---

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

              Tuesday, November 21, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 233

                            Headlines

AMP LTD: NSW Supreme Court OKs $110M Deal in Shareholder Class Suit
APPLIED DIGITAL: Faces McConnell Shareholder Suit Over Disclosures
ATI PHYSICAL: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
AXSOME THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Gru Securities Class Suit
BLUE NILE: Faces Moore Suit Over Illegal Telemarketing Messages

BLUE OCEAN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Darrell Alleges
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Continues to Defend Wijesinha TCPA Class Suit
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Bid to amend First Amended Complaint Granted
BOJANGLES' OPCO: Seeks More Time for Class Cert Response
BUTTERFLY NETWORK: Continues to Defend Rose Class Suit in N.J.

CINTAS CORP: Faces Laurel City Breach of Contract Suit
CITIBANK NA: Denies Credit to Californians With Armenian Descent
CLEARSTAR INC: Byam-Hunte Sues Over Illegal Background Check
COMMUNITY LIVING: Piddock Seeks to Certify Direct Care Staff Class
CORE SCIENTIFIC: Continues to Defend Peng Class Suit in Texas

CORNELL UNIVERSITY: 2nd Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in ERISA Suit
DISH NETWORK: Continues to Defend Data Breach Class Suit
DISH NETWORK: Continues to Defend Jaramillo Securities Class Suit
DISH NETWORK: Continues to Defend Jones 401(k) Class Suit
DOCGO INC: Continues to Defend Naclerio Securities Class Suit

EOS ENERGY: Continues to Defend August Securities Class Suit
EOS ENERGY: Continues to Defend Delman Class Suit in Delaware
FLEXSTEEL INDUSTRIES: Settles ERISA Suit Over Severance
FORD MOTOR: Court Grants Claim to Damages in Transmission Suit
FREELAND ENTERPRISES: Zachary Seeks Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Wages

GAP INC: 8th Cir. Denies Bid to Revive False Ads Class Action Suit
GOLDEN RULE: Fontaine FCCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
HERTZ CORPORATION: Sconce Must File Class Cert Bid by Nov. 1, 2024
IBEX LTD: Settles Data Breach Suit in DC Court
IDEANOMICS INC: Consolidated Securities Suit Dismissed

INDULGENT FOODS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Knowles Says
INTEL CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Processor Security Vulnerability
INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Continues to Defend Consumer Class Suit
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Haley Sues Over Data Security Failure
IRIS ENERGY: Faces Shareholder Suit in NJ Court Over IPO

JAMES FINLAY: Faces Class Action Suit From Kenyan Tea Pickers
JEFF SANDY: Seeks Denial of Rose Bid to Supplement Record
KEYCORP: Continues to Defend Gurevitch Class Suit
KOHL'S CORP: Faces Shanaphy Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filing
KROGER CO: Coburn MMPA Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri

LIFETIME FITNESS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Duesing Alleges
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend Iwanski Class Suit
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend Morgan Class Suit
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend TVRX ARS Class Suit
MAROA FARMS: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Wage and Safety Violations

MATCH GROUP: Continues to Defend Candelore State-Wide Class Suit
MOUNTAINEER GAS: Faces Class Suit Over Lost of Natural Gas Service
MR. COOPER: Faces Class Suit Over Cybersecurity Breach
NOVAVAX INC: Sinnathurai Suit Seeks to Modify Briefing Schedule
OLO INC: Continues to Defend Steamship Trade Class Suit in S.D.N.Y.

OREGON: Wins Bid to Dismiss Betschart Suit
OUTLOOK THERAPEUTICS: Alsaidi Sues Over Drop in Share Price
PACIFICORP: Consolidated James & Dietrich Class Suit Stayed
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Gorman Sues Over Alleged Data Breach
PROTERRA INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit

QIWI PLC: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit
QUALITY FACILITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Allen Alleges
REAL ESTATE: Faces Class Suit Over Inflated Commission Charges
RESCUE DOGS: Dean Sues Over Sham Charity Claiming to Help Veterans
ROBINHOOD CYRPTO: Parker Seeks to Certify Class of Crypto Customers

SELECTQUOTE INC: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit
SIPARADIGM LLC: Hildebrandt Sues Over Labor Law Violations
SMITH & WESSON: Faces Suit in Canadian Court Over Shootings
SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Shen Securities Suit
STITCH FIX INC: Faces Shareholder Suit in California Court

STONELEDGE FURNITURE: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to March 6
STONELEDGE FURNITURE: Parties Seek More Time for Class Cert Bid
STREAMLABS LLC: Expert Discovery Completion Due Jan. 10, 2025
SYSCO CENTRAL: Foster Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
TINGO GROUP: Faces Securities Suit over Stock Price Drop

TINGO GROUP: Faces Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
TRC COMPANIES: Bandy FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action
TRINSEO PLC: Continues to Defend Bristoll Spill-Related Class Suit
TRISTAR DELIVERY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Evans Says
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Denies Extended Care for Elderly Patients

VALLEY FIRST: Settlement Over Discrimination Suit Gets Prelim. OK
WEC ENERGY: Continues to Defend Munt Class Suit
WEXFORD HEALTH: Class Cert Bid in Spurlock Due June 26, 2024
ZRS MANAGEMENT: Hernandez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

                            *********

AMP LTD: NSW Supreme Court OKs $110M Deal in Shareholder Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Professional Planner reports that the Supreme Court of New South
Wales has approved the settlement for the shareholder class action
brought against AMP after the Hayne royal commission in 2018 for
$110 million, according to an update from class action law firm
Maurice Blackburn.

AMP agreed to the settlement in August and would not be required to
make any admission of liability.

Maurice Blackburn, who leads the class action plaintiffs, have been
appointed settlement administrator of the settlement distribution
scheme.

Registrations for the class action have now closed. [GN]

APPLIED DIGITAL: Faces McConnell Shareholder Suit Over Disclosures
------------------------------------------------------------------
Applied Digital Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for
the quarterly period ended August 31, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 10, 2023, that on
August 12, 2023, a putative securities class action complaint,
captioned "McConnell v. Applied Digital Corporation, Wesley Cummins
and David Rench," No. 3:23-cv-1805, was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division against
Applied Digital Corporation and two of its officers, Chief
Executive Officer Wesley Cummins and Chief Financial Officer David
Rench, asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the company's business, operations,
and compliance policies. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
the company overstated the profitability of its datacenter hosting
business and its ability to successfully transition into a low-cost
cloud services provider and that the company's board of directors
was not "independent" within the meaning of NASDAQ listing rules.

Applied Digital Corporation is a designer, builder and operator of
digital infrastructures for high-performance compute, artificial
intelligence cloud service and datacenter hosting industries.


ATI PHYSICAL: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
ATI Physical Therapy, 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 the consolidated federal
securities class suits in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

On August 16, 2021, two purported ATI stockholders, Kevin Burbige
and Ziyang Nie, filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against ATI,
Labeed Diab, Joe Jordan, and Drew McKnight (collectively, the "ATI
Individual Defendants"), and Joshua Pack, Marc Furstein, Leslee
Cowen, Aaron Hood, Carmen Policy, Rakefet Russak-Aminoach, and
Sunil Gulati (collectively, the "FVAC Defendants").

On October 7, 2021, another purported ATI stockholder, City of
Melbourne Firefighters' Retirement System ("City of Melbourne"),
filed a nearly identical putative class action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against
ATI, the ATI Individual Defendants, and the FVAC Defendants.

On November 18, 2021, the court consolidated the cases and
appointed The Phoenix Insurance Company Ltd. and The Phoenix
Pension & Provident Funds as lead plaintiffs (together, "Lead
Plaintiffs").

On February 8, 2022, Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint against ATI, the ATI Individual Defendants, and the FVAC
Defendants, which asserts claims against (i) ATI and the ATI
Individual Defendants under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act; (ii)
the ATI Individual Defendants under Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act (in connection with the Section 10(b) claim); (iii) all
defendants under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act; and (iv) the
ATI Individual Defendants and the FVAC Defendants under Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act (in connection with the Section 14(a)
claim).

Lead Plaintiffs purport to assert these claims on behalf of those
ATI stockholders who purchased or otherwise acquired their ATI
shares between February 22, 2021 and October 19, 2021, inclusive,
and/or held FVAC Class A common shares as of May 24, 2021 and were
eligible to vote at FVAC's June 15, 2021 special meeting.

The consolidated amended complaint generally alleges that the proxy
materials for the FVAC/ATI merger, as well as other ATI disclosures
(including the press release announcing ATI's financial results for
the first quarter of 2021), were false and misleading (and, thus,
in violation of Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act)
because they failed to disclose that: (i) ATI was experiencing
attrition among its physical therapists; (ii) ATI faced increasing
competition for clinicians in the labor market; (iii) as a result,
ATI faced difficulty retaining therapists and incurred increased
labor costs; (iv) also as a result, ATI would open fewer new
clinics; and (v) also as a result, the defendants’ positive
statements about ATI’s business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Lead
Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the putative class, seek
money damages in an unspecified amount and costs and expenses,
including attorneys' and experts' fees.

On April 11, 2022, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint, which were fully briefed as of July
25, 2022.

On September 6, 2023, the court granted in part and denied in part
the motions to dismiss.

On October 19, 2023, ATI, the ATI Individual Defendants, and the
FVAC Defendants answered the consolidated amended complaint, and
the parties are now engaged in discovery.

The Company has determined that potential liabilities related to
the consolidated amended complaint are not considered probable or
reasonably estimable at this time.

ATI Physical Therapy, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is a
nationally-recognized healthcare company, specializing in
outpatient rehabilitation and adjacent healthcare services
including physical therapy to treat spine, shoulder, knee and neck
injuries or pain; work injury rehabilitation services, including
work conditioning and work hardening; hand therapy; and other
specialized treatment services. Its direct and indirect
wholly-owned subsidiaries include, but are not limited to, Wilco
Holdco, Inc., ATI Holdings Acquisition, Inc. and ATI Holdings,
LLC.


AXSOME THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Gru Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Axsome Therapeutics 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 the Gru securities class
suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

On May 13, 2022, Evy Gru filed a putative class action complaint
captioned Gru v. Axsome Therapeutics, Inc., et al. in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers and one
director, or the Securities Class Action.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleges,
among other things, that the defendants made false statements and
omissions concerning the Company's Chemistry Manufacturing and
Controls practices, and its New Drug Application with the FDA, with
respect to one of its product candidates, AXS-07.

The plaintiff sought unspecified damages, fees, interest, and
costs.

On August 11, 2022, the District Court appointed co-lead plaintiffs
in the Securities Class Action, one of whom later withdrew.

On October 7, 2022, the Securities Class Action plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint, which contained substantially similar
allegations as in the initial complaint.

On September 25, 2023, the Court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.

On October 13, 2023, plaintiff’s counsel filed a letter seeking
leave to file an amended complaint, which defendants opposed.

Axsome Therapeutics, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company
developing
and delivering therapies for central nervous system. The company's
portfolio includes three not yet approved product candidates,
AXS-07, AXS-12, and AXS-14, which are being developed for multiple
indications, and two approved products, Auvelity(R) and Sunosi(R),
both of which are also being developed for further indications.







BLUE NILE: Faces Moore Suit Over Illegal Telemarketing Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE MOORE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. BLUE NILE, INC. Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-15444
(N.D. Ill., Oct. 30, 2023) is a class action brought by the
Plaintiff to enforce the consumer-privacy provisions of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act alleging that Blue Nile violated
the law by sending telemarketing text messages to him and other
putative class members listed on the National Do Not Call Registry
without their written consent as well as sending such text messages
to people who had previously asked to no longer receive them.

Plaintiff Moore visited a Blue Nile jewelry store in May of 2023.
The sales associate did not secure the Plaintiff's consent to send
text messages. Shortly thereafter, including on May 24, 2023, Mr.
Moore began to receive marketing text messages from Blue Nile.
Plaintiff Moore asserts that he and other individuals who received
these telemarketing text messages suffered an invasion of privacy
and were harassed by the conduct of Defendant.

Blue Nile, Inc. is a jewellery retailer founded in 1999.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Telephone: (617) 485-0018
          E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com

BLUE OCEAN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Darrell Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
KYOKO DARRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BLUE OCEAN VININGS, INC. d/b/a "HOKI
JAPANESE RESTAURANT", Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-05090-VMC (N.D.
Ga., Nov. 3, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid
wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Darrell was employed by the Defendant as a server.

BLUE OCEAN VININGS, INC. owns and operates a restaurant in Atlanta
called Hoki Japanese Restaurant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Ave, 15th Floor
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
          Email: RMorgan@forthepeople.com

BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Continues to Defend Wijesinha TCPA Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bluegreen Vacations Holding 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 3, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Wijesinha Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) suit.

On January 7, 2019, Shehan Wijesinha filed a purported class action
lawsuit alleging violations of the TCPA.

It is alleged that Bluegreen’s wholly owned subsidiary Bluegreen
Vacations Unlimited Inc. called plaintiff's cell phone for
telemarketing purposes using an automated dialing system, and that
plaintiff did not give BVU his express written consent to do so.

Plaintiffs seek certification of a class comprised of other persons
in the United States who received similar calls from or on behalf
of BVU without the person's consent.

Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive
relief. Bluegreen believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends
to vigorously defend the action.

On July 15, 2019, the court entered an order staying this case
pending a ruling from the Federal Communications Commission
(“FCC”) clarifying the definition of an automatic telephone
dialing system under the TCPA and the decision of the Eleventh
Circuit in a separate action brought against a VOI company by a
plaintiff alleging violations of the TCPA.

On January 7, 2020, the Eleventh Circuit issued a ruling consistent
with BVU’s position, and on June 26, 2020, the FCC also issued a
favorable ruling.

The case was stayed pending the United States Supreme Court's
decision in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid.

On April 1, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a decision in the
Facebook case which was favorable to Bluegreen's position that an
automatic telephone dialing system was not used in this case.

Bluegreen believes the ruling disposes of the plaintiff's claim and
filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority advising the court of the
ruling.

On July 18, 2019, Eddie Boyd, and Connie Boyd, Shaundre and
Kimberly Laskey, and others similarly situated filed an action
alleging that BVU and co-defendants violated the Missouri
Merchandise Practices Act for allegedly making false statements and
misrepresentations with respect to the sale of VOIs.

Plaintiffs’ claims include a purported class action allegation
that BVU's charging of an administrative processing fee constitutes
the unauthorized practice of law, and also that Bluegreen and its
outside counsel engaged in abuse of process by filing a lawsuit
against plaintiffs' counsel (The Montgomery Law Firm).

Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive
relief.

On August 31, 2020, the court certified a class regarding the
unauthorized practice of law claim, but dismissed the claims
regarding abuse of process.

