied class certification
on the basis of ascertainability. In that case, plaintiffs alleged
that defendants 'entered into a series of agreements' for the
processing of coupons, the putative result of which was higher
processing fees.[12] After the district court 'reached tentative
conclusions regarding the percentage of putative class members that
suffered no demonstrable antitrust impact or damages', plaintiffs
amended their proposed class definition to be limited to just
entities paying supposedly higher prices in 'more than 8 different
calendar months' and for 'at least 2.2 million coupons'.[13]
Defendants countered that those 'criteria' were 'arbitrary'.[14]

In denying class certification, the district court found
'[p]ersuasive' guidance from the Manual for Complex Litigation
stating that if a proposed class definition 'fails to include a
substantial number of persons with claims similar to those of the
class members, the definition of the class may be
questionable'.[15] Applied to the specific facts of Mr Dee's, the
district court concluded that it was plaintiffs' model, and not the
alleged conspiracy, that 'determine[d]' which entities would be
included in the proposed class. As a result, the contours of the
proposed class would not be 'defined by the activities of the
defendants', meaning there was 'no connection' between the
challenged conduct and plaintiffs' proposed class. The district
court thus agreed with defendants that plaintiffs' counsel
'arbitrarily' drew 'lines' to determine 'who would be included in
their class'.[16]

Numerosity
Numerosity requires that the proposed class be so large that
joinder of all members would be impracticable.[17] In Lamictal, the
court declined to certify a subclass composed of eight proposed
class members on the basis that a joinder of them would not be
impracticable. This decision was made through an analysis of the
six factors frequently considered by courts to determine whether
joinder is impracticable.

In a 2016 decision in Modafinil, the Third Circuit held that a list
of six non-exhaustive factors should be considered to determine
whether numerosity is satisfied:

   -- judicial economy;
   -- class members' motivation to litigate as joined plaintiffs;
   -- financial resources of class members;
   -- geographic dispersion of class members;
   -- ability to identify future claimants; and
   -- whether the claims are for injunctive relief or damages.[18]

As the court in Lamictal noted, 'both judicial economy and the
ability to litigate as joined parties are of primary importance
because they advance the core purposes of a class action.'[19] With
this guidance in hand, the court decided that judicial economy
concerns weighed in favour of joinder since defendants noted that
five of the named plaintiffs had already been pursuing joint
litigation for a decade, while plaintiffs could not make a
persuasive argument of why a class action would be more efficient.

The court also rejected plaintiffs' claims asserting that class
members lacked the incentive and ability to issue individual suits
since the putative costs supposedly would be too high. The court
noted that numerosity only considers the alternative costs of
joinder, which would be substantially less expensive than
individual lawsuits. The court also noted that the matter involved
a 'relatively small group of large and sophisticated corporate
plaintiffs, most of whom have claims worth over $1 million',
thereby weighing against a class certification.[20]

In addition, neither plaintiffs nor defendants disputed the
geographic dispersion of the potential class members, and both
sides remained silent on the ability to identify future members.
Lastly there was no argument that the plaintiffs sought damages
instead of injunctive relief.

Predominance and uninjured class members
In Black, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision
to certify the class.[21] In upholding the district court's ruling,
the appellate court ruled that the presence of uninjured class
members did not defeat a finding of predominance.[22] Plaintiffs
had alleged the defendant's (Anadarko) practice of leasing its
mineral interests to its affiliated operating company, including
its 30 per cent royalty rate, had the intent and effect of reducing
the value of plaintiffs' mineral interests.[23]

The district court relied on 'plaintiffs' expert evidence as
providing common proof that Anadarko's 30% intracompany leasing
program created a reduction in the value of mineral interests in
the class area'.[24] The defendant contested this conclusion,
arguing that individualised inquiries would be required to prove
whether a causal connection existed between its alleged antitrust
violation and plaintiffs' alleged injury.[25] In affirming the
district court's decision, the appellate court found that the
individualised factors raised by the defendant's expert were either
a 'class-wide defense or undermine[d] the persuasiveness of
Plaintiffs' evidence' and that either contention is 'not for
resolution at class certification' but instead should be resolved
at 'summary judgment or trial'.[26] The appellate court also found
that the district court was correct in concluding that plaintiffs
are not required to prove antitrust impact as to every class member
at the class certification stage and that the presence of class
members who experienced varying degrees of injury, including some
who were altogether uninjured, does not bar class
certification.[27]

In Mr Dee's, the district court did not certify one of the three
classes, the All Payer Manufacturer Class, because common issues
did not predominate.[28] Specifically, the district court found
'that the All Payer Manufacturer Class cannot satisfy the
predominance requirement because Plaintiffs' expert's regressions
did not find impact to almost one-third of the class and Plaintiffs
fail to proffer additional evidence that all manufacturers in the
class suffered antitrust impact and damages'.[29]

Based on the decision in Rail Freight, the district court held that
'plaintiffs must also show that they can prove, through common
evidence, that all class members were in fact injured by the
alleged conspiracy'.[30] The court noted that there are two
exceptions to the requirement of a showing that class members were
injured. The first exception is the de minimis exception, where a
de minimis number of class members are injured. After review, the
district court found that '5% to 6%' of uninjured class members
'constitutes the outer limits of a de minimis number'.[31] The
second exception is a '"winnowing mechanism" to filter out
uninjured class members'.[32]

Plaintiffs did not claim that there was either a de minimis number
of uninjured class members or a winnowing mechanism.[33] Instead,
plaintiffs claimed that they could show all class members were
injured by way of five arguments that the court rejected.

In one argument, plaintiffs argued: 'one way of demonstrating
impact and damages to class members would be to take the average
overcharge multiplied by volume, which would demonstrate impact to
all purchasers.'[34] The district rejected this argument on the
grounds it mispresented the testimony of plaintiffs' expert, who in
fact testified that 'averages should not be used to calculate
impact'.[35] Plaintiffs were thus found to 'lack expert testimony'
to establish all class members were injured.[36]

With respect to the remaining four arguments, the court concluded
that the evidence suggested the alleged conduct harmed the market
but was insufficient to 'prove, through common evidence, that all
class members were in fact injured'.[37] Plaintiffs thus failed to
'explain how these general arguments about the market show that
each manufacturer was impacted'.[38] The district court concluded
that although plaintiffs had provided evidence of general market
harm, to infer from general market harm that all proposed class
members 'were injured requires a speculative leap this court is not
permitted to make'.[39]

In Van, the Ninth Circuit of Appeals found the district court
'erred in its assessment of whether the individualized issues
generated by the retailer discounts . . . defeat the predominance
of class issues'.[40] As a result, the appellate court vacated the
district court's order certifying the class and remanded the case
for the district court to re-evaluate predominance.[41]

The defendant, LuLaRoe, had 'allegedly charged sales tax' based on
the 'location of the retailer, rather than the location of the
purchaser, which resulted in some online purchasers being charged,
and having paid, sales tax when none was owed'.[42] LuLaRoe
eventually 'refunded all the improper sales tax it collected, but
it did not pay interest on the refunded amounts'.[43]

After the district court's initial decision certifying the class,
LuLaRoe appealed on the grounds that 'some purchasers received
discounts from retailers to offset the improperly assessed sales
tax and thus suffered no loss', which would raise individualised
issues.[44] Both parties and the district court agreed that class
members who received a discount equal to or greater than the
improper sales tax for purpose of offsetting the tax were not
injured.[45] LaLuRoe then presented evidence that 18 of the 13,680
discounts that were provided had offset the improper sales tax.
Despite that evidence, the district court certified the class,
holding that 'the number of proposed class members for whom it can
presently be determined received a discount to offset sales tax
being billed is de minimis'.[46]

However, the appellate court found that the district court erred in
its analysis because 'Rule 23 does not demand proof of who will win
or lose at trial'.[47] Furthermore, the district court found that
18 invoices 'was sufficient to prove that inquiry' into each
discount might be necessary. As a result,

[w]hen a defendant substantiates such an individualized issue in
this way, the district court must determine whether the plaintiff
has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the questions of
law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members -- that is, whether a
class-member-by-class-member assessment of the individualized issue
will be unnecessary or workable.[48]

Admissibility of expert economic testimony
In Google Play, defendants moved to exclude the testimony of
plaintiffs' expert economist on the grounds that he had not
reliably measured the 'pass-through' of allegedly inflated prices
to consumers using 'any' real-world evidence.[49] According to
defendants, the model advanced by plaintiffs was a 'bare bones
formula' that 'depart[ed]' from 'standard' economic analysis and
was contradicted by 'real-world data', among other putative
flaws.[50] The district court initially denied defendants' motion
to exclude after holding a 'concurrent expert proceeding',
sometimes referred to colloquially as an 'expert hot tub'.[51]

In initially denying defendants' motion to exclude, the district
court found that Google had 'not demonstrated that unreliability or
invalidity warrant[ed] exclusion' of plaintiffs' expert and that
Google's criticisms 'were directed far more to opposing
certification than to disqualifying' him.[52] Instead, Google's
criticisms related to whether plaintiffs could establish the
predominance and commonality criteria under Rule 23, which as the
district court noted 'is a wholly different question from
admissibility'.[53]

However, after initially accepting the admissibility of plaintiffs'
expert's opinions, the district court at the merits stage of the
case then subsequently excluded them.[54] In noting the differing
outcomes, the district court observed that at the certification
stage defendants' expert had declined to conclude that plaintiffs'
expert's opinions were 'junk science' and 'did not challenge the
fundamental soundness' of his approach.[55] But at the merits
stage, relying upon a different economic expert, defendants
'changed' their critiques. Although the district court noted that
'it had some misgivings' about defendants 'taking a second shot' at
plaintiffs' expert, 'the path to a fair result often has some
turns'.[56]

The particular issue raised by defendants' merits expert concerned
a statistical assumption known as the independence of irrelevant
alternatives. Applied to the specific facts of Google Play, the
district court expressed concern about how a jury would be able to
evaluate the 'substitutability' of the various apps available
through the Google Play Store and that the methodology advanced by
plaintiffs' expert did 'not provide usable guidance on what to do
with the myriad of differences and distinctions between apps'.[57]
Given this lack of guidance, the district court expressed concern
about a 'serious risk of the jury simply guessing about
proportionate substitution and ultimately the pass-through of fees
to consumers'.[58]

In explaining its reasoning to exclude plaintiffs' expert at the
merits stage, the district court noted the 'substantially more
developed' record than at the class stage and wrote that based on
that more developed record the pass-through model being advanced
was 'not within accepted economic theory and literature' and was
predicated on assumptions 'not supported by the evidence'.[59]
Ultimately, the district court concluded that the model would 'not
give the jury a sound basis on which to make a reasoned and
reasonable judgment about antitrust impact and damages'.[60]

Because plaintiffs' pass-through model 'was an essential element'
of their arguments in support of class certification, the district
court noted that the previously certified class should be
decertified.[61] However, since defendants had already appealed the
certification decision, the district court found that it lacked the
'authority to decertify the class' and recommended instead that the
parties meet and confer to discuss 'proposed next steps'.[62]

Notes
[1] Fed R Civ P 23(a).

[2] Fed R Civ P 23(b)(3).

[3] In Re Niaspan Antitrust Litigation, 67 F4th 119, 128 (3rd Cir
2023).

[4] id121.

[5] id at 125.

[6] id.

[7] id at 126.

[8] id.

[9] id at 132. The Third Circuit also noted that 'even in circuits
that have rejected an ascertainability requirement, some version of
an administrative feasibility test if applied, albeit under a
different name' (id at 133).

[10] id at 132.

[11] id at 138.

[12] Mr Dee's, Inc v Inmar, Inc, 2023 WL5436178, at * 1-2 (MDNC).

[13] id at 5-6.

[14] id at 6.

[15] id at 7.

[16] id at 8.

[17] In re Lamictal Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, 2023 WL
2525895, at *3-4 (DNJ).

[18] id at 4.

[19] id.

[20] idat 8.

[21] Black v Occidental Petroleum Corporation, 69 F4th 1161, 1169
(10th Cir 2023).

[22] id at 1180.

[23] idat 1168-169.

[24] id at 1181.

[25] id.

[26] id at 1189.

[27] id. The appellate court clarified: 'a class may still be
properly certified even if it "consists largely (or entirely, for
that matter) of members who are ultimately shown to have suffered
no harm."'

[28] Mr Dee's Inc v Inmar, Inc 2023 WL 5436178, at *1 (MDNC).

[29] id at 13.

[30] id.

[31] id at 14.

[32] id.

[33] id at 15.

[34] id.

[35] id at 17-19.

[36] id at 17-19.

[37] id at 19.

[38] id.

[39] id.

[40] Van v LLR, 61 F4th 1053, 1058 (9th Cir 2023).

[41] id.

[42] id.

[43] id.

[44] id.

[45] id at 1068.

[46] id.

[47] id at 1068-1069.

[48] id at 1069.

[49] See, generally, In Re Google Play Consumer Antitrust
Litigation, Public-Redacted Version Defendants' Notice of Motion
and Motion to Exclude Testimony of Dr Hal J Singer on Class
Certification; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support
Thereof, 2022 WL 3714870 (NDCal).

[50] id at 4.

[51] In Re Google Play Consumer Antitrust Litigation, Order Re
Consumer Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion and Defendants'
Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony, 2022 WL 17252587, at * 1, 3
(NDCal).

[52] id at 7.

[53] id.

[54] See, generally, In Re Google Play Consumer Antitrust
Litigation, Order Re Merits Opinions of Dr Hal J Singer, 2023 WL
5532128 (NDCal).

[55] id at 4.

[56] id.

[57] id at 6.

[58] id.

[59] id at 7.

[60] id.

[61] See Order Re Decertification and Class Notice, In Re Google
Play Consumer Antitrust Litigation, 2023 WL 5602143 (NDCal).

[62] id.[GN]

ACCRETIVE CAPITAL: Loses Bid to Junk Nichols Suit
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERRI LEE NICHOLS, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. ACCRETIVE
CAPITAL LLC, d/b/a BENZINGA, Case No. 4:23-cv-10473-FKB-APP (E.D.
Mich.), the Hon. Judge F. Kay Behm entered an order denying the
motion to dismiss.

Accordingly, the court finds that the proposed class definition
here is not an improper failsafe class and the motion to strike is
denied.

In its opening brief, Benzinga argues that the Complaint fails to
state a claim because Nichols did not plausibly allege the use of
an Automatic Telephone Dialer System. Nichols points out in the
response that she does not make any claim under this provision of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA).  

The court agrees that Nichols make no such claim in her Complaint.
Benzinga has not moved to dismiss the merits of the TCPA claim
asserted in the Complaint and, thus, the motion to dismiss based on
Rule 12(b)(6) is denied.

Nichols brings this claim on behalf of herself and the proposed
class:

   "All persons in the United States whose (1) telephone numbers
were
   on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 31 days, (2)
but
   who received more than one telemarketing call from or on behalf
of
   Defendant, (3) within a 12‐ month period, (4) at any time in
the
   Period that begins four years before the date of filing this
   Complaint to trial."

Nichols defines the proposed National Do Not Call Registry Class
as:

   "All persons in the United States whose (1) telephone numbers
were
   on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 31 days, (2)
but
   who received more than one telemarketing call from or on behalf
of
   Defendant, (3) within a 12‐month period, (4) at any time in
the
   Period that begins four years before the date of filing this
   Complaint to trial."

In Carmouche, the court examined the following class definition to
determine if it was a failsafe class:

   "All persons and entities throughout the United States (1) to
whom
    A1 Diabetes & Medical Supply, Inc. placed, or caused to be
placed,
   a call directed to a number assigned to a cellular telephone
   service, but not assigned to an A1 Diabetes & Medical Supply,
Inc.
   customer, (2) by using an artificial or prerecorded voice, (3)
from
   four years preceding the date of this class action complaint
   through the date of class certification."

Accretive operates as a financial news and media company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SwYWFJ at no extra charge.[CC]

ADOBE INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Dec. 19
----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP reminds investors that a shareholder filed a class
action lawsuit on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Adobe Inc. (NASDAQ: ADBE) common stock between
July 23, 2021 and September 15, 2022. Adobe is a software company
that offers tools on a subscription basis for, among other things,
sharing documents, editing pictures, and designing web pages.

For more information, submit a form, email Aaron Dumas, Jr., or
give us a call at (800) 350-6003.

What is this Case About: Adobe Inc. (ADBE) Misled Investors
Regarding its Competitor Figma

According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants
repeatedly downplayed the competitive pressure Adobe was
experiencing from companies like Figma, which provides a simple
web-based tool for designing user interfaces. Defendants cast Figma
as merely a "point" player in the wider digital design market, and
maintained that Figma's customers would eventually graduate (and
switch) to Adobe's more advanced products. In that vein, Defendants
wrongly led investors to believe that Figma's only potential threat
was as a minor disruption of Adobe's funnel for new paying
customers, and they described Adobe's "Express" app—which focuses
on video and photo editing—as a simple product that was
successfully filling that role. Meanwhile, Defendants concealed
that Adobe's own user-interface design app, "XD," was the true
competitor to Figma but was failing to gain traction with
customers.

On September 15, 2022, Adobe announced that it would acquire Figma
for $20 billion. With this announcement, investors learned for the
first time that they had been misled. Adobe management, in fact,
saw Figma as not only a major competitor, but as an existential
threat, and Adobe's own in-house products were not effectively
serving their intended purpose. The market sent Adobe's stock down
nearly 17% and wiped out billions of dollars of investor value in a
single trading day.

What Now: Similarly situated shareholders may be eligible to
participate in the class action against Adobe Inc. Shareholders who
want to act as lead plaintiff for the class should contact Robbins
LLP. Plaintiffs must file their lead plaintiff papers by December
19, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do
not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery.
If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member. For more information, click here.

All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.

About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this
matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins
LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the
attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping
shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance
structures, and hold company executives accountable for their
wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over
$1 billion for shareholders.

To be notified if a class action against Adobe Inc. settles or to
receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing,
sign up for Stock Watch today.

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

Contacts
Aaron Dumas, Jr.
Robbins LLP
5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]

AETNA MEDICAID: Time to File Responses in Palmer Extended
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Palmer v. Aetna Medicaid
Administrators LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-01010 (D. Conn., Filed July
28, 2023), the Hon. Judge Robert N. Chatigny entered an order
granting joint motion for extension of time to file response /
reply motion to certify class Plaintiff's Pre-Discovery Motion for
Conditional Collective Certification and Court-Authorized Notice to
Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs.

      -- Responses due by:                 Dec. 8, 2023

      -- Any Reply is due:                 Dec. 29, 2023

The suit states Fair Labor Standards Act.

Aetna is an industry leader in coordinating care and controlling
costs.[CC]

AFFIRM HOLDINGS: Securities Suit in California Court Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Affirm Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 25, 2023, that on October 20, 2022,
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
dismissed a putative class action and entered judgment in Affirm's
favor.

On February 28, 2022, plaintiff Jeffrey Toole filed a putative
class action against Affirm and Max Levchin alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by issuing and then subsequently deleting a
tweet from its official Twitter account on February 10, 2022, which
omitted full details of Affirm's second quarter fiscal 2022
financial results. Plaintiff sought class certification,
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and costs and
expenses.

On September 28, 2022, the court granted Affirm's motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim with leave to amend within 21 days. No
amended complaint was filed by the deadline.

Affirm provides financial products by building platforms for
digital and mobile-first commerce.


ALCO HANDLING: Pinto Sues Over Unpaid OT, Wrongful Termination
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA PINTO, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. ALCO HANDLING SERVICE CORP and PATAGONIA
SEAFARMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-24122 (S.D. Fla., Oct.
27, 2023) is an action to recover money damages from the Defendant
for Plaintiff's unpaid overtime wages and retaliation under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for the Corporate
Defendants as scaler from November 2019 until her wrongful
termination on September 8, 2023. She worked approximately an
average of 45 hours per week without being compensated at the rate
of not less than one- and one-half times the regular rate at which
she was employed. She complained about unpaid overtime and unpaid
wages and in response Defendants terminated her employment, says
the suit.

Alco Handling Service Corp. engages in the warehouse and food
processing plants industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Julisse Jimenez, Esq.
          THE SAENZ LAW FIRM
          20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 482-1475
          Facsimile: (305) 209-5754
          E-mail: julisse@legalopinionusa.com

AMAZON.COM INC: Faces BIPA Class Action Over Alexa Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
FindBiometrics, writing for Cook County Record and Lexology, report
that a federal judge in Illinois has ruled that potentially any
Illinois resident who has spoken to an Alexa-enabled device could
be part of a class action lawsuit against Amazon. The suit, which
could amount to billions in damages under the state's Biometric
Information Privacy Act (BIPA), accuses Amazon of recording and
analyzing users' voiceprints without consent.

On October 31, U.S. District Judge Franklin U. Valderrama denied
Amazon's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, initially filed in 2019.
The claim is based on allegations that Amazon's Alexa devices
record users' voices to create unique voiceprints for
identification purposes, a potential violation of BIPA, which
requires explicit consent for collecting biometric data.

Amazon warned that the ruling could impact Illinoisans' access to
voice-activated technology. The lawsuit emphasizes BIPA's notice
and consent provisions, under which plaintiffs can seek $1,000 to
$5,000 per violation. As Alexa devices are pervasive, with millions
of interactions daily, the total damages could be substantial.

The precedent set by the Illinois Supreme Court since 2019
strengthens the plaintiffs' position, as they need not demonstrate
actual harm, only that the law's technical requirements were
violated. This case follows other high-profile BIPA lawsuits
against companies like Facebook and Google, resulting in
multimillion-dollar settlements.

In a critical analysis of the Wilcosky et al. v. Amazon.com, Inc.
et al. case, lawyers from Duane Morris LLP emphasize the stringent
requirements for notice and consent under the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act (BIPA). The ruling underlines the potential
risks for companies in Illinois collecting data that could be
deemed "biometric," suggesting they review and update their privacy
policies to align with BIPA's standards.

The decision also raises questions about whether companies should
label data as "biometric" within their privacy notices, even when
its status as such is debatable, erring on the side of caution
given the ongoing litigation and lack of clarity around what
constitutes "biometric" data under BIPA, the lawyers suggest. [GN]

AMPLIFY ENERGY: Continues to Defend OPO 90 Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Amplify Energy Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the OPO 90 class suit in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California.

On August 25, 2022, the Company reached an agreement in principle
with plaintiffs in a putative class action pending in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California to
resolve all civil claims against the Company and its subsidiaries
related to the Incident.

The settlement of $50.0 million, which also includes certain
injunctive relief, will be funded under the Company's insurance
policies.

The Court preliminarily approved the settlement on December 7, 2022
and granted final approval on April 24, 2023.

On August 26, 2022, the Company reached an agreement with the
United States government, which the court has approved, to resolve
all federal criminal matters involving the Company and its
subsidiaries stemming from Incident.

As part of the resolution with the United States, the Company
agreed to plead guilty to one count of misdemeanor negligent
discharge of oil in violation of the Clean Water Act.

The Company will pay a fine of approximately $7.1 million in
installments over a period of three years, serve a term of four
years' probation and reimburse governmental agencies approximately
$5.8 million for their response to this event.

The Company also has agreed to implement certain compliance
measures including installation of a new leak detection system and
increased Remote Operated Vehicle inspections of the pipeline.

As of September 30, 2023, the Company recorded $2.0 million in
"Accrued liability – pipeline incident" and $1.1 million in
"Other long-term liabilities" for the remaining payments related to
this settlement on its Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance
Sheet.

On September 8, 2022, the Company reached an agreement with the
state of California to resolve all related state criminal matters.


As part of the resolution with the state of California, which also
has court approval, the Company agreed to enter a plea of No
Contest to six misdemeanor charges.

The Company will pay a fine in the amount of $4.9 million to be
distributed among the state of California, including the State’s
Fish and Game Preservation Fund, and Orange County.

The Company also will serve a one-year term of probation and has
agreed to certain compliance enhancements to its operations.

On March 1, 2023, the Company announced that the vessels that
struck and damaged the pipeline and their respective owners and
operators agreed to pay the Company $96.5 million in a settlement.


The Marine Exchange of Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbor (the "Marine
Exchange") agreed to non-monetary terms as well.

The overall resolution included subrogation claims by Amplify's
property damage and loss of production income ("LOPI") insurers,
with Amplify ultimately receiving a net payment of approximately
$85.0 million.

The settlement resolved Amplify's affirmative claims related to the
Incident.

As part of the settlement, Amplify dismissed its legal claims
against those parties.

The Company is also participating in a related claims process
organized under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, 33 U.S.C. § 2701 et
seq. ("OPA 90").

Under OPA 90, a party alleged to be responsible for a discharge of
oil is required to establish a claims process to pay for interim
costs and damages as a result of the discharge.

The OPA 90 claims process remains ongoing.

Future litigation may be necessary, among other things, to defend
the Company by determining the scope, enforceability, and validity
of claims.

The results of any current or future litigation cannot be predicted
with certainty, and regardless of the outcome, litigation can have
an adverse impact on the Company because of defense and settlement
costs, diversion of management resources, and other factors.


ARCHER AVIATION: Securities Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Nov. 6 disclosed that the class action lawsuit
filed against Archer Aviation, Inc. ("Archer" or the "Company")
(NYSE: ACHR) and certain of its officers, filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California, and
docketed under 23-cv-04844, alleging violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, has been voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice. Accordingly, any investor in Archer securities that
wishes to pursue an action against Archer will be required to file
a new complaint against the Company.

Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later,
Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for
the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members.
See www.pomlaw.com.

