/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/231204.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, December 4, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 242

                            Headlines

3M CO: City of Bend Joins PFAS Water Contamination Class Suit
AC2T RESEARCH: Dec. 1 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
ADVANCE AUTO: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Dec. 8
ALLIANCE ENTERTAINMENT: Continues to Defend McKnight Class Suit
ALTAMED HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Private Data Sharing

AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Action Over Systemic Pay Bias
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Pay Discrimination Class Action in Wash.
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Abuse of Market Power
APPLE INC: Faces P2P Payment Antitrust Class Action
ARIZONA: Class Action Over Birth Certificate Change Rule Pending

AUXLY CANNABIS: Ontario Court Approves Class Action Settlement
AVANQUEST NORTH: Fernandez Sues Over Automatic Renewal Program
AVIAGAMES INC: Users File Class Action Over Casino Apps
BAKER HUGHES: Escudero Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
BEAUTY HEALTH: Alghazwi Sues Over Misleading Company Statements

BIEWER LUMBER: Evans Sues Over Alleged Employment Discrimination
BLUE APRON: Continues to Defend Hayes Labor Class Suit
BLUE APRON: Continues to Defend Mitchell Labor Class Suit
BP CANADA: Rebein et al. Sue Over Alleged Disaster Profiteering
BUCKNELL UNIVERSITY: Camden Seeks COVID-19 Tuition Fee Refund

BUZZFEED INC: Hunthausen Sues Over Video Privacy Issues in Apps
COCA-COLA CO: Class Action Over Rewards Points Stayed
CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY: Jewish Students File Antisemitism Class Suit
CONSERVICE LLC: Garcia Consumer Credit Suit Removed to M.D. Fla.
COREBRIDGE FINANCIAL: Faces Chuck Suit Over Insurance Dispute

COREBRIDGE FINANCIAL: Faces Moriarty Suit Over Insurance Dispute
CRONOS GROUP: Osler Attorneys Discuss Ruling in Securities Suit
DAMERON HOSPITAL: Doe Files Class Suit in Calif. State Court
DEE MARK: Lorenzo's Collective Action Bid Granted in Part
DOLLAR ENERGY: Flagella et al. Sue Over Unprotected Customer Data

DRAFTKINGS INC: Consolidated Securities Suit Dismissed
DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces Breach of Contract Suit Over Denied Prizes
DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit Over Merger Deal
DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces Securities Violations Suit Over NFT Sales
DRG MEDICAL: Faces Suit Over Alleged Sexual Assault in Patients

EL FUERTE DELI: Almendares Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
EMERGENT BUSINESS: Faces Charles Suit Over Unfair Debt Collection
ENOVIX CORP:Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suits
EXCELL COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Pay Wages Weekly, Martinez Says
FEDEX GROUND: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

FINEPOINTS PRIVATE: Faces Bobb Suit Over Labor Law Violations
FMC CORP: Faces Investor Class Actions Over Misledading SEC Filings
FORD MOTOR: Katz Sues Over Defective Vehicle Camera System
FRONTIER AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over Bogus Baggage Fees
GODADDY INC: Appealed TCPA Case Remanded

GRUBHUB INC: Jack Tate Alleges Unauthorized Use of Restaurant Names
HARD ROCK CAFE: Francis Sues Over Breach of Tip Credit Regulations
HAWTHORNE LAB: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Bilbao Suit Claims
HEALTH CAROUSEL: Class Certification Bid Due April 1, 2024
HELIX FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Rent-a-Bank Scheme

INVIVYD INC: Continues to Defend Brill Securities Class Suit
IONQ INC: Continues to Defend Leacock Consolidated Class Suit
JACK CLEVELAND: Prime Seeks Proper Wages for Tipped Employees
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Class Action Over Cold Medications
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Wilson Class Action Lawsuit in D.N.J.

KENVUE INC: Autrey Sues Over Misleading IPO Registration Statement
KENVUE INC: Faces Securities Class Action Over IPO
KOS INC: Barnes and Menkowitz Sue Over False Ads of Protein Powders
LI-CYCLE HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Due Jan. 8
LINCARE INC: Cowan Allowed Leave to File Reply Brief in Class Suit

LOANDEPOT INC: Initial OK of Settlement in Class Suit Pending
LOS ANGELES, CA: Legarda Sues Over Delayed Payment of OT Wages
LUMINAR TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Johnson Class Suit
MASS GENERAL: Sued Over Potential Hepatitis, HIV Exposure
MDL 3076: 8 Suits Consolidated in S.D. Fla.

MGM RESORTS: Fails to Secure Customers' Personal Info, Bezak Says
MR. COOPER: Randall Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info
NAHON & SAHAROVICH: Faces Garbarino Class Action Suit in E.D. Mo.
NAPCO SECURITY: Continues to Defend Zornberg Securities Class Suit
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Sued Over TV Revenue Earned by Networks

NATIONAL VISION: Continues to Defend Southfield Class Suit
NATURE'S BOUNTY: Challenges "Fish Oil" Product Class Action
NAVISTAR INC: Shaw Sues Over Unfair Meal Break Policy
NESTLE PURINA: Kueck and Silver Sue Over Pet Food's False Labeling
NEWARK GROUP: Antitrust Suit Hearing Set for July 2025

NORTHWELL HEALTH: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Belov Alleges
NUTANIX INC: Judge Approves Shareholder Class Action Settlement
OPENAI INC: Faces Copyright Infringement Class Action in New York
PANAMERICAN CONSULTING: Rady Fraud Suit Removed to N.D. Ill.
PDD HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over Unprotected Customer Data

PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Secure Consumers' Info, Dickmeyer Says
PROGRESSIVE GULF: Vantree Bid to Seal Docs Tossed
PUBLIX SUPER: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
QUICK MART FOOD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Goksu Alleges
RE/MAX HOLDINGS: Class Action Settlement Granted Preliminary OK

RON'S ORGANICS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Salas and Saavedra Claim
SALT LIFE: Faces Mackey Suit Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
SHIFT4 PAYMENTS: Baear, O'Meara Suits Consolidation Bid Pending
SIMILASAN CORP: Sells Unsafe Eye Drops, Ortega Suit Says
SONY CORP: Must Face GBP5-Bil. Playstation Class Action in UK

SPIRIT AIRLINES: Jan. 10 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
STATE FARM: Locke Lord Attorneys Discuss GIPA Class Action
SWOONDLE LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Bunting Says
SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY: Filin g of Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 11
SYSTEM1 INC: Continues to Defend TS Software Class Suit in Calif.

TELUS INTERNATIONAL: Settlement in Meagher Gets Initial Nod
TRACY LOGISTICS: Picou Files Class Suit in Cal. State Court
TUSIMPLE HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suits
TYRONE OLIVER: Court Tosses Butler Bid for Class Certification
UNITED EGG: To Pay Damages in Antitrust Suit Over Price Fixing

UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Class Cert Response Due Dec 8
UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs' Claims Gets Initial Certification
UNITED STATES: Seeks More Time for Filing Class Cert Replies
UNITY SOFTWARE: Bid to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pending
UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Averts Suit Over Spotify Share Acquisition

UPSIDE SERVICES: Allec Sues Over Misleading Referral Program
USAA CASUALTY: Faces Consumer Class Action in Washington
VERRA MOBILITY: Brantley Class Suit Trial Set for March 2025
VETNIQUE LABS: Bunting Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
VIRGIN GALACTIC: Continues to Defend Lavin Class Suit

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Plaintiffs Lose Discovery Extension Bid
WALMART INC: Faces Lyons Fraud Class Action Lawsuit in M.D. Ala.
WEILL CORNELL: Faces Suit Over Sexual Abuses in Medical Practice
WELLS FARGO: Order on Stipulated Final Judgment Entered
WEST VIRGINIA: Filing of Class Cert Prelim Approval Due Dec. 8

WESTERN DIGITAL: Ackerman Sues Over Defective Marketing of SSDs
XITLALI DELI: Lawrence Sues Over Disability Discrimination
ZAPPOS.COM LLC: Collects Data Without Consent, Casillas Alleges
ZOOM VIDEO: Warren Suit Sues Over Automatic Renewal Scheme
ZUFFA LLC: Plaintiffs Seek Approval of Bout Class Notice in Le Suit

[*] Cooley LLP Discusses Illinois Brick Rule in Antitrust Suit
[*] Securities Class Settlement Opt-Outs Increased, Report Says
[*] Video Privacy Class Action Wave Slowed by High Dismissal Rate

                            *********

3M CO: City of Bend Joins PFAS Water Contamination Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Kaminski, writing for The Bulletin, reports that the city of
Bend joined national class-action lawsuits against manufacturers 3M
Co. and DuPont de Nemours after a small amount of forever chemicals
was found in a well that supplies drinking water to Bend
residents.

Bend's water, however, remains safe to drink, officials said.

As part of nationally mandated testing, city officials in May
tested for PFAS, a group of thousands of chemicals called forever
chemicals because they don't break down in the body or the
environment. One well -- the Copperstone Well near NW Mt.
Washington Drive -- tested positive for the chemicals.

PFAS is an abbreviation for perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl
substances.

The well was immediately shut down and will remain shut down to
allow for further testing and planning. Officials tested that well
again in August, and no PFAS chemicals were detected.

The cause is currently unknown, and it's proved to be a bit of a
mystery for local and state officials.

Typically, manufacturing facilities, airports and military bases
are the most likely culprits of PFAS chemical contamination, said
Harry Esteve, a spokesperson for the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality.

But in Bend, those sources are few and far between.

"We're kind of puzzled by that actually because there's no likely
source," Esteve said.

PFAS chemicals are everywhere, though.

"They're essentially these manmade chemicals that are in everything
from Teflon cookware to cosmetics to Gore-Tex," Esteve said.

PFAS chemicals are also a common ingredient in firefighting foam,
he said.

The Oregon Health Authority and the Environmental Protection Agency
have set health advisory limits for PFAS chemical levels. OHA's is
30 points per trillion, and the EPA's is less than a quarter of a
point per trillion.

One point per trillion is equivalent to a single drop in 500,000
barrels of water. In the Copperstone Well, the city of Bend's tests
discovered four PFAS chemicals, ranging from 4.2 to 8.7 points per
trillion.

Bend is not alone.

Twenty-five public water systems across Oregon have detected PFAS
chemicals, according to OHA spokesperson Jonathan Modie.

Hope for a remedy
The Bend City Council voted unanimously on Nov. 15 to join
class-action lawsuit against two major manufacturers of
PFAS-containing products, 3M and DuPont.


Bend joined dozens of other jurisdictions across the country that
are also opting into the suits, which were filed in U.S. District
Court for the District of South Carolina.

The PFAS chemical contaminations have been decades in the making.
3M began manufacturing and selling PFAS-containing products from
the 1940s until 2002, and DuPont from the 1950s through today, the
lawsuits read.

All that, "with the knowledge that these toxic compounds would be
released into the environment," the suits read.

Interactive map of PFAS contamination sites across the U.S.
As a result of the class-action suits, which were settled in
September, 3M has agreed to pay out between $10.5 billion and $12.5
billion, and DuPont has agreed to pay out $1.15 billion.

The state of Oregon has also joined the 3M lawsuit as an interested
party, according to court documents.

Bend, which has fared better in terms of contamination compared to
large metropolitan areas in the south and along the East Coast, has
a better chance of receiving funds to mitigate the contamination by
joining the plaintiffs, Mayor Melanie Kebler said.

"In the end, I think the council wanted to recognize it'd be very
difficult do it on our own," she said.

The 'forever' in 'forever chemicals'
The lawsuits are just one piece of a bigger pie, said Michael
Selkirk, an associate attorney for the city.

All levels of government are now confronting PFAS chemicals, and
they are just one part of a larger issue: The contamination of
public water supply, Selkirk said.

"How the city continues to manage its watershed, and the
availability of clean drinking water -- there are going to be
issues with how to deal with that into the future," Selkirk said.

While Bend's contamination wasn't as substantial or widespread as
other jurisdictions, joining the lawsuits, gives the city the
opportunity to offset the costs associated with addressing the PFAS
contamination while looking toward the future.

"How we as a country respond to the risk of PFAS contamination,
that issue is serious," Selkirk said.

The EPA is developing regulations for PFAS chemicals that are
expected to be finalized late this year or in early 2024. Statewide
regulations could also be possible.

Depending on imminent test results from the city's contaminated
well and how much money the city receives from the lawsuits, that
future could look differently, according to Mike Buettner, the
city's utilities director.

For certain, testing for PFAS chemicals will be part of the city's
regular water-quality assessments, Buettner said.

What will be done to the well, is less certain.

Decommissioning it would be the cheapest option, and removing and
moving it elsewhere could cost between $5 million and $10 million,
he said.

Regardless, as Buettner looks toward the summertime, when water use
in Bend is at its peak, it'll be important to respond. The city can
manage without one well thanks to Bend's relatively small
geographic footprint, but it will be tough long term, he said.

Buettner and Drexell Barnes, the city's manager of water quality
and lab services, agree that PFAS contamination wasn't a matter of
if -- it was a matter of when.

"This one is really weird," said Barnes. "If you look for it,
you're going to find it."

The presence of PFAS chemicals in drinking water, and likely
wastewater, will be an ongoing issue. It's the new normal in the
world of water, and it spares no one, Barnes said.

"We all live here," Barnes said. "We all drink this water. This is
an issue for all of us."

More information on PFAS chemicals can be found at epa.gov/pfas and
bendoregon.gov/waterquality. [GN]

AC2T RESEARCH: Dec. 1 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eden Villalovas, writing for Washington Examiner, reports that the
deadline to file a claim in a $3.6 million class-action settlement
from Spartan Mosquito repellent is on Dec. 1. A Mississippi-based
company called AC2T, the manufacturer of Spartan Mosquito
Eradicator, agreed to a settlement earlier this year to resolve
false advertising claims.

Consumers of Spartan Mosquito products, such as the Spartan
Mosquito Eradicator and Spartan Mosquito Pro Tech, who made a
purchase between Dec. 21, 2016, and Aug. 2, 2023, may be eligible
for financial compensation from the settlement.

Multiple factors will determine how much a consumer's payout could
be. Those who do not provide any proof of purchase can file a claim
for up to $7 for one qualifying Spartan Mosquito repellent per
household. Those who provide proof of purchase can receive $10 per
household.

AC2T was embroiled in a class-action lawsuit after allegations that
their advertising, claiming the product would reduce mosquito
populations for 15 days, was false. Plaintiffs said the company
falsely misled consumers and that the repellent did not perform as
advertised. The company has not admitted to any wrongdoing but
agreed to the settlement to resolve the lawsuit.

Spartan Mosquito repellent customers have until Dec. 1 to file a
claim. Filers can either send a claim form by mail, which must be
postmarked by the deadline, or fill one out online. The court will
hold a hearing on Dec. 4 to decide the final approval for the
class-action settlement. [GN]

ADVANCE AUTO: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Dec. 8
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Nov. 19 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Advance Auto Parts, Inc. ("AAP" or the
"Company") (NYSE: AAP) and certain officers. The class action,
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of North Carolina, Western Division, and docketed under 23-cv-611,
is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities
other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired AAP
securities between November 16, 2022 and May 30, 2023, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), against AAP and certain of its officers
and/or directors for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "1934 Act" or the "Exchange Act")). As set forth in
detail below, Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act by
failing to disclose pertinent information relevant to the Company,
or, alternatively providing information about the Company which was
materially misleading or deceptive.

If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired AAP
securities during the Class Period, you have until December 8, 2023
to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A
copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To
discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free,
Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares
purchased.

AAP is a retailer specializing in automobile parts and accessories,
serving both automobile professionals and non-professional
consumers. The Company operates stores called "Advanced Auto
Parts," "Autopart International," "Carquest," and "Worldpac." AAP
operates over 4,700 stores (across all four brands) in the U.S. and
Canada.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: 1) defendants misrepresented the efficacy of AAP's
strategic pricing initiative and the impact of the price
reductions; 2) omitted and/or concealed the negative impacts of the
pricing initiative; 3) provided investors with an overly optimistic
perception of AAP's operations; and 4) created the false impression
that inflation and macroeconomic factors had an insubstantial
impact on the Company's margins.

At the beginning of the Class Period, on November 16, 2022, the
Company held its quarterly earnings call for investors. During the
earnings call, President and Chief Executive Officer Thomas R.
Greco ("Greco") announced "strategic pricing initiatives" aimed to
help propel margins growth into 2023. Specifically, Greco stated
"we've tested and will make surgical pricing actions in certain
categories to enable us to better address changes in competitive
pricing dynamics."

The Company initiated these "strategic pricing initiatives" despite
Greco's recognition that "our research has consistently indicated
that price is not the most important driver for choice for
professional customers." He later stated, "availability is the #1
driver of choice for the professional installers, and as we said
many times, price is much lower down the list."

On February 28, 2023, the Company held its quarterly earnings call
for the 2022 fourth quarter. During that call, Greco stated, "[w]e
continue to execute the disciplined inventory and pricing actions
we discussed this quarter. These actions contributed to stronger
results, and we expect to improve parts availability throughout
2023, which we believe is the single most important driver to
accelerate line growth." Greco also dismissed the impact of the
U.S. economy and other macroeconomic factors on sales and margins.
He stated, "we remain cautious surrounding the macroeconomic
backdrop, including the potential for ongoing pressure on
low-to-middle income consumers. However, our 2023 guidance is
underpinned by continued industry strength with the drivers of
demand remaining positive." The Company then issued its 2023
guidance, projecting net sales of $11.4 billion to $11.6 billion
and an operating income margin of 7.8% to 8.2%. The Company also
remained "committed to paying quarterly cash dividends," according
to Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Jeffrey W.
Shepherd ("Shepherd").

On May 31, 2023, AAP held its quarterly earnings call for 2023
first quarter. During that call, Greco conceded, "our financial
results in the first quarter were well below expectations." Because
the Company slashed prices on products, Greco stated "we had less
price realization than plans, which put substantially higher
pressure on our product margin price." Shepherd revealed during the
May call that the Company's strategic pricing program resulted in
the Company being "unable to price to cover product costs in the
quarter." The Company consequently revised downward its 2023
guidance to an operating margin of 5% to 5.3% from the previously
announced 7.8% to 9.2% margins.

Investors reacted negatively to these revelations and the reduced
2023 guidance. On May 30, 2023, AAP shares closed at $112.20. The
following day, on May 31, 2023, AAP shares closed at $72.89 on
unusually high volume. This $39.31 difference reflects a 35%
one-day drop.

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

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.

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

ALLIANCE ENTERTAINMENT: Continues to Defend McKnight Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance Entertainment Holdings 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 9, 2023,
that the Company continues to defend itself from the McKnight class
suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

In particular, on March 31, 2023, a class action complaint, titled
Matthew McKnight v. Alliance Entertainment Holding Corp. f/k/a
Adara Acquisition Corp., Adara Sponsor LLC, Thomas Finke, Paul G.
Porter, Beatriz Acevedo-Greiff, W. Tom Donaldson III, Dylan Glenn,
and Frank Quintero, was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery
against the Company’s pre-Business Combination board of directors
and executive officers and Adara Sponsor LLC, alleging breaches of
fiduciary duties by purportedly failing to disclose certain
information in connection with the Business Combination and by
approving the Business Combination.

The Company intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Alliance Entertainment is a distributor and wholesaler of stock
selection of music, movies, video games, electronics, and
arcades.[BN]


ALTAMED HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Private Data Sharing
------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a class
action accuses AltaMed Health Services Corporation of sharing the
private health data of website visitors with third parties,
including Facebook, without consent.

A proposed class action accuses AltaMed Health Services Corporation
of sharing the private health data of website visitors with third
parties, including Facebook, without consent.

The 88-page lawsuit says the healthcare system, which offers
medical services at numerous locations across Los Angeles, has
"intentionally" embedded invisible web-tracking tools into its
website and patient portal. According to the suit, the technology
intercepts and transmits visitors' personal information to
unauthorized third parties, which then use it for targeted
advertising purposes.

The case explains that the tracking tools -- which include
Facebook's Meta pixel and Conversions Application Programming
Interface (API) -- are designed to capture a visitor's every
interaction with a website in real time. By knowingly using such
back-end technologies on AltaMed.org and the patient portal found
at MyAltaMed.net without obtaining permission from users, the
corporation has violated patients' privacy rights and breached
state and federal law, the complaint claims.

Per the filing, patients can use the website to access the
healthcare company's patient portal, research treatments, find
doctors, communicate with providers and more. However, unbeknownst
to website visitors, AltaMed discloses to third parties its
patients' "extremely sensitive" medical data, including details
about their health conditions, diagnoses, procedures, treatments
sought and the location and specialty of their doctors, the lawsuit
alleges.

In addition, the suit contends that the defendant unlawfully shares
other personally identifying information, such as a visitor's IP
address, buttons clicked, pages accessed, any information entered
into online forms and their Facebook ID -- an identifier uniquely
linked to an individual's Facebook account.

This combination of data can be used to personally identify
patients in connection with their communications and activities on
AltaMed's website, the case relays.

As the complaint tells it, visitors to AltaMed.org reasonably
believed that their private information would be safeguarded by the
healthcare company rather than intentionally handed over to
unauthorized third parties.

"In browsing [AltaMed's] Web Properties -- be it to make an
appointment, locate a doctor with a specific specialty, find
sensitive information about their diagnosis, or investigate
treatment for their diagnosis -- [the plaintiffs] and Class Members
did not expect that every search (including exact words and phrases
they typed into [the defendant's] website search bars), page
visits, or even their access/interactions on [the company's] online
portals would be intercepted, captured, or otherwise shared with
Facebook in order to target [the plaintiffs] and Class Members with
advertisements, in conscious disregard of their privacy rights,"
the filing states.

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States whose
private information was disclosed to a third party without
authorization through the Meta pixel on AltaMed.org and
MyAltaMed.net. [GN]

AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Action Over Systemic Pay Bias
---------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Dorrian, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that
Amazon.com Inc. pays women less than male employees performing the
same or comparable work, a class lawsuit filed on Nov. 20 in
federal court in Seattle charges.

The lawsuit also alleges that female employees experience systemic
discrimination in promotions based on sex and that Amazon
retaliates against those who complain about the bias. It was filed
in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington by
Caroline Wilmuth, Katherine Schomer, and Erin Combs, who seek to
represent "all women who worked for Amazon in a Covered Position at
any time from three years before the filing" of the suit and when
the allegations are resolved. [GN]

AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Pay Discrimination Class Action in Wash.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Dorrian, Kelsey Butler and Matt Day, writing for Bloomberg
News, report that Amazon.com Inc. pays women less than male
employees performing the same or comparable work, a class lawsuit
filed on Nov. 20 in federal court in Seattle charges.

The lawsuit also alleges that female employees experience systemic
discrimination in promotions based on sex and that Amazon
retaliates against those who complain about the bias. It was filed
in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington by
Caroline Wilmuth, Katherine Schomer, and Erin Combs, who seek to
represent "all women who worked for Amazon in a Covered Position at
any time from three years before the filing" of the suit and when
the allegations are resolved.

"We do expect that there will be many others signing on, we have
already spoken to numerous other women," Cassandra Lenning, a
partner at Outten & Golden LLP, which represents the proposed class
said on Nov. 20. "We do have some witness affidavits already and we
expect that after filing this, other women will come forward."

The pay bias typically begins at the hiring stage, as Amazon uses
"common compensation-setting policies across its organization" that
assigns workers to various "job codes" based on job function, the
suit says. Amazon considers a worker's past compensation history in
determining their job code, and it "regularly assigns women to
lower job codes for the same job functions as comparable male
employees," according to the suit.

That starting pay bias perpetuates and deepens, as an "employee's
job code largely determines their base salary, bonuses, stock
awards, and other compensation," and "Amazon additionally regularly
fails to advance women to higher job codes," the suit says.

Even where female and male workers doing equal work are assigned to
the same job code, the company "nonetheless regularly pays women
lower salaries and/or stock awards than men," the suit says.

Company Denies 'False' Claims

"We believe these claims are false and will demonstrate that
through the legal process," Brad Glasser, an Amazon spokesperson,
said on Nov. 20 in an email.

The company doesn't tolerate workplace bias of any kind, Glasser
said. Amazon instead investigates all reported incidents and takes
appropriate action when an employee is found to have violated
company policy, up to and including termination, he said.

Amazon also annually inspects its pay equity data, and a 2022
review showed that "women globally and in the U.S. earned 99.6
cents and 99.5 cents, respectively, for every dollar that men
earned performing the same jobs," he said.

Individual Claims, Too

Wilmuth, Schomer, and Combs have all experienced pay discrimination
as a result of the job coding, as well as other sex bias during
their Amazon tenures, according to the suit.

That includes paying Wilmuth nearly $200,000 less than a male
subordinate, and a male supervisor "taking credit for" Wilmuth's
and Combs' work, the suit says.

The unequal pay has continued even after the women and others
"brought the pay disparity to Amazon's attention," the suit says.

Wilmuth, Schomer, and Combs were all demoted within weeks of
complaining about the sex discrimination, and Amazon continues to
discriminate and retaliate against them, according to the suit.
That includes after they each returned from medical leaves needed
by the physical and mental toll of the pay and other
discrimination, the suit says.

The complaint includes class and individual claims under the Equal
Pay Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, Washington's Law Against
Discrimination, the Washington Equal Pay and Opportunities Act, and
the Washington Family and Medical Leave Act.

The relief requested includes back pay with prejudgment interest,
emotional distress damages, and double or exemplary damages under
the Washington EPOA. It also includes pre- and post-judgment
interest, service payments for the class representatives,
attorneys' fees and costs, and monetary relief for any adverse tax
consequences of the damages awards.

The case is Wilmuth v. Amazon.com, Inc., W.D. Wash., No.
2:23-cv-01774, class complaint 11/20/23. [GN]

APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Abuse of Market Power
--------------------------------------------------------
Competition Policy International reports that in a proposed class
action filed on Nov. 17, Apple finds itself in legal hot water as
Venmo and Cash App customers allege that the tech giant has wielded
its market influence to stifle competition in the mobile
peer-to-peer payments sector.

According to Reuters, the lawsuit, filed by four consumers from
different states, claims that Apple's actions have led to consumers
paying "rapidly inflating prices."

The legal action, brought forth in the federal court in San Jose,
California, accuses Apple of violating U.S. antitrust laws through
its agreements with popular payment platforms Venmo, owned by
PayPal, and Cash App, owned by Block.

The plaintiffs argue that Apple's agreements impose restrictions
that hinder "feature competition" among peer-to-peer payment apps.
Notably, the complaint points to clauses preventing platforms, both
existing and new, from utilizing "decentralized cryptocurrency
technology."

According to the lawsuit, these restrictions limit innovation and
hinder healthy competition within the mobile payment landscape. The
plaintiffs seek an injunction that could potentially compel Apple
to divest or segregate its Apple Cash business, a move aimed at
restoring competition within the industry.

Apple, headquartered in Cupertino, California, has not yet
responded to requests for comment on the matter.

This legal challenge adds to Apple's growing list of antitrust
concerns. In September, a U.S. judge in California ruled that
payment card issuers could proceed with a lawsuit against Apple,
alleging anticompetitive practices related to its Apple Pay mobile
wallet. As regulatory scrutiny continues to intensify, Apple faces
increasing pressure to address concerns related to its market
dominance and alleged anti-competitive behavior in various sectors.
[GN]


APPLE INC: Faces P2P Payment Antitrust Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Godfrey, writing for CoinSpeaker, reports that in a recent
legal development, Apple Inc (NASDAQ: AAPL) finds itself entangled
in a class-action lawsuit filed by Venmo and Cash App customers.
The plaintiffs, hailing from New York, Hawaii, South Carolina, and
Georgia, allege that Apple has abused its market dominance to
stifle competition in the mobile Peer-to-Peer payments (P2P)
sector.

Apple's Agreements against Competition and Decentralized Crypto
The heart of the lawsuit filed on November 17 revolves around the
claim that Apple entered into anti-competitive agreements with
Venmo and Cash App, restricting the use of decentralized
cryptocurrency technology in payment applications.

The plaintiffs argue that these agreements stifle feature and price
competition, preventing the incorporation of decentralized crypto
technology in existing or new iOS Peer-to-Peer Payment apps.

The complaint asserts that Apple's constraints force new iOS P2P
payment apps to exclude crypto functionality as a prerequisite for
entry into the market. This, according to the plaintiffs, has
resulted in users paying "rapidly inflating prices" due to limited
competition and innovation in the sector.

The lawsuit also alleges that Apple employs "technological and
contractual restraints," such as hardware-enforced App Store
exclusivity and "contractual limitations on web browser
technology," to maintain control over every app installed and run
on iPhones and iPads. By doing so, Apple allegedly suppresses
competition and innovation, effectively limiting consumer choice
and leading to inflated fees.

The complaint further noted that Apple has excluded at least two
Bitcoin wallet apps, Zeus and Damus, from its App Store. Damus is
backed by Block Inc (NYSE: SQ) founder Jack Dorsey.

Consequently, the plaintiffs seek to recover excessive fees and
overcharging resulting from Apple's alleged anticompetitive
conduct. Additionally, they seek injunctive relief to prevent Apple
from continuing to enter into and enforce anti-competitive
agreements that restrain competitors in the iOS P2P payment
market.

Apple's History of Antitrust Scrutiny
Notably, the complaint highlights a previous ruling by the Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in April, which found Apple in
violation of California's competition laws for not allowing apps to
direct users to non-Apple linked payment solutions.

This lawsuit adds to Apple's recent antitrust challenges. In
September, a US judge ruled that payment card issuers could sue
Apple over alleged anti-competitive practices related to its Apple
Pay mobile wallet. Another case involving Epic Games challenges
restrictions on in-app payment processing, with Apple seeking
Supreme Court intervention.

The class-action lawsuit against Apple underscores the growing
scrutiny the tech giant faces regarding its business practices.
Besides Apple, other tech giants including Alphabet Inc (NASDAQ:
GOOGL) and Meta Platforms Inc (NASDAQ: META) have also been probed
for anti-competitive practices.

As the legal landscape evolves, these cases will shape the future
of competition in the digital marketplace. For consumers and
industry stakeholders, the outcome of these legal battles may
influence the direction of innovation and competition in the mobile
peer-to-peer payments sector. [GN]

ARIZONA: Class Action Over Birth Certificate Change Rule Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Anne Pazanowski, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that
Arizona and a class of transgender citizens asked a federal judge
to decide without trial whether the state's administrative process
for changing the sex listed on a birth certificate is
unconstitutional.

There "can be no doubt" that Arizona's birth certificate amendment
procedure discriminates against transgender people on its face, a
class of adults and minors said in a motion for summary judgment
Nov. 17 in the US District Court for the District of Arizona.

The amendment process requires applicants to file a letter from a
physician attesting that they've undergone a "sex change
operation," the class members said. [GN]


AUXLY CANNABIS: Ontario Court Approves Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Berger Montague (Canada) PC on Nov. 19 disclosed that the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice (the "Court") has approved the class
action settlement regarding Daniel Relvas v. Auxly Cannabis Group
Inc. CV-19-00617136-00CP (the "Action").

This Notice is directed to all persons and entities, excluding
certain persons associated with the Defendant, wherever they may
reside or be domiciled, who purchased or otherwise acquired Auxly
Cannabis Group Inc. ("Auxly") common shares in the secondary
market, on or after November 12, 2018, and held some or all of
those securities until after the close of trading on February 6,
2019 ("Class Members" and the "Class").

PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE
A class action brought on behalf of Class Members has been settled.
The Settlement has been approved by the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice. This Notice provides Class Members with information about
how to submit a Claim Form to the Administrator in order to
participate in the distribution of the Net Settlement Amount.

THE CLASS ACTION
This shareholder class action was commenced on behalf of investors
who purchased Auxly common shares in the secondary market during
the Class Period, against Auxly in the Ontario Superior Court:
Daniel Relvas v. Auxly Cannabis Group Inc. CV-19-00617136-00CP (the
"Action").

The Plaintiff in the Action alleges that the Defendant made
misrepresentations during the Class Period related to Auxly's
business, operations and finances by omitting from its Q2 2018
Management Discussion & Analysis, material facts regarding the
status of its project with FSD Pharma Inc. to build-out 220,000
square feet of cannabis cultivation space in Cobourg, Ontario. The
Defendant denies all such allegations.

The settlement of the Action, without an admission of liability on
the part of the Defendant, was approved by The Honourable Justice
Edward Morgan on November 14, 2023. This notice provides a summary
of the settlement.