On January 11, 2021, the Court issued an order that the class
members are not entitled to rescission of their contracts because
they failed to plead fraud in the inducement. Plaintiffs filed a
third amended petition to add Resort Title Agency, Inc. (a wholly
owned subsidiary of Bluegreen) as a defendant.

On July 29, 2022, Resort Title Agency, Inc. removed the case to the
United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri,
where the case is currently pending. Bluegreen has filed an
opposition to the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Modify the Class
Definition or Class Certification and has also moved for Summary
Judgment against Plaintiffs.

Bluegreen continues to vigorously defend the action.


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Bid to amend First Amended Complaint Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVIS, et al., v. BMW OF
NORTH AMERICA, LLC et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-19650 (D.N.J., Filed
Oct. 31, 2019), the Hon. Judge Michael E. Farbiarz entered an order
granting the Plaintiffs motion to amend the first amended complaint
to add an additional class representative.

The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract.

BMW is an automotive company that manufactures luxury and
performance vehicles.[CC]

BOJANGLES' OPCO: Seeks More Time for Class Cert Response
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DORIEN ANDREWS, II and
CONNER CRISCO, v. BOJANGLES' OPCO, LLC, and BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS,
INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00593-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the Defendants
move the Court for an extension of 30 days through and including
December 8, 2023 to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class.


The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in this Action on September
19, 2023. The Defendants filed their Answer to the Complaint on
October 13, 2023.

The Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Certify Class Conditionally as
a Collective Action on October 25, 2023.

The Motion seeks to notify former employees of Defendant Bojangles'
Restaurants, Inc. of their opportunity to opt into this lawsuit.

The Defendants estimate that the number of individuals that are the
subject of the motion significantly exceeds 1,000.

Accordingly, the disposition of the Motion will have a substantial
impact on the scope of this litigation, which is currently being
prosecuted by two plaintiffs.

The current deadline in which Defendants must respond to the Motion
is November 8, 2023.

The Defendants need additional time to review Plaintiffs' Motion
and the declarations filed in support of the Motion, compile and
review relevant documents, conduct interviews, analyze applicable
case law, and evaluate the extent and content of their response to
the Motion.

Bojangles is an American regional chain of fast-food restaurants
that specializes in Cajun-seasoned fried chicken and buttermilk
biscuits.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 3, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/470YW57 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Charles E. Johnson, Esq.
          Brian L. Church, Esq.
          Brendan P. Biffany, Esq.
          ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A.
          101 N. Tryon St., Ste. 1900
          Charlotte, NC 28246
          Telephone: (704) 377-2536
          Facsimile: (704) 378-4000
          E-mail: cejohnson@robinsonbradshaw.com
                  bchurch@robinsonbradshaw.com
                  bbiffany@robinsonbradshaw.com

BUTTERFLY NETWORK: Continues to Defend Rose Class Suit in N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Butterfly Network 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 Rose class suit in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

On February 16, 2022, a putative class action lawsuit, styled Rose
v. Butterfly Network, Inc., et al. (Case No. 2:22-cv-00854) was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey and was amended on November 1, 2022.

The claims are against the Company and certain of its directors and
previous management as well as Longview and member of its then
board of directors, alleging that the defendants made false and
misleading statements and/or omissions about its post-Business
Combination business and financial prospects.

The alleged class consists of all persons or entities who purchased
or otherwise acquired the Company's stock between January 12, 2021
and November 15, 2021, persons who exchanged Longview shares for
the Company's common stock, and persons who purchased Longview
stock pursuant, or traceable to, the Proxy/Registration Statement
filed with the SEC on November 27, 2020 or any amendment thereto.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against this action.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, together with interest
thereon, as well as the costs and expenses of litigation.

There is no assurance that the Company will be successful in the
defense of the litigation or that insurance will be available or
adequate to fund any potential settlement or judgment or the
litigation costs of the action.

The Company is unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate
a range of possible loss at this time.

Butterfly Network is a blank check company formed for the purpose
of effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition,
stock purchase, reorganization or similar business combination
with
one or more businesses.


CINTAS CORP: Faces Laurel City Breach of Contract Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Cintas Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended August 31, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 5, 2023, that the Company is a
defendant in a purported class action lawsuit, "City of Laurel,
Mississippi v. Cintas Corporation No. 2," filed on March 12, 2021.
This is a contract dispute whereby plaintiffs allege that Cintas
breached its contracts with participating public agencies and seek,
among other things, contract-based damages in an unspecified
amount.

In March 2022, the District Court denied Cintas' motion to compel
arbitration, and on March 6, 2023, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals affirmed. Any liability in this matter is not probable nor
estimable at this time.

Cintas is a provider of corporate identity uniforms through rental
and sales programs, as well as a significant provider of related
business services, including entrance mats, restroom cleaning
services and supplies, first aid and safety services and fire
protection products and services.


CITIBANK NA: Denies Credit to Californians With Armenian Descent
----------------------------------------------------------------
Contributor of Asbarez reports that A class-action suit filed late
last week in federal court accuses Citibank of routinely and
illegally denied credit for nearly a decade to Californians whose
last names appeared to indicate they were of Armenian descent.

Citibank instituted this reprehensible "redlining" policy in 2015
with an unfounded assumption that automatically considered people
of Armenian heritage as likely to commit fraud, said attorney Ara
Jabagchourian the lead attorney for the plaintiff.

The bank's secret statewide policy resulted in the rejection of
credit card applications, rejection of requests for increased
credit lines, and outright cancellation of accounts in good
standing solely on the basis of perceived national origin, in
violation of equal credit laws.

The lead plaintiff, Marine Grigorian, in the case is an Armenian
woman from Granada Hills, California, who had held a Costco-branded
credit card underwritten by Citibank for several years in good
standing. When she applied for an increase in credit limits earlier
this year, the request was denied by Citibank.

Evidence was later uncovered, however, that Citibank had enacted a
policy where credit decisions for anyone with a last name that
appeared Armenian were routed to a special unit for manual review
where their applications were subjected to discriminatory
scrutiny.

Employees in the unit would be reprimanded or punished by Citibank
managers if they refused to go along with the policy of routine
denials and cancellations. Applicants were given false, invented
reasons for being denied credit, with some individuals referred to
the bank's fraud prevention units simply for having an Armenian
surname. Agents were trained and instructed not to discuss the
policy in writing or on recorded phone lines.

"Redlining is a disgusting form of racial and ethnic discrimination
by banks that the law has prohibited for decades, yet we find it is
still being practiced by Citibank, one of the largest financial
institutions in America," said attorney Jabagchourian. "Labelling
credit applicants as 'bad guys' on the basis of having Armenian
last names is reprehensible, immoral and illegal."

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California seeks to cover all individuals who suffered
discrimination because of this policy. It seeks unspecified
monetary damages from Citibank as well as a prohibition of the
redlining policy.

"This lawsuit will ensure that Citibank ends this practice and is
punished for its wanton disregard of the law," Jabagchourian added.
[GN]

CLEARSTAR INC: Byam-Hunte Sues Over Illegal Background Check
------------------------------------------------------------
CHARU JOELLA BYAM-HUNTE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLEARSTAR, INC.; SELECTION
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. d/b/a SELECTION.COM; and XPEDITE WHOLESALE
CRIMINAL RESEARCH, Defendants, Case No. 23-008978-CI (Fla. Cir.,
Pinellas Cty., Nov. 3, 2023) alleges violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

CLEARSTAR INC. is a technology and service provider that supports
background screening for companies. The Company provides employment
intelligence to its clients through a suite of IT applications for
day-to-day use in their recruitment and employment application
decisions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          Amanda E. Heystek, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-043
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8719
          Email: bhill@wfclaw.com
                 lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                 aheystek@wfclaw.com
                 gdesane@wfclaw.com

COMMUNITY LIVING: Piddock Seeks to Certify Direct Care Staff Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHEILA DENISE PIDDOCK,
Individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals, v. COMMUNITY LIVING NETWORK, Case No.
5:22-cv-10715-JEL-CI (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting her renewed motion for conditional
certification and notice pursuant to 29 u.s.c section 216(b).

Theg Plaintiff moves the Court for an order conditionally
certifying and allowing judicial notice of this action to be sent
to potential opt-in plaintiffs informing them of their right to
opt-in to this case under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
section 216(b) of the following collective:

   "All current and former Direct Care Staff working with
participants
   in Medicaid-funded Self-Directed Services programs and paid by
the
   financial management system Community Living Network at any time

   from three (3) years preceding the filing of this lawsuit
through
   the culmination of this litigation who worked over 40 hours in a

   workweek since April 1, 2019 and were not paid time and a half
for
   the hours worked in excess of 40."

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 3, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MxXEq5 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noah S. Hurwitz, Esq.
          Grant M. Vlahopoulos, Esq.
          HURWITZ LAW PLLC
          340 Beakes Street Ste 125
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (844) 487-9489
          E-mail: noah@hurwitzlaw.com
                  grant@hurwitzlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Guy T. Conti, Esq.
          CONTILEGAL
          28475 Greenfield Rd., Ste 113 No. 7372
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (888) 489-3232
          E-mail: gconti@contilegal.com

                - and -

          Samuel L. Estenson
          DEVER, EBY, & ISSA, PLLC
          301 N. Main St., 2nd Floor
          Telephone: (734) 994-1295
          E-mail: sle@deloofdevereby.com

CORE SCIENTIFIC: Continues to Defend Peng Class Suit in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Core Scientific 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 3, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from Peng class suit in the
United States District Court, Western District of Texas.

In November 2022, plaintiff Mei Peng filed a putative class action
(the “Putative Class Action”) in the United States District
Court, Western District of Texas, Austin Division, asserting that
the Company violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, by failing to disclose to investors, among other things,
that the Company was vulnerable to litigation, that certain clients
had breached their agreements, and that this impacted the Company's
profitability and ability to continue as a going concern.

On May 5, 2023, plaintiff filed an amended complaint removing the
Company as a defendant and asserting that certain officers,
directors and former officers and directors of the Company violated
the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, as a result of allegedly false and misleading
statements regarding the business of the Company.

In April 2023, the lead plaintiff in the matter filed a proof of
claim related to the Putative Class Action filed against the
Debtors in the Chapter 11 Cases and in August 2023 filed an amended
proof of claim to reflect an amendment to the Putative Class Action
reserving the right to add Core Scientific as a defendant following
the conclusion of the Chapter 11 Cases.

In September the lead plaintiff filed a motion with the Bankruptcy
Court requesting the grant of (i) class treatment, (ii)
certification of the class for purposes of its class proof of
claim, and (iii) other relief.

The Debtors timely filed its objection and support objecting to the
relief requested and the stated basis for the relief requested.

In September 2023 Harlin Dean filed a proof of claim against the
Debtors in the Chapter 11 Cases seeking to recover approximately $8
million in severance pay and hypothetical proceeds from the sale of
Company stock allegedly due following his resignation from the
Company in 2022.

The Debtors timely filed an objection to Mr. Dean's proof of claim
denying any obligation to Mr. Dean resulting from his resignation
of employment and requesting disallowance of the proof of claim.

In October 2023, Mr. Dean filed a Motion for Summary Judgment with
respect to his claims.

The Debtors intend to respond timely to the motion and vigorously
contest the claims.

Core Scientific, Inc. (OTCMKTS: CORZQ) is the largest U.S.
publicly-traded Bitcoin mining company in computing power.  Core
Scientific, which was formed following a business combination in
July 2021 with blank check company XPDI, is a large-scale operator
of dedicated, purpose-built facilities for digital asset mining
colocation services and a provider of blockchain infrastructure,
software solutions and services.  Core mines Bitcoin, Ethereum and
other digital assets for third-party hosting customers and for its
own account at its six fully operational data centers in North
Carolina (2), Georgia (2), North Dakota (1) and Kentucky (1). Core
was formed following a business combination in July 2021 with
XPDI,
a blank check company.


CORNELL UNIVERSITY: 2nd Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in ERISA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille of Bloomberg Law reports that Cornell University
defeated an appeal challenging the investments and recordkeeping
fees in its workers' retirement plan when the Second Circuit on
November 14, 2023 affirmed a decision granting the school summary
judgment over most claims in the 28,000-person class action.

In rejecting the Cornell workers' claims under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act's prohibited transaction rules, the
US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit took a position on a
circuit split and held for the first time that a prohibited
transaction claim based on money paid to a retirement plan service
provider must include allegations that the services were
unnecessary or that the compensation was unreasonable.

The court appeared to chart a middle ground between the narrow
approaches of the Third, Seventh, and Tenth circuits, which have
declined to apply ERISA's prohibited transaction rules to cast
doubt on routine retirement plan service contracts, and the broader
approaches of the Eighth and Ninth circuits, which have allowed
plan participants to challenge these arrangements under the
statute's prohibited transaction rules.

According to the Second Circuit, a prohibited transaction claim
doesn't require explicit allegations of self-dealing or disloyal
conduct, but it must include allegations that the transaction was
either unnecessary or backed by unreasonable compensation. Although
the statutory text of ERISA treats these factors as affirmative
defenses to be raised by the plan sponsor, they're also necessary
elements of a plaintiff's claim, the court said.

"When one cannot articulate what the statute seeks to prohibit
without reference to the exception, then the exception should be
understood as part of the definition of the prohibited
conduct—and thus its inapplicability must be pled," the court
said.

University Plans
The court also rejected a challenge to the Cornell plan's
recordkeeping fees, saying the workers didn't present sufficient
evidence to show how these fees caused them to suffer losses. Their
challenge to certain plan investments also failed, the court said,
because they didn't show how Cornell's process for monitoring these
investments was flawed.
The ruling affirms a 2019 decision rejecting nearly all of the
Cornell workers' ERISA claims involving their plan's fees and
investments. The workers were allowed to proceed with one claim
challenging the plan's TIAA-CREF target-date funds, but the parties
later settled this matter for $225,000.

Cornell is one of more than 20 prominent universities to be accused
of mismanaging their retirement plans in violation of ERISA since
2016. These cases have spawned nearly $140 million in settlements,
two trials, multiple appeals court rulings, and a US Supreme Court
decision.

The opinion was written by Judge Debra Ann Livingston and joined by
Judges Amalya L. Kearse and Michael H. Park.

Schlichter Bogard LLP represents the Cornell employees. Mayer Brown
LLP represents Cornell.

The case is Cunningham v. Cornell Univ., 2d Cir., No. 21-88,
11/14/23.

To contact the reporter on this story: Jacklyn Wille in Washington
at jwille@bloomberglaw.com [GN]

DISH NETWORK: Continues to Defend Data Breach Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
DISH Network 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 6, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from data breach class suit in
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.

On May 9, 2023, Susan Owen-Brooks, an alleged customer, filed a
putative class action complaint against us in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado.