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]

ASPEN SKIING: Faces Class Action Over On-Mountain Pay Policies
--------------------------------------------------------------
SnowBrains reports that a legal storm is brewing as Aspen Skiing
Co. (SkiCo) confronts a class-action lawsuit challenging its
on-mountain pay policies. The suit, filed by SkiCo hourly employee
Craig Stout, alleges that the company has not compensated workers
for the time spent commuting via chairlifts, snowmobiles, and
snowcats to its on-mountain restaurants and facilities, reports
Aspen Daily News.

The legal action, which seeks class status to include similarly
situated SkiCo hourly employees, was filed in Pitkin County
District Court. Stout, represented by Denver attorney Alexander
Hood and Fort Collins labor lawyer Brian Gonzales, has declined to
comment on the ongoing litigation. SnowBrains reached out to SkiCo
for comment, but the company has a policy of not commenting on
active lawsuits.

At the heart of the dispute is the claim that employees are not
paid for the time taken to travel to on-mountain work locations
from base areas. This time involves physical exertion and potential
hazards, necessitating safety measures like helmet-wearing for ski
or snowboard commutes. The lawsuit also accuses SkiCo of failing to
provide state-mandated break time. It alleges that the company
misrepresented employee perks on its website, particularly
regarding free and discounted lift tickets for new employees.

The suit's broader implications touch on the intersection of labor
practices, employee rights, and the unique working conditions
inherent to mountain resort operations. Stout's case, which calls
for a jury trial, raises three claims under Colorado's labor laws
and accuses SkiCo of breach of contract and civil theft.

As the case unfolds, it will be closely watched by the resort
industry and labor advocates alike, potentially setting a precedent
for how on-mountain employees are compensated for their unique
commutes. [GN]

B&G FOODS: Minondo Sues Over Pasta Sauce Products' False Ads
------------------------------------------------------------
JEANETTE MINONDO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. B&G FOODS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:23-cv-08087 (E.D.N.Y., October 30, 2023) asserts claims
against the Defendant for breach of express warranty, unjust
enrichment and for violations of the New York General Business
Law.

This is a class action on behalf of purchasers of Defendant's pasta
sauce products that claim to have "No Preservatives." This
representation is false and/or misleading because these products
contain citric acid--a known preservative commonly used in food
products. Moreover, the Defendant has profited unjustly as a result
of its deceptive conduct, says the suit.

Based in Parsippany, NJ, B&G Foods, Inc. is corporation organized
under the laws of Delaware. It formulates, advertises,
manufactures, and/or sells shelf-stable and frozen food and
household products throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
            Alec Leslie, Esq.
            Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
            BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
            1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
            New York, NY 10019
            Telephone: (646) 837-7150
            Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
            E-mail: aleslie@bursor.com
                    jdiamond@bursor.com

                    - and -

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

                    - and -

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

                    - and -

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

BARCLAYS PLC: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Decline in Share Price
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rachael Rajan, writing for Investing.com, reports that Robbins LLP,
a leader in shareholder rights litigation, is handling a class
action lawsuit against Barclays PLC. The suit involves investors
who acquired Barclays securities between July 22, 2019 and October
12, 2023. The allegations center around the relationship between
the bank's former CEO, James Staley, and Jeffrey Epstein.

The lawsuit accuses Barclays of misleading investors about the
nature of Staley's connection with Epstein. It alleges that Staley
had a close relationship with Epstein and was aware of his criminal
activities. There are even claims that Staley may have assaulted a
victim trafficked by Epstein. These revelations could potentially
cause serious reputational, legal, and financial damage to
Barclays.

Barclays' response to the British Financial Conduct Authority's
(FCA) investigation into Staley's relationship with Epstein is also
under scrutiny. The lawsuit asserts that the bank's response was
materially false and when conflicting information came to light,
Barclays failed to correct its statement. This alleged
misrepresentation resulted in a decline in Barclays' share price.

Robbins LLP specializes in securities class actions and has secured
over $1 billion for shareholders while striving to enhance
corporate governance structures. [GN]

BARCLAYS PLC: Merritt Sues Over Federal Securities Laws' Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN MERRITT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BARCLAYS PLC, JAMES E STALEY, TUSHAR
MORZARIA, C.S. VENKATAKRISHNAN, and ANNA CROSS, Defendants, Case
No. 2:23-cv-09217 (C.D. Cal., November 1, 2023) seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by Defendant's violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded
Barclays securities between July 22, 2019 and October 12, 2023.
During the said period, the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that, among other things, Jes
Staley had a close relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, who had
engaged in, among other crimes, human trafficking and sex slavery.
In addition, the Defendants also omitted any discussion of
reputational risk relating to Staley's friendship with Epstein. On
October 12, 2023, the Financial Conduct Authority published an
announcement on its website entitled "FCA decides to fine and ban
James Staley." On this news, Barclays' ADRs fell $0.39 per ADR, or
4.98% to close at $7.43 per ADR on October 12, 2023, damaging
investors. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions,
and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
common shares, Plaintiff and the other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the suit.

Headquartered in Churchill Place, London, Barclays is a British
universal bank with American Depositary Receipts trade on the New
York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "BCS". [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
           THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
           355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
           Los Angeles, CA 90071
           Telephone: (213) 785-2610
           Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
           E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

BBI LOGISTICS: Fails to Overtime Wages, Larson Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------
DAVID LARSON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. BBI LOGISTICS, LLC., Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-03633-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, November 1, 2023) arises out of
the Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a non-exempt Account
Coordinator from approximately November 1, 2021, until
approximately February 28, 2022, and as an Account Executive from
March 1, 2022, until the end of his employment. He routinely worked
more than 40 hours per workweek. However, the Defendant did not pay
him and those similarly situated overtime compensation equal to one
and one half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per work week, says the Plaintiff.

Based in Columbus, OH, BBI Logistics is a freight brokerage firm
that matches its customers with trucking companies to provide
freight transportation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
         NILGES DRAHER LLC
         7034 Braucher Street NW, Suite B
         North Canton, OH 44720
         Telephone: (330) 470-4428
         Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
         E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com

BLUE CROSS: Montgomery Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lois Montgomery, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Illinois, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-15486 (N.D. Ill., October 31,
2023) alleges claims against the Defendant for negligence,
negligence per se, breach of implied contract, bailment, intrusion
upon seclusion, and for violations of the Illinois Personal
Information Protection Act, and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Practices Act.

On June 23, 2023, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois (BCBSIL)
discovered that the Data Breach impacted Private Information
belonging to BCBSIL members with past or current health insurance
coverage. On August 24, 2023, BCBSIL issued data breach notices to
individuals whose information was believed to have been accessed in
this incident, including Plaintiff and Class members. Accordingly,
Plaintiff brings to seek relief for the consequences of Defendant's
failure to reasonably safeguard Plaintiff's and Class members'
Private Information; its failure to reasonably provide timely
notification that Plaintiff's and Class members' Private
Information had been compromised by an unauthorized third party;
and for intentionally and unconscionably deceiving Plaintiff and
Class members concerning the status, safety, location, access, and
protection of their Private Information.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois, which operates under the name
"BCBSIL" is Illinois' only statewide, customer-owned health
insurer, and offers comprehensive health plans to customers in
Illinois and across the country, including Medicare coverage
through its Blue Cross Medicare Advantage program. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
          Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
          Mohammed A. Rathur, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 782-4880
          Facsimile: (312) 782-4485
          E-mail: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com
                  nhagman@caffertyclobes.com
                  mrathur@caffertyclobes.com

BRAINSTORM CELL: Faces Class Action Over NurOwn ALS Drug
--------------------------------------------------------
Venkatesh Jartarkar, writing for Investing.com, reports that
Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ:BCLI) is currently under
a class action lawsuit led by Robbins LLP, a prominent legal firm
specializing in shareholder rights litigation. The suit is on
behalf of investors who purchased BCLI securities between August
15, 2022, and September 27, 2023.

The company is accused of misleading investors about the efficacy
of its ALS (Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) drug, NurOwn. On August
15, 2022, Brainstorm Cell announced its Biologics License
Application (BLA) to the FDA for NurOwn. However, the application
was met with a refusal to file a letter from the FDA, resulting in
a significant 42.21% drop in BCLI's share price.

The Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee further
scrutinized the effectiveness of NurOwn on September 27, 2023. The
committee found insufficient evidence supporting the drug's
effectiveness, causing another drop in BCLI's share price by $0.19
per share or 48.72%.

The lawsuit alleges that Brainstorm Cell downplayed the FDA's
refusal and obscured risks associated with the BLA submission.
Aaron Dumas Jr., a representative of Robbins LLP, is available for
more information about the case.

Shareholders eligible to participate in this class action are
advised to file their lead plaintiff papers by January 2, 2024.
Robbins LLP has a strong track record in shareholder rights
litigation and has obtained over $1 billion for shareholders to
date. The firm operates on a contingency fee basis and offers
alerts about corporate wrongdoings or updates on the class action
against BCLI through its Stock Watch service.

InvestingPro Insights
In light of the recent developments with Brainstorm Cell
Therapeutics Inc. (BCLI), the following InvestingPro data and tips
may provide valuable insights for investors.

InvestingPro data shows that BCLI has a market cap of 7.2M USD. The
company's price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio stands at -0.27, indicating
that the company is not profitable at the moment. In addition, the
return on assets for the last twelve months as of Q2 2023 is
-180.22%, suggesting that BCLI is not generating a positive return
on its assets.

InvestingPro Tips highlights that BCLI is quickly burning through
cash and operates with a poor return on assets. The stock has
experienced significant price volatility and has fallen
significantly over the last year. Analysts do not anticipate the
company will be profitable this year, which aligns with the
negative P/E ratio.

These insights are particularly relevant to the current situation
of BCLI, as the company faces a class-action lawsuit and scrutiny
over the effectiveness of its ALS drug, NurOwn. The InvestingPro
platform offers additional tips and real-time data for investors
looking to make informed decisions. [GN]

BROTHERS II LANDSCAPES: Lopez Sues Over Labor Law Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------
RUFINO LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BROTHERS II LANDSCAPES, INC. and DANIEL
JOSEPH, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-08116 (E.D.N.Y., October 31,
2023) arises out of the Defendants' alleged violations of both the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a laborer from in or
about 2015 to in or about August 2023. Throughout his employment
with Defendants, the Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours
in a single workweek. However, the Defendants paid Plaintiff a
fixed, daily rate that ranged from $100 at the beginning of his
employment to $270.00 at the end of his employment. The Plaintiff's
weekly wages were determined by the number of days he worked
weekly, regardless of the actual number of hours that Plaintiff
worked each workweek. As a result, the Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiff at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of
pay for hours worked after 40 hours per workweek. In addition, the
Defendants also failed to maintain accurate records of the hours
worked by and wages paid to Plaintiff, says the suit.

Brothers II Landscapes, Inc. provide landscaping services including
design, installation, maintenance, and masonry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Peter A. Romero, Esq.
         ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC
         490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
         Hauppauge, NY 11788
         Telephone: (631) 257-5588
         E-mail: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com

CEP AMERICA: Nagy and Romero Sue Over ERISA Violations
------------------------------------------------------
Daniel E. Nagy and Maria Romero on behalf of the MedAmerica, Inc.
401(k) Profit Sharing Plan v. CEP America, LLC (d/b/a Vituity),
MedAmerica Retirement & Benefits Committee, and Jane and John Does
1–25, Case No. 3:23-cv-05648 (N.D. Cal., November 1, 2023)
alleges that the Defendants breached its fiduciary duty and are
engaged in prohibited transactions under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974.

Among other things, the Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants
failed to control Plan's excessive expenses for the recordkeeping
services performed Schwab Retirement Plan Services, and its
affiliates Schwab Bank and Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.

CEP America LLC is a physician-owned and led partnership delivering
medical services, with its principal place of business in
Emeryville, CA. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

            Arthur H. Bryant, Esq.
            BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
            1999 Harrison Street, Suite 660
            Oakland, CA 94612
            Telephone: (510) 272-8000
            Facsimile: (510) 463-0291
            E-mail: abryant@baileyglasser.com

                    - and -

            Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
            BAILEY GLASSER LLP
            1055 Thomas Jefferson St., NW, Suite 540
            Washington, DC 20007
            Telephone: (202) 463-2101
            E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com

                    - and -

            Mark G. Boyko, Esq.
            BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
            34 N. Gore Avenue, Suite 102
            Webster Groves, MO 63119
            Telephone: (202) 463-2101
            E-mail: mboyko@baileyglasser.com

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Suit Over Use of Embedded Tracking Tools
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Styf, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that Costco is
facing a class action lawsuit claiming that the company is allowing
Meta to track customers using embedded tracking tools to access to
their personal health information.

Costco embedded Facebook Pixel, a Meta product, on its website and
that program then worked with marketing tools to allow the private
information of patients to be sent to Meta without the patients'
consent, the class action lawsuit claims.

Patients use the Costco pharmacy website to register for the Costco
Member Prescription Program and then fill and refill prescriptions,
use its Rx mail order program or check the status or gather
information about their prescriptions, the class action says.

"Unbeknownst to patients, defendant installed tracking tools on its
website, which surreptitiously manipulated their web browsers,
thereby causing their communications with the defendant via the
website to be shared and/or intercepted by unauthorized third
parties," the class action says.

Facebook allegedly collects personal health data, connects it with
a Facebook profile

The data that Facebook collects is not anonymous but instead is
connected with a specific Facebook user profile, the class action
says, and Costco's pharmacy is responsible for protecting
individuals' private health information per the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).

The company also is facing a separate class action claiming it
falsely advertises its Kirkland-brand cranberry juice products as
containing no preservatives.

Do you use the Costco website for your pharmacy orders? Let us know
in the comments.

The plaintiffs are represented by Kim D. Stephens and Rebecca L.
Solomon of Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC along with Gary M. Klinger,
Glen L. Abramson and Alexandra M. Honeycutt of Milberg Coleman
Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC.

The Costco class action lawsuit is R.S. v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
Case No. 2:23-cv-01628, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle Division. [GN]

COURSERA INC: Ghazizadeh Sues Over Private Info Disclosure
----------------------------------------------------------
IMAN GHAZIZADEH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COURSERA, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-05646 (N.D. Cal., November 1, 2023)
arises from the Defendant's unlawful practice of disclosing its
users’ personally identifiable video-viewing information in
violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act.

When consumers like Plaintiff view a video on the Coursera
platform, Coursera discloses a record of their viewing history to
Meta Platforms, Inc.--the owner and operator of the social media
and advertising giant Facebook--together with personally
identifiable information concerning the consumer. Additionally,
consumers are never informed of, nor do they give consent to, such
a disclosure of their private viewing histories to third parties,
says the suit.

Headquartered in Mountain View, CA, Coursera, Inc. is a Delaware
corporation that provides various educational courses via its
interactive online platform. It has partnered with top universities
and educational organizations to offer classes, certificates, and
even degrees in various disciplines such as computer science,
business, and data science. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rafey Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          150 California Street, 18th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 212-9300
          Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com

                  - and -

          Michael Ovca, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: movca@edelson.com

DAIRYLAND USA: Fact Discovery in Orbetta Suit Due March 1, 2024
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAURICIO ORBETTA, et al.,
v. DAIRYLAND USA CORPORATION and THE CHEF'S WAREHOUSE, INC., Case
No. 1:20-cv-09000-JPC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge John P. Cronan
entered a civil case management plan and scheduling order:

  a. All fact discovery shall be completed no        March 1, 2024
     later than:

  b. Requests for production of documents            Nov. 10, 2023
     shall be served by:

  c. All expert discovery, including expert          April 15,
2024
     depositions, shall be completed no later
     than:

  b. The Plaintiff's expert disclosures              Feb. 27, 2024
     pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2) of the Federal
     Rules of Civil Procedure shall be made
     on or before:

  d. All discovery must be completed by:             April 15,
2024

Dairyland is a corporation engaged in business as a distributor of
dairy, meat, and specialty foods.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 1, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QqRo4z at no extra charge.[CC]

DEJAVU OF STATEN: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Garcia Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MISHELLE GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DEJAVU OF STATEN ISLAND, CORP. d/b/a DejaVu
Sports Bar, and CARLOS DIAZ and FERNANDO VIVANCO, as individuals,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-09549 (S.D.N.Y., October 31, 2023)
seeks to recover damages for egregious violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff Mishelle Garcia worked approximately 98 hours or more per
week during her employment by Defendants from in or around December
2019 until in or around June 2022, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff
time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of
the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL. In
addition, the Defendants also failed to keep payroll records as
required by both laws, says the Plaintiff.

With a principal executive office in Staten Island, NY, Dejavu owns
and operates a sports bars and restaurants. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Janelle J. Romero, Esq
           Gen Esq Law PLLC
           515 Madison Avenue #8140
           New York, NY 10022
           Telephone: (201) 503-7754

FACTORY MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Worker Fingerprint Scans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cook County Record reports that a class action lawsuit accuses auto
parts supplier Factory Motor Parts of wrongly requiring workers to
scan their fingerprints when punching the clock, allegedly in
violation of Illinois' stringent biometrics privacy law.

Joseph Ramirez worked for the defendant from 2019 to 2020,
according to a complaint filed Oct. 17 in Cook Circuit Court.

Ramirez claims the defendant had implemented a system requiring
employees to clock in and out using fingerprint scans.

During this period, the defendant introduced biometric scanning and
time-tracking devices, collecting employees' fingerprints and
converting them into electronic biometric information, according to
the suit.

Ramirez claims he complied with this requirement, providing
biometric scans without being informed about the purpose or storage
of this data.

The defendant collected, stored and used the plaintiff's biometrics
for timekeeping and access but never disclosed this practice to the
plaintiff or obtained their written consent, according to the
suit.

Despite possessing the plaintiff's biometric data, the defendant
failed to provide any written policy regarding biometric retention,
storage, or destruction. Furthermore, the defendant shared
electronic information derived from the plaintiff's biometric
identifiers with third parties, including vendors for timekeeping,
data storage and payroll, without the plaintiff's consent.

The plaintiff argued that these actions violated their rights under
the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Thousands of Illinois employers have been targeted by nearly
identical class action lawsuits under the Illinois BIPA law. Such
legal actions have been emboldened by recent rulings from the
Illinois Supreme Court. The state high court has interpreted the
BIPA law to allow plaintiffs to demand damages for each time an
employee may be required to scan their fingerprints at work, with
no limit, going back over the preceding five years.

Under those rulings, plaintiffs can demand damages of up to $5,000
per alleged wrongful fingerprint scan. Thus, when multiplied across
entire workforces, who are scanning fingerprints multiple times per
day, damages can quickly climb into the many millions of dollars or
more, depending on how many workers are involved and the kinds of
biometric scanning systems in place.

Ramirez is seeking damages of $1,000 to $5,000 per fingerprint
scan, as allowed under the BIPA law.

He is represented by attorney Mark Hammervold, of Hammervold Law,
of suburban Elmhurst. [GN]

FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Dakers Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
DANA DAKERS, individually and behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. CACE-23-020594 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty.,
November 1, 2023) alleges violations of the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant violated the FCCPA because
it sent an electronic mail communication to her on April 3, 2022
regarding a consumer debt between 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in her time
zone.

Located in Amherst, NY, Firstsource Advantage LLC provides debt
collection services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
          Zane C. Hedaya, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL .S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, 17th Floor
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 907-1136
          Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
          Website: www.JibraelLaw.com

FLORIDA DISTRIBUTING: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Murray Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEAN MURRAY, individually, and on Behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FLORIDA DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-15491 (N.D. Ill., October 31, 2023)
arises from the Defendant's failure to pay overtime compensation to
sales account managers for hours worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek, which constitutes violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Sales Account Manager
from approximately July 2012 to approximately July 2023. However,
the Defendant misclassified Plaintiff and other sales account
managers as employees exempt from overtime pay, despite knowing
that their primary job duties do not fall within any of the FLSA's
exemptions to the statute's overtime pay requirements.

Based in Rosemont, IL, Florida Distributing Company, LLC is a
provider of beverage distribution that services both large chain
stores (e.g. Publix, Walmart, and Windixie) and small independent
stores. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Jason T. Brown, Esq.
         Edmund C. Celiesius, Esq.
         BROWN, LLC
         205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 810
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Telephone: (877) 561-0000
         Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
         E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
                 ed.celiesius@jtblawgroup.com

FRUITION CHOCOLATE: Knowles Sues Over Unequal Access to Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
CARLTON KNOWLES, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRUITION CHOCOLATE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-09644-PAE-JLC (S.D.N.Y., November 1,
2023) seeks to address the Defendant's failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people in violation of the Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

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

Fruition Chocolate, Inc. operates the Fruition online retail store
as well as the Fruition website, which provides consumers with
access to an array of goods including information about purchasing
chocolate bars, caramels, gift sets, accessories and other products
available online. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
         Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
         Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
         GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
         150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
         New York, NY 10003
         Telephone: (212) 228-9795
         Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
         E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
                 Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
                 Dana@Gottlieb.legal

FUTURE MOTION INC: Nemeth Sues Over OneWheel's Nosedive Defect
--------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS NEMETH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FUTURE MOTION INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-12787-MAG-DRG (E.D. Mich., November 1, 2023) arises from
the use and subsequent injury due to a known nose-dive defect with
the OneWheel device, asserting claims against the Defendant for
negligent design and breach of implied and express warranties.

The Defendant failed to provide any warnings of the nosedive
defect. For years after reports of injuries and deaths began to
surface, the Defendant made representations designed to mislead
consumers into believing that their machines were safe for use and
refused to issue a recall. Moreover, Plaintiff utilized OneWheel in
the manner intended by Defendant and was injured as a result, says
the suit.

Future Motion Inc. is a California corporation with its principal
place of business at 1201 Shaffer Rd, Suite A, Santa Cruz, CA.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Alyson Oliver, Esq.
            OLIVER LAW GROUP PC
            50 W. Big Beaver Road, Suite 200
            Troy, MI 48084
            Telephone: (248) 327-6556
            Facsimile: (248) 436-3885
            E-mail: notifications@oliverlawgroup.com

GARLAND: Court Stays Liu Case Pending Class Cert Bid in Enriquez
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zhian Liu v. Garland, et
al., Case No. 1:23-cv-05859-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Valerie
Caproni entered an order staying the case pending the class
certification motion in the matter of Guervara Enriquez v. USCIS,
Case No. 2:23-cv-00097 (W.D. Wash.).

The parties are directed to submit joint status updates every three
months regarding the proceedings in Guervara Enriquez v. USCIS,
with the first update due no later than February 2, 2024.

Within 14 days of an order disposing of the class certification
motion, the parties are directed to file a joint status report to
the Court stating their respective positions as the effect of the
order on this action.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/49pi52w at no extra charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Leslie A. Ramirez-Fisher, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          86 Chambers Street, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 637-0378
          E-mail: leslie.ramirez-fisher@usdoj.gov

GATOS SILVER INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in CO
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gatos Silver Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from securities class suit in
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.

On February 22, 2022, a purported Company stockholder filed the
U.S. Class Action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado against the Company, certain of its former
officers, and several directors.

An amended complaint was filed on August 15, 2022.The amended
complaint, allegedly brought on behalf of certain purchasers of the
Company's common stock and certain traders of call and put options
on the Company's common stock from December 9, 2020 through January
25, 2022, seeks, among other things, damages, costs, and expenses,
and asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 as well as Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.

The amended complaint alleges that certain individual defendants
and the Company, pursuant to the control and authority of the
individual defendants, made false and misleading statements and/or
omitted certain material information regarding the mineral
resources and reserves at the Cerro Los Gatos mine.

The Company and all defendants filed a motion to dismiss this
action on October 14, 2022. That motion was fully briefed as of
December 23,2022.

On April 26, 2023, following a joint motion, the Court postponed
its ruling on defendants' motion to dismiss until on or after June
16, 2023.

On June 13, 2023, the Company entered into an agreement in
principle to settle the U.S. Class Action. Subject to certain
conditions, including class certification by the District Court,
the execution of a definitive stipulation of settlement and
approval of the settlement by the District Court, the settling
parties have agreed to resolve the U.S. Class Action for a payment
by the Company and its insurers of $21,000 to a settlement fund.

The Company in the process of finalizing the amount of expenses
incurred that are covered under the directors' and officers'
insurance policy which will be deducted from the $10,000 retention
held by the Company.

The Company expects to fund no more than $6,800 of the settlement,
with the balance of the settlement payment to be paid by insurance.


The Company and the other defendants will not admit any liability
as part of the settlement.

On June 16, 2023, the parties filed a joint status report
requesting that the Court grant a temporary stay of all proceedings
in the case pending submission of proposed settlement documentation
on or before July 13, 2023.

On July 13, 2023, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for an
order preliminarily approving the a stipulation of settlement
agreed by the parties and providing for class notice which will
provide for (i) preliminary approval of the settlement; (ii)
approval of the form and manner of giving notice of the settlement
to the settlement class; and (iii) a hearing date and time to
consider final and approval of the Settlement and related matters
the "Preliminary Order").

On September 12, 2023, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion to
amend the Preliminary Order to reflect certain changes to the form
of release proposed to be executed by the plaintiffs.

The parties are awaiting the District Court's determination on the
motion.

Since the settlement of the U.S. Class Action is subject to
conditions, there can be no assurance that the U.S. Class Action
will be finally resolved pursuant to the agreement that has been
reached.

By Notice of Action issued February 9, 2022, and subsequent
Statement of Claim dated March 11, 2022 Izabela Przybylska
commenced a putative class action against the Company, certain of
its former officers, and others in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice on behalf of a purported class of all persons or entities,
wherever they may reside or be domiciled, who acquired securities
of the Company in both the primary and secondary markets during the
period from October 28, 2020 until January 25, 2022 (The "Canadian
Class Action").