SUMMARY OF THE SETTLEMENT TERMS
Auxly's insurers will pay CAD $4 million (the "Settlement Amount"),
in full and final settlement of all claims against Auxly in the
Action. Class Counsel Fees, including out-of-pocket expenses and
taxes, were fixed by the Court as a first charge on the Settlement
Amount in the amount of thirty (30) percent of CAD $4 million, plus
disbursements, plus taxes. The settlement for the Class, less the
Class Counsel Fees and disbursements, administrator's expenses, and
taxes, will be distributed to the Class in accordance with the
Court-approved Plan of Allocation. The Settlement Agreement and
Plan of Allocation may be viewed at
https://bergermontague.ca/cases/auxly-cannabis-group-inc/.

HOW TO MAKE A CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION:

CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION MUST BE RECEIVED BY MARCH 28, 2024
Each Class Member must submit a completed Claim Form on or before
March 28, 2024, in order to participate.

On December 15, 2023, the Claim Form can be accessed or downloaded
at https://bergermontague.ca/cases/auxly-cannabis-group-inc/ or
obtained by calling the Administrator at (855) 212-2601. If you do
not submit a completed Claim Form by March 28, 2024, you will not
receive any part of the Net Settlement Amount.

The Court appointed Berger Montague (Canada) PC as the
Administrator of the settlement to, among other things: (i) receive
and process Claim Forms; (ii) decide eligibility for compensation;
and (iii) distribute the net Settlement Amount to eligible Class
Members.

The Claim Form should be submitted to the Administrator by using
the secure Online Claims System at
https://bergermontague.ca/cases/auxly-cannabis-group-inc/. You may
submit a paper Claim Form only if you do not have internet access.
The paper Claim Form may be sent by mail or courier to:

Auxly Claims Administrator
330 Bay Street, Suite 1302
Toronto, ON M5H 2S8
(855) 212-2601
Email: info@bergermontague.ca

QUESTIONS
Questions for the Class Members' lawyers may be directed to:

Berger Montague (Canada) PC
330 Bay Street, Suite 1302
Toronto, ON M5H 2S8
(855) 212-2601
Email: info@bergermontague.ca [GN]

AVANQUEST NORTH: Fernandez Sues Over Automatic Renewal Program
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO FERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AVANQUEST NORTH AMERICA LLC, a
California limited liability company; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 23STCV28134 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
November 16, 2023) arises from the Defendants' failure to provide
clear and conspicuous disclosures as mandated by California's
Automatic Renewal Law and the Unfair Competition Law.

According to the complaint, Avanquest offers software products for
what is advertised to be a fixed price for a limited period of
time, whereas upon receipt of an order, Avanquest enrolls the
consumer in a subscription program that will automatically renew
from one period to the next and results in subsequent charges to
the consumer's credit card, debit card, or third-party payment
account.

Avanquest North America LLC is a California limited liability
company that advertises and sells computer software, including the
software program entitled inPixio Photo Studio, as well as a number
of other programs. It offers and sells its software products online
through several websites, including but not limited to
https://www.avanquest.com/USA and https://www.inpixio.com. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        James T. Hannink, Esq.
        Zach P. Dostart, Esq.
        DOSTART HANNINK LLP
        4225 Executive Square, Suite 600
        La Jolla, CA 92037-1484
        Telephone: (858) 623-4200
        Facsimile: (858) 623-4299
        E-mail: jhannink@sdlaw.com
                zdostart@sdlaw.com

AVIAGAMES INC: Users File Class Action Over Casino Apps
-------------------------------------------------------
Josh Kosman, writing for New York Post, reports that AviaGames --
the Silicon Valley-based developer of popular casino apps like
Bingo Tour and Solitaire Clash -- has been slapped with a
class-action lawsuit that claims users were duped into playing
against bots instead of similarly skilled human players.

"Avia users collectively have wagered hundreds of millions of
dollars to compete in these games of 'skill' against what Avia says
are other human users," according to the suit filed on Nov. 17 in
the US Northern District of California.

"However, as it turns out, the entire premise of Avia's platform is
false: Instead of competing against real people, Avia's computers
populate and/or control the games with computer "bots" that can
impact or control the outcome of the games," the suit alleged.

The stakes are high as Avia's offerings are among the most popular
apps in Apple's App Store and Android's Google Play store,
according to the suit.

As of the suit's filing on Nov. 17, Avia's Solitaire Clash, Bingo
Clash and Bingo Tour were the Nos. 2, 4 and 7 apps in the casino
category, according to the suit.

"Avia's games are manipulated games of chance that amount to an
unapproved gambling enterprise," the suit claimed.

The suit seeking class-action status was filed by Andrew Pandolfi
of Texas, who estimates he lost thousands of dollars playing Avia's
games; and Mandi Shawcroft of Idaho, who says she lost hundreds.

It includes all other impacted players who participated in games
using the Pocket7Games app, which can be used to access multiple
casino games.

AviaGames, a private company based in Mountain View, Calif. that
most recently raised cash from investors in 2021 in a deal valuing
the company at $620 million.

Sensor Tower says it has 3.5 million monthly active users.

AviaGames did not return calls about the class-action suit.

This suit by players follows lawsuits filed in 2021 by Avia rival
Skillz Games for patent and copyright infringement against
AviaGames that uncovered the alleged bot use and are still making
their way through the courts.

Skillz alleges AviaGames is able to match up players for games
quickly because they are actually bots, enabling it to grab market
share from Skillz, whose customers can wait up to 15 minutes for an
opposing human player.

The Skillz suits against AviaGames turned upside down in late May
when at the end of discovery AviaGames coughed up nearly 20,000
documents covering internal communications in Chinese, court
filings said. Skillz translated them and allegedly found evidence
that AviaGames used bots.

In the Skillz patent case, US District Judge Beth Labson Freeman
ruled in September that internal communications between AviaGames
executives revealed in the trove of discovery documents "appear to
suggest that AviaGames uses bots in its Pocket7Games platform."

Skillz has been seeking communications between AviaGames and its
lawyers about bots, and Judge Freeman ruled that Skillz has met the
standard to see some of the communications which AviaGames was
required to turn over by Nov. 17, according to court filings.

New York City Malpractice Attorney Andrew Lavoott Bluestone, who is
not involved in the AviaGames cases, said it is very rare a
plaintiff gets a judge to give it the right to see attorney-client
communications under the act.

"The judge [who reviews the privileged information first] has to
find that there is probable cause a crime or fraud has been
committed."

If a defendant is asking how to protect themselves against charges
of a crime or fraud it is protected attorney-client communications.
But the judge can break that seal if they see instead a
conversation was about the furtherance of a fraud or crime that had
not yet been committed.

"They need to see that the defendant asked for advice on how not to
get caught."

Asked last month about allegations that the company's apps use
bots, an AviaGames spokeswoman responded with a written statement.

"The claims against AviaGames are baseless and the company is
focusing its attention on supporting our diverse, growing, and very
satisfied gamer community and addressing these false assertions at
the appropriate time and place in legal proceedings, in which we
are confident we will prevail."

"While we are unable to comment on the details of ongoing
litigation at this time, the accusations presented are
unsubstantiated and AviaGames is looking forward to refuting these
unwarranted and baseless charges at trial."

"AviaGames stands behind its IP, unique gaming technology, the
design of its games, and the integrity of its executive team. Avia
is the only skill-based gaming publisher offering one seamless,
all-in-one platform that delivers an accessible, reliable, and
high-quality mobile gaming experience for all its players," the
spokeswoman said.

Some players have long suspected the games are rigged. There is a
Pocket7Games/AviaGames = Scam Facebook group.

"Because Pocket7Games blocks people who speak honestly about the
fraudulent manner in which they operate, it seemed necessary to
create a group to hold them to account for their actions and to
warn others," group organizer Caitlin Cohen said on Facebook.

"It's absolutely rigged. After initial wins to fool you, you'll be
placed in winning or losing slots AFTER you've gotten your score;
they choose who wins in group games AND 1 on 1 games," Gretchen
Woods said in March on Quora. "Sometimes you simply see a generic
player you're matched up with. That's a sign they're manipulating
the outcome." [GN]

BAKER HUGHES: Escudero Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Adriel Escudero-Nunez, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations LLC, Case No.
7:23-cv-00161-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex., Oct. 23, 2023) is a class action
lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff and on behalf of his former
co-workers against the Defendant to recover unpaid overtime that is
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant allegedly has a business plan that includes hiring
coordinators/dispatchers who schedule jobs for the Defendant's
customers and misclassifying them as exempt employees even though
they do not perform the job duties of an exempt employee.

Plaintiff Escudero regularly worked more than 40 hours per week.
However, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff an overtime
premium for any of the hours he worked over 40 in a workweek.
Instead, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the same salary no matter
how many hours he worked in a workweek, the suit claims.

Plaintiff Escudero worked with numerous other individuals who were
paid on a salary basis and who were misclassified as exempt
employees. The Defendant paid these other individuals a set salary
for all hours that they worked in a workweek.

The Defendant intentionally misclassified the Plaintiff Escudero
and his co-workers as exempt employees in order to try to avoid
paying overtime to those individuals. In addition to wrongfully
taking money and benefits from its employees, the Defendant's
intentional and knowing actions allowed the Defendant to gain an
unfair advantage over its competition in the marketplace, the
Plaintiff asserts.

Mr. Escudero worked for Baker Hughes as a service delivery
coordinator/dispatcher from January of 2023 until October of 2023.

Baker Hughes focuses in drilling wells for oil or gas field
operations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          Houston, TX 77206
          Telephone: (713) 868-3388
          Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
          E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com

BEAUTY HEALTH: Alghazwi Sues Over Misleading Company Statements
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABDULADHIM A. ALGHAZWI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE BEAUTY HEALTH COMPANY, ANDREW
STANLEICK, LIYUAN WOO, and MICHAEL MONAHAN, Defendants, Case No.
2:23 cv-09733 (C.D. Cal., November 16, 2023) alleges violations of
the the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Plaintiff Alghazwi brings this class action on behalf of persons
and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Beauty Health
securities between May 10, 2022 and November 13, 2023, inclusive.
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors that, among other things, Hydrafacial's leading product
Syndeo devices had issues leading to frequent treatment
interruptions that caused significant costs to develop
enhancements. The Defendants also failed to disclose that the
Company would no longer market Syndeo devices and incur significant
inventory write-downs. As a result of 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.

Headquartered in Long Beach, CA, Beauty Health is a health and
beauty company. Its flagship brand is Hydrafacial through which the
company provides goods and services related to hydradermabrasion, a
dermatological procedure involving a mechanical exfoliation and
infusion of facial serums.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Charles Linehan, Esq.
          Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

                  - and -

          Rebecca Dawson, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Ave, Suite 358
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          E-mail: rdawson@glancylaw.com

BIEWER LUMBER: Evans Sues Over Alleged Employment Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Evans and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Biewer
Lumber, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-03094-CWR-FKB (S.D. Miss., November
16, 2023) arises out of the Defendant's employment discrimination
that violates the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

Plaintiff Evans began working at the Defendant's sawmill on
February 25, 2020. In his class action complaint, Plaintiff Evans
alleges that black workers are kept on the cleaning crew and other
less desirable jobs while their white coworkers are handling the
high-paying jobs, such as supervisor, manager, forklift driver,
bulldozer operator, and crane operator.

Headquartered in St. Clair, MI, Biewer Lumber owns and operates a
sawmill in Newton County, Mississippi. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel F. Dillard, Esq.
          JOEL F. DILLARD, P.A.
          775 N. Congress St.
          Jackson, MS 39202
          Telephone: (601) 509-1372
          E-mail: joel@joeldillard.com

BLUE APRON: Continues to Defend Hayes Labor Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Blue Apron Holdings 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 9, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Hayes labor class suit
in the California Superior Court in Contra Costa County.

The Company is a party to a class action lawsuit entitled Stevie A.
Hayes v. Blue Apron, LLC ("Hayes"), that was filed in the
California Superior Court in Contra Costa County under the
California wage and hour laws on behalf of certain non-exempt
employees in the Company's former Richmond, California fulfillment
center.

The Hayes class action complaint was filed on June  21, 2023, and
alleges that during the time the Company operated the Richmond,
California fulfillment center, the Company failed to pay minimum
wages and overtime, provide required meal and rest breaks, provide
wages due upon separation from employment, provide accurate wage
statements, to non-exempt employees in violation of California law.


On September 11, 2023, Hayes filed an additional Private Attorneys
General Act complaint seeking damages under California Labor Code
section 2699, et seq., for identical allegations made in the Hayes
class action complaint.

On July 27, 2023, the Company removed the Hayes class action
complaint from the Contra Costa County state court to federal court
in the Northern District of California based on the Class Action
Fairness Act ("CAFA").

On August 11, 2023, Hayes filed a Motion for Remand, which the
Company opposed. The Company is awaiting for the court to rule on
the remand.

The Company is in the preliminary stages of reviewing the
allegations made in the Hayes class action complaint and believes
that it has strong defenses and intends to vigorously defend
against this lawsuit.

Blue Apron operates a direct-to-consumer platform that delivers
original recipes and fresh, seasonal ingredients.[BN]

BLUE APRON: Continues to Defend Mitchell Labor Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Blue Apron Holdings 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 9, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Mitchell labor class
suit in the California Superior Court in Contra Costa County.

The Company is also a party to a second class action lawsuit
entitled Cortez Mitchell v. Blue Apron, LLC ("Mitchell"), that was
filed in the California Superior Court in Contra Costa County under
the California wage and hour laws on behalf of certain non-exempt
employees that worked for the Company and directly or indirectly
for staffing agencies in the Company's former Richmond, California
fulfillment center.

The Mitchell class action complaint was filed on August 25, 2023,
and alleges nearly identical claims as the Hayes class action
complaint for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime, provide
required meal and rest breaks, provide wages due upon separation
from employment, and failure to provide accurate wage statements,
to non-exempt employees in violation of California law.

In addition, the Mitchell class action complaint alleges a new
cause of action for a failure to reimburse certain necessary
business expenses.

On September 15, 2023, Mitchell filed an additional Private
Attorneys General Act complaint seeking damages under California
Labor Code section 2699, et seq., for similar allegations made in
the Mitchell class action complaint along with additional claims
including but not limited to violations of sick leave, failure to
pay vested vacation or paid time off, failure to provide a safe and
healthful workplace, and unlawful agreements of criminal history
inquiries.

On October 6, 2023, the Company removed the Mitchell case from the
Contra Costa County state court to federal court in the Northern
District of California based on CAFA.

Mitchell failed to file a Motion for Remand by the deadline of
November 6, 2023 and, as a result, the Mitchell case will remain in
federal court.

The Company is in the preliminary stages of reviewing the
allegations made in the Mitchell class action complaint and
believes that it has strong defenses and intends to vigorously
defend against this lawsuit.

Blue Apron operates a direct-to-consumer platform that delivers
original recipes and fresh, seasonal ingredients.[BN]

BP CANADA: Rebein et al. Sue Over Alleged Disaster Profiteering
---------------------------------------------------------------
David J. Rebein, Daniel B. Giroux, Judy Krueger, and Michael T.
Jilka, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. BP Canada Energy Marketing Corp., BP Energy Company,
Chevron Natural Gas, a division of Chevron USA, Inc., ETC
Marketing, Ltd., and Macquarie Energy LLC, Defendants, Case No.
6:23-cv-01245 (D. Kan., November 17, 2023) arises out of the
Defendants' violations of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have violated the state
consumer protection law by inducing customers into transactions
that are excessively one-sided and by engaging in disaster
profiteering during Winter Storm Uri. Allegedly, the Defendants
profited handsomely from the incredible costs that the Kansas
consumers must now pay for natural gas during the winter storm. In
addition, the Defendants made false force-majeure declarations in
their existing agreements with those distributors to deliver the
natural gas to other distributors at the higher spot price, say the
Plaintiffs.

BP Canada Energy Marketing Corp. is a for-profit corporation
organized in Delaware with its principal place of business in
Nebraska. It produced and sold natural gas to Kansas residential
consumers through Black Hills. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

           Jay F. Fowler, Esq.
           Samuel J. Walenz, Esq.
           FOULSTON SIEFKIN, LLP
           1551 N. Waterfront Parkway, Suite 100
           Wichita, KS 67206-4466
           Telephone: (316) 291-9541
           Facsimile: (316) 267-6345
           E-mail: jfowler@foulston.com
                   swalenz@foulston.com

                   - and -

           Scott C. Nehrbass, Esq.
           Lee M. Smithyman, Esq.
           James P. Zakoura, Esq.
           FOULSTON SIEFKIN, LLP
           7500 College Blvd., Suite 1400
           Overland Park, KS 66210
           Telephone: (913) 484-4627
           Facsimile: (913) 498-2101
           E-mail: snehrbass@foulston.com
                   lsmithyman@foulston.com
                   jzakoura@foulston.com

BUCKNELL UNIVERSITY: Camden Seeks COVID-19 Tuition Fee Refund
-------------------------------------------------------------
SAMANTHA CAMDEN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BUCKNELL UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No.
4:23-cv-01907-MWB (M.D. Pa., November 16, 2023) arises from the
Bucknell's refusal to provide a prorated refund of tuition or fees
tied to its on-campus education, services, and amenities that were
not available to students for a significant part of the Spring 2020
semester.

The Plaintiff alleges that Bucknell breached its contracts with
students or was otherwise unjustly enriched by not giving prorated
refunds for tuition or fees charged for on-campus education and
services not provided. Moreover, the Plaintiff seeks disgorgement
of the prorated, unused amounts of the fees that she and other
putative Class members paid, but for which they were not provided
the benefit, as well as a partial prorated tuition reimbursement
representing the difference in fair market value between the
on-campus product for which they had paid, and the online product
that they received.

Founded in 1846, Bucknell is a private university that offers 60
majors and 70 minors, 11 graduate programs. Its principal campus is
located in the city of Lewisburg, PA. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

BUZZFEED INC: Hunthausen Sues Over Video Privacy Issues in Apps
---------------------------------------------------------------
BuzzFeed, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the fiscal
year ended September 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 3, 2023, that on May 16, 2023, a
lawsuit titled "Hunthausen v. BuzzFeed, Inc." was filed against the
company in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California, asserting class action claims for alleged
violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) based on the
claimed transmission of personally identifying information via the
Meta pixel, Google Analytics, and the TikTok pixel, all of which
are purportedly connected to posts on the BuzzFeed.com website.

The putative class plaintiff is seeking an injunction to stop
further alleged wrongful conduct, to recover unspecified
compensatory damages and an award of costs, and any further
appropriate relief. The company has moved to dismiss the case.

BuzzFeed, Inc. is a digital media company that derives its revenue
primarily from advertising, content, and commerce and other sold to
leading brands.


COCA-COLA CO: Class Action Over Rewards Points Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Malfitano, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
federal judge has stayed class action litigation against The
Coca-Cola Company pending the completion of arbitration, in a case
that alleged the company unfairly redirected its reward points
towards charitable causes.

Glenn Coe (individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated) of Orchard Park, N.Y. first filed suit in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York on June 6,
2022 versus The Coca-Cola Company, of Atlanta.

The suit said Coca-Cola's rewards program began with customers
redeeming bottle caps for movie tickets and gift cards, but it was
changed to eliminate or reduce the frequency of prices. Instead,
customers redeemed points to participate in raffles and contests.

Now, the program no longer provides any things of value, according
to the suit.

"Instead, customers are only able to donate their accumulated
rewards to pre-selected charities, such as the American Red Cross.
While Americans have one of the highest personal charitable
donation rates in the world, this is based on their own generosity
and ability to choose the organizations they support," the suit
said.

The suit added trading stamps, or small paper stamps issued to
customers, were an early form of loyalty programs, but were
outlawed by the State of New York -- however, the plaintiff
contends that Coca-Cola's rewards program is a modern-day trading
stamp system, by virtue of the alphanumeric codes on its bottle
caps.

In a subsequent motion to compel arbitration filed on Oct. 24,
2022, Coca-Cola argued that when Coe and other users joined the
rewards program, they agreed to a terms of use policy which stated
that any disputes would be submitted to individual mandatory
arbitration, and included a waiver of any and all class action
litigation.

UPDATE

More than one year later and in a Nov. 14 memorandum opinion, U.S.
District Court for the Western District of New York Judge William
M. Skretny granted Coca-Cola's motion to move the case to
arbitration proceedings, and stay it until those proceedings
concluded.

Skretny found that arbitration is "a matter of contract" and
applied New York state law to the subject. That requires a party
"must establish an offer, acceptance of the offer, consideration,
mutual assent, and an intent to be bound."

"Coke's plain interface, set out above, put Coe on inquiry notice
of the mandatory-arbitration provisions. Coke's [interface] is
uncluttered and warns users that they are agreeing to the
hyperlinked Terms of Use and Privacy Policy by clicking the box and
proceeding with the account creation. The check box is
conspicuously displayed in bold and underlining at the bottom of
the page in spatially-reasonable font and size. It is not obscured
in any way, nor are there other hyperlinks, advertisements, or
other distractions. The only other information appearing on the
interface is a simple form requiring biographical and password
information. The hyperlinked Terms of Use containing the
mandatory-arbitration provisions were thus clearly and
conspicuously presented, providing Coe with reasonable notice,"
Skretny said.

"Whether Coe actually clicked the hyperlink and read the Terms of
Use before agreeing to them is of no moment. First, Coe submitted
no evidence that he did not read the Terms of Use. Second, a
reasonable user of Coke's website would know that by clicking the
'I agree' box, the user was agreeing to the Terms of Use accessible
through the hyperlink. Consequently, regardless of whether Coe
actually clicked the hyperlink, he was sufficiently on notice of
the Terms of Use. Turning to manifestation of assent, the
undisputed record reveals that Coe expressly assented to the
mandatory-arbitration provisions. The check box signaling agreement
with the Terms of Use is spatially and temporally coupled with the
hyperlink containing the terms, as is the directly following
'submit' button. Moreover, Coe could not have created his account,
which he concedes he created and continuously used, without
affirmatively checking the 'I agree' box directly beside the Terms
of Use hyperlink and clicking 'submit.' Finally, the interface
makes clear that by checking the box, the user agrees to the Terms
of Use. Consequently, by checking the box and completing his
account creation, Coe unambiguously and affirmatively accepted the
terms in the hyperlinked Terms of Use and Privacy Policy."

According to Skretny, because Coe "was on inquiry notice of the
Terms of Use, and because he unambiguously manifested his assent to
those terms, including the mandatory-arbitration provisions, the
parties created a binding agreement to arbitrate."

Skretny added that Coca-Cola's mandatory arbitration provisions
were not "unconscionable", or "so grossly unreasonable or
unconscionable in the light of the mores and business practices of
the time and place as to be unenforceable according to its literal
terms."

"Coe first argues that Coke's Terms of Use containing the mandatory
arbitration provisions are procedurally unconscionable because they
constitute a contract of adhesion. In so arguing, Coe highlights
Coke's size, its bargaining power and the take-it-or-leave-it
nature of the Terms of Use. But these arguments challenge the Terms
of Use as a whole. They do not specifically challenge the mandatory
arbitration provisions, which is required under U.S. Supreme Court
precedent. In any event, the Second Circuit recognizes that
unbalanced bargaining power and take-it-or-leave-it provisions do
not necessarily render an arbitration agreement procedurally
unconscionable. Coe's specific challenge to the mandatory
arbitration provisions themselves is his suggestion that he did not
understand the word 'arbitration,' lacked sophistication in legal
matters and had no opportunity to study the provisions or consult a
lawyer. He further suggests that the arbitration provisions were
buried in fine print within the Terms of Use document. None of
these arguments is persuasive," Skretny said.

"Coe has presented no evidence, in affidavit form or otherwise,
that he did not read the arbitration provisions, did not understand
the word 'arbitration,' or otherwise lacked sophistication.
Moreover, it is clear from the nature of Coke's programs that there
was no immediacy or time-is-of-the-essence required for
participation. Coe thus had ample opportunity to read and study the
provisions, to educate himself on the meaning of 'arbitration,' and
to consult a lawyer. And there is no merit to the suggestion that
the arbitration provisions were buried in fine print in the Terms
of Use document. To the contrary, the provisions are set out in the
same font, size and format as the rest of the Terms of Use
provisions -- no fine print. And unlike other provisions, the
mandatory arbitration provision contains an explicit directive to
read the terms carefully. Moreover, the very first full paragraph
on the first page of the Terms of Conditions advises in bold,
underlined, all-capped writing that, "THESE TERMS INCLUDE AN
AGREEMENT TO SUBMIT ALL DISPUTES TO INDIVIDUAL MANDATORY
ARBITRATION -- PLEASE READ CAREFULLY." Consequently, Coe fails to
demonstrate that the mandatory arbitration provisions are
procedurally unconscionable."

Nor did Coe prove substantive unconscionability, Skretny ruled.

"As to substantive unconscionability, Coe raises no factual or
legal arguments. Instead, he simply requests a hearing to determine
whether the Terms of Use were substantively unconscionable. Again,
however, Coe presents no specific challenge to the substantive
reasonableness of the mandatory-arbitration provisions, nor does he
raise any factual disputes. A hearing is therefore unnecessary, and
Coe's request for one is denied. Making no meaningful arguments,
Coe fails to demonstrate that the mandatory-arbitration provisions
are substantively unconscionable," Skretny said.

"A court must grant a motion to compel arbitration 'if the
pleadings, discovery materials before the Court, and any affidavits
show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and it is
clear the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.'
Such is the case here. The undisputed evidence reveals that Coe and
Coke agreed to arbitrate any disputes arising from Coe's
participation in Coke's programs. Because Coe's challenges to that
agreement fall flat, this Court is obligated to compel arbitration.
Coke's motion will therefore be granted, and this action will be
stayed pending completion of arbitration."

The plaintiff is represented by Spencer I. Sheehan of Sheehan &
Associates, in Great Neck, N.Y.

The defendant is represented by Steven Lawrence Penaro, Alan F.
Pryor, Andrew G. Phillips and Angela M. Spivey of Alston & Bird, in
New York, N.Y. and Atlanta, Ga.

U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York case
1:22-cv-00430 [GN]

CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY: Jewish Students File Antisemitism Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Harkavy, writing for CDR, reports that a group of Jewish
students, faculty and staff at Concordia University in Montreal
have filed a proposed class-action lawsuit against the university
and its student union, accusing them of creating a "safe space for
antisemitism" on campus. The lawsuit, which seeks CAD 15 million in
damages, alleges that the defendants have failed to address and
prevent antisemitic incidents and discrimination at Concordia for
decades, leaving the claimants and other members of the proposed
class "psychologically scarred".

The claimants, who are requesting anonymity for fear of
retaliation, claim that they have suffered "significant
psychological injury" as a result of the "repeated discrimination"
they have faced at Concordia. They say they have experienced
nightmares, flashbacks, fear of being on campus and fear of
identifying themselves as Jewish.

The lawsuit cites several examples of antisemitic acts and
sentiments at Concordia, including: the violent clash between
pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian students that resulted in one arrest
and injuries to two security guards and one student; the suspension
of a lecturer who criticised the student union for its anti-Israel
stance and accused it of supporting terrorism; the graffiti of
swastikas and other hateful messages on campus buildings and
property; the disruption and intimidation of Jewish speakers and
events by pro-Palestinian activists; the adoption of resolutions
and motions by the student union that endorse the boycott,
divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel and condemn
its actions in the Israel-Hamas war.

The lawsuit claims that Concordia and its student union have
breached their duty to provide a safe and respectful learning and
working environment for the claimants and the proposed class. It
accuses them of neglecting to investigate and punish antisemitic
behaviours, failing to offer support and protection to Jewish
students and staff, and failing to educate students on the issue of
antisemitism.

Detailing the legal basis for the claim, the claimants are alleging
that the defendants have violated the Quebec Charter of Human
Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
and the Civil Code of Quebec by discriminating against the
claimants and the proposed class on the basis of their religion,
ethnic origin and political opinions.

The claimants are represented by two Montreal law firms, De Louya
Markakis and Eidelmann Law, in partnership with Diamond & Diamond,
a Toronto-based firm that is against other Canadian universities.

Neither the university nor its student union immediately responded
to a request for comment. [GN]


CONSERVICE LLC: Garcia Consumer Credit Suit Removed to M.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Garcia v. Conservice LLC,
Case No. 2023CA005138AX (Sept. 6, 2023), was removed from the 12th
Judicial Circuit, Manatee County, Florida to United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa) on October 20,
2023.

The Middle District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:23-cv-02390-SDM-CPT to the proceeding.

The suit alleges Consumer Credit related violation. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Steven D. Merryday.

Conservice provides utility management and billing solutions to
property owners and managers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
          Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
          Jeffrey Lee Newsome, II, Esq.
          Pamela G Levinson, Esq.
          VARNELL AND WARWICK PA
          400 N. Ashley Drive, Suite 1900
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (352) 753-8600
          Facsimile: (352) 504-3301
          E-mail: bwarwick@vandwlaw.com
                  jvarnell@vandwlaw.com
                  jnewsome@vandwlaw.com
                  PLevinson@VandWLaw.com

                - and -

          Glenn Scott Banner, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF GLENN S. BANNER, P.A.
          5245 Commissioners Drive
          Jacksonville, FL 32224
          Telephone: (904) 240-4401
          E-mail: gbanner@gbannerlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael R. Freed, Esq.
          Gregory Lathrop Pierson, Esq.
          Lauren Ashley Marcil, Esq.
          GUNSTER, YOAKLEY & STEWART, P.A
          1 Independent Drive, Suite 2300
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 350-7167
          Facsimile: (904) 354-2170
          E-mail: mfreed@gunster.com
                  gpierson@gunster.com
                  lshumate@gunster.com

COREBRIDGE FINANCIAL: Faces Chuck Suit Over Insurance Dispute
-------------------------------------------------------------
Corebridge Financial, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2023, that its
subsidiary, American General Life Insurance Company (AGL) is a
defendant in "Chuck v. American General Life Insurance Co.,"
pending in California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles,
which was filed on September 6, 2023 as a putative class action.
Cases is still at an early stage.

Corebridge Financial, Inc. is a provider of retirement solutions
and life insurance products in the United States with its primary
business operations consisting of sales of individual and group
annuities and life insurance products to individuals and
institutional markets.


COREBRIDGE FINANCIAL: Faces Moriarty Suit Over Insurance Dispute
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corebridge Financial, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2023, that its
subsidiary, American General Life Insurance Company (AGL) is
currently facing a putative class action captioned "Moriarty v.
American General Life Insurance Company, No. 17-cv-1709 (July 18,
2017, S.D. Cal.)

Plaintiff's complaint argues that policies issued and delivered
prior to January 1, 2013, like the $1 million policy issued to
plaintiff's husband do not lapse despite nonpayment of premiums.

On February 7, 2022, plaintiff filed motions for summary judgment
and class certification; AGL opposed both motions and filed its own
motion for partial summary judgment. On July 26, 2022, the District
Court granted in part and denied in part AGL's motion for partial
summary judgment, and on September 7, 2022, the District Court
denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. In those 2022
summary judgment decisions, the District Court declined to adopt
her theory that a failure to comply with the Act necessitates
payment of policy benefits or to make a pre-trial determination as
to AGL's liability.

On September 27, 2022, the District Court denied plaintiff's motion
for class certification without prejudice. The District Court
declined to certify her proposed class consisting of claims for
monetary damages and equitable relief, but indicated that she could
seek the certification of a narrower class consisting only of
claims for monetary damages. The District Court indicated, however,
that it had "substantial concerns" as to whether individual issues
such as actual damages and causation would predominate, precluding
class certification.

Subsequently, the case was reassigned to a new district court
judge, who requested additional briefing on certain issues
addressed by the summary judgment decisions and heard additional
oral argument on those issues on July 19, 2023.

On August 14, 2023, the District Court granted Plaintiff's motion
for summary judgment, adopting Plaintiff's theory that failure to
comply with the Act means the policy did not lapse and as a result,
AGL breached the terms of the policy by refusing to pay the death
benefit. In the order granting the motion, the District Court
declined to revisit the September 2022 denial of class
certification; therefore, this matter became an individual case
only.

At a status conference on August 23, 2023, the District Court
decided that Plaintiff could file a motion regarding the propriety
of revisiting class certification. Plaintiff filed such a motion on
September 1, 2023, and AGL filed a provisional motion to certify
the District Court's August 14, 2023 summary judgment order for
interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
on the same date.