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

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

On August 2, 2023, the Court issued an order consolidating the
first ten cases (the eleventh was dismissed).

The Company intends to vigorously defend this case

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



DISH NETWORK: Continues to Defend Jaramillo Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DISH Network 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 6, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Jaramillo securities
class suit in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado.

On March 23, 2023, a securities fraud class action complaint was
filed against us and Messrs. Ergen, Carlson and Orban in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado.

The complaint is brought on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of its securities during the February 22, 2021 to
February 27, 2023 class period.

In general, the complaint alleges that DISH Network’s public
statements during that period were false and misleading and
contained material omissions, because they did not disclose that it
allegedly maintained a deficient cyber-security and information
technology infrastructure, were unable to properly secure customer
data and its operations were susceptible to widespread service
outages.

In August 2023, the Court appointed a new lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel, and, on October 20, 2023, they filed an
amended complaint that abandoned the original allegations.

In their amended complaint, plaintiffs allege that, during the
class period, the defendants concealed problems concerning the 5G
network buildout that prevented scaling and commercializing the
network to obtain enterprise customers.

The amended complaint adds as individual defendants James S. Allen,
our Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer; John
Swieringa, our President, Technology and Chief Operating Officer;
Dave Mayo, our former Executive Vice President of Network
Development; Marc Rouanne, our Executive Vice President and Chief
Network Officer; and Stephen Bye, our former Executive Vice
President and Chief Commercial Officer.

The Company intends to vigorously defend this case.

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

DISH NETWORK: Continues to Defend Jones 401(k) Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
DISH Network 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 6, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from Jones 401(k) class suit in
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.

On December 20, 2021, four former employees filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado against the Company, its Board of Directors, and its
Retirement Plan Committee alleging fiduciary breaches arising from
the management of its 401(k) Plan.

The putative class, comprised of all participants in the Plan on or
after January 20, 2016, alleges that the Plan had excessive
recordkeeping and administrative expenses and that it maintained
underperforming funds.

On February 1, 2023, a Magistrate Judge issued a recommendation
that the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint be granted,
and on March 27, 2023, the district court judge granted the motion.


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

The Company intends to vigorously defend this case.

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

DOCGO INC: Continues to Defend Naclerio Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
DocGo 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 the Naclerio securities class suit in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On October 27, 2023, Joe Naclerio, individually and purportedly on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class
action complaint for violation of federal securities laws in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against
the Company, its Chairman, current and former Chief Executive
Officers, and current and former Chief Financial Officers.

The complaint alleges that the Company violated various securities
laws, and seeks class certification, damages, interest,
attorneys’ fees, and other relief.

Due to the early stage of this proceeding, the Company cannot
reasonably estimate the potential range of loss, if any.

The Company disputes the allegations of wrongdoing and intends to
defend itself vigorously in this matter.

DocGo, Inc. operates as a health care distribution company. The
Company offers mobile health services and integrated medical
mobility solutions. DocGo serves customers in the United States.




EOS ENERGY: Continues to Defend August Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
EOS Energy Enterprises 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 the August securities class
suit in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey

On August 1, 2023, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company, its Chief Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer,
and its former Chief Financial Officer (the "August Complaint") in
the United States District Court, District of New Jersey.

The August Complaint asserts violations of the federal securities
laws in connection with statements and alleged omissions relating
to the Company's business, prospects and reported backlog.

The Company believes the August Complaint is without merit and
intends to vigorously defend against this action.

Eos Energy Enterprises, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and
markets zinc-based energy storage solutions for utility-scale,
microgrid, and commercial & industrial applications.[BN]




EOS ENERGY: Continues to Defend Delman Class Suit in Delaware
-------------------------------------------------------------
EOS Energy Enterprises 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 the Delman class suit in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

On March 8, 2023, Plaintiff Richard Delman filed a class action
complaint (the "March Complaint") in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware.

The March Complaint names certain of the Company's former directors
as defendants.

Neither the Company nor Eos Energy Storage LLC was named as a
defendant in the March Complaint, but each was identified as a
relevant non-party and the Company owes certain indemnification
obligations relating to the lawsuit to the Company's former
directors.

Although the Company is unable to predict the final outcome or
estimate a potential range of loss at this stage of the
proceedings, the Company accrued $722 for the probable loss
included in accrued expenses on the condensed consolidated balance
sheets as of September 30, 2023.

Eos Energy Enterprises, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and
markets zinc-based energy storage solutions for utility-scale,
microgrid, and commercial & industrial applications.[BN]


FLEXSTEEL INDUSTRIES: Settles ERISA Suit Over Severance
-------------------------------------------------------
Flexsteel Industries, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for
fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 25, 2023, that during the quarter
ended September 30, 2022, the company paid $1.3M associated with a
restructuring program with respect to the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) governed severance plan.

On March 22, 2021, the company received notice of a class action
lawsuit filed against it and J.K. Dittmer and D.P. Schmidt as
individuals, by a number of employees who had worked at the Dubuque
Operations and Starkville plants prior to the closure of the
locations due to the impact of COVID-19 on the business at that
period of time. The allegations with the claim include failure to
pay employee benefits as required by a severance plan, failure of
J.K. Dittmer and D.P. Schmidt to act with respect to the
ERISA-governed severance plan, and failure to provide 60-days'
notice or the equivalent amount of pay to the employees required by
the (Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act) WARN Act
when the company closed the Dubuque and Starkville locations. The
parties participated in a lengthy mediation and on December 3,
2021, agreed to resolve the matter for $1.3 million. The matter was
dismissed with prejudice on September 1, 2022.

Flexsteel Industries, Inc. is a manufacturer, importer and marketer
of furniture products in the United States that include a wide
variety of furniture such as sofas, loveseats, chairs, reclining
rocking chairs, swivel rockers, sofa beds, convertible bedding
units, occasional tables, desks, dining tables and chairs, kitchen
storage, bedroom furniture, and outdoor furniture.


FORD MOTOR: Court Grants Claim to Damages in Transmission Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Naomi Neilson of Lawyers Weekly reports that Justices David Yates,
Jonathan Beach and Kylie Downes of the Federal Court made the order
on November 14, 2023 morning, six months after the full court heard
an appeal brought by Ford and a cross-claim appeal brought by class
action lead applicant Biljana Capic.

In the original judgment, which found Ford had breached Australian
Consumer Law, Ms Capic was awarded $17,248.19.

"We appreciate that this might leave the primary judge with some
imponderables. However, we do not think it would be conducive for
the just and efficient determination of Ms Capic's claim to damages
to permit the parties to effectively relitigate that question at
this stage of the proceedings," the full court ruled.

Ms Capic successfully alleged vehicles manufactured by Ford between
July 2010 and December 2016, which contained a transmission known
as the DPS6, were not of an acceptable quality.

At the time of the original judgment, the primary judge, Justice
Nye Perram, noted there was a "real risk of accident" if an
affected Ford vehicle "overtaking another suffers a three-second
power loss".

On the appeal, Ford contended Justice Perram arrived at an
"incorrect consideration and misapplication" of the Australian
Consumer Law. It added Justice Perram also misconstrued the act
"because it is not engaged where the manufacturer remedies the
non-compliance but does not do so within a reasonable time".

All these aspects of the appeal failed.

In the cross-appeal, Ms Capic succeeded in contending Justice
Perram should have found the "architectural deficiencies" in the
affected vehicles gave rise to a "superadded propensity for
affected vehicles to experience troubling vehicle behaviours".

Ms Capic was also successful in her submission that Justice Perram
should have found a separate cause of action for each risk that was
found to be established in an affected vehicle.

However, her contentions that Justice Perram should have found the
characteristics of "firm gear shifting and a slight shunting
sensation were a consequence of inadequate arrangements for damping
of torsional vibrations" had failed.

She also failed in her argument that Justice Perram should have
found the vehicles were not of appropriate quality because of the
"usual propensity for servicing, repair and/or replacement of the
dual-clutch assembly" and because of the risk of solder cracking.

To reach a conclusion, the full court relied on a judgment in
Toyota Motor Corporation v Williams and determined Justice Perram
should have held subsequent events were capable of bearing on the
proper assessment of reduction in value damages.

The full court also determined that when assessing damages to Ms
Capic, Justice Perram should have taken into account the facts
known at trial - being the repairs - and the use by Ms Capic of her
vehicle so that she would not be over-compensated.

"Ms Capic ought to have been, but was not, awarded pre-judgment
interest on the damages awarded for excess amounts of GST, stamp
duty and financing costs," the summary of the judgment read.

"The question of Ms Capic's damages will be remitted for
redetermination on the basis of evidence already before the primary
judge." [GN]

FREELAND ENTERPRISES: Zachary Seeks Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Denim Zachary and Michelle Coffin, on behalf of themselves and
those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Freeland Enterprises, Inc.,
RFJ Trust I, Freeland Group Restaurants, Hut Diggity, Deanna
Freeland, Todd Hollman, Tyler Freeland, John Doe Corporation 1-10,
John Doe 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00948 (N.D. Ind., Oct.
30, 2023) seeks appropriate monetary, declaratory, and equitable
relief based on Defendants' willful failure to provide proper wages
to Plaintiffs and similarly-situated individuals as required by the
Fair Labor Standards Act and Indiana law.

The Defendants have repeatedly and willfully violated the state and
federal laws by failing to adequately reimburse delivery drivers
for their delivery-related expenses, thereby failing to pay
delivery drivers the legally mandated minimum wage wages for all
hours worked and minimum overtime rate for hours worked in excess
of 40 per workweek, says the suit.

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and
similarly situated current and former delivery drivers in Indiana.

Freeland Enterprises, Inc. operates at least 40 Pizza Hut Pizza
franchises across the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Myra R. Reid, Esq.
          ANDERSON AGOSTINO & KELLER, PC
          131 S. Taylor Street
          South Bend, IN 46601
          Telephone: (574) 288-1510
          Facsimile: (574) 288-1650
          E-mail: reid@aaklaw.com

GAP INC: 8th Cir. Denies Bid to Revive False Ads Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris of Courthouse News Service reports that The Eighth
Circuit on November 14, 2023 refused to revive a consumer's class
action against The Gap Inc. and its subsidiary Old Navy, finding
that the plaintiff did not suffer an ascertainable loss due to her
disappointment over not receiving an advertised discount at the
time of purchase.

Plaintiff Jill Hennessey filed a class action in 2019 in the
Eastern District of Missouri against the retail giants. The lawsuit
claimed the Gap and Old Navy advertise false and misleading price
comparisons for their products.

Central to Hennessey's claim is the Missouri "benefit of the
bargain" rule, under which she claims damages measured by the
difference between the value of Old Navy's artificially inflated
ticket prices and the lower value of the products she received.

Central to the appeals court's decision was whether Hennessey
sustained an ascertainable loss.

"Hennessey's amended complaint alleges no facts supporting her
information-and-belief allegations and provides no insight into
what the actual value of these products was at the time of the
transactions or how she might determine it," U.S. Circuit Judge
James Loken, a George H.W. Bush appointee, wrote in the unanimous
opinion. "Nor does the complaint identify which products were worth
less than the sale price. And as the district court noted, there is
little reason to believe that facts establishing the fair market
value of a certain item of clothing would be peculiarly in
defendants' possession."

Hennessey's lawyer, Matthew Zevin of Kitner Woodward in Encinitas,
California, did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment
on the ruling.

The three-judge panel also rejected Hennessey's unjust enrichment
claim and her argument that the lower court erred in dismissing her
claim with prejudice, without giving her an opportunity to amend
her claim.

"Hennessey's unjust enrichment claim is based on the same facts as
her MMPA [Missouri Merchandising Practices Act] claim," Loken
wrote. "It fails for the same reason — she received the products
she intended to purchase and paid the advertised sale price."

The appeals court affirmed the federal court’s dismissal, noting
that Hennessey failed to file a motion for leave to amend in the
nearly 2 1/2 years between the filing of her initial complaint and
defendants' filing of the motion to dismiss, or in the nearly nine
months between the filing of that motion and the trial court’s
memorandum and order.

"Instead, Hennessey's attorneys first raised the issue on appeal,
asserting an amended complaint would not be futile but not
submitting a proposed amended complaint," Loken wrote. "The issue
was not properly preserved."

George W. Bush appointees Raymond W. Gruender and Duane Benton
rounded out the three-judge panel.

The decision mirrors the tone during oral arguments before the
panel in September.

During that 30-minute hearing, Loken especially seemed skeptical of
what Zevin himself characterized as a novel application to
Missouri's consumer fraud statutes.

"It's novel and scary is the word that comes to mind," Loken said
during Zevin's argument. "I mean every retailer now contemplating a
discount has to worry about whether some consumer that you
represent could find an expert who would say it wasn't worth that
much." [GN]

GOLDEN RULE: Fontaine FCCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DONALD FONTAINE, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOLDEN RULE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2023-023528-CA-01, was removed from
the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida for
the County of Miami-Dade to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on November 2, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No.1:23-cv-24202-XXXX to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful debt
collection practices, seeking damages awardable under the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act.

Based in Indianapolis, IN, provides health insurance products
throughout the United States. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

         Jason A. Richardson, Esq.
         Thomas F. A.Hetherington, Esq.
         Andrew R. Kasner, Esq.
         MCDOWELL HETHERINGTON LLP
         1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2400
         Houston, TX 77002
         Telephone: (713) 337-5580
         Facsimile: (713) 337-8850
         E-mail: jason.richardson@mhllp.com
                 tom.hetherington@mhllp.com   
                 andrew.kasner@mhllp.com

HERTZ CORPORATION: Sconce Must File Class Cert Bid by Nov. 1, 2024
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KYLE SCONCE, v. THE HERTZ
CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-01197-DAD-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Carolyn K. Delaney entered an scheduling order as follows:

-- Plaintiff shall move for class certification         Nov. 1,
2024
    by:

-- All other motions, except motions for                July 7,
2025
    continuances, temporary restraining orders,
    or other emergency applications, shall be
    filed on or before:

-- A jury trial is set for December 1, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in
Courtroom 4 before District Court Judge Dale A. Drozd. Trial is
anticipated to last 21 days.

Hertz is a worldwide vehicle rental company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40nrOlR at no extra charge.[CC]

IBEX LTD: Settles Data Breach Suit in DC Court
----------------------------------------------
Ibex Limited disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in August 14, 2023, that as of June 30, 2023, there have
been no objections or opt-outs received and the period to submit
same has expired with regards to a March 2022 class action lawsuit
filed against the company in the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia.

Suit alleged that plaintiffs' personal information was exposed as a
result of an August 2020 ransomware incident. In July 2022, the
parties reached a preliminary settlement. In March 2023, the court
granted final approval of the settlement, with a deadline for class
members to submit claims to the Settlement Administrator ending
March 20, 2023.