The action asserts claims under Canadian securities legislation and
at common law and seeks unspecified monetary damages and other
relief in respect of allegations the defendants made false and
misleading statements and omitted material information regarding
the mineral resources and reserves of the Company.

The plaintiff filed motion materials for leave to proceed in
respect of her statutory claims and for class certification on
March 3, 2023, which materials were amended and filed on May 1,
2023.

The court has tentatively set dates in late March of 2024 for the
hearing of the plaintiff's motions.

On August 11, 2023, the principal parties to the Canadian Class
Action participated in a formal mediation meeting.

The parties were not able to come to a resolution of the matter but
discussions are ongoing.

To that end, the plaintiff has agreed to an extension of time for
the Company to file any responding materials on the plaintiff's
leave and certification motion to November 13, 2023, to permit the
parties to continue their settlement dialogue.

There can be no assurance that any of the foregoing matters
individually or in aggregate will not result in outcomes that are
materially adverse for us.



GEM GRADE: Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set Feb. 6, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------
Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman LLP ("CFM"), Siskinds LLP, and
Consumer Law Group Inc. announced on Nov. 6 that anyone who
purchased Gem Grade Diamonds or Gem Grade Diamond Products between
January 1, 1994 and October 14, 2016 are eligible to file a claim
for settlement benefits.

The class action alleges price fixing of Gem Grade Diamonds sold in
Canada. The $9.4 million settlement has already been approved by
the courts. The settling Defendants do not admit any wrongdoing or
liability. The settlement funds are available for compensation for
eligible claimants. Subject to further order of the court,
approximately CAD $6 million1 will be available for consumers and
resellers who purchased Gem Grade Diamonds.

Individuals can file a claim to receive $20 without providing proof
of purchase. Larger claims will require the claimant to provide
proof of the claim. Persons who wish to apply for compensation
under the settlement must apply no later than February 6. 2024. You
can apply online to receive a payment at
www.CanadianDiamondsClassAction.ca. If you do not have internet
access, please contact the Claims Administrator at 1-877-563-7614.
Further information is available at
www.CanadianDiamondsClassAction.ca.

About Class Counsel

CFM is a boutique law firm based in Vancouver specializing in class
actions, aviation accident litigation and product liability
litigation, on behalf of plaintiffs. Learn more about CFM at
www.cfmlawyers.ca.

Siskinds LLP is a full-service law firm with offices in Toronto and
London, specializing in class actions. Learn more about Siskinds
LLP at www.siskinds.com.

Consumer Law Group Inc. is a class action law firm with offices in
Montreal, Quebec and Ottawa. Learn more about Consumer Law Group
Inc. at www.clg.org.

1 The Net Settlement Amount is calculated by taking the Settlement
Amount plus any accrued interest after payment of Class Counsel
Fees and deducting the Administration Expenses and all payable
taxes. The Net Settlement Amount will be finally calculated once
the Administration Expenses are known at the end of the claims
process.

Contacts
Press:

British Columbia:

Naomi Kovak / Sophie Maraldo
Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman LLP
#400 - 856 Homer Street
Vancouver, BC V6B 2W5
Tel: 1-800-689-2322
Email: diamondsclassaction@cfmlawyers.ca

Ontario:

Linda Vesser / Jennifer Bald
Siskinds LLP
275 Dundas Street, Unit 1
London, ON N6B 3L1
Tel (toll free): 1-800-461-6166
Email: Jennifer.bald@siskinds.com

Quebec:

Jeff Orenstein
Consumer Law Group Inc.
1030 rue Berri, Suite 102, Montreal, QC, H2L 4C3
Tel: 514-266-7863
Email: info@clg.org [GN]

GENERAL MOTORS: Bid for Post-Trial Adjudication Denied in Siqueiros
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAUL SIQUEIROS, et al., v.
GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-07244-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Edward M. Chen entered an order denying the Defendant's
request for post-trial adjudication regarding timeliness of absent
class members' claims and/or its request for judgment as a matter
of law.

This is a vehicle defect class action in the post-trial stage.
Plaintiffs are class members from Idaho, California, and North
Carolina who have sued GM based on their purchase of certain
vehicles which, according to Plaintiffs, consume an excessive
amount of engine oil (Oil Consumption Defect).

Following trial the jury found in favor of Plaintiffs, awarding
$2,700 to each member of the three classes.

On June 8, 2023, the Court denied Defendant's renewed motion for
judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial in the alternative
(Docket No. 592) and GM's motion to decertify all three
classes.

The class definitions are as follows:

   "the California Class is defined as "all current owners or
lessees
   of a Class Vehicle that purchased or leased the vehicle in new
   condition in the State of California;"

   "the Idaho Class is defined as "all current owners or lessees of
a
   Class Vehicle that was purchased or leased in the State of Idaho

   from a GM-authorized dealer;" and

   "the North Carolina Class is defined as "all current owners or
   lessees of a Class Vehicle that was purchased or leased in the
   State of North Carolina."

General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47aO1FU at no extra charge.[CC]


GRIECO HYUNDAI: Class Action Waiver Deemed Unenforceable
--------------------------------------------------------
Eric T. Berkman, writing for Rhode Island Lawyers Weekly, reports
that a car dealership could not enforce a class action waiver in an
auto leasing agreement that did not contain an arbitration clause,
a federal judge has ruled.

Plaintiff Elsie Metcalfe's lease agreement with defendant Grieco
Hyundai provided that she could buy her vehicle at the end of the
lease for a "residual value" plus minor fees for $9,520.

She claimed in a putative class action that Grieco used deceptive
practices in violation of the Rhode Island Deceptive Trade
Practices Act to sell her the car for $2,000 more when her lease
ended.

When Grieco tried to strike the class allegations, citing a class
action waiver provision in the lease, Metcalfe argued that the
provision was invalid on public policy grounds.

U.S. District Court Judge John J. McConnell Jr. agreed.

"'Statutes passed by the Legislature are the state's declaration of
public policy [and thus] acting in contravention of those laws, [a
defendant] violates public policy,'" McConnell wrote, quoting Long
v. Dell, Inc., a 2014 decision from the Rhode Island Supreme
Court.

In a footnote, McConnell noted that because the class action waiver
was not part of an arbitration clause, it did not implicate the
Federal Arbitration Act.

"Because the DTPA explicitly allows collective actions, the class
action waiver provision in the Leasing Agreement is unenforceable
as against public policy in Rhode Island," he wrote

McConnell also found that the waiver was inapplicable because there
was no class action waiver in the purchase agreement that Metcalfe
and Grieco executed at the end of the lease term and which
superseded the lease.

The five-page decision is Metcalfe v. Grieco Hyundai LLC, Lawyers
Weekly No. 52-091-23. The full text of the ruling can be found
here.

Christopher M. Lefebvre
Christopher M. Lefebvre of Pawtucket, who represented the
plaintiff, said attorneys who represent consumers will find
Metcalfe a well-reasoned and refreshing decision.

"Public policy grounds have, unfortunately, generally been ignored
by many courts in the arbitration consumer protection arena," he
said. "Things are looking a little brighter for at least Rhode
Island consumers that have been cheated or duped by corporate
America."

Warwick lawyers Vincent A. Indeglia, Ryan J. Lutrario and Brendan
J. Quinn represented Grieco. They could not be reached for comment
prior to deadline.

Allegedly deceptive sale
Metcalfe leased a 2019 Hyundai Elantra from Grieco Hyundai in
Johnston.

Upon execution and under the terms of the lease, it was assigned to
defendant Hyundai Lease Titling Trust.

Additionally, in compliance with the lease terms, Hyundai Capital
America became the lease servicer that was to receive payments and
deal with Metcalfe, the lessee.

According to the terms of the lease, the lessee could purchase the
vehicle at the end of the lease for the "residual value," an amount
specified in the lease, plus a "purchase option fee," also
specified in the lease, along with any official fees, taxes, title
and registration, for a sum total "lease end purchase price."

In Metcalfe's case, the residual value was apparently $9,220.80,
and the purchase option fee was $300, for a total of $9,520.80.

When the end of the lease approached, the plaintiff contacted
Hyundai Capital America, which directed her to Grieco Hyundai for
purposes of either turning in or purchasing the Elantra.

When Metcalfe purchased the car, Grieco Hyundai charged her $11,520
as the cash price plus a $400 documentary fee, for a total of
$11,920 -- allegedly more than the lease-end purchase price.

According to Metcalfe, she did not understand the numbers or
realize at the time that Grieco Hyundai was charging her more than
her lease provided.

Metcalfe also alleged that that type of markup was a common
practice for Hyundai Capital America, Hyundai Lease Titling Trust,
and Hyundai dealers to engage in, which had resulted in numerous
complaints from consumers.

Once Metcalfe realized she had paid more than what was called for
in her lease, she brought a purported class action against the
defendants in U.S. District Court, bringing claims for breach of
contract, violation of the federal Consumer Leasing Act, violation
of the DTPA, tortious interference with a contract, and unjust
enrichment.

Grieco moved for an order to strike the class allegations with
prejudice, citing a provision in Metcalfe's lease that waived any
right to bring or participate in a class action related to the
lease.

Metcalfe objected, arguing that the class action waiver provision
violated public policy and was therefore unenforceable.

Public policy concerns
Addressing Metcalfe's objections, McConnell noted that a contract
term is unenforceable in Rhode Island only if it violates public
policy.

He also noted that a contract provision violates public policy if
it injures the interests of the public, interferes with the public
welfare or safety, is unconscionable, or creates injustice or
oppression.

McConnell also pointed out that statutes passed by the Legislature
serve as the state's declaration of public policy.

Here, he continued, the DTPA provides that consumers may bring an
action on behalf of themselves and "other similarly injured and
situated" persons to recover damages.

Because the DTPA expressly provides for collective actions, he
said, the class action waiver provision in Metcalfe's leasing
agreement indeed was unenforceable as against public policy in
Rhode Island.

"Class action waivers in similar circumstances have been found to
violate public policy in various other jurisdictions as well," he
said, pointing to decisions from Ohio, New Jersey and the 6th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals.

Meanwhile, McConnell noted that Metcalfe raised an additional
reason the class action waiver should be deemed unenforceable: the
fact that the sales agreement she entered with Grieco Hyundai at
the end of the lease term contained no class action waiver itself.

The sales contract expressly stated that it constituted "the entire
agreement between you and us," McConnell observed.

"Parties can agree to eliminate contract provisions, even
arbitration clauses and class waivers, by subsequent agreement
covering such issues," he said. "These later agreements between the
parties on the same subject matter supersede the Lease Agreement.
Here, application of this principle means that the Purchase
Agreement and the Installment Contract control the transaction, and
thus the class action waiver is not applicable here."

Accordingly, McConnell concluded that the matter could proceed on a
class basis. [GN]

HAIN CELESTIAL: Seeks to File Portion of Exhibits Under Seal
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRACY HOWARD, ADINA
RINGLER, and TRECEE ARTIS, on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated, v. THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., Case No.
3:22-cv-00527-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter
an order sealing the identified portions of Exhibit 43, all of
Exhibit 44, and portions of its opposition to Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5, Hain Celestial, seeks
to seal:

   (1) portions of Exhibit 43 to the Omnibus Declaration of
Alexander
       M. Smith;

   (2) all of Exhibit 44 to the Omnibus Declaration of Alexander M.

       Smith; and

   (3) portions of Hain Celestial’s opposition to Plaintiffs'
motion
       for class certification referencing Exhibits 43 and 44, as
well
       as sealed exhibits attached to the Declaration of Hayley
       Reynolds.

Hain Celestial seeks to seal only three documents—all of which
meet this standard. Exhibit 43 is an internal Hain Celestial
presentation titled "A Pioneer in organic baby food more than 30
years." It contains confidential and proprietary information
reflecting sales volume of Hain Celestial's products (including
both products at issue and products that are not at issue),
information about potential "line extensions" for the Earth's Best
brand, information about Hain Celestial's gross margin for specific
products, and information about Hain Celestial's marketing strategy
and product positioning. The disclosure of this information would
pose a significant risk of competitive harm to Hain Celestial, and
courts routinely seal this sort of information.

Hain is an American food company whose main focus is natural foods
and botanically-based personal care products.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 1, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QllzdH at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Dean N. Panos, Esq.
          Kate T. Spelman, Esq.
          Alexander M. Smith, Esq.
          Madeline P. Skitzki, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          353 North Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 222-9350
          Facsimile: (312) 527-0484
          E-mail: dpanos@jenner.com
                  kspelman@jenner.com
                  asmith@jenner.com
                  mskitzki@jenner.com

HANOVER VENTURES: Suit Seeks More Time to Address Class Cert Issues
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gonzalez v. Hanover
Ventures Marketplace LLC et al, Case No. 1:21-cv-01347-ER
(S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting
an additional two weeks to fully address all the issues presented
in Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motions for Class
Certification and Summary Judgment.

The additional time will permit Plaintiff to fully prepare its
briefing for the Court's review, and to accommodate unexpected
burdens on counsel's case schedule. Should this request be granted,
the date for Plaintiff's replies will be moved from November 3,
2023, to November 17, 2023.

Hanover is a liquor license holder.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 2, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QJrPNM at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          CK Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 west 24th Street, eighth Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 465-1180
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com

HOLLEY INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due January 5
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Nov. 6 disclosed that
purchasers of Holley Inc. HLLY securities between July 21, 2021 and
February 6, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period") have until January
5, 2024 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the Holley class
action lawsuit. Captioned City of Fort Lauderdale General
Employees' Retirement System v. Holley Inc., No. 23-cv-00148 (W.D.
Ky.), the Holley class action lawsuit charges Holley and certain of
its top executive officers with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Holley class action lawsuit, please provide your
information here:

https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-holley-inc-f-k-a-empower-ltd-class-action-lawsuit-hlly.html

You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by
calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: Holley designs, manufactures, and distributes
performance automotive products to customers primarily in the
United States, Canada, and Europe.

The Holley class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout
the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) as a result of Holley's extensive
focus on its direct-to-consumer ("DTC") channel, Holley's
critically important relationships with its resellers and
distributors, whose business made up the vast majority of Holley's
revenue, were suffering significant damage; (ii) Holley used
discounting and other similar efforts to grow its DTC channel,
which undermined the pricing discipline Holley historically had
with its resellers and distributors, and further damaged Holley's
relationship with its resellers and distributors; (iii) as a result
of Holley's strained relationships with its resellers and
distributors, those resellers and distributors were decreasing
their purchases of Holley products, returning products already
purchased at significant levels that were far above historical
norms, and increasing their purchases of competitors' products;
(iv) Holley's growing DTC channel could not offset the negative
financial impact of Holley's increasingly strained relationships
with its resellers and distributors and, as a result, Holley's
critical relationship with resellers and distributors was
deteriorating; (v) Holley had failed to successfully integrate and
capture synergies from its numerous acquisitions, which left Holley
with inefficient operations, excess costs, and inventory management
problems; and (vi) Holly benefited from COVID-related stimulus
money that temporarily boosted its sales and performance, and
despite this unsustainable, temporary boost, defendants misled
investors to believe the growth was sustainable and the result of
persistent demand, and supportive of positive financial guidance.

On July 28, 2022, Holley announced preliminary financial results
that missed expectations and slashed its full year 2022 outlook. On
this news, the price of Holley stock fell more than 47% over two
trading sessions.

Then, on November 14, 2022, Holley further announced disappointing
financial results for third quarter 2022. On this news, the price
of Holley stock fell nearly 7%.

Thereafter, on February 6, 2023, Holley announced that Chief
Executive Officer and President Tom Tomlinson was retiring,
effective immediately, and also resigning from Holley's Board of
Directors. Also on February 6, 2023, Holley announced its
preliminary fourth quarter 2022 and full year 2022 financial
results, revealing that fourth quarter 2022 sales fell short of
market estimates as well as adjusted EBITDA that new Holley Chief
Financial Officer Jesse Weaver called "disappointing." On this
news, the price of Holley stock fell more than 37% over two trading
sessions.

The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud. You can view a copy of the complaint by
clicking here.

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Holley
securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the Holley class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is
generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the
relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and
adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of
all other class members in directing the Holley class action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the Holley class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to
share in any potential future recovery of the Holley class action
lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.

ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller is one of the world's leading
complex class action firms representing plaintiffs in securities
fraud cases. The Firm is ranked #1 on the most recent ISS
Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report for recovering more
than $1.75 billion for investors in 2022 -- the third year in a row
Robbins Geller tops the list. And in those three years alone,
Robbins Geller recovered nearly $5.3 billion for investors, more
than double the amount recovered by any other plaintiffs' firm.
With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the
largest plaintiffs' firms in the world and the Firm's attorneys
have obtained many of the largest securities class action
recoveries in history, including the largest securities class
action recovery ever -- $7.2 billion -- in In re Enron Corp. Sec.
Litig. Please visit the following page for more information:

https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html

Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.

Contact:

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]

HOTCHKISS SCHOOL: Sued Over Gross Negligence in Child Protection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lieff Cabraser disclosed that a class-action lawsuit was filed on
Nov. 6 against The Hotchkiss School, a private boarding and day
school located in Lakeville, Connecticut, alleging a deeply
troubling history of gross negligence in child protection and a
culture that allowed sexual abuse to thrive on its campus.

The complaint, filed by Plaintiff Mark Moe and on behalf of other
male Hotchkiss students who were exposed to the increased risk of
sexual violence posed by Roy G. Smith, Jr., a former teacher and
athletic trainer at the school, reveals a shocking and distressing
pattern of abuse that spans three decades. The lawsuit asserts that
Hotchkiss not only failed to protect its students from these abuses
but also actively protected and enabled the abuser.

The case asks the Court to certify a class of all male Hotchkiss
students who were student-athletes on a Hotchkiss sports team for
which Roy Smith served as an athletic trainer, and/or who visited
Roy Smith's on-campus apartment for "tutoring." If successful,
other Smith survivors could come forward to seek damages against
Hotchkiss and rely on the Court's determination that Hotchkiss is
liable for their injuries.

The allegations against Hotchkiss include rampant sexual abuse of
students by faculty members, Hotchkiss's knowledge of Smith's clear
and consistent patterns of abusive behavior, Smith's inappropriate
touching of students' genitals and sexual abuse under the guise of
tutoring, Hotchkiss's failure to intervene for 30 years while
providing Smith with access to thousands of students, the expulsion
of a student who reported Smith's abuse instead of disciplining
Smith, and a lack of policies and procedures for the prevention of
and response to sexual abuse.

In 2018, Hotchkiss commissioned a report that revealed a shocking
amount of serial sexual abuse by faculty against students. The
Locke Lord Report, as it is known, detailed abuse by many faculty
members during the same decades in which Roy Smith was abusing
children at Hotchkiss. It revealed a culture where predatory
teachers were accepted and protected, while student reports were
suppressed.

"Instead of ensuring a safe and secure community, Hotchkiss
betrayed the trust of its students and exposed them to a dangerous
environment for young people. Students should have been able to
focus on their education without fear of sexual abuse from their
teachers," said Lieff Cabraser partner Annika K. Martin, who is
head of the firm's Survivor Advocacy Practice Group and who
represents the survivors. "This lawsuit will open the door for
other Smith survivors to more easily come forward and hold the
school accountable for knowingly putting them in harm's way."
Martin has successfully represented other survivors who have
brought individual claims against The Hotchkiss School.

"This complaint goes beyond my individual experience. It sheds
light on a systemic issue at Hotchkiss and decades of abuse hidden
by the school," said Plaintiff Mark Moe, which is a pseudonym. "By
filing this case, I aim to bring justice to survivors of abuse at
Hotchkiss pave the way for others to come forward and more easily
hold the school accountable for the abuse it allowed to happen to
them."

"Survivors deserve to have their voices heard and for the school to
admit they failed their students for decades," said Hugh
Cuthbertson and Glenn Duhl at Zangari Cohn Cuthbertson Duhl &
Grello in New Haven. "This case is an important step to achieve
this outcome that these students so greatly deserve." [GN]

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Rose Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW ROSE, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
CORPORATION; and JOHNSON & JOHNSON HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-09123 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 29, 2023)
arises from the Defendants' failures to properly secure and
safeguard individuals' sensitive personal data.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff's and other proposed Class
members’ Sensitive Information, including confidential medical
information, was accessed and taken by unauthorized third parties
as a result of Defendants' inadequate data security and inadequate
or negligent training of their employees. While Defendants learned
of the breach on August 2, 2023, they waited till September 29,
2023 to notify Plaintiff and other Class members, says the suit.

As a result of Defendants' failures to implement and follow
reasonable security procedures, Class members' Sensitive
Information is now exposed. The Plaintiff and Class members have
spent, and will continue to spend, significant amounts of time and
money trying to protect themselves from the adverse ramifications
of the data breach and dealing with actual fraud and will forever
be at a heightened risk of identity theft and fraud, the suit
alleges.

International Business Machines Corporation is a multinational
technology company that provides infrastructure, software and
consulting services for clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
          LOKER LAW, APC
          1303 East Grand Avenue, Ste. 101
          Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
          Telephone: (805) 994-0177
          Facsimile: (805) 994-0197
          E-mail: matt@loker.law

INTERNATIONAL UNION: McLachlan 401 (k) Plan Suit Seeks Class Status
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRADLEY J. MCLACHLAN and
ALEX D. GRAHAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTORS, THE
GENERAL EXECUTIVE BOARD OF THE INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELEVATOR
CONSTRUCTORS, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTORS
ANNUITY AND 401(K)
RETIREMENT PLAN and JOHN DOES 1-30. Case No. 2:22-cv-04115-MMB
(E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs asks the Court to enter an order
pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23:

  -- Certifying the action as a class action on behalf:

     "All persons, except Defendants and their immediate family
     members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the
     Elevator Constructors Annuity and 401 (k) Retirement Plan, at
any
     time between October 13, 2016, through the date of judgment;"

  -- Appointing the Plaintiffs as representatives of the proposed
     class defined, and

  -- Appointing their counsel as counsel for the Class.

International Union of Elevator Constructors is a trade union in
the United States and Canada that represents members who construct,
modernize, repair, and service elevators, escalators, moving
walkways, and other conveyances.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 1, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Qllyq9 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
          Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
          312 Old Lancaster Road
          Merion Station, PA 19066
          Telephone: (610) 890-0200
          Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
          E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
                  donr@capozziadler.com

J A ALEXANDER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Laborers, Montero Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
CRISTIAN ROMERO MONTERO, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated who were employed by J A ALEXANDER,
INC., aka REBCO CONSTRUCTION, INC., aka WEST ESSEX CONSTRUCTION,
INC. and/or any other entities affiliated with, controlling, or
controlled by J A ALEXANDER, INC., aka REBCO CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
aka WEST ESSEX CONSTRUCTION, INC., and JOSEPH DOMINICK REBIMBAS,
individually, Plaintiffs v. J A ALEXANDER, INC., aka REBCO
CONSTRUCTION, INC., aka WEST ESSEX CONSTRUCTION, INC. and/or any
other entities affiliated with, controlling, or controlled by J A
ALEXANDER, INC., aka REBCO CONSTRUCTION, INC., aka WEST ESSEX
CONSTRUCTION, INC., and JOSEPH DOMINICK REBIMBAS, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-21679 (D.N.J., October 31, 2023) seeks
recovery against Defendants for Defendants' violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law, the
New Jersey State Wage Payment Law, and the New Jersey State
Prevailing Wage Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed full time as a concrete laborer
performing asphalt and concrete work for Defendants. Allegedly,
Plaintiffs were subjected to the Defendants' common policy and/or
plan to violate the FLSA by failing to pay for all hours worked.
The the Defendants' also failed to provide all of the Plaintiffs
overtime wages at the rate of one-and-one half times the regular
rate of pay, for all time worked in excess of 40 hours. Moreover,
Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against Defendants on behalf of all
non-exempt asphalt and concrete laborers who suffered damages as a
result of Defendants' violations of the said laws.

Based in Bloomfield, NJ, J A Alexander, Inc. serves the needs of
the commercial construction industry. The company is engaged in
several privately and publicly financed projects in state.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
          Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (201) 687-9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
          E-mail: Aglenn@JaffeGlenn.com
                  Jjaffe@JaffeGlenn.com

JABCO CONTRACTING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, McIntosh Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAHLEEL MCINTOSH and AKEEM CORBIN, Individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JABCO
CONTRACTING INC., and JOHN DOE, Individually, Jointly and
Severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-08105 (E.D.N.Y., October
31, 2023) asserts that the Defendants willfully violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York State
Human Rights Law.

The Defendants employed Plaintiff McIntosh as an environmental
specialist from January 2022 to January 2023. He worked the
following regular schedule for Defendants: Monday to Friday from
7:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m., or later, oftentimes without any meal
break, totaling at least 45 hours per week. He also spent more than
25% of his working hours performing physical labor. However, the
Defendants paid Plaintiffs McIntosh and Corbin $30 per hour for
hours worked up to 40 in a week, with no compensation paid for
hours they worked over 40 in a week. In addition, the Defendants
also failed to pay Plaintiffs for the first seven days they worked
during each period within seven days at the end of that week,
violating NYLL, says the suit.

Based in Brooklyn, NY, Jabco is a commercial contracting company,
which advertises its services in asbestos abatement, lead-based
paint removal, mold remediation, demolition, building
decontamination, and emergency materials cleanup. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

JEWELRY ARTISANS: Seeks More Time for Class Cert. Response
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VANESSA VASQUEZ, v.
JEWELRY ARTISANS OF ORLANDO, INC. d/b/a Kissimmee Jewelers and
ALBERTO LOPEZ, Case No. 6:23-cv-00855-WWB-LHP (M.D. Fla.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their Unopposed
Motion for Extension of Time through December 15, 2023, to file a
response to Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Conditional
Certification of Representative Class and to Permit
Court-Supervised Notification Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b)
and Incorporated Memorandum of Law., and for any and all further
relief the Court deems just and appropriate in premises.