On September 26, 2023, the District Court decided that good cause
exists to allow Plaintiff to file a third motion for class
certification; however, at the same time, the Court certified AGL's
petition for interlocutory appeal and stayed court proceedings
pending the outcome of AGL's appeal.

Corebridge Financial, Inc. is a provider of retirement solutions
and life insurance products in the United States with its primary
business operations consisting of sales of individual and group
annuities and life insurance products to individuals and
institutional markets.


CRONOS GROUP: Osler Attorneys Discuss Ruling in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allan Coleman, Robert Carson and Lipi Mishra of Osler, disclosed
that in Badesha v. Cronos Group, Inc., the Ontario Superior Court
recently certified a global class in a securities class action
against Toronto-based Cronos Group Inc.,[1] even though U.S.
shareholders who purchased their shares on the NASDAQ are also
potential class members in a parallel U.S. securities class action.
The decision addresses when an Ontario court should contend with
the inclusion of U.S. shareholders in an Ontario securities class
action.

Background
Cronos shares are cross-listed on the TSX and NASDAQ. The plaintiff
in the Ontario action asked the Ontario court to certify a global
class, regardless of whether the shareholders purchased their
shares on the TSX or NASDAQ.

Cronos objected on various grounds, including that a parallel class
action against Cronos is already underway in the U.S.[2] That U.S.
action includes a potential class of U.S. shareholders who, during
the relevant class period, purchased shares over the NASDAQ.

Cronos conceded that an Ontario court had jurisdiction over the
claims of those shareholders, but sought to stay those claims under
the doctrine of forum non conveniens and the principle of comity,
arguing that the U.S. court was the more appropriate forum to
resolve the claims of U.S. shareholders who purchased shares over
the NASDAQ.

Justice Morgan dismissed Cronos's motion and certified a global
class of all purchasers, wherever they reside and wherever they
purchased their shares.

When will the 'day of reckoning' arrive?
Justice Morgan recognized that U.S. shareholders in cross-border
securities cases will inevitably face a "day of reckoning" in which
one court will be asked to recognize the judgment or settlement of
the other. Justice Morgan warned that "it will be for this Court in
the event of a future settlement or judgment to keep in mind that
"no class member should get 'two bites at the apple' against any
defendant".

Justice Morgan's reasons review a line of Ontario cases addressing
jurisdiction and forum issues in cross-border securities class
actions, including:

Abdula v. Canadian Solar: The Court of Appeal held that a class
action asserting claims under Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario
Securities Act could include claims of investors who purchased
their shares of an Ontario-based "responsible issuer" over a
foreign exchange.[3]

Silver v. Imax Corp.: In the initial Imax certification decision,
the Ontario Superior Court found that any concerns over conflict of
laws issues were premature and that it was more appropriate to
"wait and see" how the issues, if any, developed in the parallel
Ontario and U.S. class actions.[4] In a subsequent decision --
after "waiting and seeing" -- the Court granted the defendants'
motion to amend the Ontario class to exclude those who were part of
the class in the U.S. action.[5]

Like the Imax decision, the Cronos decision defers any decision
about the "right" court until one of the actions reaches its "day
of reckoning" in the form of a settlement or judgment.

This "day of reckoning" analysis may work better in an action like
this one against Cronos, in which claims are asserted only under
Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act, not under common law
torts. Because this class action did not plead other common law or
statutory causes of action, issues that would have otherwise arisen
-- for instance, the location of the alleged tort -- were not at
issue in the Cronos case.

Comity: a 'dismal swamp'?
Although Cronos argued that the "imperatives of international
comity" favour a U.S. court deciding the claims of U.S.
shareholders, Justice Morgan was not prepared to stay the claims of
U.S. shareholders on this basis, either. He found that, unlike
other elements of the forum non conveniens analysis, comity "cannot
be understood as a set of well-defined rules" and has therefore
been colourfully characterized as a "dismal swamp". Justice Morgan
noted that some courts and commentators have expressed a
frustration with comity because it includes contradictory meanings,
each of which can be used in the service of whoever deploys it.

Justice Morgan recognized that Canada and the U.S. approach the
issues differently. U.S. actions under §10(b)-5 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 are generally restricted to shares that were
traded on an American exchange. By contrast, Section 138.3 of the
Ontario Securities Act has been interpreted as being broad enough
to provide access to justice for a global class against an
Ontario-based responsible issuer, regardless of where the
shareholders purchased their shares. According to Justice Morgan,
"the U.S. wants to stop 'stepping on another nation's toes', while
Ontario wants to hold foreign nationals' hand. American law
expresses a need to decolonize and contract, Canadian law exudes a
need to expand and embrace".

Considerations
Although the contradictory approaches in Ontario and the U.S.
remain unresolved, Justice Morgan's remarks in Cronos encourage
further analysis about how courts on both sides of the border
should respect comity and address the challenges that may continue
to arise from these seemingly "double-edged view[s] of the legal
world".

The bottom line for securities class actions appears to be that,
for the foreseeable future, a cross-listed responsible issuer that
is headquartered in Ontario will often face a proposed global class
in an Ontario action -- even if the issuer is already defending
against a U.S. class in a parallel U.S. case. However, the analysis
and outcome may differ from the Cronos case if the plaintiff seeks
to certify common law or other statutory causes of action alongside
claims under Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act.

We will continue to monitor and report on developments in this
area. Given the fundamental inconsistency between the Canadian and
American approaches, and the Ontario court's restrictive
interpretation of the principles of comity, we may receive
appellate guidance in this or future cases.

[1] 2023 ONSC 5678.

[2] In re Cronos Group Securities Litigation, Civil Action No.
2:20-cv-01310-ENV-SIL.

[3] 2012 ONCA 211, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada
ref'd [2012] S.C.C.A. No. 246.

[4] Silver v. Imax Corporation, 2009 CanLII 72334 (ON SC).

[5] Silver v. IMAX, 2013 ONSC 1667. [GN]

DAMERON HOSPITAL: Doe Files Class Suit in Calif. State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the Dameron Hospital
Foundation. The case is captioned as JANE DOE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DAMERON HOSPITAL
FOUNDATION D/B/A DAMERON HOSPITAL, Case No.
STK-CV-UOCT-2023-0012027 (Cal. Super., San Joaquin Cty., November
14, 2023).

A case management conference is set for May 13, 2024, before Judge
Jayne Lee.

Dameron Hospital Foundation is a charitable organization
headquartered in Stockton, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Vess A. Miller, Esq.
         COHEN & MALAD, LLP
         One Indiana Square Suite 1400
         Indianapolis, IN 46204
         Telephone: (317) 636-6481
         E-mail: vmiller@cohenandmalad.com

DEE MARK: Lorenzo's Collective Action Bid Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FILOGONIO BACILIO LORENZO,
v. DEE MARK INC. et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00048-MKV-GWG (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein entered an order granting in
part and denying in part the plaintiff's motion for approval of a
collective action.

Lorenzo has requested the Court order several measures in addition
to collective action approval, including approval of a notice and
consent form; the production of "names, titles, compensation rates,
dates of employment, last known mailing addresses, email addresses,
all known telephone numbers," and Social Security Numbers of the
relevant employees; and "the posting of the notice, along with the
consent forms, in defendants’ places of business where [the
relevant employees] are employed, by Plaintiff's counsel at any
time during regular business hours."

Additionally, Lorenzo requests that notice be sent to workers who
were employed" by Defendants on or after the date that is 6 years
before the filing of the Complaint."

Plaintiff Filogonio Bacilio Lorenzo, on behalf of himself and a
putative class and proposed collective, has sued defendants Dee
Mark Inc., Dee Jing Inc., Limupoke Inc., Penkae Poolsuk, and
Chatchai Huadwattana for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA), New York State Labor Law (NYLL) wage-and-hour provisions,
and the Internal Revenue Code, as well as for breach of contract.

The Plaintiff was employed as a delivery person by defendant Dee
Mark Inc., d/b/a Aroy Dee Thai.

The Plaintiff alleges that defendants collectively operate three
restaurants: (1) Aroy Dee Thai (operated by Dee Mark Inc.); (2) Kuu
Ramen FiDi (operated by Dee Jing Inc.); and (3) Kuu Ramen UES
(operated by Limupoke Inc.).

The Plaintiff proposes that the collective encompass "all
non-exempt tipped employees, including delivery persons, servers,
runners, bussers, and bartenders among others."

A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Nov. 14, 2023 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47njo0w at no
extra charge.[CC]

DOLLAR ENERGY: Flagella et al. Sue Over Unprotected Customer Data
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA FLAGELLA, on behalf of herself and her minor children A.F.
and A.F., and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DOLLAR
ENERGY FUND, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-01988-WSS (W.D. Pa.,
November 17, 2023) arises from the Defendant's failure to properly
secure and safeguard Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated
customers' private information from hackers and asserts claims for
negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, breach of
implied contract, intrusion upon seclusion/invasion of privacy,
unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgement.

According to Defendant's Notice, it learned of unauthorized access
to its computer systems on February 5, 2023, with such unauthorized
access having taken place between January 31, 2023 and February 5,
2023. However, it was only on or about October 4, 2023, roughly six
months after the Defendant learned that the Class's private
information was first accessed by cybercriminals, the Defendant
finally began to notify customers that its investigation determined
that their private information was breached. Accordingly,
Plaintiffs seek to remedy the harms caused by the data breach, says
the suit.

Headquartered in Pittsburgh, PA, Dollar Energy Fund is a non-profit
organization that provides utility assistance grants to
limited-income families and individuals. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Randi Kassan, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
          100 Garden City Plaza
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300
          E-mail: rkassan@milberg.com

                  - and -

          Nicholas Sandercock, Esq.
          Mason A. Barney, Esq.
          Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
          SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
          745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
          New York, NY 10151
          Telephone: (212) 532-1091
          E-mail: mbarney@sirillp.com
                  tbean@sirillp.com

DRAFTKINGS INC: Consolidated Securities Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
Draftkings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 3, 2023, that on January 10, 2023,
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted the company's motion to dismiss and final judgment was
entered dismissing case captioned "In re DraftKings Securities
Litigation."

On July 2, 2021, the first of two substantially similar federal
securities law putative class actions was filed in said court
against the company and certain of its officers. The actions
alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
on a behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the company's stock between December 23, 2019
and June 15, 2021. The allegations related to, among other things,
allegedly false and misleading statements and/or failures to
disclose information about the company's business and prospects. On
November 12, 2021, the court consolidated the two actions under the
caption "In re DraftKings Securities Litigation" and appointed a
lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint on January 11, 2022.

Draftkings Inc. is a digital sports entertainment and gaming
company that provides users with online sports betting, online
casino and daily fantasy sports product offerings, as well as
retail sportsbook, media and other consumer product offerings.


DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces Breach of Contract Suit Over Denied Prizes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Draftkings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 3, 2023, that on January 9, 2023,
Simpson G. Turley, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, filed a purported class action against the
company in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that he was a contestant in
the company's daily fantasy showdown contest for the January 2,
2023 NFL game between the Cincinnati Bengals and the Buffalo Bills.
The Bengals-Bills Game was postponed and eventually cancelled due
to Damar Hamlin collapsing during the game. Plaintiff alleges that
he was winning prizes in multiple showdown contests at the point in
time that the Bengals-Bills Game was cancelled (with 5:58 remaining
in the first quarter). Plaintiff alleges that, instead of paying
out the prize money, the company refunded entry fees to contestants
that entered showdown or flash draft fantasy contests.

On May 8, 2023, plaintiff Turley and a new plaintiff (Erik Ramos)
filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint. The plaintiffs assert
claims for breach of contract, unfair and deceptive acts and
practices, false advertising, and unjust enrichment. Among other
things, plaintiffs seek statutory damages, monetary damages,
punitive damages, attorney fees and interest.

Draftkings Inc. is a digital sports entertainment and gaming
company that provides users with online sports betting, online
casino and daily fantasy sports product offerings, as well as
retail sportsbook, media and other consumer product offerings.


DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit Over Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Draftkings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 3, 2023, that it is facing
consolidated case captioned "In re Golden Nugget Online Gaming,
Inc. Stockholders Litigation," consolidated on October 12, 2022 in
the Delaware Court of Chancery.

On September 9, 2022, two putative class actions were filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery against former directors of GNOG Inc.
and its former controlling stockholder, one of which also names the
Company and Jefferies Financial Group, Inc. as defendants. The
lawsuits assert claims on behalf of a putative class of former
minority stockholders of GNOG alleging that certain former officers
and directors of GNOG and its former controlling stockholder
(Tilman Fertitta and/or Fertitta Entertainment, Inc.) breached
their fiduciary duties to minority stockholders of GNOG. in
connection with the GNOG merger with Draftkings Inc. and the other
defendants aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty. One of the actions also alleges that the company aided and
abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

On October 12, 2022, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated
these two actions into another case under the caption "In re Golden
Nugget Online Gaming, Inc. Stockholders Litigation."

Draftkings Inc. is a digital sports entertainment and gaming
company that provides users with online sports betting, online
casino and daily fantasy sports product offerings, as well as
retail sportsbook, media and other consumer product offerings. On
May 5, 2022, DraftKings Inc. (formerly New Duke Holdco, Inc.)
consummated the acquisition of Golden Nugget Online Gaming, Inc.,
pursuant to a definitive agreement and plan of merger, dated August
9, 2021, in an all-stock transaction.


DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces Securities Violations Suit Over NFT Sales
---------------------------------------------------------------
Draftkings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 3, 2023, that on March 9, 2023, a
putative class action was filed in Massachusetts federal court by
alleged purchasers of non-fungible tokens (NFT) on the DraftKings
Marketplace.

The complaint asserts claims for violations of federal and state
securities laws against the Company and three of its officers on
the grounds that, among other things, the NFTs that are sold and
traded on the Marketplace allegedly constitute securities that were
not registered with the SEC in accordance with federal and
Massachusetts law, and that the DK Marketplace is a securities
exchange that is not registered in accordance with federal and
Massachusetts law.

Based on these allegations, plaintiff brings claims seeking
rescissory damages and other relief on behalf of himself and a
putative class of persons who purchased NFTs on the Marketplace
between August 11, 2021 and the present.

On July 17, 2023, the company received a subpoena from the
Securities Division of the Office of the Secretary of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts seeking documents and requesting
answers to interrogatories concerning, among other things,
Marketplace and NFTs that are sold on DK Marketplace and related
matters.

Draftkings Inc. is a digital sports entertainment and gaming
company that provides users with online sports betting, online
casino and daily fantasy sports product offerings, as well as
retail sportsbook, media and other consumer product offerings.


DRG MEDICAL: Faces Suit Over Alleged Sexual Assault in Patients
---------------------------------------------------------------
Malky Wigder and Jane Doe, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Robert Goodman, DRG Medical PLLC,
and Maimonides Medical Center, Defendants, Case No. 533555/2023
(N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., November 15, 2023) seeks to hold
accountable the people and entities who perpetuated Dr. Robert
Goodman's abuse for years, causing lasting, irreparable damage to
Plaintiffs and the putative class of victims they represent.

Dr. Goodman, an internal medicine physician based in Borough Park,
Brooklyn, has regularly sexually assaulted female patients with
impunity for more than fifteen years. When female patients came to
Dr. Goodman for medical care, he regularly and routinely violated
their trust and used his position of authority to grope, molest,
and sexually assault them, the suit alleges.

DRG Medical PLLC is Dr. Goodman's current medical practice. It was
incorporated in 2011 and its place of business is 1523 45th Street,
Brooklyn, NY. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alanna Kaufman, Esq.
          Alison Frick, Esq.
          KAUFMAN LIEB LEBOWITZ & FRICK LLP
          18 E. 48thth Street, Suite 802
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 660-2332

EL FUERTE DELI: Almendares Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
LILIAN ALMENDARES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EL FUERTE DELI AND GROCERY CORP.
and EL FUERTE DELI AND GROCERY II, CORP. and JUNIOR CASTRO JR. and
RAMONA VARGAS, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-08505
(E.D.N.Y., November 16, 2023) alleges violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff Almendares was required work approximately 133 hours
hours per week from in or around May 2022 until in or around July
2022. Her primary duties were as a cook, food preparer, and
cleaner. She performed these duties simultaneously at two
Defendants' locations. The Defendants issued Plaintiff a check in
the amount of $600 after her employment ended, but the check was
unable to be cashed or deposited due to insufficient funds.
Furthermore, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff the legally
prescribed minimum wage for all her hours worked from in or around
May 2022 until in or around July 2022, a blatant violation of the
minimum wage provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL, says the
suit.

El Fuerte Deli and Grocery Corp operates two locations in New York:
Hempstead and Uniondale.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq. (RA 5508)
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591
          Facsimile: (718) 263-9598

EMERGENT BUSINESS: Faces Charles Suit Over Unfair Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against EMERGENT BUSINESS
GROUP, INC. et al. The case is captioned as CHARLES v. EMERGENT
BUSINESS GROUP, INC. et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-21360-MAS-TJB
(D.N.J., Oct. 20, 2023).

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act
involving consumer credit.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Michael A. Shipp.

Emergent is a comprehensive receivables management, acquisitions
and servicing firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
          17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B
          Rutherford, NJ 07070
          Telephone: (201) 507-6300
          E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com

ENOVIX CORP:Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Enovix 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 9, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the consolidated securities class suits in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

On January 6, 2023, a purported Company stockholder filed a
securities class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California against the Company and certain
of its current and former officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by making material misstatements or omissions in public
statements related to the Company's manufacturing scaleups and
testing of new equipment.

A substantially identical complaint was filed on January 25, 2023
by another purported Company stockholder.

Following consolidation of the cases and court appointment of two
purported Company stockholder lead plaintiffs, a consolidated
complaint alleging substantially similar claims, including
allegations that the defendants made material misstatements or
omissions in public statements related to testing of new equipment,
was filed on July 7, 2023.

The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest,
fees and costs on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased
and/or acquired shares of the Company or RSVAC's common stock
between June 24, 2021 and January 3, 2023.

The Company and the named officers and directors moved to dismiss
the complaint on September 15, 2023.

Based on currently available information, the Company is unable to
make a reasonable estimate of loss or range of losses, if any,
arising from this matter.

Enovix Corporation designs, develops, manufactures and
commercializes next generation Lithium-ion, or Li-ion, battery
cells.


EXCELL COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Pay Wages Weekly, Martinez Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL MARTINEZ, RAFAEL RODRIGUEZ, TERRENCE BULLARD, SUNGHAI
ANDERSON, RYAN HAMILTON, STEVEN HAYNES, and ANDY ROLLE, on behalf
of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. EXCELL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. and ABEL BARBOSA, Defendants, Case
No. 618753/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty., November 16, 2023) seeks
to recover unpaid wages under the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit as a class action pursuant to
Civil Practice Law and Rules on behalf of themselves and
similarly-situated current and former employees of Defendants who
worked as non-exempt, hourly-paid individuals employed in manual
positions in the state of New York at any time during the period of
July 18, 2016 through September 5, 2022, for violations of the New
York Labor Law and the supporting New York State Department of
Labor regulations.

One of the Plaintiffs, Daniel Martinez, was employed by Defendants
as a fiber optic installation technician from in or about March
2022 until in or about Summer 2023. Throughout the class period,
the Defendants, however, failed to pay Plaintiff Martinez and other
manual workers wages on a weekly basis and not later than seven
calendar days after the end of the week in which the wages were
earned, as required by NYLL. Among other things, the Defendants
also failed to provide Plaintiffs and the Class Members with
accurate wage statements indicating, among other things, their
accurate regular and overtime rates of pay, number of regular and
overtime hours worked, or their correct gross pay, net pay, or
deductions, during each pay period.

Headquartered in Plainview, NY, Excell Communications, Inc. is
engaged in the installation of network infrastructure for the
wireless, fiber and utility industries in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David D. Barnhorn, Esq.
          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC
          490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Telephone: (631) 257-5588

FEDEX GROUND: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that FedEx
Ground Package System, Inc. faces a proposed class action that
claims it has failed to pay hourly employees proper overtime wages
for time spent undergoing COVID and security screenings outside of
each shift.

The nine-page lawsuit was filed by a former employee who alleges
that the company has violated the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act
(PMWA) by failing to pay him the required time-and-a-half rate for
overtime hours worked in excess of 40 in a week.

The suit relays that the plaintiff, a Pennsylvania resident, worked
as a package handler at a FedEx Ground distribution facility from
around January 2020 to September 2023. The man claims he often
worked over 40 hours -- and sometimes over 50 hours -- per week
during various weeks since November 2020.

According to the case, the company required the plaintiff and other
workers to undergo both a COVID and security screening at a
building on the premises before walking to the distribution
warehouse and clocking in to begin each shift. In addition, after
clocking out at the end of each shift, employees were required to
submit to an anti-theft screening outside the warehouse, the
complaint says.

The filing contends that the company failed to pay workers for the
time they spent performing these mandatory pre- and post-shift
duties despite it being considered compensable time under the PMWA.
As such, the plaintiff and other package handlers are owed proper
overtime wages for weeks during which they worked over 40 hours,
the case claims.

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone who, during at least one week
since November 7, 2020, has been employed by FedEx Ground at any
Pennsylvania facility as a package handler, seasonal package
handler or any similar hourly position entailing loading, unloading
and sorting packages, and has been credited with working over 40
hours. [GN]

FINEPOINTS PRIVATE: Faces Bobb Suit Over Labor Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARGARET BOBB, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. FINEPOINTS PRIVATE DUTY HEALTHCARE, LLC and CYNTHIA
KELLER-BEE, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-03129-ADC (D. Md.,
November 16, 2023) arises from the Defendants' willful refusal to
pay Plaintiff's and similarly situated employees' wages, including
overtime and travel-time wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and the Maryland
Wage Payment and Collection Law.

From approximately January 2021 to March 2023, the Defendants
employed Plaintiff to provide in-home care to Defendants' clients.
However, throughout her employment, the Defendants willfully
misclassified Plaintiff and other home care aides as independent
contractors, despite the fact that none of the legal factors within
the applicable six-part test to support this classification.
Through this unlawful practice, Defendants evaded the payment of
wages owed to Plaintiff and others similarly situated under the
FLSA, MWHL and the MWPCL, says the suit.

FinePoints provides home care services to individuals in various
locations throughout Maryland, including Harford County, Baltimore
County, Cecil County and Baltimore City. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Kohrman, Esq.
          Benjamin Davis, Esq.
          AARP FOUNDATION
          601 E Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20049
          Telephone: (202) 434-2064

                   - and -

          David Rodwin, Esq.
          PUBLIC JUSTICE CENTER
          201 North Charles Street, Suite 1200
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 625-9409

FMC CORP: Faces Investor Class Actions Over Misledading SEC Filings
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Hagglund, Esq., of Loeb & Loeb LLP, in an article for
Lexology, disclosed that manufacturers of pharmaceuticals,
biologics, and herbicides, as well as companies in virtually every
industry, routinely make statements in SEC filings, as well as
public statements to investors regarding patent litigation, patent
office invalidation proceedings, patent validity, and market
exclusivity. Many of these statements acknowledge the risk of
adverse decisions finding patents covering a product invalid or not
infringed that could lead to entry of generic or competing products
that can adversely affect financial results and the pendency of
litigation and invalidation proceedings when they are occurring.
Such run-of-the-mine statements rarely lead to investor challenges.
However, despite such disclosures, two investor class action suits,
Heeg v. FMC Corp., No. 2:23-cv-4398 (E.D. Pa. filed Nov. 9, 2023)
and Employer-Local Teamsters Local Nos. 165 & 505 Health & Welfare
Fund v. FMC Corp., No. 2:23-cv-4487 (E.D. Pa. filed Nov. 14, 2023),
have recently been filed against chemical manufacturing company FMC
Corp. alleging that the company misled investors regarding losses
in patent- and exclusivity- related matters in India, China, and
Brazil relating to FMC's flagship diamide insecticides,
specifically chlorantraniliprole and cyantraniliprole, resulting in
trading of FMC stock at inflated prices and losses to investors.

These cases allege that FMC and its executives made a series of
false statements about the status of patent protection for FMC's
diamide products in SEC filings, press releases, and presentations
to the market via securities analysts, money and portfolio
managers, and institutional investors following legal defeats in
India, China, and Brazil that FMC had concealed from investors
resulting in harm to them. The complaints rely in large part on
information compiled and set forth in a research report published
on September 7, 2023 by short activist investment firm Blue Orca
Capital contending that FMC made false statements regarding, and
concealed from investors, that losses in patent litigation and
proceedings allowed competitors to launch competing generic diamide
insecticide products at significantly lower prices than FMC's
products. The report cites to FMC's SEC filings and conference call
transcripts, witness interviews, and documents obtained from India,
China, and Brazil, including foreign language news articles and
documents obtained from courts and regulatory agencies. On the day
the report was published, FMC's stock price fell by approximately
7.4%, representing approximately $630 million in shareholder
losses, and continued to fall over the next two days. FMC has taken
the position that the report contains misleading and factually
inaccurate statements regarding FMC's diamide insecticide patents
and inaccurately speculated on the strength of FMC's business.

For instance, the complaints allege that FMC made false statements
about patent litigation in India against competitor Natco. The
complaints acknowledge that FMC initially obtained an interim
injunction in July 2021 and issued a press release, but state that
in September 2022, the High Court of Delhi vacated the injunction
and found that FMC failed to show infringement. However, on
November 2, 2022, FMC filed a Form 10-Q with the SEC stating that
"[p]atents may be challenged in the courts, as well as in various
administrative proceedings before U.S. or foreign patent offices,
and may be deemed unenforceable, invalidated or circumvented" and
that "an adverse patent enforcement decision which could lead to
the entry of competing chlorantraniliprole products in relevant
markets may materially and adversely impact our financial results."
The complaints contend this statement is false and misleading
because it framed a risk that had already materialized, a loss in a
significant legal matter concerning intellectual property
protections in India, as merely a theoretical possibility. FMC
appealed and lost its appeal in December 2022. The complaints also
allege that FMC separately lost a case in India against GSP Crop
Sciences clearing the way for GSP to introduce a generic
chlorantraniliprole product. Despite these losses, FMC stated in
its Form 10-K filed with the SEC in February 2023 that during 2022
it initiated patent enforcement proceedings against generic
producers and infringers resulting favorable judgments and
settlements, including in India and China and the complaints
contend that FMC's CFO told analysts that it had won infringement
cases in both China and India. The complaint alleges that these
statements were materially false and misleading and failed to
disclose material adverse facts—namely the aforementioned losses
in India. The complaints also allege that FMC made false and
misleading statements concerning patent protection in China as well
as about regulatory proceedings in India.

While the merits of the allegations in the complaints will be
determined during the course of the litigations, these suits
illustrate a cautionary tale for manufacturers and underwriters
alike when it comes to regulatory filings and public statements
regarding patent validity and litigation. Detailed disclosure
regarding various decisions during the course of a litigation is
often unnecessary. However, while the facts of each case are
different, companies run a risk of misleading investors when they
fail to disclose adverse substantive decisions that can result in
increased competition and entry of competitors into the market,
such as those finding invalidity or non-infringement, especially
where the party has publicized earlier favorable decisions. General
statements acknowledging the risk of a patent being found invalid
or not infringed are not likely to insulate a party from potential
liability to investors in such circumstances where the party is
aware of a negative substantive result on infringement or validity
but fails to specifically disclose it as material information is
nonetheless withheld. Where the adverse decision is on appeal, the
better course is to disclose the adverse decision and the appeal,
rather than to rely on a general disclosure of risk, perhaps based
on the thinking that the adverse decision is not final in the sense
that it is not appealable. Moreover, issues of validity and
infringement as well as the significance of various decisions vary
from country to country, so counsel in each jurisdiction where a
patent case is pending should be consulted with respect to both the
decision to disclose and content of any disclosure.

We are short FMC Corporation ("FMC" or the "Company") because FMC
has concealed from investors that it has suffered a recent string
of stunning legal defeats around the globe that have enabled
competitors to now launch competing generics at prices up to 80%
below the price of FMC's flagship insecticide product. Contrary to
the Company's claims, FMC's process patents do not protect its
flagship product from generic competition. The dam has broken. [GN]

FORD MOTOR: Katz Sues Over Defective Vehicle Camera System
----------------------------------------------------------
NANETTE KATZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-04440-MRP (E.D. Pa., Nov. 10, 2023) is a class action
brought under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law, on behalf of the Plaintiff and a proposed class of
Pennsylvania consumers who purchased or leased vehicles designed
and manufactured by Defendant Ford and equipped with a 360-Degree
Camera system.

According to the complaint, Ford designed, manufactured, marketed,
advertised, and sold or leased the affected vehicles to Plaintiff
and the class with a defective 360-Degree Camera system, which
routinely and systematically "glitches" or malfunctions while the
affected vehicles are operating in reverse, resulting in a total
loss of the rear camera image and displaying instead a blank screen
or blue or black image. This defect leaves the vehicle operator
with no operational rear-view camera, and renders the 360-Degree
Camera feature -- an upgraded option for which Plaintiff and the
class paid extra -- effectively useless while reversing, says the
suit.

Moreover, the defective cameras in the affected vehicles are
covered by manufacturer's warranty of Ford, and therefore are
entitled to be repaired or replaced under such warranty. Despite
this, Defendant Ford and its authorized dealerships have refused to
adequately repair or replace the Defective Cameras in the affected
vehicles, the suit asserts.

Ford Motor Company is an American multinational automobile
manufacturer headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
          Shane T. Prince, Esq.
          DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1200
          Philadelphia, PA 19102  
          Telephone: (215) 564-1721
          Facsimile: (215) 564-1759
          E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com
                  sprince@denittislaw.com

               - and -

          Michael E. Criden, Esq.
          Lindsey C. Grossman, Esq.
          CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
          7301 SW 57th Court, Suite 515
          South Miami, FL 33143
          Telephone: (305) 357-9000
          Facsimile: (305) 357-9050  
          E-mail: mcriden@cridenlove.com
                  lgrossman@cridenlove.com

FRONTIER AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over Bogus Baggage Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Pradelli and Cheryl Mettendorf, writing for WPVI, report that
a popular discount airliner that operates out of both Philadelphia
International and Trenton-Mercer airports is accused of misleading
passengers and improperly charging for bags.

The Action News Investigative Team began looking into issues
involving Frontier Airlines and its personal bag fees. Since our
investigation began, a proposed class action lawsuit has been
filed.

The lawsuit and some passengers said gate agents are flagging their
free personal item bags that meet size requirements as oversized
and then charging them a $99 fee.

"It was just embarrassing and just so frustrating," said Monica
Smith of Bucks County.

Smith said she tried to board a Frontier flight to Florida at
Trenton Mercer Airport in April. She had her backpack as her free
personal carry-on item and said it fit in the sizer at the gate.
But a gate agent said it didn't meet the size requirement and she
would have to pay $100 on the spot at the gate.

"I'm in shock. I'm absolutely in shock," she said. "I'm looking at
my bag and I'm looking at her and I'm like, 'No ma'am, no it
clearly fits.'"

Smith said after some back and forth, the Frontier gate agent
called the sheriff.

"The sheriff gives me instructions and he says, 'Listen, just take
pictures of it, I see that it fits,'" she said. "Pay the $100 so
that you can go on your trip."

Smith said that turned out not to be an option. The next thing she
knew, the gate agent shut the boarding door, and she and her
daughter missed the flight.

"She was just determined to make sure that I paid for this bag,"
she added.

On TikTok, the Investigative Team found video threads about
complaints and even hacks to get a personal item bag past the
gate.

"At the end of the day, they lied," said Attorney Mike Mann.

Mann represents nearly a dozen plaintiffs in a proposed class
action lawsuit against Frontier. Smith is not part of the Mann's
lawsuit.

"They said that personal items were a certain size and passengers
were showing up with that bag size, and then getting charged," said
Mann.

The lawsuit accuses the Denver-based airline of not only flagging
properly sized bags but also accuses Frontier of using bag sizes
smaller than the advertised dimension of 14" tall x 18" wide x 8"
long.

Mann also claims Frontier has a quota for flagging personal items.

In exchange, he said Frontier gate agents get a $10 kickback for
every $100 charged.

"We've got people bragging about it," said Mann. "You know, making
a couple thousand bucks just off the commission."

A Frontier Airlines flight attendant spoke to the Investigative
Team on the condition she'd remain anonymous for fear of losing her
job.

"I feel the passengers are being extorted," she said.

She also confirmed the $10 commissions and said flight attendants
like herself have to deal with the fallout from passengers.