Ibex is a global business process outsourcing and end-to-end
customer engagement technology solutions provider for the world's
most recognized brands.


IDEANOMICS INC: Consolidated Securities Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
Ideanomics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in August 25, 2023, that on February 8, 2023,
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York denied the plaintiffs' motion to amend and dismissed the case
captioned "In re Ideanomics, Inc. Securities Litigation."

On July 7, 2020, a purported securities class action captioned "Kim
v. Ideanomics Inc. et al," was filed in said court against the
company and certain of its current officers and directors alleging
violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act arising
from certain purported misstatements by the company beginning in
September 2020 regarding its Ideanomics China division.

On November 4, 2020, the Lundy action was consolidated into "In re
Ideanomics, Inc. Securities Litigation." In December 2020, the
court appointed Rene Aghajanian as lead plaintiff and an amended
complaint was filed in February 2021, alleging violations of
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act arising from certain
purported misstatements by the company beginning in March 2020
regarding its Ideanomics China division and seeking damages. The
defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 6, 2021.

On March 15, 2022, the court granted Defendants' motions to dismiss
in full and dismissed plaintiff's complaint. On April 14, 2022,
plaintiff sought leave to amend its complaint and defendants
opposed that request. On February 8, 2023, the court denied
plaintiffs' motion to amend and dismissed the case.

Ideanomics offers unique business solutions to commercial customers
wanting to adopt electric vehicles and supporting infrastructure by
developing and integrating business components with distinctive
competence in vehicles, charging and energy.


INDULGENT FOODS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Knowles Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
CARLTON KNOWLES, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INDULGENT FOODS, L.L.C.,
Defendant, Case No.1:23-cv-09688-JPO (S.D.N.Y., November 2, 2023)
alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New
York State Human Rights Law and City Law, and the New York City
Human Rights Law.

The class action arises from 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. The Plaintiff has been discriminated
against by the Defendant's conduct and violations of the statues
and regulations by being treated unequally from sighted persons due
to the Plaintiff's disability, says the suit.

Indulgent Foods operates online retail store across the United
States. Its website provides consumers with access to an array of
goods including information about purchasing Hot Cocoa, Dips,
Chais, Oatmeal 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

INTEL CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Processor Security Vulnerability
------------------------------------------------------------------
James Roy of IT World Canada reports that Intel gets slapped with a
class action lawsuit for overlooking a security vulnerability in
its processors, Microsoft tries harder to improve AI's reasoning
capabilities, New York based healthcare company faces ransomware
attack, and HPE and Nvidia offer the building blocks of a
supercomputer to customers.

A new class action lawsuit is accusing Intel of blatantly ignoring
a major security flaw in its processors for five years, and
continuing to sell defective products to customers.

The lawsuit alleges that Intel was made aware of the flaw, dubbed
Downfall, by two separate reports in 2018 but did not fix it,
leaving customers with vulnerable CPUs, which were later crippled
because of performance-killing limitations.

Google researchers who discovered the flaw also explained that the
vulnerability can cause secret user data to be revealed.

Apparently, the company was busy dealing with the Spectre and
Meltdown flaws in its CPU architecture at the time, and decided to
overlook the Downfall vulnerability.

The class action states that the flaw was not fixed for three more
generations of Intel's x86 chips, which means that now customers
that use software for photo and video editing, gaming, and
encryption are unfairly reaping the consequences with products that
are either "egregiously vulnerable" to attacks or must be slowed
down "beyond recognition" to fix the Downfall flaw.

Intel has declined to comment on the lawsuit. [GN]

INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Continues to Defend Consumer Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Interactive Brokers Group 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 the consumer class suit in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.

On December 18, 2015, a former individual customer filed a
purported class action complaint against IB LLC, IBG, Inc., and
Thomas Frank, Ph.D., the Company's Executive Vice President and
Chief Information Officer, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut.

The complaint alleges that a purported class of IB LLC's customers
were harmed by alleged "flaws" in the computerized system used to
close out (i.e., liquidate) positions in customer brokerage
accounts that have margin deficiencies.

The complaint seeks, among other things, undefined compensatory
damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.

On September 28, 2016, the District Court issued an order granting
the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, and
without providing plaintiff leave to amend.

On September 28, 2017, the plaintiff appealed to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On September 26, 2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal
of plaintiff's claims of breach of contract and commercially
unreasonable liquidation but vacated and remanded back to the
District Court plaintiff's claims for negligence.

On November 30, 2018, the plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the new complaint on January
11, 2019, which was denied on September 30, 2019.

On December 9, 2019, the Company filed a motion requesting that the
District Court certify to the Connecticut Supreme Court two
questions of Connecticut law directly relevant to the motion to
dismiss.

The Court denied the Company's motion to certify on May 15, 2020.

The plaintiff served a motion for class certification on March 18,
2022, which the Company opposed.

On March 25, 2022, the plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to
amend his complaint, which was granted on July 5, 2022.

The plaintiff filed his third amended complaint on July 14, 2022.

The Company’s answer was filed on July 26, 2022.

On August 25, 2023, the Court granted plaintiff's motion for class
certification, certifying a class that consists of IB LLC account
holders (with some exclusions) who had positions liquidated from
December 18, 2013 to the date of trial at prices outside of a
“pricing corridor” defined in the Court's decision.

On September 8, 2023, the Company filed a petition for permission
to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, seeking an interlocutory appeal of the District Court's
class certification decision. Plaintiff opposed the petition, which
is now fully briefed and sub judice.

The Company does not believe that a purported class action is
appropriate given the great differences in portfolios, markets and
many other circumstances surrounding the liquidation of any
particular customer's margin-deficient account.

On October 17, 2023, the District Court approved a scheduling order
for the remainder of the case, IB LLC and the related defendants
intend to continue to defend themselves vigorously against the case
.

Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. operates as an automated
electronic broker worldwide. It specializes in executing and
clearing trades in securities, futures, foreign exchange
instruments, bonds, and mutual funds. Interactive Brokers Group,
Inc. was founded in 1977 and is headquartered in Greenwich,
Connecticut.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Haley Sues Over Data Security Failure
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH HALEY, ROWDY ALLDRIDGE, and MARY LEA KIRBY, individually on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION and JOHNSON &
JOHNSON HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants, Case No.
7:23-cv-09679 (S.D.N.Y., November 2, 2023) arises from the
Defendants' failure to properly manage, maintain, secure and/or
safeguard Plaintiffs and Class members' protected medical and
health information stored within information networks and servers
for which they are responsible, alleging claims for negligence,
negligence per se, breach of implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, breach of duty, and breach of implied contract.

On or about September 29, 2023, Defendant IBM sent Plaintiffs and
other victims of the Data Breach a Notice of Data Breach, informing
them of the August 2, 2023 incident involving unauthorized access
to personal information contained within a database used on the
Janssen Carepath platform, a patient support platform that offers
savings options and other patient support resources. However, the
Defendants failed to disclose the scope and the actual root cause
of the Data Breach, the vulnerabilities exploited, and why it took
until September 29, 2023 to inform Plaintiffs, says the suit.

Headquartered in New York, IBM provides infrastructure, software,
and consulting services to businesses, including health care entity
Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael A. Toomey, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          11 Times Square
          640 8th Ave., 10th Fl.
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 688-0782
          E-mail: mtoomey@barrack.com

                  - and -

          Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
          Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          600 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230-0800
          Facsimile: (619) 230-1874
          E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com
                  sward@barrack.com

                  - and -

          John G. Emerson, Esq.
          EMERSON FIRM, PLLC
          2500 Wilcrest, Suite 300
          Houston, TX 77042
          Telephone: (800) 551-8649
          Facsimile: (501) 286-4659

IRIS ENERGY: Faces Shareholder Suit in NJ Court Over IPO
--------------------------------------------------------
Iris Energy Limited disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in September 13, 2023, that it is facing an
amended complaint was filed on June 6, 2023, also naming as
defendants the Company and certain of its directors and officers,
as well as the underwriters of the company's IPO. Original
complaint was filed on December 14, 2022 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey.

The amended complaint asserts claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11, 12(a)(2),
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of a putative class
of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired (a)
Iris ordinary shares pursuant and/or traceable to documents issued
in connection with the company's IPO and/or (b) Iris securities
between November 17, 2021 and November 1, 2022, both dates
inclusive. It contends that certain statements made by the company
and certain of its officers and directors, including in the
company's IPO Registration Statement and Prospectus, were allegedly
false or misleading and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of the
putative class.

Iris owns and operates institutional-grade, highly efficient
proprietary data centers powered by 100% renewable energy (whether
from clean or renewable energy sources or through the purchase of
RECs). Its operations currently generate revenue by mining Bitcoin
and earning Bitcoin revenue through a combination of block rewards
and transaction fees from the operation of its Bitcoin miners and
exchanging these Bitcoin for fiat currencies such as USD or CAD,
typically on a daily basis.


JAMES FINLAY: Faces Class Action Suit From Kenyan Tea Pickers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fiona Chute, Craig Watt and Stephen Goldie - Brodies LLP of
Lexology report that in January 2022, a group of tea pickers who
claim to have been injured while employed in Kenya by James Finlay
(Kenya) Ltd ("JFKL"), a company which was incorporated in Scotland,
were given permission to bring a class action in Scotland's Court
of Session. JFKL appealed against that decision, arguing that there
was insufficient factual similarity between the claims to allow
them to be brought under a single class action, with
"musculo-skeletal injury arising from employment" said to be too
wide a description to meet the relevant test of being "the same as,
or similar or related to, each other", but were unsuccessful.
However, since then, there has been little progress as to the
substance of the dispute due to multiple spats between the parties
as to whether the Court of Session has jurisdiction to hear the
class action.

Round 1: anti-suit injunctions

The first round involved JFKL being granted an anti-suit injunction
in the courts of Kenya, preventing the representative party
appointed for the group (Hugh Campbell KC) from continuing to
pursue the class action in Scotland, pending a decision by the
Kenyan court as to whether the Court of Session has jurisdiction to
hear the class action. As we wrote in August 2022, Mr Campbell was
then granted an anti-suit interdict (the Scottish equivalent of
injunction of his own) by the Court of Session, on an interim
basis, which prevented JFKL from proceeding with its application in
Kenya to decide on jurisdiction. JFKL attempted to have this
interim interdict recalled unsuccessfully at the end of that month.
This left the parties in a difficult position, with substantive
progress in either forum meaning a risk of being in contempt of
court in the other.

Round 2: preliminary proof (trial) on jurisdiction

As the court in Kenya was prevented from deciding whether the Court
of Session had jurisdiction to the hear the class action, the Court
of Session answered the question itself following a six-day long
preliminary proof (a hearing of evidence with witnesses on a
specific issue). As reported in July 2023, the Court of Session
rejected both JFKL's primary argument that the Scottish court has
no jurisdiction, and its fall-back argument that it was not the
most convenient forum to hear the dispute (known as a plea of forum
non conveniens). At that point, it seemed most likely that the
class action would start to advance in Scotland once more.

Round 3: appeal

However, JFKL lodged an appeal against the court's decision, which
was heard by the Inner House of the Court of Session (an appellate
court of three senior judges) in October 2023. The opinion of the
court was delivered on 7 November 2023 and resulted in partial
success for JFKL.

Whilst the appellate court did not reverse the first instance
decision that the Scottish court has jurisdiction (in other words,
it upheld the decision that the Scottish courts can competently
hear this class action), it did reverse the previous finding on the
forum non conveniens challenge. The appellate court found that the
judge at the preliminary proof had made an error of law when he
concluded that a no-fault compensation scheme under the Kenyan Work
Injury Benefits Act 2007 ("WIBA") did not apply to the type of
injuries that the workers in this case have suffered. In fact, it
did apply, meaning the workers could make use of this scheme, which
was free to use and did not require the engagement of lawyers. If
the claims were to proceed in Scotland, the Scottish court would
have to attempt to emulate that scheme and make awards of damages
in line with WIBA. Rather than doing that, it would be more
convenient and appropriate for the claims to be resolved in Kenya
under WIBA. The appellate court therefore sisted (paused) the
Scottish class action to allow that to take place.

More rounds to come?

The representative party for the group members has the right to
seek permission to appeal against this decision to the UK Supreme
Court, if he so wishes. It won't become clear for many months
whether that permission has been sought or granted.

Even if this decision is not appealed, it is possible that this
will not be the last the Scottish courts hear of this case. The
court noted in the Inner House appeal that if it becomes clear, for
example, that there is an excessive delay in Kenya in dealing with
these claims under the WIBA, the Scottish court may have to revisit
the question of whether or not substantial justice can be delivered
in Kenya, and whether to "unpause" the Scottish proceedings. [GN]

JEFF SANDY: Seeks Denial of Rose Bid to Supplement Record
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL D. ROSE et al., v.
JEFF SANDY, et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-00405 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon.
Judge entered an order Defendants ask the Court to deny Plaintiffs'
Motion to Supplement the Record as it pertains to proposed Exhibits
6, 7, 8, and 11.

The Defendants also want to further strike from the docket
Plaintiffs' Memorandum and further grant them any and all other
relief this Honorable Court deems just and proper.

The Court did not authorize the Memorandum filed by Plaintiffs. If
the Court would have authorized a memorandum, it would have set a
page limitation like the page limitation set for the supplemental
brief it authorized on behalf of certain Defendants.