On October 12, 2023, the Plaintiff filed her Renewed Motion for
Conditional Certification of Representative Class and to Permit
Court-Supervised Notification Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section216(b)
and Incorporated Memorandum of Law. [DE #29].

Pursuant to Local Rule 3.01 of the United States District Court
Middle District of Florida, the time limit to respond to a motion
to certify a class is within 21 days after service of the motion.

That in August 2023, undersigned counsel was ill and hospitalized
for several days at Northwest Medical Center located in Coconut
Creek, Florida.

During this hospital stay, undersigned counsel was diagnosed with
kidney cancer.

Although undersigned counsel is scheduled for surgery on November
1, 2023, it is unknown how much time counsel will need to recover,
and thereby, be out of the office on medical leave, due to the
uncertainty of the size of the tumors.

Jewelry Artisans is a leading custom engagement ring and jewelry
store.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 1, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40EDJMl at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Barry S. Mittelberg, Esq.
          Lizzie M. Ramos, Esq.
          BARRY S. MITTELBERG, P.A.
          10100 W Sample Road, Suite 407
          Coral Springs, FL 33065
          Telephone: (954) 752-1213
          Facsimile: (954) 752-5299

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Data Breach Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marianna Wharry, writing for ALM Benefits Pro, reports that a class
action complaint filed in federal court alleges that Johnson &
Johnson and IBM were negligent for failing to secure patients'
personal health care information from a recent data breach.

Plaintiff Andrew Rose filed the complaint in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on Nov. 5 alleging
that J&J and IBM inadequately maintained its health care database
and improperly trained employees to protect patients' data.

J&J used a platform known as Janssen CarePath, which provided
patient support for managing health care medications and offered
savings options. IBM is the service provider for the platform and
manages it and its third-party database.

J&J notified patients of the data breach on Sept. 29, despite the
breach occurring more than a month before on Aug. 2. Rose also
claimed the information, which included the name, contact and
health insurance information, medications and medical conditions,
was unencrypted and uploaded to the dark web.

The complaint argues that both J&J and IBM failed to comply with
the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 by
not ensuring the confidentiality and integrity of their electronic
health information. Rose and the class claim the companies
committed eight violations: breaching the California
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, negligence, invasion of
privacy, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty,
breach of confidence, violating the California unfair competition
law and the California Customer Records Act.

The plaintiffs are asking for a jury trial and that the court
certify the class action. They are also seeking injunctive relief
to prevent the defendants from continuing to engage in unlawful
behavior and to require encryption for all data collected. They
also want an award for damages, as well as equitable relief
requiring restitution and disgorgement of revenues retained as a
result of the defendants' wrongful conduct.

Attorneys Matthew Michael Loker, of Loker Law in Arroyo Grande, Ben
Travis, of Ben Travis Law in San Diego, and Joshua Swigart, of
Swigart Law Group in San Diego, are representing Rose and the class
members. Counsel did not return a request for comment.

Counsel for defendants has not yet made an appearance. A request
for comment from J&J and IBM went unanswered. [GN]

LANGUAGE LINE: Court Approves Class Action Notice in Rouse Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEREK ROUSE, individually
and o/b/o all other persons similarly situated, v. LANGUAGE LINE
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-00204-DGK (W.D. Mo.), the Hon.
Judge Greg Kays entered an order granting the parties' joint motion
for approval of class action notice:

The Plaintiff Derek Rouse is appointed class representative and
Plaintiff's counsel Kevin Koc of the Meyers Law Firm is appointed
class counsel.

By November 10, 2023, Defense counsel shall provide the third-party
administrator chosen by the parties with the names, last-known
mailing addresses, last-known personal email addresses, and Social
Security numbers for all Putative Class Members.

Putative Class Members will be able to return the Consent to Join
Form electronically, by email, by first-class mail, or facsimile.

Within 60 days of the initial mailing of the Notice, Putative Class
Members who wish to opt into the lawsuit must fill out and return
the Consent to Join Form, either electronically or by mail, fax, or
e-mail, to the third-party administrator.

The case is a collective action lawsuit in which Plaintiffs are
seeking to recover unpaid wages and overtime pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiffs are a putative class of approximately thirty current
and former employees who have worked as Implementation Specialists
for Defendant Language Line Services, Inc., from July 22, 2019, to
present.

The Court recently denied preliminary approval of a proposed
settlement. Now before the Court are the parties' Joint Motion for
Approval of Notice of Class Action, Notice Procedures, and Consent
to Join Form.

Language Line offers telecommunications and technology interpreter
services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 1, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3siCmWE at no extra charge.[CC]

LINCOLN NATIONAL: COI Class Suit Settlement Gets Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2023, that the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
granted final approval for the consolidated COI class suit
settlement on October 5, 2023.

In re: Lincoln National COI Litigation, pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No.
2:16-cv-06605-GJP, is a consolidated litigation matter related to
multiple putative class action cases that were consolidated by an
order dated March 20, 2017.

Plaintiffs purport to own certain universal life insurance policies
originally issued by Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL).

Among other things, plaintiffs allege that LNL and LNC breached the
terms of policyholders' contracts by increasing non-guaranteed cost
of insurance rates beginning in 2016.

Plaintiffs sought to represent classes of policyowners and sought
damages on their behalf.

On August 9, 2022, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

The parties participated in a mediation on December 13, 2022, and
subsequently reached a settlement.

On January 26, 2023, the parties informed the presiding judge of a
class settlement in this action, subject to final documentation and
court approval.

On March 24, 2023, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the class settlement, which was granted by the court on
June 14, 2023.

The provisional settlement, which was subject to both preliminary
and final approval of the court, consisted of $117.75 million in
pre-tax cash (in the aggregate for both this litigation and the In
re: Lincoln National 2017 COI Rate Litigation matter discussed
immediately below) and a five-year cost of insurance rate freeze,
among other terms.

After certain policyholders timely opted out or otherwise excluded
themselves from the settlement class with respect to certain
policies, the pre-tax cash settlement fund was reduced to $109.96
million.

The court granted final approval of the settlement on October 5,
2023.

Lincoln National Corporation and its subsidiaries operate multiple
insurance businesses through four business segments namely Life
Insurance, Annuities, Group Protection and Retirement Plan
Services.

LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend Angus Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Angus class suit in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Angus v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
No. 2:22-cv-01878, is a putative class action filed on May 13,
2022.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant LNL breached the terms of her life
insurance policy by deducting non-guaranteed cost of insurance
charges in excess of what is permitted by the policies.

Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of universal life insurance
policies issued or insured by LNL or its predecessors containing
non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to
those of plaintiff's policy and seeks damages on their behalf.

Breach of contract is the only cause of action asserted.

On August 26, 2022, LNL filed a motion to dismiss.

The Company is vigorously defending this matter.

Lincoln National Corporation and its subsidiaries operate multiple
insurance businesses through four business segments namely Life
Insurance, Annuities, Group Protection and Retirement Plan
Services.

LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend Glover Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2023, that the
company continues to defend itself from the Glover class suit.

Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The
Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut, No. 3:16-cv-00827, is a
putative class action that was served on The Lincoln National Life
Insurance Company (“LNL”) on June 8, 2016.

Plaintiff is the owner of a universal life insurance policy who
alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance
than permitted by the policy.

Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and variable
universal life policyholders who owned policies containing
non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to
those of plaintiff's policy and seeks damages on behalf of all such
policyholders.

On January 11, 2019, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint in
its entirety.

In response, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the
complaint, which, on September 25, 2023, the court granted in part
and denied in part.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 10, 2023.

The Company is vigorously defending this matter.

Lincoln National Corporation and its subsidiaries operate multiple
insurance businesses through four business segments namely Life
Insurance, Annuities, Group Protection and Retirement Plan
Services.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend Vida Longevity Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Vida Longevity class
suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

Vida Longevity Fund, LP v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New
York, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, No. 1:19-cv-06004, is a putative class action that was
filed on June 27, 2019.

Plaintiff alleges that Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York
("LLANY") charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance than
was permitted by the policies.

On March 31, 2022, the court issued an order granting plaintiff's
motion for class certification and certified a class of all current
or former owners of six universal life insurance products issued by
LLANY that were assessed a cost of insurance charge any time on or
after June 27, 2013.

Plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of the class.

On April 19, 2023, LLANY filed a motion for summary judgment, which
remains pending.

The Company is vigorously defending this matter.

Lincoln National Corporation and its subsidiaries operate multiple
insurance businesses through four business segments namely Life
Insurance, Annuities, Group Protection and Retirement Plan
Services.

MICHIGAN: Appeals Ruling in Braziel Civil Rights Suit to 6th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants MARCUS MUHAMMAD, Mayor, individually and in his official
capacity, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's Opinion
and Order Regarding Report and Recommendation dated September 28,
2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled DARETHA BRAZIEL, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. GRETCHEN WHITMER, et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-00960-HYJ-PJG, in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Michigan.

The Plaintiffs are residents of Benton Harbor, Michigan, who
allegedly consumed water containing lead, bacteria, and other
contaminants from Benton Harbor’s water supply.  They brought
this action against the City of Benton Harbor, some of its present
and former officials, the State of Michigan, several state agencies
and officials, and two private engineering firms.

The Plaintiffs' second amended complaint contains six claims.
Count I asserts that the individual Defendants who worked for the
State of Michigan or the City violated Plaintiffs' right to
substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Count II
asserts that the City is liable for the unconstitutional conduct of
its "official policymakers" under Monell v. Department of Social
Services Count III asserts that the City is liable for unjust
enrichment because Plaintiffs paid for contaminated water that was
unfit for consumption. Counts IV and V assert that Defendants
Elhorn Engineering Company and F&V Operations and Resource
Management, Inc. are liable for negligence because they failed to
exercise due care when selecting or using anti-corrosion chemicals
to treat the City's water problems. Finally, Count VI asserts that
Defendant Michael O'Malley, the former Manager of the City's Water
Department, was grossly negligent in his duties when responding to
the City's water problems.  

The Defendants then filed motions to dismiss the federal claims in
the complaint on December 16, 2022.

On June 1, 2023, Magistrate Judge Phillip J. Green entered a Report
and Recommendation that the Court grant most of the motions, deny
another, and dismiss Plaintiffs' claims.

On October 4, 2023, the Court ordered to adopt the R&R in part and
reject in part. The Court will dismiss all Defendants other than
Defendants O'Malley, Muhammad, and the City. The R&R is REJECTED
insofar as it concluded (1) that Plaintiffs fail to state a federal
claim against Defendants Muhammad, O'Malley, and the City of Benton
Harbor; and (2) that the Court should decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state-law claims because
the Court will dismiss all of Plaintiffs' federal claims. Instead,
the Court concluded that Plaintiffs state a substantive due process
claim against Defendants Muhammad, O'Malley, and the City of Benton
Harbor. The Court will decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction for different reasons.

The appellate case is captioned as Daretha Braziel, et al. v.
Gretchen Whitmer, et al., Case No. 23-1954, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on October 27,
2023.[BN]

Defendants-Appellants MARCUS MUHAMMAD, Mayor, individually and in
his official capacity, et al.,

          Alexandra Markel, Esq.
          Thomas J. Rheaume, Jr., Esq.
          Erica Shell, Esq.
          BODMAN
          1901 Saint Antoine Street, Sixth Floor
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 259-7777

Plaintiffs-Appellees DARETHA BRAZIEL, individually and on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated Plaintiff Residents of
the City of Benton Harbor, Michigan, next friend of RB, next friend
of DB, next friend of DR, et al., are represented by:

          Mark P. Chalos, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN
          222 Second Avenue, S. Suite 1640
          Nashville, TN 37201-2379
          Telephone: (615) 313-9000

               - and -

          Carl Ray Edwards, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE
          65 Cadillac Square, Suite 2710
          Detroit, MI 48226-0000
          Telephone: (313) 961-5000

               - and -

          Amelia Haselkorn, Esq.
          Tiseme G. Zegeye, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000

               - and -

          Alice B. Jennings, Esq.
          EDWARDS & JENNINGS
          3031 W. Grand Boulevard, Suite 435
          Detroit, MI 48202
          Telephone: (313) 961-5000

               - and -

          Annika K. Martin, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN
          250 Hudson Street, Eighth Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500

               - and -

          Stuart Talley, Esq.
          KERSHAW, CUTTER, RATINOFF & YORK
          980 Ninth Street, Suite 1900
          Sacramento, CA 95814-2719
          Telephone: (916) 779-7000

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Gibson et al. Sue Over Alleged Conspiracy
---------------------------------------------------------------
DON GIBSON, LAUREN CRISS, and JOHN MEINERS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, COMPASS, INC., EXP WORLD HOLDINGS, INC.,
REDFIN CORPORATION, WEICHERT REALTORS, UNITED REAL ESTATE, HOWARD
HANNA REAL ESTATE SERVICES, and DOUGLAS ELLIMAN, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 4:23-cv-00788-FJG (W.D. Mo., October 31, 2023) seek treble
damages under Sherman Act, injunctive relief, and the costs of this
lawsuit, including reasonable attorneys' fees, and demand a trial
by jury.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants are engaged in a
continuing contract, combination, or conspiracy to unreasonably
restrain interstate trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act. The conspiracy consists of a continuing agreement
among Defendants and Defendants' co-conspirators to require sellers
of residential property to make inflated payments to the buyer
broker. In furtherance of the contract, combination, or conspiracy,
the Defendants and their co-conspirators, among other things, have
participated in the creation, maintenance, re-publication, and
implementation of the Mandatory Offer of Compensation Rule and
other anticompetitive National Association of Realtors rules, say
the Plaintiffs.

Headquartered in Chicago, IL, the National Association of Realtors
is America's largest trade association, representing 1.5 million
members. [BN]

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 -

         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

                     - 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

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Must Face Student-Athletes' Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that lawsuits accusing the National Collegiate
Athletic Association of depriving U.S. college athletes of billions
of dollars in compensation for the commercial use of their "name,
image and likeness" can move ahead as a class action, a California
federal judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken on Nov. 3 certified three
classes of current former student-athletes in the NCAA cases,
including a monetary damages class exposing the governing body for
U.S. collegiate sports to more than $1.3 billion in claims.

The plaintiffs said the classes comprise more than 184,000 members
who played men's football and basketball, women's basketball and
other sports for schools in the NCAA's Division I, the top tier for
U.S. college athletics.

The students accuse the NCAA and its conferences of conspiring to
restrict payments to athletes for television broadcasts, video
games and other revenue sources.

The NCAA had argued that there was no "legal or factual support"
for granting the students class-action status. The NCAA's attorneys
argued among other things that there was no market -- a necessary
part of antitrust cases -- for students' "name, image and likeness"
in television broadcasts.

In a statement, the NCAA disagreed with the ruling and said name,
image and likeness (NIL) is "highly specific" and not appropriate
for class-action treatment. The NCAA said it "fully supports all
student-athletes profiting from their NIL rights."

Co-lead plaintiffs' attorneys Jeffrey Kessler and Steven Berman in
a statement called the decision "a huge step forward" and said the
case "has the potential to bring economic justice and fairness to
the big business of college sports."

A trial is scheduled for January 2025 in the litigation, which
began in 2020 over the NCAA's refusal to allow college athletes to
make any money for their name, image and likeness.

The association in 2021 dialed back some rules, allowing third
parties to pay some forms of compensation.

The plaintiffs contend the NCAA and its co-defendants have
"continued to collusively agree to forbid themselves from directly
paying class members."

The case is In re College Athlete NIL Litigation, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California, No. 4:20-cv-03919-CW.

For plaintiffs: Steve Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro; and
Jeffrey Kessler of Winston & Strawn

For NCAA: Beth Wilkinson and Rakesh Kilaru of Wilkinson Stekloff;
and Jacob Danziger of ArentFox Schiff [GN]

NATIONAL GENERAL: Suit Seeks to Strike Braithwaite's Declaration
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDD KING, DIEDRE KING,
ELMO SHEEN, and SHEILA LEE, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, NATIONAL
GENERAL ASSURANCE COMPANY, INTEGON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
INTEGON PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY, MIC GENERAL INSURANCE
CORPORATION, PERSONAL EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, SEQUOIA INSURANCE
COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 200, inclusive, Case No.
4:15-cv-00313-DMR (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order striking the declarations of Paul Braithwaite
submitted in opposition to class certification.

The Motion is made and based upon Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE)
403 and 702. As grounds for the motion, Plaintiffs assert that Mr.
Braithwaite is not qualified to render the expert testimony and
opinions set forth in his Declaration in Opposition to Class
Certification and his testimony lacks a sufficient factual
foundation.

This consumer protection case concerns the National General
Insurance Defendants' class-wide failure to cross-offer the lowest
available California Good Driver premiums from within their
AmTrust/NGH Control Group Number 2538 of companies to policyholders
who purchased California GD private passenger automobile policies
and did not receive the lowest available rate. With their motion,
Plaintiffs have submitted the declaration and report of actuary
Scott Brown, who calculated aggregate restitution/damages based on
National General's policy systems data.

The Plaintiffs' actuarial expert, Scott Brown, has provided
actuarial services for various lines of insurance business
including auto liability. Dkt. 304 ¶ 2. Mr. Brown has significant
experience with automobile liability coverage, including California
private passenger auto ratemaking.

National offers business and personal insurance.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 2, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tTm2fp at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael F. Ram, Esq.
          Marie N. Appel, Esq.
          Shelby Serig, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 358-6913
          Facsimile: (415) 358-6923
          E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com
                  mappel@forthepeople.com
                  sserig@forthepeople.com

                - and -

          Jeffrey B. Cereghino, Esq.
          CEREGHINO LAW GROUP LLP
          649 Mission Street, Floor 5
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 433-4949
          E-mail: jbc@cereghinolaw.com

                - and -

          W. Craig Bashein, Esq.
          John P. Hurst, Esq.
          BASHEIN & BASHEIN CO., L.P.A.
          Terminal Tower
          35th Floor, 50 Public Square
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 771-3239

NIKOLA CORP: Continues to Defend Borteanu Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nikola Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the consolidated Borteanu
securities class suit in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona.

The Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors are defendants in a consolidated securities class action
lawsuit pending in the United States District Court of the District
of Arizona (the "Shareholder Securities Litigation").

On December 15, 2020, the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona consolidated the actions under lead case
Borteanu v. Nikola Corporation, et al., No. CV-20-01797-PXL-SPL,
and appointed Angelo Baio as the "Lead Plaintiff."

On December 23, 2020, a motion for reconsideration of the Court's
order appointing the Lead Plaintiff was filed.

On December 30, 2020, a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to
vacate the District Court's Lead Plaintiff order and directing the
court to appoint another Lead Plaintiff was filed before the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Case No. 20-73819.

The motion for reconsideration was denied on February 18, 2021.

On July 23, 2021, the Ninth Circuit granted in part the mandamus
petition, vacated the district court's December 15, 2020 order, and
remanded the case to the District Court to reevaluate the
appointment of a Lead Plaintiff.

On November 18, 2021, the Court appointed Nikola Investor Group II
as Lead Plaintiff.

On January 24, 2022, Lead Plaintiffs filed the Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint which asserts claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on
allegedly false and/or misleading statements and omissions in press
releases, public filings, and in social media regarding the
Company's business plan and prospects.

In accordance with the Court's scheduling order, Defendants filed
their motions to dismiss on April 8, 2022.

On May 9, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their opposition to Defendants'
motions to dismiss, and on June 8, 2022, Defendants filed their
reply briefs.

On February 2, 2023, the court issued a ruling granting the
Defendants' motions to dismiss, without prejudice.

As a result, Plaintiffs' complaint was dismissed in its entirety,
with leave to amend by April 3, 2023.

On April 3, 2023, Plaintiff's filed the Second Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint. In accordance with the Court's scheduling
order, Defendants filed their motions to dismiss the Second
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on May 15, 2023.

On June 14, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their oppositions to Defendants'
motions to dismiss, and on June 29, 2023, Defendants filed their
reply briefs.

The Court has not yet ruled on the motions.

Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount in damages, attorneys' fees,
and other relief.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself.

The Company is unable to estimate the potential loss or range of
loss, if any, associated with these lawsuits, which could be
material.

Nikola Corporation operates as a zero-emissions transportation and
infrastructure solution provider. The Company is a designer and
manufacturer of battery-electric and hydrogen-electric vehicles,
electric vehicle drivetrains, vehicle components, energy storage
systems, and hydrogen fueling station infrastructure.[BN]


NOVO NORDISK: Faces Class Suit in Canada Over Diabetes Drug
-----------------------------------------------------------
Irvin Jackson, writing for AboutLawsuits.com, reports that Novo
Nordisk faces a class action lawsuit over Ozempic in Canada,
presenting claims similar to a growing number of complaints now
being filed in the U.S., indicating that the maker of the popular
diabetes and weight loss drug failed to adequately warn about the
risk of gastroparesis, also known as stomach paralysis.

The complaint was filed last month by Suzanne Talbot in the Supreme
Court of British Columbia, indicating that side effects of Ozempic
caused a blockage in her biliary system, resulting in severe pain,
chronic diarrhea, heartburn and hospitalization.

Ozempic (semaglutide) was initially introduced for the treatment of
people with Type 2 diabetes. However, amid aggressive
advertisements that promoted the weight loss benefits, Ozempic has
been increasingly prescribed as a diet drug in recent years,
leading the drug maker introduced a higher dose version, known as
Wegovy, which is specifically approved for weight loss use.

Failure to Warn About Ozempic Side Effects
Although the drug has been marketed as safe and effective, concerns
have emerged in recent months about painful and debilitating
gastrointestinal problems from Ozempic and Wegovy, primarily
involving a medical condition known as gastroparesis, which results
from delayed emptying of the stomach.

As a result of the drug maker's failure to sufficiently disclose
the risk, a number of former users are now pursuing Ozempic
lawsuits and Wegovy lawsuits in both the U.S. and Canada, each
raising similar allegations that they developed painful and
debilitating stomach problems, which could have been avoided if
false and misleading information had not been provided for users
and the medical community.

FIND OUT IF YOU HAVE A LAWSUIT

WERE YOU INJURED BY OZEMPIC, WEGOVY OR MOUNJARO?
Lawyers are pursuing Ozempic lawsuits, Wegovy lawsuits and Mounjaro
lawsuits over gastroparesis or stomach paralysis, which can leave
users with long-term gastrointestinal side effects

Talbot's lawsuit indicates she began taking Ozempic in 2021, and
used the drug on a regular basis until 2023. After starting the
prescription, Talbot began suffering from chronic diarrhea,
heartburn, shortness of breath and pain, resulting in her admission
to the hospital.

These conditions worsened over time until she was diagnosed with a
biliary blockage in August 2023.

"Healthcare professionals indicated to the Plaintiff that the
blockage was linked to her Ozempic use. Shortly following that
hospital admission, the Plaintiff ceased her use of Ozempic,"
Talbot indicates. "Subsequent to stopping Ozempic, the Plaintiff
continued to experience concerning signs and symptoms, including
pain, heartburn, and shortness of breath, and the Plaintiff
continues to experience concerning signs and symptoms today."

The lawsuit claims that Novo Nordisk was aware of the problem for
years, since at least 2018, but failed to warn the medical
community or patients about the risks of Ozempic gastroparesis.

Ozempic Gastroparesis Risks
In July, a CNN investigation outlined reports linking Ozempic and
stomach paralysis, indicating that researchers have similar
problems have been associated with other drugs in the same class in
recent years.

In 2017, researchers with the Mayo Clinic conducted a study
involving a similar diabetes medication known as Victoza, which
found that the drug caused significantly slower digestion in users,
taking about 70 minutes for half the food they ate to leave their
stomachs, compared to four minutes for people who did not take the
drug. However, the study found that people's bodies tended to
adjust over time.

The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) issued a warning
about using Ozempic and Wegovy before surgery this summer,
indicating that the lack of gastric emptying linked to the drugs
could put patients at risk of vomiting and aspiration while under
the effects of anesthesia.

The first known Ozempic gastroparesis lawsuit was filed in early
August, alleging Novo Nordisk knew about the risks, but failed to
provide patients and healthcare providers with adequate warning.
However, it is widely expected that or thousands of similar claims
may be brought in the coming months and years, as well as Mounjaro
lawsuits over similar gastrointestinal risks associated with these
similar medications. [GN]

OKTA INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit Over SEC Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
Okta, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended July 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 31, 2023, that on May 20, 2022, a purported
shareholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
against the company and certain of its executive officers,
captioned "In re Okta, Inc. Securities Litigation," No.
3:22-cv-02990.

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that the defendants made
false or misleading statements or omissions concerning the
company's cybersecurity controls, vulnerability to data breaches,
and its integration of Auth0, Inc. The lawsuit seeks an order
certifying the lawsuit as a class action and unspecified damages.
The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

On March 31, 2023, the court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the motion to dismiss. The court dismissed in full
the claims based on the plaintiff's allegations related to the
company's cybersecurity controls and vulnerability to data
breaches, and dismissed in part and denied in part the claims based
on allegations related to the Auth0 integration. Discovery is
proceeding with respect to the issues remaining in the case.

Okta, Inc. is an independent identity partner powered by its
Identity Platform enabling customers to securely connect the right
people to the right technologies and services at the right time.
Employees and contractors sign into the Workforce Identity Cloud to
seamlessly and securely access the applications they need to do
their most important work. Developers leverage the Workforce
Identity and Customer Identity Clouds to securely and efficiently
embed identity into the software they build, allowing them to
innovate and focus on their core missions.