"They're crying, they're distraught, they're angry," she said.
"They want to take it out on the next Frontier person."

The Investigative Team flew Frontier from Philadelphia
International Airport. We also witnessed passengers flagged at the
gate and even emptying bags to avoid trying to pay the $99 fee.

"It's not fair," said one passenger to our Investigative Team.
"They flagged my bag but not everyone's. Other people got on with
much larger bags."

A spokesperson for Frontier told us it can't comment on pending
litigation but did not deny the incentive program for gate agents.

In a statement, Frontier said:

"Incentives for our airport customer service agents help ensure
compliance with our policies and that all customers are treated
equally. Most customers pay for their bags in advance, in
accordance with our policies, and we provide multiple reminders and
opportunities to do so at a lower price in advance of departure.
Allowing customers to board without paying would be inequitable to
every other customer who paid for their bags as required."

Frontier has also filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. In legal
filings, the discount airline said it is barred by the carrier
agreement and federal law. [GN]

GODADDY INC: Appealed TCPA Case Remanded
----------------------------------------
GoDaddy Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 3, 2023, that on July 24, 2023, the
en banc 11th Circuit reversed its July 27, 2022 decision and
remanded the appeal for further action.

On January 19, 2021, a single objector to the settlement of certain
class action complaints alleging violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), filed a notice of appeal to the
11th Circuit Court of Appeals. On July 27, 2022, the 11th Circuit
vacated the settlement approval order and remanded the case for
further action due to standing issues among the class members.

On August 18, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a petition for a rehearing
before the 11th Circuit. On December 7, 2022, the 11th Circuit was
notified of the death of one of the plaintiffs, Jason Bennett. On
March 13, 2023, the 11th Circuit granted the plaintiffs' petition
for a rehearing before the 11th Circuit; the rehearing occurred on
June 13, 2023.

GoDaddy Inc. is a publicly traded internet domain registry, domain
registrar and web hosting company headquartered in Tempe, Arizona,
and incorporated in Delaware.


GRUBHUB INC: Jack Tate Alleges Unauthorized Use of Restaurant Names
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JACK TATE d/b/a THE TIN PIG, LLC, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRUBHUB INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-15865 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 10, 2023) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff seeking judgment after (a) finding that
Grubhub has violated the Lanham Act by using restaurant names and
logos without authorization and in a manner likely to confuse
consumers; (b) finding that Grubhub's conduct was deceptive and
unfair; and (c) ordering that Grubhub cease its unlawful conduct,
turn over its ill-gotten gains, and pay damages to the restaurants
it has harmed.

According to the complaint, Grubhub's use of Plaintiff's and
subclass members' registered marks is likely to cause and has in
fact caused customer confusion as to the source of the services
offered through Grubhub's website and mobile apps. Consumers
reasonably believe that Grubhub's use of the restaurants'
trademarks mean the restaurants are working cooperatively with
Grubhub to provide them with accurate, reliable, and timely food
services where in fact names and logos were used without
permission, the suit alleges.

The Plaintiff owns one of the restaurants Grubhub added to its
online platform without permission, and brings this proposed class
action on behalf of more than 150,000 restaurants whose names and
logos were likewise used without permission.

Grubhub Inc. is an American online and mobile prepared food
ordering and delivery platform based in Chicago, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          Kyle J. Pozan, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
                  rapeterson@locklaw.com
                  kjpozan@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Jon Tostrud, Esq.
          Anthony Carter, Esq.
          TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1925 Century Park East Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 278-2600
          Facsimile: (310) 278-2640
          E-mail: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com
                  acarter@tostrudlaw.com

               - and -

          Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
          Blaine Finley, Esq.
          Brendan S. Thompson, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Ave. NW Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          Facsimile: (202) 589-1813
          E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com
                  brendant@cuneolaw.com
                  bfinley@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
          SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD & WEESE, PC
          5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
          West Des Moines, IA 50265
          Telephone: (515) 223-4567
          E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com

HARD ROCK CAFE: Francis Sues Over Breach of Tip Credit Regulations
------------------------------------------------------------------
ZAC FRANCIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HARD ROCK CAFE INTERNATIONAL (STP), INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00760-TSB (S.D. Ohio, November 17,
2023) seeks to address the Defendant's practices and policies that
willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards and the Constitution of
the State of Ohio, Article II, Section 34a.

Plaintiff Zac Francis has been employed by Defendant since
approximately January 2023 as a non-exempt server. He is paid an
hourly rate by Defendant that is less than the federal minimum wage
rate and less than the Ohio minimum wage rate. In addition, the
Defendant took a "tip credit" against Defendant's minimum wage
obligations even it failed to comply the statutory requirements.

Headquartered in Davie, FL, Hard Rock Cafe International owns and
operates a casino, the Hard Rock Casino Cincinnati, and related
restaurants and bars in Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
         Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
         SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
         50 Public Square, Suite 1900
         Cleveland, OH 44113
         Telephone: (216) 912-2221
         Facsimile: (440) 846-1625
         E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
                 rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com

                 - and -

         Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
         SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
         Telephone: (216) 912-2221
         Facsimile: (440) 846-1625
         1925 Pearl Rd., Suite 310
         Strongsville, OH 44136
         E-mail: kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com
               
                 - and -

         Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
         Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
         Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq.
         THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
         The Heritage Building, Suite 250
         34555 Chagrin Boulevard
         Moreland Hills, OH 44022
         Telephone: (216) 696-5000
         Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
         E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
                 lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
                 matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com

                 - and -
         
         Don J. Foty, Esq.
         HODGES & FOTY, LLP
         2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250
         Houston, TX 77046
         Telephone: (713) 523-0001
         Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
         E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com

HAWTHORNE LAB: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Bilbao Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
AXEL BILBAO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HAWTHORNE LAB, INC., Defendant, Case No.
CACE-23-021345 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Nov. 17, 2023) seeks to
stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

Hawthorne Labs is a company engaged in developing mobile software
products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
          Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
          SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
          974 Howard Ave.
          Dunedin, FL 34698
          Telephone: (202) 709-5744
          Facsimile: (866) 893-0416
          Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com
                 shawn@sjlawcollective.com

HEALTH CAROUSEL: Class Certification Bid Due April 1, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NOVIE DALE CARMEN, v.
HEALTH CAROUSEL, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00313-DRC (S.D. Ohio), the
Hon. Judge Douglas R. Cole entered an amended scheduling order as
follows:

             Event                               Date

  1. Class certification fact                  Dec. 22, 2023
     discovery closes

  2. Class certification                       Jan. 15, 2024
     expert disclosures

  3. Class certification                       Feb. 15, 2024
     rebuttal expert disclosures

  4. Class certification expert                March 15, 2024
     discovery closes

  5. Motion for class certification            April 1, 2024
     filed

  6. Dispositive motions filed                 On or before 210
days
                                               following the
Court's
                                               order on class
                                               certification

Health Carousel provides employment services.

A copy of the Court's Amended Scheduling Order dated Nov. 14, 2023
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40NGIlk at no
extra charge.[CC]

HELIX FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Rent-a-Bank Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a
proposed class action claims online lender Helix Financial and its
partner bank have engaged in a "rent-a-bank" scheme whereby they
issue loans with illegal interest rates to Georgia residents.

The 32-page lawsuit alleges that despite state usury law, which
prohibits unlicensed lenders from issuing loans with interest rates
at more than 16 percent, Helix -- operated by defendant Hyphen, LLC
-- and Lead Bank have "brazenly" extended payday loans that are
"plainly unlawful" and regularly have annual percentages rates
(APRs) in excess of 400 percent.

According to the suit, Georgia's Payday Lending Act (PLA)
explicitly prohibits loans for which a "de facto lender" claims to
function as an agent for an exempt financial institution. The case
contends that Helix purports to be a "brand" of its Missouri-based
partner bank -- referring to itself as "Helix by Lead Bank" on its
website -- which the lender says is responsible for issuing and
servicing the loans made to consumers.

However, in reality, the complaint alleges, Helix is an entirely
separate company that handles every material step of the unlawful
loan transactions.

"[A] cursory examination of the true relationship between Helix and
Lead Bank, as well as between Helix and Georgia borrowers,
demonstrate [sic] that Helix is the true lender," the filing
argues. "And, moreover, Helix has plainly employed a scheme,
device, or contrivance -- i.e., its claim that it is a 'brand' of
its partner bank -- in an attempt to evade Georgia's restrictions
on payday lending."

On its website, Helix often refers to itself as a "lender" and
admits that it sets loan application criteria, makes lending
decisions and approves consumers for loans, the lawsuit relays. Per
the suit, the company manages all loan-related customer inquiries,
oversees borrower acquisition, and operates the website.

What's more, as soon as a loan is issued by Lead Bank, the borrower
is immediately informed that it has been transferred to Helix for
servicing, the case adds.

"[T]he bank's brief involvement in each loan transaction is a mere
façade to allow Helix to make blatantly unlawful loans to
consumers," the complaint charges. "This is precisely the sort of
rent-a-bank scheme that the Georgia General Assembly has declared
unlawful."

As the filing tells it, Helix has "jumped around from bank to bank"
in recent years and reportedly switched from using Lead Bank "as a
cover for its scheme" to Kansas-based Kendall Bank in January 2021.
According to the lawsuit, Helix again moved on in September 2022,
this time to its current partner, Missouri's Bank of Orrick.

The plaintiff, a Georgia resident, was issued by the online lender
in December 2019 a $700 loan with an APR of a "whopping" 547
percent, "more than 34 times the legal limit provided under the
PLA," the suit contends.

The case shares that the plaintiff is apparently not alone in her
experience with the lender.

"Helix, with the help of its partner banks, lulled countless
borrowers into believing that they were applying for and receiving
legitimate, lawful loans, only to learn that Helix was the de
facto, and predatory, lender lurking in the shadows," the complaint
claims. "Helix's conduct is plainly governed by, and unlawful
under, the PLA."

The lawsuit looks to represent any Georgia residents who entered
into a loan agreement with Helix Financial with an APR that
exceeded 16 percent. [GN]

INVIVYD INC: Continues to Defend Brill Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Invivyd 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 9, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Brill securities class suit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

On January 31, 2023, a securities class action lawsuit captioned
Brill v. Invivyd, Inc., et. al., Case No. 1:23-CV-10254-LTS, was
filed against the Company and certain of its former officers in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder on the basis of
purportedly materially false and misleading statements and
omissions concerning ADG20’s effectiveness against the Omicron
variant of COVID-19.

The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified damages,
attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other costs. The court appointed
lead plaintiffs for the action on June 28, 2023.


Invivyd, Inc., f/k/a Adagio Therapeutics, Inc., is a
clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company.[BN]


On August 23, 2023, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
that makes allegations similar to those in the original complaint
and asserts the same claims against the same defendants as the
original complaint.

On October 19, 2023, the parties filed a joint stipulation to
advise the court that the lead plaintiffs intend to seek leave to
file a second amended complaint; by November 17, 2023, the parties
will file a stipulation regarding the filing of the proposed second
amended complaint and a briefing schedule for defendants’
response thereto.
The Company believes that is has strong defenses, and it intends to
vigorously defend against this action.

The lawsuit is in early stages, and, at this time, no assessment
can be made as to the likely outcome or whether the outcome will be
material to the Company.
                  



IONQ INC: Continues to Defend Leacock Consolidated Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
IonQ 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 9, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Leacock stockholder class suit in the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland.

In May 2022, a securities class action complaint captioned Leacock
v. IonQ, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:22-cv-01306, was filed by a
stockholder of the Company in the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland (the "Leacock Litigation") against the
Company and certain of the Company's current officers.

In June 2022, a securities class action complaint captioned Fisher
v. IonQ, Inc., Case No. 8:22-cv-01306-DLB (the "Fisher Litigation")
was filed by a stockholder against the Company and certain of the
Company's current officers ("IonQ Defendants").

Both the Leacock Litigation and Fisher Litigation, which have been
consolidated into a single action, allege violations of Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and seek damages.

In September 2022, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs and counsel
for lead plaintiffs, and ordered lead plaintiffs to file a
consolidated amended complaint.

The consolidated amended complaint was filed on November 22, 2022.


As part of the consolidated amended complaint, certain members of
the Company's board of directors as well as other dMY-related
defendants ("Additional Defendants") have been added as defendants
to the case.

On February 7, 2023, the IonQ Defendants and the Additional
Defendants each filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint.

On March 23, 2023, lead plaintiffs filed their omnibus opposition
to the motions to dismiss.

On April 26, 2023, the IonQ Defendants and the Additional
Defendants each filed a reply in support of the motions to dismiss.


On September 29, 2023, the District Court of Maryland issued an
order dismissing plaintiffs' claims against the IonQ Defendants and
the Additional Defendants with prejudice and directed the clerk to
close the case.

On October 26, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
post-judgment relief, seeking to amend their consolidated amended
complaint.

IonQ's response to the plaintiffs' motion will be due on November
9, 2023 and the plaintiffs reply will be due on November 27, 2023.


Both the IonQ Defendants and Additional Defendants believe that the
allegations in the complaints are without merit and intend to
defend the matters vigorously.

IONQ, INC. operates as a computing hardware and software company.
The Company develops a general-purpose trapped ion quantum
computer and software to generate, optimize, and execute quantum
circuits. [BN]


JACK CLEVELAND: Prime Seeks Proper Wages for Tipped Employees
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAWN M. PRIME, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JACK CLEVELAND CASINO LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:23-cv-02216 (N.D. Ohio, November 15, 2023) asserts claims
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

From approximately November 2014 through the present, the Plaintiff
has been employed by Defendant at its casino property located at
100 Public Square, Cleveland, OH. During her employment, Plaintiff
has worked as a table games dealer, which is a tipped, hourly,
non-exempt position. Allegedly, the Defendant paid Plaintiff other
similarly situated tipped employees a sub-minimum direct cash wage
but failed to properly notify them of the tip credit requirements
of the FLSA, says the suit.

Jack Cleveland is a Delaware limited liability company that
operates a casino property located in Cleveland, OH. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Drew Legando, Esq.
         MERRIMAN LEGANDO WILLIAMS & KLANG LLC
         1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
         Cleveland, OH 44113
         Telephone: (216) 522-9000
         Facsimile: (216) 522-9007
         E-mail: drew@merrimanlegal.com

                 - and -

         George A. Hanson, Esq.
         Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
         STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
         460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
         Kansas City, MO 64112
         Telephone: (816) 714-7100
         Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
         E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
                 ricke@stuevesiegel.com

                 - and -

         Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
         McCLELLAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
         The Flagship Building
         200 Westwoods Drive
         Liberty, MO 64068
         Telephone: (816) 781-0002
         Facsimile: (816) 781-1984
         E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Class Action Over Cold Medications
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ozten Shebahkeget, writing for CBC News, reports that a Winnipeg
nurse is seeking class-action status for her lawsuit against
several top drug companies, accusing them of profiting for decades
by marketing non-prescription oral decongestant medications
containing an active ingredient that several studies have found
ineffective.

Barb Eori's lawsuit claims nearly 50 years of alleged negligent
misrepresentation of the drug phenylephrine as an effective
pill-form nasal decongestant, breaching the Food and Drugs Act and
several consumer protection and/or business practice laws.

The companies named in the suit, filed with Manitoba Court of
King's Bench on Nov. 10, are Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer Canada,
Procter & Gamble and GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare.

All four are connected with 24 over-the-counter medications
containing phenylephrine as the only active ingredient with an
alleged decongesting effect, the suit says -- including many
commonly used cold medications like types of Benylin, NeoCitran and
Tylenol.

None of the allegations have been proven in court. Statements of
defence have not been filed.

Phenylephrine became the main ingredient in non-prescription
decongestants in the U.S. after the drug pseudoephedrine was
restricted in 2006 because it can be illegally processed into
methamphetamine.

In September, a panel of 16 external advisers to the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration voted unanimously that phenylephrine is
ineffective as a decongestant when taken in pill form.

The FDA's expert advisers came to that conclusion after finding
that only trace levels of the drug reach nasal passages to relieve
congestion when taken orally.

The drug appears to work better when applied nasally, whether by
sprays or drops, and those products are not under review in the
U.S.

Companies 'made billions': suit
The September decision supported the conclusions of an earlier FDA
scientific review that found numerous flaws in studies from the
1960s and 1970s that supported phenylephrine's original approval.
Regulators said those studies used statistical and research
techniques no longer accepted by the agency.

The medications currently marketed in Canada as nasal congestion
treatments named in the suit are:

-- Benylin Extra Strength Cold & Sinus Day.
-- Benylin D For Infants.
-- The Contac products Cold Nasal Congestion, Cold & Sinus Extra
Strength, Cold & Sinus Hot Medicated Drink, Extra Strength Cold &
Sinus Hot Medicated Drink and Super Strength Cold & Sinus Hot
Medicated Drink.
-- Dayquil Cold & Flu and Sinus Liquicaps products.
-- The NeoCitran products Extra Strength Cold & Congestion and
Extra Strength Total Cold.
-- Robitussin Complete Daytime.
-- Sudafed PE Extra Strength.
-- Triaminic Thin Strips Cold & Cough, Nasal Congestion and
Nighttime Cold & Cough products.
-- Tylenol's Cold and Flu Daytime, Cold Rapid Release, Extra
Strength Cold Daytime, Extra Strength Flu Daytime, Extra Strength
Sinus Daytime, Regular Strength Cold Daytime, Regular Strength
Sinus Daytime and Sinus Liquicaps products.
-- Vicks's Custom Care Nasal Congestion and Sinex Pressure & Pain
products.

Eori, who has worked as a nurse for 33 years, purchased some of the
drugs mentioned for herself and her family more than eight times
per year under the impression that they would be sufficient to
treat nasal congestion, the suit says.

"The defendants have made billions of dollars selling drugs with
phenylephrine and marketing them as decongestants," it alleges.

"None of those products ever worked as a decongestant," the suit
claims, referring to the FDA's September decision. "She would not
have bought these products if she knew that they did not work when
taken orally."

Louis Sokolov, one of the lawyers for the suit, said some of the
medications continue to be sold in Canada.

"While the losses by individual consumers may be relatively modest,
the scale of this case is large, given the popularity of the
products and the amount of time that they were sold for," Sokolov
said in a statement.

Class action
Over the years, several studies have questioned the benefits of
phenylephrine, finding it no better than a placebo in trials.

But the suit says through prominent claims displayed on packaging
and public websites, the companies knowingly or recklessly led
consumers, wholesalers, retailers and distributors to believe
phenylephrine works as an oral decongestant.

That continued after the FDA released its September decision, which
was information that consumers "could not have reasonably
discovered" before then, according to the suit.

The companies "actively, intentionally and fraudulently concealed
the fact that phenylephrine does not work as an oral decongestant"
in order to increase sales, continue to charge prices reflecting
its efficacy as an oral decongestant, and protect their
reputations, the suit says.

Eori's lawsuit requests class-action certification so people in
several Canadian provinces (a subclass is identified for each
province except New Brunswick and Nova Scotia) can receive either
all or part of the money they paid for the alleged ineffective
medications, which it says they are entitled to as damages.

Representatives from Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline told CBC News that
they have not sold the mentioned products since 2019, as both of
their consumer health-care businesses demerged into Haleon.

Haleon did not respond to requests for comment prior to
publication.

Representatives for Johnson & Johnson and Procter & Gamble did not
provide comment on the suit. [GN]

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Wilson Class Action Lawsuit in D.N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER, INC. et al. The case is captioned as WILSON v. JOHNSON &
JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC. et al, Case No. 2:23-cv-21276-EP-ESK
(D.N.J., Oct. 19, 2023).

The nature of suit states Diversity-Contract Default.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Evelyn Padin.

Johnson researches, develops, manufactures, and sells
pharmaceutical products, medical devices, and consumer
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff Andrea Wilson On behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

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

KENVUE INC: Autrey Sues Over Misleading IPO Registration Statement
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT JAMES AUTREY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KENVUE INC., JOHNSON & JOHNSON,
THIBAUT MONGON, PAUL RUH, and HEATHER HOWLETT, Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-22435 (D.N.J., November 16, 2023) alleges violations of the
U.S. Securities Act of 1933.

Plaintiff Autrey brings this securities class action on behalf of
all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Kenvue securities pursuant and/or traceable to
the registration statement and related prospectus issued in
connection with Kenvue's initial public offering and suffered
compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the law.

Kenvue was previously the consumer health division of Johnson &
Johnson, and the IPO of that division as a standalone company was
predicated on it and its products being viable. However, the
registration statement did not warn about the commercial viability
of products containing phenylephrine (phenylephrine or PE), which
was being investigated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) over the purported inefficacy of PE. Soon after the IPO, an
FDA panel unanimously voted to declare oral formulations of PE
ineffective for relieving nasal congestion and published its
findings in a document called "Efficacy of Oral Phenylephrine as a
Nasal Decongestant". In May 2023, Defendants held the IPO, offering
approximately 171,812,560 shares of Kenvue common stock to the
investing public at $22.00 per share. By the commencement of the
class action, Kenvue's shares trade below its IPO price, causing
the investors to suffer damages, says the suit.

Kenvue describes itself as the "world's largest pure-play consumer
health company by revenue with $15.0 billion in net sales in 2022."
Its brands include Tylenol, Neutrogena, Listerine, Johnson’s,
Band-Aid, Aveeno, Zyrtec and Nicorette. The company's common stock
trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol
"KVUE." [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

KENVUE INC: Faces Securities Class Action Over IPO
--------------------------------------------------
Law.com reports that Kenvue, the former consumer health division of
Johnson & Johnson and the proprietor of well-known brands such as
Band-Aid, Benadryl and Tylenol, was named in a federal putative
securities class action over the company's initial public offering.
The plaintiff alleged that the registration statement for the IPO
did not warn purchasers of the commercial viability of products
containing phenylephrine, which is used in over-the-counter cold
medicines, or that it was under investigation in connection with
the product's efficacy by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
[GN]

KOS INC: Barnes and Menkowitz Sue Over False Ads of Protein Powders
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CATHERINE BARNES and ELIZABETH MENKOWITZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KOS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 7:23-cv-10104 (S.D.N.Y., November 16, 2023)
alleges claims against the Defendants for breach of warranty,
breach of implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment,
and for violations of the New York General Business Law in
connection with the deceptive marketing of protein powder
products.

The Defendant marketed and advertised these products as "wellness"
and "superfood" products that are "nature-powered" and "organic."
However, an independent laboratory testing revealed that these
products contain dangerous levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (also known as "forever chemicals"), which are not safe
for humans. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and Class Members suffered
economic injuries as a result of purchasing these products, says
the suit.

Headquartered in Santa Barbara, CA, KOS is a supplement company
that manufactures, markets, and distributes plant protein powders.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
         Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
         Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.  
         1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
         New York, NY 10019
         Telephone: (646) 837-7150
         Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
         E-mail: jarisohn@bursor.com
                 pfraietta@bursor.com
                 aleslie@bursor.com

LI-CYCLE HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Due Jan. 8
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming January 8, 2024 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Li-Cycle Holdings Corp. ("Li-Cycle" or the
"Company") (NYSE: LICY) securities between June 14, 2022 and
October 23, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you suffered a loss on your Li-Cycle investments or would like
to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/Li-Cycle-Holdings-Corp-1/.
You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.

On October 23, 2023, before the market opened, Li-Cycle announced
that it would halt construction work on its Rochester Hub project
pending a comprehensive review of the project including
construction strategy, even though "engineering and procurement for
the project are largely complete." The Company disclosed it had
"recently experienced escalating construction costs" and now
"expects the aggregate cost for the current scope of the project to
exceed its previously disclosed guidance."

On this news, Li-Cycle shares declined by $1.04, or approximately
45.81%, to close at $1.23 per share on October 23, 2023, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company's Rochester Hub was experiencing
escalating construction costs; (2) that these "escalating
construction costs" exceeded the expected aggregate cost of the
project; (3) that, as a result, the Company would be forced to
temporarily halt construction and reevaluate the construction
strategy for the Rochester Hub; and (4) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Li-Cycle securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than January 8,
2024 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative
class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class
action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if
you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit,
please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

Contacts:

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com [GN]

LINCARE INC: Cowan Allowed Leave to File Reply Brief in Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cowan v. Lincare Inc.,
Case No. 8:23-cv-01690 (M.D. Fla., Filed July 28, 2023), the Hon.
Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywel entered an order granting the
Plaintiff's unopposed motion for leave to file reply brief.

The Plaintiff may file a reply in support of her motion for
conditional class certification within seven days of the date of
this Order.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Lincare provides healthcare equipment. The Company offers
respiratory care, infusion therapy, and medical equipment to
patients.[CC]

LOANDEPOT INC: Initial OK of Settlement in Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
LoanDepot, 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 9, 2023, that the consolidated
class suits preliminary settlement approval is pending in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.

Beginning in September 2021, two putative class action lawsuits
were filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California asserting claims under the U.S. securities
laws against the Company, certain of its directors, and certain of
its officers regarding certain disclosures made in connection with
the Company's IPO.

The two actions were consolidated in May 2022.

A consolidated amended complaint was filed in June 2022, which, in
addition to challenging disclosures made in connection with the
IPO, alleges that certain disclosures made after the IPO were false
and/or misleading.

The Company's motion to dismiss was filed on August 24, 2022.

On January 24, 2023, the Court granted, in part, and denied, in
part, the Company's motion to dismiss.

The Company's answer to the consolidated amended complaint was
filed on March 3, 2023.

On June 26, 2023, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle the action.

On July 26, 2023, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement with the Court, which is pending
approval.

LoanDepot Inc. is an Irvine, California-based nonbank holding
company which sells mortgage and non-mortgage lending products.



LOS ANGELES, CA: Legarda Sues Over Delayed Payment of OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN LEGARDA, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-09516 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 10,
2023) is a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act seeking recovery for violations of the overtime provisions as a
result of Defendant's actions in not compensating Plaintiff and
collective action members their banked overtime compensation on or
before the next payday after their separation of employment with
the Defendants.

The Plaintiff retired from employment with the City of Los Angeles
as a "non-sworn," "civilian" employee on or about June 4, 2022.
During her employment, Plaintiff "banked" significant overtime
compensation for overtime hours worked. This banked overtime
constitutes back overtime wages and was due and payable in her
final regular paycheck after resignation or retirement, but
Plaintiff did not receive the money owed in that pay period or even
in the following pay period, or the pay period after that. Indeed,
the time in which Defendant delayed in paying the overtime due to
her was four pay periods, or seven and a half weeks after her date
of retirement, says the Plaintiff.

City of Los Angeles is a political subdivision of the State of
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew F. Archbold, Esq.
          David D. Deason, Esq.
          DEASON & ARCHBOLD
          17011 Beach Blvd., Suite 900
          Huntington Beach, CA 92647
          Telephone: (949) 794-9560
          E-mail: matthew@yourlaborlawyers.com
                  david@yourlaborlawyers.com

LUMINAR TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Johnson Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Luminar 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 8, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Johnson class suit in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida.

On May 26, 2023, a putative class action styled Johnson v. Luminar
Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:23-cv-00982-PGB-LHP, was
filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Florida, against the Company and an employee.

The suit asserts purported claims on behalf of purchasers of the
Company’s securities between February 28, 2023 and March 17, 2023
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act for allegedly
misleading statements regarding the Company’s photonic integrated
circuits technology.

The Company disputes the allegations in the complaint and intends
to vigorously defend the litigation.

Luminar Technologies, Inc. is a global automotive technology
company into vehicle safety and autonomy.


MASS GENERAL: Sued Over Potential Hepatitis, HIV Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------
Tori Whitacre Martonicz, writing for Infection Control Today,
reports that Mass General Brigham and Salem Hospital face a class
action lawsuit over potential hepatitis and HIV exposure to
hundreds of patients. The lawsuit alleges negligence and emotional
distress, with the hospital claiming a minimal infection risk.

Massachusetts General Brigham and its facility, Salem Hospital, are
facing a class action lawsuit after hundreds of patients were
potentially exposed to hepatitis and HIV during routine care. The
lawsuit, filed on behalf of endoscopy patient Melinda Cashman, who
was among the up to 450 patients that may have been exposed to the
viruses between June 2021 and April 2023.

While there is no evidence that any infections resulted from the
exposures, Cashman's lawyers alleged the health system acted
negligently, leading to her suffering "extreme anxiety and
emotional distress and decreased quality of life."

Salem Hospital in Massachusetts sent out warning letters to 450
endoscopy patients, informing them of possible exposure to HIV and
hepatitis due to incorrectly administered IVs. Following this, a
class-action lawsuit has been initiated against the hospital, as
well as Mass General Brigham, headquartered in Somerville,
Massachusetts, and involving 10 hospital employees, as reported by
USA Today on November 20.

The hospital notified possibly impacted patients earlier this month
after the facility was made aware earlier this year of an "isolated
practice" that could have led to viral transmission. Massachusetts
General Brigham stated, "Once identified, the practice was
immediately corrected, and the hospital's quality and infection
control teams were notified." Patients were potentially exposed
after intravenous medication was administered "in a manner not
consistent with our best practice."

In the lawsuit filed in Suffolk County Superior Court, Cashman's
attorneys seek monetary damages for the health system's negligence,
claiming that their client and patients like her sustained "severe
and permanent emotional distress" as a result of the incident. They
argue that she and others impacted may experience disruptions to
relationships, increased medical bills, and a new need for
significant mental health treatment.

Massachusetts General Brigham is also working with the
Massachusetts Department of Public Health, which will conduct an
onsite investigation into Salem's quality control practices.
Potentially impacted patients can call a clinician-staffed hotline
with questions and receive free screening for the viruses.

Salem Hospital said in a statement that the infection risk is
"extremely small," and so far, no infections have been reported.

The lawsuit is seeking a jury trial.

A spokesperson from Massachusetts General Brigham informed the AP
that they are conducting standard tests for Hepatitis B, Hepatitis
C, and HIV in response to the potential exposure incident. [GN]

MDL 3076: 8 Suits Consolidated in S.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------
In "In re: FTX Cryptocurrency Exchange Collapse Litigation," MDL
No. 3076, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers 8 cases cases,
consisting of 5 cases from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California; and 3 cases from the Southern District of
Florida, all to the Southern District of Florida and, with the
consent of that court, assigned to Honorable K. Michael Moore for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

According to the panel, the actions undoubtedly involve several
non-overlapping defendants and raise defendant-specific issues. But
they all rest on the same core set of facts concerning the alleged
fraud that led to FTX's collapse and, in particular, revolve around
the conduct of FTX's Samuel Bankman-Fried, the relationship with
another Bankman-Fried company known as Alameda Research, and
Alameda's Caroline Ellison. Indeed, Bankman-Fried and Ellison are
defendants in seven of the eight actions on the motion, and are
central figures in all of the related actions before the Panel.
Moreover, all actions on the motion allege that there was a
conspiracy between Bankman-Fried and other alleged FTX insiders to
make misrepresentations to consumers and investors to induce them
to invest in FTX products and use the FTX exchange. This common
factual core warrants centralization despite the involvement of a
number of different defendants.

The panel further held that informal coordination is not an
adequate alternative to centralization. Although the actions in the
Northern District of California are in the process of being
organized into three tracks, there are still seven distinct groups
of non-overlapping plaintiffs' counsel pursuing claims in this
litigation, including potential tag-along actions, on behalf of
putative global and nationwide classes. Additionally, dozens of
defendants are involved, with little overlap in their counsel. The
large number of plaintiffs' and defense counsel will pose serious
obstacles to informal coordination. Inefficiencies also will arise
from having to coordinate these unusually complex actions involving
novel cryptocurrency issues with the related criminal case in the
Southern District of New York and the bankruptcy case in the
District of Delaware. Moreover, informal coordination does not
address the possibility of inconsistent rulings on Daubert and
class certification issues.

Accordingly, the Southern District of Florida is an appropriate
transferee district for this litigation, the panel ruled. A
significant part of FTX's conduct allegedly emanated from this
district, where it had its U.S. headquarters before filing for
bankruptcy. This district also provides an easily accessible
location for this nationwide litigation.

A full-text copy of the court's October 4, 2023 order is available
at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3076-Transfer_Order-5-23.pdf


MGM RESORTS: Fails to Secure Customers' Personal Info, Bezak Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES BEZAK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL, Case No.
2:23-cv-01719-RFB-BNW (D. Nev., Oct. 20, 2023) sues MGM for its
failure to properly secure its customers' sensitive personally
identifiable information and failure to comply with industry
standards to protect information systems that contain PII.