On August 9, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class
Certification and Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof. On August
23, 2023, Defendants filed a Joint Response in Opposition to the
Motion for Class Certification.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert P. Dunlap, Esq.
          DUNLAP & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          345 Prince Street
          Beckley, WV 25801

                - and -

          Stephen Paul New, Esq.
          STEPHEN NEW & ASSOCIATES
          430 Harper Park Drive
          Beckley, WV 25801

                - and -

          Timothy P. Lupardus, Esq.
          LUPARDUS LAW OFFICE
          275 Bearhole Road
          Pineville, WV 24874

                - and -

          Amanda J. Taylor, Esq.
          TAYLOR, HINKLE & TAYLOR
          115 1/2 S. Kanawha Street
          Beckley, WV 25801

                - and -

          Zachary K. Whitten, Esq.
          WHITTEN LAW OFFICE, L.C.
          Pineville, WV 24874

The Defendants are represented by:

          Charles R. Bailey, Esq.
          Harrison M. Cyrus
          BAILEY & WYANT, PLLC
          500 Virginia Street, East, Suite 600
          Charleston, WV 25337-3710
          Telephone: (304) 345-4222
          Facsimile: (304) 343-3133
          E-mail: cbailey@baileywyant.com
                  hcyrus@baileywyant.com

                - and -

          J. Victor Flanagan, Esq.
          Daniel J. Burns, Esq.
          Wendy E. Greve, Esq.
          Benjamin B. Vanston, Esq.
          Chip E. Williams, Esq.
          Jared C. Underwood, Esq.
          PULLIN, FOWLER, FLANAGAN, BROWN & POE, PLLC
          252 George Street
          Beckley, WV 25801
          Telephone: (304) 254-9300
          Facsimile: (304) 255-5519
          E-mail: vflanagan@pffwv.com
                  dburns@pffwv.com
                  wgreve@pffwv.com
                  bvanston@pffwv.com
                  cwilliams@pffwv.com
                  junderwood@pffwv.com

                - and -

          Michael D. Mullins, Esq.
          Larry J. Rector, Esq.
          Amy M. Smith, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC
          Chase Tower, 17th Floor
          Charleston, WV 25326-1588
          Telephone: (304) 353-8000
          Facsimile: (304) 933-8704
          E-mail: michael.mullins@steptoe-johnson.com
                  larry.rector@steptoe-johnson.com
                  amy.smith@steptoe-johnson.com

                - and -

          Jordan K. Herrick, Esq.
          David E. Schumacher, Esq.
          BAILEY & WYANT, PLLC
          500 Virginia Street, East, Suite 600
          Charleston, WV 25337-3710
          Telephone: (304) 345-4222
          Facsimile: (304) 343-3133
          E-mail: jherrick@baileywyant.com
                  dschumacher@baileywyant.com

                - and -

          Anne Liles O'Hare, Esq.
          D. C. Offutt, Jr., Esq.
          OFFUTT SIMMONS SIMONTON, PLLC
          949 Third Avenue, Suite 300
          Huntington, WV 25701
          Telephone: (304) 529-2868
          Facsimile: (304) 529-2999
          E-mail: dcoffuttjr@offutlegal.com
                  alohare@offutlegal.com

KEYCORP: Continues to Defend Gurevitch Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------
KeyCorp. 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 Gurevitch class suit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

On August 4, 2023, a putative class action, Gurevitch v. KeyCorp et
al., was filed against KeyCorp and certain of its current and
former executives in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio.

The named plaintiff seeks to represent a national class of
individuals who purchased or acquired KeyCorp securities from
February 2020 to June 2023 and who were allegedly harmed by certain
disclosures relating to KeyCorp's liquidity, operations, and
prospects.

On September 25, 2023, the named plaintiff and defendants
stipulated and the court agreed, among other things, to postpone
the date by which KeyCorp must respond to the complaint until after
the court appoints a lead plaintiff and counsel and they have
prepared an amended or consolidated complaint.

At this stage of the proceedings it is too early to determine if
the matter would reasonably be expected to have a material adverse
effect on our financial condition.

KeyCorp operates as the holding company for KeyBank National
Association that provides various retail and commercial banking
products and services.[BN]



KOHL'S CORP: Faces Shanaphy Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
Kohl's Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended July 29, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 31, 2023, that it is facing a
putative class action lawsuit filed on September 2, 2022 by Sean
Shanaphy, an alleged shareholder of the company, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin against the
company, its directors, and its Chief Financial Officer alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934. Case is captioned "Shanaphy v. Kohl's
Corporation," No. 2:22-cv- 01016-LA.

The plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired its securities between October 20,
2020 and May 19, 2022, and seeks compensatory damages, interest,
fees, and costs. The complaint alleges that members of the putative
class suffered losses as a result of false or misleading statements
and withholding of information regarding the conception, execution,
and outcomes of the company's strategic plan announced on October
20, 2020 and the company's financial results for the first quarter
of fiscal 2022 and its internal controls over financial reporting,
disclosure controls, and corporate governance mechanisms.

Said case is in its early stages. Lead plaintiff applications were
submitted on November 1, 2022, and on May 23, 2023, the court
appointed Thomas Frame as lead plaintiff. Subsequently, on June 9,
2023, lead plaintiff candidate The Nova Scotia Health Employees'
Pension Plan (NSHEPP) filed a motion for reconsideration of the
court's May 23, 2023 order. The court has not yet reached a
decision on the motion for reconsideration.

Kohl's is a department store chain based in Menomonee Falls,
Wisconsin.


KROGER CO: Coburn MMPA Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled BRIDGET COBURN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE KROGER CO., Defendant,
Case No. 23SL-CC04045, was removed from the Circuit Court of St.
Louis County, Missouri, to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri on November 2, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:23-cv-01399 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to disclose the
addition of liquid smoke flavoring of its cheese products such as
Smoked Gouda Sliced Cheese product. Plaintiff Coburn alleges claims
against the Defendant for breach of express warranty and for
violations of the Missouri's Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA).

Headquartered in Ohio, The Kroger Co. operates supermarkets and
department stores in  the United States. It is considered as one of
the largest food retailer in the country. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

           Kimberly M. Bousquet, Esq.
           DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
           1300 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2400
           Portland, OR 97201-5610
           Telephone: (503) 241-2300
           E-mail: kimbousquet@dwt.com

                   - and

           Jacob M. Harper, Esq.
           Heather F. Canner, Esq.
           Peter K. Bae, Esq.
           DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
           865 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2400
           Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566
           Telephone: (213) 633-6800
           E-mail: jacobharper@dwt.com
                   heathercanner@dwt.com
                   peterbae@dwt.com

LIFETIME FITNESS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Duesing Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
EMILY DUESING, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LIFETIME FITNESS, INC. d/b/a LIFE TIME
FITNESS, Defendant, Case No. 0:23-cv-03384 (D. Minn., Nov. 3, 2023)
seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Duesing was employed by the Defendant as a lifeguard.

LIFETIME FITNESS, INC. provides membership programs for sport and
recreation facilities, operating 29 locations in Minnesota and more
than 150 locations throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn J. Wanta, Esq.
          Scott A. Moriarity, Esq.
          WANTA THOME PLC
          100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 252-3570
          Email: sjwanta@wantathome.com
                 samoriarity@wantathome.com

LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend Iwanski 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 Iwanski class suit in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Iwanski v. First Penn-Pacific Life Insurance Company ("FPP"), No.
2:18-cv-01573 filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania is a putative class action that was filed
on April 13, 2018.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant FPP breached the terms of his 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 by FPP 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.

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 Morgan 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 Morgan class suit in the
District Court of the 14th Judicial District of Dallas County,
Texas.

Henry Morgan et al. v. Lincoln National Corporation d/b/a Lincoln
Financial Group, et al, filed in the District Court of the 14th
Judicial District of Dallas County, Texas, No. DC-23-02492, is a
putative class action that was filed on February 22, 2023.
Plaintiffs Henry Morgan, Susan Smith, Charles Smith, Laura Seale,
Terri Cogburn, Laura Baesel, Kathleen Walton, Terry Warner, and
Toni Hale ("Plaintiffs") allege on behalf of a putative class that
Lincoln National Corporation d/b/a Lincoln Financial Group, LNL and
LLANY (together, "Lincoln"), FMR, LLC, and Fidelity Product
Services, LLC ("Fidelity") created and marketed misleading and
deceptive insurance products with attributes of investment
products.  

The putative class comprises all individuals and entities who
purchased Lincoln OptiBlend products that allocated account monies
to the 1-Year Fidelity AIM Dividend Participation Account, between
January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2022.

Plaintiffs assert the following claims individually and on behalf
of the class, (1) violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices
Act against Lincoln; (2) common-law fraud against Lincoln; (3)
negligent misrepresentation against Lincoln and Fidelity; and (4)
aiding and abetting fraud against Fidelity.

Plaintiffs allege they suffered damages from "a missed investment
return of approximately 5-6%" and mitigation damages.  

They seek actual, consequential and punitive damages, as well as
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, attorney's fees, and
litigation costs.

On March 31, 2023, the Lincoln defendants filed a notice of removal
removing the action from the 14th Judicial District of Dallas
County, Texas, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division.

On May 8, 2023, the Lincoln defendants and the Fidelity defendants
filed motions to dismiss, which remain 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.

LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend TVRX ARS 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 TVPX ARS class suit in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth
Management, LTD. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company,
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, No. 2:18-cv-02989, is a putative class action that
was filed on July 17, 2018.

Plaintiff 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 own policies issued 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 behalf of all such policyholders.

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.


MAROA FARMS: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Wage and Safety Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Symonds of WMUK reports that Farmworkers Justice and the
Michigan Immigrant Rights Center represent the plaintiffs, who
worked at Maroa Farms in Coldwater.

The workers allege they were illegally exposed to chemicals that
led to headaches, nose bleeds, and other ailments.

They also claim that Maroa failed to pay overtime and created a
"false and misleading" bonus pay structure. They're suing Maroa and
its parent company, Mastronardi Produce.

On its website the MIRC says some other workers may be entitled to
compensation under a proposed class action settlement.

To qualify they must be non-H-2A, migrant or seasonal crop workers
who worked at the farm between June 2019 and mid-August of this
year.

The deadline to apply is the end of the month.

The MIRC declined to comment on the case, as did a lawyer for the
defendants.[GN]

MATCH GROUP: Continues to Defend Candelore State-Wide Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
March Group 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 2, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Candelore state-wide
class suit in Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.

On May 28, 2015, a putative state-wide class action was filed
against Tinder in state court in California. See Allan Candelore v.
Tinder, Inc., No. BC583162 (Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles).

The complaint principally alleges that Tinder violated
California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act by offering and charging
users age 30 and over a higher price than younger users for
subscriptions to its premium Tinder Plus service.

The complaint seeks certification of a class of California Tinder
Plus subscribers age 30 and over and damages in an unspecified
amount.

In a related development, on June 21, 2019, in a substantially
similar putative class action asserting the same substantive claims
and pending in federal district court in California, the court
entered judgment granting final approval of a class-wide
settlement, the terms of which are not material to the Company. See
Lisa Kim v. Tinder, Inc., No. 18-cv-3093 (Central District of
California).

Because the approved settlement class in Kim subsumes the proposed
settlement class in Candelore, the judgment in Kim would
effectively render Candelore a single-plaintiff lawsuit.

On March 4, 2022, the trial court granted final approval of the
settlement agreement, the terms of which are not material to the
Company.

On March 31, 2022, two objectors to the Kim settlement, represented
by the plaintiff's counsel in Candelore, filed a notice of appeal
from the Kim judgment with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

On June 27, 2022, the trial court issued an order staying the class
claims in Candelore pending the Ninth Circuit's decision on the Kim
appeal.

The Company believes that it has strong defenses to the allegations
in the Candelore lawsuit and will continue to defend vigorously
against it.



MOUNTAINEER GAS: Faces Class Suit Over Lost of Natural Gas Service
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Dickerson of West Virginia Record reports that a potential
class action lawsuit has been filed in response to about 1,100
Charleston-area customers losing natural gas service.

Robert Ruffin is the named plaintiff in the complaint filed
November 14 in Kanawha Circuit Court against Mountaineer Gas
Company and West Virginia-American Water Company. He lives on
Charleston's West Side, which is where a high-pressure water line
suffered a break November 10.

The force of the water from the leak pierced a main gas line,
sending thousands of gallons of water through the system.
Mountaineer Gas officials say it could take a week or more to clear
the water out of the gas lines.

"This loss of gas service is the result of combined inadequacies
and failures within both WVAW's water transmission system and
Mountaineer Gas's natural gas transmission system," the complaint
states.

The city, Mountaineer Gas, the Red Cross, the United Way and others
are working to meet the needs of residents affected by the loss of
gas service.

"The last several days have been difficult for the residents on the
West Side of Charleston," attorney L. Dante diTrapano told The West
Virginia Record. "We look forward to helping our neighbors get
compensated for what they have endured."

DiTrapano's law firm Calwell Luce diTrapano is located on the West
Side. His firm also has sued WVAW previously for issues caused by
other leaks.

According to the complaint, the potential class members are
customers of Mountaineer Gas and WVAW.

"The presence of such quantities of water in natural gas lines . .
. is dangerous, renders the natural gas lines unavailable for use
and is time-consuming to repair," the complaint states. "WVAW knew
or should have known that the aforementioned water main was
failure-prone because of its construction, joints, layout and usage
characteristics as well as lack of ongoing and/pro-active
maintenance and repair."

"Mountaineer Gas knew or should have known that water mains
operated by defendants WVAW … had a history of poor maintenance
and repair as well as a history of catastrophic failure, and
Mountaineer Gas failed to take adequate precautions to prevent the
ingress of water from a ruptured water main (including the one at
issue in this case) in a natural gas transmission system and
prevent the contamination of the gas lines on plaintiff's
properties . . . with water."

The complaint says Ruffin and the potential class members have
suffered losses as a consequence of the loss of natural gas
service, including substantial annoyance and inconvenience as well
as out-of-pocket expenses and lost profit.

The complaint accuses Mountaineer Gas of breach of contract. It
accuses WVAW of trespass and nuisance. It accuses both defendants
of violation of statutory obligations and negligence.

Ruffin and the other potential class members seek compensatory and
punitive damages. The complaint also seeks to have Ruffin appointed
the class representative.

He is being represented by diTrapano and David H. Carriger of
Calwell Luce diTrapano and by W. Jesse Forbes of Forbes Law Offices
in Charleston. The case has been assigned to Circuit Judge Jennifer
Bailey.

Kanawha Circuit Court case number 23-C-1003 [GN]

MR. COOPER: Faces Class Suit Over Cybersecurity Breach
------------------------------------------------------
Christine Stuart of National Mortgage Professional reports that
with 4.3 million customers in its servicing portfolio and $937
billion in unpaid principal balance as of September, Mr. Cooper
Group is facing federal class action lawsuits in Texas from
customers.

On Oct. 31, Mr. Cooper became the target of a cyber security attack
and it says it took immediate action to lock down its systems and
keep its data safe. The system was not entirely restored until Nov.
12. During the lockdown, Mr. Cooper tried to reassure customers
about their personal data.

"Mr. Cooper lost control over its customer's highly sensitive
Personal Information in a data breach perpetrated by
cybercriminals," one lawsuit states. According to the complaint,
the information exposed includes names, social security numbers,
addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, zip code, and state of
residence.

The customers allege the Dallas-based mortgage servicer failed to
adhere to industry standards for safeguarding the personally
identifiable information of millions of individuals held within its
systems.

A spokesperson for Mr. Cooper said the company does not comment on
pending litigation.
The mortgage servicer faces allegations of negligence, breach of
implied contract, unjust enrichment, and other claims.

In an update on its website, Mr. Cooper announced the partial
resumption of its operations, with phone systems and its website
back in service. The company pledged to investigate the extent of
the information exposed and provide affected customers with
complimentary credit monitoring services in the coming weeks.