OKTA INC: Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Securities Purchasers
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Okta, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 3:22-cv-02990-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Lead
Plaintiff Nebraska Investment Council and Additional Plaintiff
North Carolina Retirement Systems, pursuant to Rules 9(b), and
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, asks the Court
for an order granting certification of a class of:

   "Purchasers of Okta, Inc., securities to pursue claims under
   sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

   (Exchange Act), 15 U.S.C. sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), and Rule
10b-
   5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. section 240.10b-5, against
   Defendants.

The Class is defined as:

   "All persons and entities who or which, during the period from
   March 3, 2022, through August 31, 2022, inclusive, purchased or

   otherwise acquired the publicly traded Class A common stock of
   Okta, Inc. and were damaged thereby.

The Plaintiffs also move the Court for an order of appointment as
Class Representatives and, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g),
appointing Lead Counsel Labaton Sucharow LLP as Class Counsel.

Okta is a data security company that provides identity and access
management software aimed at helping companies secure user
authentication for applications and allowing developers to build
identity controls into applications and devices.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 1, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46fl1Mt at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael P. Canty, Esq.
          James T. Christie, Esq.
          Nicholas Manningham, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: mcanty@labaton.com
                  jchristie@labaton.com
                  nmanningham@labaton.com

                - and -

          James M. Wagstaffe, Esq.
          Frank Busch, Esq.
          WAGSTAFFE, VON LOEWENFELDT, BUSCH &
          RADWICK, LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 2250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 357-8900
          Facsimile: (415) 371-0500
          E-mail: wagstaffe@wvbrlaw.com
                  busch@wvbrlaw.com

OREGON: Evangelist Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Caery Evangelist, Ph.D., Brian J Els, Ph.D.,
on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated v. State
of Oregon by and through its Department of Transportation, Progress
Software Corporation, Case No. 6:23-cv-01532 was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Oct. 31, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12607-ADB to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Oregon -- https://www.oregon.gov/ -- is a state in the Pacific
Northwest region of the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James Pizzirusso, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          888 16th Street, Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: (202) 540-7200
          Fax: (202) 540-7201
          Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian Simmonds Marshall, Esq.
          OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          100 SW Market Street
          Portland, OR 97201
          Phone: (971) 673-1880
          Email: brian.s.marshall@doj.state.or.us

               - and -

          Anthony A. Todaro, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          701 5th Avenue, Suite 7000
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Phone: (206) 839-4830
          Fax: (206) 839-4801
          Email: anthony.todaro@dlapiper.com


OUTLOOK THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer & Holzer, LLC informs investors that a shareholder class
action lawsuit has been filed against Outlook Therapeutics, Inc.
("Outlook Therapeutics" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: OTLK). The
lawsuit alleges Outlook Therapeutics made false or misleading
statements and/or omitted material adverse information regarding
the Company's business, operations, and prospects, including: (i)
there was a lack of substantial evidence supporting ONS-5010 as a
treatment for wet AMD; (ii) the Company and/or its manufacturing
partner had deficient chemistry manufacturing and controls ("CMC")
and other manufacturing issues for ONS-5010, which remained
unresolved at the time the ONS-5010 BLA was resubmitted to the FDA;
(iii) as a result of all the foregoing, the FDA was unlikely to
approve the ONS-5010 BLA in its present form; and (iv) accordingly,
ONS-5010's regulatory and commercial prospects were overstated.

If you bought Outlook Therapeutics shares between December 29, 2022
and August 29, 2023, and you suffered a significant loss on that
investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by
contacting Corey Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com or Joshua
Karr, Esq. at jkarr@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at
(888) 508-6832 or you may visit the firm's website at
www.holzerlaw.com/case/outlook-therapeutics/ to learn more.

The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the
case is January 2, 2024.

Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law
firm for 2021 and 2022, dedicates its practice to vigorous
representation of shareholders and investors in litigation
nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative
litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys
have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of
dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate
misconduct. More information about the firm is available through
its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm.
Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this
promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney
responsible for its content. 

CONTACT:
Corey Holzer, Esq.
(888) 508-6832 (toll-free)
cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN]

PASTOSA RAVIOLI: Martinez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
SILVIA MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. PASTOSA, RAVIOLI, MACARONI, AND NOODLE
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-08044-CLP (E.D.N.Y., Oct.
27, 2023) is a civil rights action against Defendant for the
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website,
www.pastosa.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable
by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act and in violation of the New York City Human Rights
Law.

The Plaintiff has visited the website on October 13, 2023 and again
on October 15, 2023 using a screen-reader. Specifically, Plaintiff
intended to purchase the Tri-Color Cheese Filled Tortellini. She
asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free
and full use using keyboards and screen-reading software. These
barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden
elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop
ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement
that some events be performed solely with a mouse, says the
Plaintiff.

Pastosa, Ravioli, Macaroni, and Noodle Corporation is a New
York-based company which manufactures Italian pasta sauces, cheeses
and other food items.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          PeterPaul Shaker, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com

PIONEER MERGER: Funicular Funds Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FUNICULAR FUNDS, LP v.
PIONEER MERGER CORP. et al, Case No. 1:22-cv-10986-JSR (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Jed S. Rakoff entered an order certifying a class
of:

   "All persons who held Class A Public Shares of Pioneer as of the

   redemption date of January 13, 2023, whose shares were redeemed,

   including their legal representatives, heirs, successors-in-
   interest, transferees, and assignees of all such holders, but
   excluding

     (i) the Defendants in this action;

    (ii) any person who is, or partner of Pioneer Merger Sponsor
LLC;
         Alpha Wave Global, LP; Patriot Global Management, LP, or
         their affiliates;

   (iii) the immediate family members of any of the foregoing;

    (iv) the legal representatives, heirs, successors-in-interest,
         successors, transferees, and assigns of the foregoing;
and

     (v) any trust, estates, entities, or accounts that held
Pioneer
         Class A Public Shares for the benefit of any of the
         foregoing.

The Court appoints Funicular as class representatives and
Funicular's counsel, Morris Kandibov LLP, as class counsel.

Pioneer Merger operates as a blank check company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 1, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3St76iy at no extra charge.[CC]

PRESTIGE MAINTENANCE: Rosales et al. Sue Over Labor Law Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
VICENTE FLORES ROSALES, YESENIA CASTILLO, and RUBITH GONZALEZ, on
their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. PRESTIGE MAINTENANCE USA, LTD., Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-02895 (D. Colo., November 1, 2023) alleges violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Wage Claim Act, and the
Colorado Healthy Families and Workplaces Act.

One of the Plaintiffs, Vicente Flores Rosales, was employed by
Defendant as a janitor between approximately May of 2022 and
October 30, 2023. Between June 1, 2023 and July 9, 2023, he worked
142 uncompensated hours cleaning for Defendant. Between October 1,
2023 and October 29, 2023 he worked 30 additional uncompensated
hours cleaning for Defendant. Despite numerous requests, Defendant
has failed to pay him any wages at all for these hours.
Accordingly, he seeks recovery of unpaid wages, says the suit.

Prestige Maintenance USA sells cleaning services to customers
throughout the state of Colorado and across the United States. It
contracts with third-party subcontractors to secure labor of
janitors to satisfy its contractual obligations to its commercial
customers. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew H. Turner, Esq.
          PRESTIGE MAINTENANCE USA, LTD.
          MILSTEIN TURNER, PLLC
          1490 Lafayette St. #304
          Denver, CO. 80218
          Telephone: (303) 305-8230
          E-mail: andrew@milsteinturner.com

QIWI PLC: Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP disclosed that on November 3, 2023, Judge
Rachel P. Kovner of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss a proposed
putative securities class action alleging that a Russian electronic
payments company (the "Company") and certain of its officers
violated Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). In re Qiwi PLC Sec. Litig., No.
1:20-cv-06054-RPK-CLP (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 2023). Plaintiff alleged
that the Company made false and misleading statements regarding its
compliance with Russian regulations that prohibited the
facilitation of payments to unsanctioned online gambling sites. The
Court dismissed the complaint for failure to plead actionable
misstatements or omissions and failure to plead facts that raise a
strong inference of scienter.

The Company operates a network of digital wallets and physical
terminals that allow merchants and customers to make instant
payments in several Eastern European countries. According to the
Complaint, users can create a digital wallet using the Company's
technology by registering with their phone number. The Company
obtained a banking license from the Central Bank of the Russian
Federation ("CBR"), which means the Company must comply with CBR's
rules and is subject to CBR audits. The Company is also licensed to
facilitate certain online gambling transactions and, according to
plaintiff, derives approximately a third of its total revenue from
facilitating gambling transactions. Plaintiff alleges that the
Company made a series of misstatements and omissions in its SEC
filings concerning (1) its compliance with Russian banking and
gambling laws and recordkeeping regulations, (2) the results of a
2020 audit by the CBR and the likely consequences the Company would
face, and (3) the impact that new Russian regulations would have on
the Company's business.

The Court first held that plaintiff did not adequately plead that
the Company made materially false misstatements or omissions
regarding unlawful acts or recordkeeping deficiencies. With respect
to plaintiff's claim that the Company misled investors by failing
to disclose that its profits were partially derived from violating
Russian regulations, the Court held that plaintiff failed to
identify specific legal violations, the substance of those
violations, or the conduct that led to those violations. With
respect to plaintiff's allegations that the Company made misleading
statements regarding the efficacy and remediation of its reporting
and recordkeeping, the Court found that plaintiff did not plead
with sufficient particularity "what reporting or recordkeeping
requirements were violated, when, and in what ways." The Court also
addressed plaintiff's allegation that the Company failed to
disclose illegal gambling transactions by the Company's customers.
Here, the Court held that plaintiff's allegations about illicit
gambling were "at best, assertions of uncharged, unadjudicated
wrongdoing." Although plaintiff asserted that the Company had a
duty to disclose uncharged wrongdoing because it "tout[ed] success
but fail[ed] to disclose that improper practices contributed to
that success," the Court rejected this argument because plaintiff
failed to allege with particularity the specific ways in which
undisclosed activity was illegal or improper.

Second, the Court held that plaintiff failed to adequately allege
that the Company made actionable misstatements relating to the CBR
audit in 2020. While plaintiff alleged that the Company
"misleadingly concealed the CBR audit's existence," the Court found
that, because the Company was not obligated to disclose "uncharged,
unadjudicated wrongdoing," the Company was not required to inform
investors that the CBR was performing a routine audit and had not
yet charged the Company with misconduct.

Third, the Court held that plaintiff failed to adequately allege
that the Company made actionable misstatements about the negative
impacts of new regulations on the Company's business. The Court
found that plaintiff's conclusory allegations that "new
regulations" "heavily impacted" the Company's business, fell short
because plaintiff did not plead with particularity what new
regulations were harmful to the Company's business and how.

The Court next addressed plaintiff's allegations of scienter. The
Court found that plaintiff did not adequately allege motive to
commit fraud, as no individual defendant was alleged to have sold
any shares of the Company's stock during the class period and
therefore there was no allegation that any individual defendant
received a concrete and personal benefit from the alleged
misrepresentations. Additionally, the Court found that plaintiff
did not adequately allege conscious misbehavior or recklessness
because plaintiff did not specifically allege any defendant's
knowledge of facts or access to information that contradicted their
public statements. The Court also found that plaintiff failed to
plead corporate scienter, which requires that the pleaded facts
show a strong inference that someone whose intent could be imputed
to the corporation acted with scienter, for the same reasons that
plaintiff's complaint failed to allege scienter with respect to any
individual defendant.

Finally, the Court addressed plaintiff's claims for scheme
liability under subsections (a) and (c) of Rule 10b-5. The Court
found that these claims failed because plaintiff's allegations of
scienter were lacking and because plaintiff did not precisely
articulate the alleged scheme to defraud investors.

In re Qiwi PLC Sec. Litig. [GN]

ROADMASTER DRIVERS: Third Amended Sched Order Entered in Meehan
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRADLEY MEEHAN and CESAR
E. CIRVERA SANTAMARIA, on behalf of themselves and those similar
situated, v. ROADMASTER DRIVERS SCHOOL, INC., Case No.
5:22-cv-04299-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge John M. Gallagher
entered an order that the Amended Scheduling Order is amended as
follows:

   1. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file          Nov. 15, 2023,
      a motion for class certification
      shall be:

   2. The Defendants' deadline to respond       Dec. 13, 2023
      shall be:

   3. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file          Jan. 3, 2024.
      a reply brief in further support of
      the motion shall be:

Roadmaster is a provider of Class A CDL training for companies of
all types and sizes across America.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45ZeW6v at no extra charge.[CC]

ROBLOX CORP: Faces Suit Over Effect of Game Platform on Young Users
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Rucker, Dorian Hargrove and Keristen Holmes, writing for
CBS8, report that every day, between the months of April 2023
through June 2023, more than 65.5 million people, 39.3 million of
which were under the age of 13, logged on to the popular online
children's game, Roblox.

During that time, the San Mateo-based video game company reported
that it brought in $680 million in revenue.

But according to a class action lawsuit filed in San Diego many
parents say the popular video game platform is profiting off of
young users who spend thousands of dollars on the game's virtual
currency all without their parent's knowledge.

Many of those same parents were also unaware that the widely
popular children's gaming platform has a dark side, online
universes with virtual nude strip clubs, sex shops, and hidden chat
rooms where sexual predators can prey on young users.

Now, some of those parents are taking on the online gaming behemoth
in hopes of protecting their children as well as millions of others
from the hidden dangers within the game.

In the newly filed class action lawsuit, parents share their
stories of getting hit with thousand-dollar-plus credit card bills
and learning that their child had been preyed upon by an adult who
was posing as a kid online.

"I thought it was a safe space," said Damien Uhl, a dad whose
daughter was groomed by an adult without his knowledge. "There is
some misrepresentation of safety. We spent a lot of money under the
false pretense that this is a safe platform, and, you know, it's
just a major gut check for all of us."

What is Roblox?
Roblox is a video game platform that was released in 2006 by David
Baszucki and Erik Cassel. The platform allows users to create their
own games as well as play, host, and design user-created content.

Roblox describes itself as, "the ultimate virtual universe that
lets you create, share experiences with friends, and be anything
you can imagine."

Upon logging in, users create an in-game avatar, which is
customized with items from the marketplace. The items in the online
marketplace vary from clothing to hairdos, as well as
three-dimensional bodies and heads for avatars. And while basic
accessories, clothing, and hairstyles can be found for free, more
desired items are purchased with the game's virtual currency
called, "Robux."

For example, the item, "Beautiful Hair for Space People" costs
7,000 Robux which, as of November 6, converts to $87.50. Currently,
according to Roblox, the most expensive accessory available for
purchase is the "Violet Valkyrie" hat accessory which costs 50,000
Robux, or $625.

Users are encouraged to purchase monthly plans costing anywhere
from $4.99 a month -- for 400 Robux -- to Premium 2200 for $19.99 a
month for currency to create unique avatars, characters, game
items, and access to new and obscure virtual worlds.

Robux can be purchased via gift card which can be found at almost
any retail outlet, from Best Buy to your local grocery store. The
value of gift cards ranges anywhere from $10 to $100. Gift cards
also feature unique, seasonal items that carry their own value and
can be bought, sold, or traded among other players within the
game.

Once an avatar is created, the player can choose from several
different game types to play such as battle royal, racing, tycoon,
survival, and countless others. The games within Roblox are created
by other users or in some cases, by large companies such as SEGA
and others.

As the online gaming platform has grown over the course of the past
several years, so too has the number of complaints and lawsuits
against the company.

In 2021 Roblox agreed to pay $10 million to settle a class action
lawsuit from users who say virtual accessories that they purchased
in the marketplace suddenly vanished from their cache.

Earlier this year, Roblox was sued over claims that the gaming
company allowed users to use its virtual currency on third-party
gambling sites.

Through it all, as the company grappled with lawsuits, parents and
other groups lodged complaints against the gaming company for
exposing young users to graphic images such as naked avatars,
vulgar language, and other material not suited for children.

In addition, the gaming platform faces ongoing criticism over its
dependence on virtual currency, and for making it easy for children
to purchase it without the parents' knowledge.

The game's virtual currency, Robux, is so widely used that it even
has a website dedicated to converting Robux to U.S. dollars.

It is the issue of inadequate monitoring and dependence on virtual
currency that will force the company to appear in federal court in
San Diego in the coming months.

The Lawsuit
Damien Uhl's daughter first signed up on Roblox at 6-years-old.

"There's a lot of social pressure to make sure you have the flyest
avatars, the best house, and all that stuff. We made sure to
monitor it but it seemed like every kid was on it and that it was a
safe space for her to enjoy playing video games," said Uhl, a
father from Napa Valley and a plaintiff in the lawsuit filed in San
Diego.

Some time ago Uhl learned that his daughter had made a friend
online. Uhl and his wife believed the new friend was close in age
to her daughter.

They were wrong.

"It was an adult that was manipulating and grooming my daughter,"
Uhl told CBS 8. "The adult contacted my daughter offline and then
started exchanging emails with her."

Uhl eventually discovered those emails and found that his daughter
had shared inappropriate photos with the adult.

Uhl contacted the adult directly and notified the police. However,
because the person lived outside of the state, there was little
that could be done, said Uhl.

"Technically, they didn't break the law so there was little that we
could do," added Uhl.

Uhl forced his daughter to stop using the site.

"It was pretty major, you know, she not only lost, you know, some
confidence and trust. She lost what she thought was a best
friend."

According to the newly filed lawsuit, Uhl and his daughter are not
alone.

"Roblox is infamous for 'condo games' showing nude avatars engaging
in forms of intercourse and using profane language. One journalist
observed that one virtual condo game 'den showcased an array of sex
toys. The private rooms upstairs were furnished only with beds. The
basement was a torch-lit sex dungeon.'" reads the lawsuit.

But inappropriate interactions are not all, says Uhl and his fellow
plaintiffs in the class action.

Robux Charges
San Diego County resident Katherine Murphy is one of the plaintiffs
in the proposed class-action lawsuit.

According to the lawsuit, Murphy allowed her 7-year-old son to
create a Roblox account in January of 2021. Since that time, the
lawsuit states that Murphy's young son has been asked to perform
virtual sex acts online and has been called a racial slur by other
users on the site.

In the nearly three years since joining, the lawsuit states that
Murphy has spent over $4,000 on Roblox purchases.

"Many parents also do not realize that once in the game, players
can buy in-app currency that can be used to purchase a vast range
of items for their avatar from third-party apps. These vary widely
in cost -- from a sword for $1 to a hat accessory costing $600. For
children, who often do not yet understand the value of money,
navigating this in-app economy can be challenging. And by using
Robux rather than a real-world currency, Defendant Roblox adds
another layer of confusion for children," reads the lawsuit

Attorneys Alexandra Walsh and Anne Andrews represent Murphy, Uhl
and the other members of the proposed class action.

Walsh says Roblox is misleading parents about the platform's safety
all while profiting from those misrepresentations.

"Parents such as Damien (Uhl), like so many other parents that we
represent, were misled about the safety of this platform," said
Walsh from her Washington DC Office. "First and foremost the safety
of our kids should always be the top priority. It's the right of
every parent to protect their kids from inappropriate content and
Roblox has really undermined that."

Added Andrews, "Predators are like great white sharks, they go
where it's easiest to find the prey and they never stop feeding, in
this case, they never stop looking for children to hurt. The bottom
line is, that it is illegal to expose minors to these kinds of
things, the sexual acts that are occurring on this platform while
at the same time, parents are spending vast sums of money on it.
It's not slowing down. These platforms are gaining more and more
traction."

Roblox Response
While unable to comment on the lawsuit in particular, a
spokesperson for Roblox told CBS 8 in an email that the gaming
company is dedicated to providing a safe virtual universe for users
of all ages.

"We dispute the allegations and will respond in court. Roblox is
committed to providing a positive and safe experience for people of
all ages," wrote the spokesperson. "We have an expert team of
thousands of people dedicated to moderation and safety on Roblox
24/7, and we act swiftly to block inappropriate content or behavior
when detected, including sexual content that violates our Community
Rules."

The spokesperson went on to add that the company has implemented a
number of safety features including filtering text chats and
blocking inappropriate content, as well as allowing parents to
limit or turn off a user's chat feature.

In addition, wrote the spokesperson, "We have invested in building
tools to give parents visibility into their children's activity,
including to prevent them from making unauthorized purchases. We
also partner with more than 20 leading global organizations that
focus on child safety, online safety, or both, and belong to a
number of industry organizations developing best practices to keep
users, particularly children, safe." [GN]

ROCKWELL AUTOMATION: Prelim Approval of Class Settlement Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mark Berube, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. Rockwell Automation,
Inc., the Rockwell Automation Employee Benefits Plan Committee, and
John/Jane Does 1–20, Case No. 2:20-cv-01783-LA (E.D. Wis.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

  -- preliminarily approving a class action settlement agreement
     between Plaintiff and Defendants, and

  -- approving notice to the class, and setting a date for a
     fairness hearing.

Specifically, Plaintiff asks the Court to:

   (1) preliminarily approve the proposed Settlement;

   (2) preliminarily certify the Settlement Class;

   (3) approve the proposed form and method of notice to the Class;

       and

   (4) schedule a hearing at which the Court will consider final
       approval of the Settlement.

Rockwell is an American provider of industrial automation and
digital transformation technologies.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 1, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QIQamC at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert A. Izard, Esq.
          IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE LLP
          29 South Main Street, Suite 305
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 493-6292
          Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
          E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com

                - and -

          Charles J. Crueger, Esq.
          Erin K. Dickinson, Esq.
          CRUEGER DICKINSON LLC
          4532 North Oakland Avenue
          Whitefish Bay, WI 53211
          Telephone: (414) 210-3868
          Facsimile: (414) 433-4544
          E-mail: cjc@cruegerdickinson.com
                  ekd@cruegerdickinson.com

                - and -

          Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
          Mark G. Boyko, Esq.
          Laura Babiak, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 463-2101
          Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
          E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com
                  mboyko@baileyglasser.com
                  lbabiak@baileyglasser.com

SACRAMENTO LGBT: Former Employee Sues Over Labor Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Xavier Mascareñas, writing for The Sacramento Bee, reports that
former Sacramento LGBT Community Center employee alleges that the
nonprofit violated a dozen labor laws on pay, reimbursements,
workplace safety and breaks in a new lawsuit.

Plaintiff Sabrena Taylor worked overnight as a janitor at the
center for five months in 2022, said David Heitstuman, the center's
chief executive officer. The lawsuit, filed Oct. 30, noted that she
earned $22 an hour.

Attorneys Roman Otkupman and Nidah Farishta of Westlake Village
assert in their legal complaint that Taylor was forced to work
through 30-minute meal breaks and 10-minute rest periods. They
contend that other workers have been in the same position.
Consequently, their complaint seeks class-action status. Heitstuman
said that he had not seen the court filing until The Sacramento Bee
emailed him a copy. In a brief scan of the document, he says he
spotted a number of factual inaccuracies.

In the first paragraph of the introduction, for instance, Otkupman
and Farishta describe Taylor as an employee of Willamette Valley
Vineyards, not the community center. "Economic justice is core to
the center's values, and we try very hard to uphold that ideal for
both our employees and the broader LGBTQ community," said
Heitstuman, saying he would not comment on particular allegations
in "a possible litigation."

The center's mission, according to a statement on the website, is
supporting the health and wellness of society's most marginalized
people, advocating for equality and justice, and fostering a
culturally rich community for local lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender and queer residents.

In the lawsuit, Taylor has leveled a number of allegations at the
Sacramento LGBT Community Center, including that the organization:


   -- Failed to provide either 10-minute rest periods or the pay
premium of one hour's pay.
   -- Did not allow Taylor to take a 30-minute meal break meal and
did not provide an hour of pay for each missed break.
   -- Routinely required employees to go through a COVID screening
test before they clocked in for a scheduled shift and also forced
them to work 5-10 minutes after they clocked out. None of this time
was compensated.
   -- Did not issue accurate, itemized wage statements.
   -- Did not pay all wages earned within 72 hours of resignation.

   -- Didn't reimburse the employee for items purchased to perform
duties such as cleaning supplies, protective gear or face masks.

Heitstuman said the Sacramento LGBT Community Center "leaned very
heavily into COVID safety." "We required vaccination of all of our
employees, and we provided those vaccines for free," he added. "We
provided free COVID testing during work hours and free COVID tests
to all of our employees, community members, anyone who wanted them.
To this day we continue to have a weekly testing requirement."
Taylor's lawsuit seeks to collect the following payouts from the
Sacramento LGBT Community Center if the organization is found to
have violated the labor codes:

-- Penalties: $100 for the initial violation per employee per pay
period and $200 for each subsequent violation per employee per pay
period. A quarter of those penalties would go to plaintiffs and the
other 75% to the California Labor Workforce Development Agency.

   -- Damages: This includes lost wages, earnings, retirement
benefits, employee benefits and all other sums of money, together
with interest. For instance, each plaintiff is entitled to one hour
of pay for each day that the LGBT Center failed to properly provide
one or more meal periods, the court filing noted.

-- Fees: Awards for attorney fees, costs and interest. Employment
lawyer Galen Shimoda said these kind of wage-and-hour, class-action
cases are more common in the Sacramento region. [GN]

SANTA MONICA, CA: Suit Seeks More Time for Class Cert Bid Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLACK LIVES MATTER LOS
ANGELES, an organization, DAVID BROWN, DAVID CLENNON, and KERRY
HOGAN, all individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons, v. CITY OF SANTA MONICA, a municipal entity,
CHIEF CYNTHIA RENAUD, and DOES 1 TO 10, inclusive, Case No.
2:21-cv-05253-CAS-AFM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff request that the
Court extend the deadline to file the motion for class
certification until December 20, 2023, 30 days after the scheduled
deposition of former Santa Monica City Manager Lane Dilg, the
senior-most policymaker for the City of Santa Monica on the date of
the incident.