According to the complaint, despite MGM's duty to safeguard the PII
of its customers, MGM suffered a large scale cyberattack on or
about September 11, 2023, during which cybercriminals caused
widespread disruption across Defendant's properties, shutting down
ATMs and slot machines, and pulling the company's  website and
online booking systems offline.

On October 5, 2023, MGM admitted that the cybercriminals
responsible for the cyberattack had also exfiltrated customer PII
from Defendant's computer systems. Based on MGM's public statements
to date, a wide variety of customer PII was implicated in the
breach, including names, contact information, gender, dates of
birth, and driver's license numbers, and, for some customers, their
Social Security numbers and passport details, the suit says.

The Plaintiff and Class Members are now at increased and impending
risk of fraud, identity theft, and similar forms of criminal
mischief, which risk may last for the rest of their lives.
Consequently, the Plaintiff and Class Members must devote
substantially more time, energy, and money to protect themselves,
to the extent possible, from these crimes, the suit adds.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, alleges claims for negligence, breach of implied
contract, unjust enrichment, violations of the Nevada Consumer
Fraud Act, and declaratory judgment. The Plaintiff seeks damages
and injunctive relief, including the adoption of reasonably
sufficient practices to safeguard PII in the Defendant's custody in
order to prevent incidents like the Data Breach from reoccurring in
the future and for MGM to provide identity theft protective
services to the Plaintiff and Class Members for their lifetime.

Mr. Bezak is a citizen and resident of the State of Nevada. He
received a notification email from MGM informing him that his PII
in the Defendant's possession had been compromised in the Data
Breach.

MGM is a global gaming and entertainment company with national and
international locations featuring best-in-class hotels and casinos,
state-of-the-art meetings and conference spaces, incredible live
and theatrical entertainment experiences, and an extensive array of
restaurant, nightlife and retail offerings.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark J. Bourassa, Esq.
          Jennifer A. Fornetti, Esq.
          Valerie S. Gray, Esq.
          THE BOURASSA LAW GROUP
          2350 W. Charleston Blvd., Suite 100
          Las Vegas, NV 89102
          Telephone: (702) 851-2180
          Facsimile: (702) 851-2189
          E-mail: mbourassa@blgwins.com
                  jfornetti@blgwins.com
                  vgray@blgwins.com

                - and -

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Patrick D. Donathen, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
                  patrick@lcllp.com

MR. COOPER: Randall Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
NANCY RANDALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MR. COOPER GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-02507-D (N.D. Tex., Nov. 10, 2023) is a consumer class
action lawsuit brought by Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, who entrusted Defendant to safeguard
their personally identifiable information which includes, without
limitation, names, addresses, Social Security numbers and dates of
birth.

According to the complaint, the Defendant experienced a data
security incident purportedly discovered by Defendant on October
31, 2023, in which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's
inadequately protected network servers and accessed highly
sensitive PII that was being kept unprotected. As a result, an
unauthorized party accessed certain files and folders within the
Defendant's systems and may have viewed, acquired, and/or
exfiltrated data containing affected parties' PII.  As a result of
Defendant's failure to implement and follow basic security
procedures, Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII is now in the hands
of criminals. The Plaintiff and Class Members now and will forever
face a substantial increased risk of identity theft, says the
suit.

Accordingly, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, alleges claims for negligence and negligence
per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment,
injunctive/declaratory relief and violation of Washington Consumer
Protection Act.

Plaintiff Randall, who lives in Deer Park, Washington, holds a
mortgage that is serviced by Defendant.

MR. Cooper Group, Inc. engages in the provision of residential loan
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 744-3000
          Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
          E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com

               - and -

          Kenneth Grunfeld, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A.
          65 Overhill Road
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com

NAHON & SAHAROVICH: Faces Garbarino Class Action Suit in E.D. Mo.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nahon, Saharovich, &
Trotz, PLC. The case is captioned as Garbarino v. Nahon,
Saharovich, & Trotz, PLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-01326-JMB (E.D. Mo.,
Oct. 20, 2023).

The nature of suit states Diversity-Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John M. Bodenhausen.

Nahon is a law firm. The Firm's practice areas include products
liability, workers' compensation, and medical malpractice law.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laura Grace Van Note, Esq.
          COLE AND VAN NOTE
          555 12th Street, Suite 2100
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 891-9800
          E-mail: lvn@colevannote.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Chadwick Aaron McTighe, Esq.
          STITES AND HARBISON PLLC
          400 W. Market Street, Suite 1800
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 587-5400
          Facsimile: (502) 587-6391
          E-mail: cmctighe@stites.com

NAPCO SECURITY: Continues to Defend Zornberg Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
NAPCO Security 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 9, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from Zornberg securities fraud
class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.

On August 18, 2023, the Company announced that it would be
restating its financial statements for the quarters ending
September 30, 2022, December 31, 2022 and March 31, 2023.

Following this announcement, on August 29, 2023, a purported class
action, brought on behalf of a putative class who acquired publicly
traded NAPCO securities between November 7, 2022 and August 18,
2023, was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York against the Company, its Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer.

The action, captioned Zornberg v. Napco Security Technologies, Inc.
et al., asserts securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with
statements made in the Company's quarterly reports and earnings
releases during the period of November 7, 2022 through May 8, 2023.


On October 30, 2023, five plaintiffs filed applications to be lead
plaintiff in the action.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the action.


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Sued Over TV Revenue Earned by Networks
------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Warwick, writing for CBS News, reports that former Colorado
University running back Alex Fontenot has filed a class-action
federal lawsuit against the NCAA and the Power Five conferences,
seeking part of the television revenue earned by networks be split
among college football players.

Fontenot claims that television networks enjoy "ever-increasing"
revenue from college football and basketball broadcasts, but that
the athletes are entitled to receive a substantial portion of the
revenue, given that it is brought in by the athletes' labor.
Fontenot played for the Buffs between 2017 and 2022.

He has filed a class action lawsuit against the NCAA, SEC, Pac-12
Conference, Big Ten, Big 12, and ACC. The suit claims networks have
signed broadcast rights contracts worth billions of dollars, and
that revenues have increased by 90% in recent years, with even more
growth expected in the coming years.

Fontenot's claim is that for many college athletes, their four to
five years on campus is their only opportunity to earn compensation
for their athletic skills, since only a handful will be able to
pursue a professional career.

The NCAA has a rule that prevents student athletes from receiving
any portion of the television revenue deals. The suit aims to
change that rule.

The suit claims that athletes in other leagues, such as the NFL,
NBA, and European soccer leagues, players receive 50-60% revenue,
but that the NCAA operates "as a cartel that fixes wages (which is)
a classic antitrust violation.," and that the NCAA president made
nearly $3 million last year in wages. [GN]

NATIONAL VISION: Continues to Defend Southfield Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
National Vision Holdings 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 9, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the City of Southfield
General Employees securities class suit in the Northern District of
Georgia.

On January 27, 2023, a purported class action complaint was filed
in federal court in the Northern District of Georgia against the
Company and two of the Company's officers.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 for materially false and misleading
statements made between May 2021 and May 2022.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages as well as equitable
relief.

On March 28, 2023, the original plaintiff, City of Southfield
General Employees Retirement System, and a new plaintiff,
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 793, Members
Pension Benefit Trust of Ontario, filed a lead plaintiff motion,
seeking to be appointed co-lead plaintiffs.

On April 3, 2023, the Company along with its named officers filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint.

On May 19, 2023, the court granted the lead plaintiff motion.

On June 30, 2023, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, which
added a claim under Section 20A of the Exchange Act and extended
the alleged class period to February 28, 2023.

On August 21, 2023, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Amended Complaint.

The plaintiffs filed their Response in Opposition to this motion on
October 5, 2023.

THE Company disputes these allegations and intends to defend the
litigation vigorously.

National Vision Holdings, Inc. is an optical retailer,
Headquartered in Duluth, Georgia. [BN]


NATURE'S BOUNTY: Challenges "Fish Oil" Product Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nika Schoonover, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
the vitamin and nutritional supplement company Nature's Bounty
defended its "fish oil" product in the Second Circuit on Nov. 21
after consumers claimed the company misled them by advertising the
product as fish oil, when it is in fact a synthetic Omega-3
product.

Mashon Baines and Nancy Froning, the named plaintiffs in the class
action, said the product doesn't follow the basic process in which
fish oil is made: Small, oily fish are "caught, cooked, pressed,
bleached and deodorized before being encapsulated and bottled."

"The process begins with raw material, fish, and ends with crude
fish oil," plaintiff attorney Michael Braun of Kuzyk Law wrote in
his brief.

Nature Bounty's supplements, on the other hand, are made in an
intense chemical process where an industrial solvent is used to
transform fish oil by breaking its molecular bonds, Braun argued;
the resulting product is synthetic because it is a fatty acid ethyl
ester, which is produced by reacting crude fish oil in a free fatty
acid form with ethanol.

"I don't see how a reasonable consumer wouldn't be deceived…
There's nothing more important than the statement of identity,"
Braun said during oral arguments on Nov. 21. "Fish oil is not an
Omega-3 and it's certainly not a synthetic Omega-3."

The plaintiffs appealed after a judge in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York dismissed the case, concluding
that the product labeling wasn't misleading because fish oil is the
common name for the Nature's Bounty products.

In front of the Second Circuit panel, Nature's Bounty's lawyers
argued that products have to be processed in the way that maximizes
their health benefits.

"The product is processed in a way that maximizes the Omega-3 fatty
acids, the part of the fish oil that provides the health benefits
to the consumer and eliminates impurities like mercury, which is
toxic to human beings," said attorney William Delgado of DTO Law.

U.S. Circuit Judge Amalya L. Kearse, a Jimmy Carter appointee, took
a philosophical approach to the arguments and pondered when
processing a product changes it into a new product.

"At what point does something become something else?" Kearse
asked.

Delgado pointed to the lower court's decision in response to
Kearse's question, saying a reasonable consumer wouldn't make any
distinction between the various ways fish oil is processed.

"The reasonable consumer simply does not know enough about the fish
oil processing world to have that understanding as the district
court pointed out," Delgado said.

Braun disagreed.

"Substantial transformation is not philosophical, with all due
respect, Your Honor. It is very real," he said. "Just like we have
an apple: It's not apple cider, it's not apple vinegar, it's not an
apple extract and it's not an apple oil."

Judge Kearse was joined by U.S. Circuit Court Judges Alison J.
Nathan, a Joe Biden appointee, and Guido Calabresi, a Bill Clinton
appointee. Calabresi joined the proceeding over Zoom. [GN]

NAVISTAR INC: Shaw Sues Over Unfair Meal Break Policy
-----------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Shaw, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Navistar, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-16070 (N.D. Ill., November 17, 2023) arises under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and
the Ohio Prompt Pay Act for Navistar's failure to pay Plaintiff and
other similarly-situated employees all earned minimum and overtime
wages.

The Plaintiff was employed by Navistar as a material handler from
on or about October, 2016 to on or about September, 2023.
Throughout her employment, Plaintiff was subjected to the
Navistar's meal policy that automatically deducts a 30-minute meal
break for each and every shift worked by Plaintiff. Navistar made
this automatic 30-minute deduction from Plaintiff's pay regardless
of whether they were actually permitted to take a meal break,
regardless of whether they were permitted to take a full 30-minute
meal break, and regardless of whether they were completely relieved
from duty for thirty-minutes, says the Plaintiff.

Headquartered in Lisle, IL, Navistar, among other things, produces
commercial trucks, buses, engines, and other parts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
         8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104
         Skokie, IL 60076
         Telephone: (847) 986-5889
         Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
         E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com

                 - and -

         James L. Simon, Esq.
         SIMON LAW CO.
         5000 Rockside Road
         Liberty Plaza - Suite 520
         Independence, OH 44131
         Telephone: (216) 816-8696
         E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com

NESTLE PURINA: Kueck and Silver Sue Over Pet Food's False Labeling
------------------------------------------------------------------
FRED KUECK and JASEN SILVER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NESTLE PURINA PETCARE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-05962-JST (N.D. Cal., November
17, 2023) asserts claims against the Defendant for fraud,
fraudulent omission or concealment, unjust enrichment, and for
violations of the California's Unfair Competition Law, the
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and the California's False
Advertising Law.

The case arises from the Defendant's misrepresentations concerning
the Purina-branded pet food, which are labeled as healthy for
consumption and do not expose pets to heightened health risks.
However, the product's packaging contains per-and polyfluoroalkyl
substances, which are synthetic chemicals that pose undue health
risks, even at low levels, says the suit.

Headquartered in Saint Louis, MO, Nestle Purina Petcare Company
manufactures and markets pet foods, treats and dog litter. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
         Emily A. Horne, Esq.
         1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
         Walnut Creek, CA 94596
         Telephone: (925) 300-4455
         Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
         E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                 ehorne@bursor.com

NEWARK GROUP: Antitrust Suit Hearing Set for July 2025
------------------------------------------------------
Newark 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 9, 2023, that the
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware set trial for
antitrust violation class suit in July 2025.

On March 9, 2023, a purported class action complaint was filed
against Cantor, BGC Holdings, and Newmark Holdings in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware (Civil Action No.
1:23-cv-00265).

The collective action, which was filed by seven former limited
partners on their own behalf and on behalf of other similarly
situated limited partners, alleges a claim for breach of contract
against all defendants on the basis that the defendants failed to
make payments due under the relevant partnership agreements.

Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that the non-compete and
economic forfeiture provisions upon which the defendants relied to
deny payment are unenforceable under Delaware law.

The plaintiffs allege a second claim against Cantor and BGC
Holdings for antitrust violations under the Sherman Antitrust Act
of 1890, as amended, on the basis that the Cantor and BGC Holdings
partnership agreements constitute unreasonable restraints of trade.


In that regard, the plaintiffs allege that the non-compete and
economic forfeiture provisions of the Cantor and BGC Holdings
partnership agreements, as well as restrictive covenants included
in partner separation agreements, cause anticompetitive effects in
the labor market, insulate Cantor and BGC Holdings from
competition, and limit innovation.

The plaintiffs seek a determination that the case may be maintained
as a class action, an injunction prohibiting the allegedly
anticompetitive conduct, and monetary damages of at least
$5,000,000.

The Company believes the lawsuit has no merit.

However, as with any litigation, the outcome cannot be determined
with certainty.

Defendants filed their answer to the consolidated complaint on
March 17, 2023.

The discovery phase of the case is underway.

Trial is scheduled for July 2025.


NORTHWELL HEALTH: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Belov Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANATOLI BELOV; IRINA BELOVA; and ERYN KAPLAN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NORTHWELL
HEALTH, INC.; and PERRY JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 2:23-cv-08583 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 17, 2023) is a class action
arising out of the recent targeted cyberattack and a data breach
that began as early as March 27, 2023 and lasted until May 2, 2023,
where third-party criminals retrieved and exfiltrated personal data
from PJ&A's network resulting in unauthorized access to highly
sensitive medical and personal data of Plaintiffs and the Class.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants failed
to properly monitor the computer network and IT systems that housed
the Private Information of the Plaintiff and the Class. The
Defendants failed to timely detect and report the Data Breach, and
to timely notify affected consumers, including the Plaintiffs and
Class Members, which made the Plaintiffs and Class Members
vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings that they needed
to act to prevent unauthorized use of their Private Information.

As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiffs and Class Members
face a substantial risk of imminent and certainly impending harm.
The Plaintiffs and Class Members have and will continue to suffer
injuries associated with this risk, including but not limited to a
loss of time, mitigation expenses and anxiety over the misuse of
their Private Information, says the suit.

Northwell Health, Inc. operates as a non-profit organization. The
Organization offers rehabilitation and nursing facilities,
ambulatory and urgent care centers, hospice care networks, and home
health services. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James J. Bilsborrow, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC
          700 Broadway
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 558-5500
          Email: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com

               - and -

          David S. Almeida, Esq.
          Britany a. Kabakov, Esq.
          ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
          849 W. Webster Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60614
          Telephone: (312) 576-3024
          Email: david@almeidalawgroup.com
                 britany@almeidalawgroup.com

NUTANIX INC: Judge Approves Shareholder Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Miller, writing for Bloomberg Law reports that Nutanix Inc. and
a shareholder got a federal judge's approval for the settlement and
dismissal of a class action alleging that the cloud computing
company had incurred excessive costs by paying full price for
third-party evaluation software due to deficient internal
controls.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers allowed plaintiff Alexander Gorsline
to drop his suit against Nutanix on Nov. 20 ending seven months of
litigation the same day the parties held their settlement status
conference, according to the order filed in US District Court for
the Northern District of California. [GN]


OPENAI INC: Faces Copyright Infringement Class Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reed Albergotti, writing for Semafor, reports that a new
class-action lawsuit accuses OpenAI and partner Microsoft of
infringing on works by non-fiction authors, the latest in a string
of legal actions against artificial intelligence companies.

It comes amid turmoil at OpenAI, where most of the startup's nearly
800 employees have threatened to quit if ousted CEO Sam Altman
doesn't return to his role. He was fired by OpenAI's board on Nov.
17 and announced on Nov. 19 that he would join Microsoft, whose CEO
Satya Nadella told CNBC on Nov. 20 he is looking to partner with
Altman in whatever form that takes.

The lawsuit against the two companies, filed on Nov. 21 in federal
court in the Southern District of New York, makes similar arguments
to other allegations that AI companies used copyrighted works in
massive training sets employed to build tools like ChatGPT.

The lead plaintiff in the suit, Julian Sancton, is the author of ,
which he spent five years and tens of thousands of dollars writing,
according to the lawsuit, which hasn't previously been reported.

"The commercial success of the ChatGPT products for OpenAI and
Microsoft comes at the expense of non-fiction authors who haven't
seen a penny from either defendant," said Susman Godfrey partner
Justin Nelson, the lead attorney representing Sancton.

OpenAI doesn't disclose what data it used to train GPT-4, its most
advanced large language model, but lawyers for Sancton say ChatGPT
divulged the secret. "In the early days after its release, however,
ChatGPT, in response to an inquiry, confirmed: "Yes, Julian
Sancton's book 'Madhouse at the End of the Earth' is included in my
training data," the lawsuit reads.

One way that lawsuit is different from others is that it ropes in
Microsoft, which did not decide what training data to use in
OpenAI's models or even design the models itself. Rather, Microsoft
provided the infrastructure for training and running them.

The models are now core to Microsoft's business, which has given it
a boost in stock price, the suit points out.

"Microsoft would have known that OpenAI's training data was scraped
indiscriminately from the internet and included a massive quantity
of pirated and copyrighted material, including a trove of
copyrighted nonfiction works," the suit alleges.

The companies didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.

Stability AI's vice president of audio, Ed Newton-Rex, resigned in
protest over the company's stance on copyrighted work (It was ok
with using them.)

Famous fiction authors like Jonathan Franzen and John Grisham sued
OpenAI earlier this year for copyright infringement. Sarah
Silverman and other authors are also suing Meta on the same
grounds. Several other lawsuits are making their way through the
courts.

AI companies have argued that using copyrighted works in training
data constitutes "fair use" of the material. In essence, computers
are "learning" from the copyrighted works, just like humans learn
when they read.

Sancton's attorneys argue it's not the same thing. "While OpenAI's
anthropomorphizing of its models is up for debate, at a minimum,
humans who learn from books buy them, or borrow them from libraries
that buy them, providing at least some measure of compensation to
authors and creators," the lawsuit said.

It alleges that OpenAI deliberately conceals its training sets to
hide the copyrighted works it uses. "Another reason to keep its
training data and development of GPT-3, GPT-3.5, and GPT-4 secret:
To keep rightsholders like Plaintiff and members of the Class in
the dark about whether their works were being infringed and used to
train OpenAI's models," the lawsuit argues.

Reed's view
AI copyright law will surely make its way to the U.S. Supreme
Court. The fundamental question: If an AI model is not actually
reproducing a protected work, then is the fact that it learned from
it a technical violation of copyright?

If AI companies pay for copyrighted works -- say, buying a book --
can they legally use it to train an AI model, or do they need to
license the material from the owner of the copyright?

There's also a purely moral question: Even if it turns out the AI
companies are right, and training AI models with copyrighted
material constitutes fair use, should they?

This is a very thorny one. I am the author of a non-fiction book
that is almost surely in the training sets for these models and I
don't really have a problem with it. I don't think large language
models will ever really pose competition for books. A book is a lot
more than a bunch of words.

What I find upsetting is that there are places people can pirate
the book online and read it for free. Nobody seems outraged by
that, though.

I also think that we have all contributed to this technology in one
way or another; it's trained on basically the entire internet.

Even if AI companies compensated me for the use of the book, what
would it be worth? A few cents? I do, however, think that if AI
companies use my book in their training data, they should at least
be required to buy a copy. Otherwise, that's just plain old
pirating.

The third point is how technology is moving beyond the copyright
issue already. As we've reported, the newest small models in
generative AI are trained using synthetic data created by the
larger models.

And companies like OpenAI are hiring other companies like Scale AI
to create content from scratch, specifically to train new AI
models.

At some point, there may be a proliferation of generative AI models
that contain no problematic material at all.

Room for Disagreement
Ed Newton-Rex argues in this article that what AI companies are
doing is wrong: "Setting aside the fair use argument for a moment
-- since 'fair use' wasn't designed with generative AI in mind --
training generative AI models in this way is, to me, wrong.
Companies worth billions of dollars are, without permission,
training generative AI models on creators' works, which are then
being used to create new content that in many cases can compete
with the original works. I don't see how this can be acceptable in
a society that has set up the economics of the creative arts such
that creators rely on copyright." [GN]

PANAMERICAN CONSULTING: Rady Fraud Suit Removed to N.D. Ill.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Rady v. Panamerican
Consulting, LLC, Case No. 2023CH08174, was removed from the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois to United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois on October 20, 2023.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:23-cv-15170 to the proceeding.

The suit alleges fraud related violations.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Franklin U. Valderrama.

Panamerican is an independent financial services company,
specializing in verification of unsecured debts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan Paul Thompson, Esq.
          CHICAGO CONSUMER LAW CENTER, P.C.
          650 Warrenville Road, Suite 100
          Lisle, IL 60532
          Telephone: (312) 858-3239
          E-mail: bryan.thompson@cclc-law.com

                - and -

          Seth Barrow Mccormick, Esq.
          GREAT LAKES CONSUMER LAW FIRM, LLC
          73 W. Monroe St., Suite 100
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 971-6787
          E-mail: seth@glclf.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David F Standa, Esq.
          GREENSPOON MARDER, PA
          227 West Monroe St., Ste 3950
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 860-3207
          E-mail: david.standa@gmlaw.com

PDD HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over Unprotected Customer Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that online
marketplace Temu faced a trio of complaints recently involving
claims the company failed to protect and stole customer data and
pilfered copyrighted photos from competitor Shein.

Temu is a digital marketplace headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts, that is owned by the Irish-based Chinese company PDD
Holdings.

Temu fails to protect personal, financial user information, class
action says

A consumer filed a class action lawsuit against Temu in September
over claims the online marketplace uses relaxed security policies
that allegedly enable the widespread and systematic theft of its
customers' personally identifiable and financial information.

Temu is accused of failing to comply with "reasonable security
standards" that, if put in place, would be able to adequately
protect the data of its customers.

The consumer behind the class action lawsuit argues Temu allegedly
declines to put such policies in place to gain "short-term and
fleeting benefits," such as saving on compliance costs.

"Defendant's actions did not come close to meeting the standards of
commercially reasonable steps that should be taken to protect
customers' personal identifying information," the Temu class action
lawsuit states.

The plaintiff wants to represent a nationwide class and a consumer
fraud multistate class of individuals who registered for a Temu
account at any time since July 2022.

Temu lawsuit claims app collects more user data than necessary
A group of consumers filed a class action lawsuit against Temu
earlier this month over claims it collects more data from its users
than is necessary and in a greater amount than is disclosed.

The group argues experts determined Temu built tools into the
shopping app that "execute virulent and dangerous malware and
spyware activities on user devices."

The consumers claim experts found Temu put the tools in
"purposefully and intentionally," and, in an alleged effort to
continue stealing data, have "gone to great lengths" to conceal
these alleged privacy violations from their users.

"According to these experts, Temu collects user data beyond what is
necessary for an online shopping app, including biometric
information and data from users of the app," the Temu class action
states.

The plaintiffs want to represent a nationwide class of consumers
who used the Temu platform, along with subclasses of consumers from
Illinois, California and Virginia.

Temu disputes rival Shein's claims it used copyrighted images as
promotional photos
Shein filed a lawsuit against Temu in September over claims it
improperly used thousands of its copyrighted images as promotional
photos on the Temu website.

Temu responded to the claims last month, arguing it was unaware
Shein copyrighted the images in dispute while acknowledging some
website images were "identical" to Shein's.

However, Temu argued it does not know the copyright for the
estimated 30 million images it uses on its website that are spread
across about 4 million product listings.

Shein also accused Temu of altering the copyrighted images to
conceal that they were allegedly improperly used and sent a letter
to the company in June that included examples of more than 8,000
URLs of allegedly copyrighted photos.

Temu claims any alterations were done by third-party sellers and
not the company itself and that it was not given an adequate amount
of time to review all of the contents of the letter.

Shein secured an emergency temporary restraining order against Temu
in July over its copyright claims, with the latter arguing last
month the decision was only a "temporary measure" and not proof it
was guilty of infringement.

Temu filed its own lawsuit against Shein in July over claims the
latter tried to bully it out of the online marketplace through an
alleged campaign of intimidation, threats and false assertions of
infringement. [GN]

PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Secure Consumers' Info, Dickmeyer Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
CARIN DICKMEYER and JOEL BONNETT, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated, v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Case
No. 1:23-cv-12450-ADB (D. Mass., Oct. 20, 2023) is a class action
brought by individuals, including consumers, whose personal data
was accessed and exposed by an unauthorized third-party in a data
breach concerning Progress's MOVEit Transfer and MOVEit Cloud
software, which Progress first learned of on May 28, 2023, reported
to customers on May 30, 2023, and reported to the SEC
and its investors on June 5, 2023.

Despite knowing of the risk that cybercriminals posed to consumers'
Personal Information including Personally Identifiable Information
("PII") and Protected Health Information ("PHI"), Progress failed
to deploy adequate cybersecurity measures to prevent CL0P, a
Russian cybercriminal gang from gaining unauthorized access to
consumers' Personal Information and exposing it during the Data
Breach, the Plaintiff asserts.

Progress's Data Breach has caused Plaintiff Dickmeyer to experience
increased anxiety and to suffer emotional distress due to the
Plaintiff's loss of privacy and due to increased risk of criminals
exploiting the Plaintiff's Personal Information to commit
additional crimes including fraud and identity theft against the
Plaintiff, the suit claims.

As a result of Progress's alleged Data Breach, Plaintiff Bonnett
was harmed by having had to expend money and time obtaining credit
monitoring and identity protection services when he was unable to
access the services offered by Colorado Department of Health Care
Policy and Financing. Plaintiff Bonnett has spent time checking
whether his various personal accounts have been stolen and plans to
change his bank account information.

Progress is a provider of "products to develop, deploy and manage
high-impact business applications."[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Donna M. Evans, Esq.
          Douglas McNamara, Esq.
          Blake R. Miller, Esq.
          Claire Torchiana, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS AND TOLL, PLLC
          769 Centre Street, Suite 207
          Boston, MA 02130
          Telephone: (617) 858-1990
          E-mail: devans@cohenmilstein.com
                  dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com
                  brmiller@cohenmilstein.com
                  ctorchiana@cohenmilstein.com

                - and -

          Amy Keller, Esq.
          James Ulwick, Esq.
          Corban Rhodes, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT LLP
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
          Chicago, IL 60610
          Telephone: (312) 214-7900
          E-mail: akeller@dicellolevitt.com
                  julwick@dicellolevitt.com
                  crhodes@dicellolevitt.com

PROGRESSIVE GULF: Vantree Bid to Seal Docs Tossed
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BETTY VANTREE and CYNTHIA
PLAINTIFFS RAYBORN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, V. PROGRESSIVE GULF INSURANCE COMPANY; and
MOUNTAIN LAUREL ASSURANCE COMPANY, Ohio corporations, Case No.
4:22-cv-00070-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss.), the Hon. Judge Debra M. Brown
entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion to seal and the
Defendants' motion to seal.

On August 8, 2022, Betty Vantree and Cynthia Rayborn, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed an "Amended
Class Action Complaint" in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Mississippi against Progressive Gulf Insurance
Company and Mountain Laurel Assurance Company.

The defendants answered the complaint on August 31, 2022. On April
3, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden, based on
the defendants' unopposed motion and proposed order signed by all
parties, entered a "Stipulated Confidentiality Order."

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 14, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QOwRaC at no extra charge.[CC]

PUBLIX SUPER: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nick Hill, writing for WDEF, reports that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against the supermarket chain Publix.

Approximately 18 former managers at Publix have joined together to
allege that they were not paid for overtime.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Florida where the
chain is headquartered by attorneys Gregg Shavitz and Ryan Morgan
of Florida.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are from Florida, Georgia and
Tennessee.

One of the plaintiffs listed in the lawsuit, Christopher Roberts,
worked for Publix locations as an assistant department manager here
in Chattanooga and in Cleveland.

The act referenced in the lawsuit against Publix is the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938.

It sets forward a series of guidelines that employers must follow
in their treatment of employees.

Under the FLSA, the plaintiffs allege that they worked
off-the-clock both inside and outside of their stories.

They claimed that they helped with various tasks related to keeping
the store running both before and after their shifts.

One issue brought forward is that the managers testify that while
they were clocked out for meal breaks, they were still burdened
with work tasks.

This extended according to the lawsuit when they were at home as
well doing work tasks during off hours.

The lawsuit charges that Publix required managers to work in this
manner to control labor costs.

Under FLSA guidelines, employees who work over 40 hours a week are
required to be paid at least a time and a half for overtime pay.

These former managers estimated that they worked three to five
hours a week of unpaid overtime.

The lawsuit seeks to recoup what these plaintiffs believe is lost
pay and other damages.

One of the lawyers in this case, Gregg Shavitz who was unavailable
for an interview but did send a statement, said quote,

"Every year, according to the Economic Policy Institute, American
workers lose as much as $50 billion per year to wage theft. Our
clients have experienced something many workers face as we all
become reachable on our phones at any time of day or night -- that
companies expect employees to be in constant communication but fail
to track this time worked. It's unacceptable to force hourly
workers to work outside of their shifts and to not pay workers for
their time. We believe that the assistant department managers'
allegations only scratch the surface of Publix off-the-clock
conditions. We will work to uncover all the evidence about the
extent of these alleged harmful practices in order to hold Publix
accountable and recover every possible dollar of these workers'
rightfully earned money."

News 12 did reach out to Publix for comment on this story. [GN]

QUICK MART FOOD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Goksu Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
ILHAN GOKSU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. QUICK MART FOOD STORE EK INC. d/b/a "Quick
Mart Food & Blimpie"; EYYUP ARGA; and KADIR KURT, Defendants, Case
No. 2:23-cv-22471 (D.N.J., Nov. 17, 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 Goksu was employed by the Defendants as a manager.

QUICK MART FOOD STORE EK INC. d/b/a "Quick Mart Food & Blimpie"
owns and operates as a convenience store, grocery, and sandwich
shop. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clifford Tucker, Esq.
          SACCO & FILLAS LLP
          3119 Newtown Ave, Seventh Floor,
          Astoria, NY 11102
          Telephone: (718) 269-2243
          Email: CTucker@SaccoFillas.com

RE/MAX HOLDINGS: Class Action Settlement Granted Preliminary OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
RE/MAX(R), a real estate company, on Nov. 20 announced the Missouri
court granted preliminary approval of its settlement in the class
action lawsuits known as Burnett, Moehrl and Nosalek, and any
similar claims on a nationwide basis.

To address the pending litigation and mitigate the uncertainties
and costs associated with prolonged legal proceedings, RE/MAX, LLC
entered into a settlement agreement with plaintiffs on October 5,
2023. RE/MAX, LLC agreed to pay $55 million and make changes to
business practices as part of the settlement. The proposed
settlement would resolve on a nationwide basis all claims asserted
against RE/MAX, LLC and includes releases for all U.S. RE/MAX
independent regions, franchisees and agents. RE/MAX, LLC continues
to deny the allegations made in the complaints and does not
acknowledge any wrongdoing.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, RE/MAX, LLC has
deposited 25% of the agreed-upon $55 million into a settlement
fund; 25% is due within 10 business days after preliminary
approval; and the remainder within 10 business days after final
court approval.