While the company estimates that fourth-quarter earnings will bear
additional vendor costs of $5 to $10 million, the full extent of
remediation and legal expenses resulting from the cyberattack
remains uncertain at this time. [GN]

NOVAVAX INC: Sinnathurai Suit Seeks to Modify Briefing Schedule
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SOTHINATHAN SINNATHURAI,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
NOVAVAX, INC., et al., Case No. 8:21-cv-02910-TDC (D. Md.), the
Plaintiff move the Court to enter an order modifying the scheduling
order by extending a current deadline related to Plaintiffs' Class
Certification Motion.

The Plaintiffs seek a short extension of the current schedule for
the Class Certification Motion set forth in the operative
scheduling Order entered by the Court on October 20, 2023.

The original scheduling Order entered by the Court required:

   (1) The Plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification no
       later than March 16, 2023;

   (2) The Defendants to oppose Plaintiffs' motion for class
       certification no later than May 1, 2023; and

   (3) The Plaintiffs to file any reply in further support of class

       certification no later than June 15, 2023.

Novavax is an American biotechnology company that develops vaccines
to counter serious infectious diseases.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 1, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FKwwk1 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael H. Rogers, Esq.
          David J. Schwartz, Esq.
          James T. Christie, Esq.
          Philip J. Leggio, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: mrogers@labaton.com
                  dschwartz@labaton.com
                  jchristie@labaton.com
                  pleggio@labaton.com

                - and -

          Brian Calandra, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          E-mail: bcalandra@pomlaw.com
                  jalieberman@pomlaw.com

                - and -

          Steven J. Toll, Esq.
          Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
          S. Douglas Bunch, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue N.W.
          Suite 500, East Tower
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com
                  dsommers@cohenmilstein.com
                  dbunch@cohenmilstein.com

                - and -

          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          PORTNOY LAW FIRM
          1800 Century Park East, Suite 600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 692-8883
          E-mail: esley@portnoylaw.com

OLO INC: Continues to Defend Steamship Trade Class Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
OLO 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 the Steamship Trade class suit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On September 26, 2022, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York asserting claims under the federal securities laws against the
Company and certain of its executive officers.

On December 21, 2022, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel on behalf of the putative class, following which the case
was captioned Steamship Trade Association of Baltimore -
International Longshoremen's Association Pension Fund v. Olo Inc.,
et al. (Case No.1:22-cv-08228-JSR).

On August 9, 2023, lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint
asserting claims on behalf of a putative class composed of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired its securities between
March 17, 2021 and August 11, 2022, inclusive (the "Second Amended
Complaint").

The Second Amended Complaint asserts a claim against all defendants
for alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b5 promulgated thereunder and a claim under Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act against Mr. Glass, our Chief Executive Officer,
and Mr. Benevides, our Chief Financial Officer, as alleged
controlling persons.

The Second Amended Complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and misleading statements concerning, among other
things, its business relationship with the restaurant brand Subway,
its financial position, its enterprise market segment, and its
publicly disclosed "active locations" counts, and that these
alleged false and misleading statements caused losses and damages
for members of the putative class.

The Second Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest,
costs and attorneys' fees, and other unspecified relief that the
Court deems appropriate.

On August 24, 2023, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint.

On September 26, 2023, the Court issued a summary order granting in
part and denying in part its motion to dismiss, dismissing the
claims in the Second Amended Complaint to the extent they are
premised on misstatements about Subway, its financial prospects,
and its prospects in the enterprise market, but permitting the
remaining claims to proceed.

Under the current schedule, a final pre-trial conference is set for
January 25, 2024.

The Company is unable to predict the outcome, or the reasonably
possible loss or range of loss, if any, related to this matter.

Olo Inc. is an open software as a service (SaaS) platform for
restaurants.


OREGON: Wins Bid to Dismiss Betschart Suit
------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WALTER BETSCHART, JOSHUA
SHANE BARTLETT, CALEB AIONA, TYRIK DAWKINS, JOSHUA JAMES-RICHARDS,
TANIELA KINI KIN LATU, RICHARD OWENS, LEON MICHAEL POLASKI, ALEX
SARAT XOTOY, TIMOTHY WILSON, JEFFREY DAVIS, RICHARD AARON CARROLL,
SR., JENNIFER LYN BRUNETTE, NICHOLAS WALDBILLIG, DEREK PIMENO
ZAVALA, CURTIS RAY ANTHONY REMINGTON, CRISTA JEAN DAVIS, NICHOLE
LYNN WHALEN, and JACOB ISAAC NATHANIEL COLE, on their behalf, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SHERIFF PATRICK
GARRETT, Washington County Sheriff, in his official capacity, and
WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT JUDGES, in their official
capacities, and THE STATE OF OREGON, Case No. 3:23-cv-01097-CL (D.
Or.), the Hon. Judge Michael McShane entered an order granting the
Respondents' Motion to Dismiss:

  -- Respondents' motion for reconsideration of Opinion and Order
is
     granted.

  -- Petitioners' Motions for Provisional Class Certification for
the
     Restrictive Conditions Class is denied.

  -- Petitioners' Motion for Preliminary Injunction is granted in
part
     and denied in part.

  -- The preliminary injunction granted for the Petitioners applies

     statewide. This order will go into effect fourteen calendar
days
     from the date of this order, and it will supersede the
previous
     TRO issued on August 25, 2023.

The Court provisionally certified a class of physically detained
Petitioners in the initial TRO. Here, at the preliminary injunction
stage, the Court maintains the provisional class certification for
the Custody Class, which includes the following:

   (1) indigent and unable to afford an attorney,

   (2) facing criminal charges in Washington County,

   (3) who are physically housed in a Washington County Detention
       Center, and

   (4) who have not had an attorney appointed to represent them
within
       ten days of their initial appearance,

   (5) or have had an attorney appointed to their case who
       subsequently withdrew and no substituted counsel has been
       appointed within ten days of their withdrawal Petitioners
seek
       certification of the following class:

       "All persons who are: (1) indigent and unable to afford an
       attorney, (2) facing criminal charges brought in the name of

       the State of Oregon, (3) who, without counsel, have been
       released on restrictive conditions in the community and are

       required to return to court for future appearances in that
       prosecution, and (4) who have not had an attorney appointed
to
       represent them after their initial appearance, or (5) have
had
       an attorney appointed to their case who subsequently
withdrew
       and no substituted counsel has been appointed."

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3scv07f at no extra charge.[CC]

OUTLOOK THERAPEUTICS: Alsaidi Sues Over Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------------
RAMZY ALSAIDI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OUTLOOK THERAPEUTICS, INC.; C. RUSSELL
TRENARY III, and LAWRENCE A. KENYON, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-21862 (D.N.J., Nov. 3, 2023) is a federal securities class
action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities
other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Outlook
securities between December 29, 2022 and August 29, 2023, both
dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by the
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, throughout the Class
Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, the Defendants made false and misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) there was a lack of
substantial evidence supporting ONS-5010 as a treatment for wet
AMD; (ii) Outlook 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 re submitted 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; (iv) accordingly, ONS-5010's
regulatory and commercial prospects were overstated; and (v) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

Outlook's stock price fell $1.141 per share, or 80.92 percent, to
close at $0.269 per share on August 30, 2023. As a result of the
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff
and other Class members have suffered significant losses and
damages, says the suit.

OUTLOOK THERAPEUTICS, INC. operates as a clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company. The Company engages in identifying,
developing, manufacturing, and commercializing complex biosimilar
therapeutics, as well as focuses on monoclonal antibodies in the
disease areas of immunology and oncology aspects. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
          Email: tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com

PACIFICORP: Consolidated James & Dietrich Class Suit Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
PacifiCorp disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 3, 2023, that the consolidated
James and Dietrich class suit is stayed in the Multnomah County
Circuit Court.

On September 30, 2020, a class action complaint against PacifiCorp
was filed, captioned Jeanyne James et al. v. PacifiCorp et al, in
Multnomah County Circuit Court, Oregon (the "James case").

The complaint was filed by Oregon residents and businesses who seek
to represent a class of all Oregon citizens and entities whose real
or personal property was harmed beginning on September 7, 2020, by
wildfires in Oregon allegedly caused by PacifiCorp.

In November 2021, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to
limit the class to include Oregon citizens allegedly impacted by
the Santiam Canyon, Echo Mountain Complex, South Obenchain and 242
wildfires.

In May 2022, the Multnomah County Circuit Court granted issue class
certification and consolidated the James case with several other
cases.

While PacifiCorp's pre-trial request for immediate appeal of the
class certification was denied, it will have the opportunity to
appeal the class issues post-judgment.

In April 2023, the jury trial for the James case with respect to 17
named plaintiffs began in Multnomah County Circuit Court.

In June 2023, the jury issued its verdict finding PacifiCorp liable
to the 17 individual plaintiffs and to the class with respect to
the four wildfires.

The jury awarded the 17 named plaintiffs $90 million of damages,
including $4 million of economic and property damages, $68 million
of noneconomic damages and $18 million of punitive damages based on
a 0.25 multiplier of the economic and noneconomic damages.

In September 2023, the Multnomah County Circuit Court ordered trial
dates for two consolidated jury trials including approximately 10
class members each and a third trial for certain commercial timber
plaintiffs wherein plaintiffs in each of the three trials will
present evidence regarding their damages.

The trials are scheduled at various dates from January to April
2024.

A fourth jury trial is scheduled in May 2024 relating to certain
nonclass plaintiffs associated with the Echo Mountain Complex fire.


Hearings on PacifiCorp's post-trial motions are scheduled to be
held November 9, 2023.

Under ORS 82.010, interest at a rate of 9% per annum will accrue on
the judgment commencing at the date the judgment is entered unless
otherwise specified in the judgment.

No judgment has yet been entered by the Multnomah County Circuit
Court.

PacifiCorp intends to appeal the jury's findings and damage awards
in the James case, including whether the case can proceed as a
class action.

The appeals process and further actions could take several years.

Based on available information to date, PacifiCorp believes it is
probable that losses will be incurred associated with the 2020
Wildfires. Final determinations of liability will only be made
following the completion of comprehensive investigations,
litigation or similar processes, the outcome of which, if adverse,
could, in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on
PacifiCorp's financial condition.

On August 26, 2022, a putative class action complaint seeking
declaratory and equitable relief against PacifiCorp was filed,
captioned Margaret Dietrich et al. v. PacifiCorp, Case No.
22CV29187 ("Dietrich"), in Multnomah County Circuit Court, Oregon.


The complaint was filed by two Oregon residents individually and on
behalf of a class initially defined to include residents of,
business owners in, real or personal property owners in and any
other individuals physically present in specified Oregon counties
as of September 7, 2020 who experienced any harm, damage or loss as
a result of the Santiam Canyon, Beachie Creek, Lionshead, Echo
Mountain Complex, 242 or South Obenchain fires.

The complaint was amended on September 6, 2022, to add a claim for
damages of over $900 million.

The amended complaint adds four more individual plaintiffs and
modifies the class definition to cover only the Santiam Canyon,
Echo Mountain Complex, 242, and South Obenchain fires.

The amended complaint alleges: (i) negligence due to alleged
failure to comply with certain Oregon statutes and administrative
rules; (ii) gross negligence due to alleged conscious indifference
to or reckless disregard for the probable consequences of
defendant's actions or inactions; (iii) private nuisance; (iv)
public nuisance; (v) trespass; (vi) inverse condemnation; (vii)
accounting/injunction; and (viii) negligent infliction of emotional
distress.

The amended complaint seeks the following: (i) an order certifying
the matter as a class action; (ii) economic damages not less than
$400 million; (iii) double the amount of economic and property
damages to the extent applicable under Oregon statute; (iv)
reasonable costs of reforestation activities; (v) doubling and
trebling of certain other damages to the extent applicable under
certain Oregon statutes; (vi) noneconomic damages not less than
$500 million; (vii) prejudgment interest; (viii) an order requiring
an accounting with respect to the amount of damages; (ix) an order
enjoining PacifiCorp from leaving power lines energized in areas of
Oregon experiencing extremely critical fire conditions; (x) an
award of reasonable attorney fees, costs, investigation costs,
disbursements and expert witness fees; and (xi) other relief the
court finds appropriate.

The plaintiffs and proposed class demand a trial by jury. On
December 19, 2022, the Dietrich case was consolidated into James
(described above) and is currently stayed.

PacifiCorp is an electric power company in the western United
States under the Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company group. It has a
service territory throughout Oregon, northern California, and
southeastern Washington.





PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Gorman Sues Over Alleged Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW GORMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, SOVOS
COMPLIANCE, LLC, and MIDLAND STATES BANK, Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-50397 (N.D. Ill., November 2, 2023) arises from the
Defendants' failure to failure to properly secure and safeguard
Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information
from the data breach that began on May 27, 2023.  

On or around August 31, 2023, the Plaintiff received a letter from
Defendant Sovos stating that Progress Software announced a
previously unknown vulnerability in its MOVEit Transfer
application, which Sovos utilize to help Midland States Bank
deliver services related to an unclaimed property claim associated
with an account or payment belonging to Plaintiff. Accordingly,
Plaintiff alleges claims against the Defendants for negligence,
breach of third-party beneficiary contract, negligence per se,
unjust enrichment, and for declaratory and injunctive relief
requiring the Defendants to employ adequate security practices
consistent with law and industry standards to protect Plaintiff's
and Class Members' PII.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
          455 North Cityfront Plaza Drive
          Suite 2410
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (708) 628-4949
          Facsimile: (708) 628-4950
          E-mail: dank@hbsslaw.com

                  - and -

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

                  - and -

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

                  - and -

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

                  - and -

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

PROTERRA INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Proterra 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 the consolidated securities class suit in the
U.S. District Court of Northern California.

Two securities class actions, Villanueva v. Proterra Inc., Case No.
3:23-cv-3519 and Tirado v. Proterra Inc., Case No. 5:23-cv-04528,
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on July 14, 2023 and September 1, 2023, respectively,
against the Company and certain of its current and former directors
and officers.

Plaintiffs in both actions allege that Defendants made misleading
statements about the Company's financial condition and liquidity.

They seek damages based in part on the drop in Proterra's stock
price after it disclosed, on March 15, 2023, that it violated a
minimum liquidity clause in its Convertible Notes and that its
independent registered public accounting firm's audit report
indicated that it would need to qualify its audit report with a
"going concern" clause, and after it disclosed, on August 7, 2023,
its Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing.

On October 23, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted the Villanueva plaintiffs' motion to
consolidate the two class actions.

The Company and the individual defendants deny all allegations of
wrongdoing in the complaints and intend to vigorously defend the
matter.

Proterra Inc.'s business involves designing, manufacturing, and
selling electric transit buses and components, batteries, and
electric drive trains, and providing and selling related products
and services.