The parties have stipulated, and the Court has ordered, multiple
extensions of the class certification motion cutoff.

On June 9, 2022, the Court set the class certification motion
cutoff for October 10, 2022. On February 27, 2023, four months
after the class certification motion cutoff had passed, the Court
set the class certification motion cutoff for March 27, 2023.

On March 10, 2023, based on the parties' stipulation, the Court
moved the class certification motion cutoff to July 24, 2023.

The order read: "Due to the difficulty of scheduling key witnesses,
and in order to provide adequate time for discovery, all parties
seek to modify the particular dates."

The Plaintiffs' counsel neglected to stipulate and request that the
Court extend a filing deadline. Yet, consideration of all four
Pioneer equitable factors, the Court should decide the class
certification issue on the merits, find excusable neglect and
extend the
time to file.

Santa Monica is an 8.3 square mile city situated at a gateway to
the Pacific Ocean on the west side of Los Angeles County.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 2, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QIjV78 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Erin Darling, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ERIN DARLING
          3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2910
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (323) 736-2230
          E-mail: Erin@ErinDarlingLaw.com LAW

                - and -

          Carol A. Sobel, Esq.
          Weston Rowland, Esq.
          OFFICES OF CAROL A. SOBEL
          1158 26th Street, No. 552
          Santa Monica, CA 90403
          Telephone: (310) 393-3055
          E-mail: carolsobel@aol.com
                  rowland.weston@gmail.com

                - and -

          Paul Hoffman, Esq.
          Michael Seplow, Esq.
          John Washington, Esq.
          SCHONBRUN, SEPLOW, HARRIS & ZELDES LLP
          9514 Culver Blvd., No. 115
          Culver City, CA 90230
          Telephone: (310) 396-0731
          E-mail: hoffpaul@aol.com
                  jwashington@sshhlaw.com

SANTANDER CONSUMER: Gallagher Appeals Class Cert. Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff ROBERT J. GALLAGHER filed an appeal from the District
Court's Memorandum and Order and Judgment dated September 30, 2023
and Order dated July 1, 2021 entered in the lawsuit styled ROBERT
J. GALLAGHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC., Defendant, Case
No. 4:20-cv-01083-SEP, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District Of Missouri.

In the Complaint, Mr. Gallagher alleged that Santander's violations
were a "widespread, uniform practice." With the Notice of Removal,
Santander submitted an affidavit from Randy Bockenstedt, Senior
Director of Collections for Santander, stating that Santander
released more than 44,000 liens relating to vehicle loan accounts
in Missouri between 2015 and 2020.

The Plaintiff brought this action in state court, asserting a claim
under Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 301.640(1) & (4) for failure to timely
release his lien and to timely certify the release of his lien.
Under Section 301.640(1), a lienholder must, in the time prescribed
by the statute, release the lien on the certificate of title or a
separate document and mail or deliver these documents to the person
satisfying the lien. Failure to comply permits a remedy of damages
that are scaled according to the length of non-compliance, starting
at $500 for failure to comply within five business days and
increasing to $2,500 if non-compliance extends to twenty business
days.

On July 1, 2021, the Eastern District of Missouri denied the
Plaintiff's September 11, 2020 motion for remand.

On June 27, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff asked the
Court on July 28, 2022 to enter an order certifying the following
class:

   "All persons who within the statute of limitations: (1) owned
   a Missouri-titled vehicle on which Defendant had a lien or
   encumbrance; (2) made a final payment to satisfy the lien
   with non-certified funds; and (3) either or both of the
   following occurred: (a) Defendant did not release the lien or
   encumbrance within five business days after Defendant
   received payment in full electronically or by way of
   electronic funds transfer, whichever occurs first; or (b) the
   owner of the vehicle (or any person who delivered to
   Defendant an authorization from the owner to receive the
   certificate or such documentation) was not sent a certificate
   or separate document evidencing Defendant's release of its
   lien within five business days, after Defendant received
   payment in full electronically or by way of electronic funds
   transfer, whichever occurs first."

   Excluded from the class are: (1) Santander Consumer USA and
   its affiliates, officers, /or directors; (2) members of the
   judiciary and their staff to whom this action is assigned;
   (3) Plaintiff's counsel; and (4) those class members meeting
   the above class definition, but whose loan contained an
   arbitration clause. Plaintiff also moves for an order
   appointing the undersigned as class counsel.

On September 30, 2023, District Judge Sarah E. Pitlyk entered an
Order granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment and denying
Plaintiff's motion to certify class. Judgment is entered in favor
of Defendant Santander Consumer. It is further ordered that this
case is dismissed, with prejudice.

The appellate case is captioned as Gallagher v. Santander Consumer
USA Inc., Case No. 23-3387, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit, filed on October 27, 2023.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant ROBERT J. GALLAGHER, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq.
          DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A.
          60 South Park Place
          Painesville, OH 44077
          Telephone: (440) 352-3391
          Facsimile: (440) 352-3469
          E-mail: nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee Santander Consumer USA Inc. is represented by:

          Eric D. Martin, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LLP
          One Metropolitan Square
          211 North Broadway, Suite 3600
          St. Louis, MO  63102
          Telephone: (314) 259-2324
          E-mail: eric.martin@bclplaw.com

SCALE FACILITATION: Widmer Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS WIDMER, LINDSEY ROOT, and SOPHIA FITZSIMONDS, in their
individual capacities and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. SCALE FACILITATION, DAVID A. COLLARD, VANESSA
GERONIMO, MICHAEL WINN, AND JACKIE NOLLER, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-09482 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2023) is an action seeking
equitable and legal relief including applicable damages and
attorney's fees for Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and applicable wage orders.

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants paid wages late and also
unlawfully failed to pay their wages in violation; made unlawful
deductions from their wages for wire transfers and healthcare
benefits and taxes while not actually sending the deducted wages to
the appropriate parties; and failed to provide them with pay notice
and stubs pursuant to the NYLL.

Plaintiffs Widmer, Root, and Fitzsimonds were employed by Defendant
Scale as Senior Manager of Marketing Strategy, Office Manager, and
Intern, respectively.
          
Scale Facilitation is an investment management firm focused on
scaling technology and other innovations.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Patrick Boyd, Esq.
          THE BOYD LAW GROUP, PLLC
          250 Park Avenue, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 867-3675
          Facsimile: (212) 867-5765
          E-mail: pboyd@theboydlawgroup.com

SEAWORLD PARKS: Coppel 401(K) Plan Suit Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FERNANDO COPPEL, PABLO
MARTINEZ, TYLER MITCHELL, JUDITH URIOSTEGUI, ELIZABETH USSELMAN,
individually and as a representative of a Putative Class of
Participants and Beneficiaries, on behalf of the SWBG, LLC 401(K)
PLAN (FKA SEAWORLD PARKS AND ENTERTAINMENT 401(K) PLAN, v. SEAWORLD
PARKS & ENTERTAINMENT, INC. ("SEAWORLD"); SWBG ORLANDO CORPORATE
OPERATIONS GROUP, LLC ("SWBG"); BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SEAWORLD AND
SWBG, INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OF SEAWORLD PARKS & ENTERTAINMENT 401(K)
PLAN / SWBG, LLC 401(K) PLAN; MARK G. SWANSON (CEO); ELIZABETH
GULACSY (CFO); and DOES 1 through 50, Case No.
3:21-cv-01430-RSH-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(1)(A) and (B):

   (a) certifying the Class of all participants in or beneficiaries
of
       the SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment 401(K) PLAN, and the
SWBG,
       LLC 401(K) PLAN from August 10, 2015, through the date of
       judgment, excluding Defendants and members of the Defendant

       Boards and Committees;

   (b) appointing Christina Humphrey Law, P.C. and Tower Legal
Group
       as class counsel; and

   (c) appointing Fernando Coppel, Pablo Martinez, Tyler Mitchell,

       Micheli Ortega, Judith Uriostegui, and Elizabeth Usselman as

       Class Representatives.

SeaWorld is an American theme park and entertainment company.

A copy of Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 1, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sj9aPg at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christina A. Humphrey, Esq.
          Robert N. Fisher, Esq.
          CHRISTINA HUMPHREY LAW, P.C.
          1117 State Street
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 618-2924
          Facsimile: (805) 618-2939
          E-mail: christina@chumphreylaw.com
                  rob@chumphreylaw.com

                - and -

          James A. Clark, Esq.
          Renee P. Ortega, Esq.
          TOWER LEGAL GROUP, P.C.
          11335 Gold Express Drive, Ste. 105
          Gold River, CA 95670
          Telephone: (916) 361-6009
          Facsimile: (916) 361-6019
          E-mail: james.clark@towerlegalgroup.com
                  renee.parras@towerlegalgroup.com

                - and -

          Paul J. Sharman, Esq.
          THE SHARMAN LAW FIRM LLC
          11175 Cicero Drive, Suite 100
          Alpharetta, GA 30022
          Telephone: (678) 242-5297
          Facsimile: 678) 802-2129
          E-mail: paul@sharman-law.com

SHAMROCK FOODS: Valdez Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GEORGE VALDEZ,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SHAMROCK FOODS COMPANY, an Arizona Corporation, and DOES 1 through
25, inclusive, Case No. 5:22-cv-01719-SSS-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting preliminary
approval of class action settlement of the following:

   1. Preliminarily approve the settlement in the Stipulation of
Class
      and PAGA Settlement;

   2. Conditionally certify, for settlement purposes only, the
      proposed settlement class;

   3. Approve distribution of the proposed Notice of Class Action
and
      PAGA Settlement to the settlement class;

   4. Appoint Plaintiffs George Valdez and Raul Romero as the Class

      Representatives;

   5. Appoint Boyamian Law, Inc. as Class Counsel;

   6. Appoint CPT Group, Inc. as the claims administrator; and

   7. Set a hearing date for final approval of the settlement.

The Plaintiffs seek preliminary and conditional approval of a
settlement with Defendant Shamrock Foods Company. Subject to Final
Approval of this Court, Plaintiffs and Defendant have agreed to
settle this action for a non-revisionary amount of one million
dollars.

The case would settle the claims of all persons employed as a
Delivery Driver in California by Shamrock between August 5, 2018,
to the present.

  -- Class Definition

     The Class is defined as all current and former non-exempt
     employees employed by Defendant as Delivery Drivers, or any
other
     similarly titled non-exempt, hourly position, in California
from
     August 5, 2018, through the date the Court grants preliminary

     approval.

     Because the Settlement contemplates to resolve claims brought

     under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), the PAGA
     Employees means all current and former non-exempt employees
     employed by Shamrock as drivers in California from May 24,
2022,
     through the date the Court grants preliminary approval.

  -- Settlement Amount

     The Defendant has agreed to pay $1,000,000 on a
non-reversionary
     basis to resolve the claims of the Class in this lawsuit.

Shamrock is an Arizona-based company licensed by the U.S.
Department of Transportation ("USDOT") as an "interstate motor
carrier."

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 1, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3u2ac2R at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Michael H. Boyamian, Esq.
           BOYAMIAN LAW, INC.
           550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
           Glendale, CA 91203
           Telephone: (818) 547-5300
           Facsimile: (818) 547-5678
           E-mail: michael@boyamianlaw.com

SHIMANO NORTH: Hawkins Suit Alleges Defective Cranksets
-------------------------------------------------------
JARETT HAWKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SHIMANO NORTH AMERICA BICYCLE, INC., SHIMANO
NORTH AMERICA HOLDING, INC., and SPECIALIZED BICYCLE COMPONENTS,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 8:23-cv-02038 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 31, 2023)
alleges claims against the Defendants for breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and for
violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, California's
Unfair Competition Law, California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
and California's False Advertising Law.

The class action is brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and
other similarly situated persons who purchased the Shimano 11-Speed
Bonded Hollowtech II Road Crankset Models: Dura-Ace FC-9000,
Dura-Ace FC-R9100P Dura-Ace FC-R9100, Ultegra FC-R8000, and Ultegra
FC-6800, and all other substantially similar cranksets
manufactured, distributed or sold by Shimano with the same defect
and subject to the September 21, 2023 recall and bicycles
manufactured by Specialized that come equipped with defective
cranksets.

Headquartered in Irvine, CA, Shimano North America Bicycle Inc.is a
multinational manufacturer of bicycle components. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roland Tellis, Esq.
          Sterling Cluff, Esq.
          David Fernandes, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          15910 Ventura Blvd, Suite 1600
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 839-2333
          E-mail: rtellis@baronbudd.com
                  scluff@baronbudd.com
                  dfernandes@baronbudd.com

                  - and -

          Alexander E. Wolf, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
          280 South Beverly Drive, Penthouse
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (872) 365-7060
          E-mail: awolf@milberg.com

SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Investors Allege False Business Statements
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises SolarEdge Technologies, Inc.
("SolarEdge" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: SEDG) investors that a
class action has been filed on behalf of investors. SolarEdge
investors that lost money on their investment are encouraged to
contact Lesley Portnoy, Esq.

Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, by
phone 844-767-8529 or email: lesley@portnoylaw.com, to discuss
their legal rights, or click here to join the case via
www.portnoylaw.com. The Portnoy Law Firm can provide a
complimentary case evaluation and discuss investors' options for
pursuing claims to recover their losses.

On the 19th of October, 2023, SolarEdge Technologies, Inc. unveiled
its preliminary earnings for Q3 2023. The company reported
encountering significant and unforeseen order cancellations and
delays in their existing backlog from European distributors during
the latter half of the quarter. Consequently, the anticipated
revenue, gross margin, and operating income for the quarter will
fall short of the previously estimated lower range. This
development also leads the company to expect a marked decrease in
revenue for Q4 2023. Following these disclosures, SolarEdge's stock
price suffered a steep drop of $31.08, a plunge of roughly 27.27%,
ending at $82.90 on October 20, 2023, from its previous close of
$113.98 per share.

The legal action asserts that the Defendants issued misleading and
false statements throughout the Class Period and failed to
communicate that: (i) SolarEdge's European distribution networks
were saturated with inventory exceeding demand; (ii) consequently,
the company was witnessing a surge in cancellations and
postponements of existing backlog from these distributors; and
(iii) the company's projected backlog and guidance figures were
inflated.

Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.

The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
against caused by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner
has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
(310) 692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]

SPIN MASTER: Gamino Sues Over Orbeez Water Beads' Undisclosed Risks
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TESHA GAMINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SPIN MASTER, INC., and THE MAYA GROUP, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-02242 (C.D. Cal., October 31, 2023)
asserts claims against the Defendants for breach of warranty,
fraudulent inducement/intentional misrepresentation, negligent
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and for violations of the
Unfair Competition Law, the False Advertising Law and the Consumers
Legal Remedies Act.

Plaintiff Gamino alleges that the Defendants fail to provide
adequate safety warnings to consumers regarding the material
dangers before consumers purchase the Orbeez Brand water beads toys
by stating expressly, clearly, and conspicuously on the products'
front packaging and labels that the said products pose these severe
and life-threatening risks: they are difficult to detect and
diagnose because they are practically invisible on x-rays and they
can significantly expand beyond their original size and can cause
severe and life-threatening injuries, such as intestinal blockage
or obstruction of the nasal cavity, ear canal, and/or respiratory
system, when they are ingested or inserted in the body.

Headquartered in Los Angeles, Spin Master Inc. creates toys, games,
and entertainment for children. [BN]

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

ST. VINCENT: Arkansas Sup. Court Dismisses Patients Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fisher, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the
Arkansas Supreme Court dismissed a class action lawsuit on behalf
of more than 2,000 patients of a doctor who was dismissed from his
hospital practice, ruling the lead plaintiff couldn't claim he
wasn't notified of the doctor's new whereabouts since he obtained
the information before filing suit.

In a decision that drew a dissent by the chief justice and two
other judges, the majority ruled plaintiff Ford Baldwin couldn't
represent other patients in a lawsuit over the Arkansas Patient
Right-To-Know Act. The law is intended to ensure continuity of care
and requires medical centers to provide doctors with a list of
their patients within 21 days of when they leave the institution
and to notify patients of a doctor's new location if the patient
asks.

The problem for Baldwin is he already knew where his doctor had
gone. Baldwin sued St. Vincent Medical Group for violating the
Right-To-Know Act after the hospital terminated his primary-care
physician in 2019. In his proposed class action, Baldwin claimed
St. Vincent failed to provide his doctor with a list of patients as
required under the law, and failed to notify patients of the
doctor's new location.

St. Vincent's moved to dismiss the case, saying Baldwin wasn't an
"affected patient" under the law since he had contacted his doctor
and received the new location. But Pulaski County Judge Morgan
Welch disagreed, allowing the class action to proceed.

St. Vincent's filed an interlocutory appeal and the Arkansas
Supreme Court reversed Judge Welch in an Oct. 26 decision that was
supported by the Arkansas Hospital Association.

The court acknowledged that it wasn't supposed to delve into the
merits of the underlying case but that it must decide whether
Arkansas law was properly applied, citing a prior decision
involving a class action. And in this case, the court ruled, the
statute defines "existing patient" but not "affected patient."
Since the law uses both terms, the court assumed legislators
intended them to mean different populations, and Baldwin wasn't
representative of "affected patients." He already had notice of his
doctor's new location.

"Existing patients were not necessarily affected patients," the
majority ruled. "And in order to establish liability, the court
would have to determine which of Dr. Anderson's existing patients
were affected."

Justice Karen Baker dissented, joined by Chief Justice Dan Kemp and
Justice Courtney Ray Hudson. Despite saying five times they weren't
delving into the merits, the majority did exactly that by deciding
Baldwin didn't have a legitimate claim, she wrote.

"The majority has ignored decades of precedent and simply chooses
to delve into the merits in order to reverse and remand the
class-certification order," she said. [GN]

STARCO BRANDS: Morgan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Starco Brands, Inc.
The case is styled as Paradise Morgan, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Starco
Brands, Inc. doing business as: Whipshots, Case No. 1:23-cv-09539
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2023).

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

Starco Brands, Inc. doing business as: Whipshots --
https://whipshots.com/ -- offers vodka infused whipped cream.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


STATE FARM: Faces Nater Suit Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GABRIEL BOU NATER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE CO., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01408-JES-JEH (C.D.
Ill., Oct. 27, 2023) is a class action against Defendant to stop
from violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and invading
the privacy of Plaintiff and the putative class by making
unsolicited telemarketing calls using a pre-recorded and/or
artificial voice without their consent.

The Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring Defendant to cease all
unsolicited artificial and prerecorded voice phone calls as well as
an award of statutory damages to the members of the Class per
violation, together with court costs, reasonable attorneys' fees,
and treble damages in response to Defendant's alleged unlawful
conduct.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. is a group of mutual
insurance companies throughout the United States with corporate
headquarters in Bloomington, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Mona Amini, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  mona@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          3000 Atrium Way, Suite 200
          Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
          Telephone: (732) 588-8688  
          E-mail: ross@kazlg.com

T-MOBILE US: Must Face Customers' Lawsuit Over Price Increases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia Sweeting, writing for Total Telecom, reports that a federal
judge has ordered T-Mobile US must face a lawsuit from Verizon and
AT&T customers over price increases.

More specifically, the customers (all seven of them) are claiming
that T-Mobile's $23 billion merger with Sprint back in April 2020
damaged competition in the market to such an extent that AT&T and
Verizon were able drive up prices for their wireless services.

Prior to the merger's completion, there was significant worries
that the merger would be anticompetitive. Democratic senators urged
the Federal Communications Commission and the Justice Department to
reject the merger proposal in 2019, emphasising that the merger was
"likely to raise prices for consumers, harm workers, stifle
competition, exacerbate the digital divide, and undermine
innovation".  

The lawsuit alleges that at least some of these fears have indeed
become reality, with the court agreeing that the higher prices
charged by AT&T and Verizon could "plausibly" be directly linked to
the T-Mobile–Sprint merger.  

"The merger also eliminated the two "maverick" firms that were
responsible for much of the price competition and innovation among
the carriers. Before the merger, T-Mobile and Sprint aggressively
competed with the bigger brands (AT&T and Verizon) through offering
discounts and new plans," read court documents seen by Reuters.

"Sprint was financially viable and would have continued to compete
vigorously absent the merge . . . Additionally, Plaintiffs allege
that by making the newly merged T-Mobile's scale and cost structure
more like the other two big players, the merger curtailed its
incentive to compete."

The subscribers in question are seeking monetary compensation and a
range of additional penalties, even including the reversal of the
merger entirely.  

"If plaintiffs are unhappy with Verizon and AT&T, there is a remedy
available in the highly competitive market that wireless consumers
enjoy today -- they should switch to T-Mobile, not sue it," lawyers
for T-Mobile told the court.

T-Mobile have yet to comment on the situation directly. [GN]

TD AMERITRADE: Grande Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Francis Grande, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., Case No. 8
8:23-cv-00385 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nebraska, to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts on Oct. 31, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12592-ADB to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Contract Dispute.

TD Ameritrade -- https://www.tdameritrade.com/ -- is a stockbroker
that offers an electronic trading platform for the trade of
financial assets including common stocks, preferred stocks, futures
contracts, exchange-traded funds, forex, options, mutual funds,
fixed income investments, margin lending, and cash management
services.[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
          Phone: (866) 252-0878
          Email: gklinger@milberg.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Victoria H. Buter, Esq.
          KUTAK, ROCK LAW FIRM - OMAHA
          1650 Farnam Street
          Omaha, NE 68102-2186
          Phone: (402) 346-6000
          Fax: (402) 346-1148
          Email: vicki.buter@kutakrock.com

               - and -

          Alexander Southwell, Esq.
          Salah M. Hawkins, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          200 Park Avenue, 47th Floor
          New York, NY 10166
          Phone: (212) 351-4000
          Fax: (212) 351-4035
          Email: asouthwell@gibsondunn.com
                 shawkins@gibsondunn.com


TD AMERITRADE: Jeanfort Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Keren Jeanfort, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., The Charles
Schwab Corporation, Case No. 8:23-cv-00380 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Oct. 31, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12591-ADB to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

TD Ameritrade -- https://www.tdameritrade.com/ -- is a stockbroker
that offers an electronic trading platform for the trade of
financial assets including common stocks, preferred stocks, futures
contracts, exchange-traded funds, forex, options, mutual funds,
fixed income investments, margin lending, and cash management
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David S. Almeida, Esq.
          Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP
          333 W. Wacker Dr., Suite 1900
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 212-4954

               - and -

          Elena A. Belov, Esq.
          ALMEIDA LAW FIRM
          849 W. Webster Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60614
          Phone: (917) 716-7132
          Email: elena@almeidalawgroup.com

               - and -

          Eric D. Barton, Esq.
          Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
          WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
          4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Phone: (816) 701-1100
          Email: ebarton@wcllp.com
                 thudson@wcllp.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Victoria H. Buter, Esq.
          KUTAK, ROCK LAW FIRM - OMAHA
          1650 Farnam Street
          Omaha, NE 68102-2186
          Phone: (402) 346-6000
          Fax: (402) 346-1148
          Email: vicki.buter@kutakrock.com


TMG HEALTH INC: Izbicki Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Maria Izbicki, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. TMG Health, Inc., Case No.
2:23-cv-03378 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts on Oct. 31, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12599-ADB to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

TMG Health -- https://www.tmghealth.com/ -- is a national provider
of expert solutions for Medicare Advantage, Medicare Part D and
Managed Medicaid plans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Phone: (215) 600-2817
          Email: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com

               - and -

          Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, LLC
          111 W. Jackson St., Suite 1700
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Phone: (312) 984-0000
          Email: malmstrom@whafh.com

               - and -

          Mark C. Rifkin, Esq.
          WOLF, HALDENSTEIN, ADLER, FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 545-4600

The Defendants are represented by:

          Edward P Boyle, Esq.
          VENABLE, LLP
          405 Lexington Avenue, 56th Floor
          New York, NY 10174
          Phone: (212) 307-5500
          Fax: (212) 307-5598
          Email: epboyle@venable.com

               - and -

          Joseph E. Wolfson, Esq.
          STEVENS & LEE
          620 Freedom Business Center, Suite 200
          King Of Prussia, PA 19406
          Phone: (610) 205-6019
          Fax: (610) 988-0808
          Email: jwo@stevenslee.com

               - and -

          Michael Anthony Guerra, Esq.
          Reyzel Farkish, Esq.
          VENABLE LLP
          151 W. 42nd Street, 49th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: (212) 808-5670
          Email: maguerra@venable.com
                 rfarkish@venable.com


TOYOTA NEW ZEALAND: Faces Class Action Over Defective Utes
----------------------------------------------------------
Richard Rennie, writing for Farmers Weekly, reports that the class
action relates to the diesel particulate filter system failing to
operate properly, impacting at least 35,000 models sold in NZ.

Thousands of farmers may be eligible to participate in a class
action being taken against Toyota for a fault in the engine of its
utes that has already cost the auto giant a $1 billion-plus lawsuit
across the Tasman.

The New Zealand branch of Australian law firm Shine Lawyers is
leading the charge against Toyota New Zealand, having filed an
application in the Palmerston North High Court to pursue a lawsuit
that relates to at least 35,000 Toyota Hilux, Prados and Fortuner
models sold in NZ between October 2015 and 2020.

The suit centres on the same issue that cost Toyota Australia a
court case. It relates to the ute's diesel particulate filter (DPF)
system failing to operate properly, resulting in some vehicles
emitting foul-smelling white smoke, delivering lower engine
efficiency and performance.  