"We are pleased with the court's decision to grant preliminary
approval of the settlement," said Nick Bailey, President and CEO of
RE/MAX, LLC. "This development signifies progress in our ongoing
efforts and commitment to a resolution -- it's a positive step
forward in bringing these cases closer to the finish line."

If the settlement is granted final approval by the Missouri court,
all U.S. RE/MAX affiliates, including franchisees and agents, will
be protected from claims connected to the lawsuits and any similar
claims. At this time, final approval is expected sometime next
year. The business practice terms of the settlement must be
implemented within six months of the final effective date. Apart
from the $55 million payment, RE/MAX, LLC does not expect the terms
of the settlement agreement to have a material impact on its
results of operations and cash flows.

About the RE/MAX Network
As one of the leading global real estate franchisors, RE/MAX, LLC
is a subsidiary of RE/MAX Holdings (NYSE: RMAX) with more than
140,000 agents in almost 9,000 offices and a presence in more than
110 countries and territories. Nobody in the world sells more real
estate than RE/MAX, as measured by residential transaction sides.
RE/MAX was founded in 1973 by Dave and Gail Liniger, with an
innovative, entrepreneurial culture affording its agents and
franchisees the flexibility to operate their businesses with great
independence. RE/MAX agents have lived, worked and served in their
local communities for decades, raising millions of dollars every
year for Children's Miracle Network Hospitals(R) and other
charities. To learn more about RE/MAX, to search home listings or
find an agent in your community, please visit www.remax.com. For
the latest news about RE/MAX, please visit news.remax.com. This is
not an offer of a franchise. Any franchise offer is made only after
a Franchise Disclosure Document has been provided. [GN]

RON'S ORGANICS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Salas and Saavedra Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GUILLERMO MEDRANO SALAS, IVAN NERI SAAVEDRA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RON'S
ORGANICS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-02563-X (N.D. Tex.,
November 18, 2023) seeks redress for Defendant's willful violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay employees wages
based upon overtime and minimum wage requirements.

Plaintiff Medrano worked for Defendants as a landscaping laborer
from November 2008 until December 30, 2022. Many or all laborers,
including Plaintiffs, were required to work more than 40 hours in a
week. However, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs not less than
one and a half times the regular rate at which they were employed
during the hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Among other
things, the Defendants also failed to to keep proper time records
tracking Plaintiffs' time worked, says the suit.

Ron's Organics operates a landscaping business in the state of
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         James M. Dore, Esq.
         JUSTICIA LABORAL LLC
         6232 N. Pulaski Road, Suite 300
         Chicago, IL 60646
         Telephone: (773) 415-4898
         E-mail: jdore@justicialaboral.com

SALT LIFE: Faces Mackey Suit Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
HUNTER MACKEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SALT LIFE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
CACE-23-021350 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., November
19, 2023) seeks for injunctive and declaratory relief and damages
for violations of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act.

Allegedly, the Defendant made text message sales calls that
promoted Salt Life and violated the Caller ID Rules when it
transmitted to the recipients' caller identification services a
telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone calls
and that did not connect the recipient to either the caller or the
Defendant.

Salt Life is a foreign limited liability company, which sells
various goods to persons throughout Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
          Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
          SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
          974 Howard Ave
          Dunedin, FL 34
          Telephone: (202) 709-5744
          Facsimile: (866) 893-0416
          E-mail: shawn@sjlawcollective.com
                  josh@sjlawcollective.com

SHIFT4 PAYMENTS: Baear, O'Meara Suits Consolidation Bid Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shift4 Payments 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 9, 2023, that the
O'Meara Action and the Baer Action consolidation motion is pending
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

On August 18, 2023, a shareholder filed a putative securities class
action against the Company and certain of its current and former
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, captioned O'Meara v. Shift4
Payments, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-03206-JFL (the "O'Meara
Action").

Plaintiff O'Meara seeks to represent purchasers of the Company's
securities between November 10, 2021 and April 18, 2023.

On October 13, 2023, another shareholder represented by the same
law firm as O'Meara filed a similar complaint against the same
defendants in the same court, captioned Baer v. Shift4 Payments,
Inc., et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-03969-JFL (the "Baer Action").

Plaintiff Baer seeks to represent purchasers of the Company's
securities between June 5, 2020, and April 18, 2023.

Both complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, based on allegedly false and misleading statements
about the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies,
and both seek unspecified damages.

On October 19, 2023, Plaintiff Baer filed a motion to consolidate
the O'Meara Action and the Baer Action and appoint Baer as lead
plaintiff.

Once a lead plaintiff is appointed, a consolidated amended
complaint will be filed, which the Company expects to move to
dismiss on behalf of all defendants.

The Company disputes the allegations in the above-referenced
matters, intends to defend the matters vigorously, and believes
that the claims are without merit.

SHIFT4 PAYMENTS, INC. provides payment processing solutions. The
Company offers software for transaction and money transfer
activities. [BN]


SIMILASAN CORP: Sells Unsafe Eye Drops, Ortega Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------
MARIO ORTEGA, and KAMILLE FAYE VINLUAN-JULARBAL, each individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
SIMILASAN CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-02990 (D. Colo.,
Nov. 10, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for
allegedly selling defective eye drops in violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law, the Legal Remedies Act, and the False
Advertising Law.

According to the complaint, Defendant's eye drops are dangerously
defective, for several reasons. First, they are unapproved drugs,
and thus illegal to sell. Second, they are labeled "sterile," when
in fact they are not manufactured using processes sufficiently
designed to prevent contamination. Third, they contain silver
sulfate, a substance that can decrease night vision and cause
irreversible eye and skin discoloration. The products, however,
fail to warn of any of these risks, says the suit.

Plaintiffs Ortega and Vinluan-Jularbal purchased and used
Defendant's eye drops that are purported to relieve symptoms for a
variety of eye ailments, such as pink eye, dry eye, and allergies.
Had they known the truth, they would not have purchased the eye
drops. And if other consumers knew the truth, they would
immediately stop using the eye drops, the suit asserts.

Similasan Corporation is a manufacturer of over-the-counter health
and beauty products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonas Jacobson, Esq.
          DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
          201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 656-7066
          Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
          E-mail: jonas@dovel.com

SONY CORP: Must Face GBP5-Bil. Playstation Class Action in UK
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Harkavy, writing for CDR, reports that the UK's Competition
Appeal Tribunal has greenlit a GBP 5 billion claim against
PlayStation.

Class representative Alex Neill, who first in the Competition
Appeal Tribunal (CAT) in August 2022 alleging that PlayStation has
abused its market dominance by overcharging users for games and
add-ons purchased via the PlayStation Store, managed to convince
the CAT not to side with PlayStation parent Sony. The company had
tried to stymie the claim on two grounds -- the merits of the case
itself, and over the claim's funding arrangements. This is the
first claim of its kind to be fully certified post-. The PACCAR
ruling caused a stir when it confirmed that funding arrangements
with a percentage-based fee cannot be used to fund opt-out
collective proceedings. This claim is funded by Woodsford.

Alex Neill, who is representing a class of almost 9 million people,
commented: "This is the first step in ensuring consumers get back
what they're owed as a result of Sony breaking the law. PlayStation
gamers' loyalty has been taken advantage of by Sony who have been
charging them excessive prices for years."

Neill added: "It is significant that the competition court has
recognised Sony must explain its actions by ordering them to trial.
With this action we are seeking to put a stop to this unlawful
conduct and ensure customers are compensated."

Neill's legal representative Natasha Pearman of Milberg London
said: "We are delighted to have achieved certification for our
claim against Sony. Companies who break the law must be held to
account and we are determined to ensure this happens and consumers
get access to justice. We hope that the certification of our claim
provides some clarity as to acceptable litigation funding
agreements in the post-PACCAR environment for opt-out claims."

Flying the flag for litigation funding, Pearman continued:
"Litigation funding is integral to the collective action regime.
When a company as large as Sony breaks the rules consumers often
have no idea it is even happening, let alone have the resources to
take them on -- litigation funding helps to level the playing
field. That is why group legal claims like ours are so important,
they provide a route to accessing justice that simply doesn't exist
otherwise."

Woodsford's Chief Investment Officer Charlie Morris added in a
statement: "Woodsford is proud to be funding Alex Neill and
delighted that this is the first collective action where the
funding arrangements have been approved following the seminal
Supreme Court decision in PACCAR. Sony sought to advance numerous
unmeritorious and opportunistic arguments, all of which
unsurprisingly failed. Defendants to these actions would be better
advised to resolve meritorious actions in a speedy and
cost-efficient way rather than spending millions on spurious and
ultimately unsuccessful satellite disputes aimed solely at stymying
access to justice." [GN]

SPIRIT AIRLINES: Jan. 10 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
TheFreebieGuy on Nov. 20 disclosed that Class Member received
settlement if one booked a flight on Spirit Airlines through
Expedia, Kiwi, CheapOair, CheapTickets, Travelocity, or Bookit
during a certain time period.

Who's Eligible:

People who booked a flight on Spirit Airlines through Expedia,
Kiwi, CheapOair, CheapTickets, Travelocity, or Bookit between
August 31, 2011 and May 3, 2017, and paid a carry-on bag fee; were
a resident of the United States or a U.S. Territory at the time you
booked your flight; and that flight was your first flight on Spirit
after August 1, 2010, you are a member of the class and will be
entitled to money.

Award Amount -- You will receive up to 75% of the carry-on bag fee
you paid for your first flight on Spirit during the relevant
period.

Proof of Purchase - Not Required.
Claim Deadline - January 10th, 2024. [GN]

STATE FARM: Locke Lord Attorneys Discuss GIPA Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Brian Hays, Esq., and Michael McMorrow, Esq., of Locke Lord LLP, in
an article for JDSupra, report that a recent slate of class action
lawsuits seeks to expand the scope of the Illinois Genetic
Information Privacy Act's (GIPA) prohibition against considering
family medical history to life insurance companies. See e.g.
Reynolds v. State Farm Life Ins. Co., No. 2023 L 465 (Cir. Ct. Kane
Co., Oct. 31, 2023). Although GIPA, 410 ILCS Sec. 513/1 et seq.,
was passed in 1998 and has been amended a number of times, the
plaintiff's bar has only recently seized upon the statutory
penalties provided for in the private right of action. At least 30
class action lawsuits have been filed in 2023. Plaintiffs have
turned their sights on the life insurance industry in the last
three weeks with class action complaints. Fortunately, plaintiffs'
new theory is not supported by the plain language of the Act.

GIPA restricts the use of genetic information

Section 20 of GIPA addresses the use of genetic testing information
for insurance purposes.

Section 20(a) prohibits an insurer from seeking information derived
from genetic testing for use in connection with a policy of
accident and health insurance.
Section 20(b) prohibits insurers from using or disclosing protected
health information that is genetic information for underwriting
purposes. Underwriting purposes includes:
(1) rules for, or determination of, eligibility (including
enrollment and continued eligibility) for, or determination of,
benefits under the plan, coverage, or policy (including changes in
deductibles or other cost-sharing mechanisms in return for
activities such as completing a health risk assessment or
participating in a wellness program);

(2) the computation of premium or contribution amounts under the
plan, coverage, or policy (including discounts, rebates, payments
in kind, or other premium differential mechanisms in return for
activities, such as completing a health risk assessment or
participating in a wellness program);

(3) the application of any pre-existing condition exclusion under
the plan, coverage, or policy; and

(4) other activities related to the creation, renewal, or
replacement of a contract of health insurance or health benefits.

Section 20(c) allows an insurer to consider the results of genetic
testing in connection with a policy of accident and health
insurance if the individual voluntarily submits the results and the
results are favorable to the individual.

Section 20(d) prohibits an insurer from releasing information
derived from genetic testing to a third party, except as specified
in the Act.

Section 20(e) prohibits companies that provide direct-to-consumer
commercial genetic testing from sharing any genetic test
information or other personally identifiable information about a
consumer with any health or life insurance company without written
consent from the consumer.

GIPA adopts the definition of "protected health information," and
"genetic information" from HIPAA regulations. 410 ILCS § 513/10
adopting 45 C.F.R. Sec. 160.103.

GIPA creates a private right of action for "any person aggrieved by
a violation" of the Act. 410 ILCS Sec. 513/40(a). A prevailing
party may recover for each violation up to $2,500 or actual damages
for negligent violations and up to $15,000 or actual damages for
intentional or reckless violations. GIPA also allows for the
recovering of attorney's fees and costs, including expert witness
fees.

Class action litigation against life insurers based on family
medical history questions

The spate of recent filings follows in the wake of an August 3,
2023, decision certifying a class against Sequencing, LLC for
disclosing customers' genetic information to unknown third-party
developers in alleged violation of Sections 30(a)(2) and 35 of GIPA
without first obtaining those customers' consent. Melvin v.
Sequencing, LLC, 344 F.R.D. 231, 233 (N.D. Ill. 2023). In the
recently filed class action lawsuits against the life insurance
companies, however, the plaintiffs are instead challenging life
insurance application questions asking consumers to disclose their
family medical history (the Complaints).

The Complaints argue that Section 20(b) applies to all insurers and
prohibits them from using "protected health information that is
genetic information." "Genetic information" is defined in the HIPAA
regulations to include both information about actual genetic tests,
and "the manifestation of a disease or disorder in family members
of an individual." 45 C.F.R. Sec. 160.103. The definition excludes
information about the age or sex of an individual. Id. The
Complaints allege that the life insurers used the family medical
history questions to underwrite risks, determine eligibility, and
set premiums in violation of Section 20(b).

The Complaints do not specify any genetic information sought in the
exams. Instead, they rely exclusively on the term "manifestation of
a disease or disorder in family members," construing it broadly to
encompass any illness, including questions regarding family
histories of high blood pressure, cancer, diabetes, and heart
disease. Courts interpreting this phrase under GIPA's federal
counterpart -- the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act of
2008, 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 2000ff, et seq. -- have limited the scope of
the term to medical conditions that have a genetic predisposition
or a genetic basis, excluding such issues as Covid-19, ADHD,
suicide, anxiety and depression. See, e.g., Anderson v. Honeywell
Int'l, 2023 WL 6892023, at *2 (D. Minn. Sept. 11, 2023); Baum v.
Dunmire Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 2022 WL 889097, at *7 (D. Colo. Mar. 25,
2022); Tedesco v. Pearson Educ., Inc., 2021 WL 2291148, at *6 (E.D.
La. June 4, 2021); Milner-Koonce v. Albany City Sch. Dist., 2022 WL
7351196, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2022) (collecting authorities).
Under federal law, these courts have stated that family disease
history is only considered genetic information if it is used to
determine the likelihood of disease in another individual, and is
not considered genetic information if it is taken into account only
with respect to the individual in whom such disease or disorder
occurs and not as genetic information with respect to any other
individual.

The Complaints' attempt to apply Section 20(b) to the insurance
suffers from a tragic flaw. The analysis of the defined term
"protected health information" in GIPA in the class action
complaints stops two steps short in describing the type of
information that is being protected.

Section 20(b) only applies to accident and health insurance

Although it takes a few steps tracking back the various
definitions, under the plain language of the Act, Section 20(b)
does not apply to life insurers. Section 20(b) is limited to health
insurers and health plans. Section 20(b) provides in relevant
part:

(b) An insurer shall not use or disclose protected health
information that is genetic information for underwriting purposes.
For purposes of this Section, "underwriting purposes" means, with
respect to an insurer:

***

(2) the computation of premium or contribution amounts under the
plan, coverage, or policy (including discounts, rebates, payments
in kind, or other premium differential mechanisms in return for
activities, such as completing a health risk assessment or
participating in a wellness program). The definition of
"underwriting purposes" specifically excludes "determinations of
medical appropriateness where an individual seeks a benefit under
the plan, coverage or policy."

410 ILCS § 513/20(b) (emphasis added). While the Complaints stops
their analysis here, tracing the defined term "protected health
information" shows that information collected by life insurers is
not covered. GIPA adopts the definition of "protected health
information" from the HIPAA regulations:

Protected health information means individually identifiable health
information:

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this definition, that
is:

(i) Transmitted by electronic media;
(ii) Maintained in electronic media; or
(iii) Transmitted or maintained in any other form or medium.

45 C.F.R. Sec. 160.103 (emphasis added). "Individually identifiable
health information" is defined as:

information that is a subset of health information, including
demographic information collected from an individual, and:

(1) Is created or received by a health care provider, health plan,
employer, or health care clearinghouse.

45 C.F.R. Sec. 160.103 (emphasis added). Life insurance simply is
not covered.

Limiting "protected health information" in the insurance context to
information obtained by health plans is consistent with how the
Illinois Department of Insurance has been treating genetic
information. The only sections of the Illinois Administrative Code
addressing GIPA are in the sections applicable to accident and
health insurance. See 50 Ill. Admin Code § 2008.107 (medical
supplement); § 2001.9 (group health plans).

Life insurance companies should continue to watch changes to GIPA.
The General Assembly has been expanding the scope of GIPA since its
passage. In 2019, Section 20(e) was revised to prohibit
direct-to-consumer commercial genetic testing companies from
sharing genetic test information to include life insurance
companies. The General Assembly is currently considering expanding
Section 20(a) to add life insurance to accident and health
insurance companies prohibited from seeking information derived
from genetic testing. However, until the General Assembly changes
the definition chain to add life insurance to the definition of
"protected health information," class actions like the recent
Complaints should be dismissed. [GN]

SWOONDLE LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Bunting Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
RASHETA BUNTING, Plaintiff v. SWOONDLE LLC, Defendant, Case No.
533893/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., November 17, 2023) arises from
the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate
their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation
of the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil
Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Plaintiff Bunting brings this action on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated against Swoondle LLC, alleging
that is denying blind and visually-impaired persons throughout the
United States with equal access to the goods and services Swoondle
provides to their non-disabled customers through
www.swoondlesociety.com.

Swoondle is a Delaware foreign limited liability company that
operates an online platform where members can easily trade-in their
children's clothes for the next size or season. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY: Filin g of Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 11
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Poston v. Syracuse
University, Case No. 5:21-cv-01386 (N.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 30, 2021),
the Hon. Judge entered Thomas J. Mcavoy entered an order granting
the parties' joint letter motion regarding expert disclosure and
class certification briefing deadlines:

-- Class Certification Motion is due:              Dec. 11, 2023

-- Defendant's response to the Class               Jan. 10, 2024
    Certification Motion is due:

-- The Defendant's Expert Disclosure               Dec. 18, 2023
    is due:

-- Rebuttal Expert Disclosure is due:              Dec. 2, 2024

The suit alleges contract related violations.

Syracuse University is a private research university in Syracuse,
New York, United States.[CC]

Syracuse is a private institution located on a hilltop that
overlooks the town of Syracuse, New York.


SYSTEM1 INC: Continues to Defend TS Software Class Suit in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
System1 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 9, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the TS Software class suit in California.

In October 2023, a putative California class action complaint (the
"Complaint") was filed against the Company and its Total Security
business regarding alleged violations of California's Auto Renewal
Law requirements related to the marketing and sale of its
subscription service offerings for anti-virus and ad-blocking
software (the "TS Software") to consumers.

The Complaint alleges claims under California's false advertising
and unfair competition laws and primarily alleges that the
marketing and sales checkout flows for the TS Software did not
clearly and conspicuously disclose that the named plaintiffs set
forth in the Complaint were purchasing the TS Software for a
promotional period which would auto-renew after the applicable
promotional period.

The Company disputes the claims alleged, and intends to defend
itself vigorously in this matter.

System1, Inc. operates an
omnichannel customer acquisition platform, delivering high-intent
customers to advertisers and marketing antivirus software packages
to end user customers.



TELUS INTERNATIONAL: Settlement in Meagher Gets Initial Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Meagher v. Telus
International (U.S.) Corp., Case No. 2:20-cv-02074 (D. Nev., Filed
Nov. 12, 2020), the Hon. Judge Richard F. Boulware, II entered an
order as follows:

   (1) The Settlement is preliminarily approved as fair,
reasonable,
       and adequate;

   (2) The FLSA Collective Subclass and Rule 23 Settlement Subclass

       are conditionally certified for settlement purposes only;

   (3) The proposed Notices to be disseminated to collective and
Class
       Members pursuant to the Settlement Agreement are approved;

   (4) Plaintiff Brielle Meagher is appointed as Class
Representative;

   (5) Brown, LLC and Kemp Jones, LLP are appointed as Class
Counsel;
       and

   (6) Simpluris, Inc. is appointed as the Settlement
Administrator.

The suit alleges violation of Fair Labor Standards Act.

Telus is a Canadian technology company which provides IT services
and multilingual customer service to global clients.[CC]

TRACY LOGISTICS: Picou Files Class Suit in Cal. State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tracy Logistics LLC.
The case is captioned as DONTE PICOU, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, v. TRACY LOGISTICS LLC, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2023-0012043 (Cal. Super., San Joaquin Cty., November
14, 2023).

A case management conference is set for May 15, 2024, before Judge
Barbara Kronlund.

Tracy Logistics LLC is a wholesale grocery supplier in
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Roman Shkodnik, Esq.
         DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
         535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
         Glendale, CA 91203
         Telephone: (818) 230-8380

TUSIMPLE HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
TuSimple Holdings 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 8, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the consolidated securities
class suits in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California.

On August 31, 2022, a securities class action complaint (the
"August 2022 Action") was filed, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California, against the Company
and certain of its current and former directors and officers
(Xiaodi Hou, Mo Chen, Cheng Lu, Patrick Dillon, and James Mullen),
and the underwriters who underwrote its IPO, on behalf of a
putative class of stockholders who acquired its securities from
April 15, 2021 through August 1, 2022.

The August 2022 Action is captioned: Dicker v. TuSimple Holdings,
Inc. et al., 3:22-cv-01300-JES-MSB (S. D. Cal.).

The complaint filed in the August 2022 Action alleges, among other
things, that the Company and certain of its current and former
directors and officers violated Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by
making materially false or misleading statements, or failing to
disclose information it was required to disclose, regarding the
Company's autonomous driving technology.

The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the
putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including
reasonable attorneys' fees.

On November 10, 2022, a second securities class action (the
"November 2022 Action") complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company and certain of its current and former directors and
officers (Xiaodi Hou, Mo Chen, Cheng Lu, Eric Tapia, Patrick
Dillon, and James Mullen), and the underwriters who underwrote its
IPO, on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who acquired its
securities from April 15, 2021 through October 31, 2022.

The November 2022 Action was originally captioned: Woldanski v.
TuSimple Holdings, Inc., et al., 1:22-cv-09625-AKH (S.D.N.Y.).

The complaint in the November 2022 Action alleges, among other
things, that the Company and certain of its current and former
directors and officers violated Sections 11, 12(a), and 15 of the
Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by
making false or misleading statements, or failing to disclose
information it was required to disclose, regarding the Company's
related party transaction with Hydron and its sharing of
confidential information and proprietary technology with Hydron
without approval from the Board.

The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the
putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including
reasonable attorneys' fees.

The November 2022 Action has since been transferred to the Southern
District of California: Woldanski v. TuSimple Holdings, Inc., et
al., 3:23-cv-00282-JES-MSB (S. D. Cal.).

On May 3, 2023, the Company made a motion to consolidate the August
2022 Action and November 2022 Action. The Court granted this motion
and consolidated the August 2022 Action and November 2022 Action on
July 20, 2023.

On October 2, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended
complaint (the "Consolidated and Amended Complaint").

The Consolidated and Amended Complaint was filed against the
Company and certain of its current and former directors and
officers (Guowei "Charles" Chao, Xiaodi Hou, Mo Chen, Bonnie Yi
Zhang, Cheng Lu, Patrick Dillon, Brad Buss, and Karen C. Francis)
and the underwriters who underwrote its IPO, containing similar
claims as asserted in the complaints filed in Dicker v. TuSimple
Holdings, Inc. et al., 3:22-cv-01300-JES-MSB (S. D. Cal.) and
Woldanski v. TuSimple Holdings, Inc., et al., 3:23-cv-00282-JES-MSB
(S. D. Cal.).

The Consolidated and Amended Complaint alleges, among other things,
that the Company and certain of its current and former directors
and officers violated Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities
Act, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5,
by making false or misleading statements, or failing to disclose
information it was required to disclose, regarding the Company's
related party transaction with Hydron, the Company's sharing of
confidential information and proprietary technology with Hydron
without approval from the Company's board of directors, the
Company's safety profile, and certain of the Company's risk
factors.

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

TuSimple Holdings Inc. is an autonomous technology company based
in
California.



TYRONE OLIVER: Court Tosses Butler Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARRYL PERNELL BUTLER, and
other inmates similarly situated, v. TYRONE OLIVER, et al., Case
No. 4:23-cv-00311-CLR (S.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Christopher L. Ray
entered an order:

-- Dismissing class-based claims; and

-- Denying motion for class certification.

Since the class-related allegations are dismissed, the Court will
permit Butler an opportunity to amend his Complaint to omit the
class-based allegations before it determines whether he otherwise
qualifies to proceed in forma pauperis.

Accordingly, Butler is directed to submit an Amended Complaint
asserting only his own claims, and omitting any class-based claims,
by no later than December 8, 2023. Since the prior Order and Report
and Recommendation has been vacated, and the Court provides
additional time for Butler to submit his Amended Complaint, his
request
for additional time is dismissed as moot.

Butler is further advised that failure to timely submit his amended
complaint may result in a recommendation that this case be
dismissed for failure to obey a court order or failure to
prosecute.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 14, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MVr55A at no extra charge.[CC]

UNITED EGG: To Pay Damages in Antitrust Suit Over Price Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Arcieri and Stephen Joyce, writing for Bloomberg Law, report
that General Mills Inc., a Kraft Heinz Co. unit, Kellogg Co., and
Nestle SA for years likely overpaid for eggs because the nation's
largest producers and two trade groups conspired to restrict the
supply, an Illinois federal jury decided on Nov. 21.

A US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois jury of
nine men and three women said the two largest US egg producers,
Cal-Maine Foods Inc. and Rose Acre Farms Inc., along with two
egg-industry trade groups, will have to pay damages to the food
companies.

The same jury will decide the amount of damages in a trial
scheduled to begin Nov. 29 that is expected to last two days. By
law, whatever damages the jury awards will be trebled, though the
jury will not be told about that statutory requirement.

The case outcome in favor of the food companies could embolden
other plaintiffs who are seeking to go after food producers for
anticompetitive behavior.

"We are incredibly pleased by the jury's decision," said Brandon
Fox, a Jenner & Block LLP partner representing the food companies.
"For the first time, the defendants have been held liable for their
antitrust violations. We are now going to turn our attention to the
damages phase."

King & Spalding LLP partners Patrick Collins and Patrick Otlewski,
who helped lead the defense effort for Cal-Maine Foods, appeared
stunned by the verdict. Sitting at the defense table, the two
lawyers' heads dropped toward their chests and stayed there.
Otlewski didn't speak after the verdict was read by US Judge Steven
Seeger.

When asked by the judge if he had anything to say, Collins only
uttered he had to confer with his client before rushing out of
courtroom at the verdict hearing's end. The lawyers didn't
immediately respond to a request for comment.

Plaintiff Victory
In 2011, the food producers sued the egg producers and trade groups
United Egg Producers Inc. and US Egg Marketers Inc., alleging they
engaged in a conspiracy to reduce supply in an attempt to increase
the price of eggs. The jury found the food companies were injured
by the conspiracy from October 2004 to December 2008.

Egg buyer plaintiffs -- grocery stores and another group of direct
purchasers -- in two other cases were previously unable to convince
a jury that the producers fixed the price of eggs. But on Nov. 21,
the jury delivered a fulsome verdict in favor of the plaintiffs.

It agreed with the food companies that the conspiracy existed and
that it was effectuated through distinct actions such as reducing
the nation's hen population and boosting egg exports to limit the
US egg supply. The jury also concluded those practices unreasonably
restrained trade in the egg market in violation of federal
antitrust laws.

The jury didn't conclude, however, that every egg producer aligned
with the industry trade groups participated in the conspiracy. The
jury also found the companies weren't injured between 2009 to 2012,
as they alleged.

Before he read the verdict, Seeger commended lawyers from both
sides for what he said was some of the finest advocacy he's seen in
his time on the bench. The day arguments ended he passed out trays
of egg-containing brownies to them.

"I told you at the outset of the case that I wanted to see Major
League Baseball, and you all delivered an All-Star game," he told
the lawyers.

The food company plaintiffs are represented by Jenner & Block LLP.
Rose Acre Farms is represented by Porter Wright Morris and Arthur
LLP. Cal-Maine Foods is represented by King and Spalding LLP and
Brown Fox PLLC. United Egg Producers Inc. and US Egg Marketers Inc.
are represented by Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP.

The case is Kraft Foods Global, Inc. v. United Egg Producers, Inc.,
N.D. Ill., No. 1:11-cv-08808, 11/21/23. [GN]

UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Class Cert Response Due Dec 8
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHERRILL FARRELL, et. al.,
v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, et. al., Case No.
3:23-cv-04013-JCS (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs and Defendants
jointly request the Court to set a briefing schedule for
Defendants' forthcoming Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended
Complaint, and to stay Defendants' deadline to respond to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification:

   1. The parties will adhere to the following briefing schedule
for
      Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs' First Amended
Complaint:

       a. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss will be due by November 17,

          2023.

       b. The Plaintiffs' Response will be due by December 8,
2023.

       c. The Defendants' Reply will be due by December 22, 2023.

   2. The deadline for Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion
for
      Class Certification is stayed.

United States Department of Defense is an executive branch
department of the federal government of the United States charged
with coordinating and supervising all agencies and functions of the
U.S. government directly related to national security and the
United States Armed Forces.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 14, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MWzhmd at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jocelyn D. Larkin, Esq.
          Lindsay Nako, Esq.
          Fawn Rajbhandari-Korr, Esq.
          Meredith Dixon, Esq.
          IMPACT FUND
          2080 Addison Street, Suite 5
          Berkeley, CA 94704
          Telephone: (510) 845-3473
          Facsimile: (510) 845-3654
          E-mail: jlarkin@impactfund.org

                - and -

          Elizabeth Kristen, Esq.
          Lynnette Miner, Esq.
          LEGAL AID AT WORK
          180 Montgomery Street, Suite 600
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 864-8848
          Facsimile: (415) 593-0096
          E-mail: ekristen@legalaidatwork.org

                - and -

          David K. Willingham, Esq.
          Chelsea Corey, Esq.
          Radha Manthe, Esq.
          Rachel Yeung, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443-4433
          Facsimile: (213) 443-4310
          E-mail: dwillingham@kslaw.com

UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs' Claims Gets Initial Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANIKA OKJE
ERDMANN-BROWNING and JACQUELINE BENITEZ, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. THOMAS J. VILSACK, Secretary,
United States Department of Agriculture, in his official capacity;
SHALANDA YOUNG, Director of the United States Office of Management
and Budget, in her official capacity, Case No. 4:23-cv-04678-JST
(N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

-- Certifying or provisionally certifying the Plaintiffs' claims
as a
    class action;

-- Appointing Plaintiffs as class representatives; and

-- Appointing class counsel, under Rule 23(a), Rule 23(b)(2), and

    Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 7-2
of
    the Civil Local Rules of the Court.

The Plaintiffs propose the following class definition:

   "All households who are or will be certified to receive
   Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for
   January 2024 and subsequent months in the 50 states, the
District
   of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands."

The Plaintiffs Anika Okje Erdmann-Browning and Jacqueline Benitez
currently receive subsistence food benefits assistance through the
federally funded Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

The Plaintiffs and the proposed class desperately need monthly SNAP
benefits to feed themselves and their families. Any delay in
receiving these benefits will jeopardize their ability to do so,
leaving them to choose between eating and meeting other basic
needs, such as paying for shelter, buying gas to get to work, or
purchasing medication.

This putative class action lawsuit challenges the apparent refusal
by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to fund SNAP
benefits for January 2024 and subsequent months and to authorize
the 53 SNAP agencies to issue benefits for those months.