QIWI PLC: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP of JD Supra reports 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. [GN]

QUALITY FACILITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Allen Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
NEIL ALLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. QUALITY FACILITY SOLUTIONS CORP. d/b/a
QUALITY FLOORSHINE d/b/a QFS; BIM CLEANING SERVICES INC.; ESTHER
FALKOWITZ; and BRENDAN PACHECO, Defendants, Case No. 532323/2023
(N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., Nov. 3, 2023) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid overtime, unpaid wages due to time-shaving,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.

Plaintiff Allen was employed by the Defendants as a general labor
worker.

QUALITY FACILITY SOLUTIONS CORP. operates primarily as a
maintenance and construction company, providing cleaning,
maintenance, construction, building superintendents, security, and
concierge services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

REAL ESTATE: Faces Class Suit Over Inflated Commission Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Habitat reports that a staggering $1.7 billion jury award to
home-sellers over inflated real estate broker commissions in
Missouri has come roaring home to New York City.

In a class-action suit filed November 13, 2023 in U.S. District
Court in Manhattan, the Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY) and
more than two dozen brokerages and companies are accused of
conspiring to artificially inflate commissions paid to agents who
help sell residential real estate in Manhattan, Reuters reports.
Among the brokerages named in the lawsuit are some of the biggest
names in New York City real estate, including Douglas Elliman, the
Corcoran Group, Compass, Brown Harris Stevens, Halstead, and
Sotheby's.

The plaintiff in the New York lawsuit is Monty March, who says he
paid inflated commissions when he recently sold property on
Manhattan's Upper East Side. (Property records show he sold an
apartment there for $5.6 million in July 2022.) March contends that
sellers using REBNY's listing service should not pay 2.5% to 3%
commissions to buyers' brokers given how commissions are lower in
"fully competitive" markets such as Brooklyn, where they are
negotiated separately and average 1%.

REBNY General Counsel Carl Hum said the group was reviewing the
complaint with its lawyers, and was confident its listing service's
practices and procedures "abide by all relevant laws." Starting on
Jan. 1, 2024 REBNY will begin requiring sellers, not their brokers,
to directly pay any commissions to buyers' brokers in an effort to
promote "transparency and consumer confidence in the residential
marketplace."

March's lawsuit seeks damages for sellers of Manhattan residential
property in the last four years who paid buyer brokers' commissions
under REBNY rules. The lawsuit follows an Oct. 31 verdict by a
federal jury in Missouri awarding home sellers $1.78 billion, in a
similar case against the National Association of Realtors and the
brokerages Keller Williams and HomeServices of America. That
verdict, which a judge can triple to more than $5.3 billion, could
upend decades-old practices that require sellers to pay commissions
to buyers' brokers. [GN]

RESCUE DOGS: Dean Sues Over Sham Charity Claiming to Help Veterans
------------------------------------------------------------------
ARLENE DEAN, individually and for all those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. RESCUE DOGS RESCUE SOLDIERS CORP., GLEN WILD ANIMAL
RESCUE CORP., EL-LIZA'S DOG HOUSE INC, ELIZABETH KELLER, MATTHEW
GREENBERG, EVA SYNEK, JANE HOFFMAN, ELLEN B. STEWART, ISAIAH BOWEN,
DONNA FOWLER, and DOES 1-10 being those persons who are
accountants, veterinarians, working, volunteering or associated
with RESCUE DOGS RESCUE SOLDIERS CORP., EL-LIZA'S DOG HOUSE INC,
Defendants, and Meta Platforms, Inc., a party in interest for
purposes of subpoenas and notice, Case No. 3:23-cv-01370-TJM-ML
(N.D.N.Y., November 2, 2023) accuses the Defendants of using a sham
charity in their scheme to collect hundreds of thousands of dollars
a year from generous donors throughout the country based on
Defendants' malicious lies that they rescue dogs from being killed
at shelters and provide them quality care in a sanctuary where they
are trained to help disabled war veterans who adopt them.

Moreover, Plaintiff alleges claims against the Defendants for
fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of
fiduciary duty, and for violations of several laws, including the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the New York's
General Business Law, and the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law.

Rescue Dogs Rescue Soldiers Corp. is a nonprofit organization that
aims to train rescue dogs as service dogs for soldiers injured in
Iraq and Afghanistan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Susan Chana Lask, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SUSAN CHANA LASK
          244 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2369
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (917) 300-1958
          E-mail: scl@appellate-brief.com

ROBINHOOD CYRPTO: Parker Seeks to Certify Class of Crypto Customers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PARKER v. ROBINHOOD CYRPTO
LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01737-RJC (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order certifying class of Crypto customers.

Robinhood Crypto provides cryptocurrency trading.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 3, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QMOeK6 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

SELECTQUOTE INC: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------
SelectQuote, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the year
ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in September 13, 2023, that it is facing a consolidated
securities suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York over its SEC Filings. The motion to dismiss is
still pending before the court.

On October 7, 2021, a putative securities class action lawsuit
captioned "West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund (WPBPPF) v.
SelectQuote, Inc., et al.," Case No. 1:21-cv-08279 was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against
the company, two of its executive officers, and six current or
former members of its Board of Directors, along with the
underwriters of the company's initial public offering of common
stock.

The complaint asserts claims for securities law violations on
behalf of a putative class of plaintiffs who purchased shares of
the company's common stock in or traceable to the Offering or
between May 20, 2020 and August 25, 2021. Specifically, the
complaint alleges the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act by making materially false and
misleading statements and failing to disclose material adverse
facts about its financial well-being and prospects, allegedly
causing the company's common stock to trade at artificially
inflated prices during the WPB Relevant Period. The complaint also
alleges the defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of
the Securities Act by making misstatements and omissions of
material facts in connection with the offering, allegedly causing a
decline in the value of the company's common stock. The plaintiffs
seek unspecified damages, rescission, and reimbursement of
attorneys' fees and certain other costs.

On October 15, 2021, a motion to consolidate said the WPBPPF suit
into to another action was filed. On September 2, 2022, the court
entered an order consolidating into "In re SelectQuote, Inc.
Securities Litigation," Case No. 1:21-cv-06903 and appointing the
WPBPPF and City of Fort Lauderdale Police & Fire Retirement System
as lead plaintiffs. On November 19, 2022, plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint. On January 27, 2023, the company filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint on behalf of itself and certain of
its current and former officers and directors. Plaintiffs filed an
opposition to the motion to dismiss on April 5, 2023, and the
company filed its reply to plaintiffs' opposition on May 10, 2023.

SelectQuote, Inc. is a technology-enabled, direct-to-consumer
distribution and engagement platform for insurance products and
healthcare services.



SIPARADIGM LLC: Hildebrandt Sues Over Labor Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
ERIC HILDEBRANDT, PAUL CHRISTIAN BURK, LAINA DUTTON, LAWRENCE
LAMAINA, SAMANTHA LIBBY, EFTHIMIOS MARIAKAKIS, MICHAEL MCDONOUGH,
LINDSEY FORBUS, EDWARD DIX, PETER FRANZONE, JOHN BERRY, RYAN
MILLER, HANK SWANK, JOHN FERRAZZA, CHARLES TAYLOR, AJ HOLDERMAN,
and A class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v.
SIPARADIGM LLC, HEALTH LYNKS, LLC., MOHAMMED KHAN, AZIZ SAAD, JOHN
and JANE DOES 1-10, and ABC CORPS. 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-21835 (D.N.J., November 2, 2023) seeks recovery against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New
Jersey Wage Payment Law, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, the
Sales Representatives' Rights Act, and breach of contract.

One of the Plaintiffs, Mr. Hildebrandt, was employed at Defendant
Corporation as a regional account sales manager. Allegedly, Mr.
Hildebrandt and the other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and NJWHL
Class members were compensated at the same hourly rate for all
hours worked, regardless of the number of hours worked. Among other
things, the Defendants also did not accurately record the number of
hours worked by Plaintiffs, who are sales managers and or sales
specialists, says the suit.

Headquartered in New Jersey, Siparadigm offers molecular
diagnostics, cytogenetics, and anatomical pathology services. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Tyrone Blackburn, Esq.
          1242 East 80th Street, 3rd Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11236
          Telephone: (347) 342-7432

SMITH & WESSON: Faces Suit in Canadian Court Over Shootings
-----------------------------------------------------------
Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for
the quarterly period ended July 31, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on September 7, 2023, that it is a
defendant in a putative class proceeding before the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, Canada that was filed in
December 2019.

The action claims CAD$50 million in aggregate general damages,
CAD$100 million in aggregate punitive damages, special damages in
an unspecified amount, together with interest and legal costs. The
named plaintiffs are two victims of a shooting that took place in
Toronto in July 2018 and their family members. One victim was shot
and injured during the shooting. The other victim suffered
unspecified injuries while fleeing the shooting. The plaintiffs are
seeking to certify a claim on behalf of classes that include all
persons who were killed or injured in the shooting and their
immediate family members. The plaintiffs allege negligent design
and public nuisance. The case has not been certified as a class
action.

In July 2020, the company filed a Notice of Motion for an order
striking the claim and dismissing the action in its entirety. In
February 2021, the court granted the motion in part, and dismissed
the plaintiffs' claims in public nuisance and strict liability. The
court declined to strike the negligent design claim and ordered
that the claim proceed to a certification motion. In March 2021,
the company filed a motion for leave to appeal the court's refusal
to strike the negligent design claim with the Divisional Court,
Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

In July 2021, plaintiffs filed a motion to stay the motion for
leave to appeal with the Divisional Court, on grounds that appeal
is premature. In November 2021, the Divisional Court granted
plaintiffs' motion, staying the company's motion for leave to
appeal until 30 days after the decision on the balance of
plaintiffs' certification motion. Plaintiffs' certification motion
has been extended by the court to January 2024.

Smith & Wesson Brands is a manufacturer and designer of handguns
(including revolvers and pistols), long guns (including modern
sporting rifles), handcuffs, firearm suppressors, and other
firearm-related products for sale to a wide variety of customers,
including firearm enthusiasts, collectors, hunters, sportsmen,
competitive shooters, individuals desiring home and personal
protection, law enforcement and security agencies and officers, and
military agencies in the United States and throughout the world. It
sell products under the Smith & Wesson, M&P, and Gemtech brands
manufactures its products in Springfield, Massachusetts; Houlton,
Maine; and Deep River, Connecticut.


SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Shen Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Solaredge Technologies 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 the Shen federal securities
law class suit in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District
of New York.

On November 3, 2023, Daphne Shen, a purported stockholder of the
Company, filed a proposed class action complaint for violation of
federal securities laws, individually and putatively on behalf of
all others similarly situated, in the U.S District Court of the
Southern District of New York against the Company, the Company's
CEO and the Company's CFO.

The complaint alleges that the  Company violated various securities
laws and seeks class certification, damages, interest, attorneys'
fees, and other relief.

Due to the early stage of this proceeding, the Company cannot
reasonably estimate the potential range of loss, if any.

The Company disputes the allegations of wrongdoing and intends to
vigorously defend against them.

Solaredge provides solar power optimization and photovoltaic
monitoring solutions for solar energy systems, offering
optimizers, inverters, monitoring equipment, tools, and accessories
for power harvesting, conversion, and efficiency while serving
customers worldwide.[BN]





STITCH FIX INC: Faces Shareholder Suit in California Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Stitch Fix, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the fiscal
year ended July 29, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on September 20, 2023, that it is facing a class action
lawsuit alleging violations of federal securities laws filed by
certain of it stockholders in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on August 26, 2022.

Suit named, as defendants, the company, certain of its officers and
directors. Defendants filed an amended complaint on August 15,
2023. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, for allegedly making materially false and
misleading statements regarding its "Freestyle" offering between
December 2020 and June 2022. The plaintiffs seek unspecified
monetary damages and other relief.

Stitch Fix is an online personal styling service in the United
States and United Kingdom that uses recommendation algorithms and
data science to personalize clothing items based on size, budget
and style.


STONELEDGE FURNITURE: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to March 6
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICARDO BRITO, an
individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, v. STONELEDGE FURNITURE LLC, a Wisconsin
limited liability company, Case No. 2:23-cv-06480-JFW-MAA (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge John F. Walter entered an order that
Plaintiff's class certification deadline be extended to 210 days
from the date of service regarding the action's removal or March 6,
2024.

This change would result in the outstanding case deadlines
adjusting to the following:

           Item                         Current Due      New Due
Date
                                          Date

  Motion for Class Certification        Dec. 7, 2023     Mar. 6,
2024

  Last day to Conduct Settlement        June 3, 2024     June 3,
2024
  Conference/Mediation

  Last day to file Joint Report re:     June 7, 2024     June 7,
2024
  results of Settlement
  Conference/Mediation

  Discovery Cut-Off Date                Aug. 5, 2024     Aug. 5,
2024

  Last day for hearing motions          Aug. 26, 2024    Aug. 26,
2024

  Pre-Trial Conference Date             Oct. 11, 2024    Oct. 11,
2024

  Hearing on Motions in Limine and      Oct. 18, 2024    Oct. 18,
2024
  Disputed Jury Instructions

  Jury Trial                            Oct. 29, 2024    Oct. 29,
2024

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/49p6QqM at no extra charge.[CC]

STONELEDGE FURNITURE: Parties Seek More Time for Class Cert Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICARDO BRITO, an
individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, v. STONELEDGE FURNITURE LLC, a Wisconsin
limited liability company, Case No. 2:23-cv-06480-JFW-MAA (C.D.
Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending class
certification deadline:

         Item Current                 Due Date       New Due Date

  Motion for Class Certification    Dec. 7, 2023     Mar. 6, 2024

A copy of Parties' motion dated Nov. 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QIk62i at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shani O. Zakay, Esq.
          ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC
          5440 Morehouse Drive, Ste. 5400
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 255-9047
          Facsimile: (858) 404-9203
          E-mail: Shani@zakaylaw.com

                - and -

          Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq.
          Sydney Castillo Johnson, Esq.
          Monnett De La Torre, Esq.
          JCL LAW FIRM, APC
          5440 Morehouse Drive, Ste. 5400
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 599-8292
          Facsimile: (619) 599-8291
          E-mail: Jlapuyade@jcl-lawfirm.com
                  Scastillo@jcl-lawfirm.com
                  Mdelatorre@jcl-lawfirm.com

                - and -

          Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          402 West Broadway, Ste. 1760
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 762-2125
          Facsimile: (619) 762-2127
          E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Barbara J. Miller, Esq.
          Kimberli A. Diggs, Esq.
          Joseph A. Govea, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653
          Telephone: (714) 830-0600
          Facsimile: (714) 830-0700
          E-mail: barbara.miller@morganlewis.com
                  kimberli.diggs@morganlewis.com
                  joseph.govea@morganlewis.com

STREAMLABS LLC: Expert Discovery Completion Due Jan. 10, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZARA LEVENTHAL, v.
STREAMLABS LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-01330-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Laurel Beeler entered a scheduling order as follows:

         Case Event                   Filing Date/Disclosure
                                      Deadline/Hearing Date

  Updated joint case-management-          April 4, 2024
  conference statement

  Further case-management conference      Apr. 11, 2024 and Oct.
24,
                                          2024 at 9:30 a.m./11:00
a.m.