The DPFs are in place as a pollution control device, burning off
pollutants and harmful emissions. Shine will be representing owners
of the vehicles that are powered by the 1GD-FTV or 2GD-FTV 2.8
litre diesels manufactured after October 1 2015.

The Australia class action filed in 2019 resulted in the court
ruling in favour of the vehicles' 250,000 owners putting a value on
the damages of 17.5%, or over A$2.5 billion. ($2.7bn)  This would
have made it the largest damages claim in Australian consumer
history.

Toyota appealed the decision. Its appeal was declined earlier this
year, but the judge reduced the damages liability to 10% of the
vehicles' value, amounting to about A$1bn on vehicles manufactured
between 2015 and 2020. This represents a value of about A$5000 per
vehicle.

The automaker was found to be in breach of consumer law in
Australia, having engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in the
marketing of the vehicles with the faulty DPF during their sale,
impacting on the value of the affected vehicles.

The court did, however, acknowledge that Toyota found an effective
fix for the problem in May 2020, offered free to owners and
extended the warranty on the vehicles to 10 years.

Shine Lawyers senior associate Hamish Davies said the action was
being funded by a specialist litigation funding company, Courthouse
Capital.  He said he was somewhat surprised that legal action had
not kicked off sooner in NZ.

He confirmed the company sought to repeat the outcome of the case
in Australia.

"The DPF is required meet environmental standards, it's a serious
part of the vehicle and the consequences of a defective one in
Australia were quite significant. It can damage the engine, emit
white smoke and affect fuel efficiency."

Toyota has the opportunity to file a defence against the action
over the next fortnight.

Davies noted that in appealing the court's decision in Australia,
Toyota never disputed the fault with the vehicles, only the amount
that fault had been valued at.

A Toyota NZ spokesperson said the company has been and remains
committed to assisting any customer whose vehicle experiences a DPF
issue and continues to provide any related repairs free of charge.

"This has been our position to date, and we will defend the class
action."

As the matter is now before the court, the company had no further
comment.

The law firm has set up a registration log for owners wanting to
register, but Davies was unable to say how many had registered at
this point.

Hilux has long been a popular farm vehicle choice for farmers and
defended a long-held reputation as the country's No 1 four-wheel
drive until 2015.

Since then, Ford Ranger has knocked it off its perch, and continues
to be the country's No 1 seller.

Davies acknowledged class actions in NZ are relatively rare, with
NZ's court system less geared to such actions.

The last significant class action affecting the rural sector was
when kiwifruit growers successfully took the Crown to court over
its management that led to the Psa outbreak. That action resulted
in an out-of-court settlement of $40 million. [GN]

TROPICALE FOODS: Figueredo Sues Over Paleta's Deceptive Labeling
----------------------------------------------------------------
HYRON FIGUEREDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TROPICALE FOODS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-24177-RKA (S.D. Fla., November 1, 2023) arises from the
Defendant's deceptive labeling of its frozen deserts under the
Helados Mexico brand, asserting claims against the Defendants for
false and misleading advertising, fraud, and for violations of the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Plaintiff Figueredo alleges that Defendant's labeling of its
products as "Helados Mexico" is not a truthful representation of
geographical origin because it is from California.

Tropicale Foods, LLC is a California limited liability company that
manufactures and distributes ice cream novelties known as
"paletas." [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           William Wright, Esq.
           THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A.
           515 N Flagler Dr Ste P300
           West Palm Beach FL 33401
           Telephone: (561) 514-0904
           E-mail: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com

                - and -

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

ULTIMATE FIGHTING: Trial Dates for MMA Fighters' Class Actions Set
------------------------------------------------------------------
Suryakant Das, writing for Essentially Sports, reports that Dana
White may be facing significant challenges as multiple class action
lawsuits are currently not aligning with the UFC's wishes. Major
changes in the operations of the UFC may be on the horizon. The
class action suit, aimed at securing better treatment for fighters,
has been pending for quite some time. However, it appears to be
progressing rapidly now, as trial dates have been disclosed.

UFC has been in a dilemma since the class action suit was filed
against them. Usually, these suits were normal and wouldn't affect
the day-to-day workings of UFC or its revenue model. However, seems
like he was wrong all along as the case has complicated itself in a
way that is not desirable to UFC. Let us understand the latest
developments on the scene.

In December 2014, a coalition of MMA fighters, including some who
are still actively competing, united to initiate a class-action
lawsuit against the UFC and its parent company, Zuffa LLC.
Prominent representatives such as Cung Le, Nate Quarry, Jon Fitch,
and several others alleged that the UFC employed what they
considered to be unscrupulous tactics to gain control over the
market for MMA fighter services.

At the heart of their claim is the assertion that the UFC paid them
considerably less than they believed they deserved, and, in doing
so, managed to establish a virtual͏ monopoly in the professional
MMA ma͏rket. This, they argue, has had a detrimental impact on all
MMA fighters, both ͏past and ͏present.

After a prolonged nine-year time period the date of the trials is
now out. As per the respondents, Cung Lee and Rob Maysey, April 8th
of next year will decide the fate of UFC. " Trials starting April
8th April" Major changes coming in for UFC surrounding fighters as
the UFC class action suit trial date is confirmed," said Maysey.

It's important to highlight that significant transformations are on
the horizon for the UFC, as Dana White has to reduce his UFC's cash
stockpile for the fighters from former to present. $1 billion is
set to be distributed to MMA fighters in the upcoming year.
Additionally, we can anticipate significant shifts in the business
strategies and practices within the UFC and the broader combat
sports industry. It must be noted that even the Strikeforce CEO has
accused Dana White of wrongdoing in business.

According to Strikeforce CEO Scott Coker, Fertitta aimed to shut
down Strikeforce entirely and incorporate all its fighters into the
UFC organization. Coker testified "After negotiations stalled, Dana
White threatened that he would come after[Strikeforce's] fighters,
and he would make our life hard and you know, give us a bad time"

The reports of the lawsuit further claimed that UFC wanted no
competition for them. The filings added "In November 2010, the
Strikeforce owners met with representatives of the UFC concerning
the potential acquisition of Strikeforce at the offices of WME,"
details from the filing. "At the meeting, Lorenzo Fertitta
reportedly stated that he thought 'Strikeforce is building a great
brand, but Zuffa feels there should only be one brand, so Zuffa
would like to buy Strikeforce."

UFC seems to be in deep trouble as nothing is going according to
their desire. With the class action suits proving right for the
fighters do you think we are going to witness massive changes in
the upcoming year? [GN]

UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Seeks Decertification of Class in Jones Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY JONES, through her
agent, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Case No. 3:19-cv-06999-RS
(N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order
decertifying the class certified by the Court on March 11, 2021
based on the August 22, 2023 decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals in Wit et al. v. United Behavioral Health (9th Cir. 2023).


In its March 11, 2021, order certifying the class in this case,
this Court recognized that class certification would be
inappropriate if class members were required to "prove

     (i) a harm separate and apart from the ERISA-noncompliant
         processing of his or her claim (e.g., a monetary harm),
and

    (ii) that UBH's particular application, of the specifically
         contested aspects of the 2017 Guidelines, to his or her
         individual claim, was the sole but-for cause of that
harm."

The Court correctly noted that a determination of whether these are
"requisite elements of [Plaintiff's] ERISA claim" was a "Threshold
Determination," which drove the Court's analysis of nearly every
element of Rule 23.

The Court recognized that if Plaintiff is required to establish
either of those elements, the "logic" against class certification
"would be compelling."

On November 13, 2020, Plaintiff in this case moved to certify a
Class defined as follows:

   "Any participant or beneficiary in a health benefit plan
governed
   by ERISA whose request for coverage of residential treatment
   services for a mental illness or substance use disorder was
denied
   by UBH, in whole or in part, on or after June 2, 2017, based
upon
   UBH's 2017 Level of Care Guidelines ("LOCGs") or upon a Coverage


   Determination Guideline that incorporates the 2017 LOCGs, and
whose
   request was not subsequently approved, in full, following an
   administrative appeal."

United was founded in 1996. The Company's line of business includes
providing management services on a contract and fee basis.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 2, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FM7CAs at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jennifer S. Romano, Esq.
          Andrew Holmer, Esq.
          April N. Ross, Esq.
          CROWELL & MORING LLP
          515 South Flower Street, 40th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 622-4750
          Facsimile: (213) 622-2690
          E-mail: jromano@crowell.com
                  aholmer@crowell.com
                  aross@crowell.com

UNITED STATES: Seeks to Stay Class Cert. Briefing in Black Farmers
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLACK FARMERS &
AGRICULTURALISTS ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., v. THOMAS J. VILSACK,
in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States
Department of Agriculture, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-02527-SHL-cgc
(W.D. Tenn.), the Defendants file an opposed motion to stay
briefing on class certification and supporting memorandum of law.

The Court should stay briefing concerning Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and require the parties to submit a proposed
briefing schedule for that motion as part of their proposed
scheduling order and Rule 26(f) Report, if necessary. In the event
the Court denies or is unable to issue a ruling on this motion by
November 9, Defendants respectfully request a two-week extension of
the current November 14 deadline to November 28, 2023.

USDA is responsible for overseeing farming, ranching, and forestry
industries, as well as regulating aspects of food quality and
safety and nutrition.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 1, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FINMpF at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          John T. Lewis, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
          1100 L Street NW
          Washington, D.C. 20530
          Telephone: (202) 353-0533
          Facsimile: (202) 616-8460
          E-mail: john.t.lewis.iii@usdoj.gov

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA: Harrington Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN HARRINGTON, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, Defendant,
Case No. CACE-23-020590 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty.,
November 1, 2023) arises out of the Defendant's violations of the
Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant sent an electronic
communication in connection with the collection of consumer debt
but was between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM without his
consent.

University of Florida is a public university located in
Gainesville,FL. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jiibraell S. Hindi, Esq.
          Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 907-1136
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                  jen@jibraellaw.com

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: Rohl Files Suit in D. Minnesota
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against University of
Minnesota. The case is styled as Luke Rohl, Samuel Savage,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
University of Minnesota, Case No. 0:23-cv-03347-JWB-JFD (D. Minn.,
Oct. 31, 2023).

The nature of suit is state as Other Personal Property.

The University of Minnesota -- https://twin-cities.umn.edu/home --
is a public land-grant research university in the Twin Cities of
Minneapolis and Saint Paul, Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles D. Moore, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 South 5th Street, Ste. 1900
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (212) 643-0500
          Fax: (212) 253-4272
          Email: cmoore@reesellp.com



UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER: Benton-Hill Suit Transferred to D. Mass.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Natasha Benton-Hill, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. The University of Rochester,
Case No. 6:23-cv-06447 was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of New York, to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts on Oct. 31, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12601-ADB to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Contract Dispute.

The University of Rochester -- https://www.rochester.edu/ -- is a
private research university in Rochester, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Randi A. Kassan, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 741-5600
          Fax: (516) 741-0128
          Email: rkassan@milberg.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Robyn Mara Feldstein, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP (NYC)
          45 Rockefeller Plaza
          New York, NY 10111
          Phone: (212) 589-4278
          Fax: (212) 589-4201
          Email: rfeldstein@bakerlaw.com


USCF INVESTMENTS: Faces Consolidated Suit Over SEC Disclosures
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Marygold Companies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for
the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 24, 2023, that its subsidiaries,
USCF Investments, Inc. and United States Oil Fund, LP (USO) are
facing a consolidated class action pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption "In
re: United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation," Civil Action
No. 1:20-cv-04740.

On June 19, 2020, USCF, USO, John P. Love, and Stuart P. Crumbaugh
were named as defendants in a putative class action filed by
purported shareholder Robert Lucas. The court thereafter
consolidated the Lucas class action with two related putative class
actions filed on July 31, 2020 and August 13, 2020, and appointed a
lead plaintiff.

On November 30, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
asserting claims under the Exchange Act and challenges statements
in registration statements that became effective on February 25,
2020 and March 23, 2020 as well as subsequent public statements
through April 2020 concerning certain extraordinary market
conditions and the attendant risks that caused the demand for oil
to fall precipitously, including the COVID-19 global pandemic and
the Saudi Arabia-Russia oil price war.

Said complaint purports to have been brought by an investor in USO
on behalf of a class of similarly-situated shareholders who
purchased USO securities between February 25, 2020 and April 28,
2020 and pursuant to the challenged registration statements and
seeks to certify a class and to award the class compensatory
damages at an amount to be determined at trial as well as costs and
attorney's fees.

The Marygold Companies, Inc., operates through its wholly owned
subsidiaries who are engaged in varied business activities. On
December 9, 2016, it acquired all of the issued and outstanding
stock in USCF Investments and correspondingly USO as general
partner. USCF Investments wholly owns both USCF and USCF Advisers,
which collectively operate 14 exchange-traded products.


VMWARE INC: Faces Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filing in CA Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
VMWare, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended July 29, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on September 7 2023, that the parties in a securities
class action lawsuit are currently in the discovery stage of the
proceedings with regards to a suit filed against VMware and certain
present and former officers of the Company in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on March 31,
2020.

On September 18, 2020, the plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint alleging that the its statements about backlog and the
related internal controls during the period from August 2018
through February 2020 were materially misleading. The defendants
filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted with leave to amend on
September 10, 2021.

On October 8, 2021, the plaintiffs filed their Second Amended
Consolidated Complaint based on the same alleged disclosure
deficiencies. The defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Consolidated Complaint was filed on November 5, 2021. On April 2,
2023, the California court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs had adequately stated claims
under Sections 10 and 20A of the Exchange Act.

VMware, Inc. is a private cloud and mobility management company.


VOLTECH ELECTRIC: Court Withdraws Bid to Certify Class in Da Silva
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Assis Da Silva, et al., v.
Voltech Electric, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-10743 (D. Mass.,
Filed April 6, 2023), the Hon. Judge Donald L. Cabell entered an
order withdrawing motion to certify class.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Voltech offers residential, commercial and industrial electrical
services.[CC]

WANABANA LLC: Goolsby and Goolsby Sue Over Heavy Metals Content
---------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC GOOLSBY and HEATHER GOOLSBY, individually and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
WANABANA LLC and WANABANA USA LLC, Defendants, Case No.
5:23-cv-00625-D (E.D.N.C., October 31, 2023) arises from the
Defendants' failure to disclose the presence of lead and other
toxic heavy metals in their apple sauce and fruit puree pouches,
including the WanaBana Apple Cinnamon Fruit Puree, among others,
asserting claims against the Defendants for negligent
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of implied warranty,
and for violations of North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief on behalf
of the proposed classes, including requiring full disclosure of all
such substances on the products' packaging and restoring monies to
the members of the proposed classes, who would not have purchased
the products had they known they contained (or were at risk of
containing) the heavy metals and/or would not have paid premium
prices for the products had they known the products contain heavy
metals like lead.

Headquartered in Florida, WanaBana LLC manufactures, distributes,
markets, and sells pureed fruit products throughout North Carolina
and the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edward H. Maginnis, Esq.
          Karl S. Gwaltney, Esq.
          MAGINNIS HOWARD
          7706 Six Forks Road, Suite 101
          Raleigh, NC 27615
          Telephone: (919) 526-0450
          Facsimile: (919) 882-8763
          E-mail: emaginnis@maginnishoward.com
                 kgwaltney@maginnishoward.com

WPD MANAGEMENT: Appellate Court Affirms Class Action Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Miller, Esq., of Maurice Wutscher LLP, in an article for
Lexology, disclosed that the Appellate Court of Illinois, First
District, recently affirmed the dismissal of a putative class
action for lack of standing because the named plaintiffs suffered
no injury in fact to a legally cognizable interest.

In so ruling, the First District acknowledged that, in Illinois, a
plaintiff need not allege actual injury beyond the violation of a
statute itself in order to have standing to sue under the statute,
and need not prove actual damages if the plaintiff suffered the
injury sought to be redressed by the statute.

Nevertheless, the Appellate Court held that providing the required
disclosure at issue here would in essence force the defendant to
perform a "useless act," because the required disclosure related to
matters that did not apply under the circumstances alleged.

A copy of the opinion in Hundley v. WPD Management, LLC is
available at: https://shorturl.at/ejnr3

Tenants entered into rental agreements with a landlord and were not
required to pay a security deposit. The rental agreements included
a general summary of the tenants' rights and obligations but did
not include a summary of rights regarding security deposits or
their relevant interest rates.

One of the tenants filed a class action complaint on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, alleging that the landlord
failed to attach the summaries required by Chicago's Residential
Landlord and Tenant Ordinance (RLTO), Chicago Municipal Code §
5-12- 170, including both the general summary and the summary
regarding the security deposit interest rates. The tenant then
filed an amended class action complaint to add additional
plaintiffs.

The landlord moved to dismiss, arguing that the tenants failed to
state a claim for an RLTO violation because the leases contained
the RLTO summary, which had an express section entitled "SECURITY
DEPOSITS AND PREPAID RENT {MUN. CODE CH. 5-12-080 AND 5-12-081}."
In response, the tenants argued that the RLTO requires landlords to
include the general RLTO summary and security deposit summary with
all rental agreements, even if no security deposit is required.

The trial court dismissed the tenants' complaint for lack of
standing because it concluded the tenants suffered no injury. The
tenants timely appealed.

On appeal, the tenants argued that the language of the RLTO does
not require tenants to allege actual damages beyond the violation
of the statute and, thus, the violation alone confers standing. In
response, the landlord argued that the RLTO general summary was
attached to the leases, as required, and the only additional
information not included was the separate security deposit summary
regarding the interest rates. The landlord contended that, because
the tenants were not required to pay a security deposit, the
failure to attach the security deposit summary was immaterial.

The RLTO requires the Commissioner of the Chicago Department of
Planning and Development to prepare a summary of the Chicago
Municipal Code "describing the respective rights, obligations, and
remedies of landlords and tenants" and then distribute the summary
for public inspection and copying. Chicago Municipal Code §
5-12-170. The Commissioner must also prepare a separate summary of
landlords' and tenants' respective rights, obligations, and
remedies concerning security deposits, as well as the applicable
interest rate to be paid thereon, and then disseminate the summary
through radio and television outlets broadcasting in Chicago. Id.
Based on these requirements, section 5-12-170 imposes an additional
duty on landlords to attach "[a] copy of such summary *** to each
written rental agreement." Id. Landlords must include both the
general RLTO summary and the security deposit summary. Kopnick v.
JL Woode Management Co., LLC, 2017 IL App (1st) 152054, para 28.

Although the RLTO is to be "liberally construed and applied to
promote its purposes and policies," Chicago Municipal Code §
5-12-010, the First District determined that reading it as broadly
as the tenants urged strains the text and purpose of the ordinance.
Specifically, the Court reasoned that holding a defendant liable
for statutory damages ($100 per violation) for failing to provide a
summary regarding security deposit interest rates with a rental
agreement that does not require a security deposit would in essence
require a defendant to perform a "useless act." Sylva, LLC v.
Baldwin Court Condominium Ass'n, 2018 IL App (1st) 170520, para
22.

Furthermore, under Illinois law, in order to establish standing, a
plaintiff must "demonstrate some injury in fact to a legally
cognizable interest." Flynn v. Ryan, 199 Ill. 2d 430, 436 (2002).
The First District concluded that the tenants could never allege an
injury here because they never paid security deposits. The
landlord's failure to provide the interest rate information could
in no way harm the tenants.

Accordingly, the First District held that permitting a party to
prevail on a claim absent an injury allows a "regulation designed
as a shield to be used as a sword." PNC Bank, National Ass'n v.
Wilson, 2017 IL App (2d) 151189, para 26. Thus, the Court affirmed
the trial court's dismissal of the complaint for lack of standing.
[GN]

[*] FBC Attorneys Discuss Israeli Class Action Law 5766-2006
------------------------------------------------------------
Tal Eyal-Boger, Ziv Schwartz and Hili Klapfer of FISCHER (FBC &
Co), in an article for Global Competition Review, disclosed that
the Israeli Class Action Law 5766-2006 (the Class Actions Law) was
enacted in 2006. It sets out the matters for which motions may be
filed to certify class actions and establishes the principles and
requirements governing class action claims.[1] A class action may
be filed in Israel only if it relates to a claim as specified in
the Class Actions Law. One of the specified claims[2] is a cause of
action under the Israeli Economic Competition Law 5748-1988 (the
Competition Law).

According to the Competition Law,[3] any violation (by act or
omission) of this law is deemed a tort under the Israeli Torts
Ordinance (New Version) 5728-1968, thereby allowing the injured
party to file a civil lawsuit against the violator.

Often, the trigger for private enforcement is based on an action
taken by the Israeli Competition Authority (ICA). Despite the fact
that a decision of the Director-General of the ICA, or a court's
decision, can constitute prima facie evidence in civil proceedings
under specific circumstances,[4] often -- and in order for
petitioners to be 'first in line' -- motions to certify are filed
immediately after an ICA investigation commences or when the ICA
files an indictment with the court. Therefore, motions to certify
that are based on investigation by the ICA or indictments are
frequently stayed until the investigation is completed by the ICA
or until the court renders its verdict on the case.

In recent years, actions initiated by foreign competition
authorities and judicial proceedings in foreign courts have also
triggered private enforcement in Israel.[5]

Anticompetitive behaviour suitable for class actions
Generally, non-competitive behaviour is prohibited by the
Competition Law, and the harm it can cause to the Israeli consumer
can be the basis of a class action. Most competition class actions
are based on allegations of:

   -- restrictive arrangements (cartels and other horizontal or
vertical conduct);[6] and abusive behaviour of a dominant entity
such as exclusionary and exploitative practices (refusal to deal,
price discrimination, tying, unfair prices that are excessive or
predatory and so on).

Findings of competition authorities and court decisions
The Israeli law recognises several ways to use certain findings of
the Director-General or court decisions in criminal cases as a
basis for civil lawsuits, including class actions. Under the
Evidence Ordinance (New Version) 5731-1971,[7] the findings and
conclusions of a decision in a criminal case that convicts the
defendant will be admissible as prima facie evidence in civil cases
with respect to what is stated in them, provided that the same
defendant is a party to the civil case. This applies to violations
under the Competition Law that may be enforced in criminal
proceedings.

In addition, the Competition Law provides that the determination of
the Director-General is admissible as prima facie evidence in every
legal proceeding.[8]

Regarding judgments and decisions of regulatory agencies or courts
rendered outside of Israel, the Israeli Foreign Judgments
Enforcement Law 5718-1958 establishes the formal conditions for
enforcing a foreign court judgment, as well as the direct and
incidental recognition of foreign judgments, under very specific
circumstances. Concerning decisions of foreign regulatory agencies,
there is no binding precedent of the Supreme Court of Israel on
whether such decisions may be used for follow-on class actions.
Currently, their evidential admissibility and weight are determined
by the judges in the framework of each Israeli proceeding in
accordance with the particular circumstances of each case.

Who can bring claims?
The Class Actions Law defines who is entitled to submit a motion to
certify:[9]

A person who has grounds for an action regarding a matter listed in
the Second Addendum of the Class Actions Law,[10] or in a matter
set out in an explicit legal provision that raises substantive
questions of fact or law common to all members of the class.

A public agency or organisation (including the Israel Consumer
Council)[11] may file a claim concerning one of the areas of its
public operations, in a suit that raises substantial questions of
fact or law common to the entire class on behalf of that
class.[12]

How to assemble a class
According to the Class Actions Law,[13] the petitioner -- whether
an individual, a public agency or an organisation -- must file a
motion to certify that raises substantive questions of fact or law
common to all members of the class. The petitioner offers a
definition for the class it represents in the motion to certify.
The court can accept or change the definition suggested by the
petitioner.

According to the Class Actions Law,[14] if the court grants a
certification order, it must define the class in whose name the
action is to be pursued and may also define sub-classes within the
general class, where it finds that there are questions of law or
facts that are common to some of the class members.

Threshold criteria that must be met
Under the Class Actions Law, a court may certify a claim as a class
action only if it finds that all of the following cumulative
conditions are met:

   -- the claim raises substantial questions of fact or law that
are common to the class, and a reasonable possibility exists that
such questions would be decided in favour of the class;
   -- a class action is the efficient and appropriate means of
resolving the dispute under the circumstances of the case;
there is reasonable basis to assume that the interests of all
members of the class will be properly represented and managed; and
   -- a reasonable basis exists to assume that the interests of all
members of the class will be represented and managed in good
faith.

Criteria for choosing class representatives
The petitioner must convince the court that there is a reasonable
basis to assume that the interests of all members of the class will
be properly represented and managed by the petitioner, and that
there is a reasonable basis to assume that the interests of all
members of the class will be represented and managed in good
faith.[15]

Moreover, the court can replace the petitioner to ensure that class
affairs will be represented and managed in the most appropriate or
efficient way.

Steps in how to successfully certify a class
The Class Actions Law establishes a two-stage process for the
administration of class action proceedings:

the preliminary stage is the motion to certify, in which the court
is required to determine (principally), based on prima facie
evidence, whether the claim raises a cause of action and if a class
action is the appropriate procedural instrument to address the
claim; and
a second, substantive stage, in which, if certified as a class
action, the claim is administered, settled or decided in accordance
with the Class Actions Law's specialised procedures.
According to some case law, in a class action brought pursuant to
the Competition Law that also has criminal elements, the
evidentiary threshold is higher.[16] This is particularly
applicable in class actions that include excessive and unfair price
claims[17] -- and in which an especially high evidentiary threshold
is required already at the stage of the motion to certify the case
as a class action.