USDA is responsible for overseeing farming, ranching, and forestry
industries.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 14, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MUl8Gq at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jodie Berger, Esq.
          Richard Rothschild, Esq.
          Robert Newman, Esq.
          Antionette Dozier, Esq.
          WESTERN CENTER ON LAW & POVERTY
          3701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 208
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 235-2617
          Facsimile: (213) 487-0242
          E-mail: jberger@wclp.org
                  rrothschild@wclp.org
                  rnewman@wclp.org
                  adozier@wclp.org

                - and -

          Lindsay Nako, Esq.
          Fawn Rajbhandari-Korr, Esq.
          Meredith Dixon, Esq.
          IMPACT FUND
          2080 Addison St., Suite 5
          Berkeley, CA 94704
          Telephone: (510) 845-3473
          Facsimile: (510) 845-3654
          E-mail: lnako@impactfund.org
                  fkorr@impactfund.org
                  mdixon@impactfund.org

UNITED STATES: Seeks More Time for Filing Class Cert Replies
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANIKA OKJE
ERDMANN-BROWNING and JACQUELINE BENITEZ, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. THOMAS J. VILSACK, Secretary,
United States Department of Agriculture, in his official capacity;
SHALANDA YOUNG, Director of the United States Office of Management
and Budget, in her official capacity, Case No. 4:23-cv-04678-JST
(N.D. Cal.), the Parties jointly stipulate to the following
briefing schedule, subject to
Court approval:

  -- No later than November 14, 2023: Plaintiffs file any Motions
for    
     Preliminary Injunction and Class Certification;

  -- November 29, 2023: Defendants file their Oppositions to both
     Motions;

  -- No later than December 5, 2023: Plaintiffs file their Replies;

     and

  -- December 11, 2023: Hearing date for both Motions.

USDA is responsible for overseeing farming, ranching, and forestry
industries.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 14, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Rb8g15 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jodie Berger, Esq.
          Richard Rothschild, Esq.
          Robert Newman, Esq.
          Antionette Dozier, Esq.
          WESTERN CENTER ON LAW & POVERTY
          3701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 208
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 235-2617
          Facsimile: (213) 487-0242
          E-mail: jberger@wclp.org
                  rrothschild@wclp.org
                  rnewman@wclp.org
                  adozier@wclp.org

                - and -

          Lindsay Nako, Esq.
          Fawn Rajbhandari-Korr, Esq.
          Meredith Dixon, Esq.
          IMPACT FUND
          2080 Addison St., Suite 5
          Berkeley, CA 94704
          Telephone: (510) 845-3473
          Facsimile: (510) 845-3654
          E-mail: lnako@impactfund.org
                  fkorr@impactfund.org
                  mdixon@impactfund.org

UNITY SOFTWARE: Bid to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Unity Software 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 9, 2023, that the
motion to dismiss the securities amended complaint awaits ruling of
the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California.

On July 6, 2022, a putative securities class action complaint was
filed in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California
against the Company and certain of its executives (the "Securities
Class Action").

The complaint was amended on March 24, 2023, and captioned In re
Unity Software Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:22-cv-3962
(N.D. Cal.).

The operative complaint names as defendants Unity, its former Chief
Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and General Manager of
Operate Solutions, as well as Unity shareholders, Sequoia Capital,
Silver Lake Group, and OTEE 2020 ApS.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and alleges that the Company and
its executives made false or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose issues with the Company's product platform and the likely
impact of those issues on the Company's fiscal 2022 guidance.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons and
entities (other than the defendants) who acquired Unity securities
between May 11, 2021 and May 10, 2022, and requests unspecified
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and an award of
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend the case.

On May 25, 2023, all defendants moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint.

The plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motions to dismiss on
July 26, 2023.

The Company filed a response to the plaintiffs' opposition on
September 1, 2023 and is currently awaiting a ruling on the motion
to dismiss.

Unity Software Inc. is a software company based in California.



UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Averts Suit Over Spotify Share Acquisition
-----------------------------------------------------------
Evan Minsker, writing for Pitchfork, reports that earlier this
year, the 1990s hip-hop duo Black Sheep filed a class-action
lawsuit against Universal Music Group (UMG) over the label's
business dealings with Spotify. The breach of contract lawsuit
claimed that the label owed more than $750 million in royalties to
various artists. That lawsuit was dismissed on Nov. 20, court
documents viewed by Pitchfork confirm.

The rappers' lawsuit argued that UMG's "undisclosed, sweetheart
deal with Spotify" violated the duo's 1990 contract with Universal
imprint Polygram. They claimed that the contract required for UMG
to pay 50 percent of all net receipts connected to the "use or
exploration" of their music. They claimed the class impacted in the
lawsuit could include "at least thousands of artists."

United States District Judge Jennifer Rochon decided that Black
Sheep had exceeded the statute of limitations, therefore deeming
their lawsuit time barred. Judge Rochon also rejected the rappers'
argument that UMG was in breach of contract. Their request for
leave to amend was denied, and the case was closed. UMG declined to
comment. Pitchfork has reached out to Black Sheep's attorneys. [GN]

UPSIDE SERVICES: Allec Sues Over Misleading Referral Program
------------------------------------------------------------
LOGAN ALLEC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UPSIDE SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-05982 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 17, 2023) alleges that the Defendant
is engaged in false and misleading practice regarding its referral
program.

According to the complaint, the Defendant offers a gas rebate
service via its website upside.com and its mobile app, which is
available on both Google Play and the Apple App Store. The
Defendant has been offering its gas rebate service and
corresponding referral payments to its customers who make the
referrals to the Defendant since 2016. From the start, the
Defendant offered its referring customers continued referral
payments for their entire lifetime, a strategy which ensured the
Defendant’s success as a business.

After skyrocketing gas prices saw consumer interest in gas rebates
skyrocket during the global COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the
Defendant seemingly decided that it was time to stop offering
referring parties lifetime payments when those they referred to its
services used the Defendant to gas up.

But the Defendant was not content to stop at revamping its program
going forward; on the contrary, it sought to unilaterally change
the terms of payment for referrals made under the original referral
program. Despite having promised to pay its users for life for
users they’d referred, it now sought to renege on that promise --
depriving Plaintiff and all the other consumers who had enriched
the company with their efforts to refer new customers to the
Defendant of the benefits to which they were legally entitled, says
the suit.

Upside Services, Inc. is a privately-held company that develops a
mobile platform to connect users with brick-and-mortar commerce.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Karl S. Kronenberger, Esq.
          Leah Rosa Vulic, Esq.
          KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD, LLP
          150 Post Street, Suite 520
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 955-1155
          Facsimile: (415) 955-1158
          Email: karl@kr.law
                 leah@kr.law

USAA CASUALTY: Faces Consumer Class Action in Washington
--------------------------------------------------------
Mason Lawlor, writing for ALM, reports that USAA Casualty Insurance
Co. and USAA General Indemnity Co. were hit with a consumer class
action on Nov. 16 alleging they arbitrarily and wrongfully denied
personal injury protection and/or medical payment insurance
benefits by delegating adjustment claims to third parties.

In the complaint filed Nov. 16 in the Washington Superior Court for
Clark County, plaintiffs Caryn Jennings and Tricia Harder, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, accused USAA of
violating the Washington Consumer Protection Act, as well as breach
of contract, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing. The plaintiffs claim that USAA denied their insureds'
personal injury protection (PIP) and/or medical payment insurance
benefits because the company allegedly delegates its insurance
claim adjustment to a third party's computer program that
arbitrarily reduces or denies these claims.

The plaintiffs seek declaratory relief as to PIP coverage, and they
also seek injunctive relief enjoining USAA from continuing to
handle claims as such, the complaint said.

According to plaintiffs, represented by counsel at Tousley Brain
Stephens and Franklin D. Azar & Associates, USAA should be
conducting an investigation into each bill for medical expenses
submitted by insureds. Instead, they employ a Medical Bill Audit
(MBA) system designed to reduce the amount USAA pays for health
care claims.

Through PPO, PR, GR, RL, DOC and RF codes, and "without human
input," USAA has found a way to utilize the allowable lower billing
rates under agreements between other insurers and preferred
provider organizations, "even though USAA has no direct PPO or PPN
agreements with its insureds' healthcare providers," plaintiffs
argue.

The company also reportedly determines costs for Medicare patients
based off an arbitrary threshold held in a database by called the
Milliman Database, which is composed of an "outdated" 5% nationwide
sample of charge data from patients over 65 collected by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, the complaint said.

"This Medicare patient sample has no bearing on the reasonableness
of charges for the medical services provided to USAA's insureds,
does not reflect the entire range of fees charged in the geographic
area where the medical services are provided, and is comprised of
data not organized by a provider's years of experience, background,
or qualifications," the complaint said.

"USAA denies or reduces payment of its insureds' medical bills
based only on AIS's [Auto Injury Solutions] automated review
process and does not conduct any independent or individualized
review to assess whether the charge is a reasonable and necessary
medical expense."

Jennings and Harder were both injured in automobile accidents while
covered under a USAA Casualty Insurance policy that included
$10,000 in personal injury protection. Both claim USAA either
denied or reduced reimbursement for their medical care.

Counsel has not yet appeared for the defendants. Neither attorney
Franklin D. Azar nor Jason T. Dennett or Cecily B. Jordan of
Tousley Brain Stephens could be reached for additional comment.
[GN]

VERRA MOBILITY: Brantley Class Suit Trial Set for March 2025
------------------------------------------------------------
Verra Mobility 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 9, 2023, that the
24th Judicial District Court of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana has
scheduled the trial for Brantley class suit in March 2025.

Brantley v. City of Gretna is a class action lawsuit filed in the
24th Judicial District Court of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana against
the City of Gretna ("City") and its safety camera vendor, Redflex
Traffic Systems, Inc. in April 2016.

The plaintiff class, which was certified on March 30, 2021, alleges
that the City's safety camera program was implemented and operated
in violation of local ordinances and the state constitution,
including that the City's hearing process violated the
plaintiffs’ due process rights for lack of a "neutral" arbiter of
liability for traffic infractions.

Plaintiffs seek recovery of traffic infraction fines paid.

The City and Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. appealed the trial
court's ruling granting class certification, which was denied and
their petition for discretionary review of the certification ruling
by the Louisiana Supreme Court was declined.

Merits discovery in the trial court is underway.

Trial has been scheduled for March 2025.

Verra Mobility Corporation offers integrated technology solutions
and services by offering toll and violation management solutions
for the commercial fleet and rental car industries by partnering
with the leading fleet management and rental car companies.



VETNIQUE LABS: Bunting Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
RASHETA BUNTING, Plaintiff v. VETNIQUE LABS LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 533888/2023 (New York Sup., Kings Cty., November 17, 2023)
alleges violations of the New York State Human Rights Law, the New
York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law
in connection with 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 persons.

Plaintiff Bunting, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change
in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Plaintiff for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.

Vetnique Labs is a Delaware Foreign limited liability company doing
business in New York with its principal place of business located
at 1748 W. Jefferson Avenue, Naperville, IL. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

VIRGIN GALACTIC: Continues to Defend Lavin Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Virgin Galactic Holdings 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 8, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Lavin class suit in the
Eastern District of New York.

On May 28, 2021, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company in the Eastern District of New York captioned Lavin v.
Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03070.

In September 2021, the Court appointed Robert Scheele and Mark
Kusnier as co-lead plaintiffs for the purported class.

Co-lead plaintiffs amended the complaint in December 2021,
asserting violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of
its current and former officers and directors on behalf of a
putative class of investors who purchased the Company's common
stock between July 10, 2019 and October 14, 2021.

The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company
and certain of its current and former officers and directors made
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose certain
information regarding the safety of the Company's ships and success
of its commercial flight program.

Co-lead plaintiffs seek damages, interest, costs, expenses,
attorneys' fees and other unspecified equitable relief.

The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint and, on
November 7, 2022, the court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motion and gave the plaintiffs leave to file a further
amended complaint.

Plaintiffs' filed a second amended complaint on December 12, 2022.


The second amended complaint contains many of the same allegations
as in the first amended complaint.

The defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on
February 24, 2023 and on August 8, 2023, the court granted in part
and denied in part the defendants' motion.

On August 22, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court
to reconsider its August 8, 2023 order and to certify an
interlocutory appeal, or in the alternative to enter a final
judgment.

The motion was fully briefed as of October 10, 2023.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against this
matter.

Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. is an American spaceflight company
founded by Richard Branson and his British Virgin Group retains an
18% stake through Virgin Investments Limited. It is headquartered
in California, USA, and operates from New Mexico.




VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Plaintiffs Lose Discovery Extension Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
Virginia Lawyers Weekly reports that where plaintiffs suing two
carmakers over alleged defects objected to a magistrate judge's
order refusing a third extension of the discovery deadline, their
objections were overruled. They failed to demonstrate how numerous
foreign individuals would be deposed in the three-month timeframe
they sought, or why such depositions were necessary and
proportional to the needs of the case.

Background

Plaintiffs filed this action on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated against Volkswagen Group of America Inc., or
VWGoA, and Audi Aktiengesellschaft. Plaintiffs allege damages
stemming from a latent defect in the timing chain system embedded
in certain Audi and Volkswagen vehicle models manufactured during
model years 2011 through 2015.

The original scheduling order in this case set a discovery deadline
of Oct. 14, 2022. It was twice extended by the magistrate judge in
response to joint motions by the parties, with the last extension
to May 19, 2023. On April 13, 2023, the parties filed a third
consent motion to extend the discovery deadlines, for another three
months. The magistrate judge denied the third joint motion for lack
of good cause. Neither party appealed that decision to this court.

On May 12, 2023, plaintiffs filed a motion to compel certain
further discovery. That motion was granted in part and denied in
part by the magistrate judge, who also denied without prejudice
plaintiffs' motion for an extension of the discovery deadline.

On June 16, 2023, plaintiffs filed an opposed motion for extension
of time seeking to extend the discovery to Sept. 29, 2023. Then on
July 7, 2023, plaintiffs filed another motion to compel. Following
a hearing, the magistrate judge: (i) extended expert discovery
until Sept. 5, 2023; (ii) directed defendants to supplement their
discovery by July 26, 2023, and (iii) permitted additional
discovery until Aug. 9, 2023, but limited it to discovery
concerning documents produced from May 19, 2023, through July 26,
2023. Plaintiffs have filed objections to that order.

Analysis

The magistrate judge's order is not clearly erroneous or contrary
to law. Plaintiffs unduly delayed the filing of their motion to
compel until at least three weeks after they filed the opposed
extension motion and at least five weeks after the close of
discovery. Moreover, plaintiffs failed to bring many of the issues
on which they now focus to the magistrate judge's attention.

Judge Davis cannot be faulted for failing to grant plaintiffs
relief that they did not actually seek and, as he correctly noted,
defendants cannot be compelled to produce documents that do not
exist. Similarly, there is no basis on which to extend the
discovery period by three months for plaintiffs to pursue
depositions of unidentified German nationals, especially where
plaintiffs have not explained how such individuals will be deposed
within the three-month timeframe or why such depositions are
necessary and proportional to the needs of the case.

Plaintiffs' objections overruled.

Connelly v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc., Case No.
1:19-cv-1487, Nov. 3, 2023. EDVA at Alexandria (Alston). VLW
023-3-706. 16 pp.

VLW 023-3-706
Virginia Lawyers Weekly
023-3-706 – Connelly v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc. [GN]

WALMART INC: Faces Lyons Fraud Class Action Lawsuit in M.D. Ala.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Walmart, Inc. et al.
The case is captioned as Lyons v. Walmart, Inc. et al, Case No.
2:23-cv-00616-ECM-KFP (M.D. Ala., Oct. 20, 2023).

The suit alleges fraud related violations. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Emily C. Marks.

Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Matthew Stephens, Esq.
          METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY, STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C.
          2201 Arlington Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 939-0199
          Facsimile: (205) 939-0399
          E-mail: mstephens@mtattorneys.com

                - and -

          John Livingston Adams, Esq.
          JOHNNY ADAMS LAW FIRM LLC
          324 Ellis St
          Union Springs, AL 36089
          Telephone: (334) 850-0022
          Facsimile: (800) 738-6860
          E-mail: johnny@johnnyadamslaw.com

                - and -

          Courtney Cooper Gipson, Esq.
          MCCALLUM METHVIN & TERRELL PC
          2201 Arlington Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 939-0199
          Facsimile: (205) 939-0399
          E-mail: cgipson@mtattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Reid Stephens Manley, Esq.
          BURR & FORMAN LLP
          420 North Twentieth Street; Suite 3400
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 251-3000
          Facsimile: (205) 458-5100
          E-mail: rmanley@burr.com

                - and -

          Richard Eric Gottlieb, Esq.
          GLASER WEIL FINK HOWARD AVCHEN & SHAPIRO
          10250 Constellation Boulevard
          Ste 19th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (312) 622-4900
          E-mail: rgottlieb@glaserweil.com

WEILL CORNELL: Faces Suit Over Sexual Abuses in Medical Practice
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN DOE #205; and JOHN DOE #536; individually and on behalf of all
similar situated, Class Plaintiffs v. DARIUS A. PADUCH; JOSEPH J.
FINS, M.D.; WEILL CORNELL MEDICINE;WEILL CORNELL MEDICAL CENTER;
BRADY UROLOGIC HEALTH CENTER, CORNELL INSTITUTE FOR REPRODUCTIVE
MEDICINE, WEILLCORNELL MEDICAL COLLEGE; NEW YORK-PRESBYTERIAN
HOSPITAL/WEILL CORNELL MEDICAL CENTER; NEW YORK-PRESBYTERIAN
HOSPITAL; CORNELL UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES; COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK; COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES; NEW
YORK-PRESBYTERIAN COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IRVING MEDICAL CENTER;
NORTHWELL HEALTH; and LONG ISLAND JEWISH MEDICAL CENTER,
Defendants, Case No. 952147/2023 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty.,
November 15, 2023) is brought Adult Survivors Act by Plaintiffs and
other Class members, who include both adults and minors and were
sexually assaulted, sexually exploited and sexually abused by
Darius A. Paduch, a former urologist employed, contracted, hired,
managed, supervised, controlled, directed, overseen, and/or led by
the other named defendants.

The class action seeks to address Defendants' repeated violations
of these fundamental ideals, for a period of over a decade, where
their Administrators, Chairpeople, Medical Ethicists, General
Counsel, and Trustees, failed, repeatedly, to protect vulnerable
and unsuspecting patients from known and serial predatory sexual
assaults being committed under the guise of medical care, by
several of their own employees, including defendant Darius A.
Paduch.

Weill Cornell Medicine, is a domestic, not-for-profit corporation
organized under the laws of the state of New York. It operates a
medical school located at 525 East 68th Street, New York, NY. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anthony T. DiPietro, Esq.
          THE DIPIETRO LAW FIRM
          The Woolworth Building
          233 Broadway Suite 880
          NewYork, NY 10279
          Telephone: (212) 233-3600

WELLS FARGO: Order on Stipulated Final Judgment Entered
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNIE CHANG, et al., v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No. 4:19-cv-01973-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order regarding
plaintiffs' stipulated final judgment:

On November 9, 2023, the Plaintiffs timely filed a Stipulated Final
Judgment. The Court has reviewed the Judgment and is concerned
about the permanent injunction term contained at paragraph six. As
currently drafted, the last sentence of paragraph six reads as
follows:

The Releasors further are forever barred and enjoined from
organizing Class Members, or soliciting the participation of Class
Members, in a separate class for purposes of pursuing any action
(including by seeking to amend a pending complaint or counterclaim
to include class allegations, or seeking class certification in a
pending action in any jurisdiction based on or relating to any of
the Released Claims against any of the Releasees).

Wells Fargo is a US-based global financial services company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 14, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Rb94TF at no extra charge.[CC]

WEST VIRGINIA: Filing of Class Cert Prelim Approval Due Dec. 8
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL D. ROSE, and
EDWARD L. HARMON, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. MICHAEL FRANCIS, individually and as an
employee of the West Virginia Division of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-00405 (S.D.W. Va.), the
Hon. Judge Frank W. Volk entered an order as follows:

   1. That Plaintiffs and the Settling Defendants shall file a
Joint
      Motion for Preliminary Approval no later than December 8,
2023,
      attaching their settlement agreement and necessary exhibits
      including declarations;

   2. That any comments on the Joint Motion and attached materials

      shall be filed on or before December 22, 2023;

   3. That Plaintiffs and the Settling Defendants shall file a
Motion
      for Final Approval, accompanied by a proposed order, no later

      than January 12, 2023; and

   4. That the hearing on the Motion for Final Approval is
scheduled
      for January 26, 2024, at 12:00 PM.

The Defendants include THE RALEIGH COUNTY COMMISSION, John/Jane Doe
Employees of the Raleigh County Commission, THE FAYETTE COUNTY
COMMISSION, John/Jane Doe Employees of the Fayette County
Commission, THE GREENBRIER COUNTY COMMISSION, John/Jane Doe
Employees of the Greenbrier County Commission, THE MERCER COUNTY
COMMISSION, John/Jane Doe Employees of the Mercer County
Commission, THE MONROE COUNTY COMMISSION, John/Jane Doe Employees
of the Monroe County Commission,
THE SUMMERS COUNTY COMMISSION, John/Jane Doe Employees of the
Summers
County Commission, THE WYOMING COUNTY COMMISSION, John/Jane Doe
Employees of the Wyoming County Commission, PRIMECARE MEDICAL OF
WEST VIRGINIA, INC., John/Jane Doe PrimeCare Employees, JOHN/JANE
DOE CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS, BETSY JIVIDEN, individually as an
employee of the West Virginia Division of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC. John/Jane Doe Wexford
Employees, BRAD DOUGLAS, individually and in his official capacity
as the acting Commissioner of the West Virginia Division of
Corrections and Rehabilitation, JEFF S. SANDY, individually and in
his official capacity as the Cabinet Secretary of the West Virginia
Division Department of Homeland Security, and WILLIAM K. MARSHALL,
III individually and in his official capacity as the Commissioner
of the West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

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




WESTERN DIGITAL: Ackerman Sues Over Defective Marketing of SSDs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Ackerman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Western Digital Corporation,
Western Digital Technologies, Inc., and SanDisk LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 5:23-cv-05938 (N.D. Cal., November 16, 2023) asserts
claims against the Defendants for breach of express warranties,
breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraud by omission,
unjust enrichment, and for violations of the California Unfair
Competition Law and the California False Advertising Law.

The class action arises from the Defendants' alleged deceptive
marketing, promotion and advertising of solid state drives (SSDs),
which have manufacturing defects. Starting in early 2023,
purchasers of the SSDs began reporting that the SSDs were failing,
resulting in permanent loss of their data. In the months that
followed, media reports confirmed this was not limited to a small
group of users. Thus, the SSDs do not conform with their core
functionality, as well as Defendants' basic promise that the SSDs
will do what they are supposed to do -- store data safely for later
access. Defendants have not disclosed the extent this defect, says
the suit.

Headquartered in California, Western Digital Technologies, Inc.
Western Digital Technologies, and SanDisk LLC design, manufacture,
market, and sell a variety of computer storage devices including
portable solid-state drives. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam J. Zapala, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP
          San Francisco Airport Office Center
          840 Malcolm Road Suite 200
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697-6000
          Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
          E-mail: azapala@cpmlegal.com

                  - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Karla M. Gluek, Esq.
          Daniel J. Nordin, Esq.
          Mary M. Nikolai, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  kgluek@gustafsongluek.com
                  dnordin@gustafsongluek.com
                  mnikolai@gustafsongluek.com

XITLALI DELI: Lawrence Sues Over Disability Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------
NANA QUEENIE LAWRENCE, Plaintiff v. XITLALI DELI GROCERY CORP. and
MOHAMMAD RANA, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-08474 (E.D.N.Y.,
November 15, 2023) is a class action alleging Defendants'
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Plaintiff Lawrence seeks declaratory, injunctive and equitable
relief, as well as monetary damages and attorney's fees, costs and
expenses to redress Defendants unlawful disability discrimination
against Plaintiff, in violation of Title III of the ADA and its
implementing regulation, the New York State Executive Law, and the
Administrative Code of the City of New York. Plaintiff Lawrence, on
behalf of herself and for the benefit of all others similarly
situated, also alleges a claim for negligence.

On or about, April 11, 2023 Plaintiff attempted to access the
business and discovered that the premises contained, architectural
barriers at Defendants' place of public accommodation that prevents
and/or restricts access to Plaintiff, a person with a disability.
In addition, the Defendants allegedly breached their duty by
negligently designing, constructing, operating, repairing and
maintaining their place of public accommodation a manner that has
unreasonably endangered the Plaintiff's physical safety and caused
plaintiff to fear for plaintiff safety, says the suit.

Xitlali Deli Grocery Corp. is a New York limited liability company
licensed to and doing business in New York State. The company owns
and operates the property located at 105 Graham Avenue, Brooklyn,
NY 11206, County of Kings, State of New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Jonathan Bell, Esq.
         BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC
         116 Jackson Blvd.
         Syosset, NY 11791
         Telephone: (516) 280-3008
         E-mail: JB@BellLG.com

ZAPPOS.COM LLC: Collects Data Without Consent, Casillas Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
MILTITA CASILLAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZAPPOS.COM LLC d/b/a
WWW.ZAPPOS.COM, Defendant, Case No. 23STCV28343 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Nov. 17, 2023) alleges that the Defendant has
secretly deployed spyware in its website www.zappos.com that
accesses visitor devices, installs tracking software, and surveils
their browsing habits.

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint that without the
Plaintiff's knowledge or consent, the Defendant secretly used "pen
register" software to access Plaintiff's device and install
tracking software in violation of California law.

ZAPPOS.COM, INC. sells apparel and footwear online. The Company
offers sneakers, boots, sandals, slippers, shirts, trousers,
skirts, jackets, coats, swimsuits, bags, belts, gloves, scarves,
ties, socks, and gift cards. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
          A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Tel: (949) 706-6464
          Fax: (949) 706-6469
          Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com

ZOOM VIDEO: Warren Suit Sues Over Automatic Renewal Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------
FERNANDA WARREN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC, Case No.
5:23-cv-05333-PCP (N.D. Cal., Oct. 19, 2023) is a class action
regarding the Defendant's automatic renewal scheme with respect to
Zoom subscriptions.

According to the complaint, Zoom allegedly fails to cancel
subscription plans of subscribers that cancel their paid monthly
subscription. Instead, Zoom continues to charge consumers unwanted
monthly fees even after they attempt to cancel their membership.

Zoom systematically violates state automatic renewal laws,
including those of California and Florida, by engaging in a pattern
and practice of exploiting its members by continuing to charge them
monthly fees, without consumers' consent, after they have canceled
their memberships, the lawsuit claims.

In May of 2022, the Plaintiff purchased a Standard Pro monthly
subscription in addition to a Zoom Whiteboard subscription. The
Plaintiff cancelled her two Zoom memberships via Zoom's online web
portal in June 2022. Despite cancelling her subscription, the
Plaintiff found that Zoom had not honored her cancellation request
and was billed for another month. By falsely marketing its
cancellation practices, Zoom deceived the Plaintiff and Class
members into making purchases they otherwise would not make,
asserts the lawsuit.

As a result of its unfair, fraudulent, and unlawful conduct, Zoom
has been unjustly enriched and should be required to disgorge its
unjust profits and make restitution to the Plaintiff and Class
members pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section 17203 and 17204,
the lawsuit further alleges.

Zoom is a supplier of video conferencing services founded in 2011
and is currently valued at over $67 billion.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
          KALIELGOLD PLLC
          1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 280-4783
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
                  sgold@kalielgold.com

                - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

ZUFFA LLC: Plaintiffs Seek Approval of Bout Class Notice in Le Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cung Le, Nathan Quarry,
Jon Fitch, Brandon Vera, Luis Javier Vazquez, and Kyle Kingsbury,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
Zuffa, LLC, d/b/a Ultimate Fighting Championship and UFC, Case No.
2:15-cv-01045-RFB-BNW (D. Nev.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:

-- Approving their proposal for distribution of notice to the Bout

    Class of the Court's Order certifying the Bout Class, dated
August
    9, 2023.

The Plaintiffs' Notice Plan provides direct email and U.S. mail
notice to all reasonably identifiable Class members, complemented
by a targeted first-party social media campaign, the issuance of a
press release, and posted notice in notable mixed martial arts
(MMA) Gyms.

The Notice Plan also includes the implementation of a dedicated
website and toll-free line where Class members can learn more about
their rights and options in the litigation.

The Plaintiffs, who are professional MMA fighters who fought for
the UFC, brought an antitrust action, on behalf of themselves and
the now certified bout Class, against Zuffa.

The Plaintiffs allege the UFC used an anticompetitive scheme to
establish and maintain its market dominance, allowing it to pay its
fighters substantially less than it would have in a more
competitive market.

The Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, filed
on December 18, 2015, is the operative pleading.

On August 9, 2023, the Court issued an Order certifying the Bout
Class.

The Order defines the Class as follows:

   "All persons who competed in one or more live professional
   UFC promoted MMA bouts taking place or broadcast in the United
   States from December 16, 2016, to June 30, 2017. The Bout Class

   excludes all persons who are not residents or citizens of the
   United States unless the UFC paid such persons for competing in
a
   bout fought in the United States."

Zuffa was an American sports promotion company specializing in
mixed martial arts.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          Kevin E. Rayhill, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP
          601 California St., Suite 1000
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 500-6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
          E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
                  krayhill@saverilawfirm.com

                - and -

          Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
          Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq.
          Patrick F. Madden, Esq.
          Najah Jacobs, Esq.
          Joshua P. Davis, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market St., Suite 3600
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          E-mail: ecramer@bm.net
                  mdellangelo@bm.net
                  pmadden@bm.net
                  njacobs@bm.net
                  jdavis@bm.net

                - and -

          Richard A. Koffman, Esq.
          Benjamin Brown, Esq.
          Daniel Silverman, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          1100 New York Ave., N.W., Suite 500 East, Tower
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: rkoffman@cohenmilstein.com
                  bbrown@cohenmilstein.com
                  dsilverman@cohenmilstein.com

                - and -

          Don Springmeyer, Esq.
          KEMP JONES, LLP
          3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, 17th Floor
          Las Vegas, NV 89169
          Telephone: (702) 385-6000
          Facsimile: (702) 385-6001
          E-mail: dspringmeyer@kempjones.com

                - and -

          Robert C. Maysey, Esq.
          Jerome K. Elwell, Esq.
          WARNER ANGLE HALLAM JACKSON &
          FORMANEK PLC
          2555 E. Camelback Road, Suite 800
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 264-7101
          Facsimile: (602) 234-0419
          E-mail: rmaysey@warnerangle.com
                  jelwell@warnerangle.com

[*] Cooley LLP Discusses Illinois Brick Rule in Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dee Bansal, Esq., Peter Brody, Esq., and Ethan Glass, Esq., and
Beatriz Mejia, Esq., of Cooley LLP, in an article for Global
Competition Review, disclosed that class actions play a substantial
role in the US legal system, particularly in antitrust litigation.
It is 'the longstanding policy' of US law to 'encourage [the]
vigorous private enforcement of the antitrust laws', and the class
action device creates the economic incentives that allow plaintiffs
to litigate complex claims that otherwise would carry only small
individual damages.[1] Even so, these litigations carry substantial
financial risks for defendants; as the Supreme Court has
recognised, antitrust litigation is a colossal undertaking with
discovery that imposes heavy burdens on defendants.[2] What is
more, the point of 'class certification'-- when a proposed class is
converted into a certified class and all absent members are joined
as plaintiffs to the suit -- is often the financial tipping point
in litigation. If a class is certified, the sheer magnitude of the
defendant's potential 'liability at trial becomes enormous, maybe
even catastrophic, forcing companies to settle even if they have
meritorious defenses'.[3]

Accordingly, US antitrust class actions are hotly litigated, from
their outset through the point of class certification. This guide
provides an overview of key issues in that process, with an eye
towards trends in litigation and the coming developments that may
shape the future of collective antitrust litigation.

Who May Sue?
The Illinois Brick rule
From its initiation, US antitrust litigation presents difficult
legal issues that plaintiffs and defendants must carefully
navigate. As a threshold matter, class antitrust litigation in the
United States is constrained by the concept of 'antitrust standing'
-- that is, to bring an antitrust action, plaintiffs must show not
only that they have suffered concrete injuries (a requirement in
all US federal litigation), but also that they are proper parties
'to bring a private antitrust action'.[4]

In 1977, the Supreme Court held in Illinois Brick Co v Illinois
that the proper party to bring an antitrust action, in almost all
instances, is the 'direct purchaser'.[5] As the court later
explained, '"the immediate buyers from the alleged antitrust
violators" may maintain a suit against the antitrust violators,'
but otherwise 'indirect purchasers who are two or more steps
removed from the violator in a distribution chain may not sue.'[6]
This limitation, the Supreme Court has stated, is justified by the
policy goals of '(1) facilitating more effective enforcement of
antitrust laws; (2) avoiding complicated damages calculations; and
(3) eliminating duplicative damages against antitrust
defendants'.[7] The direct purchaser rule might, however, allow
direct purchasers to reap a windfall, recovering damages that they
in fact passed down the line.