  Non-expert discovery completion date    June 4, 2024

  Expert discovery completion date        Jan. 10, 2025

  Last hearing date for dispositive       May 1, 2025
  motions and/or further case-
  management conference

  Meet and confer re pretrial filings     July 1, 2025

  Oppositions, objections, exhibits,      July 17, 2025
  and depo designations due

  Final pretrial conference               July 31, 2025

  Trial                                   Aug. 11, 2025

Streamlabs was founded in 2014 and is a software company
headquartered in San Francisco, California.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/462i2qu at no extra charge.[CC]

SYSCO CENTRAL: Foster Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------
Odelsia R. Foster, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. Sysco Central Florida, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
6:23-cv-02125 (M.D. Fla., November 2, 2023) seeks to recover
monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages and under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendant Sysco employed Plaintiff Foster as a non-exempt,
full-time, hourly warehouse employee from approximately April 12,
2023, to September 29, 2023. The Plaintiff had a regular schedule,
and she worked from four days per week a total of 42 hours or more.
Sometimes she worked more overtime hours but was not paid for all
her overtime hours. In addition, she was also subjected to the
Defendant's policy of deducting two hours corresponding to 30
minutes of lunchtime for the week even if Plaintiff did take
bonafide lunch hours. Thus, during her employment with Defendant
failed to pay Plaintiff two overtime hours weekly, says the suit.

Sysco is s a nationwide wholesale food and restaurant supplies
distributor. Sysco has facilities located at 200 West Story Road,
Ocoee, FL. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

TINGO GROUP: Faces Securities Suit over Stock Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------------
Tingo Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 31, 2023, that on June 8, 2023, a
putative class action complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey against the company,
Dozy Mmobuosi (majority shareholder and Chief Executive Officer),
CEO Darren Mercer and CFO Kevin Chen. Complaint was filed by
Christopher Arbour, individually and on behalf of a class of
"persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Tingo
securities between March 31, 2023, and June 6, 2023."

Complaint was based entirely on the allegations following which its
stock price declined by nearly 50 percent, alleging violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20A of the
Securities Exchange Act.

Tingo is a holding company conducting financial technology
business, agri-fintech and food business through its subsidiaries
and entities, both wholly-owned and controlled through various
variable interest entity which are located mainly in Africa,
Southeast Asia and the Middle East.


TINGO GROUP: Faces Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------------
Tingo Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 31, 2023, that that on June 8, 2023,
a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey against the company,
Dozy Mmobuosi (majority shareholder and Chief Executive Officer),
CEO Darren Mercer and CFO Kevin Chen.

Complaint was by Mark Bloedor, individually and on behalf of a
class of "persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Tingo securities between March 31, 2023, and June 6, 2023."

Complaint was based entirely on the allegations following which its
stock price declined by nearly 50 percent, alleging violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20A of the
Securities Exchange Act.

Tingo is a holding company conducting financial technology
business, agri-fintech and food business through its subsidiaries
and entities, both wholly-owned and controlled through various
variable interest entity which are located mainly in Africa,
Southeast Asia and the Middle East.


TRC COMPANIES: Bandy FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HERMAN BANDY, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. TRC COMPANIES,
INC.; TRC SOLUTIONS, INC.; AND TRC FIELD SERVICES, Case No.
1:22-cv-00144-DAE (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting his motion for certification because the
Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the Putative Collective Action
Members form a homogenous group of workers who are similarly
situated for Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) purposes in every
material respect.

As a result, the Court can collectively evaluate whether the
Plaintiffs and Putative Collective Action Members were
misclassified as exempt from overtime compensation based on the
Defendants’ failure to pay any of them on a "salary basis."
Accordingly, the facts of this case are ideal for certification.

The Plaintiff seeks an order from the Court certifying a collective
action under section 216 of the FLSA), and authorizing Plaintiff to
issue notice and opt-in consent forms to similarly situated current
and former employees of Defendants.

TRC is a global consulting, engineering, program and construction
management firm providing environmentally focused and digitally
powered solutions.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 3, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ueu4j2 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew S. Yezierski, Esq.
          Gabriel A. Assaad, Esq.
          MCDONALD WORLEY, P.C.
          1770 St. James Street, Suite 100
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 523-5500
          Facsimile: (713) 523-5501
          E-mail: matt@mcdonaldworley.com
                  gassaad@mcdonaldworley.com

TRINSEO PLC: Continues to Defend Bristoll Spill-Related Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Trinseo PLC 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 Bristoll spill-related class suit in the
Pennsylvania state court to United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

On March 29, 2023, a putative class action complaint was filed
which seeks to certify a class that could potentially include all
persons and entities that reside in the area served by the Baxter
Drinking Water Treatment Plant.

The plaintiffs allege claims of breach of duty of care based on
negligence as a result of the Bristol Spill, as well as other
causes of action, and seek compensatory damages, restitution, or
refund of damages, including actual, statutory, and punitive
damages, as well as injunctive relief.

On May 12, 2023, the Company filed notice to remove the case from
Pennsylvania state court to United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, with immediate effect.

On May 19, 2023, the Company also filed a motion to dismiss with
the U.S. district court, on the grounds that the alleged harms do
not fall within the parameters of the relevant public and private
nuisance or negligence laws.

On June 2, 2023, plaintiffs objected to federal jurisdiction and
asked the court to remand the action to state court.

On August 23, 2023, plaintiffs filed a voluntary dismissal of the
federal complaint, which was granted on August 29, and plaintiffs
are expected to re-file the claim in Pennsylvania state court.

The Company intends to vigorously defend this action.

Trinseo Public Limited Company operates as a materials solutions
provider and manufacturer of plastics, latex binders, and
synthetic
rubber. The Company offers engineered materials, Americas
styrenics, feedstocks, polystyrene, and base plastics.


TRISTAR DELIVERY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Evans Says
---------------------------------------------------------
KINNIE EVANS, individually, and on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRISTAR DELIVERY, LLC and NICK
HAWN, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01162 (M.D. Tenn.,
November 2, 2023) seeks to recover damages for Defendants'
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act's wage and hour
provisions and asserts claims against the Defendants as a Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 23 class action, alleging breach of
contract under Tennessee state law.

Plaintiff Evans was employed by Defendants as an hourly-paid
delivery driver. However, the Defendants have had a common practice
of failing to pay Plaintiff and potential plaintiffs overtime
compensation for pre-shift work time spent in photographing their
assigned vehicle and then sending such photos of the respective
vehicle to management prior to and until the beginning of their
designated shift each work day. In addition, the Defendants
unlawfully reduced Plaintiff's scheduled working hours in
retaliation for complaining about Defendant's failure to pay him
and potential plaintiffs full overtime compensation for the
overtime hours they had earned within weekly pay periods, says the
Plaintiff.

Headquartered in Franklin, TN, TriStar Delivery, LLC, Tennessee is
a limited liability company that provides delivery services for
Amazon packages. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          James L. Holt, Jr., Esq.
          J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  jholt@jsyc.com
                  jleatherwood@jsyc.com

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Denies Extended Care for Elderly Patients
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Pierson of Reuters reports that UnitedHealth Group Inc
(UNH.N) uses an artificial intelligence algorithm that
systematically denies elderly patients' claims for extended care
such as nursing facility stays, according to a proposed class
action lawsuit filed on November 14, 2023.

Family members of two now-deceased UnitedHealth beneficiaries sued
the insurer in federal court in Minnesota, saying they were forced
to pay out of pocket for care that doctors said was medically
necessary.

They are seeking to represent a nationwide class of people on
Medicare Advantage insurance plans, which are funded by the U.S.
Medicare program for seniors and some people with disabilities and
administered by private health insurers like UnitedHealth.

Ryan Clarkson, founder of the law firm representing the plaintiffs,
said in an interview the class could include tens of thousands of
people, and that claims for damages could reach billions of
dollars.

UnitedHealth did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The Minnetonka, Minnesota-based company is the largest U.S. health
insurance provider through its UnitedHealthcare Inc subsidiary.

The lawsuit centers on an AI algorithm known as nH Predict
developed by NaviHealth Inc, a company acquired by UnitedHealth in
2020. It claims that UnitedHealth relies on nH Predict to evaluate
claims for so-called post-acute care, which includes stays in
skilled nursing facilities and in-home care.

UnitedHealth uses the algorithm to "prematurely and in bad faith
discontinue payment for healthcare services," the complaint said.

"This is an example of how AI is being utilized not to help people
but to line the pockets of corporations and their shareholders,"
Clarkson said.

When these coverage denials are appealed to federal administrative
law judges, about 90% are reversed, the complaint said,
demonstrating the "blatant inaccuracy" of the algorithm. Only a
tiny fraction of patients appeal the denials at all, Clarkson
said.

The lawsuit said UnitedHealth's use of nH Predict violates
contracts with patients and the insurance laws of numerous states
by deciding claims without properly evaluating them. It seeks a
court order stopping the practice and awarding money damages. [GN]

VALLEY FIRST: Settlement Over Discrimination Suit Gets Prelim. OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Strozniak of Credit Union Times reports that a federal
magistrate judge granted preliminary approval last week to settle a
proposed class action lawsuit against a California credit union for
allegedly violating state and federal laws after denying a personal
loan and membership to a woman because she could only provide a
"work only" Social Security number as a recipient of the Deferred
Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy of 2012.

The $1 billion Valley First Credit Union in Modesto has agreed to
pay $120,000 that will include a $1,200 payment to 48 individuals
who are part of the class action lawsuit, $36,000 in estimated
attorney fees, a $10,000 administrator's fee and a $5,000 service
award for Karla Ayala. She filed the lawsuit in June of last year
and is represented by attorneys from the Mexican American Legal
Defense and Educational Fund in Los Angeles, according to court
documents.

Since 2012, Ayala has been a recipient of DACA, which authorizes
her to work in the U.S. She also holds a "work only" Social
Security number. In October and November 2021 Ayala applied for
membership at Valley First and she also applied for a personal
loan.

Valley First denied Ayala's membership and loan application because
she could only provide a "work only" Social Security number. In
June 2022, she filed a lawsuit against the credit union, alleging
it has a policy of denying membership to applicants who are not
U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, according to court
documents.

She claimed the membership denial violated the anti-discriminatory
provisions of the federal and state civil rights acts. Ayala sought
to represent all persons who attempted to apply for membership or a
financial product from Valley First but were denied membership on
the basis of their alienage or immigration status.

Although the credit union never responded to Ayala's lawsuit,
Valley First denied all of her allegations and decided to settle
the lawsuit to avoid the burdens of risk, expense and disruption of
its business operations from additional litigation, court documents
showed.

However, after the lawsuit was filed, the credit union contacted
Ayala's lawyer, Thomas A. Saenz, to begin what he described as
"earnest negotiations to achieve class-wide settlement of this
action," according to court filings.

Over six months, the parties exchanged information, including
membership allocation and loan records, copies of policies and
procedures, and records regarding Valley First's membership base to
assess the merits of Ayala's discrimination claims and the number
of potentially impacted class members, Saenz wrote in court
documents.

What's more, Valley First has also agreed to stop its "challenged
practice" in denying applicants membership based solely on alienage
or lack of U.S. Citizenship unless required by law, rules or
regulations, according to the proposed settlement agreement.

A website that will provide the settlement's details is scheduled
to go live on Dec. 15.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta in Fresno is scheduled
to grant the settlement's final approval on March 13.

Valley First's attorney declined to comment. The credit union did
not respond to CU Times' request for comment. [GN]

WEC ENERGY: Continues to Defend Munt Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------
WEC Energy Group 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 2, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Munt class suit in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
– Milwaukee Division.

In May 2022, a putative class action, Munt, et al. v. WEC Energy
Group, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Wisconsin - Milwaukee Division.

The plaintiffs allege that WEC Energy Group and others breached
their fiduciary duties with respect to the operation and oversight
of the Employee Retirement Saving Plan (the "Plan") in violation of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended.

The class is alleged to be participants in the Plan from May 10,
2016 through the date of judgment.

The complaint seeks injunctive relief, damages, interest, costs,
and attorneys' fees.

The Company is vigorously defending against the allegations made in
this lawsuit and intends to continue to do so.

WEC Energy Group, Inc. operates as an electric and natural gas
delivery company. The Company manages electric and natural gas
distribution and transmission lines, as well as power plants. WEC
Energy Group serves customers in Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, and
Minnesota.



WEXFORD HEALTH: Class Cert Bid in Spurlock Due June 26, 2024
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN SPURLOCK; HEATHER
SMITH; and SHAWN ZMUDZINSKI, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated, v. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INCORPORATED,
Case No. 3:23-cv-00476 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge Robert C.
Chambers entered a scheduling order as follows:

-- Motions for Plaintiffs to join other           March 1, 2024
    parties or to amend the pleadings
    shall be filed by:

-- The parties shall complete all                 Dec. 30, 2024
    discovery requests by:

-- The parties shall conduct mediation            April 17, 2024
    by:

-- A motion seeking class certification           June 26, 2024
    shall be filed by:

-- Opposition to the motion for class             July 24, 2024
    certification shall be filed by:

-- Any reply to the motion for class               Aug. 21, 2024
    certification shall be filed by:

-- Any responses shall be filed by:                March 25, 2025

-- Settlement Meeting and Fed. R.                  May 9, 2025
    Civ. P. 26(a)(3) Disclosures
    No later than:

-- Pretrial Conference:                            June 9, 2025

Wexford is a correctional health care company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QJrVF8 at no extra charge.[CC]

ZRS MANAGEMENT: Hernandez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
LAZARO HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff v. ZRS MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company, Defendant(s), Case No.
0:23-cv-62090-XXXX (S.D. Fla., November 2, 2023) is a class action
seeking to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and for wrongful, retaliatory
discharge in violation of Section 440.205 of the Florida Statutes.

The Plaintiff was employed as a groundskeeper performing the same
or similar duties as that of those other similarly situated
groundskeepers whom the Plaintiff observed working in excess of 40
hours per week without overtime compensation. He worked for the
Corporate Defendant from approximately August 1, 2022, to May 10,
2023. However, the Corporate Defendant did not properly compensate
the Plaintiff for hours that the Plaintiff worked in excess of 40
per week. On May 2023 Plaintiff suffered work-related accident that
broke his back. He timely reported the accident/injuries and
requested medical attention. However, the Defendant terminated
Plaintiff's employment shortly thereafter, says the suit.

ZRS Management is a Florida-based apartment & multifamily property
management company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2023. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***