Notifying class members
The Class Actions Law determines that a copy of the motion to
certify be sent to the Director of the Courts by the petitioner to
be published in the registry of class actions.[18] The Class
Actions Law also includes instructions pertaining to notification
to class members.[19] It provides a list of specific outcomes of
the proceedings the occurrence of each of which must be accompanied
by a published notification to the members of the class in a
representative action. These are:

   -- a decision to certify a class action;
   -- a decision to approve the withdrawal of all representative
petitioners or all class counsel or a decision determining the
incapacity of the representative petitioners, or their counsel, to
continue in their respective positions, or a decision to dismiss a
class action;
   -- the filing of a motion to approve a settlement or
compromise;
   -- a court decision to approve a settlement; and
   -- a court decision or order in the representative action.

Apart from these specific provisions, the Class Actions Law
provides additional general powers whereby a court may order the
publication of any notification it deems necessary for the
management of proceedings and the fair and efficient representation
of the class.[20]

Operation on an opt-in or opt-out basis
Under the Class Actions Law, the default for joining a class action
is an opt-out mechanism,[21] unless the court explicitly determines
that an opt-in mechanism should apply in a specific case due to
special circumstances.

Damages assessment
The Class Actions Law guides the courts on how to quantify damages
and divide remedies among members of the class.[22] First, the
court may issue an order for payment of monetary compensation, or
it may grant another remedy directly to each individual member of
the class whose eligibility to such remedy has been proven, in the
amount and manner decided by the court.[23] Second, the court may
order that each member of the class prove their eligibility for
monetary compensation or another remedy.[24] Third, the court may
order the defendants to pay an inclusive sum of damages, from which
members of the class would receive individual compensation on a
pro-rata basis.

When members of the class either relinquish their compensation,
fail to prove their eligibility or cannot be located, the remaining
sum is allocated among the other members of the class in proportion
to the harm each has sustained,[25] and where funds remain
unallocated, they will be reverted to the State Treasury.[26]

The process for settling claims
Proposed settlement agreements in class actions must be brought
before the court and are subject to its approval. Judicial
procedures regarding settlement agreements are divided into two
stages:

the filing of a motion to approve a settlement agreement; and
a subsequent stage for the court's approval of the settlement
agreement.
In the first stage, a motion is filed with the court, and if the
court does not find grounds to reject the settlement, it will order
the publication of a notice concerning the filing of the motion to
the members of the class. The court will send the notice and copies
of the motion to approve the settlement, the proposed settlement
and the class action to the Israeli Attorney General, the Israeli
Director of the Courts and to any other person the court may
instruct. A person who is a member of a class, a public authority,
an organisation or the Attorney General may submit an objection to
the proposed settlement, and the parties have the right to respond
to these objections.

In recent years, it has become more common for the Attorney
General, public authorities and organisations to file objections to
settlements on various grounds. The court is not bound by these
objections; however, they could affect any potential settlement.

Concerning the second stage, relating to judicial approval of the
settlement, the Class Actions Law provides that the court may not
approve a settlement 'unless it finds that the settlement is
proper, fair and reasonable in view of the interests of the class
members… and resolution of the dispute by means of a settlement
constitutes the most efficient and fair means of resolving the
matter under the circumstances of the matter'.[27]

The main advantage of a settlement is that, when finally approved,
it constitutes res judicata regarding all the members of the
alleged class and in connection with all the causes of action
included in the settlement.[28] Generally, it is very common in
Israel for class actions to conclude in settlements and, in most
cases, motions for the approval of a settlement are submitted with
the court during the certification stage. It is possible for
parties to also settle after a class has been certified.

Concerning how damages or settlement amounts are apportioned and
distributed, in the context of the motion to approve a settlement
the defendant usually commits to compensate the members of the
class, either by way of a cash payment or other non-cash benefits
(such as equivalent services or discounts), or a mix of both.[29]

The Class Actions Law establishes a fund for the management and
distribution of the sum awarded as a remedy.[30] Accordingly, if
monetary compensation was awarded to the class members and a
balance remained after its distribution, the court will order the
transfer of the remaining sum to the fund and designate the latter
to a cause that is proximate to the subject of the class action. A
court will also make such a direction for a contribution to the
fund in cases where the court has made an order for a monetary
remedy for the public benefit - for example, if payments to the
individual members of the class are low or difficult to process.

Recognition of collective settlement in the absence of claims
Generally, there is no collective settlement that is not in a class
action proceeding filed in accordance with the Class Actions Law.
There are some exceptional proceedings in which collective
settlements can be made, such as derivative suit proceedings and a
collective claim pursuant to the Law for the Prevention of
Environmental Nuisances 5782-1992.[31]

Mandatory or voluntary redress schemes
The ICA cannot impose mandatory redress schemes or allow voluntary
redress schemes. However, according to the Competition Law,[32] the
Director-General and third parties are authorised to agree to a
consent decree that may include, among other things, payment to the
State Treasury in lieu of other enforcement measures.

The competent court, according to the Director-General's request,
may grant the agreement between the Director-General and another
person the force of a decree. The consent decree may be without
admission of liability and may include, among other things, an
obligation to pay a sum of money to the State Treasury and an
obligation to carry out or refrain from carrying out an action. In
some cases, the ICA has enabled a consent decree to be reached,
including an option to pay class members, in relevant class actions
in the framework of settlements and under certain circumstances,
instead of processing payments to the State Treasury.

Right to appeal
The decision of a district court is generally appealed to the
Supreme Court of Israel. Competition class actions are rarely filed
with magistrate courts.

A district court decision that deniesa motion to certify is subject
to appeal as of right to the Supreme Court within 60 days.
Following the Supreme Court's decision, theoretically, an
additional hearing can be held on its decision before an expanded
panel of the Supreme Court. The possibility for an additional
hearing is at the discretion of the Supreme Court.

For all other district court decisions, including a certifying
decision, leave to appeal must be obtained from the Supreme Court
(as a matter of discretion). A motion to grant leave to appeal must
be filed within 60 days from the date the decision was rendered.

Excessive and unfair price cause of action
The Competition Law[33] lists four types of conduct that would
create a presumption of abuse of dominant position. In general,
these types of conduct involve attempts to exclude competitors from
the market. On the other hand, the prohibition of setting an
excessive and unfair price does not refer to an excluding practice,
but rather to an act of consumer exploitation. This cause of action
and its implementation in practice are at the heart of the dispute
among scholars in Israel and worldwide on the question of whether
the existence of cause of action should be recognised.

On 26 July 2022, the Israeli Supreme Court rendered a landmark
decision in the Coca-Cola class action case,[34] acknowledging that
the Competition Law prohibits a monopoly from setting unfair high
prices (and not only predatory low prices).[35] The court
determined that prohibiting excessive and unfair prices is
necessary to protect consumers' welfare; however, for a claimant to
have a case, it must prove the defendant has a monopoly in the
relevant market and that the prices the monopoly charged are both
'excessive' and 'unfair'.

If the claimant proves the element of excessive price, then the
burden of proof will shift to the monopoly to prove its prices are
fair. The main tests established to evaluate the 'excessiveness' of
prices are the cost test, the comparison test and the profitability
test.

Although the Supreme Court held that the excessive price cause of
action was recognised under Israeli law, the difficulties involved
with it underlie the cautious and restrained approach established
in the case for the manner of its application. This approach is
consistent with the position of the Israeli Attorney General, which
was submitted in the Coca-Cola class action case, with the position
of the ICA and the way the cause of action has been implemented
under European competition laws.

On 20 March 2023, the Israeli Supreme Court rendered another
landmark decision in the Cottage Cheese class action case,[36] and
ruled that it had not been proven that the price of Tnuva --
Israel's largest dairy -- for the cottage cheese was significantly
higher than the price that would have been determined under
competitive conditions. In addition, the main considerations
regarding the fairness of the price were not even considered.[37]

This was in practice the first time that the Supreme Court in
Israel heard and decided a case in which an excessive price cause
of action was alleged, in the framework of a complete proceeding
(post-certification stage) that included the submission of
evidence.[38]

The decision in the Cottage Cheese class action emphasises that
courts must take a restrained and cautious approach regarding
excessive and unfair prices cause of action, particularly within a
class action.[39] It was held that the restrained and cautious
approach must be applied also within the certification stage.[40]

Effects of the Coca-Cola and Cottage Cheese class actions
The adjudication of the excessive price cause of action is
characterised by the investment of especially substantial
resources, in consideration of the difficulties of its
implementation. [41] This could support the setting of a higher
threshold for the certification of a claim as a class action for
the cause of action. It appears that these decisions underline the
need for caution and restraint in implementing the excessive price
cause of action so that only blatantly obvious cases would be
recognised, and it is expected to have a 'chilling effect' on more
than fifty excessive pricing cases that are pending in Israeli
courts. Therefore, it is not surprising that following the Coca
Cola class action case, and more so after the Cottage Cheese class
action case, many petitioners are requesting to withdraw from their
claims.[42] [GN]

[*] Gibson & Dunn Attorneys Discuss German Class Action Regime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Markus Rieder, Alexander Horn and Annekathrin Schmoll of Gibson and
Dunn, disclosed that on Oct. 13, Germany adopted a new type of
class action.

The new regime is based on European Union Directive 2020/1828,
which requires that all member states allow qualified consumer
protection organizations to file collective actions on behalf of a
class of consumers starting in June.

While the Netherlands, for example, embraced the opportunity and
created a plaintifffriendly class action regime, other member
states were slow to act.

Some, like Germany and France, even missed the EU's deadline for
transferring the directive into national law. The new German class
action now satisfies the EU's requirements.

The previous collective redress regime in Germany only allowed for
declaratory judgments. After obtaining a judgment, plaintiffs had
to file individual lawsuits to get the desired relief, i.e.,
payment of damages.

This two-tier mechanism was one of several factors that evoked
substantial criticism in Germany. It also made the so-called
declaratory model action, or DMA, unpopular with plaintiffs.

In the five years since its inception, in 2018, only roughly 35
DMAs were filed. The German legislator had estimated in 2018 that
450 DMAs would be filed per year.

The new law is an incremental step toward more collective redress
in Germany and aims to address the deficiencies of the previous
regime. It maintains the existing restriction that requires
qualified consumer protection organizations to bring the action
so-called qualified entities, or QEs.

However, these entities may now seek damages from defendants
directly on behalf of the class. Together with the several
coinciding factors detailed below, the new class action
might lead to a more fundamental change in the German litigation
landscape.

The nine hallmarks of the new German regime and our predictions for
its future relevance are set forth below.

1. Permissible Relief
Qualified entities can now directly sue defendants for damages or
other forms of relief on behalf of the
consumers concerned.

After a favorable verdict for the class, the court will request the
parties to devise a settlement on how to
distribute the funds.

If no settlement is reached, the court will appoint a claims
administrator to distribute the funds.

Funds that are not claimed by consumers or cannot be distributed to
class members are transferred
back to the defendant. There is no potential for a cy pres award
like in the U.S.

2. Broad Scope
Under the EU directive, the member states are only obliged to allow
class actions with regard to an exhaustive list of EU provisions on
consumer protection.

Germany has not restricted the scope of collective redress. All
matters that could be litigated in an individual civil lawsuit in
Germany can be litigated in the new class action.

This includes classic subject matters for collective redress such
as product safety and mass torts as well as the emerging litigation
issues around environmental, social and governance, data privacy,
and private enforcement of new EU legislation, i.e., the EU Digital
Markets Act or its proposed Artificial Intelligence Regulation.

3. Class Definition
Unlike many class actions in the U.S., consumers have to opt in to
join a German class action and there is no requirement for class
certification.

However, the qualified entity acting as plaintiff will have to show
in its statement of claim that at least 50 consumers may be
affected by the class action and that the consumers' claims present
substantially similar questions of law or fact. These two prongs
are reminiscent of the numerosity and commonality requirements in
U.S. class actions under Rule 23 (a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

In contrast to the DMA, consumers will now have a longer period for
considering an opt-in under the new class action. They can opt into
the class until three weeks after the conclusion of the oral
hearing in the case.

The oral hearing is typically scheduled after several rounds of
briefing by the parties. In practice, consumers will have anywhere
from several months to more than a year to opt into the class after
the lawsuit was filed. This allows consumers to react to
developments late in the proceedings.

If the court communicates preliminary views during the oral hearing
or otherwise, e.g., in writing, which are favorable for consumers,
consumers can opt in to profit from a potentially favorable
verdict. If the preliminary views favor the defendant, consumers
can consider an opt-out and potentially bring an individual lawsuit
against the defendant in front of a different court. This will make
it difficult to predict the ultimate size of the class and
therefore the maximum exposure for defendants.

4. Limitations on Third-Party Funding
The new law allows third-party funding for class actions, but
imposes fairly strict requirements. If the requirements are not
met, the class action will be dismissed.

Any third party that funds a class action may not be a competitor
of the defendant or in any way economically dependent on the
defendant.

More importantly, the third-party funder must not be promised more
than 10% of the proceeds from the class action. If a class action
is funded by a third party, the plaintiff is obliged to disclose
its arrangements with the funder.

These prerequisites might deter third-party funders from entering
the German class action litigation market.

5. No Additional Discovery Provisions
Germany has not made use of the leeway under the EU directive to
allow for more discovery in consumer class actions.

While courts can order a party to produce certain documents which
were clearly defined by the other party, there will be no
U.S.-style discovery in German class actions.

However, courts may now repeatedly fine parties up to EUR250,000
($265,524) if they fail to comply with a court order to produce the
requested document or item.
6. Parallel Individual Actions
Consumers who have not opted into the class action will be able to
sue the same defendant individually for the same claims as in the
class action.

Defendants may therefore have to prepare to defend numerous
individual lawsuits in parallel to the new class action.

7. Cost Recovery
As is customary in Germany and the EU, the losing party will be
required to bear the costs of the class action. This again is meant
to discourage frivolous lawsuits. In theory, this also includes the
opposing party's legal fees.

However, the recoverable amount is limited by statute and depends
on the amount in dispute. The new German law caps the amount in
dispute at EUR300,000. This equals a maximum amount for
recoverable
legal fees in the range of EUR10,000.

8. Tolling of Statutes of Limitations
Opting into a class action suspends the statute of limitations for
consumers -- even for consumers who later opt out again.

Therefore, consumers can toll the statute of limitations by opting
into a class action as a mere precaution. They are free to opt out
at a later stage and pursue individual claims against the
defendant, as long as they opt out before the cutoff point three
weeks after the conclusion of the oral hearing on the merits.

9. Settlements
Similar to U.S. class actions, all settlements in German class
actions must be scrutinized by the court.

The court will reject the settlement if it is not fair.

Settlements are final and binding for the parties as well as the
consumers who have opted into the class action. However, consumers
may opt out of a settlement within a month after the settlement was
published in the class action register.

Outlook
The new law has been met with both approval and criticism from
stakeholders and interested parties.

For the time being, the new class action regime as such will
certainly not turn Germany into a class action hot spot.

However, in combination with ever-increasing regulatory activity by
national and European rulemakers, an increasing focus on private
enforcement of regulations, and a German judiciary that is
generally willing to create consumer-friendly law, this may be just
the perfect mix for a more fundamental change of the German
litigation landscape in the long run.

Markus Rieder is a partner, Alexander Horn is of counsel and
Annekathrin Schmoll is an associate at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

Gibson Dunn of counsel Friedrich Wagner contributed to this
article. [GN]

[*] November 2023 Class Action Settlements Discussed
----------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Soga, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that affected
individuals could recover compensation from 10 class action lawsuit
settlements accepting claims in November. These settlements resolve
allegations of false advertising, data breaches and other consumer
rights violations.

November 2023 Class Action Settlements
Deadlines are quickly approaching, so act fast.

Sick of companies ripping you off? Here's how to fight back against
the worst offenders.

Cash Express Data Breach $850K Class Action Settlement
Cash Express agreed to pay $850,000 to resolve claims that it
failed to prevent a 2022 data breach that compromised its network
and sensitive consumer information.

The settlement benefits U.S. residents whose private information
may have been compromised in the Cash Express data breach between
Jan. 20, 2022, and Feb. 6, 2022.

According to the data breach class action lawsuit, Cash Express
failed to protect its customers from a 2022 cyberattack in which
hackers stole birth dates, bank account information, Social
Security numbers and other sensitive information. Plaintiffs in the
case claim Cash Express could have prevented the breach by
implementing reasonable cybersecurity measures.

In order to receive a payment from the settlement, class members
must submit a valid claim form by Nov. 1, 2023.

CVS Lidocaine False Advertising $3.8M Class Action Settlement
CVS agreed to a $3.8 million class action lawsuit settlement to
resolve claims that its lidocaine products were misleadingly
advertised as "maximum strength."

The settlement benefits consumers who purchased CVS-brand "maximum
strength" lidocaine patches, creams, roll-ons and spray products.

Consumers in the false advertising class action lawsuit claim they
were misled by CVS' lidocaine marketing. The products allegedly
failed to deliver the "maximum strength" lidocaine dosage promised
in their marketing.

The deadline to submit a claim with the settlement is Nov. 20,
2023.

Batiste Dry Shampoo Benzene $2.5M Class Action Lawsuit Settlement
Church & Dwight agreed to pay $2.5 million to resolve claims that
Batiste dry shampoo is contaminated with benzene.

The settlement benefits shoppers who purchased one or more Batiste
dry shampoo products prior to May 30, 2023.

According to the class action lawsuit, Church & Dwight recalled
numerous Batiste dry shampoo products due to concerns that the
products were contaminated with benzene — a known human
carcinogen associated with leukemia and other blood diseases.

In order to receive a settlement payment, consumers must submit a
valid claim form by Nov. 15, 2023.

OnePlus 9 Smartphone Performance $1.1M Class Action Settlement
OnePlus reached a $1.1 million class action lawsuit settlement to
resolve claims that it violated federal law by throttling
smartphone processing power.

The settlement benefits U.S. consumers who purchased a OnePlus 9 or
OnePlus 9 Pro smartphone between March 23, 2021, and Jan. 23,
2022.

Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit accused OnePlus of
intentionally throttling its smartphones' processing powers with
secret settings. This allegedly violated the Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act and denied consumers the true value of the smartphones
they paid for.

The deadline to submit a claim in the settlement is Nov. 8, 2023.

LinkedIn 401(k) ERISA $6.75M Class Action Settlement
LinkedIn agreed to pay $6.75 million to resolve a class action
lawsuit claiming that it violated the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) by mismanaging its employee retirement plan.

The settlement benefits participants, beneficiaries and alternate
payees of the LinkedIn Corp. 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan and Trust
who were a part of the plan between Aug. 14, 2014, and July 1,
2020.

According to the class action lawsuit, LinkedIn selected high-cost
and poorly performing investments for its employee 401(k) plan,
causing participants to lose retirement funds. This mismanagement
violated ERISA, the plaintiffs contend.

In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must submit
a valid claim form by Nov. 10, 2023.

Nationstar ACH $5M Class Action Settlement
Nationstar agreed to a $5 million class action lawsuit settlement
to resolve claims that it sent incorrect ACH entries to bank
accounts in April 2021, causing financial harm to mortgage
borrowers.

The settlement benefits individuals with mortgages serviced by
Nationstar who were affected by the incorrect ACH debit and credit
entries sent by Nationstar on April 23, 2021.

In April 2021, Nationstar allegedly sent numerous incorrect debt
and credit ACH entries to mortgage lenders instead of the intended
payment amounts. These incorrect ACH entries allegedly caused
consumers to overpay on their mortgages

The deadline to submit a claim in the settlement is Nov. 13, 2023.

Smile Brands Data Breach Class Action Settlement
Smile Brands reached a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve
claims that a 2021 data breach compromised its systems and the
sensitive data held within.

The settlement benefits consumers who received a data breach notice
from either Smile Brands or a Smile-affiliated dental practice
informing them that their information may have been compromised in
the 2021 data breach.

The Smile Brands data breach occurred in April 2021 and compromised
the information of around 1.5 million dental patients and other
individuals. The hackers reportedly stole names, birth dates,
insurance data and other information during the attack. Plaintiffs
in the data breach class action lawsuit claim that Smile Brands
could have prevented the data breach through reasonable
cybersecurity measures but failed to do so out of negligence.

In order to receive settlement benefits, individuals must submit a
valid claim form by Nov. 16, 2023.

Riverside Public Utilities Fees $24M Refund Settlement
Riverside Public Utilities agreed to pay $24 million to resolve
claims that it charged illegal fees on electric services in
violation of California laws.

The settlement benefits Riverside Public Utilities electric
customers who had an active account with the utility company
between Jan. 1, 2009, and Nov. 4, 2021.

Riverside Public Utilities allegedly charged excessive "general
fund" fees when billing its customers for electrical services.
These fees allegedly contributed to Riverside's fund that supports
fire departments, paramedics, police officers and other general
services such as infrastructure maintenance. Plaintiffs in the fee
class action lawsuit claimed that Riverside Public Utilities failed
to get these fees approved by voters as required by state law.

The deadline to submit a claim in the settlement is Nov. 30, 2023.

Navient Student Loan Bankruptcy $16M, $28M Class Action
Settlements
Navient agreed to two settlements valued at $16 million and $28
million to resolve claims that its student loans should have been
discharged during bankruptcy proceedings.

According to the class action lawsuits, Navient should not have
continued to collect on student loans after borrowers and
co-borrowers filed for bankruptcy. Instead, these loans allegedly
should have been discharged along with other debts.

The two settlements have similar details but different claim
deadlines.

The $16 million settlement benefits borrowers or co-borrowers of
Navient-owned student loans who filed for bankruptcy protection
after Oct. 17, 2005, after they became obligated to repay their
student loans, and who have never reaffirmed their private student
loans. The claim deadline for this settlement is Nov. 20, 2023.

The $28 million settlement benefits individuals who were obligated
to repay one or more Navient private student loans as a borrower or
co-borrower, filed for bankruptcy in a United States Bankruptcy
Court outside Texas, Louisiana or Mississippi after Oct. 17, 2005,
and obtained a discharge order. The claim deadline for this
settlement is Nov. 13, 2023.

This was originally published on The Penny Hoarder, a personal
finance website that empowers millions of readers nationwide to
make smart decisions with their money through actionable and
inspirational advice, and resources about how to make, save and
manage money. [GN]

[*] Quincy, Ill. to Join Forever Chemicals Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Bethers, writing for Herald-Whig, reports that the city of
Quincy will join a class action lawsuit with other communities to
recoup costs for possible renovations at the water treatment plant
to remove "forever chemicals" from the public water supply.

The lawsuit is against companies who produced products with per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, PFAS can be found
in drinking water, soil near waste sites, personal care products,
food packaging, fire-extinguisher foam and more.

After studies found that PFAS may lead to decreased fertility,
certain cancers, developmental delays in children and more, the EPA
announced that it would begin work on finding a safe threshold for
drinking water.

Quincy's supply meets the current safety advisory for PFAS.

"If this gets adopted (as the maximum contaminant limit), and we're
supposed to hear by the end of this year, 2023, and there's no
change to the water supply, we wouldn't practically have to do
anything," Public Works Director Jeffery Conte told the Quincy City
Council on Nov. 6. "However, if we do have to do something, the
cost of the treatment for removing those four parts per trillion is
estimated at $10 million in 2022 dollars. It's going to be at least
a $10 to $12 million project right now."

Conte said there is no cost to join the lawsuit, prompting aldermen
to unanimously support joining the lawsuit.

If the city were to attempt to lower the PFAS levels, Conte said
reverse osmosis would be the ideal solution, but the city would be
unable to implement it because of its unresolved lead piping
issues. The city's preventative measures against lead would also
make switching water sources difficult. Conte said PFAS have been
found in both groundwater and rivers.

In other business, aldermen agreed to enter the planning stage on a
$5 million water main replacement project on Broadway between 12th
and 54th streets. The project would take place with the expected
resurfacing of Broadway by the Illinois Department of
Transportation in 2024.

Aldermen also heard the first reading of an ordinance seeking up to
an $8.5 million loan from the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency to renovate the public water system, including replacing raw
water pumps, elevation of pumping equipment, pump station
structural and masonry repairs and flood-proofing of doors and
windows.

"This project actually was anticipated to occur last year. Bids
came in over budget so we went back to the drawing board and
redesigned it because what we had planned to spend was $8.5
million," Conte said.

The loan, which will mature in 20 years at a 2% interest rate, will
be paid with the revenue from water sales. Payments will be about
$520,000 a year. The ordinance was previously approved, but it was
reintroduced because of increasing costs.

Aldermen Mike Rein, R-5, was initially against the floodproofing,
saying Quincy's manpower and pumps have been sufficient to prevent
flooding in the past. He said the city can accomplish a lot more
with a fraction of the money. Conte responded there have been some
close calls.

"That's one of the things that keeps me up at night, thinking about
that water plant going down," Conte said. "We still need to replace
the pumps and electrical switchgear. The switchgear is from 1957.
It's a couple of million dollars just to replace electrical
service."

Conte said that he is hoping the plan with cost under the listed
amount, but expressed concerns that a failure of the system's
electrical equipment could take out water pumping for days.

"It could be without power for several days, and our water supply
only has about 30 hours of storage," he said.

Sitting as the Town Board, aldermen approved the bid of $261,000
from Rupp Masonry Construction Co., for masonry repairs to the
Annex building.

They also approved bids of $130,450 from Tournear Roofing Co., for
removal and replacement of the roof and $98,254 from Adams County
Glass, Inc., for exterior window replacement.

The city sold the Annex building, 706 Maine, to the township in
April for $1.

Correction
This report has been updated to reflect that aldermen heard a
reading of an ordinance to increase a loan request to the
Environmental Protection Agency from $7 million to $8.5 million.
Aldermen did not vote on the ordinance. [GN]


                            *********

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 ***