But who qualifies as a direct purchaser? The Supreme Court
addressed the question most recently in Apple v Pepper. There, the
court considered a suit brought by users of Apple products who
alleged that Apple unlawfully monopolised the market for iPhone
applications by allowing those apps to be distributed only through
its 'App Store', and raised the prices of those apps by taking
supracompetitive commissions.[8] Apple, for its part, argued that
the app users were not 'direct purchasers from Apple', because the
app developers, rather than Apple, were ultimately responsible for
app prices.[9]

The Supreme Court held that the app users were 'direct purchasers',
and therefore entitled to sue because, at the most basic level, the
consumers 'bought the apps directly from Apple', which then
extracted its commission and passed the remainder on to the app
developers. The court rejected the contrary proposed '"who sets the
price" theory', which would have held that the 'seller' in the
'purchaser-seller' relationship was the entity that sets the price
of the good in suit, regardless of that entity's role in the supply
chain.[10]

The Supreme Court in Apple v Pepper therefore took a bright-line
approach to the direct purchaser inquiry: the first buyer from the
entity with monopoly power, no matter that entity's role, is the
proper antitrust plaintiff. Courts following Apple v Pepper
understand it the same way. For example, in one recent putative
class action, the Northern District of Illinois held that a
homebuyer was not the proper plaintiff to state a claim against a
trade association responsible for developing real estate broker
commission rules and the corporate defendants who enforce those
rules because, although the commission is baked into a home's sale
price paid by the buyer to the seller, the seller is the direct
purchaser of agency services and the seller agent is responsible
for remitting the buyer agent's commission.[11] Similarly, in In re
Xyrem (Sodium Oxybate) Antitrust Litigation, a class of health
insurance companies and unions that 'bought or reimbursed Xyrem', a
medication for the treatment of narcolepsy, 'for their members',
brought suit against the medication's manufacturer.[12] Applying
Apple v Pepper, the court held that these end payors lacked
antitrust standing because, as a formal matter, the prescriptions
in issue were distributed through a pharmacy (Express Scripts),
even though that pharmacy was the exclusive, defendant-selected
distributor of Xyrem.[13]

Taken together, these authorities suggest that all parties to
antitrust litigation -- plaintiffs and defendants alike -- must
studiously scrutinise the chain of distribution for the products at
issue; any interruption in the distribution chain, however minor or
functionally inconsequential, will likely be enough to defeat a
class's right to proceed.

Changes to Illinois Brick
Because Illinois Brick is a court-made, non-constitutional
doctrine, Congress has the authority to repeal it at any time.
Efforts to that end have been ongoing for decades and have garnered
support from voices across the political spectrum, including the
Democratic Party-led Antitrust Task Force of the Committee on the
Judiciary of the House of Representatives for the 110th
Congress[14] and Makan Delrahim (the assistant attorney general for
the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division during the Trump
administration).[15] In 2021, Republican senator Mike Lee of Utah
introduced legislation that would, among other things, overrule
Illinois Brick; as of the date of publication, the legislation is
pending before the Senate committee on the judiciary.[16]

Further, because each state has its own antitrust laws (which
substantially follow the federal law), state legislatures are free
to permit downstream purchasers to bring antitrust claims on their
own behalf. The majority of states have passed such laws -
generally called Illinois Brick repealer laws.[17] By doing so,
these states have expanded the set of plaintiffs who might recover
for conduct that violates state antitrust laws, but have also
introduced significant legal complexity to antitrust litigation and
attempts to settle disputes.[18] For example, in Stromberg v
Qualcomm, the plaintiffs brought a nationwide antitrust class
action in California court, arguing that Qualcomm's cellular chip
licensing practices led to higher consumer mobile phone prices.[19]
The trial court certified a nationwide class, which the Ninth
Circuit recently reversed, reasoning that because the class
included citizens of both states that have repealed Illinois Brick
within their borders and those that have not, and because of
'significant variations in the scope of the repealer laws [. . .]
[e]ven among the repealer states', choice-of-law issues might
overwhelm the common-questions analysis at the core of the US class
certification framework.[20]

Exceptions
Illinois Brick is not an absolute rule. While, as a general matter,
'indirect purchasers who are two or more steps removed from the
antitrust violator in a distribution chain may not sue,'[21] courts
have recognised or suggested exceptions for: buyers who purchase
from the direct purchaser under 'a pre-existing cost-plus
contract';[22] 'where the direct purchaser is owned or controlled
by its customer';[23] and where the 'indirect purchaser' transacts
with a 'co-conspirator' in a price-fixing conspiracy.[24] Because
of the prevalence of these provisions, US antitrust class actions
commonly involve suits brought on behalf of both direct and
indirect purchasers.[25]

The application of the Illinois Brick exceptions presents a
substantial legal issue at the outset of any antitrust action,
including those brought by indirect purchaser classes, and it
offers an early opportunity to defendants to limit the scope of any
indirect purchaser action.

Marion Diagnostic Center v Becton Dickinson, a Seventh Circuit
decision from March 2022, is instructive. There, the Seventh
Circuit considered the application of the co-conspirator exception
to a suit brought by a putative class of purchasers of medical
products, who alleged that the manufacturers of those products
(Cardinal and McKesson) conspired with regional distributors,
including defendant Becton Dickinson, to fix equipment prices.[26]
The class, the 'Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs', bought only
McKesson products through Becton Dickinson, but nevertheless sued
both McKesson and Cardinal, arguing that they could proceed against
both under the co-conspirator exception. The Seventh Circuit,
however, held that plaintiffs could only avoid Illinois Brick as to
McKesson - even though McKesson and Cardinal were alleged to have
engaged in the same conduct.[27] The court found that the claims
against Cardinal, to the extent they were viable at all, belonged
to a different class of indirect purchasers, and were therefore
dismissed.[28] Accordingly, Marion Diagnostic confirms that
Illinois Brick is a meaningful limitation on the scope of class
action litigation, even when industry participants are alleged to
have otherwise engaged in the same wrongdoing such that
'efficiency' considerations might support resolving all claims,
actual and potential, in a single proceeding.

The Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 framework
Assuming a proper plaintiff brings the putative antitrust action,
and that the plaintiff can meet the pleading requirements that
apply to all allegations in a US litigation, an antitrust action
will eventually arrive at the 'class certification' stage. Class
certification is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
(Rule 23). To certify a class, a plaintiff must establish each of
the requirements of Rule 23(a):

the class must be 'so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable';
there must be 'questions of law or fact common to the class';
the named plaintiff must have 'claims or defenses . . . [that] are
typical of the claims or defenses of the class'; and
the named plaintiff and class counsel must be 'adequat[e]'.
Further, to seek damages, the plaintiff must establish that the
action fits within Rule 23(b)(3), such that the common questions
'predominate over any questions affecting only individual members,
and that a class action is superior to other available methods for
fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy'. The primary
Rule 23(b)(3) inquiry, 'predominance', overlaps with the Rule 23(a)
'common questions' inquiry, but it 'is far more demanding'; courts
often analyse the two together at class certification.[29]

Expert testimony at class certification
It is the plaintiff's burden to prove that each of the Rule 23
requirements are satisfied.[30] Accordingly, and as would perhaps
be expected, class certification motions (and defendants'
corresponding opposition papers) rely, almost as a rule, on expert
opinion testimony.

Defendants will often challenge that expert testimony through their
own expert, at which point there is a 'battle of the experts', and
a court must undertake an analysis of the methodology and
reliability of the competing experts' testimonies under the
standards laid out in Daubert v Merrill Dow Pharms.[31] While the
Daubert inquiry might overlap with the merits, that overlap is not
a proper basis for a court to defer consideration of the expert's
opinion testimony.[32] Instead, the court must weigh the expert
testimony to evaluate whether it might be admissible and if,
considering the conflicting testimony, it is convinced that
plaintiffs pass the Rule 23 test. If the proffered expert testimony
does not meet the Daubert standard, courts can and do exclude it at
class certification.[33]

The court's analysis of expert testimony regarding class
certification is a high-stakes moment for antitrust plaintiffs. If
a plaintiff's expert is excluded at class certification, it will be
extremely difficult for the plaintiff to win class certification.
For example, in In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust
Litigation, the Southern District of New York declined to certify a
class because the plaintiffs' experts' methodology had an 'error
rate' that was 'too great to accept the method as reliable under
Daubert', and without this method the court would have had to
undertake 'tens or hundreds of thousands of individual
determinations'.[34] However, the inverse is not necessarily true
-- a court's decision to accept a plaintiff's expert testimony is
not dispositive of the class certification inquiry.[35]

Class certification and predominance issues
Predominance: impact and uninjured class members
While a plaintiff must establish that each of the Rule 23(a) and
Rule 23(b) factors are satisfied, the bulk of antitrust class
certification litigation focuses on the Rule 23(b) 'predominance'
inquiry. At this stage, defendants attempt to demonstrate that a
number of issues will have to be adjudicated on an individualised,
class member-by-class member basis, undermining any efficiency
gains associated with class treatment and making common
adjudication impossible.[36]

Often times, defendants will focus on the individualised nature of
'antitrust impact' -- that is, the harm resulting from the alleged
antitrust violation, usually in the form of a price overcharge.[37]
While courts have held that the existence or non-existence of a
price-fixing conspiracy may be susceptible to common proof,[38]
defendants have often successfully argued that individualised
questions of antitrust impact will predominate over plaintiffs'
proposed common issues because individualised analysis will be
required to determine whether, and to what extent, each member of
the proposed class was harmed by the alleged conspiracy.[39] Like
the other elements of an antitrust claim, '[w]hether or not
antitrust impact can be proven on a classwide basis often hinges on
(often conflicting) expert testimony.'[40]

Where the products-in-suit are commodity items priced according to
lists or published indices, plaintiffs have had success in
defeating challenges to their common impact showings. For example,
in May 2022, the Northern District of Illinois certified a class of
purchasers of broiler chickens relying on expert testimony showing
an artificial increase in chicken list prices and 'that "the
commodity nature of broiler products" means that "market prices
depend on total industry supply," which in turn means that "the
prices for every customer that is based on these market prices
indices . . . increases."'[41] On the other hand, where the
transactions-in-suit involve individualised, context-specific
negotiations, courts take a more sceptical view toward plaintiffs'
supposed common showings of antitrust impact and often deny
certification on predominance grounds.[42]

In recent years, the federal courts have been divided over whether
a plaintiff has satisfied the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance
requirement when the proposed class contains members who have not
suffered an antitrust injury at all. The decisions run the gamut,
from those holding that a class cannot contain any uninjured
plaintiffs to those suggesting that common issues might still
predominate even if over a quarter of the class did not actually
pay higher prices or otherwise suffer antitrust injury.[43] For
example, in Olean Wholesale Grocery Cooperative v Bumble Bee Foods,
the US District Court for the Southern District of California
certified a class of the purchasers of tuna products, even though
the expert evidence established that at least 5 per cent of the
class (in the plaintiffs' model) and perhaps more than 28 per cent
(in the defendants' model) could not have paid increased prices as
a result of the conspiracy.[44] A Ninth Circuit panel reversed the
district court,[45] but thecircuit reheard the case en banc and
affirmed the certification order.[46] The Ninth Circuit held that
the presence of even 'more than a de minimis number of uninjured
class members' is no barrier to class certification, instead
deferring the determination of the number of uninjured class
members to the jury.[47]

Unfortunately, clarity is not likely to come to the law any time
soon. Olean petitioned for review of the Ninth Circuit's en banc
order,[48] presenting an opportunity for the Court to harmonise the
discord among the lower courts, but the Supreme Court denied review
in an unexplained November 2022 order. As a result, plaintiffs and
defendants can expect to vigorously litigate the issue of
predominance and absent class members in the years to come.

Comcast, damages and disaggregation
In addition to the question of whether class plaintiffs can prove
antitrust impact on a common basis, plaintiffs seeking class
certification must present a model that measures only the damages
'attributable to [their] theory' of liability.[49] In other words,
pursuant to Comcast v Behrend, plaintiffs must map their damages to
each of the theories of liability in suit, setting aside the
question of whether that theory is accurate or workable.

In Comcast, the plaintiffs filed a suit challenging Comcast's
business practices in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania metropolitan
area.[50] At class certification, plaintiffs presented four
theories of how Comcast's unlawful practices increased prices
(causing antitrust impact), and then offered damages evidence that
identified an alleged overcharge, but 'did not isolate damages
resulting from any one theory of antitrust impact'.[51] The
district court threw out three of the four theories of antitrust
impact, but nevertheless certified the class.[52] The Supreme Court
ultimately reversed certification, reasoning that 'a model
purporting to serve as evidence of damages in [a] class action'
based on a specific theory of injury 'must measure only those
damages attributable to that theory'.[53] Thus, because the
expert's damages model failed to measure the damages under the only
remaining theory of antitrust impact, the court held that class
treatment was improper.

Plaintiffs face a number of challenges under Comcast. They must
carefully define their theory of liability and ensure that their
expert's damages model matches, and does not exceed, the bounds of
that theory. What's more, if circumstances change, Comcast will
bite litigants who have not thought ahead. Often, plaintiffs argue
that the defendants' conduct, taken together, caused an antitrust
injury. While this sort of aggregated-effects theory might be
permissible, it is risky.[54] Where the plaintiffs' theory of
injury is based on the effects of multiple forms of conduct, and
the expert does not separate the harm attributable to each form,
Comcast and the related principle of disaggregation may bar the
expert's testimony even if some of the underlying conduct is found
lawful.[55] For example, in Viamedia v Comcast, the plaintiff's
expert failed to separate the injury caused by one set of practices
(refusal to deal) from alleged 'tying, exclusive dealing, and other
exclusionary conduct', instead assuming that all of the defendant's
practices were unlawful and calculating a single injury. The trial
court excluded the expert's testimony, as a plaintiff 'must be able
to segregate the damages . . . caused by lawful competition from
those caused by anticompetitive acts'.[56] While the appellate
court later reversed the trial court's conclusion that the alleged
refusal-to-deal was necessarily lawful (after which point the
plaintiffs dropped the theory),[57] the case underscores the
importance and potentially certification-dispositive nature of the
disaggregation inquiry.

Settlement and objectors
The majority of antitrust class actions settle. This is due to many
reasons, including that the federal antitrust statutes allow for
treble damages and that, under section 1, defendants are subject to
joint and several liability. In addition, discovery and expert
testimony in antitrust cases are recognised to be complex and
burdensome.

US law allows courts to certify classes for the sole purpose of
settlement. While these settlement classes must satisfy the
strictures of Rule 23 to be certified,[58] they present significant
practical benefits -- as one court recently recognised, 'the class
action device' was 'the only feasible method of resolving . . .
claims' in a suit involving millions of class members.[59]

Settlement classes also carry a finality benefit for defendants:
because class settlements are binding on all class members, a class
settlement buys a defendant peace not just from the claims at hand,
but from potential future claims. However, defendants should be
wary of class members bound by time -- that is, all members who
purchased a product between 2015 to 2020, as a settlement of that
class would not preclude a class action from purchasers of that
product from 2014 or 2021.

However, class members may choose to 'opt out' of the settlement
before it is completed and to litigate on their own; these opt-out
plaintiffs can substantially prolong a litigation, exposing
settling defendants to additional defence costs and liability.

As class action settlements will bind absent class members, court
approval is required before an antitrust class settlement can be
final and aggrieved members of the putative class may object to the
settlement, including to the fees to be paid to class counsel. This
objection-and-court review can upset even the largest settlements
-- for example, in 2016, the Second Circuit overturned a settlement
worth up to US$7.25 billion in antitrust litigation between payment
card networks and their customers because, in the court's view, the
settlement improperly favoured some class members over others.[60]

Conclusion
Class antitrust litigation is a difficult process, fraught with
legal issues for both plaintiffs and defendants. From the outset of
an antitrust litigation, both plaintiffs and defendants must
litigate with Rule 23 and its attendant issues in mind, and should
not lose sight of class-related issues following class
certification or at the point of a negotiated resolution.

Notes
[1] Illinois Brick Co v Illinois, 431 US 720, 745 (1977)

[2] Bell Atl Corp v Twombly, 550 US 544, 557-59 (2007).

[3] Olean Wholesale Grocery Cooperative, Inc v Bumble Bee Foods
LLC, 31 F4th 651, 687 (9th Cir 2022) (en banc) (Lee, J,
dissenting).

[4] Associated General Contractors of California, Inc v California
State Council of Carpenters, 459 US 519, 535 n31 (1983).

[5] Illinois Brick Co v Illinois, 431 US 720, 745-46 (1977).

[6] Apple Inc v Pepper, 139 S Ct 1514, 1520 (2019) (quoting, in the
first passage, Kansas v UtiliCorp United Inc, 497 US 199, 207
(1990)).

[7] id at 1524.

[8] 139 S Ct at 1519.

[9] id.

[10] id at 1520.

[11] Leeder v Nat'l Ass'n of Realtors, 2022 WL 1307100, at *4 (ND
Ill May 2, 2022).

[12] 555 F Supp 3d 829, 846 (ND Cal August 13, 2021).

[13] idat 841, 881-882. This holding is in unacknowledged practical
tension with Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wi v Marshfield
Clinic, in which the Seventh Circuit held that health insurers are
the direct purchasers of medical services from clinical providers
for antitrust purposes (65 F3d 1406 (7th Cir 1995)).

[14] Findings and Recommendations of the Antitrust Modernization
Commission.

[15]
https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/assistant-attorney-general-makan-delrahim-delivers-final-address.

[16] Section 501 overturning Illinois Brick and Hanover Shoe.

[17]
https://www.dorsey.com/-/media/files/newsresources/publications/2017/apr17_lindsay_chart.pdf?la=en.

[18] In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust
Litigation, 2013 WL 12333442, at *13-15 (ND Cal 8 January 2013)
(recounting negotiations).

[19] Stromberg v Qualcomm Inc, 14 F4th 1059, 1063 (9th Cir 2021).

[20] id at 1069-1074.

[21] Apple Inc v Pepper, 139 S Ct 1514, 1521 (2019).

[22] Illinois Brick, 431 US at 736.

[23] id at 736 n16.

[24] In re Nat'l Football League's Sunday Ticket Antitrust Litig,
933 F3d 1136, 1157-1158 (9th Cir 2019).

[25] The existence of these actions - and the fact that they can
reliably be litigated and resolved - undermines at least to some
extent the rationale behind Illinois Brick. Nevertheless, it does
not appear that the court is likely to overrule Illinois Brick any
time soon.

[26] 29 F4th 337, 341 (7th Cir 2022).

[27] id at 347-348.

[28] Ultimately, the court dismissed the McKesson-based claims on
pleading grounds. Id at 351.

[29] In re Warfarin Sodium Antitrust Litig, 391 F3d 516, 528 (3d
Cir 2004). Rule 23(b)(3) also requires a plaintiff show that the
class mechanism is 'superior' to other forms of adjudication; this
prong is less frequently litigated.

[30] In re Blood Reagents Antitrust Litig, 783 F3d 183, 187 (3d Cir
2015).

[31] In re Blood Reagents Antitrust Litig, 783 F3d 183, 187 (3d Cir
2015); In re Processed Egg Prods Antitrust Litig, 81 F Supp 3d 412,
417 (ED Pa 2015).

[32] In re Processed Egg Prods Antitrust Litig, 81 F Supp 3d 412,
415-416 (ED Pa 2015).

[33] In re Restasis (Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Emulsion) Antitrust
Litig, 2020 WL 2280144, at *2 (EDNY 5 May 2020) (excluding
defendants' experts at class certification).

[34] 407 F Supp 3d 422, 434-435 (SDNY 2019).

[35] In re Processed Egg Prods Antitrust Litig, 81 F Supp 3d 412,
417 (ED Pa 2015).

[36] Blades v Monsanto Co, 400 F3d 562, 566 (8th Cir 2005): 'The
requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) that common questions predominate over
individual questions tests whether proposed classes are
sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.
The nature of the evidence that will suffice to resolve a question
determines whether the question is common or individual.'

[37] Comcast Corp v Behrend, 569 US 27, 30 (2013).

[38] See, for example, In re Industrial Diamonds Antitrust Litig,
167 FRD 374, 379 (SDNY 1996).

[39] In re Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litig, 322 FRD 188, 205 (ED
Pa 2017): 'Antitrust impact is critically important to the Rule
23(b)(3) predominance analysis, because it is an element of an
antitrust claim that may call for individual, as opposed to common
proof.' In re New Motor Vehicles Canadian Export Antitrust Litig,
522 F3d 6, 20 (1st Cir 2008): 'In antitrust actions, common issues
do not predominate if the fact of antitrust violation and the fact
of antitrust impact cannot be established through common proof.'

[40] id.

[41] In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litig, 2022 WL 1720468, at *13
(ND Ill 27 May 2022).

[42] Blades v Monsanto Co, 400 F3d 562, 570-571 (8th Cir 2005); In
re Graphics Processing Units Antitrust Litigation, 253 FRD 478,
490-491 (ND Cal 2008).

[43] In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litig, 2022 WL 1284104, at *14-15
(ND Cal 29 March 2022) (collecting cases).

[44] 332 FRD 308 (SD Cal 2019).

[45] 993 F3d 774 (9th Cir 2021).

[46] 31 F4th 651 (9th Cir 2022) (en banc).

[47] id at 676.

[48]
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-131/232991/20220808152205100_2022-08-08%20Starkist%20Cert%20Petition%20with%20App.pdf.

[49] Comcast Corp v Behrend, 569 US 27, 34-35 (2013), rejecting a
'model [that] failed to measure damages resulting from the
particular antitrust injury on which petitioners' liability in this
action is premised'.

[50] id at 29-30.

[51] id at 31-32.

[52] id.

[53] id at 35.

[54] In re Suboxone (Buprenophine Hydrochoride and Nalaxone)
Antitrust Litigation, 421 F Supp 3d 12, 37-38 (ED Pa 2019).

[55] Sumotext Corp v Zoove, Inc, 2020 WL 533006, at *7 (ND Cal 3
February 2020) (quoting Litton Sys, Inc v Honeywell, Inc, 1996 WL
634213, at *2 (CD Cal 24 July 1996)).

[56] 335 F Supp 3d 1036, 1072 (ND Ill 2018).

[57]
https://www.law360.com/articles/1451166/viamedia-drops-duty-to-deal-theory-against-comcast.

[58] Amchem Prods, Inc v Windsor, 521 US 591, 619-620 (1997).

[59] In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litig, 2022 WL 4587618,
at *13-14 (ND Ala 9 August 2022).

[60] In re Payment Card Interchange Fee & Merchant Discount
Antitrust Litig, 827 F3d 223, 233-234 (2d Cir 2016).[GN]

[*] Securities Class Settlement Opt-Outs Increased, Report Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
The percentage of securities class action settlements with at least
one putative class member opting out has increased in recent years,
according to a new report by Cornerstone Research in conjunction
with Latham & Watkins LLP. Between 2019 and the first half of 2022,
the percentage of securities class action settlements with at least
one opt-out was 11.5%, up from 5.8% during 2006–2018 and around
2.9% from 1996 through 2005.

The report, Opt-Out Cases in Securities Class Action Settlements:
2019–H1 2022 Update, also presents new empirical analysis of how
certain class action case characteristics -- including certain
simplified metrics associated with potential damages, indicators of
complexity of the case, and indicators of greater issuer ability to
pay -- relate to opt-outs. This research finds that class
settlements with larger simplified metrics of potential damages,
indicators of greater complexity of allegations, or indicators of
higher ability to pay by the issuer are more likely to have at
least one identified opt-out, often an institutional investor.

"This analysis suggests that potential class members carefully
consider whether or not to opt out of a securities class action
based on attributes of the case," said Brendan Rudolph, a principal
at Cornerstone Research and report coauthor. "Our findings are
consistent with opt-outs occurring more frequently when a putative
class member might see an opportunity for a greater return on an
individual claim."

Of the 287 securities class action settlements from 2019 to H1
2022, 33 settlements (11.5%) had at least one identified opt-out.
Overall, 115 of the 2,061 settlements (5.6%) in 1996–H1 2022 had
at least one opt-out. The report also identifies the subset of
class settlements with opt-outs that involved direct action
lawsuits, finding that 10 of the 33 class settlements in 2019–H1
2022 with at least one opt-out had one or more confirmed direct
action lawsuit. In each of these 10 class settlements, at least one
of the direct action lawsuits had been brought by an institutional
investor.

The report finds that, as class settlements increase in size, the
likelihood of one or more opt-outs increases. In 2019–H1 2022,
29% of cases with class action settlements valued at over $20
million had identified opt-outs, more than 2.5 times the proportion
across all class action settlements. More than half of these (nine
of 15) had one or more confirmed direct action lawsuit.

"We observe that putative class members are more likely to opt out
of larger class action settlements, and, for the largest securities
class action settlements, opt-outs often bring one or more separate
direct action lawsuits," explained Matt Osborn, a Cornerstone
Research principal and report coauthor. "For a given class action
settlement, the size of the class settlement tends to be positively
correlated with the number of putative class members that we
observe pursuing separate direct action lawsuits."

"The prevalence of institutional investor opt-outs bringing direct
actions is consistent with these entities being focused on securing
a return on their investments through a myriad of means, and many
have established relationships with plaintiff law firms that help
them assess the risks and benefits of opting out of a class
action," added Christopher Turner, a partner at Latham & Watkins
and report coauthor. "Some of these putative class members may
decide that the anticipated return from bringing a direct action
lawsuit in light of the size of the investor's ownership interests
warrants the increased litigation costs." [GN]


[*] Video Privacy Class Action Wave Slowed by High Dismissal Rate
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Skye Witley, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a flood of
video privacy class actions exposing hundreds of businesses to
costly litigation has begun to abate as plaintiffs and judges
dismiss claims in droves, a Bloomberg Law analysis of federal cases
found.

The rate of new cases seeking millions of dollars from companies
for disclosing an individual's video-viewing history without
consent peaked in September 2022, with occasional spurts in monthly
filings amid a general decline since, court docket data reveals.

Federal class actions filed under the Video Privacy Protection Act
picked up at the start of 2022 as plaintiffs' attorneys around the
country pushed a new interpretation of the decades-old statute,
attempting to hold businesses with websites liable for tracking
which videos online visitors watched. But now they may be running
low on new targets after exposed companies scrambled to
preemptively avoid VPPA violation allegations and courts narrowed
the scope of viable claims, plaintiff and defense attorneys said.

"Some of the more active firms within the plaintiffs' class action
bar went all in on the VPPA theory and after some initial decisions
in their favor, we really saw the number of cases skyrocket," said
Marshall Baker, a consumer class action defense litigator at Akin
Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP.

"But over the better part of the last year, we've seen the losses
really pile up on the plaintiff side."

At least 19 cases filed since the wave began were dismissed by a
judge in response to a defendant's motion. More than a dozen others
ended in individual settlements before class certification, per
analysis of Bloomberg Law's federal docket data covering more than
70 dispositive actions in VPPA cases centering on web tracking from
Nov. 1, 2018, through Nov. 17, 2023.

Despite causes of action that require the type of fact-specific
analysis that often survive early motions to dismiss, nearly half
of VPPA suits that have concluded in the last three years -- 34
cases -- were voluntarily dismissed before the defendant ever filed
a response or motion to dismiss the original complaint.

That rate of dismissals could indicate the claims had a low chance
of success or were resolved outside of court, attorneys said.

"As with any putative class litigation it's quite easy to slap
class action on a complaint -- it's another proposition entirely to
prosecute a class action through the end on the merits, so I think
a lot of what you're seeing is a result of those issues," Baker
said.

To be sure, many VPPA cases remain active and a number of new
filings continue to crop up each month -- but 85% of voluntary
dismissals since the litigation wave began were filed this year
alone.

Congress established the privacy protections in 1988 and allowed
private litigants to recoup as much as $2,500 per violation after
the Washington City Paper published the video tape rental history
of then-US Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork.

The latest wave of complaints have landed a handful of
multi-million dollar class action settlements with companies
including Sony Corp. and the Boston Globe. They typically accuse a
business of associating a person's identifiable information --
often their Facebook profile -- with the videos they watched on the
entity's website, and of unconsentingly sharing that data with a
third party, such as Meta Platforms Inc. or Alphabet Inc.'s
Google.

Developing Case Law
The plaintiffs' bar has been the primary driver behind developing
video privacy case law to address online tracking, and as the
volume of filings grew, so did the number of cases that didn't
allege a clear impact to privacy, said Eli Wade-Scott, who leads
Edelson PC's plaintiff class action practice.

"Unfortunately, we also see that others don't necessarily think
strategically about VPPA cases and instead take an approach of
filing cases that are not necessarily strong or even tolerable,
which I think has a negative impact," Wade-Scott said.

"If you file a good case, and you can actually litigate it, you're
not going to see dismissals right off," he added.

Another possible explanation for the high rate of dismissals: some
plaintiffs' attorneys use class action filings as leverage to
secure an out-of-court settlement, said Avril Love, commercial
disputes defense counsel at K&L Gates LLP. But even the number of
cases filed may understate the push for such settlements.

"For every one VPPA case that gets filed, there could be 10 other
claims that are sent to businesses in the form of a demand letter
only that are never filed," Love said.

The volume of these demand letters can make businesses concerned
that if they engage with one settlement, they could be "buried
under a pile of demand letters and claims forever," so some have
chosen to ignore the letters unless a case is filed against them in
court, she added.

Some companies prefer out-of-court settlements, finding them
"significantly cheaper" than engaging in any defensive litigation,
according to Daniel Rockey, co-leader of the data privacy class
action defense team at Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP.

New Claims, Old Pattern
The current wave of VPPA litigation, focusing on allegations of
sharing users' viewing history with social media and advertising
companies, differs somewhat from the most recent previous wave,
which targeted streaming services for displaying users' watch
histories during in the mid-2010s, Rockey said.

The ebb and flow of video privacy class-action filings illustrates
a strategy within a segment of the plaintiffs' bar to litigate
statutes at a high frequency until most of the viable cases dry up,
defense attorneys said.

"One of the things I think I'm seeing is that the same plaintiffs
law firms that were bringing ADA cases, accessibility cases, they
are now bringing a lot of privacy cases, not just under the VPPA,
but other statutes as well," Love said.

A common thread between alleged violations of the federal
accessibility and video privacy laws is their fact-specific nature,
making them harder to kill at the motion-to-dismiss stage, she
added.

Those website ADA class actions were filed and dismissed at similar
rates to those in the newest VPPA litigation trend, Rockey said.

Wade-Scott of Edelson said filing a high-volume of litigation is
"absolutely the business model" of some plaintiffs' firms, but
doesn't represent the entire bar and can undermine work pursued by
other firms.

"The problem is that these high-volume filers often end up
constituting the majority of the cases on a particular issue,"
Wade-Scott said.

"We have been as outspoken against these firms as we are when we
see corporate America engaged in illegal or unethical business
practices."

Limiting Exposure
Those whose core business revolves around delivering video content
face the greatest liability exposure from VPPA complaints, while
companies that use video for secondary purposes like marketing may
be more insulated from video privacy claims going forward, Rockey
said.

He pointed to a recent VPPA class action dismissal his team secured
by arguing that Tapestry Inc., parent company of fashion brands
Coach and Kate Spade, didn't qualify as a video service provider
under the statute.

The rate of case filings could also be falling because many
businesses began removing the tracking technology -- often an
embedded tracking pixel from Meta or Google -- from webpages that
host video content in an effort to limit legal exposure, he said.

But defense attorneys said some ambiguities in the case law still
exist, including the standard for determining what's considered
identifiable information and who qualifies as a video service
provider under the VPPA.

Appellate courts may soon have a chance to weigh in on some of
those very questions, with cases pending before at least the
Second, Sixth, and Ninth Circuit courts of appeals.

A handful of district-level cases have been stayed until the Second
Circuit addresses how to define a consumer under the video privacy
statute in Salazar v. National Basketball Association, where the
appellant brief was filed Oct. 31.

Attorneys will be watching those cases closely for "appellate-level
clarity," Baker of Akin Gump said. "In the meantime, though,
district court battles are going to continue to wage on and it will
be interesting, I think for me, to see how those issues gets
resolved at later phases of the case, including the summary
judgment stage and potentially class certification stage." [GN]


                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***